Commission meeting for March the 22nd 2017. This meeting
has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and
I will call our work session to order at
434 and I will turn it over to Shandria for clarification
of agenda items. Okay. Good evening.
We have one item. Well, actually do we have any comments or
questions about the minutes from March 8th?
Okay
For the consent agenda, we have one item. It's a final plat
for Ryan Meadows if there's no questions or there is a
question.
Julie Wyatt up just in case. Okay. Thank you chair.
Okay
Concerned about the roadway access in this area. We've got
the what is it Creekwood Drive.
Now as this development is going up it'll eventually
connect up there by Ryan Elementary, right?
Yes. And on the north end then on the south end it'll
connect to where Creekwood
dead ends. Okay.
This road though, it's a connector line. What is the right-
of-way width for a connector there?
Is this something that can be since this is the only main
road for all these other feeder roads to get people out
there?
Would that be a double lane or a four lane or would it be a
two lane with a center strike?
Are you referring to Creekdale? Yes.
Yes.
Creekwood Drive.
It's
85 foot right away.
It is 85 foot. That's what I'm saying. You know, I don't
have engineering here to see just how that roads going to
be designed.
Okay. That's what I was curious about if we knew if that
was going to be wide enough to handle, you know.
Engineering has reviewed it and has released it to be so it
does meet that that road right away with does meet the
technical requirements in order to
accommodate the traffic flow that is anticipated through
development. So if I can run my roll down he could probably
give me a better answer.
Yes sir. Okay. Thank you. Sure.
Commissioner Sullivan. Maybe I'm confused with another plat
en.
Doesn't isn't there going to be a Hickory Creek is going to
be coming south of this or is it further south?
When you were talking about that, you know, one of the few
entrance and exits going into this division subdivision.
Where is Hickory Creek coming in below? I thought it was.
Earl Escobar just walked in. So I may call upon him.
Let me pull up a map and then maybe we can look at it
together if that's
And we can see
Earl we're talking about the Ryan Meadows Plat and they
have questions regarding the design of Creekdale Drive.
I'm going to make sure I'm getting in the right spot.
Ryan Meadows is actually further to the west.
So this is Ryan Meadows phase two to the south here and if
I turn on the mobility plan, it should show Creekdale
actually continuing further south and then to the east and
connect to the existing portion, which is I believe
somewhere in this area.
Commissioner Sullivan is the red dot. Is that the proposed
Hickory Creek? That should be so that you got some
So you do have another out to the south of Creekdale coming
down to the proposed Hickory Creek.
Right over here. Change. Yeah. There's a feature collector
that connects Creekdale to Hickory Creek Road.
So that would relieve some of the pressure off of the
traffic going on to Ryan Road or mainly going on to Ryan
Road.
And this outlet over here should already be existing. It is
.
So there is already an outlet that connects Creekdale to H
ickory Creek.
Just want to make sure I was thinking of the right area.
That's all.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for pointing
that out.
Commissioner Sullivan, I wasn't even aware that we were
going to have that little jump in there, but that's
futuristic.
As this development gets done though, it will connect to
Ryan, come down to Creekdale and hit a street there I can't
think of that will bring it down to Hickory Creek.
We can call it Larry Beck Boulevard.
But we've got no idea when Hickory Creek is going to even
be started doing.
My question for you guys in here is how wide is Creekdale
going to be? Is that going to be like a four lane or a two
lane with a center turn?
It'll be a two lane road with parking on either side. It's
a residential collector.
Okay. Considering it's a main road that will be pulling a
lot of those people out there, I would have thought it
would have been a little bit, it would have allowed for
more traffic flow one time.
But no, just two way would.
We could strap it either way. It gives us flexibility
depending on traffic volumes right now. The standard cross
sections, two lanes, one lane in either direction with
parking on the side.
We'd also stripe it three lanes with a one lane in each
direction with a turn lane, continuous turn lane.
Okay. It's wide enough though where in the future if we
need to, we could probably add another lane on each side
then.
If we need to.
Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Sullivan.
What's happening to Ryan Road? I mean during school
mornings and afternoon, Ryan Road getting on to Country
Club is a real disaster.
And when you add all those houses right there, dump it into
Ryan Road, is Ryan Road going to be widened at some point
or when and what's the...
There is no definite time frame for the widening of Ryan
Road. It is slated to be a four lane divided roadway.
We did apply for a signal at Ryan and FM 1830, Country Club
.
It was denied by TextDOT because it did not meet their war
rants.
And unfortunately TextDOT, in order to meet TextDOT war
rants, it has to be based on actual traffic counts.
So you really need, the development has to come first
before the signal can...
Create chaos.
In order for it to then get solved.
That's correct.
Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions for Julie on this item?
Okay. Under public hearing, we have four items and I will
note that two have been postponed until the April 12th
meeting.
And those are items B and C.
Okay. And then items B and C under public hearing have been
postponed until April 12th.
And then I'll invite Haley Zagorski up to discuss item Z16
28, which is a rezoning request for MSGSB Limited property
owned by that group.
Alright. Good evening. So this is case Z1628 for the Harris
property.
Alright. So the request was for us to hold a public hearing
and consider a request for rezoning approximately a half
acre from DR2 districts to a DCG.
That's Downtown Commercial General.
The property is located at 1604 West Hickory.
It's currently developed with four duplexes.
The two that you see on the back portion of the lot are
connected by a breezeway carport there.
And it's approximately 85 feet east of Avenue C to give you
a little point of reference there.
I want to point out some features in the area.
There is currently multifamily to the north and the west of
this property.
That's across the street apartments and the lights
apartment complexes.
CVS is located there at the corner of Avenue B in Hickory.
The two properties in between the subject property and CVS
are actually owned by the same entity that owns the subject
property.
It's currently developed with the Jackson Chang apartment
office and then they have a couple of residences next door
that are used for multifamily as well.
And then of course the UNT campus is located directly
across Hickory Street.
So currently this property is zoned Downtown Residential 2
and the proposal is to rezone this to DCG.
And as you can see there are two properties that adjoin
this one to the east are currently zoned DCG.
So their intent is to put all three properties under one
zoning district to help facilitate future redevelopment.
So the future land use designation for this property is
neighborhood university compatibility area.
As you're all probably familiar by now that is a
designation applied to areas that adjoin our two university
campuses to help transition from that campus
and form and land use into the surrounding established
neighborhoods.
So you can see here this one like I said is directly across
the street from UNT's campus.
And that neighborhood university compatibility area extends
pretty far to the north of this property before you get
into those lower residential areas.
So some of the considerations that staff looked at for this
was that the rezoning is consistent with the surrounding
zoning pattern.
There's already a mix of DCG and DR2 within this block.
And as I mentioned before the two adjoining properties that
this owner currently has are already have the DCG zoning
designation.
This district is consistent with the future land use
designation.
The neighborhood university compatibility area calls for
densities and services to be provided in close proximity to
the college campuses to promote walkability in the area.
And to give the area character and versatility.
And as I mentioned previously this would consolidate the
zoning designation for these three properties that are
under the same ownership to allow for more cohesive future
development under one set of zoning regulations.
Another consideration is that this allowing this redevelop
ment for denser use potentially in this area does promote
transportation efficient design.
And what that means is that it's providing resources and
potentially housing in a close proximity to UNT that would
then promote bicycle and pedestrian activity near this
campus.
And that in turn would limit students vehicle trips to and
from campus.
And eventually could limit parking in the surrounding
neighborhoods by providing them areas to live and get the
resources that they need close to campus.
And just to give you some idea of how these two districts
compare, DR2 has a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per
acre.
DCG would substantially increase that to 150.
The lot coverage is fairly comparable.
It would increase from 75% to 85%.
And then decrease the landscaping from 25% to 15%.
And this would allow for the building height on this parcel
to increase from a maximum of 45 feet to a maximum of 100
feet.
Notices were sent for this case and we received no written
responses.
I did pass out the one response from the neighborhood
meeting that was held back in February.
And as you can see that person was neutral to this request.
And with all that being said, staff recommends approval of
this request because of its compatibility with the
surrounding established zoning districts as well as its
consistency with that future land use designation.
And I can answer any questions.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Hi, Haley.
I read in the backup that the subject property is not pl
atted currently.
I believe that's correct.
And is the other property, is that platted, the other
property that this person owns?
I don't believe so.
They expressed an intent to potentially plait the three
lots together at some point in the future.
Okay.
And that's probably where my concern lies with this is repl
atting it and then we're going to have a footprint for a gin
ormous development request.
So I do have concerns.
Another question I have is where is the Frye District
overlay and coming west?
Let me see if we still have that map pulled up here.
So let me turn off a few layers here and get us to the
right area.
Got a little bit of lag time here between the mouse and the
computer.
All right.
So.
Should have a layer four.
Yeah, so looks like the Frye Street area goes up to Avenue
B.
So it would not be, it would not count for this particular
property?
No.
Okay.
That was my fear.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
On that, what about West Oak Historical?
Where is it in coming from the west?
And West Oak is there in blue.
Okay.
Is the applicant going to be here for this?
I believe so.
I believe he intends to be here for the hearing tonight.
I have a question too for him.
In the background material under site data points out one
way secondary major arterial requires 66 feet of right of
way and designed to accommodate approximately 10,000
vehicle trips per day.
And then it says West Hickory is not currently built to the
second major arterial standard.
So what does this entail?
Are we going to have to widen that or add some things to it
to get it up to speed?
And if so, does that mean this is going to affect Hickory
probably all the way from Carroll to Bonnie Bray?
I'll actually let Earl answer that question if he knows
future plans for Hickory.
Hickory and Oak Street are considered one way couplets.
It's basically two lanes for each roadway in each direction
.
Right now Hickory is a two lane roadway.
And so capacity wise you're really not going to increase
any capacity into that since it's already two lanes.
So the maximum capacity for that roadway is about 10,000
vehicles per day.
The additional right of way is going to be mainly for the
parkway where your sidewalks are going to be located.
So that would bring Hickory then up to this secondary major
arterial standard.
Earl, do we have traffic counts for Hickory?
I'm sorry?
Do we have traffic counts for Hickory?
Yes, there's currently about 6,000 vehicles on that roadway
right now.
Okay. Yeah, it shouldn't increase that much.
But again, what has to be done here to bring it up to the
second major arterial standard?
If we're not there yet, it's indicating we're going to have
to.
I'm just curious, what does that entail?
Well, when we say it's not actually a secondary major arter
ial.
A secondary major arterial is two lanes divided, four lanes
divided, two lanes in each direction.
And that's not going to be the case with Hickory.
Okay. Okay. So you're not saying it has to be brought up to
that.
But I don't, just the fact that it even raised that
indicated that we were going to have to make some changes
to Hickory.
But you're saying we don't.
Right. I think if you combine Hickory and Oak, it kind of
gives you the same concept as a secondary arterial.
Okay. With the two lanes in each direction with the block
in between serving as your median.
That makes sense. And I'm assuming the speed limit will be
unchanged.
Yeah. But the 66 foot right away right now, it's not
currently 66. It's probably more in the neighborhood of 60.
So that additional six feet is just accommodate a wider
parkway for your sidewalk.
Okay. Do we know, let's maybe go back to, do we actually
know the actual acreage of these, was it three parcels
combined?
Thank you, Earl.
Do we have a full acre there?
Let me see. I believe I have both, information for both of
their properties.
So the subject property is 0.55 acres. The other two lots
are 0.68. So it would be just over an acre combined.
Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you. Commissioner, back to some of my questions, but
I wanted to follow up on one of them.
Generally speaking, when we look at a rezoning like this,
how does the current infrastructure in terms of traffic
play into the process of approval?
More thinking generally to help me out going forward, but
also specifically here, where you have the potential for a
massive building to go in.
City says the current street is not built to the standards
in which the current street is supposed to be. Does that
play into any hesitation in the approval process?
Like if we had a gravel road there, but it was zoned DCG,
would city be like, okay, well it needs to be this.
And because it can be this, I just want to know how traffic
plays into the decision process, because it wasn't, it
doesn't seem like it was a big enough deal to not be
overcome in this situation.
But there has to be a tipping point at some point where the
traffic's a real consideration.
I'm wondering the thought process behind city staff in
determining that.
Well, Earl might be best suited to answer that. I know we
do reserve the right to request a traffic impact analysis
with each case.
In this case, they weren't very specific in what their
future intent is.
So I think that played into why that wasn't done at this
point, but I can let you speak more to Federal.
Yeah, we've noticed over time lately that traffic has
become an issue for a zoning case.
And so now what we've done is started to require a traffic
analysis.
If the area that they're trying to rezone is a, I guess a
sensitive area in terms of traffic, unfortunately.
But this one, it's already currently developed.
And so depending on, and it's really speculative. They don
't even know what they're wanting to put in there based on
their narrative.
So the traffic study comes in when there's actually some
plans drawn from potential construction?
Right.
Okay.
Because we don't know if they were going to combine this
lot with the lots adjacent to it and make it one big lot,
or is it, they were just going to develop as individual
lots.
So that's why we couldn't really pinpoint a traffic study
to determine if this was feasible.
That makes sense. I think that's all I might have for you.
But I have one more question regarding the project.
Because of the zoning across the street, would the
potential project on a DCG in this specific area have any
residential slope requirements?
The residential proximity slope?
Yeah.
No, so that's dependent on the adjoining properties. And in
this case, they have multifamilies surrounding them to the
north and the west and then the university across the
street.
So at this point, it doesn't look like that would apply. If
there was a single family residence on any surrounding side
, then that could come into play. But it doesn't look like
it would here.
Okay. Thank you.
We'll follow up on the traffic. Since we've done the
traffic impact fees now, the burden for the streets now
pretty much shifts to the city and they pay the fee versus
the old way of if the road is not improved in your site,
you're doing perimeter street paving.
That has gone away now with the traffic impact. Is that
correct or is that not exactly how that works anymore?
It depends. If the development is going to create such a
negative impact on our existing road infrastructure, they
should actually mitigate for that.
And now whether or not they'll be eligible for credit just
depends on what those mitigation measures are.
On deals like this, it shouldn't be. That's going to be
like razor ranch and large projects like this, not smaller
infield type projects.
And we have a clause in our ordinance as well with infield
developments that if they're not proposing a development
that's 10 times greater than the previous use.
I don't know what the current use is now. It is currently
developed. But as long as they're within that 10 times
threshold, then they wouldn't be subject to road impact
fees to help promote infield development.
Do we have any general guidelines, say for instance the
road just physically can't handle traffic such as
Commissioner Roselle's example, or the roads not there yet,
what are our criteria in those cases?
Because you can't really pay into a fund to get access if
it doesn't exist.
Well, if the roads not there, they have to build that road.
And so, and then they would be eligible for those right
away credits if it's in our either on our mobility plan or
if it's in our roadway CIP plan.
Okay.
Commissioner Sullivan.
I guess that this is a disframatification.
How are we to vote on changing the zoning if we don't know
what the plans are to go there?
I mean, I kind of see this as a game of Pac-Man where we're
starting to chomp away and pretty soon we're coming up to
next door to the historic district, and we've got 110 foot
structure going to be built and everybody's going to say,
why don't y'all do that?
Well, that's sort of the nature of zoning. It requires a
little bit of, I guess, foresight.
And the way you were basically zone in the dirt, not the
use. So we're thinking about what could go in that spot and
if, if what could go in that spot will work or not.
And so those are the questions that you would need to ask
yourself what's possible under the zoning that you allow to
go in this space to be built in those are the questions you
would have to weigh as a commissioner.
Thank you.
If I could jump in real fast. Thank you. To Commissioner
Sullivan's point, early on that was a contention I had and
Commissioner Taylor really helped out in helping me through
that. It often convolutes the zoning case and we actually
know what the applicant is because then we think, okay,
well it's just going to be an apartment complex, let's
approve it, but they could just flip it, sell it, put a
movie theater in or something like that.
So it's, it's ideal, in my opinion, not to know what the
specific use case use case could be. So when we look at all
these possible potentials we actually think through, which
should these be any of these should be in this area.
So it's helpful to actually bifurcate those out completely.
So we're looking at zoning, we shouldn't shouldn't take
into consideration what someone's saying they might build
because they could sell the property they can build
whatever they want once it's zoned. So it has to be taken
independent of the actual potential use being built.
Thank you.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair and just to piggyback
further on that, that is my concern with this, just to put
food for thought, they can replat all of these that they
own once this is done and they can sell it.
And we could be having an issue that we've had on multiple
occasions already in this area with a large scale
development, high density large scale development.
So that's where my concerns lie with this because we never
know changing zoning what it's going to be even even if
they come to us and say this is what we're going to do.
I mean, it's not tied together so it helps I guess yes to
your point not to know but at the same point we need to
consider really what all that could all that it could be in
doing want all that it could be.
So thank you.
Any other questions for highly.
Thank you.
So the final item under public hearing is development code
amendment related to multifamily dwellings, and I'll invite
run the Gita up for a presentation.
Later this evening.
Thank you Chair members of the Commission members of staff.
This is a great segue on the discussion that we just had a
few seconds ago.
The item that we have today is a consideration for a sup
requirement for zoning districts D.
Are to DCN and DCG.
The code amendment is to add a specific use permit to these
zoning districts when multifamily development is proposed.
So for definition purposes or the definition for multif
amily is a structure that contains three or more dwelling
units so any development.
That has three or more units on a single lot would qualify
as a multifamily development and if that is proposed say a
fourplex they would fall under this requirement for a
specific use permit as well.
So just to clarify and define what multifamily is it could
be a four unit it could be a hundred unit it could be
whatever as long as it's more than three.
Three or more.
For your for the DC.
These are the zoning districts that permit multifamily.
Either with a sup or with a limitation.
You see here on this side here it's listed up what an RC
and an RMU 12 DC and DCG and so forth.
The three that we're going to be focusing on or is under
consideration is are these three zoning districts here.
And currently these are the only three zoning districts
that don't require a either an sup or the limitations that
you see here L4 or L6.
L4 requires that a multifamily be permitted with either the
following if they fall under the following five criteria or
five categories here.
If they obtain a specific use permit are part of a mixed
use development or as part of a massive plan development
existing.
If it was received if they received a development approval
back prior to 2005 and also if it's part of a small area
plan.
So if they meet any of those then they meet the limitation
of L4.
L5 for the three that we see here limitation there is
related to density.
So what it states here is that within this district the
density of an apartment will calculate as one bedroom equ
ating to half the unit.
So for example if there is a four bedroom unit that unit
actually equates to two units because each bedroom is half
a unit.
So that's the limitation.
Limit number six, limitation number six states that if a
proposed multifamily is proposed in any of these zoning
districts that have a L6 associated with it.
Must have a non-residential use on the ground floor if it
is along an avenue collector or an arterial street.
Otherwise it would not be permitted.
So those are the limitations under each of these zoning
districts that allow for multifamily.
So before I move on does anybody have any questions related
to the requirements or the need for multifamily as it falls
under these zoning districts?
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you Chair.
So for clarification then L6 you can't build multifamily on
the ground level. It's got to be above a commercial.
Correct. As long as it falls or is along an arterial
collector and an avenue street.
Okay thanks.
Commissioner Hitchwith.
Are those, let's see so we have office, retail and
commercial.
Is there a working definition tied to the document in and
of itself somewhere or does someone make a judgment call on
those?
As well as, yes.
So like last week we had a conversation, I say last week,
last week a conversation about single home, I mean single
family, multifamily. So who makes those kind of decisions
if it's iffy on a commercial or if it's iffy on retail.
Who kind of is the tiebreaker?
Well the DRC administrator and ultimately the planning
director can make those determinations as far as the type
of use it is.
Typically if it's non-residential in the sense it falls
under the commercial land use categories, then those will
qualify as commercial uses.
And we also have definitions in the DDC that explain what
each of the uses entail.
Office, retail.
But then development code.
I have a question.
Rather than a question I'll say maybe an observation.
The criteria that we have L4 through 6, those three design
ations, DR2, N and G, effectively those are the only three z
onings that you can by right go build multifamily in.
Correct.
Or as, yes.
Or if they will use L4 as an example, if it's a mixed use
then yes.
But if it's plainly multifamily you are correct.
That's the only three that were permitted by right.
But currently if you're going to do multifamily outside
those three zones, you have to fit the box with review.
Those three are the only ones that if somebody buys
properties that I want to build an apartment unit and it's
zoned that way and it's in a small area plan I can go out
and start building apartments and I don't have to have go
through all of the.
Public hearings or what not.
Stuff.
Just to clarify that, the other thing is obviously to
comply with the L5 which is the density limitation.
But other than that, you're correct.
It would be permitted by right.
Thank you.
That's all I'm going to make at this point and go on with
your presentation.
So just to give a little bit more background on multifamily
and specifically these three zoning districts, what would
be required and what the requirements are in regards to set
backs, maximum building heights, and maximum lock coverage.
As we continue to discuss these proposals for multifamily,
we often ask ourselves, well what's the height limit, right
?
And so DCG, we'll use that as an example, DCG has a 100
feet maximum building height.
It requires up to or requires up to 85% lock coverage.
As far as setbacks, there are none.
However, we know that the fire department requires certain
setbacks if it's adjacent to a fence or another structure.
So these are the regulations that we look at when we review
a multifamily development that comes in, again, under the
DR2, DCG.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Just, and I should know this, just for clarification, we're
talking about lock coverage.
We're talking about what that building is going to be
sitting on.
Right.
Yes, the way we define lock coverage is just at
Commissioner Beck, but also any impervious material.
So the driveways would count as lock coverage.
Okay.
And parking.
Okay.
Right.
So would I be right in saying that the more, the greater
the lock coverage, the higher the density?
Is that what those two fit?
Technically, you can, yeah, you can build more with the
higher lock coverage.
Okay, thank you.
We also have design standards, which is in sub-chapter 3513
.
Again, another set of provisions that we look at when we
review developments of multifamily.
And you all have seen this proximity slope, but in that
section it also includes orientation, building materials,
open space requirements, architectural requirements, and
any other.
If it belongs, or it's within a special overlay district,
those will also have additional criteria or additional
standards.
But generally, if a development comes in for multifamily,
these site design standards are under the section 3513.
Parking.
This is the ratio required.
You see we've got different categories for dwelling units,
and efficient, which is defined as 600 square feet or less.
And that is 1.25 per unit.
If it is a one bedroom or an efficiency that's over 600,
they're required to provide 1.5 space per unit.
Two bedroom is 1.75.
Three bedrooms is two spaces.
Four bedrooms would be one per bedroom.
And then a retirement or senior living facility would be
one space per unit.
So again, these are what we look at when we review a multif
amily development that comes in for development.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Where do the infamous SROs stand in this diagram?
Good question.
SROs, we do not have a separate use that's classified or
categorized as SROs.
We categorize them as multifamily at this point.
So they would fall under multifamily.
But I mean, would it be one and a quarter space per unit or
?
It would depend on how many bedrooms they are proposing.
Again, if they have three bedrooms, they would be required
two parking spaces.
If they were four unit, a four bedroom unit, then they
would require one space per bedroom.
So they would fall under the same requirements that you see
here.
Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Rizal.
Just so I'm, excuse me, clear.
A three bedroom unit, that's a three bedroom unit is one
unit?
Correct, with three bedrooms.
So if an apartment has three bedrooms, the requirement is
two spaces per that one apartment door.
Correct.
But if it's a four bedroom unit, you have to have four
spaces.
Correct.
I'm wondering why the difference, because on one it's two
thirds per bedroom and then it jumps up to one per bedroom.
And it's the only one that has a per bedroom.
Can you help me out with that?
Yeah, I think going back, I'm sure there was a code
amendment.
I'm not 100% sure exactly when that was.
But I think that was to address the four bedroom units that
were being developed in primarily student housing, I'm
guessing, on that.
And that's why that required up the parking requirements
for that particular type of unit.
Okay.
Yeah.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Going back to you answering Commissioner Sullivan with
regard to the collegiate type housing projects.
So you're saying like in their typical development, let's
say it would be like a four quad with the living in the
center.
Right.
So that would be treated as a four bedroom, right, needing
four spaces for that particular unit.
Yes, we treat them the same as a multifamily and the
bedroom count is transferred as well to this ratio.
Okay.
Yes.
Thanks.
Just real quick, I know you have this in your backup, I
just wanted to go over really quick and maybe potentially
answer any questions that you may have.
We do have a section in the DDC that's specific to specific
use permits.
It discusses the procedures.
It goes through the planning and zoning and then ultimately
to city council for their approval.
It is approved by ordinance.
There's an approval criteria that lists compatibility,
capacity levels, and all the good things that need to be in
conformance.
It also has submittal requirements.
Typically we request a site plan if applicable, a landscape
plan and/or elevations as well.
With that, we can, when I say we, the staff, the planning,
zoning commission, and city council can also impose
conditions to make,
to ensure that the proposed use conforms with the approval
criteria that's stated in this section.
And ultimately if it is approved and there is a change in
the site plan or the conditions that were approved by city
council,
it would have to go back to the same process as it was
approved and that being planning the zoning commission and
city council.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Ron, when I was reading through this particular section in
the code, it mentioned the word approval authority.
I assume that's city council, right?
They're making the final decision as it runs through the
process, but they're the approval authority on an SUP.
Is that correct?
Correct.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yes.
Ultimately the city council approves the SUPs through
ordinance.
So with all that, we're here again to propose a code
amendment to add a specific use permit for the three zoning
districts,
as was pointed out earlier, don't require a specific use
permit at this moment.
The three zoning districts are the DR2, DCN, and DCG.
And how we came to that is you see here in the urban core
that's shown on this map,
the majority of the zoning districts that are adjacent to
our established neighborhoods, our historic districts, and
our special overlay districts,
but these zoning districts in the form of either the DR2,
DCN, or DCG.
And staff's recommendation is that we add this specific use
permit to provide that additional analytical tool to bring
forward,
not only with the applicant and discuss what we can do to
address any potential impacts,
also but to the planning zoning commission and ultimately
city council as well,
to identify what mitigation or conditions we can use to
minimize those potential impacts.
And that could be the height of the building if it is too
high for that particular area, and so on and so forth.
There's a number of conditions that can be placed.
And this is really the tool that can be used to address
those concerns that we have.
And when I say we, I say that in general, the citizens, the
planning zoning commissions, and the city council.
Ultimately, there are options to provide other requirements
.
Again, I said parking, building height, and we can also
talk about sustainability in the form of some specific site
design requirements.
So all those can be folded in to the approval of a specific
use permit as a condition.
I kind of went over this already briefly.
The staff obviously is bringing this forward and we're
recommending approval as the specific use permit will serve
as an analytical tool
to review land use as far as massing and scale to
surrounding areas, surrounding properties, to address
compatibility.
And again, it's consistent to our comprehensive plan in the
form that it is within the compatibility area, the
neighborhood university compatibility area.
And it's in this area that we feel that we really need
another level of review, and that is through a specific use
permit.
So with that, that concludes my presentation.
I'll be happy to answer any further questions.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Okay, Ron, so how did we get here?
I have a feeling like from what I understand, this started
because we wanted a definition,
or council wanted a definition, or the city as a whole
wanted a definition for SRO collegiate housing.
How did we go from there to here?
Was it just too hard to define and put into another, I
guess, code requirements for that type of development?
Because my only fear with this is, are we negatively
affecting other types of multifamily by adding this other
layer and expense for developers and developments?
And so I want to know where your brain was in the think
tank room that we got to this.
>> Sure, we started this several months ago.
We've had several meetings with the city council.
Obviously, the issue, if you want to call it a concern,
was we were seeing these development pressures in the form
of SROs that were impacting the area in various aspects.
So we started looking at how we would address these types
of developments.
We talked about defining a specific use or come up with a
use within itself as a SRO or collegiate housing, is what
we were calling it.
And identifying where that use would be permitted in a
zoning district.
So similar to adding a use to the development code,
identifying a zoning district and potentially adding
additional design criteria for that particular use.
We had a work session with city council and the council
couldn't come up with a unanimous determination or
direction to move forward with that particular proposal.
So we came back after that and staff kind of went over what
our other options are and what we can do to address the
issues that we were dealing with on these development
pressures.
And we felt that the SUP would address those issues, give
the community the opportunity to discuss and hopefully come
up with solutions.
Give the staff the tools needed to propose options or
conditions.
And ultimately have city council and the planning zoning
commission hold public hearings to further that discussion.
Because, as you know, if a property were to develop in the
DCG,
and I understand your point Commissioner Nowles, we talked
about small multifamily to large and it does encompass that
.
And that was my first comment on my first slide.
And I wanted to make sure that was clear.
It does affect those multifamily from small to large.
So did you have discussion though about the negative effect
on, like somebody let's just say building a fourplex on a
typical lot?
Because now they have a much larger timeframe, right,
before they can commence development, right?
Because would it be one public hearing here or two?
Two, one from PNZ and one from city council.
Just one at city council?
Correct.
Okay.
Good afternoon commissioners.
I just wanted to add on to some of Ron's comments and
statements.
The SRO discussion was prompted by council directed staff,
meaning the planning division, to evaluate the implications
or perhaps lack thereof of SRO development.
We conducted benchmark analyses to discern what that would
be and we went to talk about collegiate housing through
that discussion.
When that item was presented to the city council,
ultimately there was consensus with the council to in
essence review the multifamily development standards
as it relates to areas that could potentially have a
greater impact as it relates to denser uses and the
associated residential or well established neighborhoods
and what have you.
And that is why when we went back, because initially we had
our discussion with council where we did discuss collegiate
housing and explained how that would be included in the
definition.
But more importantly, when we speak about SROs, the other
question was this doesn't address some of the single family
homes that are also being converted for multiple dwelling
uses, for the lack of a better phrase.
So what we did is we evaluated as Ron indicated the core,
which is your Ds, your DCGs, your DRNs, your DR2s and those
districts and also evaluated what else is around that area
as it relates to the built out environment.
You have proximity to historic districts, you have older
residential neighborhoods that are well established and you
also have some neighborhoods that are in need of a makeover
as well as some areas that are in need of a makeover.
So the intent of the specific use permit is not to create
obstacles or hurdles for anybody who is coming in to
perhaps revitalize an area or perhaps look at an area in
proximity to an established residential neighborhood.
The intent of the specific use permit is purely a tool to
evaluate the use and its adjacency to the surrounding land
use pattern.
And what measures can be provided from an aesthetic measure
or from building material or spacing, massing your spatial
design and analysis.
How would that play into that?
And the specific use permit is a dual public hearing
process.
So it would come before you, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the recommending body and then move on to
council and then your roles would be depending on community
input, how you wanted to proceed with that SUP.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you Chair. I have several questions.
Hopefully they make logical sense. I was kind of jotting
them down as I was thinking about them.
This seems to be prompted by collegiate housing SROs
several months ago. Has there been any project thus far in
the city that by rights?
They took advantage of the, I mean, I guess what I'm saying
is, is there any precedent, apart from individuals coming
and asking to build SROs that we've seen in the city?
Has someone taken advantage of current by right zoning that
's affected neighborhoods or the city? Do we know of any
projects like that?
Or are we just not wanting SUPs and these to continue
coming on the north side of UNT?
We've had, I mean, you've seen several zoning cases come
through. I'm trying to think of some developments.
The one on Eagle, I'm blanking on the name, I believe that
's zone DCG and that was permitted by right.
And there may be some variances that were required, maybe
an ADP, but the use or the zoning did permit that use.
Again, Eagle and Bernard, the south corner. I actually have
a photo of it.
That's fine. It means dead center in the urban core green.
I was just trying to think if there's been an actual
project that would make this a precipice other than the
city PNZ council thinking about, well, this could be an
issue or we get a lot of requests for this.
So I was saying this is reactive or proactive and if it's
proactive, what is it necessarily based on? I don't know if
there's a good answer for that.
Have we gotten any feedback from the citizens or the city
in regards to to moving forward on this or is this just
internalized from staff and council?
This has been, we actually posted it for tonight's public
hearing. We've received several input from folks after
hearing the work session at city council.
Some of them were in favor and some of them were in
opposition.
I would just add to that. I think probably the impetus was
the normal inscription projects that keep coming up.
They have that same business model. So we've seen it before
and we, I guess we want to figure out a way to allow those
in the community, but to do it in a way that is compatible
with the neighborhoods.
And so finding that happy medium is, I guess, this is the
first step.
Right. Is there a way to on a use case have a boundary from
conflicting zoning so that SROs couldn't be built within
500 feet of any conflicting zone?
Have we thought about just kind of creating around this
green block just a buffer?
Because it sounds like the city is not against SROs because
it might be just easiest to ban them, but it seems like we
're okay with them in some places.
And if that's the case, then can we not just better tell S
RO developments where they're friendly to them in the city?
Right. I mean, well, I mean, the zoning right now as it is
would permit it, but I think what is important to note that
is there are also existing established neighborhoods that
would be affected as well.
And those areas are throughout the area that we're talking
about as well.
So this would serve to help protect those established
neighborhoods.
Again, the proposal that we've seen have been in the north.
We've seen some zoning cases come through around the
southern part of the university, but we haven't seen them
develop except for maybe this development right here.
Now, this particular development, there are single families
to the back of it, and if there were a specific use permit,
maybe there would have been an opportunity to address some
of the impacts that they may be feeling or having at this
time.
And I guess my last point is to Commissioner Ellis's point.
It seems as though a small minority of projects are going
to create a lot of work for a lot of good projects,
especially considering all the different zoning
requirements we have.
We have three zoning that disallow by right and we're just
going to remove that.
So it seems like effectively anyone who wants to build a
multifamily development in Denton has to go to P&Z and
council.
That's in effect what would be happening through this, and
that causes me some concern to try to be, we already
generally have a reputation about not being business
friendly.
I don't think everyone's trying to fight that, but I don't
know how this helps that fight and saying, if you want to
build apartments in Denton, you have a dual hearing process
.
And it doesn't necessarily end up just wanting to regulate
SROs or you wouldn't be discussing the increased design
criteria or other things.
So it seems like an opportunity for the city to not just
regulate SROs, but also put any other criteria they want.
Senator Bill there, we would really like you to use this
material and make it look like this, and I just don't think
that gives a lot of control or autonomy to the project
coming in.
So I wish there was a better solution.
If this is all about SROs, then I think it would be better
just to define SROs out so that other projects aren't so
affected by this.
>> Right, and like we discussed earlier, we tried that.
I think when we looked at this, this was not just SROs,
these would be multifamily developments, your traditional
multifamily developments.
Again, what we're looking at is established neighborhoods,
their historic districts, and our special overlay districts
as well would be potentially impacted by multifamily, not
necessarily just single room occupancy development.
>> I definitely understand that, but also, so if we're not
talking about SROs, it seems like we have a zoning of DCG.
And someone by right can come in and build 100 stories.
Well, now we have a measure to stop that.
Now we're like, oh, right there, we don't want 100 stories.
So now we can almost spot, zone every piece of property.
So we have this DCG, 100 feet, but if they come in with 100
foot, we can say, actually, in this area, it would be more
applicable to be 45 feet.
And so it doesn't, I don't feel this is a solution, SROs,
it's a solution to provide oversight that I think is beyond
what is necessary or helpful to business.
And if we're not okay with DCG in some locations being 100
feet, for example, then I think it's on us to, for us to go
back and pinpoint.
And I don't know if it creates small area plans or overlays
or new zoning districts.
But if there's areas we know we don't want 100 feet, then
let's rezone it and give them parameters before they come
in with a project in which the city is like, okay, but we
want these limitations on it.
That doesn't compute with me.
No, take it. Thank you.
I'm going to concur with Commissioner O'Zell.
I'm concerned that we're just putting a whole level and I
may be fitting a larger blanket. It's almost like we're
down zoning without really down zoning by putting the use
of an SUP on here.
Under the current environment, the consensus, at least at
this commission, has been even trying to compromise.
If somebody wants to do 100 feet, we can't find a
compromise even below what they can do.
And this is just going to be another opportunity to have to
go through a hearing process to take somebody's ability to
build by right what they can and minimize that.
So I'm concerned about it and it is a very large area of
our city. It's not to Commissioner O'Zell's point, just
around North Texas in the historical district.
You put the map back up there. It's a huge area of our city
, and it will affect small projects, large projects.
And I guess the other concern I have with it, and I might
take exception with the 2030 plan, is that the whole gen
esis of the 2030 plan, my understanding is for it to be dens
er and for it to be inside the loop.
And so we've drawn the plan to do that, and now we're going
to do other things to have the possibility of limiting that
.
And I think it just continues to be more and more burdens
ome, more timely as far as time consuming for going through
all that process, more expense.
And at some point I think there needs to be some place that
you can look and go, you know what, if I want to build X
building, I can go out there and go build that versus, well
, I guess I need to look and see what the favor of P&Z and
council is going to be as to whether I even want to mess
with providing, taking an opportunity to put some money on
the table and put forth a project.
My concern is a lot of people will look at that based on
the public testimony that we've had, not even going to do
it, whether it's a fourplex or SRO.
Because again, the words that we say here on this board,
city council, people that come up and testify and make
their opinions known about projects, people look and watch
those meetings and say, you know what, it's too much hassle
, it's too expensive, and it's too much uncertainty.
I'm going to go somewhere else to do my project. And that's
my concern that this is a pretty heavy handed response over
a very large area of our city in my opinion from what it
sounds like to borrow Commissioner Rosell's term, the SRO
issue.
And I think if it's an SRO issue, you need to deal with
that. And I think there needs to be an area that's set
aside.
You know, if you want to go build that type of project, you
can go build it. Everybody keeps talking about they want it
west of UNT, set it up and fix it that way.
And then I would look at being more favorable to doing
something like this, but just to do blanket over the whole
thing and not have any opportunity in other places.
I'm concerned about it. I think it sends the wrong message
to people.
Well, what I can agree is that it will take obviously more
time because it has to go through the dual public hearing
process.
But what I would like to add is that there is approval
criteria for a specific use permit.
So although it will take longer to get through the process,
the commission can make a determination or recommendation
to city council that there be no additional conditions
placed on it.
Again, so that's what this commission can do. Ultimately,
city council can do the same thing.
And if there isn't a need for a condition, they can approve
the SEP without a condition.
And that would not lessen the density, that would not less
en the design as long as it meets our approval criteria.
And what we're trying to do here is to find a solution,
like you all were saying, to address those concerns that we
all have.
And we felt that what the city feels that the department
feels that that is through the specific use permit.
The only concern I have with that to follow up is that
currently by right, you don't have to go through all the
concept drawings and put all of that together, spend all
the expenses to come and look and go.
We like your design. We like the height. We like the color
of the brick and the percentage and all of the things that
you have to do to even be able to come and bring it for an
SEP.
Correct? Correct. And so that's my point is you'll have to,
everybody will have to go through that step before they
even get an opportunity to come present to say, can I even
do my project or not?
Versus you can look at it and go, you know what, I can go
build over here on the corner.
And as long as I build under the development code, I can
build my project. And that will not be the case here.
All of those steps I just mentioned will have to be gone
through on every single opportunity that somebody wants to
take to do a project, all that expense, and cross their
fingers like the gentleman did two weeks ago.
I hope they like it. And I guess I'm going to find out
after spending a few hundred thousand dollars whether they
do or not.
And I think that's a difficult place that we're going to
put people in that want to come to Denton and do business
there.
And I think that's a big heavy burden that we really need
to think about and talk about before we move this forward.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Thank you, Chair. First of all, can we get a copy of the
presentation?
Because there's some good information here that I would
like to have for my personal use.
But I guess I'm trying to decide, are we trying to
encourage something or discourage something?
And that's where I'm getting confused because it seems to
me like Commissioner Rozelle and Chair Strange is that we
're concerned about one type of project.
I don't know, and I haven't been here very long, but I can
't think of a two story or a three story project that had
any, you know, vote, any negative vote.
That all the discussions that we've had, the time that we
took is all centered around the SRO issue.
And if that's what we're trying to avoid and trying to
solve and trying to figure out how to deal with, I agree
with Commissioner Rozelle, is let's just say we can't have
them in certain places.
And here's an area where you can build your SROs to the
world's level.
I mean, I think that again with Chairman Strange is that we
're affecting a whole lot of the city for very few projects,
although very impactful projects that raises the ire of
everybody that's around it and it puts us in a position to
where, you know, yeah, it's a great idea, just not there.
And I'm trying to decide if this had been in place two
weeks ago, would we have still gone to one o'clock in the
morning?
Would that have alleviated, you know, would this SUP allevi
ated all of that?
Or would we have more one o'clock, you know, in the morning
meetings because every stinking project has to go through
this process.
You know, that's, I'm just trying to figure out, are we
trying to solve a problem or are we producing a problem?
Well, I think we're trying to solve a problem, but we do
have those situations where those smaller developments that
may not have a potential impact,
again, we have to go through the process of obtaining an SU
P other than, obviously, the time that would be the only set
back for those developments.
But other than that, we have the option or the opportunity
to address a larger issue in that sense,
in the sense that we can mitigate some of those potential
developments that cause impacts to adjacent neighborhoods.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Well, I mean, I have similar concerns because I know, again
, this all initiated, like I said before, with the colleg
iate housing issue.
And I'm not even sure that this really addresses that in
the sense that we'll have the public hearing and we'll
possibly deny it.
And in the end, city council can approve it.
I mean, even if we deny it, they can still approve it three
quarters of the way.
So in the end, I mean, I wish your direction was different
from council.
I wish it was city-initiated zoning in a particular area
that these keep coming up, that we keep going until one in
the morning and getting the community in an ire,
and say you can't do this here and figure that part of it
out, as I think many of us have said.
I just, I feel like this negatively affects people. It
doesn't need to negatively affect.
Commissioner Ellis, completely understand where you're
coming from.
Chairperson Strange, Commissioner Rozelle, we do understand
what you're explaining.
In fact, when we did go to council initially, we went with
a definition for collegiate housing/SROs.
We talked about location, zoning, where they would fit,
where they wouldn't fit.
The discussion that stemmed from there was really the city
council, from what I understand, and that's why we're here
before you tonight,
was is the issue collegiate housing, SRO, or is the issue
more the density and building height and parking ratio
requirements associated with multifamily development?
And if that is the case, should we not revisit the multif
amily development standards and that we, I'm speaking
collectively,
visit those requirements and come back with a revised
schedule of uses requiring a specific use permit,
so that the public would have the ability to voice their
opinion on specific multifamily development.
As it relates to our benchmarking study, we researched a
number of communities, college towns, college cities,
to determine how do they address collegiate housing.
I think there were two, maybe three actually, that had
definitions for collegiate housing and pretty much did
require the SUP requirement associated with them.
And they defined what that SRO was.
And we went to the extent where we provided a draft
ordinance related to collegiate housing for the council.
But our direction was different and we were asked to come
back with an ordinance.
The opportunity that you have before you now is to, you
could say that you are comfortable with it and would like
to proceed.
Or you could say, well, you're not comfortable with it and
you can deny it and request a further study.
Or a new DDC amendment associated with collegiate housing.
Or you could ask for a continuance.
I think, hold on a second. Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. Can you tell me what was wrong?
I didn't see that particular City Council meeting.
When you came to them with the definition and they gave you
this direction instead,
can you tell me what the concern was with the definition or
the problem?
I think that, to say concern might seem too onerous on the
council,
but I think their viewpoint was that really probably the
concern shouldn't be collegiate housing.
It should be more of the density as it relates to multif
amily development in specific areas,
especially in the university core area.
But do you think as a development staff that we have an
issue with that?
I mean, other than the development de jure of the SRO
projects in college towns,
do we have a problem with the other developers who are
going to come in with their more typical type multifamily
projects?
If I can preface with discussion of an SUP, a specific use
permit,
in the little bit of experience that I have with SUPs,
they can actually prove very favorable to a developer if we
have the appetite for that.
And what I mean by that is you can do some really wonderful
design and deviate from the Denton development code
or any code to provide the ability to do that.
It could be increased height, it could be greater density,
it could be surface parking or garage parking.
I'm just speaking very simply, very plainly here.
So it is an opportunity.
Yes, it is time intensive, and absolutely it does cost a
little -- I'm going to say a little bit more money,
but it does cost a substantial amount for the developer to
bring their project forward.
But I think it also gives the opportunity for the community
to see and understand that this project indeed is a good
fit.
Now, there will be times where we have conflicting zoning
as we've discussed earlier,
where perhaps we can look at the city-initiated zoning
option,
which we've been talking about at length where we can
evaluate these arenas too.
Also keeping in mind that we have the Denton development
code update that is online.
It's already kicked off.
It's initiated.
And we will be reevaluating the schedule of uses, the
permitted uses within the Denton development code in the
specific zoning districts.
And perhaps there will be a general requirement to add SUP
for all multifamily development.
I'm just giving an example that is not mixed use, just
something to discuss or whet your appetite with.
So if we look at -- from my perspective, who is responsible
for the permanent development services,
this SUP may not be as onerous as it seems at this point.
However, from the other angle of, but we're not addressing
what the original discussion was about, which was colleg
iate housing,
then that is something the Planning and Zoning Commission
can push or recommend that staff move forward with that.
But I would, to be very candid, request a recommendation
from the PNZ.
I would agree.
I think we need to move it forward to council and they get
to decide.
Commissioner Rozelle.
No, if I could pick your brain just for a couple more
minutes.
Not much left.
Is there a reason in these helpful charts here that say
what's permitted, limited by zoning,
that we couldn't just have a row of single occupancy
resident -- could we just have an SRO?
Commissioner Rozelle, we would have to create that
definition.
So we would still be amending the Denton development code.
We would have to create that definition for single room
occupancy or collegiate housing.
And that could be included or incorporated.
That's fair enough.
I guess to your point, the project that was here two weeks
ago,
it was very tough for me as a sitting commissioner to
understand if the city feedback was because of SRO or if it
was because the building was very tall, the normal, the
scripture, that project.
Was it two weeks ago?
Right.
It was hard for me to determine, to your point, if the
issue is collegiate housing or if the issue is how tall it
was and the density and traffic and wherever it was going
to park.
I understand that it might be a mixture of both in terms of
the city concern.
And so I definitely see that.
I don't know if it's just a collegiate housing issue as a
blanket concern.
But that nevertheless still brings me to my point about
making a buffer zone where there could be less dense, less
tall buildings that are also not collegiate housing.
So there could be a true transition from the DCG.
Right, a vertical planning perspective or a development
perspective.
One other thing, when you do speak about collegiate housing
, and I know we're using both terms loosely, SRO and colleg
iate housing,
they're actually, they could be deemed as two different
things because we have the SRO concept with our single
family homes right now where they are converted.
So those are two separate issues that I wanted to raise as
well.
Definitely noted.
I guess the last thing that I would say is I also have seen
SUPs that can be worked favorably to the applicant.
But to Chair's point earlier, the amount of questions still
in place and if there's going to be another appointment to
a commissioner or council, it just leaves a lot open.
And we, somewhere in years past, we decided that DCG can
allow these things.
And now it seems that we're trying to spot correct that
rather than maybe look at the overall zoning.
And I'm going to use an example that it's a case in
progress.
So Trey, please correct me if I overstep the parameters of
this discussion from a legal perspective.
The Park 7 discussion for the property at Normal and
Scripture, the request for change in zoning to consolidate
the zoning, that was what was before you.
Obviously, you had to factor in what the community had to
say from a planning division perspective, from staff's
perspective, that zoning change was appropriate and we
recommended favorably.
And if we did not factor in the use, we factored in the
schedule of uses, all the potential uses that could be
permitted in the DCG district.
And that was our analysis.
Our analysis was based on that.
The SRO discussion, the collegiate housing discussion, and
now the multifamily amendment discussion that is before you
was initiated, if I'm not mistaken, late last year or early
this year.
So I don't know if this specific project was the impetus,
but the impetus was there from other projects.
Absolutely. Thank you.
I'm glad you brought that up because I was getting ready to
bring it back up about staff supporting Park 7 because from
a planning standpoint in the zoning map, from staff's, all
of its experience, felt that was an appropriate rezoning,
even with knowing what we all knew at that point.
And tonight we have a similar case that we've all talked
about that's taking a very different approach instead of
trying to come and be very forthcoming. Here's what we're
planning to do and show everybody.
We're going to go the other way and say, is this an
appropriate rezone? And you guys figure out what we're
going to do with it.
And to staff's point, that is supported and push for or
push but suggested for approval.
So to me, this is again, some of this goes away from
planning to somewhat of political views of what we think
are appropriate or not appropriate versus what is
appropriate planning.
What is already been drafted in our 2030 plan and what
staff feels like is appropriate uses to very specific
concerns about things that are way outside of what's
appropriate planning.
And that's the concern that I get is that when we do these
things in response to political issues, they're then in
place, things change, and then there's a very different
view of what's appropriate to be built in a zone and what's
not.
And sometimes to some groups it may be great that, you know
what, the only thing that will be approved is two stories.
And then other places, some other group may say 100 feet,
well, 120 feet because it's so beautiful.
And so I think this commission and city council obviously
will make the final call and that's going to be my push
tonight as this moves forward to city council to let them
decide is that it's kind of the old political deal is
sometimes you think you're going to get something and it
works for a little while and the ball swings the other way.
And then you've got a very different situation to deal with
and that's my concern on such a large area that we're
responding to fairly specific issue.
They may have some very large implications over a long
period of time as things change in our city.
Commissioner Sullivan.
I guess my concern is the idea of using the term multif
amily and collegiate housing as if they are the same people.
In my mind, they are not the same people multifamily
meaning man woman child doesn't care about living across
the street or within a 15 minute walk of the university.
They're looking at where we're going to live where the
school is going to be how can I get to work, those kinds of
issues.
A single 19 to 21 year old cares about how close it is to
the school. Can I buy it? Can I get a bus or what have you?
And when I go 377, there are a couple of apartment
complexes where you and T buses run all day long.
Breaker kids standing there at the curb waiting for the bus
to come. And so again, I'm going back to the same point
that if we're trying to limit the 18 to 21 year olds who
have a bedroom only because for whatever reason, they think
that's cool.
Then we limit to where that can be. And where it's a big
open space and they can have it 10 stories, and nobody
cares, because it doesn't interfere with the single family
or the duplexes that are on a nice street that's tree lined
and it's just a great neighborhood.
And so when we start disrupting that neighborhood effect I
think that's where the problem is so again I'm going back
to the same issue and that is, if we're trying to limit
where the collegiate housing is, let's just limit where the
collegiate housing can be.
Leave the multifamily people alone. If it's a two story
apartment.
Again, I don't know of a single time that that's come up
and it's been an issue. And so this I think is creating far
more problems than what we've talked about is the three or
four cases we've had in the last six months.
And I appreciate that comment because I guess the question
we need to ask ourselves then from a philosophical
standpoint is, had the project had a certain project in an
area that was requesting a zoning, if it were not an SRO
and it was multifamily and it could go up to 100 feet,
would that still be an issue?
Chair.
Well, I don't understand the question. What was the
question?
The question is that understanding that collegiate housing
perhaps that needs to be revisited in terms of actually
defining the use and what have you.
But the question is then, for example, if a property is z
oned DCG in close proximity to a well established single
family residential neighborhood,
then if multifamily zoning is permitted there and a
developer develops a hundred foot multifamily complex, not
an SRO or not a collegiate housing facility but just a
multifamily complex, would there still be concern related
to that use?
Absolutely, but I don't know too many multifamily
properties that would be going 10 stories in the middle of
a residential area.
I just don't see that happening. I don't see the
promotional advertisement that would go along. This isn't
New York City.
I don't disagree with you.
So I don't think that people are looking to live with
families in a 10 story building. That's not our world.
And again, just I wanted to put that out there because what
I'm trying to explain is that as we evolve with our zoning
patterns and our land uses and you have a mixed use,
I'm not talking about multifamily and residential to a
retail with that top bottom floor issue, but just having a
plethora of uses within a very confined area, then you
might have that opportunity crop up.
So I'm just saying as we think ahead, this might be
something you want to park and think about and digest and
see how you want to move forward.
Commissioner Hatchbuth.
Thank you.
I'm not going to say it all because I need an audio book.
But I want to point out that I stand and sit here, the only
person that voted for the development on Fry Street in the
middle of downtown, I mean university-ish area.
I'm the only person that voted for that and then also voted
against it being on the edge of what would be a transition
area.
And so I feel like I have a pretty good record in not being
anti-multifamily.
I'm anti-building multifamily on the edge of what would be
a transition.
And so I challenge anyone to give me a good reason.
I don't let my kids play on the edge of the curb by the
street.
I don't jump off the edge of anything.
Edges aren't for big, risky stuff.
That's just not where it should go.
My humble opinion.
On topic with this, I think I struggle as well but for a
different reason.
Because when you talk definitions, the cable industry has
been, and the movie industry has been trying to get in
front of pirating since the beginning of time.
And I'm going to sit here and tell you that no matter what
you title it, no matter how you write it up, a developer is
going to take his pencil and say,
okay, you can't have a kitchen by itself, okay, well I'll
draw this and make that happen.
You'll go change the definition.
They'll change the design just a touch just to get outside
of that scope.
You're chasing your tail at that point to try to come up
with, hey, we're going to box them into a corner.
No, you're not.
That doesn't work.
They move faster than we do.
So then it becomes a matter of a bigger issue.
The same council's direction says for more public input,
for more opportunity to speak.
Well, council routinely ignores the public.
You know, so I don't get that.
That doesn't affect change.
And so for me, I think the glaring issue and everything,
everyone said, no one's mentioned the stakeholders.
No one's mentioned we talked to developers and they said.
That's the problem.
We sit in a vacuum and try to make a decision.
And so this board or this body needs to create, you need
two sets of lab rats, right?
You need a lab rat that sits on P and Z.
You need, so that we don't have to have the meeting
restrictions.
So we grab two or three people from P and Z and two or
three people from a development community.
And you bounce those ideas off of each other.
You have a conversation.
But I just think no one's mentioned that they talked to the
developers and got their input on that.
And so I think that that to me is troubling that we, it
just, you're not going to get in front of it by definition.
You're going to freeze them out, which is going to be a
problem by just in its basic premise.
And then it just doesn't, you're not giving the citizens
any extra input or that input has not been acted upon.
And so for me, I think it's silly to talk about definitions
because that's not going to cause them.
And even this project before this, I'm going to digress a
bit.
So we're talking about, just before you get to CVS, about
this development going in and if they're saying something
and if they don't, none of that matters.
Traffic on that road, are you, you get past, what is that?
The giant apartments on the corner, what street is that?
Is that Welch?
Yeah, you get past Welch and that street is so deplorable,
you're going to go one mile per hour no matter what it is,
right?
So you're talking about increased traffic upstream on a one
way that we're all doomed to fail once you cross Welch.
And so for me, it really, this conversation lacks reality
because it's not talking to the stakeholders.
It's not taking into consideration that you're not going to
get in front of it definition wise.
And so I'd love to see something that has a touch of
reality to it.
So I don't feel like we should, right now I don't think we
should send it to council as is.
I think they need, we should send direction on our input
and I don't think definition is the way to go.
I think it should be, because I think developers will reach
out and they'll say, hey, what do you think about this?
Where is this going?
And so I think there needs to be a smaller body that can
meet with a small body of developers that would negotiate
or speak in earnest.
And then those four people, those six people sit down and
have a conversation.
And maybe you mix in, you put in three citizens.
So you have nine people that sit down and have a real
conversation versus this, which is, hey, we're going to
come roll this downhill on you.
And they're going to skirt it and we'll have to redo it all
over.
We're not going to be able to write the development code
faster than they can take their pencil and make two k
itchens.
So now there's one general kitchen and one kitchen tied to
this room, so now it's multifamily.
So I just don't think that's a good path.
Sure.
Call on Laco.
Just a quick comment.
Reaching out to developers, I can see as a good idea and
want to get their input.
I cannot recommend that you purposefully pick a less than
half number of your group to meet with them to try to skirt
the quorum rules, just for the record.
Well, I think it's not really to skirt the quorum rules.
It's to take in the fact that time is money, regardless.
And I think if you ignore that fact, then that doesn't make
it go away.
So I think if ultimately you come back to the full body,
then I think it ultimately satisfies that because you can
meet twice in a week.
You meet three times in a week.
You can meet, you know, you can satisfy and get a consensus
and get things done, which I know is a scary premise to
actually get stuff done, but it's really cool.
And so I think that's kind of my point is what are we doing
productive that moves us along and moves us in a good
direction,
that realizes citizen input, realizes our developer input,
and makes them feel as though we're listening and we're
trying to find a consensus.
And I think that's where you'll get people negotiating in
earnest and doing due diligence versus trying to find ways
to get around our code that we can't amend fast enough to
beat the curve.
That's my thought.
If I can interject and provide some feedback from a
planning perspective, from the planning discipline, from a
land use perspective, the intent of a specific use permit
is not to be onerous, number one.
That's not the intent.
It's actually a level of evaluation that let's assume that
a use is not permitted unless a specific use permit is
provided.
Let's look at the flip side.
That provides an opportunity for a developer to actually
look at opportunities that are available to them.
The goal from the planning division is never to exclude any
party.
We do have an obligation to our community and our citizens
to ensure that we have as to the greatest extent possible
sound planning principles.
So when it relates to, for instance, a development code
update, that will not be done in a vacuum.
There will be citizen outreach.
There will be community engagement associated with that.
As it relates to this specific request that is before you
tonight, this came forward, and again, by the council.
So we are presenting this to you.
Staff has reviewed and analyzed opportunities or options
that are available when it comes to multifamily development
within proximity to certain areas or within specific zoning
districts.
And that is why it's here before you.
The PNZ does have the opportunity to even deny this, and it
would move forward to city council.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
And if I start rambling here, it's because I'm trying to
put everything together.
I'm going to let everybody ramble mode tonight.
Well, I want to be as concise as possible.
When I first saw this, to me, it looked pretty simplistic.
So I appreciate everybody's input to show me that there's
more -- it's a little bit more complicated than I thought
it was.
But to me, it was the perfect tool, I think, that if we'd
had it a couple of weeks ago, we could have resolved the
issue with the Park 7 thing.
And I think when you look at this entire area that it could
affect, there's only one area that we're really going to be
dealing with.
And it's going to be the sensitive neighborhood areas on
the north side of UNT.
All these other areas, they're not a problem with SROs and
high rises so much.
But it is more than just collegiate housing.
It is height.
It is density.
We had the situation where DISD wanted to build a higher
building over off of Bolivar, I think it was, right across
the street from the neighborhood.
So it is more than that.
And I think what this tool does is protect those kind of
neighborhoods.
And if you look around the green area and everything, you
're not going to see many sensitive neighborhood areas that
are going to be impacted here.
Now, the fact that an SUP is required, yes, means the
developer's got to do a little bit more.
But I think, like Manal was saying, that this could be to
their advantage as well.
So I thought this was a good idea.
I'm not opposed to the idea that as we've got the DDC under
revision that maybe we could stipulate SROs in specific
areas.
I'm not opposed to that.
But to me, this would be a good tool to protect just a few
sensitive areas in this city.
And mainly, to me, it's just the areas north of the UNT
campus.
So I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
But then that's me.
Politics, there's politics in everything.
You try not to.
We want to try and work within certain parameters.
But there's always going to be a political element in just
about any decision any city, state, or federal government
employee has.
So that's just the nature of the beast.
But anyway, to me, it seemed like a good tool.
I would have promoted it.
But yeah, if we need to maybe push it up a little bit and
look a little bit closer, I'm not opposed to that either.
Any other questions for staff on this item?
Thank you all.
I think--
Commissioner Beck.
I did have one question.
It was so small compared to what we were dealing with here.
But since I've got it, let me ask, in considerations on
page 3, number 9, it says, if applicable, an SUP
application may require this to middle of a site plan,
landscape plan, or architectural elevation.
That surprised me when you said, if applicable, it's a
reservation.
I would have thought that had been automatic, that those
kind of things would have been required with an SUP.
Not all SUPs.
There are some uses that are not so site-specific.
So that's the reason why there's a may.
All right.
Thank you.
OK.
That's it.
That will conclude our working through our agenda here at
work session.
So at 6.07, I will close our work session, and we will
reconvene--
Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting for March 22, 2017.
This meeting has been dually posted, and we do have a qu
orum present.
And I'm going to call our meeting to order at 6.35.
Our first order of business will be to stand and give the
pledge to the U.S. and the Texas flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, and to the republic
for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
We'll move us to our second item this evening, which will
be to entertain a motion for our minutes for March 8.
Commissioner Rozelle.
I move to approve.
Commissioner Sullivan.
I second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6 to 0.
That will move us to our consent agenda.
Chair would entertain a motion.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I make a motion to approve our consent agenda.
Okay.
Commissioner Beck.
Second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, we will call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6 to 0.
We'll move us to our public hearing section tonight.
I'm going to open the public hearing for item A, which is Z
16-0028, and call on Haley for presentation.
All right.
Good evening, this is case Z16-28, and I'll run through the
presentation briefly for the benefit of our audience.
So the request is to hold a public hearing and consider a
request to rezone approximately a half acre from downtown
residential 2 to downtown commercial general.
The property is located at 1604 West Hickory.
As you can see from the map, there are existing multifamily
developments to the north and the west.
Properties, two properties directly to the east of the
subject property, outlined in red on the map, are under the
same ownership as the subject property.
You can see that UNT is located directly across Hickory
Street from this property.
As I mentioned currently, it's zoned downtown residential 2
.
The proposal is for downtown commercial general.
The future land use designation of the area is neighborhood
university compatibility area.
This designation is generally applied to the areas
surrounding our two universities in town, which are
affected by their proximity to that university.
And the goal of this designation is to allow for compatible
form and land use to develop in these areas to create a
transition from the campus to the established surrounding
neighborhoods.
Staff's considerations.
First, the rezoning is consistent with the surrounding
zoning pattern.
You can see from the map here that there is currently a mix
of DR2 and DCG within the block that this property is on.
This designation is also consistent with the future land
use designation because that designation calls for density
and services be provided near the campuses to promote walk
ability and a versatile character for these areas.
And that could be accommodated with the DCG district.
This would also consolidate the zoning for all of the
properties that are under the same ownership here and
therefore allow for more cohesive future development under
a single set of zoning regulations.
This request would also allow us to promote transportation
efficient design by providing a higher density of resources
and living spaces within close proximity to UNT that would
then promote pedestrian and bicycle activity and could
potentially
alleviate some vehicle trips and parking through the
surrounding neighborhoods.
It also helps to promote more compact design by allowing
that higher density near the campus.
To give you a comparison, DCG does allow for a
substantially higher density than DR2, would also allow for
100 foot maximum building height as opposed to 45.
So it does have some increases there in terms of the scale
of development that would be permitted.
Notices were sent out.
We received no written notices in response to that.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting on February
15th.
One person attended and was neutral to that request and I
passed out their response that was provided at the meeting
to you all before the work session.
With that, staff is recommending approval of this request
because of its compatibility with the surrounding zoning
districts as well as its consistency with the goals and
objectives of the Denton Plan 2030.
And I can stand for any questions.
Any questions for staff?
Thank you, Haley.
And I believe the applicant is here.
I have three cards to speak.
First card I will call on will be the applicant, Gary Chang
, to be followed by Kim McKibbin and Paul Messler.
Please state your name and address for the record and since
the applicant has 10 minutes.
Good evening.
Gary Chang.
I live at 3608 Lake Country Drive, Denton, Texas, 76210.
I represent MSGSB and here's a little background.
We are a locally owned property management company.
We operate under the name Jackson Chang Apartments.
We've been here since 1982.
I'm here to request that our lot be up zoned from DR2 to DC
G such that it will be congruent with the adjacent lots
which we own.
The subject lot, which consists of four duplexes, has been
under our ownership since 2003.
The adjacent lots, which consist of our leasing office and
two rent houses, have been owned since 1988.
We have been operating our leasing office out of 1600 West
Hickory since 1998.
We feel that it is time to redevelop the area into a new le
asing office and multifamily apartment complex.
The buildings on site are near the end of their economic
usefulness and would be better served being redeveloped.
So tonight's agenda is to request zoning be changed to be
congruent with our adjacent lot.
Once that is accomplished, we will commence drawing up rede
velopment plans under DCG zoning.
Thank you. I can take any questions.
Any questions for the applicant?
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chang, for your
presentation.
In our background material, it states that your intent is
to redevelop the site with office and multifamily uses.
So this zone change, then, is this in lieu of constructing
a building between the height of 45 feet and 100 feet?
Yes.
Okay. And would you -- is this going to be multifamily in
the sense that it will accommodate families who want to set
down roots,
or is this going to be more accommodating for students?
Well, given the proximity of our site with respect to the
University of North Texas, we would cater towards student
housing.
Right.
But we lease to anybody who is qualified.
Right. But as an SRO, it's not necessarily family-friendly.
And it's your property. You're free to do what you want.
Please don't misunderstand me.
It's just my concern is there's an abundance of SROs, and
it seems like they're continually growing,
and Denton has a real need for family, affordable family,
affordable housing for families.
So I just lay that out there to encourage you to think
about that, because down the road, there will be a need,
even in close proximity to the University.
But one other question is how do you plan on dealing with
parking?
That's a rough area for traffic anyway. So your design, how
will it allow for parking?
We will have a parking garage, and we will also have just
on-site parking.
Okay.
Yes.
You don't plan on street parking being a factor?
Well, if shared parking is allowed, we would take that into
consideration for credit.
Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir.
Any other questions for the applicant?
Commissioner Sullivan.
I think my concern is what I would call zone creep, where
right now on the properties that you have that allows for
100-foot buildings,
the other property that we're talking about tonight allows
for a 45-foot building, I would think that since you're
just about a block away from a historical district,
that that would be a good transition for a 45-foot building
to be in the subject property this evening,
and then going up to a 100-foot building on the property
that you already own that already has that designation.
And I would think that that would be more conducive to the
overall neighborhood of taking into account the fact that
you could still do some of the things that you want to do,
just not to the 100-foot level.
And so that's my biggest concern is not necessarily what
you do, but what's going to happen to the property to the
west of that, and then again goes into the zone creep issue
.
My response to your concern would be that our lot is
surrounded by apartment complexes as well as the CVS,
and I believe that would provide enough of the transition
that would, for our lot, what we're talking about.
I can't control what happens in the neighborhood, but for
our lot, I think it would be appropriate, because we
already have two-story apartments.
We're surrounded by two-story apartments as well as by the
CVS as well as the chemistry building.
So our lot should not affect if we were able to develop up
to 100 feet.
We shouldn't affect the neighborhood.
And that would be my response.
Any other questions for the applicant?
Thank you, sir.
The next card I have requesting to speak is Kim McKibbin.
Good evening. My name is Kim McKibbin, 1306 West Hickory,
Denton, Texas.
I am here to ask you to very seriously consider opposing
this rezoning simply because we do not have a clear idea of
what the use is going to be.
We've talked over and over again for the last three years
now, some of you were here when I got started with this and
some of you weren't,
that the transition zone between the university and the
northern part of the camp,
or the northern sections of those, particularly there along
Hickory Street and down in what used to be the Fry Street
overlay district,
parts of that still are, is a place where the university is
supposed to transition slowly into the surrounding
community.
A hundred foot building is not a slow transition, which we
have discussed on multiple occasions.
Now, yourself, Chairperson, mentioned two weeks ago, there
needs to be some compromise.
And I think that there is a possibility for a compromise
that comes in here.
But to make this approval for another half acre that is z
oned to allow a hundred foot building
with unbelievable density in a place that already has
density that prevents parking and causes pedestrian
problems and causes bicycle problems is to be considered.
Even if this, they say they're going to develop this, once
this is, you know, parceled out and zoned the way they want
it,
the developers will be beating on their doors. They're
after this property. They're after any property that they
can make a profit out of.
I think there is a zone creep element to this that you need
to realize and needs to be taken into consideration
because what you decide here is going to make a very
significant difference on what gets decided in several
other places.
When was this these other two lots zoned the way it is? Has
that been something recent? Was that something that was
originally planned?
So overall, I disagree with planning people that this is
compatible with the 2030 plan
because it does not fit the character, the walkability and
the livability of the situation that's in that surrounding
area and moving north.
We have a very huge apartment building down the street.
Sometimes it's full. Sometimes it's not full.
It does cause problems not only for the historic district,
but it's caused problems for other places in the region.
So I think that it's important to very carefully consider
this. And I would ask that you delay making this decision
until some other things are basically known and situated
out about the Denton zoning things.
What are we going to do about SROs? Why do we need any more
of those? Everybody needs a place to live.
And the students use the SRO as a jump off place. They get
out of the dorms into there and as soon as they can get
into a private apartment,
private apartment, they're moving in there. I have no
problems with multifamily housing that has adequate parking
and has adequate green space.
What I do have problems with is the potential of building a
hundred foot apartment building with whatever might be in
it
and then them coming and say, oh, we don't have places for
people to park and oh, we want to come all the way to the
curb so we don't have to plan anything.
So please delay this decision until some other decisions
are made in the city that can better define this specific
use.
And that's what I would ask you to do tonight.
I have some questions for you. Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your thoughts. Do you have
a vision of what you would see there, you know, knowing you
're not against redevelopment there,
you're not against multifamily? What do you think would be
appropriate?
Well, the buildings that are surrounding them that he's
talking about, apartment buildings, they're two and three
story buildings.
I don't think it's economically feasible to build a two
story apartment building, although there are a whole bunch
of those down on West Street, brand new on the west side.
Brand new ones. I mean, nice brick buildings that I wouldn
't mind living in.
But when when you start talking about what fits in that
area, maybe a four story building.
But I can't see anything much higher than that.
It sits at the top of the hill and it will tower over a
whole bunch of things as you come down the hill.
So the the concept of what's on the other side, like the
chemistry building, that's the university.
That's the university. I don't even think that should be
considered as part of the.
The community. Well, it is part of the community overlay,
but that's the university and they do their thing.
But we have the potential to direct the type of development
that is on the other side of the street that is part of the
city of Denton.
And yeah, maybe something that's somewhere in between those
back to a compromise.
How can we find a compromise with the people that want to
responsibly develop their property and be good stewards to
the community
without allowing something that's totally inappropriate in
the space?
Because we still have to worry about the infrastructure. We
've got to worry about the sewer.
It was right in front of this property that there was a ge
yser just a few months ago.
I mean, the big gaping hole in the middle of the street
where a sewer line busted or a water line busted.
But I think that if we find some way to work with these
people and to satisfy what really is the intent of the 2030
thing,
the intent of the the zone between the university and the
neighborhoods,
because like I said, all those apartments surrounding all
those buildings surrounding them are about two stories tall
.
Even on one of these lots, there's a two story of rock
building.
But to take it up to much more than four, you're going to
be overpowering and dominating it.
And what kind of materials are they going to build this out
of?
Is it going to look like the stuff that's there now, which
is aesthetically pleasing? Not pleasing.
I mean, they're kind of like they said at the end of their
usefulness, but still there is a brick and mortar feel to
that particular area.
It's not aluminum. It's not, you know, different kinds of
things that makes that the feel that's in there.
And we really are as a community down there trying to bring
people into the community, down to the businesses, down to
the things that are there.
And students aren't going to do that. They're going to be
there. They're going to be gone.
So my I would, you know, I would love to see efficiency
apartments that would suit graduate students.
I would like to see one and two bedroom apartments that
would would work effectively, not be outpriced or out of
the price zone.
My children have lived in these people's properties. So I
know that they're there. They've been there for a really
long time.
I just don't want a mistake to be made that we can't back
up with.
And I think that you don't have all the variables in place
right now to make the decision.
I mean, that's just my opinion about it.
Any other questions? Thank you for your comments.
Paul Missler.
It's Paul Meltzer. Meltzer. My apologies.
1914 West Oak Street. And how do I get it so I can see the
desktop here?
Anyone? OK. Tech help on the way.
All right. I'm going to share with you a presentation I was
pleased to make at the candidate forum on Monday at Stoke.
And I think it sort of 85 percent applies and I think will
be helpful.
And it addresses the area of north of UNT and west of UNT.
I call it a plan for peace and prosperity in downtown
District 3 because you certainly heard kind of no end of
lack of peace on this sort of part of town.
And there is an opportunity for a lot of prosperity for
developers here.
But the part that I thought was particularly relevant that
made me want to share this with you today is that I hear
Denton 2030 plan evoked kind of like the Bible and
everybody can get their own interpretation out of it and
say, by golly, that's what Denton 2030 plan says.
And it actually says some opposing things. And let's just
at least be clear about the fact that it doesn't just say
one thing.
It does talk about growing compactly, as you referred to.
And a couple of other things I've noted here are just
things I tend to hear in meetings like this that I think
are persuasive that we need dense infill.
Otherwise, we have sprawl that sprawl creates traffic,
contributes to poor air quality.
I do see the logic of the fact that it's next to UNT.
So you could there I can understand the desire to have
student housing near where students go to school.
I hear that. We also see in Denton 2030 the goal of
maintaining and strengthening neighborhoods, that single
family neighborhoods should be protected from abrupt
contrast of scale and intensity.
We also have a goal of identifying character and protecting
Denton's historic character areas through thoughtful
preservation and integration of new development.
And specifically in relation to this neighborhood
university compatibility area, as the previous speaker
mentioned, it talks about compatibility and gradual
transition in scale, use, character, and intensity.
So that's your 2030 plan that we keep on quoting. Gradual
transition in scale, use, character, and intensity.
No part of a 100 foot tower would meet that thing that is
in the Bible of Denton 2030.
So both of these impulses conflict in the UNT area, but
they're both addressed in 2030 plan.
So what guidance can we get?
Well, we have the future land use map and we also have
comments in the Denton 2030 plan that says this isn't every
answer to every problem.
That we need small area plans. In fact, it says we need
many small area plans.
Well, what I would suggest to you is that even though all
of the light blue areas are called university compatibility
, they're not all the same.
Let's look at the area north of UNT. Here we're not talking
about obviously Hickory Street.
So this, I really had the kind of scripture project more in
mind. But take a look at the pictures, all of y'all.
You looking? So, you know, that's kind of the character of
that area north of UNT. Not on Hickory, but just, you know,
this will help us in future conversations too.
Many single family well-treated historic structures,
traditional neighborhood feeling.
This is what west of UNT looks like. It has the same
designation on the future land use map. Does it look the
same?
I submit to you it does not. It's treeless, multifamily,
serves a very important use.
And it's all two story and I have no idea why. I'm sure it
made sense at some point.
It was probably protecting some transition at some point,
but whatever it was, it's all transitioned now.
So, you know, we look at that and say what's really
appropriate to each of these areas.
I suggest that there are two neighborhood appropriate SAPs
that should be considered.
In the west, it's all multifamily. Let it be urban. Call it
university city instead of cement city.
Let that go from DR2 to DCG. Open up tremendous economic
development opportunity for people like the applicant and
anyone else is willing to invest in Denton that way.
There you can have heights up to 100 feet and I'd say plan
it intelligently with first floor retail, with garages,
with green space.
Make a percentage of it affordable so you're not entirely
displacing the community that's there now.
You could triple the area housing units that are adjacent
to campus and you'd have your dense infill.
A huge amount of dense infill. Great economic development
opportunity.
And looking at the difference between the north and the
west, I'd say go historic district compatible there.
Any questions for our speaker?
Commissioner Hussbeth.
So, do you have more slides?
Well, an inappropriate campaign slide because as you know I
'm running for city council from district three and I am the
only representative, the only candidate for district three
here today.
Outstanding. Okay. So my question, you're awesome. My
question is this though. If we have a realistic
conversation, using your words, gradual decrease, right?
Gradual transition. Yes. Transition, right? So you got to
start at the apex, right? And then you're going to
gradually descend. Is that fair?
You're going to have some point that you're going to
descend from. There's got to be some point that's higher
and then you kind of are used, that's higher and then you
kind of gradually go to lesser use.
I guess I think of it the opposite way. You're
transitioning from a single, you know, it is essentially a
single family neighborhood and then you've got a kind of,
you know, low elevation commercial area there.
So I'd say, you know, you're going to go up in increments
from what's there. Perfect. Okay.
Well, then I have a hard time and help me reconcile it. If
the, if ultimately, if you're ascending and its highest
point is just before the end of the trip, if you will,
which is the university, how is that counterintuitive?
If I say everything after whatever they put on this lot is
lesser than, so I'm going neighborhood, I'm going two story
and then I'm going whatever they put there, right? You're
ascending and that's kind of what you described.
Well, I mean, I don't know if we're getting a little
tangled up here without needing to be. I mean, we're, you
know, what we can see clearly is there's nothing close to a
hundred foot there.
And it's, you know, council member, a council member on a
previous project near this one talked about the fact that
if you stand facing the university, a hundred foot looks
okay. If you stand facing the neighborhood, it looks
completely out of character.
So, you know, I guess, you know, it's a hard in shades of
gray to define exactly where you need to be, but you can
see that, you know, somewhere in between the two would be
transitional.
Okay. And so my, my, absent this body, you know, absent the
detail, right, because they don't have to provide that and
absent, I'll assume that the people that own the apartments
in Seamont City and around the adjacent area, the two story
areas, are doing pretty well financially.
And I'm assuming there's a premium on those properties if I
want to buy them and uproot them. And so I think if you
have an opportunity in this property that they can build
and realize that and not, I mean, it's, I'll tell you, let
me just get to it.
It's hard, they're surrounded by apartments. Behind them,
apartments. Not even in the same block, the next block over
, there's apartments but for the house on the side. There
used to be some sort of frat house or something, I think.
There's businesses, there's a CVS. I just, candidly, and
you talked me out of it, I have a hard time voting against
something right across the street.
Like, if I can't put an apartment complex right across the
street from the university, across the street from a
monster building surrounded by apartments, I don't know
where else I can put a complex in Denton.
Just, I just, I'm looking at a Google aerial map and I, I'm
, I don't, if I can't put it here, then I don't see the
rationale in putting it in Seamont City.
I do see the rationale. I just think those people are
financially doing pretty well and it's going to cost you
and then you get out of the scope of this body.
I can't become a business consultant at that point either,
you know, so.
So I got to look at the use of the land and if it fits.
What that use is, they don't have to disclose.
Do you allow me to respond then? Sure, yes sir. We, we may
assume, and I have no way of knowing, that the area west of
UNT is maximized financially within the constraints that
the city's placed upon it.
That has no bearing on whether you would unleash tremendous
economic opportunity by removing those constraints.
So, you know, that, that's unknown. Although it seems, you
know, evident on the face of it that if you permit the
opportunity to have triple what's there, somebody's going
to want to realize that opportunity.
As far as the use, you know, directly north of UNT on this,
on this proposed site, really the issue comes down to scale
.
There is, there are not 100 foot towers there and I realize
that they are permitted by right on the adjacent lots.
But they're not there now. And if I were to give more
specific guidance to this body, I'd say you might consider,
you know, two options that I think would be palatable.
One would be doing nothing because you're not obligated to
change zoning just because somebody asks you to. That's
already agreed upon law.
An alternative that I think would probably be palatable in
the nature of compromise would be to go with the, remind me
what it's called, DCG, the requested zoning, but with an
overlay that doesn't allow 100 foot tower.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Yes, let me help you out a little bit because Commissioner
Hatsbeth, I think the way I'm looking at this is that next
door to the subject property is a two story apartment.
Across the street is the chemistry department.
I don't judge heights very well. So I'm assuming that since
it's three stories, 30 feet. Is that right? I don't know
how tall is the chemistry building.
I think it's three stories. Is it more? I mean, I'm asking
that, you know. I guess it's more than 30 feet. Is it? Okay
. I don't know how that works.
So, but I guess the point that I'm looking at is that under
the current zoning, that if you have a two story apartment
complex going east, that would then go to 45 feet, which is
zoned now, to then go to 100 feet, which is zoned now.
Then you get into commercial, CVS, Jack in the Box, Ori
ental Garden, Vortmans, and all of that business.
To the north, you've got apartments, and you go maybe a
block and a half before you start getting into single
family or maybe duplex type situations.
And so I see that this lot is really the transition area
where you're going from two story to 45 feet to 100 feet.
Just like we spent way too much time two weeks ago trying
to figure out how could we get that 100 foot space and
trying to work out a compromise at 45 feet.
And that's really what this is already doing for us is kind
of what I'm thinking.
And I think that, you know, somebody that could go in and
develop a portion of this at 45 feet, a portion of it at
100 feet, while I don't know that 100 feet is necessary, it
's allowed by current zoning.
So it'd be okay.
And so I think that's where that transition phase is.
I'm going from the private residences moving into the
commercial area.
That's kind of the way I'm looking at it.
Commissioner Roseau.
Thank you, Chair. Mr. Meltzer, I appreciate you being here.
Can I just ask a question? You said that you're opposed to
the 100 foot height.
You mentioned specifically having an overlay to protect
against 100 foot height.
Is that your single contention on the change to DCG?
Yes, and I think that's what you heard from the previous
speaker as well is that the scale is incompatible.
I appreciate that. And to the Commissioner Sullivan's point
, the transition is not only happening from east to west, it
also is happening from north, from south to north.
And to Commissioner Hussman's point, the south is
university. So that by definition that we all can agree on,
that property is on the transition.
And if we look at just the scope of transitioning, it's as
close to the original apex as Commissioner Hussman said to
anything else.
It's literally across the street. So if there was like this
transition of height, it wouldn't be at the 20 foot level
because it's not close.
It would have to be at the upper end of that transition,
whether that's 100 feet is obviously up for debate.
But it certainly by proximity would be at the very, very
most dense classification of transition because it's
literally across the street from the university.
That chemistry building is way taller, 30 feet. But more
over, we can't assume the applicant is doing anything with
that property.
We can't assume they're putting 100 feet. And by density
rule, I can't in my mind fathom how 100 foot even make any
sense or if it's possible.
It's very difficult for me to kind of fathom if that's even
possible. But if we look at other uses, maybe they just
want to put a restaurant there.
They can't put a restaurant there now. And so if we look
holistically about the possibilities that they can do or
anyone else if they sell the property or whoever takes
control of it, we're looking at what they can do.
And so it seems as though as staff has has diagnosed this,
that it is in accordance with the future land use map, the
2030 plan as part of that transitioning down.
And so those are my thoughts. I appreciate your feedback
and your being here.
Yes, as I indicated before, the debt in 2030 plan calls for
multiple small area plans.
And the essence of my presentation was that the fact that
all of these areas today have a common designation fails to
realize the distinctions within those areas.
So I believe you're in the work session and I engaged in
that discussion to segment those areas out.
I 100 percent agree with that. But it seems as though the
yes, no decision on the table tonight would be the reason.
I'm not I don't show it's in our purview to start
introducing small area plans in this meeting, although I
would love to entertain that conversation going forward.
No, no, no would be a way to buy time as well.
And I propose that alternative way to rather than to merely
say no, that I'm learning from from attending and paying
attention to all that.
Sometimes you can do things with conditions that the only
choices are not. Yes or no.
In fact, the lack of of compromise you may feel is because
you present cards that say oppose support.
Those are the choices. And you'll see on the next one. I I
chose a different alternative.
You know, you want a more creative exchange with the
community. Sure.
So and this but as far as your suggestion that it could be
a restaurant or a commercial use, I don't I'm not here
presenting any objection to that.
It's just to scale. And if you are at the very upper end of
matching off to the chemistry building, you might be
gradual from that end in terms of achieving gradual
transition.
But then you're not gradual in terms of the surrounding
area.
And as far as whether it's feasible for them to put a
hundred foot tower on the property, that isn't the decision
before you.
The decision before you is whether you will permit that,
because if you just say yes with no further elaboration or
condition, you are saying yes to that possibility.
Thank you. Thank you, sir. See no further questions.
And this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to
speak on this item, please come forward at this time.
Anyone wishing to speak? Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. I have to close the public hearing yet,
so I was going to give you the opportunity if you had
another question.
Well, I wanted to see if we bring the applicant back now.
Sure. I'm going to ask him a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chang. And let me just kind of reiterate
what I said before, but point out you've been in business
here in Denton for looks like about 30 years.
Is that about right? Yes, we are a family owned business.
We've been here since 82. Right.
So you're committed to Denton. That's obvious. And we're
glad you're here, too. We love Denton. We need more people
like you.
So based on what you've heard tonight, my reservation here
is more the type of dwelling it is.
The height is important, too, but, you know, it would be
more it would be more critical if we were closer to
historical neighborhoods.
But again, being a part of it as you are and want to see
Denton's future in a progressive way,
do you see any advantages to developing your property in a
way that would accommodate units that aren't supportive of
a transit population like students?
In other words, multifamily dwellings, four and five
stories high, probably.
But then accommodate residents who are probably going to
sit down roots here, be here for a long time and contribute
something to Denton's future as opposed to a transit
population like students.
So the question is, do you see any development in the
future of this? You mentioned it's going to be with your
office, your real estate office and multifamily uses.
So do you see your development excluding SROs and being
something that's more family oriented? Does that make sense
? Am I?
You're asking me if I'm going to exclude SROs from any
thinking.
In light of the fact that it deals with the transit
population, yes, I am.
I think it impacts the way a neighborhood develops over
time.
And in my opinion, a transit population is good in some
areas, but for future growth, I think it hurts more than
helps.
Yes. We've had that under consideration.
We have not had any plans, whether SRO or just but we
mainly deal in multifamily where people stay and go through
four years.
We've developed here before. We've built 24 unit apartment
complexes here before, as well as a 20 unit apartment
complex.
So we are in the business to keep people staying.
OK, that's the sense I wanted to get because from a
business perspective, it helps you where you don't have a
lot of turnover.
That's right. It seems with the transit population like
students, you're going to have a lot of turnover.
So just again, speaking hypothetically here, it seems like
it would serve your interest as well as the interest of
Denton's future growth that we do avoid SROs where we can.
It's a situation that could get worse over time and we
could actually overbuild on SROs.
So just throwing that out there and for something for you
to consider in the future.
Yes, we will have that under consideration.
OK, all right.
I have one more question for you. Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. Hi, Mr. Chang.
Hearing some of the citizens concerns today, would you be
amenable to any kind of overlay if this were to be approved
by scaling down the height of the building?
We would be open to that.
But at the same time, I'd like to comment that I've been
following this Park 7 and Park 7 is maybe two blocks away.
And there's already been a lot of struggles with the PNZ
and the neighborhood.
And they already have 10 stories that they can just build
like that.
And we, on the other hand, we're right across the street
from campus.
And if I haven't said how many stories we haven't had any
plans yet, but if we can't build it, how can they build it?
I don't see what the logic would be in that.
And we are not we even we have not had 100 foot planned yet
.
We haven't had any development plans yet.
But we just want to get the zoning change such that we can
proceed with the plans.
Great. I see no other questions.
Thank you, sir, for coming back up.
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 a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Hutzbeth. Chair, I'm going to ask.
Use your expertise to give me some round numbers.
So I think we were talking approaching two acres or so.
This this property all total around there a little over a
little over an acre.
Okay. So my question to you is, can you give me generally
not not hypothetical the footprint needed for what?
Like when you're talking when you're building multifamily
type building, just hypothetical and you have and assume
you have a little less than two acres and assume it's in a
dense area.
How much what does that square foot look like?
I mean, you have to how does that stack up or how how do
you use that space? How much space does it take per story
per parking?
Can you give me some sense of that?
I can't specifically other than just to say that an acre is
forty three thousand five hundred and sixty square feet.
How many forty three thousand five hundred and sixty.
Okay.
So that's the maximum footprint on an acre and then
whatever falls inside that. So if it's an acre and a
quarter, it's one point two five times forty three five
sixty.
And then whatever the setbacks are. So I mean, you can
cover a lot of property with it.
Okay. Structure.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair.
This is a tough one.
Obviously, the concern here for height and density close to
the sensitive neighborhoods is always going to be an issue
with me.
And I, you know, I have an ear and a heart for the people
that live in that area.
If I were to vote for this, I would do so reluctantly and
and hopefully maybe take the same in a direction where an
overlay could be applied here to at least ameliorate that
concern of height and density.
By right, the applicant, you know, has the right to, you
know, at least on those two parcels to build something up
to a hundred feet and something up to forty five feet on
the other one.
And design wise, I would think that what you've got now,
you could accommodate that.
But anyway, just need to put out there that this is a tough
one for me.
I'm sorry if I find myself voting for it. I do so reluct
antly with the hope that we can still address the issues
that concern the neighborhood.
Commissioner Ellis.
And just to further the discussion, I'm having a hard time
with this as well as I addressed in work session.
Just, you know, we've got unplatted property and I
understand staff's recommendation and the applicant's
desire to make all of these properties one.
But when it is replatted, it's a considerable large piece
of property with and with D.C.G.
zoning does allow a very large development there.
We keep coming back to the same area north of the
university.
This particular area is not covered by the Fry Street
overlay, which was clarified in work session, but just a
block away it is.
If this does get approved and we've got a hundred foot
building on on that footprint, you know,
Burtman's that's still out there.
Council has kept that alive. That's just a block away.
I mean, I think that brings them back.
I think it opens up to what Commissioner Sullivan said.
And that whole area is just going to kind of trickle down
or up with with this case.
So I think we as a city needed to find what this transition
needs to be.
What does it look like?
I understand what the future land use map looks like.
But but I mean, that's that's a living document.
That's something that we still have to study because we
keep coming back to the same area.
We keep coming back with this desires for these large scale
developments and we keep finding ourselves,
at least I do for sure, on this commission, find myself
wondering if that's really what we want in that transition
area of the university.
Putting a student housing project in there, I know it's
across the street from the university,
but perhaps that's not the best use between two historic
districts.
We don't address use for staff, faculty at UNT or graduate
students, older students, other developments might be more
appropriate there.
And so I'm having a hard time getting behind this and the
DCG and what it allows.
Commissioner Hussbuth.
Thank you, Chair.
Well, again, I can't reconcile anything if we can't put an
apartment there.
One, I'm not a builder and I can't get the information I
need on the fly.
But simple math says I don't even think it works there.
And even if it does work there, I would strongly advocate
for them to contact Park 7 and lure that thing closer to
the university and save the neighborhood.
I think it transitions to the neighborhood.
And so I'm going to move that we approve this because if we
, again, if you cannot put an apartment complex next to
across the street from the university,
then that puts us consistency wise in a real tough area.
And there's no family I know.
I respect the thought of a family living there, but it's a
one way street, 20 miles per hour, around a whole bunch of
kids and there's no parking.
That's not utopia for any family I know.
That's not a goal of any family I know.
Again, you can't go out.
You have to go towards CVS, make a left, then make another
left to get out of your neighborhood every day.
You can't just say I'm going to go right or left.
It's not conducive to a family environment.
It's 20 miles per hour.
So I'm going to move approval and we'll see.
Thank you.
>> Commissioner Osello.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I have a couple points here and then to spoil the end, I'm
going to second this.
First, I agree with Commissioner Ellis that there is
needing to be maybe a more clear definition of what
transition looks like.
But I don't know if that's necessarily for staff to present
to us and just telling us.
But I think it needs to go down to a zoning level or an
overlay level or a small area plan level in which there's
not staff coming and saying this is designed to be a
transition.
We get that.
What's lacking is what's actually permitted, what's limited
, what actually does the transition look like?
And so I think that's the ongoing conversation that we're
going to have and even more so later tonight.
But in regards to this property, I think Commissioner Ose
llo also mentioned it's the same area that keeps on coming
up.
This is the same area as Park 7 in that it is not part of a
historic district on either the historic, the West Oak or H
ickory side.
It is this weird peninsula of transition in which if you
just look at a future land use map and point to this
property and say that's going to be an apartment complex,
in my mind, I reconcile it.
It looks like a piece of property that is an apartment
complex.
And moreover, that's got to be the most prime location for
a chemistry student possible.
I mean, it just screams science student living there.
But additional to that, the Park 7 development was on
almost two acres of land.
We saw their 100 story design and I just cannot reconcile
that that would even fit on less acreage and even a skin
nier plot of land.
So I just don't, I'd be impressed if there's 100 feet
possible.
But regardless of that, I'm not making my decision on that.
I just, food for thought.
I don't think 100 feet is possible.
But my main point is this, we see developments come in here
all the time for SROs or apartment complexes and a
recurring theme previously that hasn't been brought up in a
while, these outside companies coming in, they build up and
then they sell.
When they have one manager there or they're just kind of a
fly by night that come in able to build and then they can
get out of here.
This is not the case.
They've been here 35 years.
I feel like they're invested in the city.
I don't feel that they're going to do something that
determines one, their business or their property value.
They don't have any current SRO projects.
It doesn't sound like it sounds like they're all multif
amily projects.
So we're making assumptions that they're going to build 100
foot SRO that I think is maybe presumptuous and further not
to the point of this rezoning case.
And so as staff has recommended, I second Commissioner Huts
pitz move to approve.
Commissioner Ellis, we have a first and a second.
Thank you.
I would just like to comment on Commissioner Hutspitz and
Commissioner Roselle.
First of all, I never said multifamily.
I can't see here.
It's my fear of what DCG allows and what it could be.
And it's absolutely no disrespect to the Chang family.
I understand how long you've been here and I walk by your
properties every single day on Bernard Street.
And lovely complexes.
This is not against you and what you do in this city.
I appreciate the developments that you have.
This is a protection thing for me.
We make the zoning change.
We replat it.
It just opens up a door that I'm not comfortable with.
And I do think that it will have a trickle effect.
I'm not against multifamily here.
Maybe it belongs to a chemistry student.
Maybe it belongs to a more grown up person at UNT.
Maybe that's what that zone should be between these
historic districts.
I don't know.
I would love that discussion and I would love us to come up
with what this transition point north of the university
should look like.
I would like that definition.
But I'm not against this developer and I'm certainly not
against the multifamily project here.
I'm against the scale that this allows when we make the
zoning change.
Commissioner Sullivan.
I'm in agreement with Commissioner Ellis from the
standpoint that has nothing to do with the people involved.
In fact, we talked about this in our work session that we
can't look at what's here now.
We've got to look at what's the general use and when is
that going to happen and how could it happen and what would
happen in the future.
And I think that's my biggest concern given the fact that
in both designations, fraternities, sororities, dormitories
,
multifamily housing, all of that thing is the same for both
of these designations.
Granted, you can't have a bar or restaurant under the
current designation.
But again, I don't see that being at that area anyway.
And so I'm not thinking about what necessarily the Chang
family would do.
I guess I'm thinking about what if we change this and then
somebody comes to them and say, hey, have I got a deal for
you?
I will buy your property.
And they're here to make a living and we all understand
that.
And somebody gives them something they can't refuse, then
they sell it.
And now the next SRO group or something goes in that is 100
feet all the way across the acre and whatever it takes.
So that's I think that's my biggest concern is the what ifs
.
And that's kind of what I was struggling with earlier in
the work session.
But more from the standpoint is, gosh, I wish we had a set
of plans to know what they're planning on.
That would make it a little bit easier.
And so I just I just can't see in the future well enough to
know or to trust what could happen if the Chang family were
to sell out.
And another Park seven or whoever comes in and does the
same thing as we're dealt with a couple of weeks ago.
So I'm going to be supporting the motion that we have
before us.
One reason is because staff has recommended it.
That's been on the last two issues before us that I think
is an appropriate use for the area.
I also think that there's probably not a more appropriate
use right across the street from the university.
It is not in either one of the overlays of the historic
districts.
Part of the property is already D.C.G.
And so they have another parcel that allows them to do a
more uniform development.
They don't know that it will be 100 feet tall across the
whole thing.
It may be like what was brought before us a couple of weeks
ago that it's 48 feet or whatever and neither parts 50
something.
And it allows them I think probably the opportunity to do a
a better overall design.
That was my concern with Park seven is that we were going
to cut off our nose to spite our face for pushing them to
build the maximum.
They can build in some areas versus a compromise.
You know what?
They probably are going to build that tall overall and give
them the flexibility to do something less scale.
I don't think there's a better place walkability wise right
across the street from the university.
And so for that reason, I'm going to be supporting the
motion.
I think it's a good rezone for the area.
I'd love to see it redeveloped into something new and nice
and the fees and the taxes that would come off of that and
a nicer place for kids to live.
And so for that, I think it just makes sense.
And I think it's a a good decision by staff.
And I'm going to support staff's recommendation and the
first and the second before us.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a question before we take this to the vote, probably
should go to legal, I guess.
Can we attach an amendment to this that deals with an
overlay?
You can.
I mean, the applicants here, if the applicant is amenable
to an overlay, that is something you can recommend.
OK.
And I guess we need to get him back up here.
I thought he said he was open to it, but if Mr. Chang,
would you mind one more time confirming or.
Yes, we would consider it.
OK.
I want to approve this to with just the reservations I have
.
But I think I saw you kind of nod your head when
Commissioner Rizzo said I was saying, you know, you guys
weren't gung ho about SROs.
And I like that.
So those are my concerns.
I think that's the concerns of the neighborhood, too.
But so if you're amenable to that, then, yeah, I would like
to approve this with the amendment that we apply an overlay
to it.
I will say at the moment there is a motion on the floor
that it has been seconded to approve it as is.
OK.
So I've got to take that up first.
All right.
OK, so.
So how does this work then?
If it gets approved, do I then come in and suggest an
overlay at that point, an amendment to it as approved?
If it fails.
Pardon me?
If it fails, then a new motion could be made and the motion
could be made with a overlay on it.
OK. Otherwise, no.
Right.
OK.
Thank you.
I think I could ask for a friendly amendment if you want to
have some discussion about that, too.
Well, I would rather go there rather than vote no and then
start discussing from that point.
So, yes, a friendly amendment.
Can we discuss that?
Do you have a height you want to throw out for friendly
discussion purposes?
I don't think it can accept 100 feet either.
But if we could see kind of a build down from the east to
the west from, say, a five story to a four story, that
seems like a practical move and may allow you to, you know,
get the economic benefits that you want by redeveloping
that property.
Is that specific enough?
I don't think it's a height because right now the DCG
allows 100 feet.
Right.
And the other is 45.
So I would assume that the applicant would want something
between 45 and closer to 100 and less than 100 if they're
going to agree to allow that to be imposed on their
property.
I'll call on staff to give us some direction and help on
this, Manal.
Can you see me?
Thank you, Chairperson.
That's strange.
I do want to add that the request before you is for one
specific lot.
Are you looking at the entire development once it's brought
together?
Because the zoning request is for a change on one specific
lot.
So your overlay that you're proposing would be specific to
that.
To just the lot.
Exactly.
Okay. Thank you.
You still have the floor.
How about a height of 60 feet?
A height of 60 foot for the subject lot we're talking about
today.
Right.
I think that I would need to talk it over.
But I think it's pretty close.
How about 70?
We will be building what's feasible.
Right.
Whether or not it's 50 feet, 60 feet, 70 feet.
But whatever's feasible, I don't know if we would even get
up to 70.
But I don't want to fence us in.
Sure.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Hussbuss.
I don't want to put staff through the exercise, but if you
can close your eyes and imagine with me a Google Maps
aerial view of Denton.
And then just kind of go with me on where first we're over
stepping our duties by a mile.
Right.
And then if -- I'm big on consistency.
So this body, to be consistent in its applications and its
decisions.
Mind you, coming from the person that voted by himself on
the lot just down the street.
So the absolutely epitome of consistency in my own humble
opinion.
But take an aerial view of Denton in your Google Maps mind.
Where are you going to put -- where is there no building,
no neighborhood, nobody that's okay with building?
And then who is the builder willing to put the
infrastructure there to put the building?
I mean, you know, really you got to -- somehow this body is
not -- we're not business consultants.
We're not apartment managers.
We make decisions on what fits where generally.
And for us to overstep those bounds today means we have to
continue to do so going forward.
And that's just a slippery slope for me to go down.
I just don't want to be inconsistent in that regard because
I don't think it's fair to anyone that would come before us
to wonder if we're going to be --
if we're going to get a hint of what someone's going to do
with their property and then try to impose our will on that
.
That's just -- that's not our duty.
So the conversation is -- I'm not going to -- no friendly
amendment.
I think they have a good point.
They have a great piece of property that -- and I don't
think it fits.
I think that's the whole point, that you don't have to put
a cap on it.
It caps itself.
And then so my question for legal is what is the end result
?
So 3-3 is what we're projecting.
That goes to counsel.
Does that require a super majority or no?
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if that would require
a super majority.
I can look through the stuff and see if I can find an
answer for you.
Thank you.
Just wanted to clarify, wouldn't the motion fail then?
We haven't taken a vote yet.
I'm just saying that as you do your research, if you could
look into that.
Yeah, the motion would fail.
3-3?
I think so.
I think it's 4.
Okay.
It's not going to go either way.
You still have a 4.
3-3 either way.
We're at impasse.
So then where do we go?
Right?
So if it fails, someone else makes a new motion.
Same three hold the line.
The other three hold the line.
We're at impasse.
So what then?
So where are we?
That's I guess my --
We'll see where this goes.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to clarify to Commissioner Huntsman that I'm
consistent too, and it's that we need to redefine this area
.
Any other discussion before I call for a vote on the motion
to approve?
Chair.
Sorry.
Commissioner Beck.
I'm going to reluctantly go along with this with the
understanding that if we do an overlay, I agree this thing
isn't going to take 100 feet.
And if I agree to 70 feet, it probably wouldn't even take
that.
If it did, it would be right under it.
So it's a no-game situation there.
Again, at heart here is, you know, the precedent this sets.
But we're dealing with a family business that has a
tradition here and I think has the interest of Denton's
future growth in it.
So for that reason and because staff has approved of it, I
'm going to reluctantly go along with it too.
Okay.
Any further discussion before I call for a vote?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board.
The motion before us is a motion to approve.
That motion carries four to two.
That will take us to our, kind of these together?
I think we have to do it individually.
We have, I will take us to our next one.
I'm going to open the public hearing for Z17-0002.
And I believe this item has been postponed until April the
12th, 2017.
And we will look for a motion then to continue this till
that time.
Commissioner Rozelle.
I move to continue Z17-002 to April 12th.
Commissioner Hussbuth.
Second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second to continue.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries six to zero.
We'll take us to item C.
I'm going to open the public hearing for Z16-0030.
And the applicant has requested that this item be continued
to April the 12th, 2017 as well.
Commissioner Beck.
I move we continue this till April 12th.
April 12th.
Okay.
Chair will second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries six to zero.
That will move us to item D.
And I will open the public hearing for DCA 17-0005 and call
on Ron McGee for a presentation.
Thank you, Chair, members of the commission, members of
staff.
I'll brought forward to you today is a consideration for a
recommendation to city council on a request to add a
specific use requirement for the DR2, DCN and DCG zoning
districts.
By way of definition, multifamily is defined as a structure
that contains three or more dwelling units as part of the
development.
As we discussed in our work session, these are the
following zoning districts that permit multifamily either
by right, through an SUP or through limitations.
The limitations here are L4, L5 and L6.
General regulations for multifamily specifically, I'm sorry
, for all development, including multifamily, in the DR2, DC
N and DCG are shown on this particular slide.
The height for DR2 is 45, DCN is 100, as well as DCG.
Setbacks are shown here and a lot of coverage as well.
Site design standards for development, and this in
particular design standard 3513 for multifamily.
There are specific requirements in regards to orientation,
proximity slope, building materials, open space,
architectural requirements.
And as noted, there are also, if a multifamily is within a
special purpose overlay district, they also have special
design standards.
Parking requirements for development in multifamily
development that is, is shown here.
We have two bedrooms at 1.75 space per unit, three bedrooms
, two space per unit, and four bedrooms is one space per
bedroom.
Specific use permits for background is covered under 35136,
covers procedures on what is required to obtain a specific
use permit.
It requires a dual public hearing process that comes to the
Planning, Zoning Commission for recommendation and
ultimately to City Council for their approval.
There are requirements for submittal.
As discussed, conditions can be placed with a specific use
permit and it's outlined in this section.
And also, a specific use permit, if approved and later
altered, either the specific use or the conditions, it has
to go through the same process as it was approved.
What staff is recommending is a code amendment to add,
again, a specific use requirement for the DR2, DCN and DCG
to address multifamily proposals in the DIN core.
And that core is identified on this map.
The DCG, as you can see, is the darker green.
DCN is the one with the hatching.
And then DR2 is the lighter green.
And I wanted to point out on this map the areas that we are
trying to protect with this proposal are the established
neighborhoods, the historic districts, as well as the
special overlay districts.
We've got West Oak here, Oak Hickory.
We've got a Bernard neighborhood here.
Some neighbor here to the east of the railroad tracks.
We've got the Stroud neighborhood shown in this lighter
yellow.
And we also have some clusters of residential development
here, single family, that's also in that core area that we
're proposing.
The SGP allows for the opportunity for not just the council
, but the Planning and Zoning Commission and the community
to come together and address any potential impacts that may
arise from a proposed multifamily development.
And that could be looking at the parking ratio, the
building height, as well as any design standards to conform
to compatibility matters, again, that would be adjacent to
established neighborhoods.
Stafford's recommending approval of this request as we are
bringing this forward.
It is a land use analysis tool.
Again, repeating myself here, addressing massing and scale
compatibility.
And again, it's consistent with the Dem Plan 2030.
With that, that concludes my presentation.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Questions for Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Hey, Ron, when would this take effect if this did get
approved by council?
We are scheduled tentatively scheduled to PNZ, I'm sorry,
to City Council at their next meeting.
I believe it's April 4th.
If that were to go on the April 4th, City Council, and if
again, if they approve this code amendment, I believe it's
14 days after April 4th, so mid to late April.
And would it exclude any projects?
How would that go?
My understanding is that if the zoning is in place, and
Shannon, you may help me out here.
If the zoning is already being considered, I don't know if
they would be vested or if the platting would vest them in
a project.
They wouldn't vest with zoning, they would vest when they
file the plat.
So the plat is considered the first permit.
Vesting doesn't occur with zoning of a property.
It occurs with the plat, which is typically the first
permit.
The plat or the first permit, but the plat is typically the
first permit.
Thank you.
Continue.
Thank you.
Okay, so on that same note, so anything that's got its
first plat and would not, this would not apply to them,
then it would play anything new going forward at that point
.
So if they've already been platted in the zoning changes,
then they're vested under the old requirements.
Does that make sense?
Right, so they would not require an SUP if they're at that
stage.
It would only be something new coming forward then after
whatever you said, 14 days after approval.
The April 4th, again, that's a tentative City Council
meeting.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions for staff?
You have another question?
Actually, I'm sorry.
That's okay.
Commissioner Ellis.
I'm sorry.
It's on the same note.
So is that in just a request for platting or is that an
approved plat?
Actually, it's the application.
If they show intent to develop the property in that manner,
by submitting an application, they actually can prove v
esting with just that action.
Okay, so like --
The state law is a little bit unclear, but it's been tried
in that manner.
Okay, so trying to wrap my head around what just happened.
So that particular zoning change we just made, if he quick
turns an application in tomorrow for a plat, doesn't apply,
or even the day of this or 14 days after this is approved,
if he just submits the application for that, then this
would not apply to that particular property.
If they indicate intent to develop that property in that
manner, then yes.
And it would not apply then?
Right.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions for Ron?
Thank you.
This is a public hearing, and I have two cards for
questions to speak.
Kim McKibbin, followed by Paul Meltzer.
Hello again.
Kim McKibbin, 1306 West Hickory Street.
I was not going to comment on this, but after hearing some
of the work session, I did want to mention that the special
use permit might be a step in the right direction.
I put a question mark on whether or not I agreed with it
simply because I did listen to what you guys said in the
work meeting.
And at some point, someone has to take responsibility for
the planning of Denton.
Now, nobody wants to ruffle any feathers or get anybody
upset or anything like that.
But if you people do not make some decisions about what you
are going to allow and what you are not going to allow in
certain areas, there is going to be a lot of trouble very
quickly.
Denton is not the same Denton it was in 1981 when I came
here.
It's all over all these places about the best place to
retire, the best place to do this, the best place to do
that.
And people want to come here.
And in wanting to come here, you have to be prudent in what
you allow to be developed and how you allow it to be
developed.
Now, I'm not saying I'm an expert in that.
I came up here, I bought a business, you know, I want to
invest in the community.
I want to see good things happen and I want to see it
continue.
Now, you know, one of the things that we keep talking about
is the overlay districts we talk about, the transition
areas.
And I think that perhaps my idea about the transition area
from the university is that the university is the tallest
point and it goes down from there.
I know some other people think that it ascends up to the
university.
I think the university is the peak and it ascends down.
And what you're looking at are two story, three story
buildings surrounding the university.
And we need to be aware of the developers will continue to
come.
They will continue to try to ask for special treatment or
understanding about, well, this is zoned, you know, for
single family, but I really want to do this with it.
And if we start at the university and go out, you know, as
the compatibility area goes down, not starting at 100 feet
and then turning up at two stories several blocks away.
But you start at two stories and you end up at 100 feet
several blocks away.
So a little bit different way to look at what that
compatibility area is.
But I am really asking you guys, the special overlay
district may not be the optimum solution to this, but
somewhere somebody is going to have to just kind of step
off this cliff and see what we can do to preserve the parts
of Denton that are really, really what make Denton what it
is.
If people want to do certain things in certain areas that
really don't fit with the zoning and that does not fit what
the overall community that surrounds that area is looking
at, we once again, where's the compromise?
Where can we compromise between the communities and the
developers in finding housing for Denton and making it
someplace that continues to be livable and desirable?
So I'm asking you to step off that cliff or maybe get a
little closer to the edge by considering this or whatever
you're going to do with this.
Something's got to start somewhere.
And if it is special use permits for certain areas, that
might be what it is.
I do disagree with the fact that there it just needs to be
the core.
There are certain areas right on the outskirts of this core
that are going to be impacted and have been in the past by
apartments being built inappropriately.
I have a question for you.
Yes, sir.
I appreciate your comments, and I think they're with merit.
And I would agree with you that a key to successful
development for our community, in my opinion, is here are
the rules, and then you leave them and people then can
abide by them.
I think the difficulty comes is when we want to keep adding
things and changing things.
The uncertainty is what creates the problems.
And I'd like to respond to I appreciate you've been here at
a number of our meetings.
I know you and I may not look eye to eye on some issues,
and that's okay.
And so I would share back with you that as a longtime Dent
on resident also, there have been a number of things that
have been done for communities.
So that's why the Fry Street overlay is there, the Oak, the
Hickory Street overlay.
Those are all there, and they were put in there for exactly
the reason that you said, to protect particular areas.
And the issue sometimes that I have a difficult time as a
commissioner, because you're right, we do have to make a
decision.
It's a yes or a no, is that even when we have those
districts and all of the discussion and all the work that
has gone into those,
we then still have areas that are outside of those that
then we say, well, it's close to this area or it's two
blocks down the street.
And so we have to do all these other things.
And I'm torn between the position of what we have put those
in for special protection of those areas.
And to the west of this is zoned in R3.
And so it's not going to creepy crawl over there because
that is a very low density zoning in our city.
And so I would appreciate kind of the same thing back.
We do the very best we can with a lot of different
circumstances that come.
And we try to look, or at least I try to look at what's
been done in the past, what the overlays, what the
districts were,
and try to come up with, I hope, a reasonable decision and
then say that usually it has to be a yes or a no.
So thank you for continuing to come out.
Thank you for your feedback.
It's nice to have some reasoned discussion versus just
getting kind of thrown at you.
And you're just kind of like, well, I don't know what to do
with that, but take it.
So thank you for your reasonable discussion and your
feedback to this commission.
So with that, Commissioner Rozelle.
Thank you, Chair.
And I'll take my notes back that you're reading from me
just then.
But I'll be redundant, I guess.
I'll have to be.
Well, you and I swap with that once in a while.
I was, I mean, bullet by bullet, apparently.
One, I wanted to thank you, Ms. Givens, for coming out.
You've been consistent with anything that happens with Hick
ory and Oak.
And so it's you and Mr. Meltzer who stay late nights with
us and have decent dialogue to help us think through these
processes.
So I wanted to thank you for that.
And the first part of your presentation, I wholeheartedly
agree.
I think there needs to be, I think you said, an allow and
not allow provision.
I think to Chair's point, once we have the box, then a
developer or anyone who buys the property can say, this is
what I'm allowed to do.
And I think I would disagree that SUP is a start in the
right direction because I think an SUP just adds more
questions to that allow and not allow.
And so I agree with you in that.
I think there needs to be some measures.
I think the conversation is how does that look?
Is it an overlay district?
Or what can we do to provide greater direction and some
black and white measures to encourage or discourage certain
developments from happening in certain places?
And so I think we're thinking along those same lines of
what to do to protect areas that need to be protected, not
just in the core, but as you mentioned, in other areas.
What I also had for you is you mentioned that you feel that
everything should work down from the university. I imagine
you meant in height and density, but mostly height.
UNT doesn't have a lot of tall buildings.
It's not like TWA where you can get like 150 story building
or 150 foot building.
But to that point, it seems as though there is general
consensus about high rises or tall buildings on the west
side of campus.
But you didn't mention that necessarily.
So I'd love to know your thoughts on if you were here for
the earlier presentation.
Maybe you're not in favor of 100 foot on Hickory, 100 foot
building on Hickory.
Are you OK with 100 foot story or 100 feet tall building
west of campus?
How do you feel about that?
OK, I'm not from Texas.
So when you say west of campus, I think going down Hickory
Street is east.
That's correct.
OK, so a lot of that stuff that's out that direction on out
.
I think the University Boulevard and then from University
Boulevard kind of towards the hospital area where there's a
lot of there's a lot of two stories.
Two stories.
There's a lot of older things.
Well, when you say Cement City, I think down off Eagle,
that is the apartments that I moved in when I moved here in
1981.
Sure.
So it's a different concept.
I think that if you if you choose an area and you say to
developers, this is where you can build this, but you can't
build that here.
You know, I can understand that.
I certainly understand the concept of taking a section and
really working with all the people that are involved in the
development to develop it into something that has walk
ability, bicycles, green space, those kinds of things.
So if you're asking me if I thought there's a place for a
hundred foot apartment building down that direction, I'm
not sure everything down there right now is three story.
And that's about as high as it gets.
A hundred story building is the first state bank building
on the square.
That's a hundred foot.
At least that's pretty close to it from what I understand.
I don't I haven't seen much apartment buildings in Denver
or in downtown Dallas or any place where there's a need for
density that are that tall.
I really have not.
Down around the hospital districts in Dallas, they're
building Max four.
In Denver, they're building Max five.
And those are the two areas that I'm familiar with.
So I would have to, you know, really look at what the plans
is.
Is it something that's still and goes straight up out of
the ground?
Does it gradually move around?
But I think that if you if you have something that says
people can build a hundred foot building, they're going to
push it.
They're going to push it to a hundred feet.
And then they're going to ask you for 10 more feet for the
air conditioning units on top.
So why is it a hundred feet?
You know, why is there not something between forty five and
a hundred?
Will the will the fire department even be able to service a
hundred foot building?
Do we have the ladders and all of that kind of stuff for
that?
I mean, I don't even know.
And it would be terrible to have the buildings outgrow what
the city can provide.
Sure. So I don't have any objection to a certain area being
designated that way.
I would like to see some of the areas, the more blighted
areas.
I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but there's some
places that that need to be redone.
We need to be revitalized.
And it's the it's the single family houses that get torn
down to get these things put up that that disturbs me in a
way.
I appreciate the feedback. Thank you.
OK, I'm sorry. I couldn't be more direct.
That helps. I can't even think of a hundred foot.
How many stories is that?
Nine, ten, eight.
I can't even I can't even envision one of those except in
in right in downtown Dallas is the only place I'm seeing
around the American American Pavilion Center.
Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments. Appreciate them.
Anybody else?
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
Thank you for coming out again this evening.
You're welcome.
Mr. Melcher, since you raised the plan that I presented, I
'll just touch on that briefly that you could you can look
at the presentation to a large community.
I can just share with you that I've had universal positive
response to that notion of making a more urban area in that
area that does kind of beg for redevelopment and equally
strong reaction.
I'm just sharing with you presented this to lots of people
in large rooms and I think you'll find I think you'll find
it rewarding and interesting to ask that question to many
other people.
And I think you'll find that that people resonate with it
specifically on this.
I think there's a medium term issue and a short term issue.
Medium term, clearly we collectively as a community are not
done yet actually planning. I mean, I would agree with the
previous speaker on that.
And, you know, really making some decisions and that's
going to make life easier, certainly for this commission.
And it's the nibbling away like ducks, you know, bite by
bite that that kind of destroys any sense of planning or
well-ordered community.
And yet that's sort of the only mechanism we have is nib
bling away bite by bite as each project is brought forward.
So the idea of of SUPs is kind of more of the same.
But but I recognize the value where we do have these outs
ized projects, at least viewed by some as outsized projects
in some of these sensitive areas that, you know, I respect
the impulse to try to give the community at least some
opportunity.
You know, to share their views with you routinely on those
concern raised at work session was you're just going to
catch too many dolphins with the tuna.
And, you know, every you have to go through this process on
everything that wouldn't otherwise need it.
So my simple recommendation to you would be to put some
kind of a, you know, some kind of a floor on it that, you
know, every multifamily project with more than I'm making
up a number of people.
I'm making up a number 30 bedrooms needs to go through an
SUP.
And then I think it meets the objective of saying until we
have an actual plan, we'll talk about each one.
But by each one, we only mean the big ones.
That's what I suggest to you.
Thanks.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone else wish to wish to speak on this item?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.
We're back.
Thank you, Chair.
Got a question for legal and then would like to make a
statement.
Who initiates overlay districts or SAPs, small action or
small area plans?
The small area plans?
Well, or the SUPs.
And overlay districts.
Does that start with somebody at city level or is that
somebody out in the community?
It can.
It can be city.
Right.
It can be either.
It can be city or it can be -- right.
Or citizen initiated.
Okay.
Who within the city then would initiate it?
Mostly --
Our long-range planning department.
Ron Mingito is going to speak today.
That would be me.
Okay.
So you would do it based on somebody's recommendation or --
Yeah.
We have, as you know, we have an existing small area plan,
the Friday Street overlay.
Right.
I'm sorry, Friday Street small area plan.
Yeah.
And just a quick note, we have started the process of the
small area plan study for this
area.
We just haven't gotten it kicked off yet.
Okay.
Thank you.
Regarding the SUP, I'm for it, really.
Now, there's probably something we can do better, but I
think staff has looked at this pretty
differently.
And I think maybe some here are overthinking this a little
bit because when I first read
it, I thought here's the perfect tool to control the very
situations we ran into two weeks
ago.
As I mentioned in the workshop, I realize we're dealing
with a large area here, but
I don't think there's going to be hardly any challenge for
somebody who wants to build
something with high density and large heights, pretty much
anywhere close to this area, except
for a few neighborhoods, obviously, north of UNT.
But it's a good tool to at least step in and protect a
sensitive neighborhood when we've
got nothing else.
When it's already zoned and if that were in place tonight,
I wouldn't have had an easier
time voting yes on this, knowing that with an SUP, we could
have some restrictions on
it.
So I think the staff has looked at it critically.
I think if you overthink this too much, it'll make it
probably more complicated.
So I think it's a good plan, and I would vote for it.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this and
wanting to approve it because I'm
just still so confused on how we got here.
You know, the discussion started with counsel talking about
SROs and a definition and then
gave you direction that I wish they didn't give you, and I
understand that's what you
had to do.
That's what you're tasked with, and that's what we're
tasked with today.
I just think, you know, contrary to what Chair may believe
about me, I'm really not anti-development.
It's a specific area that I've had issue with.
And I do think that this steps on toes of, you know, areas
that, you know, and hinders
development where it doesn't need to be hindered and it
doesn't really address the issue at
hand, which were these collegiate housing developments in
specific areas.
So I guess my question for Ron on this is you talked about
small area plans.
Did you talk to counsel about that?
Did that come up in this discussion?
[ Inaudible ]
Addressed during those discussions, during work session.
And yet they still gave you direction?
Right.
Again, the timing probably was the main issue to get a
small area plan.
We're still in the initial stages.
What is the -- I know there's no specific time, but I mean,
is there a ballpark figure
that you gave them that scared them or --
We actually, as I mentioned earlier, we haven't officially
kicked it off, but we anticipate
getting it started soon.
And as you know, it will take some time before a study can
be completed.
So there was not an immediate timeline that we presented to
them.
As that's being discussed, is there a way for the city, if
there -- let's take this area,
for example, north of the university that we've been
discussing today and a couple of
weeks ago and a month before that, if we were discussing a
small area plan, if you all were
initiating that discussion, can some kind of stoppage on
building be done at that point?
Can the city do something like that or do things just
continue as is until this gets done?
Correct.
Unless there's direction from counsel to do something like
what you just suggested.
So yeah, I'm just trying to follow counsel's mind on this.
Is that what they were trying to do by doing this blanket
SUP thing that, again, I don't
really think does what perhaps they set out to do in
November and it got kind of convoluted.
Because honestly, an SUP -- I mean, I don't even think
addresses a collegiate housing project
because, number one, we already know from talking to the
developers that it has to be a certain
size for it to even work.
It's all based on numbers for those types of projects.
So even if they went through the expense and we went
through the discussion, I still don't
think we would ever get to terms.
We didn't certainly on the discussion a couple of weeks ago
.
So it seems like such a waste of expense and time for not
only developers but staff, too,
and unnecessary for a good portion of this downtown urban
district, these D zones that
aren't necessary.
Did that come up with your discussion with counsel, the --
readdressing the D zones and
its criteria?
There was some discussion.
The mayor did bring up, you know, smaller developments and
how that would be affected.
I believe he asked about timing and cost, and we provided
that information and still
went forward with the direction to move forward.
I see.
Okay.
Thanks.
I'll let other people talk.
I'll respond back.
I appreciate your comments.
And, yes, I respect that sometimes we may agree on one item
and the next we disagree,
but at the end of the night we just continue on and each do
what we think is best.
So I appreciate that.
And respect that from you.
I have a lot of concern about this.
In listening to our staff presentation, it sounds like this
is about the third or fourth
attempt from counsel's direction on how to address a very
specific issue, and let's just
call it what it is, the SRO issue.
And it's a very global approach over a very large area of
our city.
And I'm very concerned about how that will impact very
small projects that are not really
what the problem is.
And I think the cost and the time involved, to your point,
are very well taken because
I think there will be a lot of dolphins that get caught in
the tuna net, to use another
analogy here this evening.
And I think it doesn't send the right message to the people
that are coming to our city
to do business, that if there's a particular issue in one
area and we're not able to deal
with it, we might just throw a blanket over the whole thing
.
And I think it sends a very -- I don't think it sends the
right message to people that
want to come and do business here in our city.
And yet I also understand that, you know, our board is a
recommending board to city
council, and this is a city council directed issue.
And I think this needs to be moved on this evening rather
than continued and kicked
around and talked about and let city council get to the
bottom of this.
At the end of the day, they get to decide.
They're the ones that are held accountable voting-wise, and
we find folks here get
appointed and serve at the pleasure until we're not at the
pleasure anymore or we're
term-limited out.
And so with that, I'm going to go ahead and get a motion on
the table here, and I'd
like to have some further discussion.
And my motion is going to be for denial to move this on to
city council, and then they
can take it up and they can discuss it further, and
hopefully they can come up with a
resolution with staff's help and guidance that addresses
the issue that really needs
to get addressed rather than a -- what I think is an over
kill issue to a very specific
problem that I think will have and could have a lot of
unintended consequences.
And so with that, my motion is for denial on this.
Commissioner Rozelle.
Thank you, Chair.
I just have a decent point and probably a less decent point
, admittedly.
But the first one is we talk tonight about zoning creep,
that if we change this property,
then we can go ahead and change the next property, the next
property.
And I see some similarities in terms of the power trying to
be given over to this commission
and to city council.
I don't know the logical end, but if we're now saying any
commercial area can't be built
by rights, where's the next step in which council or this
commission wants to put on
SUP requirements for some building in the future?
There starts to be a creep of the control in which we would
like or the council would
like to add input and remove the by right building.
Does this creep into residential neighborhoods?
Should we now start getting SUPs for basic houses because
we want to check the roof pitch?
I don't know what the logical end is, and I am speaking
hyperbolically here, but
nevertheless, it seems like this is authoritative creeping
in terms of the power that we should
have in regards to the zoning that's been established.
That's my first point.
The second one is I know staff was saying that there is
benefit to having the SUP process
because sometimes it benefits the applicant.
And not to mix metaphors too much, but if I'm not speeding
and I get pulled over by the
police officer, that police officer gives me an opportunity
to defend myself, but I'd
much rather not have been pulled over for speeding when I
wasn't speeding to begin with.
And so I don't see a massive dissimilarity when someone
comes in by right to build and
we're like, well, we just want to check everything out, get
approval by a rolling commission
that then gets moved on to council by a rolling council to
then get approved.
I'd much rather go ahead and second this motion, put it to
council to come up with a more
definitive solution than having an SUP be very arbitrary
from project to project.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Thank you.
I'm looking through the information we have here.
49,000 dwelling units, 42% multifamily is 20,580 multif
amily housing units.
The city this year, I believe it was, lost $500,000 in
government money due to the lack of affordable housing.
And here we are using a sledgehammer to drive a nail into
preventing collegiate housing that
in no way could be converted to multifamily housing.
It in no way brings affordable housing because I don't
really think that's too affordable housing,
it's not very affordable housing.
And so I just don't see that subjecting such a large area
of the city to get more regulation,
more questions, more cost when the council has it within
their authority to simply say yes here and no there.
I sit on the charter review committee and one of the things
we've got to talk about is they don't understand the word
may and shall.
So we're going to change the charter so that they will hire
an auditor, not a, you know, that's what it says, you shall
hire.
And so I think that I would like to send a message to
council, y'all need to put a stop to this stuff.
You know, say this is where it needs to go, this is where
it can't go.
End of story and move on with life.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, chair.
And again, I just, to Commissioner Rosell's point, you know
, I appreciate him defining it as hyperbolic.
Again, we can overthink this thing and that's nothing
against my good friend Commissioner Rosell at all.
We're just agree to disagree.
But this is a very specific agenda.
It deals strictly with multifamily dwellings.
I think intent to me anyway was pretty clear, this allows
us some control when these multifamily dwellings go into
sensitive neighborhood areas and they turn out to be SROs.
I thought that's all it was.
I think that's all it will be.
I could, of course, be wrong.
But I'm going to go ahead and still vote for it.
But I don't have any problem if it doesn't make it through,
you know, and gets to council where they have to make a
decision to.
But just again, I think it's specific enough and its intent
is clear enough where I don't have a problem voting for it.
Okay.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, chair.
I absolutely am in support of denial of this because I
absolutely don't think it addresses the true issue.
So my hope is that council denies it as well and gives you
different direction.
Because I think the direction is you need to address the
collegiate housing issue definition, where it's allowed.
Let's talk about DCG zoning or maybe something needs to be
in between the 45 and the 100 feet.
Let's talk about city initiated zoning, especially between
the historic districts.
There's issues that I hope council will see need to be
addressed that will address the specific issue of cont
ention in this city right now.
This doesn't do it and it unfortunately, it just -- it's
not working on the right problem.
So I certainly can't support it as it's written.
Okay.
Commissioner Hussmuth.
Thank you, chair.
Briefly, I think what's missing -- I think it does reach a
bit far, but I also would like to renew my point from work
session that it needs citizen input.
It needs stakeholder and the developer input to it.
And such that this particular version does not have that
input.
It's all kind of internal while thoughtful.
It just -- I think it would be better -- it's just better
if it's more diversely represented and there's more input,
which by its very nature maybe takes it longer to roll out.
But I don't want to -- I think -- an SUP requires citizens
to come up and talk.
And then they may or may not be -- that conversation or
those comments may not be weighted properly.
So I think to have their input on the front end where they
're shaping it, they're crafting it, where they know they're
getting representation is a better product than what would
happen in a hearing where they stand before a, again, mig
rating body that then may or may not receive their comments
well.
So thank you.
Commissioner Ellis.
Just a quick comment on Commissioner Hudspeth's discussion.
I don't know that we'd ever get a developer who would want
an SUP because it's just -- it's another layer for them and
more expense and more time.
So I don't know what their input for this particular thing
is.
I do know that when staff puts together and we as a
recommending body and city council as a voting body and
decision maker, you know, we have to put these things in
place that are best for our city, not necessarily best for
the city.
Not necessarily best for the developer per se.
So I'm not sure we'd ever get them on board with an SUP
discussion anyway.
That's just my thought.
Commissioner Beck.
I'm going to let Commissioner Hudspeth go ahead and speak
because I know he wants to reply directly.
If that's okay, then I'll follow him.
Sure.
We'll recognize Commissioner Hudspeth.
That's so kind of you.
You're awesome.
No, I think your point is valid, but I think also that's
where as a council and as a body I think we miss it, right?
So if I extend the invitation and you reject it or you don
't negotiate in earnest, then I can say I extended the
invitation and I tried to earnestly deal with you and you
did not.
Versus them continuing to say we don't ever loop them in.
I can say I always loop you in and you always come up with
answers that aren't realistic or you're not willing to
engage.
You know, that to me puts a city and it's a better
representation of our city to me that hey, I tried to
include you in all earnestly, but you just would not.
And that's okay.
But I just at least want to at least send the invitation
and then you can they can decide if they want to engage or
not.
But I tried.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
This is probably a question for either legal or excuse me
illustrious director of planning up there.
This thing is probably going to go down in flames despite
that I'm going to vote for it anyway, but if it were to go
through.
I mean, just as because I see it as a good tool, how
different once it's and got passed by City Council. How
difficult is it to turn it back around if we do see enough
problems with it that it's not serving the purpose that at
least I think it will.
Let me just make sure I understand your question. If City
Council does what with it.
If if if it didn't go down in flames and made it to City
Council and they approved it to this this agenda item.
How difficult would it be to reverse this if we know it
came to light to people like me to be the same process we
're taking now would be a it would be an amendment to the to
the code like we're doing now so we're in the same world
that we could turn it around if we.
I'll leave that to your your fellow commissioners to define
but no no it's it's the same process it's just a code
amendment process so I mean.
I just want to interject just a little bit. If this does by
some miracle pass and you decide that this isn't what you
want to do. We are doing the DDC rewrite. And so there's an
opportunity to fix these to write these wrongs if you will.
Next year. That's a good point. Thank you.
We have a motion and a second on the floor for a denial of
this. I'm going to call for any other questions or
discussions before I call for a vote.
My house so it was Commissioner strange on the motion and
result in the second.
Okay seeing no other requests for discussion again the
motion before us is a vote or is a motion for denial. So a
vote for is to deny this on to city council.
Okay. So with that I will call for a vote on the board.
And the motion carries five to one that will move us to our
final item on our agenda this evening which is going to be
our project matrix.
I am taking any requests for more information to add to our
matrix.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you.
Well this is probably piggybacking on one that's already
there but it has to do with signage on lots. I know we've
had this discussion. I need an update of where are we
because there's no improvement.
I drove by the property that that was postponed today with
in off of thirty five there.
Those signs are so small you absolutely still cannot read
them.
And I also had a neighbor come to me on the hops and
country club one and she said she tried multiple times to
try to read it take pictures of it.
She just couldn't do it. So need an update on where we are
for that for improving that because we desperately need
that improved.
Just to be clear this is for signage for zoning and rez
oning for public right.
Our postage on these these lots for for a public hearing
for zoning change. Yes.
Anything else.
Commissioner Roselle.
Thank you.
Maybe it goes the same but I wanted to make it official. I
would like to know the next steps in the small area plan
for that north university campus peninsula that sits
between the historic district and the Hickory historic
district.
It seems to be the hotbed of of activity. And so I for one
don't necessarily want to wait or know the process for
council to protect that area. So I would like to know the
steps in order for this commission to move forward with a
small area plan for that specific area for protection.
Okay.
Commissioner has with.
Just following up on. So there's no identifying number but
my request for the developer workshop and builder workshop.
I again I think that insight is just critical for me to
make decisions.
I got to understand a day in their life so that I can then
factor it in either to make help me make better decisions
or dispel myths rumors you know fake news.
You know I need to I need to understand that better so just
renewing that request.
Commissioner back. Thank you.
Just on my only two contributions here, the review parking
space requirements that's been on hold indefinitely and I
never did get a definitive response on why so I would like
to get a definitive response on where we're at and if we're
going to move forward on that for not why not.
And my other contribution that is marked as completed and I
agree we did have the presentation about it, but this one
deals with providing information right to the notifying the
public.
We nothing's actually been set in motion. We've had a
presentation, but nothing's been set in motion on this yet
so just where we are with that.
Tackle with the DDC rewrite since this already kicked off.
So we'll roll that into that project that's already going
on. Okay. And then as far as the notification requirements
to signage. We are working on that actually we met this
week, and we'll be bringing something forward to City
Council in the, in the near future, in the near future.
Couldn't be date specific.
April 25. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Okay.
That it.
Okay.
With that I will close our meeting this evening at 834.
Thank you everyone for coming out.