Mar 08, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-03-08 5:00 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission work session for March the 8th 2017. This meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and I will call our meeting to order at 5 o 7 and at this time I will turn the meeting over to Manal for clarification of agenda items. Thank You Chairperson Strange. If it's the wish of the Commission, Chairperson Strange would we like to go ahead and announce the order of the agenda items for just discussion tonight at the work session? Sure. And to move item 5A to the bottom to the last item on as part of the discussion so A would move and be heard or discussed and presented after E, 5E. And with that we can dive into the first item of the agenda which are the plots. We have a preliminary plot for the Mission Street offices and if there are any questions of the Commission of staff from the Commission I'd be happy to call upon Hayley to come and address that. If none we can dive into the next item which is a plant Eagle Farms, a final plant. Any questions related to that? Seeing none we'll go ahead and move on to item for items for individual consideration. We do have an ADP request and I'm going to ask Hayley to come up and present that for us tonight or this afternoon rather. Good evening. So this is item ADP 1620 for the Mission Street offices and the request is to consider approval of an alternative development plan for an initial phase of a proposed office park development and the property is located at the yeah at the southeast corner of Fort Worth Drive and Mission Street. The overall project encompasses all three parcels there at that corner. The area in yellow is the boundaries of this ADP request for tonight though and yeah there in red is the entire property that they're looking at which is the preliminary plot that you all have on your agenda tonight as well. So the current zoning for this property is a Community Mixed Use General or CMG and the future land use designation is also Community Mixed Use and you may remember from some of our other discussions Community Mixed Use is intended to promote a mix of residential commercial and institutional uses but commercial would be the predominant use intended there. So here's the the site plan and there was a small change made to the site plan that was in your backup so I passed out a revised copy of that for you all before the meeting and the only change that was made well there were two actually they added this label here on these parking spaces north of the detention pond to indicate that those will be part of a future development and then they made one change to this table here to take out a provision that was no longer necessary. So as far as staff considerations they had four requested deviations from the subchapter 13 design standards. The first of those and one of the most significant was for the provision in 35 13 13 a for our non-residential standards that requires the buildings to be primarily oriented towards the street and the intent of that as you can imagine is to make sure that our buildings present well to the street and we have clearly designated entrances from the street for people seeking that use. So as you can see from their site plan here this is more of a office park or campus type feel that they're going for here with all the buildings oriented inward towards the parking lot and what will be future buildings as well. So this phase includes three buildings here located on lots one through three and as you can see lot this building on lot one and this building here would be the two that are primary we're primarily concerned with that are oriented away from the street and would have a rear or side facing the street. So as part of our considerations for that we requested that the buildings still have a you know a very cohesive feeling to all of them throughout the office park is one of our considerations and we wanted to see that the buildings would have some architectural interest in design from all sides so that you still get a good feel for the building and a good presentation to the street. So the top here is their front elevation that would be oriented inwards to the towards the middle of the property. We have the right elevation there on the bottom and then here you can see what they've proposed for the rear of the building. So you know it is a masonry materials that they're proposing it does use windows and awnings to create some architectural interest from the street rather than just a solid wall. And they're also proposing the use of what appears to be five shrubs and a tree that would be in front of the building to kind of break up the spans from the street to the building there. And as I'm sure you're familiar with Fort Worth Drive one of staff's other considerations was that this orientation away from the street may not be wholeheartedly you know breaking the intent of the code per se because this isn't a pedestrian oriented area predominantly on Fort Worth Drive. You know we have sidewalks but there aren't a whole lot of customers for these potential uses probably that would be walking there. So having that orientation towards the inside makes sense for the veh icular traffic that would be the predominant users here. And one of their other requests is related to parking. So the DDC requirement for general office use is one space per 450 square feet of building. So for the size of buildings they 're proposing at this time 27 spaces would be required. And subchapter 13 goes on to state that any parking in excess of that number should be constructed of pervious material. What they're proposing is actually 39 spaces total so they're over that required number by 12 for this phase. And in lieu of using permeable paving of some sort they've proposed a detention pond located here in red. And that pond would be designed to I swim standards and that would mean that it would be required to hold the water quality volume of this parking lot for up to 24 hours. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Haley is that an open pond or is it underground outside? My understanding is it would be an open pond. I spoke with Deborah Viera about it this morning and she said at this point she would be looking for their final pond designs at the final platting stage so they're not quite there to the full design yet but I believe it would be an open pond. The fact that that's gonna back up to a residential area there's no concern about odors or anything like that or flooding. There actually are some buffering requirements and we'll get to those here in a minute. So that's their proposed mitigation for the excess parking is the use of this detention pond to treat the water quality. And then because of the size of this overall full development once they get all of those future phases built out exceeds 40,000 square feet that does trigger some large-scale development standards in the DDC and those requirements are meant to help mitigate potential nuisances from large-scale developments in terms of visuals and especially their compatibility when they adjoin single family residential uses. One of those provisions is for an 8-foot masonry wall constructed of brick, stone, split block or concrete that has to run the entire common boundary line between the large-scale development and the single family use and there's also a provision that mechanical equipment located within these developments cannot be within a hundred feet of residential properties. So if we go back to our site plan here to address the requirement for this 8-foot wall they are proposing to construct a type C buffer that is slightly enhanced. The type C buffer would be required anyway between a commercial and single family use and there is a single family residence on the property to the south of them and so the type C buffer is a requirement already. They're proposing to provide some additional plantings, trees and shrubs to enhance that in lieu of providing the buffer plus a masonry wall. And in terms of mechanical equipment marked in red there, there are proposed air conditioners and other mechanical equipment for these buildings that would be located approximately 30 feet from that property line with the single family use and so as their mitigation for those being closer than required by code they're proposing architecturally compatible screening as well as plantings. They didn't specify at this time what those plantings would be but it was part of their description there. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. So there's nothing no easier than an ICU unit in that area? I don't believe so. I believe this is intended just for offices. Go ahead. So the parking requirements based on 12,000 square feet but you're we're going over conditions for a 40,000 large scale. Why are we not requiring parking for 40,000 or why are we requiring large scale for 12,000 square feet? It's because when they originally proposed this it was brought in that their intent is for over 40,000 square feet of building but they want to do that in phases so we wanted to make sure that all those requirements were addressed as each phase comes in. If I can chime in Commissioner Riz al, one of the elements associated with this is that it is going to be an office campus development or an office style development and as a result we're looking at it comprehensively and that is why even though it might come in as a phased program we want to ultimately review this as a comprehensive. So parking will be done on a phase by phase requirement? Okay thank you. There are criteria for approval of an ADP outlined in subchapter 13. Those were outlined in your backup and overall staff felt that this meets those criteria. It seems a logical location at this hard corner for an office park or campus with multiple offices like this that would be condensed into one area as is keeping with the future land use plan and that community mixed use desire for this area. So staff is recommending approval of this with a few conditions. The first of those is that the proposed development would substantially conform to the site plan that was provided this evening. The second is that the development would also substantially comply with the landscape plan with a couple of modifications that we think would enhance the development. The first of those being that in addition to those five shrubs that they show on the landscape plan in front of the building we would like to see that large spans. Go to the site plan. Yeah so these five shrubs we'd like to see this large area broken up with some more landscaping so we're proposing about a five foot wide area that would contain tall grasses as well as the proposed shrubs and kind of an undulating pattern to provide some some interest and a little bit of softening between just the street and the building. Since the orientation is a way we want to make sure that that does present as well from the street as possible and that would include in our mind breaking up this large area of just grass in this case. And our other requirement on the landscape plan is that we feel that simply enhancing the buffer as they've proposed doesn't necessarily meet the intent of that large-scale development requirement for a m asonry wall because as we all know vegetation does tend to die back at certain times of year and so seasonally there would be the chance for this development to be visible and the noises and odors and things like that from it to carry to that residence next door. We feel that adding back in the requirement for that masonry wall would help address that as it would provide year-round screening between these two and help enhance the buffering between the two uses. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Did John drop when the requirement for an eight foot wall in that location and so why are we going from eight foot to six foot? We felt that six foot would be appropriate enough in this case. It's not necessarily a large-scale development in terms of a large warehouse or like a big box store or something like that. It is smaller buildings but overall in scale wouldn't be as imposing. So we reduced that to a six foot requirement just because we felt it would be appropriate in this case between the two uses. I'm having trouble with names. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. So I'm just trying to understand the the phasing I guess in this. The lot four it appears that the retention the detention pond is the only half of it's going to be built? They are intending a larger detention pond as the future phases come in I believe. At this point they're proposing just to construct a pond that would treat the water quality volume from this portion of the site. Okay and then the rest of the development it's still going to be facing away from the street. It has 75 more parking spaces for 26,000 more square feet so it's going to still need additional ADPs as it builds out. Yes. And so okay and the decision not to just do one ADP now for the whole thing? So at this, sorry Haley. At this point the intent is we know that there is a potential or a possibility that this may be developed as a office campus style development and that's why we were looking at it comprehensively. Our first thought was let's bring this all together but there was discussion with the applicant who said well I'm not you know they might not be a hundred percent sure this is potentially their build out. They might change there might be some changes in the future as it relates but there's certain on these buildings and therefore the goal is to make sure that if that doesn't happen then we're at least accommodating with the masonry wall requirement and what have you that we look at it in this cohesive manner but also have the ability to expand that focus. And the speaking of the masonry wall would that follow the entire lot line? Yes. Yes for now it would follow the southern property line for the portion that they're developing at this point. And then if it it would be likely in the next phase that it would also continue along the east side as well? Yes there are also single-family residences to the east. Okay thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Haley I know you and I briefed this a little bit but I guess to get it on record so the site plan and the prelim plan don't go together with with the labeling of lot four right so that I mean that's not really lot four according to the prelim plan right that's that's a common area. Yes there is the discrepancy in the labeling on the preliminary plat this area called lot four on the site plan is addressed as common area lot one so that label. So the prelim plat is correct? Yes. This is wrong? Yeah that would be a common area lot with the detention pond on it. Right okay okay thanks. Commissioner Hatchbeth. I may be missing it. I'm assuming they're gonna have some signage on forward drop. I'm not sure what their intent for signage for the entire campuses I know the building elevation showed signage on building one which is the only elevation they've completed at this point. So as far as we know all the signage will be on the buildings itself nothing in the. I'm not aware of what their intent is for signage I think the applicant will be here tonight though if you would like to address that question with him. Okay and then if I may. Thank you. Sure. Same question lot four are there any calculations based on how they drew their lines so for example are the parking spaces calculated or the is there any calculations based on they only drew this line in the middle of this area? They did present preliminary calculations that Deborah Vieira reviewed and she couldn't be here tonight so I'm not sure that I could speak to how she calculated that water quality volume in the size of the pond but I know they did present those and Deborah reviewed them as well and so I believe this lot line or this line that they've drawn here is surrounding the area that it would be required to treat that water quality volume. Right but my question is are they just drawing a line arbitrarily to get a number that's favorable does that make sense? Maybe they can do that by right I just want to know is that. I'll try and tackle that question. Appreciate it. I don't believe it's an arbitrary line I think if you look at what they're proposing they've got their prelims and in terms of their CEPs and what have you we should they should have calculated what they're trying to show you is the extent of that building footprint itself lot four could potentially accommodate as a drain adhesion additional water or what have you as the rest of the phase builds out it could potentially accommodate that and be in keeping with our environmental teams concept of being you know as the future ADP comes forward so when we look at that line let's not look at it as a solid lot line dem arcation but mainly the intent or the area that is being encompassed under this ADP at this point in terms of compromising any engineering requirements obviously that would not occur because prior to issues of building permit all the plans would have to be reviewed for all the engineering infrastructure and infrastructure requirements. Thank you. Yeah and the specific pond design requirements I was told Deborah reviews those with the final plat. Correct. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you sir. Is the retention pond being built to accommodate the future use along that side or just what's being built currently? This time it is just for this current phase with these three buildings and their associated parking. So where they have currently future design ideas may end up being another retention pond or how is that going to be handled at that? From what I've discussed with the applicant the boundaries shown here are a rough estimate of the area that they would use for detention for the entire development. The pond would be expanded with those future phases. So the entire lot for maybe a retention pond? The entire common area lot. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. So staff's other recommendations we propose that all the screening walls for the mechanical equipment be constructed of masonry materials that are compatible with the building facade and in addition we propose they plant a mixture of shrubs and tall grasses around the outsides of those to you know accentuate the walls and enhance the campus feel. We also propose that building one as identified on the site plan should substantially comply with the attached elevations at this time those are the only elevations they 've developed so we're also proposing that buildings two and three be constructed of masonry materials and be similar in design and concept to that elevation for building one. Just to help create a cohesive sense across the office park as it develops. And we also suggest that any future phases be uniform relating to frontage setbacks building materials and landscaping along Fort Worth Drive to help create a cohesive feel for the campus from the street. And that's all I have so I can answer any other questions at this time. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Just real quick stuff I think you mentioned that though this is not a typical pedestrian area there were sidewalks that run along Fort Worth. Yes so they are proposing I believe they're required to build the sidewalk along Fort Worth Drive and they're proposing sidewalk connectivity in front of the buildings that would go out to that sidewalk and they've also proposed some bike racks here to allow for alternative means of access for employees and users. So the sidewalk they're building will connect with existing sidewalk or in anticipation of future sidewalk? Earl are you familiar with the sidewalk s that are developed along Fort Worth Drive currently? Is it connecting to an existing sidewalk? No. There is no sidewalk. Yeah. Are those pervious or impervious? Well I know as part of the Tech Stop project of the widening of US 377 they are constructing sidewalk on both sides so this I believe this five foot sidewalk. That was my next question. That's being built by the development and will connect to them. Okay so they are going to be widening Fort Worth Drive? To six lanes. Any dates on that yet? Just uh they're actually relocating utilities as we speak and the pavement portion should occur sometime hopefully summer of this year. Cool. Thank you. Now that'd be different in the future. Moving on to our next item. It's going to be public hearing. It's a final replant. Okay . Hayley might want to stay back if there any questions regarding item 5B which is the final replant for the Roberts addition. If there any questions we can talk about those. Hayley would you pull that up please? There yes it is. Yes it's a splitting of one lot into two lots for commercial development at the corner of Ector and Emory. Okay so that was. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair. Yeah my question was I thought this was zone commercial and it looked almost like these would be residential lots like a third acre lot with a you know 80 foot road front edge or something so is the plan is for commercial development? Yes yeah these are commercial commercial lots. Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan. Last year we talked about Aldi going in to the north of this on the same in the same area there was a lot of concern about traffic on Emory and all the things it was going to do to interrupt the the neighborhood flow and so forth and I think Aldi did a good job of providing screenage on the south part of their lot in order to take care of that issue and with the you know the truck offloading ramp and so forth. What's the plan for any commercial building going in here to provide the same screening that the people were concerned about with Aldi's before that now is going to be transferred to the south to this new area? Yeah so any development would be required to meet the DDC requirements for screening landscaping street trees all of those things. I'm not sure about the second lot the lot at the hard corner there I believe is intended for a medical office they've submitted a site plan request for that lot. Okay thank you. More questions? Moves to C. Moves us to item C and Haley's gonna present this one as well. Andy. I believe C is the zoning case. Yes. These two go together as owning in an SUP for the same property. So this case as E 1627 is for the standard and Hudson at Med Park. The request is to hold a public hearing and consider a request for a rezoning of approximately 20 acres from regional center commercial downtown district to regional center residential 2. The property is the western portion of a larger property that's located at 2100 South May Hill. The property is outlined in yellow and it sits at the end of Hudson Wood Drive here and Somerset Road to the south. The Providence Place Apartments is this development that is to the east and south of the property and then the Med Park station is actually here just south of that. So the current zoning for the property as I mentioned is RCCD their proposal is for RCR 2. This property is located within a regional mixed-use future land use designation. This designation is applied to areas that are primarily along the I 35 interchanges primary arterials. They're intended to be regional destinations for commercial and mixed-use development which includes moderate to high density residential. Just to give you an idea of where this sits that reach that particular regional mixed-use center encompasses a large area along I 35 and this property is located just here where the yellow star is kind of on the outer fringe of that designation. So staff's considerations for this one of those was that rezoning to RCR 2 while there isn't any other instance of RCR 2 immediately adjoining this is consistent with the zoning pattern in this area because all of these districts RCR 2, RCR 1, RCCD all of those are within the same regional mixed-use center family of zoning districts that all fit within that regional mixed-use future land use designation. This request is actually for a down zoning to a less intensive zoning district and staff felt that the RCR 2 designation on this property could provide us kind of a transition and scale of development and use between the surrounding RCR 1 and what is likely to be more intensive commercialized development here along May Hill Road within the RCCD district. And just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about here this entire area that kind of matches with that future land use designation that regional mixed-use center you can see has this family of zoning districts applied to it RCR 1, RCR 2, and then RCCD in and RCCD. And that RCR 2 is actually not a very common zoning designation in this area you can see there's only a few instances of that throughout here. The RCCD district requires that multifamily as a use be part of a mixed-use development along any collector or arterial and so in this case Hudson Wood Drive if I remembering correctly is actually classified as a collector street or will be once it's extended across so there would be a requirement for mixed-use and commercial development specifically on the ground floor of any multifamily development under the existing zoning. Within RCR 2 multifamily can be developed without that mixed-use component if it is approved with an SUP which is the next case that we'll go over. And staff felt that given the substantial offset from this property that they're looking at from May Hill Road here this primary arterial commercial uses may not be supported necessarily this far off of that primary road because this is largely a neighborhood development that's occurred back here on Hudson Wood so far. Just to give you a comparison this is pretty substantial down zoning in terms of the scale of what can be developed on the property if this rezoning is approved so the density would be reduced from 100 dwelling units per acre to 40. The maximum lot coverage would drop from 90 % to 75% thereby increasing the landscaping to 25% and the building height as well would drop by half from 100 feet to 50 feet. Notifications were sent and one neutral response was received and I passed that out before the meeting here and staff is recommending approval of this request because of its compatibility with the surrounding land use and zoning pattern and its compatibility with the goals of the DIN plan 2030 and I can answer any questions. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. One quick one. The extension of Hudson Wood Drive that wouldn't actually go to May Hill we have to rely upon the city because they own another property is that right? I know they're intending to extend it through their property but I will let Earl answer the question about its extension. All the way to May Hill? Yeah let me pull an aerial for you there. That's perfect. This is Hudson Wood I believe. Yes as part of the development Hudson Wood will extend from through their property off-site and tie into May Hill both the existing May Hill and ultimately the proposed new May Hill ones that's widened. So it will carry all the way through? Yes it has to by fire code requirements because the fire code requires two points of access to serve this development and right now there's only one and that's off of Quail Creek and Brinker. Okay while you're up there the white lines over towards May Hill that look like this one yes what is that? That was the old alignment of the widening of May Hill Road however what happened was the city could not acquire the right away south of this curve and so what we had to do is realign May Hill back to its original alignment and acquire right away off of that. Okay thank you. Okay so the second part of this request is for the SUP for that multifamily use. So as I mentioned the request is to hold this public hearing and consider a request for a specific use permit to allow multifamily development on that approximate 20 acres of property. We're familiar with the property location now just off of May Hill Road at the end of Hudson Wood and Som erset and as I mentioned current zoning is our CCD which would require that mixed use component. Their proposal as we just saw was to take this to an RCR 2 designation. As I mentioned before it is within this regional mixed use future land use designation which encourages moderate to high density residential development. So pending the approval of this rezoning the applicant is proposing a multifamily development that is not part of a mixed use development therefore they're seeking the approval of this ADP. The multifamily development is consistent with that future land use designation which like I said does encourage that mixture of residential and commercial uses. This also complies with all the criteria within subchapter 6 of the DDC for SUP and those criteria are all outlined in your backup. So to go over their site plan briefly here did provide a actually I think that North area was incorrect so we have what they're proposing is two multifamily developments that would be separated by Hudson Wood Road. The top portion they refer to as the standard the southern portion would be the Hudson and this third lot here that they're proposing to develop as a part of this would provide a detention pond for these two developments. So looking at the the northern portion of it first we have four buildings within the standard it's a total of 263 residential units breaks down into 43 one-bedroom units 135 two-bedroom and 85 three -bedroom. All four of these buildings they're proposing would be three stories tall approximately 34 feet in height. The total lot coverage would be around 69% and they're proposing a total of 472 parking spaces throughout the development along these private streets as well as I believe a few parking spaces on Hudson Wood Drive and they are also proposing to provide 30 bicycle parking spaces within this development. On the south side of Hudson Wood we have the development they're calling the Hudson which would be independent senior living so still multifamily but age restricted to senior citizens and this would contain two buildings with a total of 160 units 112 one bedrooms 48 two bedrooms in keeping with the same scale of development also three stories approximately 34 feet in height and this development would have a total of 160 parking spaces no bicycle spaces are provided because of the intended users however they do provide a network of sidewalks throughout the development and they're providing sidewalk connectivity down here to allow connectivity to Somerset Drive for residents to be able to get to that Med Park station. Their landscape plan one component of that is this detention area they are intending to provide screening through by use of trees all the way around the detention pond to screen it from the right of way there at Hudson Wood and from you know any residents to the south or in future phases to the west. There are existing single-family homes on property to the west and north of this development so that does require a type B buffer between multifamily and single-family they're proposing that along the entire property line here on the north and west sides of this as well as street trees throughout the development along these private drives and street trees along Hudson Wood. On the south side very similar concept they're proposing street trees throughout as well as along Hudson Wood. At this point the applicant had not developed elevations for these buildings that they did state their intent to comply with the architectural requirements outlined in the DDC for multifamily development. Again notifications were sent we received the one neutral request or neutral response and in this case staff is recommending approval of this because we feel it is consistent with the existing land use pattern it's consistent with the zoning designations in the area as well as the future land use plan however we do suggest a few conditions as part of this approval. One of those would be that the development substantially comply with the approved site plan and landscape plans that have been attached. We also propose that the development since we didn't have elevations to look at we 're requiring that they do meet or exceed the requirements of the DDC. We do feel the need to place restrictions to limit certain materials in this case EFAS and HDO board to a maximum of 10% because that we feel that m asonry materials provide a more long-lasting and durable product so we would like to see that limitation and we also propose we don't know what their signage would be at this point but we're proposing that they only use monument signs and building signs for these developments to limit the use of any large pole signs or anything on Hudson Wood Drive to keep with that residential feel. And at this point I can answer any questions. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. This might be moving for my clarification the rezoning from RCCD to RCR2 was to eliminate the need for the commercial requirements but the SUP is to eliminate these for multi- eliminate the need for multi-use. Can you help me understand the differences between the rezoning the SUP? Certainly. Go ahead Tatey. So the reason there's two limitations that are applied under RCCD one of those states that there be ground floor commercial development as part of a mixed-use development to get multifamily on the upper stories of a building the second limitation requires that it either be part of a mixed-use development or with an SUP. One of those limitations carries over into RCR2 and it's the second that allows either a mixed-use development or approval of an SUP and so in this case they chose not to provide that commercial and sought the SUP. That makes sense. Is the second question to have is the parking requirement one to one unit to parking spot? For so for the northern property that you see here the parking requirement is broken down based on the number of bedrooms there is a provision in the DDC for senior housing to be able to one to one ratio so that would apply to the southern portion of the development. I didn't do the calculations but is the calculations for the the northern I guess the stand it 's the standard one it's 462 spots is that how many beds they have? No the ratios depend on the number of bedrooms so a one bedroom unit I believe is parked at 1.25 one and a half spaces and then that number changes based on the number of bedrooms. So my question is the 472 the minimum does it meet it is it above where does that the 472 parking spaces? That is the correct number of spaces. It's the minimum? Yes yeah it meets the requirement. Okay perfect okay thanks. Mr . Beck. Thank you chair. First just let me state as a senior who likes to ride his bike I'm sorely disappointed that they are not planning on putting bicycle lanes and racks in there. To be clear these are not SROs. No. Okay. Information provided that there will be 40 on-street parking spaces allotted I'm assuming these will be on Hudson Wood that being the only street there. Yes yeah there are parking spaces shown here along Hudson Wood on the north and south side of the drive. North and south okay. Would the and you talked about in the backup background information talked about 8% of the area would be open space is that what the the pool courtyard area? The pool can count towards that open space it's intended to be any recreational space so here on the northern side you can see I did circle in blue and forgot to mention they have open spaces kind of courtyards intended between the buildings and that does include a pool. Okay. Also in the illustrations I had it indicated there was a retention detention pond inside the Hudson compound. Yeah. Yes they are proposing a pond on the interior of this development as well as that separate detention pond I believe the amount of volume they needed to treat required both of those areas. Okay so I'm assuming this is probably gonna be decorated up to have the appeal of a park or something. I would assume so and I don't think they show a little bit of landscaping on here but I'm not sure what their exact aesthetic plans are for that pond. Okay and appreciate the fact that the developers proposing a type B 10-foot landscape barrier on the north end but can you go back to your Google shot of what the property actually looks like? If you I don't know if you can get any close up but on the north side on that other lot that's not part of this there 's a lot of trees there so do we need that 10-foot barrier at this time ? I'm not certain if those trees fall on their property or on the other property but at this time because this has an existing residential use as does this they're proposing that buffer to provide that in case those trees go away with any future development on the northern property. Okay and I raise it a little bit I gotta let me just make a brief statement here I'm worried about how this development will impact the land immediately north of it the dense cluster of trees there will surely be impacted if this sort of development is expanded as per our future land use map that's quite possible. As we prepare to update our tree code that seeks to preserve at least 30% tree canopy this is one of those areas that Haywood talked about that's in an undeveloped area that we could lose that and I would seriously hope that city planning somebody within the city playing part maybe even parks and recreation would recognize this potential problem as we move forward and seek ways to some of this land aside from green space and/or a park area that would benefit the expanding communities that are going up there because if you realize if you take a look at this there isn't any park area over there at all no real green open space and if we're going to open this up to this kind of development it seems like a real good place to put a park and kind of kill two birds with one stone preserve those trees as best we can so I just wanted that to go into the record and that we don't overlook that as we move forward and developers come in and want to build something there okay thank you any other questions for staff? I think we're going to call a recess here at 5 50 and get food right quick and then get back in here as quick as we can but I know we've got two big items to still try to get in and done before work sessions over recess 5 50. Good afternoon and welcome back to our work session I might call us back in order at 5 57 I think our next order of business will be to get an update on our public hearing or it's gonna be item Z 16 - 0 0 2 3 part 7 I believe. I'm gonna call on Julie Wyatt for presentation of that. Good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton I know we've been over some of this so I'll go quickly on some parts some parts we didn't actually get to you in the last work session we'll take a little more time with that I know we're we're bumping up against the clock but so the location to remind you the location of the subject property is south of Scripture between normal and Bryan it's about 1250 feet north of the UNT campus which is about a five to ten minute walk. I should also mention that the request includes three parcels there's one larger parcel here and then two smaller parcels you can see that my yellow line that shows the subject property cuts through this larger parcel that one has split zoning and we 'll see that in just a minute. So the request before you is to consider rezoning approximately 1.39 acres from downtown residential to district to downtown commercial general district. So we'll take at the current current zoning and land use pattern if you remember my busy map from two weeks ago we're gonna go over it briefly again. So here is the subject property again it's outlined in black this this large parcel here's where that split zoning comes into play the north part of this large parcel already has the DCG zoning district the southern part is that dr2 it is the subject property is situated in about a four block area that's north of the UNT campus that's a real mixed use area it includes single family single family that functions as multifamily multif amily dwellings and commercial development so there's a lot going on in that four block four block area and the subject property is actually developed with a commercial building or an institutional building that's been vacant for some time and then also there's two single family dwellings on the on the additional two parcels. If we'll look if we'll take a broader look at the area and look at the surrounding neighborhoods from that from the from the adjacent properties you'll see that there the surrounding neighborhoods are traditional established neighborhoods they have a zoning designation of primarily in our three that doesn't permit multifamily it's it's one of our low density residential zoning districts it doesn't permit commercial or multifamily development. If you'll look just to the north of the of the request across scripture you'll see you've got NRMU 12 as well as NRMU these areas are developed with multifamily uses also some single family and some office uses so there's there's mixed use in this area as well and then in those areas that have that in our three zoning district designation those established neighborhoods we have an additional layer on some of those and that's our historic districts we have the West Oak Historic District here and then the Oak Hickory Historic District here those if there are any facade changes proposed for any structures within those districts they would be required to obtain approval for a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Landmark Commission so that's an additional layer on those areas and then to the south here we have the UNT campus any questions on that okay so the future land use is neighborhood university compatibility area and that encompasses kind of this this four block area north of UNT and these are areas that are affected by the universities within our city and in this instance it's UNT but this also affects TWU in some instances the intent is to create compatible form and land uses for areas that serve both the established neighborhoods as well as the universities UNT is growing they intend to grow they're planning on growing and so this is these areas are intended to serve those university as well as neighborhood areas the intent is to provide gradual transition in scale use and character and also to encourage uses in close proximity to encourage walking bicycling the multimodal transportation so you can see that the the future land use map kind of coincides with some of the zoning that we have and that those areas that have that in our three zoning designation are our the future land use designation is that low density residential and then that area with the NRMU and NRMU 12 is community or I'm sorry neighborhood mixed use so that coincides with some of the zoning that's already in place so the considerations that we looked at when we analyzed the request first of all we looked at subchapter three of the Denton development code the criteria for approval the first does it meet does the request meet the future land use designation of neighborhood university compatibility DCG and does have the density and the types of uses that that you typically see within a university area so it provides that density and commercial development within the proximity of DCG because of the uses and the density f osters walkability livability and a vibrancy on a track that's been in disuse for several years staff looked at it as potentially a catalyst for revital ization in that area between UNT and those established neighborhoods and this current zoning pattern provides the physical barriers necessary to transition between the higher intensity and density development that DCG has and then the lower intensity development in the surrounding neighborhoods let 's look at a map so show you what I mean so for instance this existing DCG permits development to a height of 100 feet however the the dr2 that's adjacent to the those in our three neighborhoods only permits development to a height of 45 feet the NRMU and NRMU 12 also stepped down the development I believe NRMU permits a maximum height of 65 feet so it it scales down the development from that DCG to those those neighborhoods surrounding the other criteria for approval is as is there adequate infrastructure to support development in the area infrastructure needs assessment will be done at the time of platting and also site plan and of course it comes without saying that any development that wants to get a building permit or site plan approval must meet the infrastructure requirements within the Denton Development Code in order to obtain those permits other considerations we looked at the proposed rezoning does include the three tracks the one larger which has the split zoning and then the two smaller ones the and the intent of this rezoning is to consolidate the zoning designation in this area and that the site is currently underutilized with the vacant building on the site and the rezoning would permit the entire property to redevelop under consistent zoning regulations resulting in a more cohesive development and we'll look at a map so the applicant has expressed an interest to develop a total of three acres so it would be the subject property which is in red and then and then the property to the north so encompasses a total of three acres so the rezoning to DCG would allow this to develop under those consistent DCG zoning regulations to allow consistent development I've got site photos once again I've used some of Google because they do better job than me so here is normal Street looking north towards Scripture here is one of those what here's one of the subject property and one is off-camera here's here's that use that's adjacent to Scripture this is on Bryan Street looking north once again there's the subject property and then here 's some of the photos of development that's across the street I believe this is on normal and then these two are on Scripture so just shows you kind of what what the area is like additional considerations we looked at there were two neighborhood meetings associated with this request and one of the one of the concerns was compatibility in scale and that's something that the future land use designation also talks about and so staff looked at that and the DIN development code does have some requirements in it that that work to address differences in scale and to address compatibility issues in site design so one of those is the residential proximity slope so if someone is is proposing a multifamily development and it's adjacent to to a single-family residential development either by property line or across the street so across the right-of-way that multifamily development would have to comply with the residential proximity slope the intent of this is to ensure that the that development maintains a human scale on this on the street on the sidewalk and the adjacent property so here's how it's calculated you go up 40 feet and then you step the development back at an angle of 35 degrees from that 40 feet so it not only is is used at the property line it's also used when when abutting a single-family use or district across the street so it's in order to maintain or to minimize the visual impact of that development on the street also I know this was this was a big question at the last meeting so hopefully I will say it better this time so there are also minimum setbacks and buffers within the didn't development code now after our discussion at the last meeting we went back and looked at it and these don't actually apply to this development because there's no single-family use adjacent to this to this property within the area but it's part of a larger discussion and how our mixed-use districts and how a mix of uses actually can can be placed next to each other and be compatible and form commissioner back thank you chair Judy said there's no residential dwelling that butts up against this it is actually it functions as a multifamily okay because that that is the one on the south side of the yes sir yes sir thanks so so we I just wanted to be sure that's good I'm calculating okay no I that's troublesome the it's a house and it's not mandated how it function I would think and and so I think when you're talking about it's functioning as a multifamily now that doesn't carry on in perpetuity I would think am I right that that that could vacillate so then we're using something that could vacillate by lease to make a decision that won't vacillate am I that they're not gonna move their building but we're gonna base what they do with their building on something that that's kit it's governed by a lease am I right I guess I'll try to respond to that and I'm an all-main say but we do look at that use at that point in time at time of development and and these setbacks as well as buffers talk about use and not zoning districts so you're actually budding so you're actually your those design guidelines are applied in terms of the use which is merely a requirement of the Denton Development Code that we would be implementing right I guess I guess my point would be I just I mean just overall I have a problem governing something that won't move by something I mean because I'm certain you tip your hand almost to where that person says okay well now there's one person I mean I just don't even know how we go about getting that information I think the intent and I'm sorry to interrupt no I apologize that was rude the intent of that requirement if we use another example to explain why it's being implemented here is because it it's not specific to just a certain zoning district so if we look at our industrial or non residential zoning districts because of the way the build out or the built-out environment is we have a lot of residential uses that may not be in a residential zoning district however the abutting zoning and use is not residential so in an effort to protect residential structures or loan residential structures in non residential zoning districts to visually screen or provide some kind of mechanism physical mechanism to be a good neighbor so to speak for the lack of a better phrase is why it would why that intent was built into the Development Code Commissioner Ozil thank you I just wanted to maybe add on to Commissioner Hesbeth just so I understand if that single family detached home had one family living in it it would be 20 feet that's setback right 20 foot setback not a buffer right yes sir so it'd be a 20 foot setback and they can build 10 stories so that could be 70 feet above 30 so if that to Commissioner's point if it was a single family living there that setback would be 90 feet but because there's two people living there there's no setback above and beyond currently that's my understanding so let's let's talk about if I can attack your question differently to answer it the reason why the use is not being classified as a single-family residence is because there are multiple meters so in terms of how many people are living there I don't know but that structure has been converted from a single-family dwelling unit to use of multiple bedrooms within that dwelling in it which then changes its use as it relates to the setback I believe you are correct when we do the calculation but the setback is from the use so we would actually determine and Julie correct me if I'm wrong please we would actually determine the setback from the structure itself and you would work backwards 20 feet and then from there start adding on depending on the height of your building and of course the height of your building depending on the zoning district would then dictate so yes would it imp ede potentially I believe impede is an incorrect word but would it impact the height of a building or a structure adjacent to a single-family use it could potentially is depending on the size of the lot too okay and that's all governed by the development yes and just for my identification this is slightly opt-out fix it'll be a quick question if there is a shed or detached garage then the setback would be for that building so if it was a residential use so a shed or a detached garage would not then it would be the residential use itself okay thank you and then also landscape by person yes mr. Taylor so I just want to I'm gonna clarify this because I I haven't heard this definition of multi-family before and the other commissioners were talking about leases but you're saying it's because there are two meters two electric meters I believe there more than two meters on the side which then begs the question is it being used as a single-family residence or is it being used as not a multi-family complex but is it used being used for multiple residents use yeah and so I think this is this is a I'm almost certain that that definition isn't outlined in the DDC that that was one we're trying to find a good definition for the use and I have concerns about the murkiness here because somebody could own their home and they could rent out a bedroom and they would or two bedrooms to two separate college students I have a friend who does that pays his mortgage by by having roommates basically yes and that wouldn't be multi-family so let's assume let's take your example into consideration then the question is do each one of those rooms have their own separate meters and utilities right then it is no longer functioning as a residential use so we 've got two issues happening one is the definition of specific uses and then how do you interpret or determine intent of an existing structure in this case I wouldn't be in a position to say categorically that that is a residential use it may look like a residential structure to the south but it's actually being utilized for non-residential use so I can then make that determination and another challenge here is these are both residential uses there might be four people sleeping in this house and four people sleeping in the house next door the house next door only has one meter there might be four leases on each because it's college area a lot of times rooms rented by the room exactly and it addresses building code the building code criteria also then bleed into this so in terms of is there a clear-cut definition saying should there be if there is more than one meter on a property what is that use that has not been clearly identified in the Denton Development Code yet so the goal then is to look at and again we're deviant a little bit because we're talking about zoning and the zoning on the property not the specific use or development of so if I do digress legal please tell me nicely no no stop my questions and we can do this later because we're running out of time well just for clarification so currently for this particular project that property as use is multifamily and not single-family for this particular item correct it's not being used as a single-family residence correct let me repeat to put it in those terms would be easier okay just just like I'm gonna continue briefly it's just like we have house houses single-family people operate a business under out of all up and down on Elm Street local Street those uses are no longer single-family it may look like a house but it's now a business so we have a similar type situation that this looks like a single- family house has four meters on it it is a functioning and used as a multifamily use at this time okay Commissioner that's good briefly my point is that that 's that's one flexible that it could they they could pull the meters off tomorrow and we have a giant building next to it and in two I think it's important to note that who makes that determination who's the final say if it's not in the deed if it's not in the development code who makes that final determination I mean because I don't know that I want to make the logical leap that just because you want to divide your utility bill up however you want to divide it and and you want to have as many meters as you want you want to take an extension cord and run it to your neighbor's house I don't know that I want to make a determination on any of those things on how people govern their finances so I want to know who's the final say so in making that determination that that's multifamily and that's what we're gonna apply because if it comes to this board let us vote on it if it's if someone arbitrarily it's gonna hand that down who is that I just want to make it clear for the record is the property that the house is sitting on how is that zoned DR2 and that allows single-family it does it does so it's not a non-conforming structure no it's just being converted it's not even related as we we don't know we don't know we hadn't talked to him I don't think anybody if someone has looked at the outside of their house when they drove by because they're opportunist and and and have not talked to that I'd love to hear who we talked to so what she's saying is because it's not clear and they didn't development code the director of development services has the discretion in order to determine what the use is and so they determine that many times through a reasonable method and the reasonable method is looking to see if there are multiple meters on the property that's something that happens quite often right director services manal made that you just happen to have her here at the the dais okay I want to pull us back on topic because what we're talking about is a zoning issue tonight and the whole place of where we've gotten off to is how this the step back would be if it was a single family we're not even in here talking about a site plan building we're talking about zoning only and we're way off in what the use is next door and how that may or may not trigger residential slopes I want to bring our Commission back to the issue at hand which is a zoning issue and that issue can be in more detail when it comes back before us so anything else if it's about what we just talked about let's try to get done if it's a different subject what is the year the parking requirements between the different options available for different zoning you know for multif amily because on the one hand I see the word walkability look at the map and if somebody's gonna be in the school of music or the school of business or even to go to the student union building that's not walkability that's either gonna be bus or car or something and so I'm just wondering you know will the parking requirements change what size we're kind of same thing we're off on site anti stuff and we need to stick to zoning because we're about out of time have you got a zoning question absolutely Commissioner Hitsmith so zoning wires because I'm not gonna be here in a little bit I don't think I don't see when I looked I pinned out Google Earth I think that the zoning is what it is there's nothing we can do to roll that back but I don't find any structure in anywhere near that but for if I use their radius that 10 that 10 mile radius I do believe the only thing that would possibly purport to be the same size is on Fry Street and that's the whatever the name of those those apartments are but there's nothing else in in in anything in sight in Google I mean pan out as far as you want so zoning wise I think it's zoned as is there's nothing we can do about that and I think to up zone any part of that so that they can then have a structure that's that trumps anything in that in that area is is just not it's not productive I just don't think I've driven it I 've driven it four or five times and that zoning as is there's nothing you can do about that but to up zone that that area by the houses and you kind of you're going downhill and those are two-story apartments all day long two-story apartments all the way to boardmans and then you got to go down the street to get to something that purports to be the size even city place or whatever that is where flow hospital used to be does not it doesn't wear the same because it's on the slope if they're willing to dig a hole and make it lower then that I think that that matters but just on its face as it's structured it would it would absolutely bury anything in that area and it just it would it I don't think zoning wise to change it that puts it on us versus as is that's not our fault it'd be in a hundred feet or if it's less than a hundred feet well if I read that I read the the narrative and if if if they want to put a hundred feet on the front of that making and that that by code is that that is fine but I don't think in good faith that it's it's right to then bury the house down the hill because I'm trying to negotiate with a gun to my head I just don't I don't like it well I'll throw something at you and maybe it's a different point of view maybe they're not doing a gun to their head maybe they've heard the neighbors concerns about it and maybe they've asked for a zone to the other to drop the building to make it more consistent and it has less of an impact over the whole neighborhood versus saying we can build what we want and we're gonna do a hundred foot here versus saying you know what people are concerned about it we'll we'll drop the thing and help us with some zoning on the other and make a less impact versus somebody's here saying we're gonna do this one way or the other so I think for from my point of view I think that's something for us to talk about as far as the zoning is concerned is whether we want to rezone it or not and give them an opportunity to do something of a less impact versus saying we're not going to rezone it and then they go build it and it's a hundred feet tall and everybody goes well maybe we should have done something different and so that's just my point of view on that so I want to stick with zoning is there anything else is owning that we want to talk about on this to keep going Commissioner Beck thank you chair and I hear what you're saying chair but even though it's not a 10 or 11 story it's it's proposed to be a five story and the footprint for this building still is is quite dramatically different than what's there I don't fully agree with the assessment that says in our background material that mixed-use character of this area is compatible with DCG along scripture I mean if you look at this building it sticks out even when we do the residential slope thing I mean it's a it's a David and Goliath thing it may technically sound good but visually it's gonna it's gonna stick out there and I think we're here for zoning issue simply what happened in 2002 what were the city people thinking when they zone that area of scripture DCG in the first place I think it had something to do with flow we don't get into detail on that but the fact that flow isn't there anymore it seems like the proper thing would have been to revert this thing back to dr2 which is probably what it was so I'm gonna stop there and interrupt just a second to be the point of the matter is it is zoned that and we're not in a position to down zone it and so I think we're left with the practicality of that is what the zoning is there and the piece next to it or what are we or aren't gonna do with that and I was gonna build up to it but I'll go ahead okay we're short on time and I know we still have a whole nother item we haven't got to and it's almost 630 right our options are to approve it and they build this thing or we deny it and they build the monstrosity everybody's worried about but I think there is an option that we need to bring up and it's called that I would approve it with an amendment to it to recommend approval subject to conditions with a mixed-use residential overlay that's in the DCC DDC and I think it's something that will serve both purposes allow somebody to build something there but at a level that's compatible for that neighborhood that the residents can accept and yet we can still have some population so if we don't have time to discuss that further I would like to bring that up well I think you might find some consensus to at least from me as a commissioner to talk about that in our in our next meeting so Julie would you like to continue on your going or yeah I'm gonna announce I'm gonna have to recuse myself from this I'm an and for those that are listening in our public meeting in council chambers we're gonna run 15 minutes 15 minutes late so we will try to get our meeting reconvened and starting council chambers about hopefully about 645 and I'm going to turn the meeting over to the vice chair Commissioner Taylor at this time thank you chair so now we're going to item FR 16 residential reply and blocks one two block B of Hale Est ates and vice chair Taylor I would ask legal to chime in and give us some discussion points as it relates to this at reply the interest in this particular item and so I wanted to go over some legal points with you all on the Commission I 've received a lot of questions especially that are legal oriented regarding this item so I just want to put it out there on the record so that we're all aware of what our position is the first question was why is this replat on not on consent agenda and why does it require a public hearing and the answer to that is that the local government code does require a residential replat to have a public hearing it used to previously in a previous version of the statute require or allow for a 20% objection trigger I don't I don't know if you all recall but on on zoning on zoning items you have that 20% objection and it triggers a super majority requirement at council this trigger was a 20 % objection that triggered a sort of a method for neighbors to object in writing and if 66% of those objected then the item would not be able to be passed that was found to be unconstitutional by the Fort Worth Court of Appeals and that portion was removed the objection portion but they kept the public hearing portion in the statute so it's a public hearing without a real consequence or a way for neighbors to move forward through objection however this is a plat so the the law does state that you have very little discretion when you review a plat even a replat and what the law states is that so long as it meets all the requirements of state law and meets the technical requirements of the city then we cannot deny it because it's a ministerial not a discretionary type action so I wanted you all to be aware that there's very little room you can look at your job is to double-check staff to make sure that it did meet all the technical requirements as they present them to you but you can't really look at anything beyond that when it comes to a plat the other item that I wanted to talk about was this restrictive covenant issue and I know last time we had talked on the record and I let you know that restrictive covenants we cannot enforce them as a government body the only person or the only city that can do that in the state of Texas is Houston they were given this special authority to do that but we can't in fact case law shows that we the platting is completely irrelevant to the restrictive covenant and the platting is not a properly plotted law does not affect any kind of amendment or removal of a restrictive covenant for those purposes because we were able to act outside of that and just look at the application that's before us we moved in that direction last time between last time and this time I did just out of sort of a gesture to the neighbors look at their restrictive covenant that they were provided to us and I did note that I do not believe that it is a violation of the restrictive covenant the way that the wording is written there's a section basically saying that it cannot be subdivided if the resulting lots are less than an acre or if they're less than 150 feet frontage and both of these lots separately meet those requirements so in my legal opinion there was no even though I can't give outside legal advice I'm giving the advice to you there was no violation of those restrictive covenants in my view there's also a provision where it has to be used for residential use since we're not rezoning it there is no effect to the restrictive covenants that are currently existing on the property another item that was requested a lot was information concerning the dam that's on the property the restricted covenant actually says if the dam is existing on private property that the other neighbors have no interest or access to the dam however despite that I did look into it and it looks like when the plat was originally done in the 1960s the dam was a very much a part of the drainage for the subdivision and in fact the street drainage goes all into that particular retaining area and it is in our drain adjudgment so any kind of attempted removal of that dam that's going to have to go through the city and if it affects the drainage they would have to show some sort of major mitigation downstream that would provide a replacement in lieu of having that dam in that location in addition to that there is it what's called a riparian buffer as you are aware what those are so any disturbance on the perimeter of the water body is going to require also a permit or an a essay that would come before this Commission so I don't know to what extent we may share that in the regular session I think we have some neighbors here but I wanted to go ahead and talk about those legal issues put him out there for the Commission I wanted to do it in an open session so that everybody knows what advice that I'm providing to you because I know it's very very important for the neighbors and given that does anybody have any questions Commissioner Roselle thank you vice chair we have a letter email from Jason Denise Thomas saying that they weren't notified what's the repercussion I mean that's a state rule that they have to be notified if they didn't get notified what's the consequence of that where's the burden of proof for notification I know we talked about this a lot because you're back enjoys the topic so I'm curious where has the city proven that there was a certified notice can you tell me more about what this is regarding sure if I can dive in just to process of notification we you know we're all aware on this Commission that we have to mail out a notice within 200 feet of the request that being said we use the tax rolls that are provided to us from our Department of Technical Services that gets those from the from DCOT and then we take those parc els they provide us those parcels and we use that data so whatever info that we do receive now there are instances where because those tax rules are updated once a year that we get that information there is a bit of a lag time so when we do send out the certified mail let's assume that there's change of ownership and it goes to the old owner then that is something we've still followed the tax roll we've still followed what's on DCOT and that does happen occasionally so it's not that we didn't that we notified in error it's just that we sent notice to whatever's latest on the record and that being said I think we did check and we did see that that was sent but not to the most recent property owner so if they've been there because we update once a year so to speak that is why that we received the certified tax roll that is why there's sometimes a lag I appreciate that explanation but wouldn't the address of 3,400 Montecito not have changed no but the owner the owner address might be different from what who's residing there so when so just as an example you can have several properties and have one single address which is either one of those properties or it's a separate address altogether so there is there are often this is we 've seen this often not just in Denton but in other communities that I've experienced where you have the ownership address might not be the physical address of the site okay thank you and it just just as a side matter there there really is no defect so long as we follow the statute and the statute requires that we go by the latest certified role so as long as we've done that then even if there are some that did not get it although we want everybody to be made aware and noticed it's not going to be a defect or fatal to any vote that we have this evening the daily per the requirement so we have to put notice within the daily as well okay thank you Commissioner Sullivan thank you Commissioner Roselle what was the last name of the people that you mentioned this letters from Jason and Denise Thomas's pay is the second letter on here is kind of three paragraphs there's another one from the bulls to say that they were not notified either within 200 feet so I don't know again hey the answer no and again you know sometimes let's work backwards a little bit sometimes we do receive the certified mail comes back to us where it's not been picked up so that that has occurred I'm not saying that occurred with this specific application those are one of the flaws with certified mail which we've talked at at length about and then secondly what Haley did is she went she tried to discern what actually came back and where there were disc repancies with the most recent tax certified tax roll that we have given the lag I've just discussed and as a result there were some that possibly went to a previous owner of the property and the intent obviously is to try and notify as Jennifer has indicated to everybody and to have the most current so unfortunately we just and we are following the state I just didn't know if there were two people or you know what have you so look at these two okay thank you Commissioner Beck thank you Vice Chair speaking hypoth etically just throwing information out there for my edification when we go in and we have to cast a boat on this it seems like the concern of some citizens is that if we approve that replant that the condition of that dam will deteriorate and affect the character of the neighborhood but it seems clear that that has to be maintained as part of the drainage there so that's a concern that's probably gone by the wayside I'm thinking I empathize on both sides the right the proper owner to split his property and the concern of the area residents there that move there for a purpose enjoy the benefits of that lake and all that but it seems like technically and legally we you know we we can't if we vote in favor of one or the other at that point they take their concerns to a court is that correct you mean if we were to approve it right or deny it or to my party or the other then their only recourse at that point would be right if we deny it then we're potentially at risk for a writ of mandamus if we approve it then the neighbors may sue the other neighbor I don't think the city is liable for okay thank you Commissioner Sullivan is the is the dam maintained by the homeowners association or the owner there is no homeowners Association in this case so the owner which private property the owners been maintaining it and that's really the reason I think he said last time in the record that he wanted to sell because there's a gentleman behind him that would like to maintain it because I guess his grandchildren playing back there something like that but whoever gains ownership of it will be responsible for the maintenance of it and we would be the responsible for enforcing I thought that was still part of Southridge that's not it's part of yeah for strange it's for strange I'm sorry for actually Montecito actually yes all right and with that we will close our work session or end our work session and we will reconvene in five minutes in the council chambers and the time at six we will close our work session at 640 good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning Commission meeting for March the 8th 2017 this meeting has been duly posted and a quorum is present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 650 our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and the Texas flag before we get started I apologize that we're running a little bit late we obviously by the room count and also in our work session we 've got a couple of items with a lot of discussion and took a little longer in work session so apologize that we ran late to get started this evening in that vein we also have one change to the order that will announce at the beginning of our meeting on our public hearing section our item a is going to be moved to the very end of our meeting after item E so we will go in order of B C D E and then come back and finish with a with that announcement I'm going to move us on to our item 2 on our agenda which will be consider approval of the planning and zoning Commission meetings minutes and I will take those two in separate motions Commissioner Taylor I move approval of the February 15 2017 minutes Commissioner back second any discussion or comments seeing none I'll call for a vote on board issue on the February 15th meeting because he was not here for the special call meeting I'm sorry that special called I'm sorry that was I was I chose the wrong date to move withdraw my motion withdraw your motion I'll move approval on 15th Commissioner Ellis I will second second any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries 4-0 with two recuse Commissioner Taylor try this again I move approval of the February 22nd 2017 minutes okay you sure you can do that okay good Commissioner Beck second okay we have a first and second for approval any discussion seeing none a call for a vote on board motion carries 4-0 with two recuse now move us to our consent agenda Commissioner Beck okay Commissioner Roselle second okay we have a we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none will call for a vote on board motion carries 6-0 that will move us to our items of individual consideration and I will call on Haley for presentation good evening this is case ADP 1620 from the Mission Street offices the request is consider approval approval of an alternative development plan for an initial phase of a proposed office park development on approximately 1.65 acres the property is located at the corner of Fort Worth Drive and Mission Street you can see outlined in yellow the initial phase that is part of this ADP request the area outlined in red represents all three parcels that are intended to be involved in the full development currently the property is zoned community mixed-use general the future land use for this area is community mixed-use which allows for predominantly commercial uses that are clustered in close proximity as well as a mix of institutional and residential uses this represents the site plan for the development you can see the phase that we're looking at here involves three buildings as well as an area off to the side that is going to be used as a detention pond so as part of this ADP request the applicant has multiple areas of the Denton development code site design standards that they are requesting to deviate from the first of those is a requirement for non-residential buildings that the primary orientation of the building be towards the street the intent of this is to provide buildings that present well to the street with clearly defined entrances for vehicular and pedestrian traffic so as you can see looking back at the site plan these buildings are intended to be oriented inwards towards this campus feel that they're trying to create with the larger development so especially the buildings on lot one and lot two would have their rear and side spacing towards the street in this case the applicant provided elevations for the first building the one that was located with its rear-facing Fort Worth Drive so we can see here the front elevation on the top that would be facing towards the inside of the development as well as one of the side elevations and on the second page we can see the rear elevation they are proposing architectural enhancements it's a masonry constructed building and they're using windows and awnings and some repeating architectural features to provide visual interest and you know it visibly interesting building from the street rather than just a solid wall we can also see from their landscape plan they intend to provide at least five shrubs in this area as well as a sidewalk there would also be sidewalk running along Fort Worth Drive here that they're providing connectivity to throughout the development as well one of their other requested deviations is from the parking requirements so for a general office use as they're proposing here the DDC requires one space for every 450 square feet of floor area that would be a total of 30 or 27 spaces for the three buildings that they're proposing at this point the site plan shows that they're intending to provide 39 spaces so 12 over what is required there and that triggers the requirement in sub chapter 13 that excess parking above the required number be constructed of pervious surface in lieu of providing pervious surface for those extra spaces the applicant is proposing to provide a detention pond here off to the side of these buildings that would be constructed to I swim standards so when they get to the final plotting phase the exact calculations for the volume and sizing of that pond will be determined and the pond will have to be designed to hold the water quality volume generated by this parking lot and the excess spaces for 24 hours because the overall size of the full office park campus that they've shown us is over 40,000 square feet even at this initial phase we're trying to make sure that the site addresses all of the large-scale development standards in the Denton Development Code which are triggered when a development is over 40,000 square feet two of the requirements there the applicant is proposing to deviate from one is the requirement for a masonry wall around or on any common boundary line between the development and a single-family property and the second is that mechanical equipment be located greater than a hundred feet from any residential property in this case the property adjoining this to the south does have a single-family residence on it and another requirement within the DDC is that a type C buffer which is a 15 foot planted area with six trees and 25 shrubs per 100 feet of length be provided between a commercial and single-family use in this case that because it is a large- scale development would require that buffer as well as that masonry wall the applicant has proposed instead of providing the wall to provide the required buffer and intensify it with at this case their calculation showed five additional trees and 19 additional shrubs in lieu of that wall I've circled in red here an area where mechanical equipment primarily air conditioning units would be located within approximately 30 feet of the property line with that single-family residential use so well within that hundred feet limb hundred foot limit and the applicant has proposed to screen all of that equipment with architecturally compatible materials and plantings which were not specified at this time this ADP does satisfy the criteria for approval of an ADP outlined in subchapter 13 it is a logical location at this hard corner of highway and Mission Street for an office park campus as well as it's compatible with that community mixed-use future land use designation so staff does recommend all of the recommend approval of this ADP with several conditions the first of those is that the development substantially conformed to the attached site plan the second is that we require it substantially comply with the landscape plan with two modifications the first of those is in front of the building on Fort Worth Drive in lieu of strictly these shrubs shown here staff recommends they provide a five foot width of planting area that could feature tall grasses as well as the shrubs to provide variation and soften the transition between the street and the building frontage the second requirement is that we recommend a six foot opaque masonry screening wall be provided on that southern boundary in addition to the required buffer the intent of the requirement for a masonry wall is to provide a permanent screening and buffer between two seemingly incompatible uses in this case because this is smaller buildings broken up over this larger lot staff felt that six feet would could be sufficient as the screening rather than eight feet but the landscaping buffer would not provide that screening year- round that was the intent of this so we recommend the wall be added back in as part of this the other recommendations are that the screening for the mechanical equipment be constructed of masonry materials that are compatible with the building's design and in addition to that we recommend planting of shr ubs and tall grasses around the perimeter of those screening walls to add an extra layer of buffering between those mechanical equipment and the single -family homes staff also recommends that building one as was identified here substantially comply with the elevations that were shown as well because we did not receive elevations for buildings two and three we recommend that those be constructed of masonry materials that are similar in design and construction to building one that we saw here so as to create a cohesive development throughout this office park we also recommend that any future phases be uniform as it relates to the frontage setbacks building materials and landscaping used on Fort Worth Drive to further that cohesive development as the future phases come in and at that this time I can answer any questions you might have I have a question on item three the masonry screening for the mechanical equipment is there a concern that a masonry wall may affect the performance and efficiency of those air conditioning equipment and maybe could look at just doing shrubs and grasses screening so that those can work efficiently that's not something that we looked at specifically we didn't get into the exact design of that screening around those I believe the applicant is here though if you would like to address some of those questions with him if if I may interject if the Commission does recommend consistent with staff's recommendation as it relates to the screen wall then perhaps we can revisit the recommendation for the screening mechanisms for the HVAC systems thank you thank you Haley have one card on this item request to speak says Lawrence Holder and I think applicant maybe in Lee Allison speaking in lieu of okay I'm Lawrence Holder I'm gonna be speaking ten minutes for your presentation if you that much time perfect we appreciate the recommendation by the engineering development review division for approval however we do not agree with the second condition that the six-foot masonry screening won't be constructed along the common boundary line of the adjacent residential property we are proposing a garden style office that has highly compatible that is highly compatible with the residential appearances we are proposing an intens ified type-c buffer and my understanding whenever we were putting it together that intensifying that type-c buffer would be in lieu of that wall if we don't have if we have to put in that wall we don't want to intensify the buffer so so we were intensifying that buffer for the nuanced mitigation as explained in the ADP table and the tree canopy table and the comments on that sheet as well the existing zoning of the property is CMG as it was earlier the adjacent properties are zoned in our six which is a which is considered a highly dense residential zoning based on the future land use we were making sure that's pointing north for you based on the future land use plan this side is a transitional area for the whole area to become a CMG or equal in the future by putting up a wall we feel as though we're going to end up with the same development stuff next to it and then we're just going to end up with the wall that has no value or any any additional the proposed buildings must conform to the building elevations provided in the ADP if it gets approved and any additional buildings will require an ADP to be submitted and brought to the planning and zoning commission for future expansion so approving this ADP doesn 't affect the future buildings if this were a typical convenience store or retail center we would we could understand and agree with the conditions for a wall however given the reasons I just expressed we did not feel that a wall would be needed or add any value now or in the future a couple questions for you Commissioner Roselle thank you for being here and presenting I have a question for staff clarification it was my understanding that because it's a large-scale project at its conclusion the southern buffer would have to be eight feet and that staff had reduced it to six feet can you clarify that it was to be eight feet and there's already been a concession to remove those two feet yes the requirement in the code is for an eight foot masonry screening wall and staff recommended six because of the smaller individual scale of the building so over the larger development would still trigger that eight foot requirement and so just to clarify thank you for the applicant you're wanting a further reduction of what would be codified for the southern border from eight then we did six and you want less is that correct correct okay thank you Commissioner back thank you chair following up on that last part of Commissioner Roselle's question you don't want a wall at all or you don't want a wall plus and the landscape barriers that what I heard no we want to intensify the landscape buffer added additional trees add additional shrubs make that landscape area really nice in lieu of the retaining wall arm not retained but in lieu of the wall again we're looking at what is good now and in the future by having a wall separating what is essentially high residential and eventually going to be CMG which will be commercial or moving forward it's going to be on uniform what kind of equipment are we talking about there is just AC units yes and these offices are four thousand eight hundred and thirty five I think square feet less than five thousand square foot so these offices are relatively bigger homes so these AC units even though it is for office would be basically to residential sized ish I don't I'm not the H VAC guy but they're going to be the same relative size as a residential unit so we don't have to screen from the residents a residence HVAC unit but we understand screening because this is a commercial we're adhering to the DDC code for the residents but in all reality the units aren't going to be much bigger than a residence's unit which could be placed five feet away from another house so and what was your consideration for a landscape barrier what are we looking at what were you suggesting we were intensifying it so we were going to be adding additional trees and shrubs we're looking at a 10 foot width on this it is it is the type C buffer okay we weren't shrinking the size of the type C buffer it was going to be the DDC size which I believe is 10 feet correct 15 15 15 feet that's 15 on your site plan okay I should know that that's okay we're here to help just one last thing how will you identify these buildings for the people driving down Fort Worth where you can put your signs for this for these buildings to identify them somebody's driving down Fort Worth see these buildings are you by all means Lee pardon me Lee Allison with Allison engineering group I hope it's okay to speak I was on the car looking at staff they haven't legal happens anything so I guess we're good 4401 north 35 35 didn't Texas the signage will be on the buildings where these are going to be places to where their destinations we're not going to need signs like a Taco Bell or restaurant or something would so there's no need for that but that be on that wall that faces for it would be on the wall facing well I don't know to be honest with that because again depends on who the tenant is Kent keys office is going to be one of those and I don't even know if he's gonna have a sign on it at all or be small monument sign or sign on the side of the building but he'll deal with sign for that in accordance with the code well if people are looking for you place and you wanted to look for your place that's what I was curious about is how you're gonna designate that there'll be some of that and I might add is Lance was trying to point out in order to mitigate the requirement for the wall around the perimeter we were offering the standard required landscape buffer plus additional plantings and we were offering up screening adjacent for the mechanical equipment and we put the mechanical equipment person personally on the side of the buildings instead of the back of the buildings to help attenuate that we're not a big corner commercial convenience store or supermarket or something like that with the big heavy mechanical equipment and so forth they typically have if the walls going to be required I mean certainly we appreciate staff's efforts to shorten the wall but we would not want to do the extra landscaping and we would ask that definitely the masonry screening wall against the mechanical equipment be pulled away don't have any problem with vegetation and we didn't put dimensions but obviously we'd want those screening to be far enough away so that the equipment will operate properly and we can access it and maintain it properly okay thank you so we're bargaining I guess thank you and while you're there Lee I have a question for you that I've got a couple more on the property to the east it's owned in our six and I think the setback on in our six is four feet off the property lines that correct I think and we're looking at the top of my head I'm sorry I think that's correct on in our six and so to the south they've got a 20-foot building line between the property in the back of the buildings the parking lots are on the north side of the buildings and so I understand maybe some of the concern for a screening wall if there was parking on the south side of buildings where there'd be traffic but with the parking on the north side of the buildings with the buildings being 20 feet off the property line they're mostly like houses I mean I I can see your point that some nice landscaping and screening is I think appropriate I would think it as this comes before our Commission in the future on the east side that does back up to in our six I could see where a masonry screening wall would would probably be not only beneficial for residents but also for the development itself but to the to the south I can see where that would be more of a commercial type feel and having it open versus a masonry wall there because of the way that you have your site plan and the way the buildings are oriented so beyond that the only other concern you all have is on the screening on the mason ry and you're fine with all the other conditions and extra things that you all have agreed to do or that our staff has asked you're willing to do those yes that is correct and I appreciate your observation and that the part of the building adjacent to properties either on the south or the east will be back yards not parking lots and sure and mechanical access and things and that nature from their cars also after this phase any future phases we do have to come back with an ADP for this site and I think there'd be opportunities then and I would assume and not know that even if we put a building somewhere else if it could create a need for additional screening on the sites we already have that could be imposed at that time as well I think it's an assumption okay a couple more questions Commissioner Taylor thank you chair so first my first question I think you just answered by saying that you you would the mechanical screening with masonry wouldn't be a problem at all is that correct not if we don 't have a fence right we're gonna put a fence up there then we'd like to not have we can still do vegetative screening but would not want to do masonry screening animation refinance right now I have another question I'm looking at going back to the preliminary plot excuse me the preliminary plot it appears that I'm trying to get my head around lot for or the common area the detention pond all right what happened is we started the ADP process before we ever started platting thinking we could do that then we were informed we couldn't do an ADP until we had an approved preliminary plat so we went and prepared the preliminary plat and typically areas that are going to be maintained by all the property owners together are labeled common areas so when our ADP we labeled lot number four because there was going to be four lots there and in our formal preliminary plat we got a common area so then we got it on the consent agenda tonight so we've got an approved preliminary plat so we can now consider an ADP so that's the circle we've been running in right and actually my question there wasn't so much on the label it's the shape of the shape of whatever that is lot for common area it seems to indicate in the site plan the detention pond will eventually go north does that stay completely in the common area or does that extend into what is labeled not for the replanting also when we add more lots or more phases right now and to be technically correct we are not proposing a detention pond we are strictly proposing a water quality treatment facility and that facility is not rectangular even though the lot is it's kind of moon-shaped but it fits within there and we just planted that lot big enough to accommodate that when we get around to doing more and needing to provide detention because we're not creating any more runoff is coming off today when we have to do detention will shape that detention pond it could be L shaped around that corner and we'll have a different common area lot a replanted common area lot that will accommodate that particular facility and so this would really what goes in on lot for will be a temporary yes ice and water treatment kind of still detained detaining water and nobody likes to call it temporary because who knows how long it'll be there but our intention is temporary until we can fully develop the balance of the site okay and looking at I was trying to measure distance because this this is about 500 or so feet wide on the south end and the buffer was indicated as like 300 feet does that end at the edge of lot three or does that continue on into whatever you want to call it lot floor common area I'd have to look at the drawings my recollection is it goes all the way across lot for the common area and we would be doing that anyway thank you they just so on the preliminary plot I think it shows it like 487 feet total depth and it so it's here it's indicated as all the way back so almost 500 feet well this has the concept or elements of the concept in existing facilities on there because of the ADP our landscape buffer will go back to the to the edge of the ADP which is to the limits of the okay water quality pond yeah that really that was my final point was that this would also buffer the pond right and mr. Beck to address the question you brought up during workshop these ponds are designed to drain out in 24 hours and because of the vegetative nature and the natural treatments we're not going to have an odor problem or mosquito problem or anything of that great thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you for being here in presenting okay I got my questions about the detention area answered I guess now I'm I'm just confused so we can move forward with a motion as to what we are removing per staff's approval and their recommended amendments to your plan so if you could well at the risk of telling you what I'd like you to do well we hope that you will remove the staff requirement for a masonry screening wall if that goes away all the other things would stay in place but okay if the screening wall stays in place we're asking that you remove our offer of the intensified landscaping and the masonry screening on the mechanical units themselves okay so if the masonry wall buffer is removed the six-foot wall recommended recommendation if that is removed then you'll leave the mechanical screening stays in place okay as well as the enhanced landscape okay that's where I was confused thank you okay Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I'd like to go ahead and make a motion I move approval of this agenda item you can try this again a clarification I move approval for the agenda item ADP 1620 with the staff recommendations point one point two a three four and five excluding point two B Commissioner Tadden a second and I'd also like to add that normally I am a fan of the masonry walls whenever we have conflicting uses they kill sound they block light prevent headlights make it hard for somebody in a parking lot to wander into somebody's yard that kind of stuff but in this case your development is to scale with the surrounding area and this this veget ative buffer will actually probably provide a better amenity to the house immediately to the south concrete wall would concrete wall would be right on the property line and you know they would they would go from having a view of a field having a view of concrete blocks so I do feel that a 15 foot buffer with as you outlined red buds and I just tore out about a dozen nandinas I'm not a fan of nandina but nandina is in boxwoods and so forth it would would provide a better amenity to the neighbor and the mechanical screening the screening around the mechanical also prevents noise and heat and that type of problem and that you know that might occur so for those reasons I I think the vegetative buffer is superior to the masonry screening okay I was going to ask if you could do a friendly amendment I like the masonry wall I also think just from for the type of project it is and then the size that the masonry screening around the air conditioning units is a is a non-necessity I think the landscaping there and where they're located is not necessary so I don't know if you would entertain that I would entertain that but it was my understanding from Manal that once this gets approved with they could come back and if we recommend with staff recommendations does it bind them to the masonry wall around the mechanical equipment what I was explaining was should the commission choose to follow staff's recommendation we would be willing to amend if the masonry wall was put in place the screening mechanism requirement for the HV AC systems okay then I would amend that vegetation be used for screening for the mechanical equipment also yes Commissioner Tyler I'm a real fan of the the sound deadening of the of the masonry so I don't know if I need to withdraw my second legal or so I do think you don't agree with it to keep the to keep the stonewall there so I don't know what draw your second is that is that the correct procedure yes you withdraw your second and just so I understand Commissioner Taylor your your it seems as though the the mechanical AC which is residential size is 30 feet plus off the boundary of the property and you're still very concerned about it carrying the noise carrying that 40 50 feet to the neighbor to the south I understand that they're a 4,000 square foot unit commercial units might have higher demand they might have more more doors opening and closing might have a bigger unit so that they can cool down more effectively you know a six foot wide three foot tall or two and a half foot tall little brick wall right there doesn't seem like much of an imposition to me and it really might it might have impact so that's I don't I don't see it as we're making them put in a 600 foot wall or something like that it's it's gonna be something that's like this big you know waist-high so I don't think it's worth removing especially if they're okay with it I'm gonna make a second first and a second and open the floor to discussion Commissioner Ellis yeah thank you chair I have to echo Commissioner Taylor's remarks I mean number one they're agreeing to do it it is for buffering sound in which we're not going to get with vegetation and even though I understand that it might be the size of a you know household unit it's going to be multiple of them and there will be higher demand just because of commercial building and what will be going on in there and most likely the degrees that one operates in their home it's going to be much cooler in these commercial buildings so I don't like that amendment okay well as I recognize Commissioner back forever thank you chair okay just so I'm clear I've gotten confused here what we're voting on is there'll be a landscape buffer up to the mechanicals then we put a then we stop it there put a wall then go back to the landscape or is there gonna are we talking about a wall the full length of the south end no okay then clarify my my my my motion was as staff recommended removing point to be which is the six foot opaque masonry screening as well as point three where it says the mechanical equipment must be construct out of masonry materials I amended that to include vegetation okay so remove that six-foot wall the whole length of the south side of the property line correct and okay and then a 15-foot buffer is what's there right okay okay but that hadn't been seconded yet has it it has it is okay sure go on Haley to pull the site plan up shows here on the south side this area represents the 15-foot type C buffer that would be required which if I understand correctly is to remain with their added vegetation and then these squares here represent the proposed mechanical equipment which would have the masonry wall and vegetative screening around them yes back to your question the elements of the last comprise a 15-foot wide landscape microphone that extends from that extends from the southern property line 15 feet in and it would have landscaping live landscaping within that in the form of if I'm not mistaken shrubs and five trees six trees and 25 shrubs are required that being said as it relates to the HVA system so there are two separate requirements in play but the motion is then saying if I'm understand it correctly that it only the 15-foot landscape buffer would be required with the associated tree plantings reflected by the applicant for the entire length of the cell yeah as it relates to this request okay not now the wall we were talking about that was also running along the south border to not in between correct those two buildings there correct so staff's recommendation was that a masonry wall would be required along the southern property line six feet in height opposed to the eight foot height requirement and that the rectangles or the squares that H aley points out on this landscape plan would also or should also it is recommended be screened with a masonry cap around those so to speak those are the two separate requirements and then the motion that's come forward is simply requiring or recommending that the 15 foot wide landscape buffer remain no wall remove okay no wall just so that everyone is clear on the Commission since we're down a member for this session it will require affirmative vote of four in order to pass yes this motion Commissioner Tyner I move we amend our the the motion to reinstate staff's recommendation of three in requiring the masonry screening around the air conditioning units you asking for a friendly amendment when I was I was just gonna I think he's moved for an amendment so we have an official amendment we need a second okay Commissioner Roselle you're next I wasn't going to second it I don't know if Commissioner Ellis was playing on doing that I'm sure after I would definitely second that okay first and second to add the mechanical screenings back in okay Commissioner Roselle thank you chair is it applicable to bring up the applicant and just that it seems like there might be a commission that split just to get their understanding of how important the mechanical screening is to this project in terms of masonry verse vegetation seems to be the sticking point here yes we're basically okay with doing screening around the units we can put a wall there we can put shrubs there and whatever you would like we just don't want to do the wall along the buffer that's very helpful thank you oh with that I would like to go back to the original motion that was placed apologies to the chair and move that we approve this with all five points minus to be you know and I apologize for this because I was sort of encouraged here but since we have an official motion for amendment that's going to take precedent over the main motion we can't go back and modify the main motion with that on the table so since it's as is then we can vote on that or you can entertain a friendly amendment as Mr. Roselle has indicated so let me get clear we can vote on the motion that we have and if it fails then we would come back and make a new motion to go and add the screening back in is that correct so if we have a motion on the floor right now our motion that we have to take up is the one where staffs recommendations are put back in and he had indicated that he would be willing to put back in the second is it number three but we'd still like to leave out number to be and so if you're amenable to that then we can change the amended the motion for modification okay so would it be easier just to vote twice or I'm so I withdraw my motion then are you amenable to change your motion to that and Commissioner Ellis are you an amendment amenable to seconding that change if I could clarify what we're okay what we're taking up is the motion to amend the main motion and I'm sorry this gets complex for the audience but it's Robert's rules it we're taking up the motion to amend the main motion in order to put the staff recommendations back in mr. Roselle has indicated that he would go ahead and entertain having three put back in but would still like to see to be removed which is in line with what with what the developer has asked for so I asked if mr. Taylor would be amenable to a friendly modification of his motion to amend and whether or not you would agree to second that yes I would okay so now we have a motion we can vote on thank you I'm gonna call on Commissioner Roselle to restate his amended motion so everybody's clear and then we'll vote so my motion is to approve agenda item ADP 1620 with staff recommendations of point 1 point 2 a point 3 point 4 and point 5 with the specific exclusion of 4b 2b okay so all but 2b okay and I'm already got a second on that so any further discussion on this item seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries 6 to 0 that will move us to our public hearing section again our item a has been moved to the end of our agenda so we will move to item B at this time I'm going to open the public hearing for fr 16 - 0 0 2 8 and call on Haley for presentation good evening so this is fr 16 - 0 0 2 8 it is a replat of the revised Roberts edition and this is a replat to break the original lot 3r 2 into lots 3r 2r 1 and 3r 2r 2 the property is located at the corner of Ector and Emory Street and the lots are intended for commercial development and I can answer any questions about the plot any questions for staff thank you Commissioner back I move we approve of our 16 0 2 8 we've opened the public hearing on this item we cannot take a motion did you okay that's okay this is the public hearing item so we can't do the motion until the public hearing is closed so we just need to make a call to make sure anybody else wants to speak on this item yep sorry so Haley's finished her presentation no questions for staff this is a public hearing is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item at this time anyone that would like to speak on this item seeing none I will close the public hearing and I will open the floor for discussion or emotion Commissioner back I move we approve if our 16 0 2 8 Commissioner Sullivan a second a motion okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries six to zero I will move us to item C and I will open the public hearing for z 16 - 0 0 2 7 a and Colin Haley for presentation good evening again this is case z 1627 for the standard and Hudson at Med Park the request was to hold this public hearing and consider a request for a rezoning of approximately 20 acres from a regional center commercial downtown district to a regional center residential to district this property is located on the western portion of a larger tract that is addressed as 2100 Mayhill Road and it is located at the end of Hudson Wood and Somerset Drive the adjoining property uses we have the Providence Place apartments to the east and the south and the Med Park station is a little bit further to the south currently the property is zoned RC CD the proposal would be a rezoning to RC r2 the future land use for the area is regional mixed use which is a designation applied as you can see here primarily to properties along interchanges on I-35 and primary arterials it promotes these as regional destinations for a mixture of commercial and institutional uses as well as promoting a moderate to high density residential use so staff's considerations for this case the rezoning to RC r2 is consistent with the surrounding zoning pattern there is no immediate adjacency of RC r2 designation as you can see here the RC r2 designation in this light pink is a rather spars ely used but all of these designations RC r1 RC r2 as well as the RCC districts are all within the same family of regional mixed use zoning designations so staff considers that compatible this request is a down zoning to a less intensive district and the RC r2 district could provide a transition between the surrounding RC r1 properties which is the least intensive of this family of districts to the most intensive RCCD that's located along Mayhill so our CCD has limitations within it for multifamily development that requires they be a part of a mixed use development with ground floor commercial uses along any collector or arterial road as a part of this Hudson Wood Road would be continued across this property towards Mayhill and it is classified as a collector so ground floor commercial would be required with the rezoning to RC r2 multifamily can be developed without that mixed use component with the approval of an SUP and staff felt that given this substantial offset from May hill Road of this property those commercial uses required under RCCD may not be supported in this area along a primarily residential street as I mentioned this is a down zoning RC r2 is much less intensive in terms of the scale of development with a maximum density of 40 units per acre as opposed to 100 under the current zoning as well the maximum lot coverage is decreased from 90% to 75 which increases the landscaping area required and it limits the maximum building height to 50 feet as opposed to 100 notice was sent we received one neutral response to that and staff is recommending approval of this request because of its compatibility with the surrounding land uses and zoning as well as its consistency with the future land use designation and I can answer any questions at this time questions for staff thank you again this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time please give your name and address my name is Brandon Han cock I'm with the applicant my address is 6440 North Central Expressway Suite 900 Dallas Texas did you fill out a card for us I did okay put it over there no problem we'll make sure we've got okay I can do another one I've got a hundred of them I'm doing the best I can keep up with tonight apologize sorry thank you Chairman strange and committee members appreciate it I also like to thank the staff for their help the last few months we've been trying to get this to the public hearing for a long time and they've been really helpful so I appreciate that as staff presentation said we are looking to zone this site to RCR 2 you can see kind of an overall plan here we are planning to do two projects a family multifamily project 263 units as well as a age-restricted senior living 160 unit project the site size is just about 20 acres and within that we have a six six point six acre senior site and a ten point two nine acre family multifamily site and then roughly three acre detention site some of the amenities we typically offer in our projects and will offer here our clubhouse with a cyber cafe computer lab a fitness facility on both projects each of these projects will have their own facilities within that the family project will have a pool both of them will have dog parks and as you'll see here we get to the site plan the seniors will have a retention pond is kind of a main driver amenity area one of the things we love about this project is it's a true transit oriented development we are right at the Med Park station for the DCTA a train so we will have a direct connection for the family walkway through the senior senior development to get to that train station and the seniors will have direct access off of the project to it we also have bus transit within a tenth of a mile of the project and we're also located right adjacent to the medical facilities at Denton regional here 's kind of the general zoning around our project it's all regional it's all mostly regional RCC downtown or neighborhood or residential so currently we 're RCCD which at our acreage we could do 2,000 units we can build up to 100 feet we can do max lot coverage of 90 90 percent we're proposing 4 23 units building height is going to be less than 50 feet but that's what would be allowed at our max lot coverage is 75% here's a site plan you can see the southern portion that's where our connection to the a train station is we don't have a fully developed in this site plan but that'll be a nice plaza connecting to stock bridge which will connect to the a train and here on the left sorry I don't have a pointer but there will be a direct connection from Hudson would for the public and for the the the residents of our northern property to get through get to that connection to the a train station here are some of the general amenities in the area that we're hoping to play off of and just to conclude here's some projects we've done in Baton Rouge and other cities in Texas that kind of show what we've done our track record and typical amenity areas and unit finishes for our projects any questions thank you questions for the applicant thank you for your presentation 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 and open the floor for discussion or emotion Commissioner Beck thank you chair I move approval approval of z160027 a mr. Roselle second I have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none a call for a vote on the board motion carries six to zero we'll move us to our agenda item D and I will open the public hearing for s 16 - 0008 a and call on Haley for presentation all right good evening again so this is case sts 16 0008 also from standard in Hudson at Med Park this request is for the specific use permit to allow multifamily development on the 20 acres that we just saw in the rezoning case so I've reached through some of this same location at the end of Hudson Wooded Somerset Road the current zoning as you know is our CCD with the request that was just recommended for approval for our CR2 again this is a regional mixed use center as designated by the future land use plan and as some of staff's considerations as part of this SUP is that pending approval of that rezoning the applicant is proposing multifamily development that is not a part of a mixed-use development so the SUP would be the ultimate approval for that multifamily development this multifamily is consistent with the future land use designation of regional mixed use that includes the mixture residential and commercial uses specifically moderate to high density residential this SUP does comply with the criteria for approval of an SUP which are all outlined in your backup and just to go through their site plan really quickly as we saw they have two components the standard on the north side of Hudson Wood and the Hudson which is the age-restricted portion on the south side as well as the approximately three acre detention pond so looking specifically at the northern development the standard it is a 263 units total or is what is proposed those are spread across four buildings the buildings I've outlined in orange here and then in blue you can see the open space kind of courtyard areas as well as a swimming pool that they've proposed in between these buildings the breakdown would be 43 one bedroom units 135 two-bedroom and 85 three-bedroom all buildings are proposed to be three stories which approximately 34 feet in height and this current site plan has approximately 69% lot coverage and there would be 472 spaces those are provided in keeping with the calculations required for multifamily development and those are provided along an interior private street system as well as a few spaces on Hudson Wood Drive and they're also proposing bicycle parking for this portion of the development on the south side we have the independent senior living or age-restricted multifamily component known as the Hudson it is two buildings outlined in orange there approximately 160 units 112 one bedrooms 48 two bedrooms the buildings are proposed at the same scale three stories or approximately 34 feet tall and this property does feature this retention or detention pond and as a central feature of the development and they're providing 160 parking spaces for the senior living portion and no bicycle parking was shown on the site plan for this portion moving into their landscaping plan they are proposing landscape screening on all four sides of this larger three acre detention pond shown in green on the north side they've proposed landscaping that meets the street tree requirements for the internal street system as well as a type B buffer which is required between multifamily and single-family uses there are existing single-family homes on properties to both the north and the east on the south side of similar landscaping plan again that meets the street tree and landscaping requirements of the DDC elevations were not provided to staff at this time however the applicant did indicate their intent is to comply with architectural requirements of the DDC for multifamily again notification was sent we received one neutral response and staff is recommending approval of this request with a few conditions the first being that the developments substantially comply with the landscaping and site plans that we've shown here the second being that the proposed multifamily development meet or exceed the requirements for architectural requirements for multifamily outlined in the DDC we are proposing to limit the use of certain materials EFAS and HDO board to only 10% or as accent materials on these buildings because for multifamily developments staff recommends typically masonry materials to propose to provide a durability and you know longevity of the product and our third requirement would be that only monument or building signage be used along Hudson Wood Drive the applicant did not show any signs on their plan but we'd like to prohibit the use of pole signs or something similar on this drive since it is a residential collector Street and with that I can answer any questions you might have Commissioner Roselle thank you H aley for the presentation I have a question about the second point for the staff recommendation it says EIFS and HDO boards the didn't development code says wood clapping siding would be did siding stucco masonry HDO board or other high quality material it doesn't mention the IEFS what is of those materials listed in the development code would be classified under that category so if it is not specifically called out in the code however it is a material that is frequently requested to be used on buildings it's a stucco like product that doesn't have quite the durability of traditional stuc co so since it is traditionally requested with a lot of developments we felt the need to call out that that be limited because my understanding is it does potentially cause some durability problems when it's used on the lower portions of buildings and things like that over time so within the recommendation they would still be able to use wood clapboard siding would be did s iding stucco is that correct yes we're proposing that they meet or exceed the other requirements which I believe for multifamily requires 40% m asonry and then the other materials could be from the list that you've seen there just so I understand generally speaking they an individual could use up to 60% HDO materials according to code yes and you're wanting to limit it to 10% can I ask why such a drastic reduction in that ability given the code provides 60% it's something that staff recommends because of the long- term durability of the products we feel that traditional masonry as required for up to 40% of the buildings provides for better longevity of the product over time and who over the course of the the building would be responsible for any durability issues that would fall to the property owner for maintenance of the property of the buildings okay we'll speak more later any other questions for staff thank you I believe the applicant also has a presentation for this okay I don't have a card it's a public hearing so please come forward if you get some of this you know I see it now you've got a second on the same card apologize address again Brandon Hancock 6440 North Central Expressway Suite 900 Dallas Texas flip through some of these we've already seen just real quick on the site plan some of the things I wanted to point out you can see it a little bit better here we have the walkway connecting to the a train station this detention pond is probably going to be if we can make it work a wet retention so the cult retention is a detention so a wet pond if you go to the Hudson it's it's going to be a retention pond the water feature I wanted to point out I know that Commissioner Beck you had a question about bicycle that was a mistake by the the architect we will have bike parking that's that's an amenity on all our projects from so that was a overlook on my part I didn't catch that they missed that so let me ask what are the bike mission back thank you chair sorry what are the bike amenities that you're providing in the standard that you weren't until now I'm gonna fit what I'm sorry what are the bike amenities that you're providing in the standard that you were up until now not providing in the Hudson I mean it hasn't been fully flushed out but it's either gonna be interior a lot of what we do now are interior bike storage rooms if we have the space to do it if not we'll have secure bike parking within the parking areas behind the fences behind the vehicle access gates we try to have a for lack of a better term a big room with part with with secure bike parking indoors okay thank you Mr. Hancock and I will now remove the ages label from you that I did we do we do have one ask on the staff recommendations until I saw the staff report we had not heard about the recommendation for no more than 10% of the HDO and the EIFS and maybe it's a clarification issue we intend to definitely do 40% masonry and in our case I know the the code calls out stucco masonry I'm sorry brick and stone is considered m asonry as a company we don't do stucco we've all done stucco projects in Texas Louisiana Arizona California they don't turn out well they leak they're horrible so we do brick and so for that 10% means 90% brick and if that's the case the project just doesn't work financially so we would propose meeting the code as stated in 35 13 13 - a minimum 40% if the budget allows we obviously amp that up I have some examples here so you can see the development code versus the staff recommendation this is a project we built it's approximately 40% and so it's not an exact science because of the windows and the way it 's calculated with the net openings but if you look it's typically the first story would be all brick and then you obviously have vertical accents or you know however the architect does it to achieve that 40% masonry here's another project so we would probably be doing these panelized Hardy systems on to give it that kind of that's a newer product it gives a kind of more of a modern look you also have this siding product so if you're not familiar Hardy is a brand name but it's a cement fiber cement board and it is durable it's got a warranty it's a newer product that's come out and been more widely used last 10 years in our opinion it's vastly superior to stucco here's another project where you'll see the the brick veneer I'm sorry the brick base and then you see the vertical accents of brick and then the rest of it's the Hardy product type paneling and again so we think this is a quality product it gives you a quality approach it's long-lasting and it's really the industry standard here's the elevations are not fully developed these are conceptual renderings that we've the design approach we're going to take this has brick and I'm sorry you can't zoom in on it I don't think this has brick accents it has Hardy paneling for the standard and for the Hudson a more traditional look with brick and again the Hardy paneling to round it out again these are the pictures you've already seen of other projects we've built so that would be my request that that we for number two it's per code and I guess my other question is just on the on the number three on the signage I don't have an issue with that I guess I just would like maybe some clarification on you know sign shall be designed in our only monument and building signage I think there might be some issues with interpretation when we get down to it so if we can just say no pole signs or where are you after instead of so that would be my request I call on staff to answer the question thank you as it relates to the signage pretty much when we're talking about sign you wanted monuments of no pole sign so we would acquiesce to that that's not an issue and just as it relates to the elevations I just wanted to point out that there was little very little clarity on what elevations would be provided so we wanted to ensure that we weren't compromising the style of the development but we would be willing to discuss the elevations proposed by the applicant Commissioner Taylor thank you chair so I was just trying to clarify I'm not very familiar with these acronyms HDO are you saying Hardy is is a type of HDO so I'm sorry I don't have the acronym on top but I believe HDO is meaning fiber cement board if that's not the case then I would love to talk about that but my understanding is that is a another word for fiber cement board Hardy is a brand name Niche ha is another I mean it's okay yeah and I'm familiar with Hardy that but I'm not familiar with HD that's what I'm trying to understand like that so the if the restriction on number two was to restrict EIF s to 10% or less and not mention HDO would that still be acceptable or would that be acceptable to you I believe so that yeah yes what I mean that's that can you what kind of type of product is that if it's your information she's right yeah I don't think we'd use a sheening as an exterior product it's a st ucco it's like a stucco which you don't use it's styrofoam with concrete over the top yeah so I would be acceptable okay so you would want a first or would not leave us I'm fine with just the EIF is being 10% okay got you okay commissioner Beck thank you chair and I would support the use of a Hardy material I worked with new housing for 20 years and they used it and it is a very fine product long-lasting durable I think chairman strange would agreement I'm sure he's used it in a lot of his building so I don't have a problem with the HDO I was gonna echo Commissioner Roselle stole my thunder on my note for item 2 and so I would definitely picked up on that and I appreciate you coming forth so all the other conditions are fine except for on item 2 we just want to remove the EIF us I mean excuse me keep the EIF us and remove the HDO requirement and everything else is fine I think they were gonna clarify the number three would be no pulse sign instead of the way it's working okay I do now commissioner Sullivan just to clarify so that the HEO would to go back to the 40% limit is that correct maybe six sixty sixty percent oh sixty percent okay perfect thank you sure any other questions for the applicant seen him thank you sir I appreciate the clarifications again this is a public hearing I have one card from Kevin Nelms not wishing to speak in support of the project anybody else to speak on this item it is a public hearing seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion Commissioner Taylor thank you chair I move approval with some of staff recommendations staff recommendation one as written staff recommendation two striking the word HDO board and changing staff recommendation three to be no pull signage shall be used along Hudson would drive sign shall be in accordance with the dimensional requirements in chapter 33 of code of ordin ances Commissioner Ellis I will second as stated okay we have a first and a second for approval with conditions any discussion seeing none will call for a vote on board motion carries six to zero that will move us to item II I think since we've been going for a while it is and I think our next item two items we're going to go for quite some time at 8 o 6 I'm going to call a recess and we will take a recess maximum of ten minutes good evening and welcome back I'm going to call us back to order at 820 the next item we have on our agenda is item E and at this time I'm going to open the public hearing for z16 - 0 0 2 3 a and I will call on Julie Wyatt for presentation and just as a housekeeping item I've got received one card from an Eleanor Swan but it's not marked for which agenda item you wish to speak for so enough it's this one or the next one Eleanor Swan Ele anor Swan you want to speak on this item or the next item well I apologize you don't want to be in support but which item would it be this item okay thank you sorry hold you up no that's all right good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton I'm presenting z 16 23 park 7 to you this evening the location of the request is south of scripture it is between normal and Bryan it's about 1250 feet north of the UNT campus that 's about a five to ten minute walk so just to orient you to the site also wanted to let you know the request involves three tracks one of the tracks the largest and I'm indicating it here has split zoning on it a portion of it is DCG and a portion of its dr2 we'll go over that in a minute and then it includes two two other tracks to the south of that so the request before you is to consider a rezoning for approximately 1.39 acres from downtown residential to district to D downtown commercial general district the applicant has indicated that they would like to develop the site with multifamily development so so well first go over the the existing zoning pattern as well as the existing land uses so here in black is the subject property and here it's not very clear but you can see that here's the larger tract the the portion of it to the north has the the existing DCG zoning and then this is the subject property that we're talking about today the subject site is developed with a it was an institutional use that has been vacant for for a few years there's also two single-family homes on the subject property it is it is situated in a four block area that's north of the UNT campus this area has a primary zoning designation of dr2 it's developed with single-family uses with single-family dwell ings that are used as multifamily it's also developed with multifamily and some commercial uses within it so it's a mixed-use area to the north of the subject property across across from stricture scripture you have NRM U12 and NRM you those areas are developed with with multifamily dwellings with some single- family dwellings and some office uses to the south of the property once once again is the UNT campus and then I'm surrounding the area is is an area of established single-family traditional neighborhoods and those all have an NR 3 zoning designation and our three does not permit multif amily it doesn't permit commercial development it is one of our lower density zoning districts and then and then there are two areas in in the vicinity of the subject property that have historic district overlays we have the West Oak historic district and then the Oak history historic district any properties within those areas if they wanted to make changes to the facade of those properties would have to obtain a certificate of appropriateness either through our historic preservation officer or through the historic Landmark Commission and then and then the properties in the hot pink those actually have historic designations on those individual properties so there's a lot of layers in this area so yeah all right so the future land use of the subject property is neighborhood university compatibility area these are areas within the city that are affected by their proximity to the universities so TWU and UNT in this case it's UNT the intent is to create compatible form and land uses for areas that serve both those established neighborhoods that we talked about and the universities you want to have a gradual transition in scale use and character and you want to encourage uses in close proximity to encourage a multimodal transportation pattern that that encourages walking and biking just to stay on this map a little bit so so here is the subject property this sort of light hatch blue that's the neighborhood university compatibility area to just to the north of that this is that area that has the NRMU and NRMU 12 zoning and that has a future land use designation of neighborhood mixed use it's kind of the commercial to neighborhood serving commercial and then you have the low density residential and that that is on those those traditional established single- family neighborhoods so the considerations that staff looked at when we analyzed the request was first we looked to sub chapter 3 of the Denton Development Code and the criteria for approval the first criteria being does it meet the future land use designation in this instance the density and commercial development are something that is desired near a university area and DCG it permits both you know a density that that is appropriate for this area as well as some commercial uses DCG it because of the commercial uses because of the mixed use nature in the density and permitted with it it fosters the walkability the livability and the vibrancy on a track that has been in disuse for several years staff looked at it as a potential catalyst for revitalization an area between UNT and those established neighborhoods and the existing zoning pattern and those physical barriers scripture Street those those that grid Street pattern does provide unnecessary transition between the request and those single-family neighborhoods that we want to protect so let's go back to that zoning map so you can say here's the request the adjacent zoning allows that the development pattern to transition to get to that lower density and the lower scale of development in the nr3 another criteria for approval is adequate infrastructure a thorough infrastructure needs assessment will be done at platting and at site plan and and prior to a site plan being approved or plotting be our a plat being approved any development would have to meet the infrastructure requirements within the city of Denton the proposed rez oning includes the three tracks the largest of which has a split zoning and so by by rezoning the entire track to the DCG's district it would consolidate the zoning designation and that would permit the entire subject property to develop to develop under consistent zoning regulations can resulting in a more cohesive development and let's look at that so the actual proposed development that the applicant has indicated would include a total of three acres which is outlined in the black part of it already has that DCG zoning this is actually subject the subject to the request and by by rezoning to the DCG and consolidating that zoning it would provide consistent development patterns throughout there I'm here some site fight photos the Denton Development Code does have provisions in it that do address scale and those will come into play during the site plan and the building permit portion if if the zoning would be approved that would come in during the site plan and one of those things includes the residential proximity slope which allows which requires multifamily development to step back development over over 40 feet in order to maintain a human scale on at the street level and reduce the visual impacts for adjacent single-family uses it's not it's not applicable to this project but there are also potentially minimum setbacks and buffers when you do have a mix of uses in a zoning district or in an area and one thing that the neighborhood and that that we heard during the neighborhood meetings were concerns about traffic and I know that's a really big issue in that area because of the University so typically when we think of traffic and we think of too many cars on the roads we think well build bigger roads right that's that's typically how cities have addressed that but there is a concept called neighbor transportation efficient development and studies have shown that when you broaden your your scope when you're talking about transportation we're talking about traffic to not only include the roadways and that signals and all the things that we do in order for cars to move through streets more efficiently but also look at the land uses within a city and and and look at how those affect the amount of cars and the amount of vehicle trips per day that that our citizens have or undertake so so so studies have shown that compact mixed-use development near desired destinations such as employment centers such as university schools such as transit oriented developments that they that they result in fewer vehicle trips because when you place people within a walkable distance when you place them in places that they can have other options for for for moving about the city that they would they would potentially choose those and reduce the number of daily trips conversely when you maintain lower densities you actually end up spreading things out and you sprawl the students in this case throughout the city I'm inducing them to to get in the car to drive so by by getting the density near places like UNT places that are the dot desire destination actually takes the cars off the road because they park their car and they actually walk or bike to the destination and then here is a map that that looks at that so I just so I just chose the middle parcel and so here's here's a portion of the of the request and then this is the quarter mile buffer so you can see a quarter mile is about you know a five to ten minute walk so you can see that this area is within that that buffer zone that would induce residents to walk or bike to that desired location to that University area public notification was sent out we have received within the 200 foot buffer one in opposition and three in favor so based upon the criteria for approval or their consideration staff does recommend approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here questions for staff thank you Julie hold on Commissioner Roselle thank you chair thank you for your presentation Julie can you just help me contextualize the zoning it seems like there's like a peninsula that pops up of DCG but to the east and west and maintains and in our three do you have any context that you provide of why that is even dr2 on the pencil it just seems like more natural that that should have all remained yellow in color instead of this little pop-up of green do you know why I don't understand whether there's that inclusion of green to the north there unlike the neighborhoods left and right this was all zone during the citywide rezoning in 2002 and and I don't have that that knowledge as to why they chose the zoning districts that they did this is a mixed-use area so there were in 2002 a lot of multifamily dwellings and some commercial uses within there so I don't know if it would have met you know it wouldn't have been necessarily that single-family those more intact established neighborhoods they were at that time there were already some multifamily in there so I don't know if that played a role in that just curious thing sure Commissioner Sullivan thank you Judy what exactly is a walk able distance well I know for me it's not going to be very far it probably does depend on on the person but you know in planning we tend to think of about a 15-minute walk is a plate is you know a distance somebody would walk I mean it would probably depend on the destination but you know a five or ten minute walk in from a planning perspective is definitely a walkable distance because when I look at the University and where this is to say that it's a short distance to UNT is somewhat misleading is that it's on the very northern edge of where the chemistry building is when you go down to where the library is it's more of a 20-minute walk according to Google map I don't know how fast they walk to get over to fast field or to go across to apache nobody's gonna walk from these apartments and so I was just curious what a walkable distance is and how far do you stray from that walkable distance before it becomes a bussable distance or something of that nature I don't know but let me add one one thing to what I said it also has to do with context so if if a place has good sidewalks and street trees and it's an interesting walk people will tend to walk farther than across maybe a sea of concrete so so it probably depends on context and and then and then you know how how difficult it is to park at the destination or how or you know if that person likes to walk so but in general in planning we tend to think of a 10 to 15 minute walk as being something that's walkable is this a time where any kind of a traffic study would be done or is that is that more of the site plan issue a full time to get into the other discussion a full traffic study would be done during clad ding or site plan and answer more about timing I know the applicant has turned in some preliminary numbers but really that would take we would take a hard look at that during the planning and site plan okay thank you sure any other questions for staff thank you Julie sure have a lot of cards on this item first will be Lee Allison as the applicant , good evening commissioners I'm Paul Levine from Park 7 461 Park Avenue South New York and thank you for hearing our application this evening with me I have a few members of our team Mike Dallas who's our JV partner and landowner on this Mike resides in Austin we have Lee Allison from Allison engineering from here in Denton and Ron Butler from our architectural firm Humphries and Partners out of Dallas we 'd like to pool our time together if we made to take the 20 minutes 10 for each of you representing the applicant a total of 20 for everyone representing the applicant okay great thank you first I'd like to give you just a brief background on Park 7 we're a national multif amily developer we primarily target the student market we also do retail that is built in in conjunction with the multifamily development where it's appropriate over the past 15 years we've we've developed owned and operated over 8,000 units in 15 states around the country typically in a project like this will have five full-time staff on site as well as 10 part-time employees to help with leasing and so forth we certainly like Denton and you know what really has drawn us here is you know it's a great town for local food art you 've got young growing population to two great universities that are growing rapidly certainly a need for for student housing within a walkable distance to campus there's very limited opportunities here at the time for that what we're here for today is to Julie mentioned we really would like to spread out the zoning the density that we have over a large area as opposed to concentrating it on the 1.4 or 5 acre DCG portion of the site we'd like to spread it out over a larger footprint and bring the the average height of the building down this slide here basically shows the the side in yellow and just to give you an idea of proximity to the right and red is the okay Hickory historic district and West Oak historic district in purple and the blue is the University outline and if you look at the university's master plan it has this site included in its walking ring it's within the 10 minute to the center of the academic core which is located down just below the sea there on the slide and what's what's really good about this site is that is certainly going to reduce the need the demand for students to come from outlying areas you know two miles away from campus where they're either driving and parking in these neighborhoods or are taking a shuttle bus and I'll certainly reduce the pressure on the conversion of some single-family homes in these areas to multifamily student rentals to give you just a quick few slides on some sample projects we've done around the country this is an LSU it's a six-story project 277 units rat parking garage the next one is in Columbia South Carolina same thing six stories 22 7 units the materials here mix stucco fiber cement panels masonry and some metal panels next is in Lubbock six-story project and also walking distance to campus here we have a lot of masonry and stucco here are a few photos of interiors kitchen area with coffee bar game room ping-pong and pool there's a movie theater this is an internal courtyard that's fully enclosed for act or activities there's another lounge area and this is the many area that we put on top of the parking garage with a fitness center that overlooks this one this is a property that we have under construction in Waco at Baylor this is a five-story development and this is a rendering I brought to our first meeting community meeting back in September to get some input from the community on you know materials massing and so forth and after taking what we heard back to the architect we came up with the following plan here on this next slide and what we were able to do is incorporate some of the things we heard from the community which was to get the massing down we lowered the to four stories everything along the scripture and normal Street and at the corner of Brian and the height of that's about 46 feet to the peak and we were able to bring in some elements working with Roman as well here at the city some of the elements that we found in the buildings in the neighborhood mostly m asonry lap siding and some of the the trim work that you see there another thing we heard from the community was to try and push it back off the street so what we've done here is created large courtyard areas particularly off of scripture those go as deep as 60 feet from the back of the curb and they're 40 to 60 feet wide along normal they go as deep as 35 feet and they're about 40 feet wide there as well see feel that you know the the revisions we've made here certainly have have helped with with the issue of massing at the site to put it in context with you know some of the other multifamily properties in the area we've got City Park which is diagonally across the site and to the peak of their roof is roughly varies from 40 feet to gets up as high as probably 55 feet as you go down to ponders you start going down the hill from the sidewalk so we're talking comparable heights and fry Street even though it's a four- story building is 57 feet tall our fifth story would be 56 just one foot under that we are proposing however on top of the garage which you can see on this slide that's the the parking garage the center which is completely wrapped by units so it will not be seen from the street but we're proposing to put a small amenity area on top of that parking garage which would not be be able to be seen from the street like I showed you in that other rendering where a small fitness center that would look over a swimming pool. I'd like to point out the sustainable design practice we use we put you know we use recycled materials you know the hardening board has a lot of recycled wood fiber and so forth we do light colored roofs for less solar heat water source heat pumps low emitting em itting paint energy star appliances low flow fixtures LED lighting bicycle parking electrical vehicle charging stations inside the parking garage and we do sustainable landscape where we'll capture the rainwater and recycle it for irrigation. These are just the list of items that we feel that this project is bringing to the area as I've covered most of these already have already spoken I'll just leave those up there and the next thing I want to talk about is when we you know we're invested in this property already we own it with with our partner and we we needed to know what alternative plans were in the event that rezoning the property was not successful so we had a mass ing study done to know what is permitted under the current zoning and this is what adheres to residential proximity slopes and all the things that govern the massing you know this is while it's it's you know it's economically feasible we certainly don't feel that this is the best design for the neighborhood or for us either and we're hoping that we can through what we've incorporated into our initial designs and reducing the massing and landscape areas that we're able to do you know move forward with the plan that we have in front of you today. This is a slide that that just has that shows what's what's around the areas I talked about the different heights. Am I at ten minutes or is that okay I'll just wrap this up that these are properties that are located in proximity you see you Center Fry Street again and City Park you know both those are heights of up to 57 feet. Here is that a slide that just shows the cross section of why you Center and our proposed project at the fifth story level are the same height that has to do with a large height in the retail section. Here's a slide from Scripture Street driving towards Bryan you see on the right of City Park on the left would be on the left-hand side of the screen is what the four and five story building would look like it's it's it's fairly covered by by an existing tree at the corner there however the slide on the right is what the ten story massing would look like. This slide just as far as the the issue of zoning as you move away from UNT we've got DCG and then DR2 and then DCG again and then MRMU which allows up to 65 feet. We're proposing to offer an overlay that would limit the height of our building the maximum height to 70 less than 70 feet so that was more even out the the zoning heights as you move away from UNT. At this point I'll bring up Lee to talk about the neighborhood process. For your presentation that you've got a good product here and it's something we can use in Denton. I'm having a hard time with it in this location for a variety of reasons but an overlay of 70 feet in in this particular area is unacceptable to me. This is a well-established neighborhood classic homes homeowners live in it have taken care of it where just about any other place around UNT this product would work very well around TW and other parts of the city but as well as you've made it look and again I'm not picking on you here but this this thing is still huge by comparison to what's in the neighborhood and its footprint is big to me it just it doesn't seem compatible with the neighborhood it's in. We're dealing with a product that's S ROs or we're dealing with a transient student population as opposed to a more stable family population. The scale conflicts with the neighborhood and violates concept I think of gradual transition because this thing is just boom set in there and it sets apart from other things so you commented that the student population North Texas is growing and requires student housing but it 's really not up to the city to provide the student housing and I'm not sure it seems like every time we've had this kind of development here not sure but we had one other one over and one the historic district nobody from UN T has ever come to support the notion for these kind of developments there in fact they just broke ground recently I think near Kerr Hall which is near Eagle for 500 unit apartments so it sounds like they're trying to answer their problem but this development is nice as it is in a lot of ways and it would be again acceptable anywhere else but in this this this older area that's really kind of reflective of our heritage over the last hundred years it's just it would in my opinion create a slippery slope situation where more of these type of developments would come in and then we would see this neighborhood start to diminish so I are you open to an overlay district in fact we have something in our development code that does suggest a mixed neighborhood residential overlay that I would like to see shorter heights on something no more than three stories something that had less density greater setbacks and everything this gives you a chance to build a product that we can use again I would rather see a product that accommodates families as opposed to students but it could accommodate both of them and at the same time helps maintain the character of that neighborhood so what are your thoughts on something along those lines well something certainly at the three-story level in terms of density with their parking requirements that won't work in terms of economic feasibility I mean that's really the issue here is it wouldn't be worth building for you okay how are you not gaining by building something a little bit smaller scale than what you're proposing here it's not only can you not get a bank to finance it you can't get the investors to invest in it it's the the cost to build the project and the income you take in it's all based on how many units are in the project right so fixed costs are still the same your architects all your studies your engineers I've been doing this for a long time and unfortunately at a three-story project it wouldn't be feasible I know that well again I was like answers for you but I don't know being honest no I appreciate that my main concern here and I'm sure you and the other developers are aware that the neighborhood is really opposed to this project for understandable reasons this is again a settled established neighborhood and this kind of development we need dense right I mean I guess it's similar to you know a single-family developers not gonna build a house if he's gonna lose money doing that it's no different no no I agree that's not going to give us what we need we do need low-income housing more affordable housing I should say right but again it there are just places like developments are yours in my opinion respectfully or just off-limits and the north side of the UNT campus is that area it's frustrating to me to see these type developments come in and I can understand the appeal of it because of the the charm that area has but have y'all look seriously at any other area the West Side would be appropriate for this type of development all along Eagle on the south side yeah sure we have looked around and we were not able to locate a site and a lot of it has to do with the economics too of trying to acquire an existing running property there are not sellers over there that are willing to not at prices where you can still build a project I mean there you're basically having to buy their cash flow stream and it doesn't work unless you're talking about a significant change in density anyway thank you yeah any other questions I can answer any other questions mr. Solomon going back to the idea of walkability and you 've got the eight eight-foot sidewalks around your property yes how's that going to be impacted whatever they then walk on to didn't city of didn 't maintain sidewalks that are not eight foot that are not nice and new and clean and level and and what have you is that you think that's going to encourage or discourage walkers from their 20 minutes down to the library I'm going to be an improvement as to what's there as as properties develop in the future it'll be their responsibility to pick it up from there just like any other I do think that certainly creating a hardscape around the perimeter of the property with better lighting and you're just going to have a lot more foot traffic that's going to make more vibrant area safer area you know I sit there now and I watch this flows the kids coming from further away from a cross-strait so they're going to walk for sure it's a lot easier to walk and it is to try and park your car you know even shuttles where they drop me off we'll walk this five minutes the edge of the academic core and then you can take you know the shuttle from there if you want to go all the way to the other side of campus have y'all inquired with North Texas as far as buses running or DCT 8 buses running from the apartment complex to the campus we haven't talked about a direct route but that we always do when we get closer to opening okay thank you yeah Commissioner Taylor thank you chair could you go back to the the site rendering I'm just trying to wrap my head around what what dimensional things create this look here so that's you said that's that's an eight foot sidewalk there so then you so it's a like an eight foot sidewalk and about is that like a 20-foot side yard front yard yeah it varies in size but like the one like the the shortest distance not not understand you have for those pavilion back in the curves by 20 feet back this is an architectural rendering but having looked at the here's name and address please Lee Allison with Allison engineering group 4 401 North I 35 Denton Texas basically the code requires an eight foot sidewalk on Scripture but knowing the pedestrian interest around here we've proposed eight foot sidewalks all the way around the parkway in this section behind the curb is about eleven and a half feet and in working with the architect we've put the buildings ten feet behind the property line even though it's not there's no setback requirement here but we've put it ten feet back so we're about to the closest part of the building about 20 feet from the back of curb to the building long answer I hope that gave it yes so curb curb to building approximately 20 feet in this is the closest portion of the building yes as Paul mentioned in these deep recesses maybe as much as 60 feet from the curb to the and then this this is 46 foot top of the edge at front edge of the building there and that great Ron 46 feet for the front facade of the building so does that does that comply so if you're 10 feet off the property line and you have that 35 degree slope from 40 would that wouldn't that be below 46 feet wouldn't you be looking at like a 43 or 44 foot max at 10 feet off the property line across from a house if there's a house across the street from there we're very close to it but this has been set up so where there are houses we have met the residential proximity slopes so basically you'll push back the building yes across from the last and basically so that your building is underneath that line right and you and you did list you said a front front edge 50 46 feet and top of the building 56 feet yeah then you said you would need you would be comfortable with a 70 foot elevation that's 14 feet higher than your let me explain that see this is the parking garage and just you know mad basically a 10,000 square foot rectangle would sit on top of there yeah right up we were going to locate it right about here you'd have a rectangle that would sit up here that would have a fitness center in it that would overlook the swimming pool that would be in the top of the parking garage so that's the difference okay so that would be an extra 12 or something feet above the fifth floor right and what we're saying here is that when you from a sight line from the street view the front portions of the building because it's so set so far back you won't be able to see that part of the building from the ground right yeah and so now looking at this the view you kind of I know this site plans are non-binding we're not really evaluating site plans but just to get an idea of scale here it looks like you've got 40 units of floor is that so you'd be looking at what is that 250 229 okay and I'm assuming that's that's your whatever profit point that's the that's the market point you need to reach that's when we talk about restricting the height you lose units can't can't make it work at 130 units you need your 200 or whatever it is so yeah I think those were all the dimensional things like I said I'm just trying to get my head around what all what else is going to hear thank you another question Commissioner Roseau thank you chair thank you for the presentation yeah I just wanted to maybe clarify for myself as well as maybe for the edification for anyone else can you show us the 10-story option that you had it's your understanding that this option more or less presented here if our Commission tonight does not approve the rezoning this project is economically feasible and able to be built by right correct and so what you're asking is instead of building this to disperse the density that this provides right over the course of larger property that's right so I feel compelled to think back over a recent case that some of the commissioners held here as well and in Buc-Ease I'm not sure if you're familiar with Buc-Ease case but it was a similar situation in which an applicant was asking for something and if denied they could build whatever they know we've got a commissioner that's been in another meeting who's gonna rejoin us Commissioner Hesbeth welcome back okay Mr. Roseau please continue anyways to shorten the story we had an opportunity to ask Buc-Ease to do certain things because they were asking for something I feel like this is a very similar situation in which the Commission has an opportunity to think through an option that's less intrus ive than what y'all can build by right and what my concern is initially and I obviously I'm gonna listen to the public and and process through this but my concern is is that if we deny the agenda item tonight that although that would be a win per se for the neighbors to deny something it might be ultimately a loss if they have a hundred foot building in their backyard and so it might be worth considering for individuals in the audience as well as this Commission to think through the two options on the table is potentially a 70 foot dispersed building or or this which to me I call monstrosity and so that's something to be thoughtful of right and I have one more thing I just want to add for the record that we obviously can't tie to a site plan when we're talking about the zoning so since he's offering to do it at a lower level than what the zoning that zoning change would allow we would still have to entertain something similar to it the mixed use residential district that Commissioner Beck had indicated and that's under 35 point five point two four of the didn't development code and typically that's for in our MU properties that are your residential properties like in our two or in our one but in this case the wording of that particular section of our ordinances will allow us to do it in this case so you have that available to you where we could do a mix use overlay in this case over the zoning layer in order to top it out at 70 feet or whatever height that you wanted to be thank you you want to respond one more point but one years on as far as you know that additional height that I think might be you know concerning a way to restrict that would be you know to say you know not more than 15% of the footprint could be above you know the whatever our fifth floor is 57 feet or 60 feet let's say would not be above it so it's clearly the intent is for that amenity area and not from for some larger area at that height we can do that as well so the last thing I wanted to say at this point was it 's been brought up a couple times and I believe two weeks goes brought up in my absence about it's not the city's responsibility to provide housing for the University of North Texas which I agree with however every time there's a housing need fulfilled by the University of North Texas the city didn't receive no taxes for that and so in terms of tax revenue and a basis for that it's not necessarily not that it's our obligation as a city to provide housing for North Texas however providing housing period is taxes that you know Texas will not give us when they build a dorm right and I think that and I think that's on a later slide but the increase in the assessed value I think it's 30 fold it's something like 1.3 million up to 33 million in terms of the tax would be generated property tax right yeah thank you Commissioner Beck thank you chair just a quick response to Commissioner Roselle's statement about a loss of property tax and that's true but it's not like it would be revenue void with extra students coming in they buy products they go to restaurants and movies and stuff like that so we still gain some revenue from that in relationship to our legal attorney here Jennifer Curtis pointing out that we do have more than the option of approving this as is or denying it as is we can approve this project with an amendment that would bring in this mixed-use residential overlay and substantially reduce the footprint here and I understand the concern about it being profitable and all that and this area does need to be cleaned up okay there's some there's some messy areas in there but again I think overriding all this is we have to keep in mind the character of the neighborhood that's very important to that that weighs more heavily than a lot of the other things that are of economic value to you and I think if we can create an overlay district that will allow you to build something that will fulfill the needs of the student population creating low-income housing and again keep this neighborhood in a state that it's been for virtually a hundred years that that's a win-win situation it's not a win-win situation if if you're building something any anything above five stories seven stories ten stories because eventually it's going to diminish the value the property around there that'll sell off more these type of developments will come in and then we've lost exactly what we want to preserve here an important part of Denton's heritage right right I think Lee's going to continue the presentation and how much time does Lee have we've had a lot of questions and I don't know how much he has an additional ten minutes ten minutes ten minutes okay I was wondering how much time we had left I do want to back up to this particular slide we prepared this as a result of miss Ellis's question last session regarding the changes in densities etc and how things get zoned the way they do and and why things change and in a very small city you might like saying where I'm from you might expect an umbrella type pattern where you got high density in the middle and things thin out as you go away as you get larger cities you're going to have different use areas and as a result you'll have changes and we cut this section right through our site with the University of North Texas on the left it is not subject to zoning restrictions so there are no height limits it steps down to a DCG which has a hundred foot limit then it steps down to a dr2 that has a 45 foot limit then it steps back up for another service area that has a DCG with a hundred foot limit which is part of our site and then it has a cross from our site there's both NRMU which is a 65 foot limit and NRM U 12 which has a 40 foot limit and behind that is the NR3 that has a 40 foot limit as well as the NRMU 12 the crossed hatch area where I proposed site is we 're looking at a 70 foot height maximum but that includes the recreation area that mr. Taylor discussed earlier down from that we got the five stories set in some and then out in the immediate fronts where it four stories or about 45 feet which is very comparable to the dr2 and the NRMU 12 that are adjacent to it see if I'm going the right next direction October 5th we had an initial neighborhood meeting this was before well we got our application into the city before official meetings with the city we brought the project from Waco to use as a talking point to get neighborhood comments and feedback after that we contacted Roman McAllen and Ron and I the architect made a walk around the area to see what we could find in the way of themes what's going on there pretty ec lectic there are tree-lined streets everywhere except on our current site so we're looking at getting ridding some of the driveways and adding trees there we're not going to put more dumpsters on the streets like there and we're not going to add overhead electric lines we think we've made it attractive and tried to find ways to architecturally be respectful of and even blend and work with the community after that we came back for another neighborhood meeting on December 7th I showed what we had come up with after the meeting with them some people were pleased some were just glad we did what we did but like a little different some people still didn't like it at all to be honest neighborhood concerns proximity to historical districts were 660 feet from the closest one and the code puts in protections against those such as the residential proximity slopes insufficient parking we're meeting the code and right now there's a lot of people walking from even further north than where we are on the existing city sidewalks because they're parking way out there to try and find a place to get to campus so there's a lot of walking going on enforcement of parking we're having an on-site wrapped garage that doesn't help enforcement of parking that's an issue out there it's going to be an issue after this complex is there we're not going to meet that much of the university's needs building height we're proposing less than code and we're certainly willing to have an overlay restriction to help make sure that limit is enforced even after the zoning is approved if we're so fortunate parking block solid waste we 're going to have on-site facilities we're not going to add to that neighborhoods concerned about traffic we're paying our impact fees we did accomplish a traffic impact analysis preliminary traffic counts I'll just mention more in a minute future improvements to scripture the neighborhood asked about that and there's not any in the city's capital improvements program at this time it is classified as a commercial collector dust and noise building permit process we're not any different than any other construction capacity of existing infrastructure it appears to be okay but we'll put a detailed analysis together as we proceed with site planning and planning impact upon surrounding businesses we think as those on Fry Street have have done better as a result of the increased density there we think with these housing that'll help the businesses in the area to some degree demand for housing still extraordinarily high and we're not really going to address a large part of UNT's demand for housing some of the ways we think it helps work together with the communities that are dresses some of the demand for student housing keeps it off on the tax rolls rather than off property value around 33 million reduces the need for student occupied home rentals I did an analysis based on UNT's projection of 2025 having a population of 45,000 students their master plan says they're going to house 9,600 and 83 53 of those students basically that leaves 35,000 students unhoused if we assume that 60% of those will live in the area and the other 40% will commute that's 21,200 beds but that's still generating 28,000 trips per day and commuters coming into the area to attend UNT if that entire area was owned in our four and all the students rented houses it would require 1,325 acres of NR for to accommodate those students I think that helps explain why there's the high pressure the high demand for student rentals in that area that seemed like a fast ten minutes I 'm sorry that's I want to honor that okay you know if it was all dr2 with the two-story type apartments it would take 440 acres to accommodate those same number of students DCG with 150 units per acre which is what we're asking for it would take 88 acres what we're proposing in our 620 beds it would take about 120 acres to accommodate all those and those are just for perspective you got to look at other things like what's already out there and and how it's going to change around but there would be some overlap but we are trying to meet some of the university needs there reduces the number of commuters yeah we're gonna take our 28,000 down to 27,600 you know it's not gonna make a huge difference we're not asking for any public assistance there's some crime issues around the building right now with vagrants entitlement allows for 100 foot we're looking at 68 parking meeting code wrapped garage etc we looked at the existing don't zoning the city's only documents tell us this is a good place to put this facility we looked at the Denton plan 2030 it says that that's what's supposed to be going here we looked at the Denton development code and we looked at the residential setbacks and other things to see what we can put in there we looked at the didn't criteria manuals we're exceeding some of the requirements as far as some of the setbacks we've looked at historical districts and landmarks and stayed a decent distance away from those this the zoning allows for all that we went through the UNT master plan in detail to see how we would work together with them in that area and I agree the city of Denton is not responsible to provide housing for UNT students on the other hand the UNT students are there UNT is the gorilla in the room and that demand for for housing is going to be there the demand for parking and the demand for transportation it's all going to be there regardless the question is are they going to live there are they going to commute there are they going to live in houses over 500 acres or more they're going to live in apartments over 50 to 100 acres or 200 acres and that's the kind of planning that the city has to grapple with I just get to come up here and challenge you with it all that's a little easier we did do the TIA as far as running the numbers there's not any curves in the transportation of Institute of Transportation Engineers manual so we went out and found some independent studies that had been done on apartments we show for our side is we're proposing it we do not trigger the requirements for a TIA but we're still going to do one anyway when we get into the planning process we presented that report to the city and the staff went out and ran some traffic council an existing apartment complex of student housing and found that our studies were in line with what they're finding in the in the local areas we found a number of studies that show if you're within walking distance of a university that student housing typically parks about 70% of the number of bedrooms if you're within public transportation is within about 80% 85 and as you get away from all of that you probably needing to be on a one-to-one we're still following the code and this will be quoted parked essentially at the one-to-one this shows the surrounding area and what the uses are by the type we've got businesses we got houses in yellow that have been converted to businesses we've got existing apartments in the area that may explain why the type of zoning that's in this area mr. Rose lle is and how it got there blue houses are single-family we did find one house we say it's owner occupied and that's because we saw that they have a homest ead exemption and a vacant lot that's the real ten minutes all right we're out of here appreciate it thank you very much some questions for you yes Commissioner back here in response to your statement about expectation student population growth I understand that I'm not one to you know put a roadblock up for growth but the fact that the expectation is there doesn 't mean we have to meet it at the highest level we control growth and we should control growth we won't set the city of Denton to grow but we want to go to steady rate and we wanted to grow in ways that negatively impact important areas like this neighborhood north of UNT you mentioned that city future land use map and everything indicate this was a good place to build but I would just bring up the point that maybe we should discuss in more detail that this attraction to this area is partly due to the fact that this DCG designation along Scripture was part of some city planning back in part of city back in 2002 and for the life of me I can't understand why they thought DCG would be appropriate there I don't think everybody fully understood what that entailed now Commissioner Taylor and I talked briefly he thinks he understands why that was put there and I'd be glad for him to share that but that was probably a mistake and that's maybe neither here there but it maybe is something that we need to revisit depending on where this goes and why they never considered to put it back to DR - I don't know but that's part of the reason why this particular area has a certain pill for you because you've got a foothold in there with that DCG so again you guys build a great product I'm always pleased when you come up and present your stuff and you've done a lot of great things around the city but the bottom line it just there's areas where you should build this and there's areas where you shouldn't and this is just one of them in my opinion it should I understand what you're saying and that's why you're there and I'm here and I'd also suggest related to that one of the issues in finding sites is concrete city is zone DR - who wants to go and redevelop concrete city from two story apartments to higher density when the density zoning is not there yet so well it's possible the Commission may be more receptive to rezoning that area to the city so thank you any other questions for the applicant all right Commissioner Husbeth well I have another are there more cards to speak we haven't started yet then I'm gonna I'm gonna take notes and then I ask you back up but and I'll if I may thank you chair continue I think when I listen to the citizens speak and I take in your perspective really what I have to reconcile and what I'm gonna ask you afterwards is this how do you how are you if you counterbalance the neighborhood wants certain things that don't fit your business plan right so we have there's there 's an impasse how do you how do I know how to process that but I want to I'm gonna ask you how you process that how do you get to where you where you are I don't think I think there's some real challenges with that on the edge of a transit transitional district and so I'll just I'm just giving you time to think as they speak I personally have to weigh their concerns and yours and the rights but I and I'll tell you I'm biased with respect to the the narrative and that I will ask you about the if then if this than that that you that's in your narrative I've never seen that before and I don't I mean it rubs me different and so I'll ask you about that but I want to I want to hear what the citizens in the neighborhood have to say but but I wanted to give you a head start so that I'm not not blindside we'll be here tonight we're not going away sure some of that I'll have to refer to Paul but sure we'll get your questions and appreciate it thank you sir anything else and see none thank you I thank you and this is a public hearing I've got a number of cards requesting to speak first of which is Mary Anderson at 924 West Oak if you'll state your name address and thank you all for being here again and your cards marked in opposition you know yes Mary Anderson as you said 924 West Oak there are so many things wrong with this I'm not sure where to start what is D CG zoning is that multifamily this is an SRO it is not a multifamily operation so that's already wrong the traffic is horrible the roads are way too small to handle all these units and I hear words but no data I don't see real hard references about parking well the cars got to get there and they got to get out this overlays a very close to Oak Street which nobody bothers to show that Denton Regional or whatever it's currently called now no Denton Presby is on the ambulance route while you guys were talking on something else I was outside hearing six fire trucks go up Oak Street texting my husband is everything there no they 're going past they're gonna roll right past there how are the ambulances and fire trucks gonna get to any of these buildings this is a real safety issue the roads on Oak Hickory and scripture have you been down them lately oh my gosh I don't want to start it's horrible what are 229 units they are not apartments they are not family places they are transient places where eventually homeless they live and I hope we find places for them to live I don't know what is about anybody having a community meeting I never got notice of a community meeting when was this nobody sent it around to the community who was this and walking around those none of those ever got to me I'd be there telling you this is kind of crazy and finally I looked at what the applicant has here or close to finally it says that the applicant is beta mu somebody's name Paul Levine says he's the owner is D the applicant isn't this all mute I mean he 's not the person that actually asked for this so why are we listening to Paul Lev ine if beta mu is doing the request one of my questions and frankly can we send carpet baggers going away from my neighborhood they don't want this in your neighborhood you don't want them building 10-story buildings in your neighborhood please give us a little respect treat us right thank you mr. Beck we need a little bit of respect before you come in say oh we're just gonna throw this up there's services of water sewer all downhill you know you can build it you just want to be greedy no carpet baggers thank you Randy hunt 722 West Oak to be followed by John Warren so I wanted to follow up with a sorry I'm Randy hunt 722 West Oak and there's probably at least 10 more people it should be here but they 're all sick like I am but we're toughening out because we respect a neighborhood and we appreciate the fact that y'all do too so you asked me a good question last time and the question was when was the last time you talked with the Texas Historic Commission why I can give you an update I did on Monday and what I found out is that they've given us staff approval for us to have a National Register District with about 350 structures in it so the map that we're showing right here this is around Calhoun and this is the area that we're talking about right now now I don't know why in the world this area between our historic district and the West Oak Historic District was written off we can't allow that I want to show you a map of what it didn't look like in 1917 hundred years ago so here it is and this is our core this is our culture this is why people come to Denton this is why they're proud of it this is our downtown core area and these jokers want to put a 10-story structure in it oh this is a residential area has been for over a hundred years and we need to respect that that's a residential area now you know I hear this argument about the you know they can't make money on it well you know what I you asked a good question last time you asked about compromises I would compromise and have the Med Park people put something in over here but you know when when there was a public meeting per se that these guys called it wasn't a city called meeting one of the people that was there lives in the area his name is Craig Clifton he's in the hospital right now but he was told well you know if you don't like this we'll just put seven to ten stories there so I would say to y'all fine if that's what they want to try to do let them but respect our neighborhood and give us a chance to create a national register district over here so I asked the Texas Historic Commission as well as another state agency what would happen if if there was a structure there and they say you ever been to around Texas Tech you ever been to Lubbock it said you know why would the people and didn't want to write off a neighborhood like that so that's what we're up against and you know there is no compromise that's what you're hearing and I would dare venture to you that the reason that Lee asked for a two-week delay is because he was doing an AMA visit you know management style and he went around to talk to city council members to see if he could get their support that's not compromise that's manipulation we need to protect a historic area that's been there for over a hundred years this was the area that was built up by the by the faculty that started the North Texas Normal College give us a chance thank you have a question for you Commissioner Beck thank you chair thanks for your presentation you do so eloquently would you be opposed you mentioned that either voted up or voted down but if we voted down then it runs the risk of them bringing in that ten foot would you be opposed to the idea of this this overlay district that I suggested to keep it from exceeding certain limits I would propose heights that wouldn't go beyond three stories lower densities more closely related to what DR2 is would you be opposed to something like that no I'm all about compromise okay you know we don't have to have it a particular way but make it look like the rest you know there's already a three-story structure there that was on you know the old flow hospital three stories okay because we want to think ultimately the idea here is to protect this area long term and not exactly right you know what we all saw from Med Park that was three stories these guys want to say it has to be their way or the highway I'm saying go hit the highway okay thank you sir another couple questions for you Commissioner Roselle thank you sir thank you mr. Hahn for your presentation I wasn't here last meeting and maybe I missed this what are the dots represent those are structures that were already identified by the Texas Historic Commission as contributing houses so all of those black dots are things that make an area contributing so to get a national register area you have to have at least 50% of all the structures within an area to be contributing you know to have integrity of how it looked like when it was first built okay so it looks like on the block and in question between normal Brian between oak and scripture you have 14 contributing structures I see nine multifamily complexes and some of these dots that you have listed here are in fact look like multi-story building some it was is this recent or these apartments this was back in 1995 these dogs are was in 95 when the survey was done okay and the survey hasn't been updated that's what we're currently doing we're asking the Texas Historic Commission would they also consider this area as you know an extension of the National Register District that they've already approved by staff that we're working on right now and they're like if you get busy is the process once the staff approves that at Texas Store Commission will they resurvey this to see these apartments or what's the process do you know yeah we we have to go out and do the footwork we take pictures we we do the ownership we do the research for it and then we let the Texas Historic Commission define if it's contributing or not and that has not been done yet not for this area okay for the area on that side of the green line it all has there's about 350 structures in there okay thank you okay no more questions thank you John Warren to be followed by Anita Ramsey I'm John Warren I live with my wife and four children at 11 09 West Congress and I think I originally put in opposition to this project I still would probably land there living in the neighborhood my primary concern though more than what the structure looks like because I feel like this this portion of the peninsula as mr. Ozel mentioned it it sort of was the historicity of it sort of way by by long ago when they were allowed to build all these apartments on it I drove up and down the streets today there's 18 apartment complexes on between those two streets and all the houses are just dwarfed by those apartments and so that's less of a concern to me the greater concern living and and having a family close to this prop this project is is the traffic and I don't know what PNZ has in terms of your decision-making regarding how you think about the traffic in the neighborhood but it's already terrible the students will walk to campus but they're gonna drive to Kroger which means they're gonna drive down scripture on to ponder and then on to my street where there was a hit and run last week and it happens consistently and so I don't know how that plays into again your guys's decision to rezone it but that that becomes my primary concern living in the neighborhood and I just want to thank you guys for your voluntary service I think sometimes we can be pretty angry and emotional in our presentations but you guys are voluntarily giving your time and so I think you're to be commended for that and we should exercise restraint and patience as we address you and so I appreciate what you guys do thank you thank you have a question for you Commissioner Hussbett so John I'm gonna use you as a case study okay right so if the size doesn't bother you that that's great but so the other apartments there because I've driven it and best I can tell they're about two two stories and again I forget we're flow hospital that might be three how do you when you when you're driving let 's say you're driving up up scripture or whatever so that's uphill so that's kind of different so let's say we're leaving chopsticks going the other way yeah I the fact that it would double everything else for I mean it'll be like 10 miles I mean that I mean I get I get the traffic thing but the aesthetics thing doesn't really affect you yeah well there's city park apartments right across the street that I mean this rendering is much more aesthetically beautiful than City Park that's this gigantic yellow stucco right monstrosity that's across the street from this so right this looks better to me than City Park which is right next door and much better than what's what's currently there I I don't however love the sort of veiled kind of threat I won't call it I mean maybe that's not what they're doing I'm with you that doesn't feel great it 's it's accurate yeah okay thank you thank you sir Annetta Ramsey to be followed by Patrice like my name is an ad Ramsey I live at 722 West Oak Street I am opposed to another single residence occupancy unit in a historic neighborhood where the norm is one story I'm concerned that the compromise has been asked for and the only compromise that's been offered is you can have something you don't like or something you really don't like that is not compromise UNT and TWU have 45,000 students and not all of those students live in town many of them commute and they're happy doing that many of them commute with public transportation which is what I did when I first started graduate school many of these students are graduate students they're married they're not in a place where they would be candidates for these housing units but by the city's own estimate last year you have 9,400 rent by the room things and so if you do the math that's 20% of the students I think you're already pushing maximum density if this is a service to UNT why is UNT not speaking about that don't you think their silence is kind of deafening I do I think they would speak up if they thought it was a good thing I have spoken with them and I just I think that these units do not do a good job for students I work with a lot of college students and the students that I work with who were in residence halls make good grades and they graduate on time because they have a lot of support from the university the students who live in these units are in a party atmosphere the SRO units cannot because of the fair housing act turn people away because they're not UNT or TW students so they get some people in there who want a party and it's not in their best interest and so a lot of the students that I have worked with have ended up leaving UNT and going on to another university because they failed out but I hear a lot of awful stories and the most common one is where a roommate decides to move in a boyfriend or a girlfriend and nobody wants to say anything because they don't want any drama about that or someone gets a pet and then they're never around to care for the pet pet damages the property and then all of the roommates have to pay for it but the saddest story I heard happened in City Park and it was where a client got raped in her own bedroom and it was some guy who showed up at a party that her roommates threw they were all underage he had alcohol he was 21 so he brought alcohol to the party they all got drunk I think she got drugged he dragged her into her room and raped her and her roommate saw what was going on but they didn't want to call the police because they were drinking underage they were doing something bad to be sure there are some students who are happy in these units but they're very expensive it's eight hundred to a thousand dollars a room so it's not cheap it's not something that many families can afford I have two sons they live at home they go to UNT but they live at home and I think that there are a lot of people like me and Denton who want to get their kids out of college without debt so I am begging you please please do not let UNT encroach anymore I love the university but they've already encroached in every direction please don't let them go north thank you thank you Patrice like we're lucky followed by Deb Armenter I was after adjust okay I'm Patrice like 1109 Egan so I live in the Pecan neighborhood that is just right near the site that we're talking about I first have a question about the historical preservation officers visit to this site it's a question I guess for staff is this protocol for the HPO to visit sites and did our HPO indicate that this area has no historical significance is like our HPO is present and I will ask Roman to come down and address his site visit with the applicant and answer some of the questions that you've just asked okay I'll remember where my time was thank you thank you for let me come up my name is Roman Mc Allen I'm the historic preservation officer for the city of Denton and this is my first opportunity to talk about this but I want to make sure I just directly answer your question on protocol I don't this is I try to be very customer service oriented when I work as a preservation officer for the city I had the same role the city of Brownsville and that I was just called to come out and consider this property and the project that was going on here and I knew it was situated between two historic districts and I knew was surrounded by a lot of historic resources that if if one were able to if we were to move forward with creating a historic district in this area that there were potentially contributing resources there so whenever I have the opportunity really to get involved early in anything and I to answer your question I didn't say I didn't support this and I think Lee will support me on this I just walked around with the architects and with them and pointed out what I saw is contributing for example there are two houses on this proposed site that would be contributing resources if there were a historic district but you might have to gerrymandered around the large number of apartment units unless they're over 50 years of age and get into all that but I visited as just as I always will with anyone anyone in the city who calls me unless you know my supervisor would say don't do that or something I tend to just come out not pass judgment but offer my knowledge about preservation when that happens I don't know question for you Commissioner Rizzo thank you I appreciate you being here I have one question this site currently is vacant is to your understanding correct and so it doesn't contribute historically in any measurable way to the neighborhood currently well I'm sorry I mean no no that's part a well it 's its vacancy doesn't make it non-contributing it's the building that's there so and your estimation is part B of this question is there any project or development that would contribute to an historical neighborhood if it's built in 2017 meaning if we were to construct an old craftsman style home would that in your estimation now contribute to the historicity of the neighborhood or is there anything there that could increase the function of that property well the short answer is no you could build something that for example in the other three districts we have designed architectural guidelines there so most of our districts are almost completely full so if you look at West Oak okay Korean the Bell Avenue there aren't a lot of vacant lots there so but there's still architectural regulations in each of those districts and if someone chose to build in there they would have to comply with those regulations and the landmark Commission would consider the project and see if it fits in well with the district but that particular building that you build would not be contributing and it's just due to its being new typically though not always 50 years is the mark but you might have especially today with the popularity and the recognition of mid-century architecture where that line moves along for example here in Denton we have the so-called idiot seal area. More question and I've been tapped told we need to kind of move for this. Commissioner back. Thank you chair thank you Roman. What you evaluated was the specific property that we're talking about rezoning you didn't evaluate anything outside the parameters of that we walked the street and and we noted I think together but I mean I was put it mainly pointing out what would be a contributing building if there were a district buildings that obviously and anyone who goes down the street can kind of tell the the wooden structures with the double hung windows or things like that so we did point out on the facing streets there that day we just walked around the three sides of the property. So roughly in a say two or three hundred foot circumference of the area that might be historical value to some of the buildings there? Well yes. Okay okay thank you. No thank you I have no further questions appreciate it. Thank you. Miss like you think you had three minutes or so left to go? 320. 320. All right thank you okay so thank you for cleaning that up Roman. Now so I got up and spoke two weeks ago I missed Commissioner Rizel I missed Commissioner Sullivan but again as somebody who lives very very close to this site I understand I'm a new I'm a lover of the new urbanist style and I do agree that in particularly in the core of Denton density well managed and well situated density is going to be important for a sustainable Denton. Now part of I noticed that the apartment complex that was approved I understand it was a different zoning district but the early apartment complex that was approved first of all apartments not SROs and I do I do agree with Ms. Anderson that SROs are not multifamily they are glorified dorms but the other apartment complex required an SUP to do residential only and one of the problems I think with this proposed development and of course we all know that this the zoning could change they could flip this property tomorrow there is nothing tying any of these site plans these elevations any of this landscaping to the zoning request we all know that but there's no commercial there's no mixed-use proposed thus far the zoning category that's being requested wouldn't require that right and yes these people are going to have to get in the car and go buy head of lettuce now it's true you can get to walk to CVS you can get your shampoo there are no groceries to be found nearby all of these people they may be walking they may be taking their bike but they're going to be on our streets they are going to be driving down Congress Street past mr. Warren's house they're going to be driving down oak they're going to be driving down Hickory the north and north side of campus is really not meant to house students it will always be on the tax rolls Commissioner Roselle I'm if we put 500 bodies on the UNT site it's not going to make any difference if we put those bodies on scripture because the development there whatever that development is is going to generate taxes we don't lose anything UNT has 500 beds coming online they have they've been approved for 500 more beds UNT wants their students on campus right now there are approximately 37,000 students enrolled at UNT about 31,000 of them are undergraduate students but 3,000 students are a hundred percent online and that includes students who are also the current count includes students who are part-time students as well so when we're looking at 9,000 SRO beds right now this is not necessary for Denton not necessary for UNT and it's completely contextually inappropriate for the neighborhoods to the north another question for you one more question Commissioner Taylor thank you dr. like I have have a few questions I think I have one question if I wrap it up altogether okay so I'm going to try and do that you obviously have an interest in the historic area the historic nature of the area and you said you have a preference for new urban new urbanist design I do and how do we balance those two things in a contextual design that would be appropriate for this area I think that the density does have to decrease for one thing the body the beating heart density but it also needs to have some type of commercial opportunities that the neighborhood can partake in it is a very we're a walkie neighborhood my neighbors walk to chopsticks all the time and we you know walk to CVS the CVS really has been an amenity up there near Fry Street but as it is you know we're not you know we would appreciate more commercial more retail more neighborhood scaled services in that area remembering that when I moved to the neighborhood flow hospital still stood and that's how a lot of that zoning came about by the way over on scripture in that area is because we supported a hospital and the hospitals gone you know you don't expect your institutions to just pack up leave and get bulldozed but it was but a lot of the again the good services amenities and just things that were available to the neighborhood were things we would have welcome back okay and to follow up you said fewer like as you put it fewer bodies like a lower lower person density right I know you've got some experience with the the dimensional and technical aspects of zoning what what would that be in units an acre height or something like that what is your what is your number well part of it I think is mass because there are yes many apartment complexes they're low intensity both in scale height their apartments and so and that's one of the things about the SRO is to be honest with you and again I do I teach at UNT I teach these people I like them I'm not saying I don't want to live near my students but we have a lot of faculty who would like to live near campus they were we have a lot of staff who would like to live near campus and the faculty and staff whom I've known who've lived near the university have chosen to live if they can find a place in low intensity two-story apartment complexes that are nearby so it is a matter of mass it's a matter of scale I can't say okay I think it should be this many beating hearts per acre but something that again is contextually this is so contextually insensitive both in scale and in usage that it's I find it just inappropriate button up against my neighborhood and you know being to both the east and to the west of two other historical neighborhoods thank you one more question Commissioner Roselle thank you chair thank you for speaking out and nailing the time well done some individuals have talked about not having a need for this type of development but you mentioned something in your answer you said that if your fellow professors can find a place are you hearing that it's difficult to find a place to live near campus it is right for people who move to town their new faculty and who would like to get a feel for Denton before they commit long term to a neighborhood or to a house many people would like to be closer to campus we have a couple of my colleagues spend part of their year in another state they don't want to own a house but they sure would like to live close to campus a lot of the time my students will graduate and be interested they start like leading real adult lives but they can't continue to lead them right and living right where they would like to live so there really is a market for people who would be interested in maintaining I like living close to UNT I have lived in apartment close to UNT and I think there's a there's a market for for this sure thank you Commissioner Beck thank you chair do you think it's our oaths are the type of dwellings that would meet their needs I have a really hard time supporting as our oaths for one thing it is it's a in my opinion a different usage you know an apartment is meant to house people who have you know have a community once you develop build an SRO the possibilities in my opinion and I don't I'm not an interior designer but you'd never be able to return that dot that configuration to an apartment where somebody may say I'm going to live here with my wife and children for a couple of years while I'm you know getting a feel for Denton and you know the SRO is sold some of the time as an inexpensive alternative there are dorm the high that the priciest dorm itory on UNT's campus is about $790 a month and the lowest is about $440 a month there as we become find more places on campus since we've got the potential for a thousand beds we will you know be able to house people on campus you know keep them closer potentially save them money this way and no I don't think the SROs are compatible with neighborhoods again I like my students but I know that their investment in you know a community in an SRO is scanty I drive I walk by you center at the end of every semester and they bring open dumpsters and park them in Oak Street and just throw stuff in and I'm not talking clothes they didn't take to the goodwill I'm talking they're throwing toilets away they're throwing drywall away I mean it must be a pricey venture to refurb after every move out at the end of every semester but they've got big roll away dumpsters out there so it can't be that much more keeping up an apartment thank you Deb Armentar hi Deb Armentar do I need to say my address yeah 2003 Misty Woodlane I really appreciate the comments that others have made and I want to try not to repeat things that others have said I too am opposed to this SRO I too believe that a private dorm like this does not belong in a hundred- year-old historic neighborhood especially one that is so important to the very identity of this town I want to say a couple of things about the process by which this development has has come up for discussion number one I just want to express just how surprised and I must say disappointed I was to hear that staff approved this incompatible building in such an obviously his historic neighborhood that we hear spoken of so often as part of our historic downtown the the pride and joy of Denton and I also want to speak kind of forward in the process even though I know you're not counsel you're your P&Z but that when this goes forward and I I hope that you all vote vote no to this and vote with the people and instead of with the the developer who is in this for-profit and doesn't have to to live with all this I hope the council remembers that this this wonderful city that we have that they keep touting as such a filled with so much charm such a so unique so unlike Plano Arlington and in some of the newer cities around us that when they if they say yes one by one to proposals like this they're essentially killing the thing that they love and Denton will no longer be Denton if it gets taken over piecemeal by developments that request an inter granted exceptions and exemptions one after the other we need long-term city planning that respects neighborhoods and when change does come and I believe in in change there 's always I mean change is always good we don't want to resist changes for the sake of change for the sake of resisting change but change the best change comes from the grassroots the best change comes from the people so if there were people if there were students at UNT who were just begging for another one of these expensive private dorms you know then at least we could say there's a need for that if UNT was asking for this we could say there's a need the best way to establish need is really to see if people are asking for it and if people aren't asking for it and I don't hear anyone asking for it except the the developer and and again I was surprised that that our staff planning staff recommended it then that says there's not a need for it so anyway it just seems like a no-brainer to me so anyway thank you very much all of you for volunteering for your time and thanks for the neighborhood who came out I don't live in this neighborhood but I happen to work at UNT I teach at UNT I love my students my the students I teach can't afford to live in a place like this I know there's some who can but I know that there are none who are crying out for this so anyway thank you very much thank you we have a lot of cards I have actually just for the record I've got 21 in opposition and I have two in support and I'm going to just read the ones that I have that have notes on them but just for the record that's what we have in opposition and support I have Christy Woods opposed this area is an older community single family it does not lend itself to absorbing the proposed change in zoning John Bennett who is opposed SRO is not the best type of use in our neighborhood have a net of Ramsey opposed there's no comments on that one Warren Hunt is opposed not in keeping with neighborhood traffic problems and then John Morris opposed not an apartment complex it's a dormitory those are all the cards that we have this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time my name is Paul Meltzer at 1914 West Oak Street first I'd like to express appreciation to Randy Hunt for the work he has done to get recognition for this historic area I would also like to express appreciation to the developer who actually did listen to a degree made some modifications in response to what was heard obviously what you're hearing tonight it's clearly not far enough and and where we are now where you know we're looking at kind of a blackmail maneuver I don't I think that's beneath you and I don't think you want to do that I don't think you truly want to do that especially when there's so evidently a deal to be had here I mean can we just have some common sense can we creatively recognize the very obvious solution to this problem the developer said he sort of expressed interest but doubt about the possibility of developing on the West Side he said well you know I couldn 't do it there because it's it's dr2 can we not make a deal can we not have a continuance and and if he backs off of the historic area where he's it's clearly not welcome can we open up the opportunity for cement city to become University City to go from dr2 to DCG I would personally stand here and advocate and testify in support of this concept in support of this developer if they were to go down this route it would open up tremendous economic opportunity the city is not anti development we're anti destroying the things we value and that you value so I encourage your creativity to make this deal thank you again this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time on that item yes sir we'd like another one that's all the cards need to get a card if you could fill out a card thank you Kevin Bradshaw 2052 Collins Road I'm usually opposed to everything that goes on in the city being a native I hate to see things torn up but rather than tell you a lot of things I'd ask questions that come to my mind I heard the lady want to go mention flow and what a foolish thing it was when they tore that down as I recall that building was six stories tall sat in on the highest piece of real estate over there didn 't cause a real big problem but what I'm wondering is that it seems the most of the people that live close to the college are not students and the people that live away from the college are students so if you could move the students closer to the college it cut down on them out of traffic then the people that aren't students can go somewhere else to live where the students come from that would help or maybe don't know think about that what's over there maybe something nice left but they ain't much of it you know I was listening to that man and I thought man that'd be a good deal just go south all the way down to 35 be a pretty good deal but I believe it was 65 or 6 when they built the first of the tall buildings over at TW and of course the world hasn't ended yet from it and it saved an awful lot of real estate it gets cheaper as you go up and why not take advantage of it but and now these SROs is a new new idea to me and I understood the one's point that by having that you don't establish a community one of the benefits of not establishing a community there is maybe they won't stay here when they get out of school then that will be a tremendous improvement to to the density of our problems but so I opinions for what I mean you obviously all think that's a wonderful idea but y'all are all me so you know but I as I was telling a man earlier at forum I'm founding the anti chamber of commerce so I'm ready I'm ready for some changes in debt I mean what what's been going on the past 30 years ain't working so let's try something different and this sound like pretty good deal not very pretty but not as ugly as what over there now evening thank you sir so are you opposed or you you're in support you're in support thank you for the record great perfect timing for a little humor this evening again this is still a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak on this item don't have an item number this one okay Jennifer Lane opposition 1526 Willow Street in Denton and I'm here to speak out about this in large part to add my name and opposition to the list and just the other day I saw a film of the UNT president who was talking about building some on-campus dormitories and he was talking about the not so much the need for this but that it creates a university community on campus and the details of this I don't have an it's not entirely fleshed out but I have lived in areas and taught at universities where it's much too expensive for students to live off campus and there is great effort spent on creating an on- campus community one of those was Stanford University and I got involved with it as a resident fellow which is another term for house master and lived in those communities and worked with the residents deans and so on so forth and it's really a great way to go as our community grows and people want to live near and around the university as the professor was talking about we should protect the area right around the university and we should encourage on-campus dormitory life because there's more than just SRO life there's resident assistants there's other students staffers living there there's an entire culture of residential education that already exists at UNT but can be built and in order to encourage that we have to also encourage that the neighborhood around the school be more of a residential neighborhood and not really SROs also as a New Yorker I lived where there were many SROs and these really in that environment had very sad history also became quite contentious in tenant landlord battles and so on and so forth which is a subject that I haven't been here for the whole meeting but that's something that's down the road for Denton and we should be a little bit careful about the kinds of buildings that we build that people don't have that kind of distance between themselves their living arrangements and who actually owns the property it makes for an uncomfortable environment unpleasant environment and I think we would be best off avoiding it so that's the basis of my opposition okay thank you for your comments welcome again this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak on this item please come down at this time if you haven't filled out a card after you give us your comments please fill out a card I'm the unknown Bob Clifton I don't know what my address is it's out side of town here I have to agree brother Brad shaw Denton has changed immensely when I was a child I used to sled on Scripture Hill as before the hospital was over built and I've watched this town become basically decimated by one university the other one's pretty good neighbor and once one time in my hot rod political career I told some people at North Texas either go up or go away they've encroached throughout this town they've taken lots of buildings lots of property off the tax rolls the latest I think being there whatever that hill is called over there on Teas ley and Dallas Drive it took nine million dollars off the tax rolls this thing here is such a ticky tacky looking thing I can't believe they're doing it over there in that neighborhood I saw one of the City Council members was here this evening and I see another one sitting there probably be the next City Council member and I think that probably from Bonnie Bray to Winds or on the north and Woodrow on the east and probably 35 on the south with Dena should be some kind of a historic preserve if nothing else but these people coming in from out of town dangling money in front of everybody is crazy this is a town to live in I can't even breathe because of the damn pollution this is this is a this is a town with residents it's known as a college town and it used to be and administrators kind of fit in instead of running big businesses that they think they're running and I'm just rambling I just wanted to take up time like Bradshaw did but I know more than he does but I think this this spot ty it broke my heart when they tore down the hospital to build that crap from a group of California but that was our mayor Julian Brock's do it and she had no roots in this town she's hillbilly from over there and Van Alstine or Van or wherever she came from and they have no they have no interest in this town other than can they flip it for some money and this has got this it's got to stop it's nationwide it's just not dead it's everywhere but this chasing the almighty buck has nothing to do with little mobility I've still got a minute left so what do you want to talk about if we could just clarify for the record are you living in the city of Denton not yet but I could at any given moment all I got to do is go across I don't it's in the county all I got to do is go across the barbed wire fence and I'll be in didn't we just want to be able to identify I will fill out a card for you so that you'll be very happy thank you sir I guess I've lived in didn't too long went out but anyway that's another story so what else can you be entertained with guess we talk about old folks and tax freezes and that silliness but anyway that has nothing to do with P&Z I can't really think of anything else I do admire you people for putting up with all this stuff yeah but I can't see the traffic I do have an idea that I'm going to present to council yes probably I'll take it to P&Z first but we'll talk about that at a later date thank you for your time thank you for your comments again this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak on this item please give us your name and address and then fill out a card for us please sir Tim Garenger 1108 West Congress Street I'd like to speak in opposition to this and I'll be brief because people have said pretty much the same things I'm gonna say and it's getting late I live very close to the site not close enough to get a notification also it's not involved in any type of community meetings with the developer two main reasons I'm against this are it just doesn't fit the neighborhood I moved in neighborhood full understanding that the current use is not idea it's not a pretty place it's probably gonna be developed but this proposal here looks completely out of place it's just too big for the neighborhood it also doesn 't really provide anything for the people that live there that aren't students you know it'd be nice if there's some mixed use some restaurants whatever my other main concern is the traffic now I came to the last meeting and I remember some of the commission asked if they had done any traffic studies or numbers and a member of the city staff came up and said yes but it was a very weak study and it didn't really hold much weight I can tell you that the traffic there is getting worse and worse every year it's probably the most popular place in Denton to run a stop sign or to peel out I can't imagine I don't buy this idea that this is gonna make this a completely walkable situation I fully support that want people to walk and bike but as someone who has to go by youth center and Fry's our city park every day I could tell you there are plenty of cars coming in and out of those buildings and because Oak Street is one way going west anybody needs to go east it's coming down Congress Street if you look at the map and yeah there's nowhere to buy groceries around there anyone was go downtown not everybody's gonna walk a lot of people we drive down Congress Street so that's why I'm opposed thank you thank you for your comments okay and this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak on this item anyone else seeing none we will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion Commissioner Taylor thank you chair so to to answer Commissioner Beck's heed from earlier I've been trying to figure out why this little strip got DCG got zone DCG in 2002 and 1999 there was a citywide planning you know organ planning called the Denton plan 2020 and then it took a few years for citywide rezoning to roll down from that and a lot of the rezoning was to to match existing use especially in these established neighborhoods and so I was trying to figure out what existing uses would drive DCG which is our most intensive zoning category in our in the downtown area and I think I found the three things that that caused this first is drive-thrus drive-thrus aren't allowed in any other downtown zoning district so you had what was the quick stir and before that another restaurant that has a drive-thru at the corner of Jago and scripture so that had to be the only zoning category and that had that allowed drive-thrus was DCG and then you had it pharmacies again a pharmacy if you have a drive-thru window at a pharmacy requires DCG then this specific building is that exists there on the site today is 32,000 square feet in there's there was a limitation l-17 that was amended in 2013 and that's why I know because it was a contentious amendment whenever I first joined this commission but until 2013 l-17 restricted the maximum use of a professional or office space to 25,000 square feet and so l-17 prevented this from being DCN or dr 2 so the only category where you could have a 30,000 square foot office building was in DCG so I think that's why there's this little strip basically three of the six lots required this zoning and so they just the gap the gap lots got zoned in as well and this is kind of a flaw with the DCG zoning category it's a huge jump from DC and DCG it's you know a massive it goes multi basically multi-use with any possible use you can have you know nightclubs and office buildings and a hundred foot tall buildings and some hundred and something hundred fifty units per acre you know this really high density and that's a jump up from 45 feet and you know 50 units per acre and lots and lots of restrictions on restaurants can't be bigger than 5,000 square feet no drive -throughs no gas stations no all of these other uses and so the bucket that everything lands in is DCG since that was a mistake I don't think we need to make two mistakes by expanding DCG another two or three hundred feet into this into this area this is a it doesn't really meet the context of the area even City Park has 35 foot setbacks from the curb to the to the buildings is 35 feet this would be 20 feet at that 46 foot height never minding anything higher 46 foot height 20 feet from Scripture it in on December 25th the shadow that's cast will reach all the way across the entire street and cast the shadow on the north side of Scripture from the height of the buildings and everything else south of Scripture and north of oak is about two stories you might hit 30 35 feet at the tops of the gables of the apartment buildings over there so how do we fit in that context we don't this is not a really a historic district there might be some historic homes but at least half of its apartments built in the 60s or 70s or 80s or some what could have been a historic home that's been cut into four apartments or things like that but we still I feel need to keep the context of this neighborhood and whenever we talk about context usually we talk about zoning in terms of use and so this use is allowed and you know we've got some minor dimensional requirements another important aspect of zoning is form we especially apply form in our residential areas we have side yards must be 20 feet houses must be this far apart away from the street and from alleys and fences so forth in and that forms the neighborhood it gives gives us the neighborhood of shape like it has to look a certain way and our commercial zonings really lack a lot of form guidance we we just have some really basic dimensional rules and we don't you know you can have it a brick building or a concrete building or whatever but this area with this residential mixed in if we had something that matched the form it would fit the context unfortunately we don't have form based zoning but I think this would be a prime little area this dr2 block from oak to scripture would be a perfect place to have form- based zoning that would allow two or maybe even three story apartments with enough buffer to the single-family existing homes it would allow infill one to four lots at a time we could have you could convert the houses that need to be demolished into something else but that that doesn't help us tonight because we can't enact form-based zoning tonight however that I think that's the direction we need to go with this if this were in West Campus cement city I think we do need to rezone cement city to DCG that's a place that needs commercial it needs the retail on the ground level and it'd be a great place to build a 30 or 40 or 50 foot apartment you're not gonna know trees to shed to shade there's no historic homes that will be overwhelmed by a 40 or 60 foot building or 70 foot building same on South Campus we already have a large area of South Campus zone DCG and I think we could even use more down there because there isn't a historic neighborhood to protect there isn't there aren't a lot of historical assets and cultural assets there and it's still a three- block walk to campus so it's a great student housing area but I just can't see this being appropriate on the north side of town and I don't think we should take a veiled threat of something worse and double down and make two mistakes instead of one Commissioner Hespeth I didn't call Lee back up because I didn't have a question I was just going to be a long soliloquy so that that's pointless but I'll just tell you I echo everything Commissioner Taylor said I can't and I hope it's everyone's good at whole numbers and I'm really excited about Devin Taylor's Commissioner Taylor's perspective I'm excited about Larry's perspective and and I'm looking for more perspective to send a clear message the the residents in this community I think it's it's not right to take someone that is visited our area who has 100% control right it's rare that someone comes to us that has absolute autonomy they can go from meeting every need that the citizens want to absolutely ignoring every need the citizens want it never happens that way and given that opportunity they said love it or hate it if you love it we'll start at hate and if you hate it we'll start it egregious and and said take it you know and and that to me is insensitive it's disconnected to the area it's it lacks empathy for the area it lacks insight I mean I grew up on Bonnie Bray Street and I was up and down scripture all the time I went to that howdy duty a million times I don't know that howdy duty would live in any other neighborhood I mean I just don't think it would survive I mean but so I think there's just so much history in that area that has just been discarded because maybe you don't want to pay a premium for somebody else to buy from a realtor maybe you want to take advantage of some creative zoning but I really do take it as it's just disingenuous given the offer given the world given the opportunity to meet and you have complete autonomy you can meet every need or ignore every wish and you choose to come as come as far as your budget will let you and and knots and stop there and so to my earlier point when you leave 21 cards in opposition when you have one two three four five six seven eight nine I'll give Bob Clifton half ten and a half so that's 31 people in opposition and two in support and you don't I have to reconcile that with the people that live here not the people that invest here not the people that design here the people that live here and I've been in the neighborhood and I'm telling you I know it doesn't fit it does not fit at all and so I think it's just for me that that's that's what I have to reconcile and I don't think it's again the most glaring thing is they did not there's no restrictions they could meet every need that the citizens want and put a three- story building and sprawl it across that entire lot they could buy the house at the end they could buy the apartments at the end they could I'll tell you you don't need the swimming pool if you want to get creative and show some empathy show some compassion take the swimming pool out and give out an auditorium tickets now you're investing in our city you're invested in an auditorium you 're saying hey kids we're not going to build a swimming pool because we want to be sensitive to the neighborhood and we're guests here but we're also going to invest in Denton and say here's season passes for everyone to go to the natatory just like different different apartment complexes give season to give a tickets to the gym or memberships to the gym that's empathy that's caring that's understanding that you bumped up against the wrong neighborhood and so there's other neighborhood and I'm absolutely I think we need to move on that post haste for cement city I mean I think that absolutely needs upgrade and so with that I'll I'll sit back in and watch commissioner Sullivan when I was going through all of this I looked at and I thought that doesn't look too good and then the more I looked I thought well maybe the neighborhood needs upgrading and then I started looking some of these letters and looked again on the maps and I'm thinking we've been told we've got two options we can vote for the change and they're proposing a 70 foot height which nobody you know none of the people want in this overlay thing 45 feet 70 feet 100 feet we could vote against it and they'll go all the way to 100 feet well my understanding is the third option is we vote against it and when they bring 100 feet we deny that and we put it back where it ought to be at whatever level we feel it's necessary or prudent or proper at that point in time so that just because we vote against this doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to do something that's against what the neighborhood wants that we still have another option down the road and that is to deny whatever plan they bring to us at that point in time am I correct in that I'll let staff address that question should the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial and depending on what the outcome is at City Council let's assume zoning change does not occur the applicant under both zoning districts with a split zoning district is actually able to develop with multifamily use it is a use that is permitted by right in the DCG district and the DR2 district as it relates to the height and my understanding or inference from the Commission tonight was to talk about perhaps some type of overlay that would restrict potentially the building height one of the restrictions that I believe based on what I've heard this evening from the applicant was to limit the height of the building to for example 70 story now going back to the split zoning the front half of the development which fronts scripture the building height the maximum building height is 100 feet however the DR2 district to the south which they abide which they have the ownership to if I'm not mistaken that height is capped at 45 feet if I'm not mistaken thanks Julie and so they can they can you know if they can accommodate the two zoning districts and the associated development criteria for these two zoning districts technically they could develop the site now if the zoning change is approved then they have consolidated the zoning on the entire three acres and they have the ability to develop under the DCG parameters which would permit a maximum building height of 100 feet something not right it's all I gotta say okay Commissioner Beck thank you chair and all I've got a something I can add to what Commissioner Sullivan's saying as far as an understatement I've mentioned already but just you know a few comments here as I mentioned earlier in the work session the mixed- use character this area is not compatible with the DCD district along scripture that's there's no doubt about that thanks to Commissioner Tater for informing us why we got DCG in the first place and I appreciate that but clearly rather than and you know not to accuse anybody back then in 2002 but why they didn't see the writing on the wall with what we're confronted with today it's a shame that they didn't revert it back to DR2 and that puts us in this position today I think the African has a wonderful product I've said that I'd be glad to see them build anywhere else around there again the idea that we could rezone cement city to DCG is great that would open that up for not only this developer but other developer the idea that we need to build this for a growing student population again I think has been reviewed by the fact by several statements here that and I guess the most glaring one is the fact that UNT is never here to support that notion the footprint that the part 7 development with its hundred and fifty dwellings per acre just simply doesn't represent a gradual transition I just don't see that it will stick out and this will diminish the neighborhood that we all really are fond of and have been for quite a while so what I would consider doing and for everybody to think about here is make a motion because we want to protect this area again from future encroachments again because this is not gonna end it's going to come back up and I don't think denial is gonna work like we want this Manal said that this could not they could work against it so my suggestion is we approve the applicant's request with the amendment that we attach a mixed-use residential overlay that limits building heights and a few other things and I would limit the building height to 40 feet I'd keep it at what dr4 is we I want to keep it at three stories if that's 40 feet fine if it's 35 feet pardon me is three story right right but that might we might squeeze it four story in that so I want to keep it at three stories keep it at now I'm okay with the 30 dwell ings per acre that's in the dr4 and the if I could just make a note for the Commission you don't want to down zone so the minimum that they would have to or the maximum they would have to do if they did the most restrictive zoning according to their law it would be 45 you don't want to go below that on your overlay okay I wouldn't or I could do not all right then let's say the requirements that allow heights and setbacks and everything in the dr2 would be what this overlay would consist of in we could start with this area that this project wants to build on but I see this expanding even further going up to Oak Street to scripture maybe a little bit further south and as far west as Bonnie Bray this is not the mentor harassed developers we need we need good dwellings for families to live in and grow at a steady rate but we need to do it that doesn't diminish this area and we lose it in the long run so I would I wouldn't make that move that we approve it with the overlay district restrictions you make an emotion are we still doing discussion well let's do discussion then I can make a motion Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you everyone for speaking and thank you the applicants for for presenting first off I guess I'd like to say I'm what a missed opportunity our city has had with putting us in this position this was clearly a lot that should have been rezoned a long time ago it is a mess of a zoning and it's what puts us in this position today I'm sure the reason staff is recommending it is is so we can we can collectively put one zoning on this property which makes no sense to be divided in half and while I understand that this development does not fit in this area I know we take the gamble by denying this and allowing that front portion to be up to a hundred feet I would have to say that 's a gamble I'm willing to take versus rezoning this setting it up for if this project doesn't work setting it up for a hundred store a hundred feet you know throughout this entire footprint you are taking two residential properties along with this request there's two single-family properties involved my fear is this happens it collapses the rest of the street the streets on either side of it it goes towards Hickory and towards the University and takes that we've already denied an SRO that that came before us although I do think the project still alive in council but that was the Vertmans property that would clearly come back if this happens now you've got this basically student housing project in the middle of two historic districts it does not fit I understand the SRO type building is the way to develop today in university cities I don't blame a developer for putting numbers together that makes sense obviously that's what every developer wants the money has to make sense or why do the development this is not the place to do this we have places to do this if we work together as a city as has been talked about today we can make these developments work in our city to where it is profitable for the developer and it works better not only for the student population but for the people who are living here this piece of property needs development it really does it just doesn't need this development and and just because we have done things wrong in the past by rezoning this the way it was rezoned to which I will not understand but just because we've done that wrong in the past doesn't mean we have to continue doing it wrong in the future I think we have to start fixing things well sitting on this Commission for a number of years and seeing lots of different cases come before us I know a lot of times we have opportunities to speak our opinions about what we'd like to see there in the fact that we are faced with tonight is what the zoning is whether it was a mistake or not that is the zoning that's there and so really to me it boils back down to the facts that we have which is a strictly a zoning case I do appreciate the developers doing some neighborhood meetings I saw the project that you presented the Waco project and I think the project that you have taken from your neighborhood meetings to do a very different design from what you built in the past are the types of things that we've talked about and had people say about compromise that you've listened you've made changes to your project I don't know what you've invested in it to this point I'm sure a considerable amount to get it to this point me personally you may choose with the zoning to do the one option that you have which is a hundred foot tall building if you want I appreciate you not coming in and saying it as a veiled threat I love some people might take it that way that you've at least approached this that you've presented an opportunity to us to do something at a lesser density I think a more aesthetically pleasing project than what could be built there and I think it's difficult sometimes to have to face the facts of what can be built there versus what somebody's proposing to build there that is a lesser than what could be done and so I have the opinion and I'm gonna make a motion to such that we do go ahead and rezone this property and take the opportunity that we have to put an overlay on the part that can be a hundred feet tall and bring that down because the part that is not to be rezoned can already have a 45 foot tall building on it and you're essentially I believe from your drawings proposing a essentially a 45 foot building around the perimeter which you can build by right as is so I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to make a motion that we're going to approve this with an overlay on it and I'd like to have I'm gonna make the motion and we'll have probably some discussion about the although we're having obviously some discussion of some legal issues yeah , sorry. [inaudible] Lee, would you please come up we're having some discussion here on notice and our ability to do at the mic please sir. I'm gonna turn this over to Jennifer and let her explain what the issue is. I'll give a little bit of introduction and then I'll ask Jennifer to step down the legal part. The issue in being able to put an overlay on the property is that currently the notice that we have in the zoning case that we have is on the DR2 property. There is no notice in regards to the DCG property that's in the front and so the problem that I think Jennifer may clarify a little bit and we may want to have some discussion here just free mic back and forth to you about continuing this is in order for us to put an overlay over the entire property the front piece would have to be included in the notice and since it wasn't noticed we can't legally put an overlay over the DCG portion we could go ahead and up zone the back part and put the overlay on it but I don't think the Commission here is going to support that because we have no ability to do anything on the DCG when we if we were to move that forward to an it DCG on the back put an overlay then we have 70 on the back and still 100 on the front versus I think what trying to be some compromise is allow you to have some up zone on the back portion and overlay the whole thing so that you have a cap project so that's the dilemma that we have in our ability I think to try to find some compromise on the side to put an overlay on the top that's our issue and so I'm going to throw it to you and see how you would respond to wanted to do a continuance and re-notice and come back or if you want to up and down vote this evening and see where this goes if I understand correctly and I think I do any kind of an overlay that would be imposed tonight as a recommendation the P&Z does not approve the zoning nor do they establish any overlays they only recommend to City Council but it can only be for that portion that is in the zoning request tonight it could not be for the entire piece of property which makes sense I'd like a minute to discuss with Paul but to be quite frank and unless I'm totally ignorant let me visit with Paul because I'm not sure that even if the 70 foot could be put on the whole thing that the P&Z would be amenable to that and I'm not sure that that's a good reason to continue so okay would ask speak to the timing of re-noticing and bringing this back depending on the next meeting schedule it's at least 30 to 45 days out to come back to maximum as it relates coming back to the planning and zoning Commission so about 30 days because we have to do notice Jennifer you looking at the calendar we don't have our next would be April the 12th April the 12th would be the soonest that we could get to it April 12th would be a planning Commission and then City Council would be it would be the following well the following Tuesday is the fourth Tuesday of the month so that would be up to the agenda committee whether or not they put it on that particular agenda but we would try for the following week so April the 12th well so long as the agenda committee allows us to put it on for the 18th right exactly and we're just double checking the notice to make sure that that we don't have the ability to do that now but we're just double checking that notice to see what was published because I have an opportunity to address that tonight actually bear with us well , I don't think we have a motion on the table. I don't know if I finished stating the motion. Yeah, okay. That's fine. We're going to take a recess just for you so that we can find a way to do this tonight. It's not going to be real quick. We have a staff of people to speak. I think what we 're going to do, I think what we're going to do in respect to the time and your project is I'm going to withdraw the motion that I was beginning to state and we're going to take a recess, let staff have a few minutes to gather their facts on their calendars and then come back we'll reopen the meeting and then we'll see what we've been able to gather give you all an opportunity to discuss how you would like to go and then I think maybe an appropriate thing for us to do is a commission when we come back is have maybe a little more discussion to see if there would even be enough consensus if we re-noticed brought your project back that the Commission has a consensus that they would support that then it would be worthwhile doing the continuous and if there's not going to be support you would at least know kind of where you are this evening and we can see where the project goes from here and I think that's probably the sure the question I have is if we go with the continuance that will allow the re-noticing so the overlay could be on the entire site regardless of the P&Z decision when we go to council we wouldn't have to re-notice to put that I know for the council to actually put the overlay on the whole side if that's what they wanted to do we could do it both at the same time all right thank you so with that at 1055 and we call a 10 minute recess and then we'll reconvene good evening and welcome back from break I'm gonna call us back into order at 10 after 11 and I'm gonna ask Lee to come back up and I think we're gonna clarify our notice and then have some discussion with you all then we'll continue so I'm gonna turn it over to Manal for explanation of where we are on the notice thank you chairperson strange I would like to clarify for the audience and our viewing audience as well as the Commission that I have looked at the notification that we sent out to property owners within 200 and 500 feet as well as the notification that was published in the newspaper or the daily and based on that notification we have over notified the request which does indeed incorporate the property to the north that fronts or abuts scripture so if there is if there are suggestions or discussion as it relates to the creation of an overly district then that is an opportunity that the Commission has before them tonight and just so that we can be clear for the record we had noticed both in the paper and in the agenda for three acres and the breakdown of the property as I understand it is that the current zoning of dr2 is on 1.3 acres and the current zoning of DCG is on 1.7 acres approximately as so altogether we've noticed both parcels so what we would do if if the Commission's inclined to make a motion is to consider the zoning the rezone on the one acreage and then the overlay on all of the acreage so we do have it noticed and I still had the floor I had a motion and I withdrawn it and I have a couple of questions it's now that we have a clarification that we can do an overlay the direction that I was started with on my motion was to put an overlay at a cap on the maximum height of the building and I believe you have two or three levels on your building and I'd like for you all to clarify what those heights are and the percentage of the building because I'd like to make my motion to where we can put a cap on it and give you the levels that you're looking for minimize the exterior portion of the building and so the questions I'm going to ask is I want to know the outside perimeter height the building I think was 46 46 okay so if we gave maybe a couple of feet just for plus or minus error 48 feet and then you have a another section that steps up and what is the height of it that's 56 yeah that's the top of the parapet yeah okay do you know about what the percentage is of that part of your building approximately footprint and and then the highest point that you have for your amenity center that you'd like to do yeah that is 68 feet 11 inches there 's 67 11 or 67 11 67 feet 11 inches at the highest point of the building so 70 gives you trying to be a little bit of plus or minus 2 feet on what you think in case there's some variation in topography or something like that and then they would like to get the percentages of those in the direction that I was going to go is to take a 35 degree the slope that we've talked about in our work session two weeks ago and again tonight if we kept that that and did a percentage so if you can give me the percentage of your 58 feet area if you could come up to the microphone that would be helpful so that's 58 feet for the five-story and the five-story is I do not have that square footage here at hand today but if we were to could this drawing be used as an exhibit to represent the limits I hate I know it's not an ADP or an SUV or something. We'd need more specificity as it relates to so the elevations and the heights and the staggering that sure you have the square footage of the five-story of the fifth story. Let me see if I have anything additional to add to this. Try and scale it. Do you have a scaler? [inaudible] I appreciate where you're headed we just don't have those numbers and we weren't prepared for that. Try that. Can I ask what what your height you're trying to achieve? What do you this overlay that you're considering? Just trying to do a multi- stage overlay and the perimeter of the building can be a maximum height. It would have to conform to the building slope that we've talked about the 35 degree and so the fifth story could be a 58 feet but it would only be a percentage of the whole thing couldn't get bigger would be pretty much what they have proposed and then the amenity center would be at 70 and be it has to be within the 35 and then it has to be the size that they're talking about that the building can't grow out to the 35 it's pretty much capped at the 48 feet sloping at 35 and then the square footage that they have a fifth five story is capped and then the square footage at the essentially 70 foot would be capped by a square footage number as well that they can't exceed so the building can't get bigger than what they've proposed and shown. But we would be looking at something four stories or higher. On the perimeter. Well in the middle though it would be higher. The amenity center whatever that small amount is in the park and garage. Approximately 80,000. Can we do percentages? 10% in the top and he's calculating a percentage now for the story. Okay. Okay . I go ahead and start to make the motion and then fill in the percentages. Can we do that? So we can get going? Okay. Well can we do a friendly amendment once we get the percentages or not? And then gives us how much can be at 58 and how much can be at 70? No we take the footprint of the entire building which is this entire footprint and then we're reducing basically that right there. Hey Lee. I'm gonna go ahead and get started with motion if you guys can get the percentage on the 58 foot and then the final percentage hopefully by the time we get the motion out we can put the numbers in. Okay after a lot of discussion and clarifying the notice and I had made some comments about my feelings about where we stood and the facts that we have and so I was going to make a motion and I am going to make a motion to rezone the 1.3 acres from DR2 to DCG so the entire three acre site would be DCG and based on what the current heights are that they can do and the DR2 I'm going to put an overlay over the entire site on the perimeter of the building to be 48 feet. So on the perimeter of the building it cannot be taller than 48 feet. For the next overlay it will have to be within the 35 degree slope that's in our design criteria. That next staggered cap would be at 58 feet. It would continue on the 35 degree slope up to a maximum height of 70 feet and I'd like the percentage that you need for the 70 and the percentage that you need for the 58 foot height of your building. Is that good enough here or do we need the actual two numbers to put in there for the percentage? Okay. For the purposes of giving the applicant the opportunity to get the numbers I want to go ahead and do this and explain that what trying to do is to within the staggered and even limit within those stag gers even more the square footage of what they do so they can't build a larger building it will be inside and it will be a smaller amount at 58 and then whatever the small amount they need for the amenity center. So we get the numbers we 'll put those in here at 58 and 70 foot and that's my motion and Commissioner R oussel. Thank you chair. The motion is not done. I was actually wanting to officially second this but I want to say a couple things before I went on record with a second. First it's 1125 at night and so I appreciate everyone staying here and listening to us discuss and listening to fellow citizens talk and it's it's most helpful to the Commission to actually have individuals from the community come out and speak and so I thank you for that and those who have party already left and fell asleep I thank them as well for staying as long as possible. Given that the lower the two zoning's here the DCG and the DR2 the lower the two zoning's DR2 allows for 45 foot high structure I feel that the chairs motion to limit the perimeter of the entire structure to the basically the DR2 level give three feet is a reasonable solution to what's been presented. I feel that there is a unique character on the east and west of this of this property in the West Oak and the Oak Hickory district. I do feel that this little peninsula is kind of on its own and in a lot of ways kind of forgotten in terms of maintenance if you drive on that I don't think the roads are that great the structures there are dilapidated in a lot of ways and so I feel like someone coming in and maybe revitalizing it although it's not the perfect solution I feel like it is a move forward to have that property start contributing to the neighborhood hopefully in a productive way and so I say all that to say I appreciate your feedback I understand that you don't want it in so so many ways but I feel it's a it's it's a good move for the overall city and then with that I would charge Earl Escobar personally to look at traffic and infrastructure because I feel like in my mind the biggest issue of this going in is the impact on the thoroughfares out I know just from experience Congress is the quickest way down to Carroll so if you're at scripture to get to Carroll the quickest way is Congress and that is a quiet neighborhood street and so I don't I don't know the future of scripture but I just want to make sure that the roads are being redone and rebuilt and maybe even expanded to make sure that the traffic flow that this would create and trying to get to Kroger wherever else would be hopefully mitigated to surrounding neighbors and with that I second the motion before open for discussion if you all had opportunity to get your percentage five story 70% which includes the parking garage and then the amenity space call it 15% so 15% at 70 what was the percentage on the 58 to 5 story parking garage 70% 70 yes and those are all inside the 35 degree slope okay from the perimeter looking at your building 46 four story building the interior portion of it as it comes inside from Street View you won't see those will stay inside the 35 degree slope yes the residential proximity slope okay perfect okay we have a first and a second and open the floor for discussion Commissioner Beck thank you chair and I appreciate your efforts to get this down to what you consider more reasonable size but I still can't go along with it I to me it seems like a sellout I think what the neighborhood is asking is for something much less three stories is probably the limit I would go on that I would have a hard time voting on this just simply because this isn't really where we wanted to go it may seem like a good compromise but to me it's it's I don't see the neighborhood buying into this at all and feeling like we sold out on them so I would vote no on this Commissioner Ellis thank you chair and I appreciate the efforts of everyone to my concern is you know an overlays in place to protect the area and trying to write this after being at a meeting for six plus hours now is dangerous not only for the city but even for the developer trying to you know willy-nilly numbers like that and and and and so no I'm I can't support it Commissioner Tyler thank you chair yeah I should have the same concerns this is you know the this doesn't really change the the scale or mass of the building 70% at 58 feet basically 60 feet that's you know basically three-quarters you know is still going to be much taller than anything else around it's going to dwarf the two-story apartments that are right next door it's going to be you know a lot more massive than the apartments across the street it's still going to cast that shadow you know in December noon day Sun all the way across scripture and and I do think it doesn't fit the context and I don't know what overlay we could put on you know something like a straight 45 foot overlay aiming for about three maybe a short four stories but I don't think that the developer would be amenable to that and so so I can't I can't even think of an overlay that would work and trying to trying to write it right now at 1130 at night also isn't good so for those reasons I really think we need to at this point I think the only only thing we can do is deny and if they're if if the developer comes up with the solution between now and City Council and City Council can take into you know into consideration the context and the concern of the neighborhood then they can override or denial but trying to write it at midnight it's not going to work okay well I put a motion out and I'm gonna be calling for a vote on it and the last thing I'm gonna say is as servant on this Commission for a long time like yourself we had a project similar to this on Fry Street and I think they wanted an extra two feet and it didn't go and so now we have a project that's even farther away they can build a 45 foot tall building on it and they can build a hundred foot tall on portion of it and I think sometimes when we have opportunities to do something even though it is late this has been talked about now for two weeks and we've all had discussions about it and we're gonna take action on it one way or the other tonight and it will move forward and then we will have had our opportunity to do something with it and then they will move forward with whatever they choose to do with their project that's why I've made the motion that I have I know there are neighbors that do not want it and also recognize that the people that own the property by right can build what they've shown us that they can build and so for those reasons I think it's a good compromise to try to maintain as close as we can on the exterior of the building of what they can do and be somewhat of a compromise on that particular site and so with that I'm going to call for a vote on the motion that is stated and we'll see where we end up this evening I'll call for a vote on the board the motion will fail five to two Commissioner Tyler I move we recommend denial to City Council Commissioner Beck question first so the option of doing another type of overlay that keeps us below three stories is probably you think is gonna hurt us more than help us sorry are you asking below the dr2 well I understand I have to keep it at the yard yeah 45 again my concern is to protect this area down the road and if we deny and it goes to council yeah I'll miss her I but I can't hear you okay my my concern is to protect this area in the long term that's why I wanted to try and create an overlay that would keep it at a minimum for a long time it's not permanent there's probably some other things we can do down the road but if we deny tonight and it goes to council then there's that risk that this thing could get built anyway and I'm just trying to avoid that so I guess I'm just asking the question is it worth the risk of voting denial or considering a motion for an overlay that's equivalent to dr2 I can't basically recommend which motion you should make but I can clarify the initial we took a recess just to discern what the notification parameters were and based on that it was evident that because of the over notification that an overlay district can be placed on the entire three acres even though the request before you is for an application for a change in zoning for the sudden portion of the property which I believe is 1.3 acre acres that being said it you know if if you're looking at this protection overlay district and you're looking at parameters that have consistency you can't go below the base zoning of that district as legal indicated so if you're looking at the parameters or the development criteria associated with the dr2 zoning district then for instance you could visit the building height you could visit the setbacks now the only additional opportunity you have with the overlay district opposed to the physical parameters is looking at enhanced screening or landscaping mechanisms as well so that's what you have before you is to provide a recommendation on the on the request itself was it which is a change in zoning and one of the elements that was brought up by the Commission as a discussion point was if there is an overlay district what does it encompass or what is the what are the meets and bounds of it and what are the associated hard criteria that can be established with it just to clarify for you to Commissioner back they have the ability to put 45 45 foot tall building throughout the entire three acres currently so your overlay if you put it at 45 would it be of no effect because they can do that now okay that helps thank you and I'll trust the Commissioner taters judgment and second the motion we have a first and a second for denial any any discussion none well I'll make comment and then we 're a call for a vote I think we had an opportunity to do something tonight and we'll see what happens I don't agree with the now because I think the opportunity for us to do some restrictions on it will go out the window and we 'll lose the ability to have some say in what this project is so because of that I will not support the demand denial and now have a couple other people that would like to speak Commissioner Hudson yeah briefly out of respect for the next item I'll be super brief again I reiterate if they if they it's zoned what it is that's at our hands if they they had an opportunity to tailor-make it as well as we had an opportunity to tailor-make it I'm going to side with the people that live in that neighborhood even that aside I'm going to side with the majority of the people that have spoken against this and I'm going to go with my common sense that looks at it and says it doesn't fit and I'm going to go with the fact that I've noticed very little traction and I and I and I take a dissenting opinion to the other property reference on on Frost Street they didn't want to match the parking requirements was the at issue there they had by right the opportunity to do that and and Commissioner Roselle points out they came back with the exact same plan six months ago and I think we're at this impasse as well where it does not fit it's I'm looking for someone to say that they're going to be in an apartment they're going to build an apartment it's an investment and so you're going to have to pay a premium but you're going to get a premium back and that is you like you don't like those two story apartments go by those but you don't want to go by those because those are costs those cost more in my humble opinion and and so I just think where we're at a point where I'm not going to ignore the citizens that live in a district for the betterment of a profit of someone that doesn't live in the city I'm just not going to I just can't in in my right mind do that because that's that's that's not right and so just as much as you point out that we had an opportunity to make an adjustment I'm so excited that we send a clearer message in my humble opinion that when I get a narrative that says either this or that I'm not going to respond well to that and that's just and and and that's that may be that may be something that I need to work on but that's where I stand and I and I feel supported in that and that we had citizen comments that picked up on the same thing so I didn't stand alone in my perception of reading that document so I look forward to this and I think it it I don 't look at as an opportunity missed on our end I think it is consistent with how we approach things and and I think it is encouraging Commissioner Ose llo thank you chair so I just as I'm trying to think through what the vote of denial that we just had the implications of it and now this vote means and it's coming to they could start after plats get done to build three acres at 45 feet and what the chair put forth was let's let him build 48 feet and let's let a fifth story be allowed with a setback so it's not even that visual from a walking area yet it seems like the Commission by voting a denial to this is not okay with a setback for a fifth story but we are okay in them building 60 feet 70 feet 80 feet 90 feet 100 feet on the property so it doesn't compute fully with a motion to say we're gonna limit perimeters at 48 feet we're gonna force them to set back a fifth story so it's really hard to see that's not okay but the Commission is perfectly fine saying 45 feet on the dr2 perfect and we're okay with putting a hundred feet on the DCG it just doesn't seem to make sense and I feel like the chair put forth the motion that was a reasonable compromise to have some kind of control over the cap of this project because in all honesty they might not build a hundred stories maybe they don't want that in portfolio but why wouldn't they build 60 70 feet they can make that probably look pretty for their portfolio and a denial tonight would give them incentive to even start that process even sooner and additionally we've talked about the neighbors coming out and I appreciate them taking time to come out but we had one individual from county property speak we had one individual from Misty wood lane which is several miles away the closest I can see was on Congress Street in opposition but no one from that block opposed tonight no one from the 200 feet came out tonight and so yes there has been vocal opposition from it but it's been from Oak Street that come out for any project near campus because of traffic concerns and so I want to validate individuals coming out and speaking tonight but I also want to understand that the proximity to this that has been spoken about tonight hasn't really been there and so I'm kind of astonished by the rationalization of voting to deny this when it produces an outcome that's less controlled than what was just voted against and so I'm certainly voting to not approve a denial of this based on my desire to have some control over the project being presented Commissioner Ellis thank you chair all I'll what I'd like to add to that Commissioner Oselle is that what was put forth before us with with the overlay didn't address the concern of density and what this project brings to the area it just it just talked about the aesthetics which is one thing but density was a huge problem the traffic the amount of people that's going to bring it that area and what it's going to do to the rest of the area and then also to address the 200 and 500 feet decisions that we make affect more than that in the city and just because we didn't get those people here who talked about it the people who did come out they do have a right because that will affect them and how we all travel through that area I absolutely agree it was just mentioned on the Commission that neighbors have come out to speak in opposition and I think it's worth contextualizing who those neighbors are and again to the point I feel I've already made is in terms of density we deny this we've provided them ability to be more dense than it seems like you desire because they can go higher up and produce more beds more units more density and further I charged Earl and I hate to keep bringing him out by name I apologize but there needs to be some infrastructure in there I agree that the traffic and roads I 100% agree with you that needs to be addressed but I don't know if that's cause to change from a 48 foot cap or letting them build 100 feet any other comments or Commissioner Tyler thank you chair so to address your concerns Commissioner Rozelle regarding regarding trying to work out a solution here the solution that that was proposed in the overlay is exactly the thing that the neighborhood did not want it's exactly that no we have gotten letters from property owners directly across the street they were in our last meeting and I'm sure they're somewhere in the record and this this 70% at 58 feet and 15% at 48 feet and 15% at 70 feet that that isn't any protection that's that's exactly what the plan is so so there isn't any there isn't any like benefit from to the neighborhood from that overlay which is exactly what the developer said they were going to build and drew the picture of they're also already limited by the the proximity the residential proximity rule so they can't even start at 48 feet they have to start at 46 feet 10 feet off the property line so even though it was a world our overlay is weaker than our laws and then to go to a hundred feet tall which they could do they start running into fire protection issues when they get above about 60 feet so the feasibility of them building a hundred foot tower to punish the neighborhood or to make their profit is is pretty unlikely so I I wish we could have crafted an overlay that that addressed the concerns of context and size and scale but if you're across the street or you're a hundred feet down scripture that 70 foot portion of the building is going to be very visible it's going to be lo oming above the street so it we're not the 70 foot overlay with the 50 foot step down so forth isn't protecting anything I think maybe something like a 45 foot flat overlay might be amenable to the neighborhood at the edge like just barely acceptable but that would absolutely not be acceptable to the developer and if we try to do something like that at midnight you know on a Wednesday night it's we may as well just not do anything and let something get worked out on the way to City Council when they have time to do research and do the math and figure out exactly what compromise they can reach and bring it forth to the actual deciders on this at City Council that's why I think a denial now is better than a really kind of hastily crafted overlay I appreciate thank you that information correct me if I'm wrong it's my understanding that this zoning request is not tied to a site plan so the overlay would actually protect what gets built. Commissioner Tyler. That is true but it it doesn't give any benefit to the neighborhood over the proposal in fact it actually gives them a little wiggle room which you know we generally do in overlays because we don't want to whenever we reach a negotiated solution we don't want to accidentally have something that was one foot too low and just kills a project that we have negotiated to the end but we haven't negotiated anything here we've basically designed an overlay that lets them do exactly what they want I'm gonna make a final comment and then we're gonna call for a vote and get on to our next item I don't think it was exactly what they wanted I think they came and did a neighborhood meeting with a project that they built in Waco they did this project that was farther setbacks from the street they did it with relief with setbacks that were as far as 15-60 feet from the back of the curb versus right up on the curb so I don't think it's correct to sit here and say that they've made no compromise they didn't listen to the neighborhood they didn't respond and they just built what they did I saw a very different building facade what they showed versus what they originally showed at the neighborhood meetings the second final thing I will say is that the property that we're talking about this the historic and all this stuff is a vacant assisted living center that has been vacant for many years a vacant pharmacy building on the corner there are old apartments all around it and they're talking about building a building that's probably at least a forty million dollar building in our city they chose to come build it here they're gonna pay taxes on it they're gonna pay impact fees on it they're gonna pay traffic impact fees so go to support all the roads that people say we need to get the roads fixed and people keep bringing projects to our city like this and this commission says no and then we turn around and say we don't have any money to fix the streets we don't have any money to do this and these are the people that write the checks to fix that stuff and so with that I'm gonna make that's my final comment I don't agree with the motion we're making I'm gonna call for a vote on it and then it can move on to City Council so with that I'm gonna call for a vote on the board and we'll move forward and get on to the next people here the motion to deny carries five to two just a second I have a request from a commissioner to the applicant and then we're gonna move on to our next item if you could bring this project on Stella Street or Eagle there wouldn't be any overlays there wouldn 't be any resistance and I know that you're challenged by where the what land is available for sale right now but this isn't we don't want business in Denton this is not on that's not in this exact location I have got a conflict of interest in regards to item 5a I own property across the street or an owner ownership interest in and real property across the street so at this time I'm going to recuse myself for a conflict of interest on this item and I'm going to turn the meeting over to vice-chair Devin Taylor for like this item and also thank you all thank you chair so our next agenda item is listed as item 5a case number fr 16 - 0023 a hold a public hearing and consider a request by Stephen and Karen Hale for approval of a final replant of lots one and two block B of Hale Estates do we have a presentation on this yes absolutely we have Haley who can go through the proposed replant the subdivision of a lot into two lots of record good evening so this is a fr 1623 it's a replant of the H ale Estates lot one and two of block B this was originally plotted as part of the Montecito subdivision believe it was originally lot 13 of block B and so the request is to subdivide this into two residential lots the zoning for the properties in our two and with this a lot two is encumbered by a significant amount of drainage easements floodplain there's some ESA on the property as well that is all encompassed in the easements that you see here and there any other questions I can answer those at this time I don't see any questions for staff would the applicant like to present thank you commissioners and thank y'all for staying up here late working with us on this thing we were here a couple of weeks ago I thought I would just write out my remarks this time so I can go a lot quicker instead of him and and hauling around I could did last time and we can get through this thing if you just so I apologize for just reading it but when we ended our session two weeks ago I thought we were at a point where there were no technical challenges to our application but as some of my neighbors had appeared and challenged on other grounds we agreed to table the matter until tonight as I explained at the last meeting we were wanting to subdivide our three and a half acres into two lots so we can sell the lot to the east and being lot to to our to our neighbor Kevin Nelms who lives across from us on El Paso one of the other reasons I want to sell to Kevin is because he asked me a long time ago if I ever wanted to sell the property to give him right of first refusal which I did in this case and that's and that's why I'm honoring that most of a lot too is in is in a pond stream bed and damn and all of a lot too has been designated as floodplain pardon me in the course of this replatting Kevin and his family live in the first house downstream from the pond as it flows through the dam and as such he has the greatest vested interest of anyone in the area in the maintenance and stability of the dam as I've tried to explain my greatest duty is not to the people who live in Montecito I'm sorry as they all live upstream and will not be adversely affected should the dam break my primary duty is to those who live downstream and especially to those who live in Shadowbrook to the Southville sale that's not only my opinion but it's also the opinion of the TCEQ the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality my primary concern is with their safety and security and I believe Kevin is the most reliable person to take on that task at the last hearing there were questions as to whether subdividing our lot was allowed by the Montecito restrictive covenants paragraph 8 of the restrictions which deals with subdividing of lots requires the replatted lot have a minimum area of one acre and 150 feet of frontage and our replat meets those requirements looking at the plate of Montecito it appears that out of the 60 odd lots there are only about five or six lots that would be able to subdivide within these restrictions those being those lots at the north and the south ends of Montecito one another point on the as to what constitutes frontage our house fronts on Santa Monica this house not this house this property would front on El Paseo I was unsure about that and so I contacted a civil engineer who handles these kind of matters all the time and he assured me that frontage means only to the nearest public road roadway or street and also fronting to monitor fronting to El Paseo El Paseo this portion of El Paseo that's at the south end of Santa Monica pardon me at south end of the Montecito addition was dedicated what is a dedicated street within the Montecito dedication I realized that this matter of restrictive covenants is not within this board's purview but I want the board to know that I did not disregard such matters in filing for this replat I consulted with an engineer as well as our survey before filing our application also since our last hearing I did meet with two of my neighbors who were back to who who back to the pond as we had a very frank discussion as they say in political circles I as I explained to them it is my belief that Kevin more so than any other owner in the area is the best person to take care of this property to ensure the safety of those downstream many of those who are here tonight who are in opposition to our application did I know Kevin Kevin is here and Kevin's going to speak by the way I suggest that when they see him and his crews out there out there working they'd be good neighbors and stop an offer to lend a hand again it's my understanding that our application is mature requirements so I asked the board to prove our application do you have any questions of me at this time it's getting late thank you very much questions thank you and this is a public hearing if anybody would like to speak this is a public hearing if anybody I will open the public hearing at this time if anybody would like to speak please fill out a blue card I have several cards here at this time I will call on Kevin Nelms to speak please state your name and address when you reach the podium I'm Kevin Nelms I live at 3403 Shadowbrook Court in Denton across street from Steve and I met with a few of the neighbors in the last few days and some of them were concerned that I wanted to tear the dam down which I don't I'd like to fix the dam they it's on a beautiful lake and all the lots are beautiful except one it's the one right across the street from me that I look out my window when I eat breakfast and I've got some pictures if you'd like to look there's a first one that's the dam and these are these are logs that float downstream if you look at the house in the back I talked that lady last night and she's she indicated she was for me getting this place cleaned up all the other houses are real nice but all the junks got to go out somewhere and it all flows over there and then this is on the other side of the dam it's kind of a swamp area for mosquitoes it's right across from my house here's another picture of the dam getting jammed up this is the there's a drainage thing that goes underneath the street to right behind my house that's it if you notice there's logs here as Steve said he's seen it where it's all the way up to like this area with logs which would flood over the street the dam has about a four inch crack there's my tennis shoe there but the four inch crack down here and I'm kind of taking a picture straight down on it that needs repaired all the trees along the the lake there look like that and then there's a bunch of concrete thrown on the other side of the dam that needs cleaned up and covered with gravel and concrete there's another one of the trees on the on the edge of the lake on the property and then another one and then this is looking back from my my window of my house to all these trees that are dead and all the piles of things which I would like to clean up because it looks nice and there's some more dead trees on the property more dead trees on the property and here's another picture of this is the basic main part of the property which I could really clean up and make look nice I live on a basically a zero lot line house and I have a driveway that enters from the rear I have a front yard but my son kind of has nowhere to play so this would give an area we could put a basketball court or something over here I have no intention of building anything just basically clean it up make it look nice at my expense and from the discussion tonight maybe the city doesn't have enough money to fix up the dam and I do so and I've got the equipment and I've got the people to do it and thank you very much for your consideration we do have one question Commissioner Beck thank you by sure thank you sir Kevin for coming down and speaking so if I understand you right you have no intention of letting this damn deteriorate and any repairs that it would take to keep it intact will come out of your own pocket is that correct that's correct okay have you any offers from any of the neighbors to help you with this now I had I had two neighbors come out come by the lady I showed you her house I think she came by last night and then the gentleman next door that lives you know not on the lake he came by and then I met Peter I met Peter tonight and he's he seems to be in agreement and of course Steve and everybody so that's a start pardon me that's a start then that's a start you've got yeah some people on your side yeah okay every I've lived in it since 92 and I took a 50- acre lot that was really terrible is I realized my Hill roads not the nicest looking place in the world but this place was really a showplace when I got done with it and my house is well kept and I have another house that I ran out over on the north side of town and I keep it well and I've got other houses in other countries and I keep them well so I just like something nice that's all all right thank you sir okay any other questions no thank you okay thank you our next speaker is Douglas Ebersole to be followed by John Wright I'd like to just clarify a couple of things that I heard in the work session about the covenants the covenant has an amendment covenants the restrictions were written in 1965 when Bob Nichols developed this place and this along here this line is block a all those lots here and the rest of this over here is block B and C D&E the amendment was written in 1966 and it was clarified item number eight and what it says it says except for lots and block a except for all these lots here no lot shall be resubdivided into no lot sub is resubdivided into that's old legal language for just subd ivided the neck and the next restriction says it continues it says nor shall any dwelling be erected or placed on any portion of any lot having a frontage of less than 150 feet and less than one acre the reason he did that is because these lots originally were platted the same size as these over here okay they're all the same size you can see down here these two lots are still the same size but lots across 11 number 18 what he did is he turned 11 lots into 18 over here in other words he and you can see right here he halves the size of the loss and that was because these these were not selling over here and so he had those lots almost all of them and then that's how he moved the project and those sold so this restriction except for lots and block a no lot shall be subdivided into nor shall any dwelling be erected then it continues on after that lots and block a may be subdivided provided said lot shall have frontage of not less than 100 feet and 25,000 squeak feet an area so that's why he did that he wrote that in there so he could subdivide those lots but that doesn't apply to Mont icello the red to block B C D and E that that exception only applies to block a so what that says is no lots can be subdivided into that and that the whole place is developed out now and this ignoring our covenants which that best a bad precedent for subdivision in there when it is against our our covenants I've heard a lot of talk tonight and previous issues about neighborhood integrity about character of neighborhoods and there are departments in the city that are concerned and talked a lot about neighborhood harmony cohes iveness security and character and safety and beauty and what's happened to Monticello whereas there are no regard for 52 year old restrictions that are still valid it would set a bad precedent and as far as the safety downstream the last meeting I tried to talk a little bit about history and the other thing that was said in the work session that was I need to clarify is it was said that there was no homeless homeless Association I was president of a homeless Association right there for 20 years there was and has been a homeless Association okay and we have come together over all those years of decades to keep that dam in repair we built the whole thing once and then rebuild it again two or three times and we have what we have as far as that the concrete below the dam that's there purposefully and that was given that that's a suggestion was later on because the dam kept washing out underneath it so he said put a catchment pace in there a detention pond below that dam to keep it from washing under so that's why we put those concrete there it's not junk it's not dumped it's put there purposely and that pond which he calls a mosquito nest is a pond as the catchment pond so when the water comes over the dam it doesn't wash underneath it it's happened and we know before we got that and now that works and we and those things are full of concrete those cracks they're on the outside because we filled those those two sides and so spillway full of concrete I'm on my time is up that's I'm opposed to the I'm opposed to this on principle because it's violates our covenants sir could you state your name and address I'm sorry Doug Ebersole 3210 Montecito Road thank you our next speaker is John Wright to be followed by Weaver Mc Clure is is John Wright in the audience they might have already gone home at this late hour they marked that they did wish to speak in opposition Weaver Mc Clure is weaver here to be followed by Michael Doransky my name is Weaver McClure I live at 3100 Carmel Denton block C lot 7 I've been there since 1989 so I've been there about 28 years Doug said a lot of the same things that I'm going to go over when I first when I bought my house and paid for the house they gave me a deed restrictions and said you know you have to follow these and so we've done that and there's been times where we've had to come back together to let some of the lot owners there's a bankers 83 lots in Montecito understand that they do have deed restriction have to follow and if you'll look at that little dot we had somebody move in a farmhouse and so we had you know deal with that and that got straightened out and taken care of so if you'll look in like in 1965 when the deed restrictions passed Bob Nichols course started this and that's the name of the streets after California but this lot that's right next to here of the way you're thinking about replating this this man that helped write these and signed off on these deed restrictions was Mark clearman and so he is not there anymore he almost passed away there I guess for his soul is house and left so these deed restrictions are there and I know the staff does not have to follow the deed restrictions I keep hearing that a lot but I would make a suggestion that anytime you have anything that's going to be changed that you put that on top of the form does this comply with the deed restriction so everybody will know in the very beginning I'm very opposed to this this lot block B lot 13 has been there since forever that this addition has been there I really resent changing the name to a different name so in the future when this property is resold again that it will be called something different than the Montecito edition and far as dividing it up and replating it some of the covenants that we have now the deed restrictions say that you can't you have to build a resident none of the laws can be used but for residents so this property would have to have by the deed restrictions would have to have a resident put on it a house and so what by voting yes for this what you're putting is all the lot owners now are going to put in a position that our only solution is civil litigation and you know nobody wants to go there but that that's probably words had it if if you vote yes on this and that's about all I got to say any questions I have no questions at this time Commissioner Roselle thank you mr. McClure for your thoughtful presentation I do have a question that sure it might be reoccurring that anyone who's presenting could answer but it seems to me that mr. Hale has not up kept that the dam in terms of aesthetics cracks look like there's rocks in that creek bed and I don't know even his ability because it's riparian buffer to do so okay so that being said we have an individual who has said that he would like to bring up the aesthetics of the area within his his ability I'm trying to understand if you have an individual who's not doing that but you have an individual who now wants to is that not good for the overall Monticello addition well not not really because we're gonna have to have another resident there and you can't really have a lot without a resident on it residents on it so my suggestion in that situation is is that mr. Nims wants the property by the whole property and fix the dam and then he then he controls the whole thing and stays as one lot which that's where our covenants are you can't subdivide it Hank mr. Hale I misrepresented that because the first part of that says it can't be subdivided the second part talks about how big the lot has to be that you have to have a you know piece of a house on it I think that's where we're at and I've looked at this for a long time I've been on the deed restrictions committee in the past and so most people comply we really don't have much problems nobody wants to go talk to your neighbor and say look you know what are you building now without getting approval and it doesn't fit our covenants sure everybody got these when they bought the property so thank you you bet thank you one more question Commissioner Beck thank you vice chair thank you for your comments so am I understand you right then that whoever owns that lot where the dam is it's solely their responsibility to make not sure about that that part I haven't looked at okay because I think that's but if it's on your property I mean like if any of us has a piece of property I mean what's on your property here you know that's your deal and if it's not where you can take care of it maybe you need to do something different with the property well and I agree with that I do but if this impacts something that the whole neighborhood benefits from it seems like to put the onus on him to take care of something that everybody benefits from well my suggestion is there's a lot of people that back up to that in part of the covenants is everybody has a right to the waterways or any streams or anything that's there so it backs up to the property so really we ought to probably get those people to say look you know we'll pay for it I mean even maybe as a deed restriction committee we put in fees and things to cover that does anybody propose it not yet this is the first time this has really come up I didn't know about this till about three weeks ago okay okay thank you sir okay our next speaker is Michael Doransky to be followed by Jim Keffer and please state your name and address for the record my name is Michael Doransky I'm at 2111 Montecito for what I've heard tonight the council cares about the majority of the citizens in the history of the city and I think that this case of this is just as well in this neighborhood as this neighborhood is also 50 years old and just as much care that was made for the historic area this area is just as is just as old by standards to be historic even though it doesn't have that designation and as people people speaking tonight do live in this neighborhood they're not from around the county they're not from random places these are people who actually do live on these streets and from we left off two weeks ago you know there was basically one or two homeowners that are in favor of this piece and for the project of subdividing their property and a couple weeks later we're probably still at that same point and basically I know that you all instructed us to say hey you need to have a neighbor the seller should have a a hosted meeting with the neighborhood well they didn't do that in fact basically some of the neighbors reached out to him and begged for a meeting for this Frank meeting I guess as he was saying to typically you know get their own input and he simply just took the suggestion just basically didn't do anything with it and maybe the reason why it is because maybe the properties already changed hands monetarily but just not on paper but some of the neighbors around the lake did beg for the meeting and they did get one and at this meeting for I understand it was basically you know trying to work out some sort of compromise but that really didn't occur it basically was saying hey you guys better get on board or there could be you know there could be consequences to the sort and basically I wasn't at this meeting but that's just basically from what I've heard from the other pieces of it and back to the meaning of before is hey if you don't like this project I got a much worse project for you if you want to get on board with if you don 't get on board with this one that's kind of how I'm taking it as well and he knows maybe he drains the lake takes out the dam to punish us all for those pieces and you know being an insurance in those pieces flooding could be an issue it could cause damage downstream just to make us all pay for us standing up for what we don't want or what we believe in and for I understand the neighbors were interested in trying to see what the price was of this property to cheap out if we could match the price and then make it more of a HOA or community property that we all would be responsible for for this piece of property but for whatever reason that was not something that was that was entertaining instead you know basically they told us that hey it's gonna cost fifty to a hundred grand for this piece I've seen no estimates I don't know if you all have the estimates for this fifty to a hundred grand but basically I think that's just more of a scare tactic as well to try to get people on board of please let me do this because it's gonna cost a lot of money to clean out some dead trees was the guys already willing to do I don't know why he has to own the property to do if he's just want to be a good neighbor he could do it himself as well as people have said hey the neighbors were willing to help and get together but again this is the way we've we're handling it I guess you would say and basically with a requirement I would say if this is gonna happen if it's gonna cost fifty to a hundred why don't we just put a stipulation that there's a hundred thousand dollars put into an escrow account and basically it has to spend a minimum of a fifty thousand dollars over a course of a year if this is a true number of what it takes to repair this dam or engineering reports because as it is from I've talked to people the dam that's washed out hasn't even those numbers in all the years over all the time but basically those are the numbers that were given to us so to me it'd be easier just to deny this piece given that basically only one or two people are for it and the rest of the neighborhood is against it and being that many people here seem to take value in what the neighborhood wants and what our input is that is my input is basically is the majority of us do not want that except for the people who are benefiting from this piece financially Jim Keffer is our next speaker to be followed by Diane H uber so Jim Jim has left he did mark that he is in opposition Diane will be followed by Jason Thomas I'm sorry yeah I can move you down the list Jason Thomas is Jason Thomas here and then to be followed by Cortland Christopherson good March 9th to you I'm at 3400 Montecito I'm actually the property that abuts right back up to the other side of Steve Hale and a couple people have said that we've had you know other neighbors have had conversations with Steve I actually did have the conversation with Steve so Steve and I talked a little bit we actually talked a couple of times he expressed a lot of concerns about liability of the dam which is totally understandable I understand the situation we did also talk about possible resolutions to the sale if the committee is saying you know you're absolutely is going to approve this because there are two stipulations to meet and it's been met so that's kind of what we talked about so when I was talking to him I just said look you know we are all interested in protecting the dam and one of the things that I heard in the planning session earlier was something the council was saying about the easement of the waterways and stuff that the dam cannot be affected in any way shape or form by whoever owns a property now or is there some is there a way you can repeat what you said in the planning session and not have it a basically affect my time with regards to the actual dam and doing anything to affect the dam specifically on the dam we determined that it was in place at the time of the subdivision being put into place so it it impacted or contributed to the mitigation for the drainage on the subdivision and it looks like a lot of the street drainage goes into that particular area so to remove something like that you would have to go through the city because it would affect all of the drainage on the property and you would have to show some sort of other alternative mitigation downstream in order to get an approval on something like that in addition there is a riparian buffer there because of the waterway so anything along the perimeter of the waterway would be considered a protected area that would require a permit in order to remove it so at any point that he tries to remove any of that vegetation around the waterway or if there is a potential attempt to remove the dam that would all go through the city and we would have to approve it the reason why I was asking is not to say that you know mr. Nel ms would do that because obviously he's you know wants to improve the land but as far as being owner of the property that butts right to it I have no guarantee of any way shape or form so believe me if you purchase the land and that's what they wanted to do then that's great and he's got good intentions but the next buyer who gets sold to what I am trying to figure out is how do we protect my investment that I made I'm very new to the community probably newest member besides Brandon and you know we're making that investment to keep that that whole neighborhood up and going and obviously mr. Nel ms seems wants to do the same thing I see the same one so you know my concern is purely protection of our neighborhood so if that means you know not approving the subdivision now of the lot because of certain restrictions and the deeds then that's fine if that exact means that we table this matter because I wasn't actually physically notified via certified mail even though I am on the tax rolls and been for 16 months I got no certified letter I work at home every day my wife works at home every day we never got we never got the letter so I didn't find out about this until about eight days ago and during that eight days I've had conversations with the neighbors so today my my perspective to you guys would be this needs to be tabled and let us have a discussion I would actually like to have a discussion with mr. Helms you know and just say look you know what is what is the plan how can we help I have neighbors that have continually come to us and say look we can we want to support the cleanup of the dam everybody knows I think that's the common you know factor of this whole situation nobody wants to let that thing go away the city can't let it go away without permits there's a lot of obstruction there so I just want to make sure my point is heard to the council that I wasn't notified I'd love the chance to have this table to discuss some really clean opportunity to fix the fix the dam together as a whole neighborhood that's my position I do have a question sure Commissioner Sullivan thank you what is the status of the HOA is there one does anybody pay fees is it official unofficial I do not know that there's other folks who have been in the neighborhood a lot longer who have had more control over that I can't answer that closing closing you didn't have to pay HOA fees or anything at that point okay that's since you were newer you might have encountered that or not so okay thank you very much appreciate so our next speaker is Cortland Christopherson to be followed by Diane Huber I would like to clarify the matter I am Coraline Christopherson I'm an attorney with the schnall offering and file on Texas I do by happenstance actually have lived in this area I lived essentially across the street or up the street from mr. Mc Clure for the majority of my life and before that I lived in a high view circle so I'm very familiar with this area I was brought in on very short notice on this matter last Thursday got a somewhat panic call from miss Cassandra Cornell who was concerned about the impact of the property values and the potential ramifications for this neighborhood if this subdivision was to go through in the midst of trying to somehow learn more about this matter I've kind of been stonewalled a little bit I was not able to get in touch with the department I'm sure you all are very busy and sounds like the matter before this was rather large I'm sure you're working on very hard but nonetheless I'll never get in touch with them and then I also tried to get a copy of the underlying application documents and the master list of all people that notice was sent to I was informed that that was an open records request and they had at least ten days to respond to that so I haven't been able to make a fully-fledged investigation in this matter I don't think that as such this commission should approve this application just for the Mac the the fact that they tabled this discussion at the last hearing and in the intervening period more homeowners have discovered that this is going on a number of homeowners themselves have not received notice I know Jason said that he didn't get notice Brandon also mentioned they did get they did not get notice they were both on the tax rolls in 2015 and they've had tax assessments for 2016 and they 've also had certified notice of previous proceedings in this matter leave Brandon filed an application for some amendment for this court and they received in that matter but they didn't get in this one so I don't know what the issue was but there's a defect in the notice I believe and I'd like to just point out to the court that I think the city attorney stated well that this application is final and not appeal so that the only remedy for homeowners in the subdivision from now is suit and whether that is against mr. Nelms or against mr. Hale will frankly not matter much it will be a time-consuming and expensive procedure which could easily be avoided I believe that this Commission should grant another continuance in this matter for a significantly longer period in order for members of this community and mr. Hale and mr. Nelms to work together to find a mutually beneficial decision and to remedy the situation you know whether that needs to be through a deed amendment or you know mutual leases on all parties that that remains to be decided but as of now I think that this panel had a made a very smart decision 15 days ago or so and they noticed that there was a bunch of conflict here and they made a very smart decision to push it and I would say that this Commission should push this matter again for another longer period in order to find a solution that does not entail future litigation in terms of I guess the professor from earlier but yeah I think but I'd like to say that this Commission's stamina is very impressive I think this is coming along by eight hour workday and now coming up on eight hours here between this hearing and the earlier meeting so very impressive and thank you for your service thank you oh we do have one question Commissioner Hudson yes sir stuff Christopherson Christoph erson thank you Christopherson mr. Christopherson I'd be interested to get your take on this body how do you connect this body and so understanding the decision to me bait understanding the the the kind of the parameters because regardless of if you've been able to receive the documents you you need the charters online and then kind of the the codes are online it doesn't really how do you connect those two like our option to ignore our call or not execute our call versus a deed restriction which doesn't come into our pur view you know I think that's a very fair question I know that deed restriction and interpretation is not under the jurisdiction of this panel but overarching ways I think this court can take it into account in deciding whether something should be approved or not in the fact that while while this Commission cannot enforce them or you know amend alter or evoke them they can say you can see the ramifications of this matter you know you approve this what happens well they're left without a remedy so they got to go somewhere they're gonna go to the court you can prevent that you can stop that from giving them an opportunity just kind of take a step back cool down and think with level head rather than rushing from step to step to step trying to get this application this information this notice throwing it all together it's it's been a very rushed a few days all right thank you sir Diane Huber Huber to be followed by Cassandra Cornell I'm dr. Diane Huber and I reside at 3310 my seat oh there's so many things floating around I'd like to try to pull some things together thank you for allowing me to speak first I want to address you Commissioner back you asked had anyone approached mr. Nelms about offering to put money up and last night I went and I knocked on mr. Nelms his door and I did agree that his view of the lake is is not as attractive as others and I offered to buy the lot to pay for the complete reconstruction of the dam to take care of any cost he said no he had it all taken care of but I did offer the other thing I want to commend you is when you made this statement earlier this evening that we needed to protect our neighborhood heritage over 25 years ago I had the privilege of living on Montecito and raising four sons who enjoyed playing in this lake today I have the great privilege because of that neighborhood heritage to watch my 12 grandchildren play in that lake I have heard said tonight that you don't have control over deed restrictions however according to your code you must divide by Texas code 2 1 2 and if we look at Texas code 2 1 2 point 0 1 4 regarding replating without vacating preceding plat you have the authority a replat of a subdivision or part of a subdivision may be recorded and is controlling over the preceding plat without vacation of that plat if the replat one is signed and acknowledged two is approved in a public hearing and three does not attempt to amend or remove any covenant or restrictions I believe the Montecito area is covered by deed restrictions that you've seen tonight that have been amended and I believe that this Commission does have the right the opportunity and the responsibility to deny this request thank you thank you our last the last card I have is for Cassandra Cornell if anybody else would like to speak please fill out a blue card hi I'm Cassandra Cornell at 3200 Mont ecito thank you very much for PNC for staying so late and also for granting us the two weeks to try to digest and take care of this issue as neighbors when we last spoke we were asked to work together as neighbors to find a solution and during that time it came to our attention that the Thomases who would join roughly at the dam area were one of the many people who did not receive a letter in the meeting before this you posted how many people got letters or said they didn't get letters but we didn't see it for this particular group we 've heard from countless amounts of people that are opposed to this and have expressed that we would like to share that with everyone who's in attendance and who is listening the Thomas's have lived there for 16 months and they have received letters from for other city issues regathering other properties recently and three and also three months ago but they did not receive a letter regarding their own issue we also have come up with several ideas to solve what we were told was the issue of the dam liability but we were not given the opportunity and were informed that the seller and buyer have already completed this transaction with the sellers being the real estate attorney and realtor and that was that and that they're just waiting to actually kept the funds go through tomorrow so there was no discussions to be had we were also asked to find a technical issue and that we needed to talk to you about that but we were not allowed to see the replat to evaluate and just because there are so many people who were not given proper notice and we are very worried about the future impact future owners of this property might have on our beloved neighborhood and after listening to the other properties being rezoned and developed by mr. Nelms tonight I feel neighbors who did not receive a notice must simply just have more time to investigate the situation further according to our covenants he mentioned something about putting a basketball court up and that also violates a covenant and according to 212.04 if a proposed plot arguably violates restricted codes it must be disapproved by 212.04 and this also this violates that so what I'm saying is we just simply haven't had time to work together and we really need to have just a little more time so that we can come together as a community I just don't think that this should have ever gotten here in the first place I think there should have been more investigation more communication with the whole situation and it's been done so quickly and behind our backs and nobody wants to talk to us about it one of the proposed things that we had come up with as a compromise is the Thomas property that joins the hill property is joined by an easement where the dam is located and since mr. Hale stated at the hearing and to mr. Ebersole and to mr. Thomas that he simply does not want the liability of the dam we wanted to propose a replat which would not involve subdividing it would not be in violation of deed restrictions but simply moving the property line to cover the dam to be part of the Thomas property removing the burden he is trying to get rid of therefore mr. Hale would be able to enjoy his property no restrictions are violated and the Thomas's and neighbors contend to the carrot to the dam care for the dam this is just one of many different kinds of things we've come up with but we haven't been able to discuss as a neighborhood we just feel very vulnerable because this would be a person that does not live on the lake who would essentially be in great control of the lake and also when I read in the deed restrictions it has to be for residential purposes where you have to put a house and I don't see on a floodplain how you can possibly build a house and it also has to be a certain amount of square feet there are many many other restrictions and so I think that we really need to have this more time to go over this thank you very much we do have a question commissioner Rosal thank you for your time the question is not actually directed at you but rather a point that you've brought up as well as other individuals we talked in work session about the notice of certified mail going out to the tax rolls it seems like mr. Thomas he's been there for 16 months and but you mentioned the tax rolls get updated as at most once a year so I have some concern about how a stay at home individual who's working at the house well I guess here's our question is there any evidence that we can provide that a certified letter went to that property owner and the address it went to the information that we have on our certified tax roll that we receive from our technical services department we can cross reference that with these addresses and check as you're aware and I've mentioned this previously and this has occurred with past cases to where certified mail goes out and just doesn't get collected and comes back so we'll cross-reference with that as well and verify what the issue is secondly we did publish in the paper and again the agenda is posted too so we can verify and see where that disconnect was as it relates to the tax roll we can see if there were other notices apparently that were received with other items or elements associated with but we can check and see what happened there I think you would be pertinent to do that regardless of what happens this evening but one of my concern is is what is the implications for legal posting if in fact there was a missed notice that actually didn't go out so we we after the fact look and say 3,400 Montecito actually no property owner current owner received notification is there implications to public notice in terms of actually moving on this item tonight Commissioner Rizal I would actually have to pull up the GIS map and look at all the mapping and all the addresses and cross-reference and see if that fell within or was shy off or within the 200 foot notification area first of all so sitting here I can't categorically state whether it was an error or not I hope it was not an error and I think we touched upon this at the at the work session to Jennifer if I can lean on you please to address that issue that Commissioner Rizal has brought up sure so what would cause a problem would be our non-compliance with the statutory requirements and the statutory requirement state that we have to send notice within 200 feet of the affected property to individuals on the latest tax roll and so as long as we fulfilled that then we fulfilled our obligation under the statute there is no defect yeah I definitely understand that Mike Mike and there was an opportunity for a different case that required a public hearing as you know our notification process as it relates to zoning or ZBA cases only board of adjustment cases we have a 200 foot notification area we also have a 500 foot enhanced notification area which goes directly to the property address and not to the property owner so that's why some people have received notices in the past which goes back to perhaps clarifying why the 200 foot notification wasn't received which is associated with the certified tax roll which comes out once a year in in August and then it takes some time for TS to then look at those shapefiles and modify them accordingly so I can I will still look into that to verify where that disconnect was there person that lives within 200 feet that did not receive a letter as well and what is their name so that we can have it for the record I'm sorry it's Brandon Poles at 508 El Paseo Street and we've actually applied for a ZBA before unfortunately our house burned down and we were gonna do a small modification on our pool house to add a bedroom we decided not to do that but anyway my point here is we received all the mailings for that so I know a hundred percent that you'll have the correct address to do that because we received past notifications on our own property that we applied for I'm just concerned because we did not receive any notification of this except for you know a phone call from a neighbor last minute and you know we started digging into this today to try to figure out what's going on you didn't receive a certified or courtesy no you neither neither one and we have absolutely received them before there's multiple people in the neighborhood who have expressed this it's this wasn't just a one-person thing I know several people sent in in emails they were very very very upset that this was happening and this there they did not get letters and so I'm just asking for more time that's we just need we just needed a little more time it just wasn't it wasn't done right and so we just we're just kind of stuck well all I can say from a legal standpoint is that it's our mailing of the notice that allows it to be sufficient for legal purposes it's not the actual receipt of the notice unfortunately in this case we're dealing with a plat plat to have very strict timelines in normal cases normal cases you have 30 days in which you have to approve or deny a plat or it's it's deemed approved and we typically have an applicant waive those provisions on the face of the application they're consens ual if he does not agree to a move of this particular item then at which we did last time if you recall we got his consent on the record I would feel highly uncomfortable and I would have to recommend against postponing it again because of those strict timelines that are in place by statute another problem that we have is that and in response to the 212 014 provision and that keeps being thrown out there is a provision that states that we cannot amend or remove any restrictions and those are specifically plat notes that we would put on a plat that changed the nature of the restriction or say all restrictions are hereby removed the courts have are interpreted the properly platted lot that has gone in front of PNC Commission to not amend or remove those restrictions so it has been interpreted by a court of law that that particular provision doesn't apply in this case in this case we have very little discretion that the law provides us as and this is just for the benefit of all neighbors if we have a plat in front of us it's considered it was called a ministerial duty it is not a discretionary duty and what that means is that the law clearly spells out what the extent of our duty is in the statute and what the statute says is that so long as a plat meets all of the technical requirements that are laid out in our code or the statute then we more or less have to approve it there is no discretion the purpose of it going in front of this body is to review what staff has already looked at to determine that staff was correct and that it meets the technical requirements I did as a courtesy look at your restrictive covenants and in my opinion and what I've and of course I can't give you all legal advice but I did advise the board and I did it in open session I could have done it in closed session but I wanted everybody to be aware of what we had determined and looking at your restrictive covenants the way mr. Ebersol reads them is not the way that I read them the way that I read them is that so long as you end up with two lots that are meeting those 150 feet and I think it was the one acre requirements that so long as each lot meets those requirements that it can be subdivided and I think that the way the statutory construction works that any court of law is going to find that as well as far as the residential requirement that's been brought up and I might as well just go ahead and continue since I'm on on this role the only thing that would affect that would be the zoning of the property because we have no control over what people actually build or not build on their property if we if he has the ability to build a single-family dwelling which we're not changing the zoning then that's out of our hands you know somebody could come in and fill in the floodplain and decide to build something at a later time of course it would have to come back but that's not us affecting the restrictions at all and so in my opinion none of this violated your restrictive covenants anyway but regardless of that we can 't look at those and we can't enforce them and as a body as the government body what we do have to do is we have to exercise our limited authority to determine whether or not technical requirements have been met for the plat so that's what we're tasked with here today we haven't been able to see what it looked with the plat even looks like and the measurements to see if we think that so we just really needed to have more time yeah I think it's on the online is it not yeah the plan is available with the meeting at the agenda of the meeting if you if you go to the agenda for this meeting you can click on a link the link to download the plot all of our even we were asking about how to get the plat and they told us it would take ten days that's what I'm saying it just it 's been so rushy I just feel like we just have not been able to have enough time to get together and and resolve this issue it's just and it's late and it just seems like everything that we go to do we just keep getting a negative you just keep hitting these negative things and we're just trying to come to a very positive neighborly happy solution we were hopeful that you were able to do that the last time we postponed it and and I'm sorry that you weren't able to get a resolution I feel like we're boxed in here legally and that we have a time frame problem and so I don't think that we're going to be able to postpone it again now if any of you do have a problem with some of the technical requirements that like we said you can bring it forward but the restrictive covenant we cannot we cannot even really discuss it so I do have some additional commissioners do you all have questions or okay Commissioner Sullivan thank you I and I think my question may have been answered I was gonna ask you or someone you know what is the minimum size lots in that neighborhood well apparently according to the covenants it's one acre what can arguably be one acre but on that entire section there are about two and a half to three acres nothing is smaller than that be the one oddball sized one acre floodplain lot there it just doesn't make sense is what I'm saying and like I said I'm not saying that anybody is is up to anything funny or anything like that I just don't know what would happen as time goes on then what would happen and it's in a very vulnerable position because they're not on the lake and so if if they don't want the responsibility then just to sell the whole property is what I'm saying it 's just it's just a putting it in a bad spot let me give you some unsolicited advice from someone who just finished in a neighborhood squabble that is specifically outlined in law and after five years four judges and a total of almost a million dollars in legal fees you don't want to bring a lawyer into this neighborhood squabble y'all need to settle it on your own because no good things is gonna come out of the lawsuit trust me that's that's why I've just if we could just have a little more time to just be able to get that and to sit down and work it out together I just think that would just be the best solution commissioner Ellis do you have any questions thank you vice chair I have a question I guess just real quick for staff going back to notification in that question with regard to this particular property are we where are we starting that that that making that circle of 200 feet at their address right and I think that might be worse for you so you you can you have an opportunity to look at that thanks I actually don't have that map available because I don't think I can access the s drive from here but I can inform you it was I think it's mentioned in your backup I believe it was 133 notices were sent and we kind of conservatively interpret what state law requires which is the original subdivision be notified as well as 200 feet around the property what we do is the original subdiv ision plus a 200 foot buffer around the subdivision boundaries so that's where we came up with that hundred and thirty three notices and those do go to the certified based on the certified tax roll to the property owner that we have on record right in is it it's from their address which is the Santa Monica address or because I think maybe some confusion with with with just is coming from where this this replat is on that corner on Alpacaio which would not have been your buffer I don't think no sending it out it would have been the address on Santa Monica right the buffer is formed from the subdivision boundary so that original Montecito subdivision that was shown up here earlier we put the 200 foot buffer around that that is all of the cards I have that wish to speak if anybody else in the audience would wish to speak in favor or against please come forward now if anybody else would like to speak please come forward now and state your name and address and then fill out a blue card after you've spoken sure so again I'm Brandon Bulls at 508 Alpacaio Street I'm just gonna be real brief I don't need four minutes I'm just gonna ask y'all you know as a planning and zoning board to look at this situation a lot is being broken up that's for a dam and that dam is being sold that affects several neighbors and I don't know if any of you have really just looked at this on maybe a Google Earth view to understand this map or how much time you spent on this you know I'm sure you spent time on it I appreciate that I was at the earlier planning session but it just kind of amazes me that we ended up in this situation with neighbors arguing over what shouldn't be an issue how does a dam get owned by one individual that affects so many people so what I would ask you tonight is please be thinking about that in future developments and planning and zoning to make sure this never happens again because it's just it's a really bad situation you know I think the buyer has the best of intentions hopefully he'll you know do wonderful things with the property but it just kind of amaz es me that we're in the situation and how we got here it's pretty unbelievable and talking with planning and zoning today you know that's the staff agreed with the people I talked to that it's kind of crazy that one person owns the dam that affects so many people so anyway thank you for time I do appreciate you'll stay in like thank you is there anybody else that would like to speak we we've already received your input unless there's a question for for you I'm sorry so I do have I do have numerous cards that did not wish to speak I have one that has a comment and the rest I'll read in his account Jane Piper Lunt at 42 11 north I 35 is did not wish to speak is in opposition and wrote that this is not in keeping with the neighborhood and traffic problems that might have been for the other case I do have three cards that did not wish to speak in support and 11 cards that did not wish to speak in opposition and if anybody else would like to speak on this matter please come forward now please come to the microphone and state your name and address and then fill out a blue card I have laryngitis so I can't talk very loud we just wanted to understand to the council could we request another date if we chose to to extend this you could withdraw it and refile it does anybody else wish to speak seeing nobody else wishing to speak we will close the public hearing Commissioner Roselle I'll keep this brief because it's one o'clock in the morning but I just wanted to go on record to thank everyone for coming out it's really unfortunate and it's frustrating to me as a commissioner just lets you know that this is a public hearing item in which you have the ability to speak your opinions and your thoughts about the issue yet as a commission it's a ministerial act and we have as legal has said we have no discretion on the matter and so I I'd surely hope that mr. Nelms protects the dam for the sake of the neighborhood I grew up in the neighborhood and so I'd love to see that pond persist but I just want to before a vote happens that seems to happen into the affirmative this evening to thank you for coming out we have heard you and we appreciate the feedback regardless of our ability to actually act upon it Commissioner Beck thank you both here and I too want to thank you're wanting to come out and staying up with us we were commended for staying up but it you guys have been here as long as we have I think all of us here on the commission were disappointed that we're seeing y'all again we were hoping this would get resolved too so again as Commissioner Rizel said despite where this goes we hope that some satisfactory completion comes to this without court cases or anything like that Commissioner Hudson move approval item fr 16 - 0 0 we haven 't closed the public hearing yet did you okay I'm sorry I move Devon closes up so no I so I move we we approve fr 16 0 2 0 0 2 3 a because in ministerially that's the only thing to do we have a motion do we have a second Commissioner Beck because I reluctantly say I understand the problem here but yes I second the motion we have a motion and a second is there any further discussion Commissioner Ellis thank you vice-chair just real quick thank you everybody for your input it does feel like our hands are tied here with with what council has told us and and I wish that wasn 't the case and and I wish you going forward in the future that you will all continue to be neighbors and and to work together and I would like to say in a to address mr. Bell's comment bulls comment in probably the last 30 years this type of thing would not not have been allowed we as you might have seen earlier tonight we had an ADP and there was this detention pond it was community lot and that's a really common thing in subdivisions now there will be and the city won't even allow a community a lot unless there is an HOA or some owner that will that has clear responsibility to maintain it you know this subdiv ision is 50 plus years old you know and it and I don't know who I don't know if they originally built the lakes or the lakes were already there whenever they built the subdivision but this was an artifact of the history and you know a city that at the time probably was was barely a town or you know as a small town and so today this type of thing wouldn't happen the entire lake would be an HOA lot and all of y'all would be members of the HOA and responsible for maintaining it and I don't know if there would be some way that y'all could get to that point or if that's something you desire you know it's it's beyond us it 'd have to be something the entire community decides to do together we have a motion in a second and I don't think we can vote on the board so we'll vote by show of hands all in favor please write raise your right hand how do I do motion carries 6-0 and one recusal and one recusal our next item on our agenda is our planning and zoning Commission matrix do we have any updates Commissioner Ellis okay not that anyone wants to talk matrix right now but it's the right night to bring up this topic which is can we start some discussion over city initiated zoning I don't want another lot like we had to deal with and I don't know if that's in a PNZ purview that we have that discussion so if you could if you're going to have a conversation could you move outside of the the hall we are still having our meeting if you have any additional discussion please move it to the hallway Commissioner Ellis shall I start that again okay I feel like this is the right night to bring this up a discussion on city initiated zoning so that we do not end up with a lot discussion like we did today on scripture Street so I don't know where that falls to us as PNZ if we can have that discussion but that's what I'm asking Commissioner Ellis if you recall I'm not sure if you recall I'm trying to verify we have created a PNZ subcommittee that is responsible for city initiated zoning review and application there were three cases that or maybe four that the committee was amenable to moving forward the council at that point had some questions and was keen to have a joint session with the PNZ or slash this sub committee and what I will do is I will visit and discern where that is on the schedule with them I believe it got pushed out but we we can definitely reinitiate for the lack of a better word and start working on this and come back with some of the program priorities we had actually presented some items that were relatively simple consolidation of zoning and I think it would this would be a good opportunity to use those once again as an example we did have a work session with City Council explaining to them what this committee does what its intent is and what the intent of city initiated zoning was the council felt that they needed a little more time to digest the information but I will definitely come back to the Commission with some answers on this okay if I may so is that subcommittee still active you mean that yes it is in existence yes it is I believe Commissioner Roselle we suspended the meetings we've just suspended pending outcome of what council decided on the the first properties and they determined that we would not go forward on properties unless they were consented to by the owner I had one more thing if I'm still on the clock okay is there any room for PNZ to discuss SROs at any time because clearly this is coming up time and time again because it's the development de jour it's going to keep happening it's commissionerless the City Council had requested the planning division to review or discern or have discussion at work session about SROs we did provide some information to the council as it relates to definition of their SROs as it relates to benchmarking in other communities especially in college towns as it relates to SROs and we also provided some draft language that would have more restriction or have restrictions associated with it as it relates to development at that time at work session the City Council directed that perhaps the issue is more likely attached to the development criterion the multifamily development standards as it relates to the parking ratio requirements building heights basically massing of the structure and based on that outcome they we presented back at work session with City Council I would say at the most one month back and we provided some added information as it relates to the core of downtown which is your DR2s your DCG 's your DCN zoning districts which is really what you've seen at tonight's discussion to requiring a specific use permit for any multifamily development within those zoning districts especially the core and given the small area plan initiative and given the historic districts that we have we received a favorable it was a very favorable discussion in the sense it was very positive and productive and council has now directed that we proceed with an ordinance for that because that is an amendment to the Denton Development Code it is a dual public hearing process so we have to initiate that and that item will be coming before you we actually decided to do a work session with you first however I am going to pull the Commission now if I have that opportunity if you would prefer we can actually do the public the work session and the public hearing on the same date to to move a little faster opposed to doing a work session and then coming back with public hearings so if you choose you know if you want to give me direction and say let's proceed and do the item I received direction yes super okay so we'll go ahead and do the notification procedure and just bring it to the to the put it placed on it on a very near pansy and if you could slip in a definition of dorm that includes SROs or any place where we would have to change that rooms are leased separately from kitchen collegiate housing collegiate housing dormitory something along those lines like some definition like that that would be wonderful what we what we can do is and provide some draft language which the planning and zoning Commission is welcome to then recommend that that be incorporated in the language Commissioner Hudson so real quick I just want to follow back up on Commissioner Rozelle 's question about historic markers that fee the $200 fee or whatever and we 're going to look at maybe what goes into that and potentially waiving that because all the other work they do with that and so can we get a can we kick that around at some point in the future Commissioner Hatsbeth and Commissioner Rozelle we do have that we have an application fee which as it relates to historic landmark designation in the public hearing processes obviously having a historic landmark designation is indeed a positive attribute that you know we should look upon favorably I would like to add that we are hopeful in the very near future to address our fee schedule because our fee schedule is adopted by ordinance that fee is referenced in there we were hopeful to actually do a cost-benefit analysis on all the fees that we have and possibly look at potentially eliminating or reducing the fee associated with that element or component hand-in-hand with that the historic preservation ordinance is we're looking at making some minor amendments to that from a procedural aspect so it will be a few months but I think we will be able to review and do an analysis on the fees and bring that forward before you as well Commissioner Beck last thing I was disappointed to hear that we're still having problems with notification issues I thought we had resolved it where they would go out to not only the address it's on the city rolls but to the actual address itself so there wouldn't so we're we again to talk about the notification we had conversation with the planning and zoning Commission we floated some draft ideas we talked about postcards we talked about refining the language there was quite there were some questions as it relates to the enhancement of the notification process can we do something with our technical tools and what have you we then presented we also prior to that had conversation with the City Council and the City Council has also requested that what can we do with the notification process I would like to add that we go above and beyond the state requirement right now as it relates to where and whom it goes to I will verify the tax roll issues and make sure that all that is current and and lean on another department we collaborate really well together so I'll lean on them and make sure we have the correct information I do anticipate that we will come back with some recommendation for the 500 foot notification and perhaps use a postcard and also eliminate the certified mailing procedures as you know the certified mailing procedure it is cumbersome for a property owner to want to go to the post office and pick that up and it's also very expensive which you know we gave you an analysis on that so if you would bear with us we we will bring that to the forefront as well Commissioner Sullivan real quickly because I'm sleepy could you just simply add our current resident and just put on a postcard I mean I get junk mail all the time from the current residents. Right and we'll bring that before you now we really do not need to codify anything as it relates with the notification procedure because that's already in play we will just refine tune or refine the language that comes that goes to the community so it wouldn't be any it's not a difficult task it's just something that we need to bring forward to you expeditiously. And with that we will end our planning and zoning meeting at 1 on March 9th. you