Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session for April the
12th, 2017. This
meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present
and I'm going to call us to
order at 435. Our first order of business will be to
receive clarification of
agenda items and I will turn it over to Shandria for
presentation. Okay, good
evening. The first item is the minutes. Do we have any
discussion on the minutes
from, we don't have the minutes yet. Never mind. Okay, we
have a final
plaque on the consent agenda for the Basinger addition. Any
questions on that?
Okay, we have a final replat for Guyer High School. Any
questions or comments?
Hey, Haley Zagorski. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair.
Seemed when we dealt with this
last, I didn't know they were gonna build anything on it. I
think there was some
potential there, but now is there actually a plan to build
something there?
Yes, sir. So previously it was this large lot was what they
had plotted and that's
where the existing school is. They have submitted site plan
applications to do
some expansions to the school building itself and then to
put new parking lots
on these southern two portions that they're now taking in
to this lot and I
think that's for band practice and things like that.
Just curious because like say last time we dealt with that,
I don't remember, you
know, other than them wanting to get it zoned or they could
potentially do so. I didn't know anything. So that's it.
Thank you.
The next item Z1701 is a request to amend the DENT
development code related to self storage use and I will
call Julie Wyatt up for a presentation.
Good evening. Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of
Denton. So tonight I'm
presenting Z1701 self-service storage. So the request
before you is to consider a
proposed revision to the Denton development code and that's
specifically
to amend subchapter 5 pertaining to the self storage use. I
just will clarify
that this request is from an outside party, it's not
actually staff requesting
this amendment and I forgot the applicant so if you want to
expound. Yes,
absolutely and Chandrine is correct. So we were approached
by Mike Coker a few
months ago in order to pursue a Denton development code
amendment regarding the
self storage use and in particular they wanted to amend it
so that self storage
could be permitted in CMG and we said you know if you want
to pursue that go
ahead and do that the the background research and propose
something to us and
we'll discuss it. So that's how we got to today. It wasn't
staff initiated, it was
actually initiated by an outside group. To let you know
what's currently required
in the Denton development code, self-service storage by
definition is
the structure used for dead storage mainly of excess
personal property of an
individual or family but also small amounts of goods or
merchandise for
businesses or individuals. Currently the code permits it in
ECC, ECI, ICE and ICG
and these are zoning districts that are typically either
employment
or industrial use zoning districts and in fact the self
storage use currently is
in the industrial land use category within subchapter 5 of
the Denton
development code so it follows the industrial site design
standards. So the
applicant has made a proposal regarding the the Denton
development code and
through this process we've been in discussions with them
and the
proposal has changed some and we'll go over that but what
they're proposing is
to relocate the self-service storage from the industrial
land use category to
the commercial land use category in all zoning districts.
They've also proposed a
limitation 35 that pertains to self storage use and I'll go
over those that
all sides of the facility must be 100% masonry stone,
architectural
concrete block with integrated color, a stucco or concrete
tilt wall colored or
stamped. The limitation on exterior materials is exclusive
of fenestration
such as doors, windows, or glass or entryway treatments and
glass may not
account for more than 70% of the exterior wall area. No
overhead bay
doors and/or storage unit doors are permitted to be visible
from adjacent
property or the public right of way. No outdoor storage is
permitted. All
proposed fencing materials are limited to masonry or wr
ought iron and then
landscape buffers should be in accordance with sub chapter
13 of the
Denton development code. Finally the proposal is to permit
the self storage
use in CMG district within SUP and limitation 35. Also with
our discussions
with them we added in to modify the ECC and ECI districts
to require the SUP and
the L35 for self service storage. Currently that use is
permitted without
any limitation. So the considerations that staff looked at
when we looked at
their proposal is first of all we looked at what is CMG
intended for. So CMG is
a commercial mixed use zoning district. It's intended to
provide the
retail, the employment, the service uses that the community
needs. It's typically
found on arterial roadways, larger roadways, and also the
intersection of
local roads and arterial streets to provide adequate access
. When we look at
the actual use and we look at how it functions and what
kind of things
happen on that on in association with that facility we
determined that that
use you know typically doesn't produce substantial nuis
ances such as light, noise
and traffic but it can have visual impacts and so in
particularly in
commercial areas and so that's where that L35 comes in that
it the enhanced
in exterior building materials the the commercial site
design standards the
screening the buffers to mute those potential impacts and
then also the SUP
because those would be would then look a little deeper in
each specific request
and potentially result in site specific design and use
conditions in accordance
with subchapter 6 of the development code. Excuse me. When
we look at the
expansion of the SUP and the limit and the L35 requirements
to the ECC and ECI
districts we looked at we looked at where they're located
so and here's a
map here and the pink shows the CMG the blues show the ECC
and ECI and then the
kind of purple or that are the industrial districts the ICG
and ICE so as
you can see where the blue is it's often located and some
of our gateway
corridors or some of those really highly visible commercial
corridors it's also
located particularly here in the Shady Oaks area if I can
get my mouse to work
adjacent to some residential areas so so we thought that it
would probably be a
good idea to go ahead and apply those the the limitation
and the SUP to the
use in these areas so that they develop in a way that's
that is aesthetically
complimentary to the area and what we want to see in these
corridors and as I
said before the use is currently permitted by right when we
also we also
looked at one other addition to the limitation and it's a
recommendation
we're actually making today so CMG district as I said is a
mixed use
commercial district but it is intended to develop with kind
of a in a cohesive
manner in a cohesive manner with pedestrian family mixed
use character
and that includes a compact compact development pattern
often when you see
the self-service storage you see kind of a larger footprint
of that development
with with long rows of the facility so people can access
those those individual
storage units so in order to meet the intent of what CMG
and what we want our
commercial centers to look like staff is request or is
recommending a condition
on the on the approval in that L35 also include that all
individually leased
storage units are contained within a larger climate control
building we we
believe that this would encourage a compact development
pattern that meets
the intent of these commercial areas. I've got a question
for you on that. Yes sir.
With that limitation that any storage unit would have to be
all of it within
have to be climate controlled? Yes within within CMG and
within the ECC and ECI
in ICG and ICE those would remain said would remain the
same the use would be
permitted no limitation no SUP requirement. So if they
wanted to do one
of those the whole thing has to be climate controlled not
just a portion of
it? Yes sir. What what's besides trying to make it compact
is there some reason
that if it's climate control you feel like it's gonna make
it smaller just
makes it taller? Yeah I think the climate control part is
the wrong emphasis. The idea is to get it all in one
building as opposed to being spread out over the whole lot.
We can if we can pull up an example of what that building
type looks like you
can take a few minutes but that's the intent. CMG typically
goes like Julie
showed on her map earlier it's usually next to residential
areas and so instead
of we want to keep the land use and the scale compatible
with the residential
areas and so we feel like this type of design fits more
appropriately at those
areas than those huge warehouse type developments. Well
while she's looking
that's kind of where I'm going is it the ones that I've
seen when they do
climate controlled then they're smaller and taller and I
don't know what the
height restriction is and if we're painting ourselves and
now this has been
an issue here recently before this Commission about height
that we're
looking at this instead of having single-story cell storage
now we've got
five-story cell storage buildings because we have to be
climate controlled so is
there a height limitation? CMG should be a hundred feet
right? 65 feet. Okay I've
gone the wrong way we're now in the United States. I was so
close.
All right hold on I've heard its feelings now let me try
again I'm just
going to start over. I was going there next. Let's see if I
can. Right there on the railroad tracks.
All right so here is a cell storage use this is in one of
our communities
nearby in Denton County and it is contained in a in a
structure all of all
of the those those individual units. Can you do since you
're in yeah I was just
saying can you give us a perfect because I looked at it
earlier it's not fully
built but you can kind of see what it when it's gonna look
like. It is yes sir.
Commissioner else was next. Thank you chair. While I was
gonna kind of echo
some thoughts I understand where you're trying to go with
it with a smaller
footprint but it seems to to not be a good thing if we're
talking about CMG
being near these houses then we're really requesting with
your amendment
to to the applicants request having these buildings be
forced up which doesn't
seem complementary to a residential neighborhood in my
opinion. This
particular structure I know exactly where this is and what
it looks like I
think it's a monstrosity first of all it sticks out like a
sore thumb to me but
it's also the houses are across the street maybe those are
the closest ones
but the ones behind it are not that close to the structure.
Well I get there's
well okay yeah yeah okay yeah those right there it's a big
structure this is
a bigger structure than I would feel comfortable building
in in front of
someone's home. And the grain at CMG already allows the 65
feet and that's
typically about five stories maybe. Commissioner Tyler.
Thank you chair so
this isn't I don't really feel like this is a very typical
example it's a very
small parcel and a wedged in in a residential area most of
the time CMG
we try and it's often 10 or 20 or 40 acres at a time. Can
we look at the the
storage unit out on 380 I believe it's a climate controlled
and I think it is
like five stories it's a pretty tall one near 380 and Pal
oma Creek, Navajo Road
area. It's huge. Yeah and again this is this is probably an
even larger one just
for scale if you zoom in right there. It does. Oh my
goodness. I'm so sorry. Try it. See if we can get the
address.
26 740 East University Drive. I just do it by address. What
was it 24? 26 740 East
380 Aubrey. And then straight view. So I do feel like this
would be a more
typical installation it's got like the Walmart and the
strip center nearby that
would be what we're aiming for in a CMG zoning district.
It didn't get okay. And so that's the it's a tall building
it isn't looming
over houses here though and it is you know surrounded by
strip centers and
retail. There's one more on University I'm sorry Fort Worth
Drive and 35 in
Denton. It's also four or five stories I think. Yeah the U-
Haul. Is it just three stories?
And so in this case this one is I believe mostly masonry.
The one on I-35 is
metal building right. My understanding is if I remember it
's a metal building. So
these are kind of the standard form. If you don't have just
a sprawling you
know long rows of buildings kind of like this stuff around
the all storage there.
The standard form is a probably a three or four story kind
of big concrete block
building. So I don't know that if the goal is to avoid
these sprawling long row
buildings like is visible here you know I think that that
climate control does do
it. It kind of does it indirectly by by forcing them into
an efficient design in
one big building. But this isn't atypical. Commissioner
Beck. Thank you chair. Yeah
I think the other thing too that we have going for us is
the SUP. So if we get
into a neighborhood neighborhood I think the SUP would put
limits on height. We
could do that is that correct? But the CMGs tend to be I
think as you mentioned
along major arterials. So yeah you're gonna have one area
where you're gonna
have tall buildings anyway. It's it's kind of set up for
that though there may
be houses behind it but like this one seems appropriate
because it is run along
380 where you're gonna have businesses that it's probably z
oned where it would
allow 60 and 65 foot heights. So but I think if we got into
just a pure
neighborhood if a CMG was there and I'm not sure I see that
on any of these right
here but I hadn't looked closely then I think the SUP would
be protective of
that neighborhood. Just some thoughts. Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you chair.
Well I'll respond to that Commissioner Beck. I think the
issue with that is it
may not make the project feasible for an applicant at that
point. We could ask
the SUP to come down but if their footprint is so small and
it has to be
all climate controlled and enclosed then their project
might not work if we don't
let them build it to a specific height to have the number
of units they need to
make their project work. Julie I guess I want to ask how
you came up with this
requirement. I mean other than the smaller footprint can
you elaborate a
little bit more? It really is because you know CMG
districts I think it was
Commissioner Taylor that these are typically 20 to 40 acres
they're
intended to be mixed use and to provide lots of different
uses within it so that
someone within the community could go there and park once
and walk around and
and do their shopping and do the things that they need. So
we want to make sure
that the design standards and that it that it's designed in
a way that permits
lots of uses within it and that also shrinks that footprint
. So that was
really the intent was the how we want these commercial
mixed use centers to
develop in going forward. Yeah that's correct and then to
emphasize we want to
keep them walkable too so if you start sprawling out with
these with the
individual units it makes it a little bit more difficult to
design it in that
way. Well on that note though it I mean you can't really
walk to a storage
facility I mean you're gonna have to bring your car and I
mean if you're if
you're bringing things out of it or delivering things to it
you're gonna
have a vehicle so that I'm not sure walkability with a
storage unit I mean I
understand that it's part of the CMG I guess with this type
of development I
don't think that really. Sure but in thinking of that
development as part of
a larger development so that it wouldn't be like a
standalone it would it would be
part of a larger center. But this the requirement does I
mean it does force
the building up higher effectively to make a project work.
Yes ma'am.
Commissioner Hussbuth. This may be a legal question do we
can we ask the
applicant questions I mean because traditionally or not
that I don't know
if it's applicant or the genesis of the whatever it is but
can we ask them
questions in this environment normally we would in a if
staff or that
originated something then we'd ask staff questions at this
point to find out
before we go into open. Since this is just a clarification
item it would be
better to have that in regular session. I'm assuming they
're going to be in
attendance. Yes the applicant's here. Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you. So I think
for compatibility in CMG this is going to be next to Kroger
or in the strip
center or right behind the strip center maybe and I do
think that those you need
a more compact use it's really easy to park real estate
with a storage unit a
set of storage units because you get a nice little cash
flow pretty cheap to
build and you know you can have it parked there for 10 or
20 years with
cash flow and then when you have a real purpose or a real
buyer for your
property you can you can easily demolish the one-story
metal or masonry
buildings and you know sell it for some other retail use
and I don't think we
want to encourage that in CMG. I think that honestly the EC
I the blue area off
Dallas Drive there that's an artifact of that used to be an
industrial area of
town that's right next to residential so saying we want to
have that
protection there where most of the time ECI is rather
industrial in nature
commercial at least you know you've got a power plant the
area around the
hazardous waste treatment facility the you know those are
all surrounding the
dark blue but they're all that ECI EC whatever the other
category ECE ECC so I
could see it being more appropriate to have the single-
story non air
conditioned units out off Mayhill Road or out off
University near safety clean I
think of anywhere that is CMG now it's it's going to
eventually be a
neighborhood shopping center and that's where you don't
want 10 acres of one
story on air-conditioned cement block buildings you know
you want you want
probably a nicer retail look there to keep the value in the
area and you know
keep from being this thing that the neighborhood like like
the Kroger on
University I don't think you put storage units and you were
there because it's so
built out but people do walk to that Kroger or to that
shopping center to the
movie Tavern from the neighborhoods and if they had to walk
past 10 acres of
squat buildings it would just it would be an impediment to
getting to the movie
Tavern or getting to the Kroger so those are my thoughts on
on this limitation
Commissioner Roseau thank you I have a couple points of
what's been discussed
but before that I had some questions about the requirements
initially on here
it says number two glass may not account for more than 70%
of the exterior and
then the very next point is no overhead bay doors may be
visible from an adjacent
property or the streets it seemed contradicting and when I
looked through
the other attached applicants applications that the
applicant provided
they've never done that before they never suggested both of
those be on the
same one so McKinney has a requirement that no one should
see a bay door but
they don't have a glass requirement and flower mound like
we just saw has a
glass maximum but no unit visibility requirement and the
two that we've seen
tonight you can see storage unit doors in both those so the
one on flower
mountain 249 and 380 and the u-haul on I-35 you can see
right through the glass
to the unit so I'm trying to wonder how in the world can
you build a building of
70% windows and not see a bay door maybe I should clarify
it can be up to 70%
windows so they could if they've got a if they've got an
entrance feature on
the front where somebody walks in they can have 70% windows
on that front
facade but but it couldn't be none of the bay doors
interior could be face out
from there so they would have to they would have to design
their building so
that any of those bay doors could not be facing toward the
street through those
windows okay maybe it'd be helpful if the applicant could
show just helpful to me
a McKinney project that there's no visible doors it seems
like it just be a
brick wall facing the street I can't visualize a self-
service storage that
doesn't show the bay doors to the street
there's no windows on the upper stories I guess I was
thinking more than a
day thank you I was thinking more on the ground level the
doors so I don't know
if yeah I guess if you're saying you're looking through a
window and seeing a
door was that prohibited they would have to design their
their project so that no
doors could be visible through those windows I guess that's
limitation would
have put I just it seems like a pretty strange limitation
for self storage
units that I've never seen before and I haven't seen an
example of one I don't
know the aesthetics either way but this wouldn't even with
an SUP wouldn't it
doesn't so I guess we could override bay doors being
visible it just seems odd
to me when I was reading that because I've never I've never
seen that before
I don't know how aesthetically it looks to make that
requirement and again they've
never the applicant hasn't done that in the city prior to
put both of those seems
like they're encouraging a lot of windows but he had the
same time I don't know
where you put those windows in the project but going to
what has been
talked about a little bit more in terms of the zoning I had
a question did the
applicant come to the city with just the CMG requests or
did they also did they
request the ECC or ECI in staffs discussion with the
applicant we
suggested we recommended the ECC and ECI due to the
location of those zoning
districts on a lot of our gateway corridors and and and in
some of our
high visibility areas so that was that was something with
our discussion with
the applicant yeah I guess going back to my thoughts from
last meeting about city
looking for opportunities just add SUPs to zoning areas I'm
not I'm not for
someone coming in and saying we want to kind of free up CMG
category so we can
do some more things in that in the city like oh well now
that we've done this we
can kind of shoehorn in it seems more requirements for SUPs
to be put into
other zoning requirements where by right they can go ahead
and build and
to Commissioner Taylor's point it seems like it's a decent
use case to have
used to call them squat buildings you know I know I'm sorry
the one-story metal
buildings on ECC and ECI so I'm not totally on board with
the city just
deciding that we should go ahead and add more SUP
requirements to zoning so those
were my thoughts on this thus far well I'll echo
Commissioner Roselle's
comments I was going to come back to the SUP requirement
being added and in
several of these zoning categories it's almost like where
we were last meeting
in the multifamily of we're kind of painting with a broad
brush that
everything is an SUP over the top of it I would be in favor
of doing the SUP but
I am concerned about the L35 because I think it's going to
create some of the
very things that this Commission has had a big issue with
the last several
meetings about having very tall structures right next to
residential
areas and so I think it's almost contradictory that we
require them to be
air-conditioned to make some tall and then they're right
next to residential
and we have an SUP and then people are gonna be I don't
want a 65 story or 65
foot tall building looking in my backyard we required to be
air-conditioned
and then people want to say well I don't want it to be
three stories I want over
35 feet tall well to Commissioner else's point then it's
not feasible to build
and how do we get around all of this stuff versus you just
have an SUP on it
you get to have a say in the design and the aesthetics of
the building without
the L35 so give me some feedback on if we pull the L35 out
and just keep an SUP
on that if that gives the potential applicant a little more
flexibility
without that requirement that is certainly something that
you could have
as part of your recommendation and these were these were
the limitation was
designed based upon somewhat other cities have been done
based upon the
benchmark analysis it was also something that the applicant
many of those were
things that they had as part of their requests so so we
felt like the L35
allowed the property or required the use to develop in a
more commercial way
less industrial use less industrial look particularly since
if it was going in a
commercial area we would want it to look be designed in a
way that was that was
in a commercial aesthetic so so that was the intent of L35
in order to
encourage those those facilities to to be able to fit in
with the character of
what a commercial area is intended to look like. But we can
't do that with the
SUP? Well and I think the SUP is then is an additional
layer that would look as I
think Commissioner Beck said is look at as a site specific
and so if there was
something unique to the character of that particular area
there would be there
could be additional conditions but just as a baseline to
have it develop in a
commercial way was the intent of the limit. I think I'm
gonna quit asking
questions I can see that then you can tell I'm getting
nervous. I can see you're getting nervous. I just want to
make a point of order in that. We need to save this for
public session because this is getting a little bit further
in or a lot further in
then clarification is on the agenda. Commissioner Rossell
do you have a
clarification we have deeper discussion. I had a question
for you and then maybe
legal can stop me my tracks it's it seems it seems like you
were asking or
potentially suggesting remove the L35 as a way to ease the
the pushback of height
requirement but there's no high requirement in L35 so when
we still have
the same kind of pushback when we have the SUP hearing.
Well I guess can we
discuss this you want to talk about it in public? I think
that we should talk
about this in public. Okay. This is something they'll want
to argue. Sorry to get us off track. Thank you.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Let me just throw
something out there you know for
the concerns here about looks and everything. How many
times have you driven past the
one on 380 35 and the other one and it bothered you that
you saw what you saw
there did you even think about it also just I understand
the concerns there and
there probably would be some concerns with neighbors but I
've driven past those
facilities and never thought about them twice the way they
are so just just for
what it's worth. Any other questions for Julie? Thank you.
The next two items C and D
have been post well actually item C has been withdrawn by
the applicant and then
item D is being postponed there's a request from the
applicant to postpone
it to the April 26th meeting. So I guess with that we have
item E which is a
Zahni request for the cube properties. All right this is Z
1630. Okay so the subject
property is located on mid-block on Neff Street just north
of Greenlee. It's
situated south of UNT campus between UNT and I-35. The
request is to
consider a rezoning from downtown Residual 1, DR 1 to DR 2
district. The
subject property does have a zoning designation of DR 1.
The proposed use is
multifamily and it's not permitted within DR 1 so the
applicant is
requesting to rezone to DR 2. So when we look at the
subject property and and the
adjacent land uses is in zoning within a kind of a 200 foot
boundary so if we zoom
in close to the subject property and what's around it we
can see that as I
said before the property is is mid-block on Neff Street and
it is surrounded by
DR 1. The properties to the north to to the east and to the
west are in south
are all DR 1 and they're developed with single-family homes
and also duplexes. A
little further out you have DR 2 district along Avenue A
and you have
that's being currently being developed with multifamily and
then you also have
DCG district with it which is developed with multifamily.
When we zoom out a
little further so around 500 feet from the subject property
the surrounding
neighborhood comes a little more into focus and as you can
see so once again
here's the subject properties you can see the streets
surrounding it have a
zoning designation of DR 1 and it's a pretty consistent
zoning designation
within the heart of the neighborhood. On the edges there
have there is zoning as
I said the DR 2 and the DCG which which do have multifamily
development also
along I-35 there's some commercial development also an
institutional
facility. And then when we look at the larger area we see
now now UNT comes
into view as well as that highway corridor and you can see
how all that
zoning fits together so we've got this this area right here
that has the DR 1
zoning with the subject property the the DR 2 and DCG along
Avenue A along as in
also on the on the larger corridors near UNT. But at the
block level it is it does
have a really consistent zoning pattern of DR 1 and when
staff looked at it we
felt that DR 2 would introduce a new zoning district into
that existing
cohesive pattern. I mean it would break the continuity of
the zoning and create
an isolated zoning district. This could potentially result
in some in
incompatible development at the block level and on this
particular street. When
we looked at the future land use map this is neighborhood
university
compatible area I know we're all getting very familiar with
this area and and
this is one of those areas that we want to see compatible
form between that
serves the university as well as the neighborhood areas and
that density and
commercial development within this area are often
appropriate and something that
that we want to see within this area. However because of
this really
consistent zoning around this subject property and and the
fact that it's
developed consistent with that DR 1 DR 2 would introduce
that new development
pattern and potentially compromise the integrity of this
existing neighborhood.
So really that current zoning pattern and just how cohesive
and
compatible is really lends itself to maintaining that DR 1
zoning district.
I'm looking at some of those uses I know there's a
comprehensive list of uses in
your backup we'll just look at the at the variations. DR 1
is I tend to think
of it as kind of an urban single-family zoning district
because it it does
permit the single-family zoning doesn't permit multi-family
so I tend to look at
it as an urban neighborhood zoning district. Commissioner
Bec. Thank you
Chair. On that then are you saying DR 1 wouldn't allow du
plexes? It does permit
duplexes and so maybe and maybe I maybe I should have added
that in so yes DR 1
does permit duplexes and DR 2 also permits duplexes which
is why I netted it
out of the table because those are similar uses within the
two. Would four
plexes be stretching in a DR 1? A four plex is actually
considered multi-family
within our development code. Three or more dwelling units
on a single parcel
is considered multi-family. Okay but your density is for DR
1 is 8 that's 8
units per acre is that correct? Okay and a unit is what a
bedroom or an entire
apartment? It would be an entire living, eating, bathroom
and sleeping so it would
be a unit is an entire dwelling unit so. Okay it wouldn't
be an SRO type thing. No a
dwelling unit would include all of those things that it
would take to to live
there. Okay but now in the DR 2 the maximum density is 30
per acre and we're talking
about less than a half acre there so we conceivably 15
people could live there
and that would be violating because it couldn't have any
more than 15 if we're
we're saying the density is 30 per acre. Well and I think
and I think I think I know where you're
going so DR 2 does permit does calculate density based upon
number of bedrooms so
in DR 2 as well as DCG and I know y'all seen limitation 5.
Limitation 5 is that
each bedroom equals one half dwelling unit so that a two-
bedroom apartment
would be one dwelling unit a four-bedroom apartment would
be two
dwelling units. One bedroom apartment would be half a
dwelling unit. That's what I was trying to get. Yes so that
really doesn't change the
definition of what a dwelling unit is within the
development code it's just
how they how they calculate it within those districts that
have limitation 5.
Okay. Clear as my. Thank you. So DR 2 does permit multif
amily with limitation 5. DR 2
also permits some commercial uses so those neighborhoods
serving commercial
uses it permits retail sales and service and professional
services and offices
those things that you want to see in a neighborhood at a
small scale and
permits veterinary clinics and then it you know this the
scale of the of the
develop of the two zoning districts are are somewhat
similar. When we looked at
the mobility of the area so in the yellow is generally
where the site is
it's it's a little zoomed out so so it's a little larger
than but it's generally
where this the site is. The area has a lot of per the
mobility plan has collector
streets that help residents of the area move through the
area so Eagle is
a collector you've got Collins Bernard Welch Avenue a so
those those
collectors help you move through that area. The green
circle is a is about a
five to ten minute walk depending on how fast you walk it's
about a quarter mile
so as you can see it's it's it's within walking distance of
the UNT campus. It's
also served by transit facilities and as well as some
existing and proposed by
bike routes. So based upon that that that land use analysis
the the looking at
what's around the subject property staff has recommends
denial of the request
because of the fact that the request would create an
isolated zoning district
which could impede the development of the of the area and
and potentially
prevent it from developing in a cohesive manner so I'll
stand for any questions.
Oh sorry one more notification like wasn't quite finished
here we set out
public notification we've received one letter in opposition
and that's it.
I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Taylor. Thank
you chair. Could you pull
back up the the full neighborhood zoning map? So in this
one okay that goes to
Eagle. There it's really hard to tell what's dr1 and dr2.
Those grains are
very very subtle yes. Yeah so this is D this this that's dr
2. And then
there's one that faces Fannin and there's two facing
Collins over I think
over a little like east east of Avenue A just barely like
one parcel east of
Avenue A. Collins and Avenue A so right here. Fannin and
Avenue A. Fannin and Avenue A.
Yes right here. Yeah no go a little bit east right there.
Okay so that so you
have dr2 in the middle of the block there but it's across
the street from
dr2 and then it backs up to dr2. These have these have been
done you know
yeah piece by piece. We we haven't ever really looked at
rezoning this area
categorically but I think I've probably seen six or seven
cases. The apartment
complex up on Eagle was a rezone. The one on Cleveland was
a big rezone. You know
there there have been a bunch of these little two or one or
two or four parcels
just in the neighborhood going dr1 to dr2 or dr2 to you
know DCG usually and I
think that DCN was also a rezone at the corner of Bernard
and Fannin. So it seems
like what we've been allowing to happen is is the piecemeal
rezone into
denser more dense categories and it hasn't been consistent
it hasn't been
one parcel at a time. It'll be the middle of the block and
then the block
behind it and then it'll fill back in and cover the entire
you know the the
entire block or there will be a large development that'll
pick up three or
four different zoning categories and rezone all of them in
order to you know
build their large development. Is there any plan to make a
cohesive long-term
rezoning of this area? There's actually a small area plan
for kind of this entire
ring around campus that's in Chandria maybe I'll speak
better about this that
is I think moving forward so I think I think yes you're
right and there is
there is a beginning of a process to really look at this
entire ring around
UNT comprehensively to determine what is what is the vision
for the area are
there are there smaller character areas and and and how it
and how it needs to
move forward in terms of zoning and use. And that process
has been ongoing since
December of 2015? Actually we just kicked off the RFQ on
Monday or was it Monday
two days ago. It's a big project. It's actually underway it
's currently underway
but I do want to speak to the issue about the piecemeal
zoning even though
we've done that in the past it wasn't appropriate and we
would not want to
encourage that and I don't think we can eat we can legally
do it at this point.
If it's city initiated then we have to be careful that we
're not spot zoning
which we're all familiar with I know we had a training on
that earlier so but
absent that if we have a legitimate interest in rezoning a
property for
a specific purpose like we want it in compliance with our
future land use map
or whatever like we have that subcommittee that you were on
Commissioner
Taylor then that is legal that wouldn't be considered spot
zoning. So just to
clarify if we if in this case they could rezone this one
parcel and being
compliance with state law? Yeah they're making the request
correct? It's not a
city initiated zoning. And as long as it complies with our
all of our
requirements then yes. Okay and I think it would be a
challenge I think it would
be a stretch to say DR 1 next to DR 2 is spot zoning
because they are very
similar. 150 uses only like six differ so I don't think we
have to worry too
much about that. Yeah you would look at the surrounding
adjacency and our flume
and all of those things and the comprehensive land use plan
. Right and it
is consistent with all those. I want to point out while we
're on the subject of
which zoning categories the property in the southwest
corner this block is
actually DCG. So we have even a higher zoning category you
know not even one
full lot away from this particular site and we also have
the DR 2 up in the
northwest corner that's in this same block so I'm with you
I don't think it's
a big stretch to bump it up to DR 2 if that's where the
Commission sees fit.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. So on the corner I
think it's Norman and
Greenlee. Right here? Yeah so I mean so that's DR 1 so I
think there they've
they've pushed the limits of how they've developed that
particular corner because
it certainly looks like multifamily but what it must be is
multiple duplexes but
it's certainly more than one in it they all kind of look
the same and seem like
they are a group. As well I think to the north on Neff I
want to say on a corner
Collins and something. This one right here? I feel like it
was on the east side
but I think similar right I think they're they're multiple
duplexes then
just on separate lots which is yeah so so I guess I'm
trying to get to I don't
see this as a big stretch of what they're requesting I mean
I understand
you know in your presentation of why you want to deny but
there's an awful lot
going around on that block that looks and feels like multif
amily and just
isn't. I want to go on the kind of I think where
Commissioner Ellis is going we had
a lot of conversation with Park 7s about what looks like
single family that
actually has multiple meters on it and all that do we have
any idea of what
some of the actual uses are around this particular site
even though we have
multifamily or duplexes scattered around at some of the
homes I don't know where
they've been converted or there a traditional family in
there or it's got
four meters on it do we even know that for additional
background clarification?
I'm not aware of how they are each end of the or how those
individual
structures are being whether they are whether they are
being used as single
family or as or as multifamily you know converted to multif
amily. Okay any other
questions for Julie? Thank you. Thank you.
Okay with that I will close our work set close our work
session at 525 and we'll
reconvene at 630 in council chambers. Thank you.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and
Zoning Commission
meeting for April the 12th 2017. This meeting has been duly
posted and we do
have a quorum present and I'm going to call our meeting to
order at 630. Our
first order of business will be to stand and give the
pledge to the US and the
Texas flag.
One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and
Justice for all. Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance
to the Texas One State, Under God, One and Indivisible.
Just as a point of order we do not have any minutes to be
approved this evening so
that will move us to our consent agenda.
Commissioner Beck? I move we approve consent agenda. Okay
Commissioner Oselle?
Second. Okay we have a first and a second for approval. Any
discussion or
questions? Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries six to
zero. Again as a point of order we don't have any
individual consent items or
consideration items so we'll move on to public hearings and
I want to announce
and we don't have very many people here this evening that
we have item C has
been withdrawn for this evening. I will move us to item A.
I'm going to open the
public hearing for FR 16 - 0029 and call on Haley for
presentation.
Good evening so this is a final replat for the Teasley Lane
High School
edition. The purpose of the plat is to take one lot that
was formerly platted
and two unplatted parcels and create a single lot for the
purposes of expansion
at the high school and I can answer any questions. Any
questions for staff? Thank
you Haley. This is a public hearing so is there anyone who
would like to speak on
this item this evening? I have no cards and seeing none I
will close the public
hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Hudsworth? Move
approval of FR 16 - 0029. Okay Commissioner Ellis? I will
second. Okay we have a
first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing
none I'll call for a
vote on the board.
Motion carries 6 to 0. Move us to item B. I will open the
public hearing for Z 17 -
001 and I will call on Julie Wyatt for presentation.
Good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the City
of Denton. Would
you like to go over the full presentation again or did you
want to do
just a short version? Okay all right so this is Z 17-1 self
-service storage. The
request is to amend sub chapter 5 pertaining to the self-st
orage service
the self-service storage use based upon the the
considerations that we discussed
in work session. Staff does recommend approval with a
condition that to add an
additional limitation to L 35 that states all individually
leased storage
units must be contained within a climate controlled
building and I'll stand for
any questions. Commissioner Tabin. So to continue the
discussions we're having in
the work session so L 35 has has a lot of other
requirements. Can you pull up
the list of all the requirements? I think we've just to
review for everybody
that might have missed the work session we've identified a
few different kind of
conflicts here. The first is these limitations the these
limitations here
maybe it's the next page is the next slide so this this
page requires that no
doors be visible from adjacent properties right-of-ways.
The slide
before it has restrictions on glass but leans toward a
glass fronted kind of
facade that would probably allow you to see the doors. L 35
also has the air
conditioned requirement and an air like in a climate
controlled storage
requirement. That's staff's recommendation to add to it.
Yes sir. Yeah and so and that
that necessarily makes the shape of the building kind of
smaller and taller just
for energy efficiency and so I think I the way I see
through this is in CMG
which is our retail zoning grocery stores and strip retail
I think that the
climate control restriction might be appropriate. I think
that the seeing the
doors visible maybe on ground floor but having a window
where you can see
through a window and then see a door is I don't think that
's necessary at all I
think that's that doesn't really make sense it's not not
really an eyesore. I
like the masonry restrictions that was the first very first
one and the outdoor
storage and fencing I think that's all fine. I do also
think we need to separate
ECI and ECC some of those happen to be near residential
areas but they're kind
of intended intended for commercial use and I think in a
commercial area we
don't need the climate control and I don't know that we
necessarily need the
SUP I don't know who else's thoughts are on that. Those are
all my comments.
Anyone else? Well I'll speak then I'll chime in with
Commissioner Tedder. My
concern is adding the SUP requirement on top of just across
the board these
three areas. I'd like to have some more discussion this
evening and I'm leaning
towards the possibility and I don't know if there's a time
crunch on this that we
continue it and have some of these things addressed and
cleaned up and let
staff do that and then bring this back in two weeks or 30
days I don't know how
long the time would be to that it can have those few little
tweaks and
changes and then brought back is there a time crunch that
there's a project
that's pending waiting on this or now the applicant is here
and and so he may
be able to answer that okay great Commissioner Roselle I
might defer my
time after public hearing if the applicant speaking so
maybe I'll is the
applicant planning on speaking this evening I believe so
thank you Judy thanks do you have one card this evening
Michael Coker you'd
like to come forward give your name and address for us and
as the applicant
we'll have 10 minutes thank you mr. chair Michael Coker 31
11 Canton Street
Dallas Texas anyway that's my address and my name I'm the
applicant in this case
and let me give you about a two-minute review of how we got
where we are my
client identified a piece of property between gay and
Georgetown on the north
side of 380 backs up to a neighborhood single-family
detached and it's about
five and a half acres all in but we lose about an acre
because there's a creek
that runs from northwest to southeast across it and there's
a Taco Bell on the
corner of Georgetown and that property has been available
for a long time for
CMG uses but nobody has stepped into that and I think a lot
of it has I'm a
land planner by trade has to do with the fact that it's
separated from 380 by that
Creek and the parts that were developable adjacent to 380
have been
developed that said we met with the staff in June to see
what our options
were because it was clear that the zoning that was on the
property didn't
meet our requirements because we wanted to do self-service
storage so we talked
to the staff and I really thought about changing the comp
plan and but that
wasn't going to get me where I wanted to go because it didn
't make any sense to
put industrial zoning next to the neighborhood and so we
worked with the
staff over the intervening eight months now or so to come
up with a
recommendation and we'd research surrounding communities to
find out how
they dealt with self storage facilities and we kind of
synthesized out of that
research a set of rules that we submitted to the staff and
and that's
where you get things like the 70% glass not to not more
than that but other
other jurisdictions have that kind of restriction so we
worked with your staff
and actually you've had a change of staff in the interven
ing eight or nine
months and Julie's been a pleasure to work with I do not
like her last
recommendation though and I'll tell you what that's about
we get to where we've
been working with the staff and out of the staff
recommendation there's a
change and it has to do with single building everything
enclosed client
control I mean climate control well our market research in
Denton tells us that
the percentage of folks that we think are likely to use our
facility are from
the neighborhoods and they've got multifamily and there's
some businesses
but it's mostly people like us that pull up with their
pickup or their their
trailer and they want to unload it and put it in the unit
and and go home I
work in Dallas and they just built one of these three or
four story units close
to my office and you cannot drive up and unload it and put
it in your unit you've
got to drive up unload it put it in an elevator unless you
happen to be on the
first floor and take it up to the level that you're at
unload it again then
carry it off to the to the unit where you're going to store
it we don't have
any problem with that as a portion of our of our approach
so with that we
would like you to consider three things to modify the staff
now the 70% part
that came from other jurisdictions the fact that SUPs for
other zoning
districts we were really looking at CMG the staff asked us
to include the other
ones so to the extent that I did what they asked me to do I
don't have a dog
in that hunt but I do have one on this little piece of
property with five
acres there are three things that I'd like you to consider
as you move this
through the evaluation first thing is change the language
that the staff has
put
under staff recommendation on page two of three number one
a should read all
individually least storage units must be contained within a
climate controlled
building comma however when adjacent to residential zoning
districts comma
self service storage facilities shall not exceed one story
to height and shall
allow drive-up access when located within 120 feet of the
residential
zoning district boundary line and the storage units need
not be climate
controlled that's the first thing so what we're doing is we
're taking this
what the staff recommend to have climate control for
everything and saying
however if you're within 120 feet of a of a residentially z
oned district that
you're going to protect those property owners where there's
multifamily
single-family townhouse cluster housing you're going to
keep that low to one
story for 120 feet there's there's buffering requirements
and things like
that but we think that that when I sit in my in my backyard
and I look out the
last thing I want to see is a three-story self storage unit
there if I
can avoid it and I don't mind looking at the top of my
neighbor's house which I
think you get the effect and as you get closer to 380 in
our case the height can
go up we're actually proposing maximum of two stories on
the part of our
property that is closest to the creek which is closest to 3
80 the second
thing we'd like you to consider is the first level of multi
-story self-service
stories buildings may have exterior non climate controlled
drive-up units now
this works pretty well with the fact that one of the things
that
Commissioner Taylor talked about was that the disparity
between the 70% glass
and you can't see him from the public way or from the
neighborhood this we're
we're going to put in a masonry wall that completely
screens the ground floor
so what's happening on the ground floor won't be seen from
from our neighbors
or from the public way and so we think that having the
drive-up capacity which
is consistent with our market research makes perfectly good
sense and miss
Ellis there's one last thing that I put it in since I
talked to you the other
day the last thing is that we do think that second level
glass on an
architectural feature that you can look through and see one
of the storage unit
doors or multiple storage unit doors is not disadvantageous
and we'd like you to
consider that as well so with that mr. chair members of the
Commission I'm glad
to answer any questions that you might have as long as I
can actually answer them
got a couple questions for you Commissioner Hudson do you
envision
turning in looking at the I don't know can we pull up the
Google map of that I
can give you the address if you want it let me see yes so
what's you can let's
see we get your better address if you go 1801 gay drive no
the the actual
property yes is that okay excellent 1801 gay street and
that's a
department drive and if you click that square at the yeah
while we're looking
up the address I notice we've had a couple people come in a
little late after
we started we announced at the beginning of our meeting
that the Kroger project
has been well I don't know that that's correct and we're
getting ready to do
that yeah we announced that there was a withdrawal of item
3c yep and we haven't
discussed Kroger we're getting ready to okay my apologies
we'll get back to that
in just a second okay the access will it come from gay
street will it be passed
through between Georgetown and gay how do you and how do
you envision that
functioning at least at the outset we envision the access
to come if come in
off of Georgetown which is on the right hand side of the
picture yes that's
actually the neighborhood the access into the neighborhood
but no access from
the neighborhood into this into our property gay street
dead ends at the
boundary line of the single-family that's just to the north
of us there I
miss something turn you'll be able to turn in from
Georgetown yes sir and then
exit gay street or no no I exit will go on to in and out
off of Georgetown okay
got it okay and so a follow-up is how do you envision
protecting the back of
those homes because if you if you where I'm going is if you
put a wall there and
there's any space between that wall in the neighborhood now
there's opportunity
for someone to hide back there if you shine a light back
there now you shine
a light in the back of someone's house so how do you
envision that kind of
those two worlds coming together seamlessly I don't think
it's seamless
but I do think that we have an answer to the question
excellent first of all
there's a utility easement that already runs at the back of
that property and
that's 10 feet it's 15 feet wide and so it runs from east
to west at the south
side of the residential zoning district we intend to put an
additional 20 feet
of landscape buffer between the utility easement and the
back of our wall and on
top of that in I don't want to have lights shining into the
to the neighbors
yards so any lighting that we put in there is going to be
focused back
toward us with whatever overflow does not adversely affect
the neighbors and
in addition to that our intention is to have cameras that
are monitored on a
regular basis so that we can see what's going on in that
landscaped area between
the back of our buildings the wall and our neighbors just
as a point of order
we're talking about really ordinance issues and we're kind
of starting to
get way into very specific items on one particular site
versus what's on our
agenda consider tonight as overall so I'd like to try to
keep us as best we
can on what we have before us tonight and to that point
that's a great I'm
gonna speak in amongst us not a question but I I don't
understand the broad
stroke I guess that's for an individual and with the
project in mind I don't
understand the need for the giant stroke I'm missing so I
'll just wait and
listen and maybe I'll pick up on it okay thank you
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair well just to I think
answer Commissioner
Hudspeth it would be they can't build a storage unit on
this lot because it's CMG
no no CMG lot can be built with self storage and I think
for the applicant it
didn't he wasn't gonna be able to get a zoning change here
for you know to up
zone it to industrial or employment centers which are the
only two that the
city allows right now so I think I think that's how we got
here so right to do
this we have to we have to change the entire code right
this way correct I
mean now not necessarily these exact words but we have to
write something
into the code to allow it in CMG correct correct and that's
what's before us this
evening that's a global zoning issue versus a site specific
application and I
just wanted as chair to try to keep it at the global versus
specifically some
of the things that we were the direction that we were
starting to go down so
Commissioner Taylor thank you chair yeah I definitely echo
your concerns about we
don't want to get too far into a single case we're looking
at rewriting the
entire ordinance there are some good examples out of this
though I think
because storage there are all kinds of storage units all
over Denton because
they used to be allowed in almost every commercial zoning
category and so they
were they're just sprinkled about there's some on Bell
there's some on
Locust there's some on North Locust there's some like in
East Dent in
Southeast Denton they're just tucked all through the
neighborhoods and that was
why they got zoned out of everything but industrial like
2000 or 2001 and I do
think they could fit in CMG but CMG often is a situation
like this where CMG
is the retail that serves the neighborhood and it's going
to be close
to the neighborhood or back up to the neighborhood and I
think that
Commissioner Hutzpeth's concerns illustrate why an SUP
process might be
necessary especially in the CMG districts and honestly this
is this
conversation has made me come around on the maybe an SUP
for ECI or ECC I really
do think we're going to need a work session on this unless
if if a two-week
delay doesn't adversely affect this applicant sure so would
it would a two
week or four week delay significantly impact your project?
Since we can't make application for anything unless it gets
changed.
Commissioner Rozelle. Thank you chair. So I have a lot of
thoughts on this and I
have a pending question for chair that I'd like to formally
put into public
session about the height that she brought up in the work
session so I
wanted to that's how I'm going to end my statement but
before I end it one of the
three things you're asking for was the single-story
amendment with some feet
requirement as it pertains to boundary and residential
access and I have I have
an issue with that as a code amendment because if you get
to a property that's
super small then they can just build a single-story self-
service unit because
they won't have the actual width or depth of the property
to build up they
if it's a skinny lot then all the property could be within
120 feet of
residents and now you you're now allowing a single-story
self-service in
the CMG which it seems like we're trying very hard not to
allow that's not to say
I'm opposed to using both climate controlled buildings and
single-story we
looked in work session of a property on 380 that that was
doing just that where
provided the option for indoor storage for some but also
had the outdoor access
that you're talking about driveway access for the other
part of the project
and I think that is a workable solution depending on the
property so that to say
that sets up perfectly for an SUP for the CMG in which we
don't have to codify
that the single story is allowed or permittable within 120
feet because I
think that is too big of a brush for the code but it brings
us back around to
simply allowing self storage units in CMG with an SUP and
then we have staff in
the Commission to actually follow through on that and I'm
unsure if we have
the SUP procedure why we need L35 at all when we could it
seems place any or all
those requirements within the SUP so the redundancy there
is I think an
unnecessary the other things that you talked about the
driveway access had
been covered my first point in the second story window that
just makes sense
I was it didn't make sense to not allow for it looked like
you were going off
some other cities that do that but I'm not that doesn't
make any aesthetic
sense to me so I agree with you on allowing second third
fourth story
windows being able to see into the the ramp but I guess one
I still have a
question for the chair about you and work session you'd
mention that you would
like to reduce L35 and just add an SUP to fight the height
restrictions that
might be have pushback on the city can you walk me through
the rationale
because wouldn't the height issue either way through an L35
or the SUP still
present the opportunity for some height pushback it seemed
like that is what
you were fearing can you help me out with that well my
concern in first-plus
was that if we required it to be a hundred percent air
condition that that
forced it to be tall that the city was pushing it that
direction and my
concern with it coming for our Commission being against
neighborhoods
because we've had a lot of discussion about that in the
last several months
and in other projects that have come before us it's been
the height in
neighborhoods and so my concern with making it a hundred
percent is that
we're almost pushing projects to become tall and then we're
gonna be right back
here going well I don't want a 65 foot tall storage
building looking in my
backyard okay and so that's why I was thinking that we may
want to pull that
out and kind of sound like the direction you're going you
have an SUP and all of
those things that are being proposed here can be proposed
in an SUP if it's
appropriate for the site but it can be somewhat I think
each site on initial
thought is that each site thing can be kind of customized
and whatever this
site specific issues or problems access design criteria it
's against the
neighborhood it's against other you know commercial uses
you have the
flexibility to design versus we have kind of where you were
going a broad
brush these are all the things that you have to do and they
may be appropriate
in some places and they may not be appropriate in others
and that's where I
was going with the L35 requirement is it seems to be
pushing things all kind of
into one box versus an SUP purposes to give us flexibility
for each individual
site so that's where I was going I don't know if that
answers your question
where I was going yeah it answers me perfectly I appreciate
that so my
leaning would just be a simplify this and and allow self
storage units in zone
SMG by SUP I personally would would leave off the ECC CI
requirement for
SUP I don't see that as a need right now but I think this
might might be well
simplified just to the amendment be SUP for that on the
commercial CMG zone
that's where what I would be leaning considering all the
things we've talked
about this far I think that's reasonable any other
questions for the applicant
and then we can move on to maybe more discussion here on
the Commission yes
thank you sir thank you Mr. Chair
with that this is a public hearing is there anyone who
would like to come
forward and speak on this item seeing none I will close the
public hearing and
open the floor for discussion Commissioner Beck thank you
chair again
it seems to me the concern about a tall building in a
neighborhood is a
legitimate concern if we're looking at a park 7 situation
but when you get into
an area where you're along a major arterial and you're in a
zone anyway CMJ
allows 65 feet was it okay so you're gonna you're looking
at four or five
stories anyway when you're looking at tall buildings near
neighborhoods if
you've got height or it goes down into the neighborhood our
problem with at
least mine was with the park 7 thing is that it was going
to be among these one
and two story level buildings it wasn't at a major arterial
and it was odd for
that reason but most of the CMG districts I'm seeing here
are long major arterials
where as a commercial area you're gonna have some tall
buildings anyway they're
gonna be allowed by right so I really don't have a problem
with tall buildings
within a certain proximity to neighborhoods and maybe that
's something
we should consider if the CMG is deep enough say from the
main road to the
neighborhood that maybe there could be a hundred foot set
back or something like
that where they can't get any closer than that but again it
's not so much
tall buildings per se it's just tall buildings in the
middle of surrounded by
small buildings where if you're an area or a strip of land
where tall buildings
have or can be there by right then I'm not sure what the
argument is so just
some thoughts there okay
Commissioner Hussbeth question for legal for the amendment
to the code can we add
I don't know what the wording is specifically but what I'm
targeting is
we're talking about storage units and we're talking about a
propensity for
people to break in for people to leave stuff outside for
the ability for code
enforcement to get in what are the what are what is our
what are the city's
options in that regard so code enforcement drives by a
facility and
there's a couch laid out by the dumpster and looks unkept
can code enforcement go
on that property or is it just they take a picture from the
street normal process
how does that kind of work to maintain a gated facility
well I know that if they
see and in violation from the public right-of-way then they
have a right to
go up on the property or the curtilage if there is a no
trespass sign or a gate
then they have to seek consent from the owner generally
speaking unless there's
an emergency situation and I believe on all of the gated
lock or the gate locks
that they're required to give the code over I think that's
the case but I can't
say for sure but either way they would contact the owner
make contact and issue
a notice of violation or try to get voluntary compliance
okay thank you
well I'm just gonna throw out for discussion I think
initially we were
talking about wanting this to come back with work session
is that the direction
that the Commission would like or after discussion are we
comfortable to talk
about this and just clean up maybe some of this language
and move forward with a
motion
yeah
Commissioner Roselle as far as I can see it I don't know
what a work session
would add to clarity if there's a commissioner that might
be able to
enlighten me on what a work session would add to this I'd
be happy to try to
percolate that in my mind but as far as I see it I would I
would go ahead and
motion that we move forward with this code amendment but I
would I would put
forth that we make the amendment that self storage units
would be permitted in
CMG by SUP only and that'd be my full motion I would I
would exclude the
recommendation for ECI and ECC and just leave it simply at
that so that's where
where I am okay
Commissioner Ellis I'm gonna go ahead and second that
because that's actually
where I am too I think we talked so much about the code
being big and bulky and I
think L 35 makes it big and bulky and I think it gives us
the opportunity
do you have something to say Julie
use category to commercial land use category is that
something I did you
want to okay I'm sorry thanks for the clarification
having an SUP allowing it in CMG and then having the SUP
does give the
opportunity for it to be crafted for whatever the lot is
this particular lot
that the applicants talking about is not gonna is not gonna
be able to carry a
fully enclosed you know huge storage building like some of
the ones we
discussed in work session you know it's not even it's not
the kind of lot that
we would want to put that on so having the SUP on it would
allow us to to bring
it down to you know a single story or two story or whatever
and crafted around
that neighborhood so I'm I'm I'm comfortable with with
exactly that allowed
in CMG with an SUP Commissioner Tyler thank you chair so I
do think that
storage units have a propensity to attract crime debris
there's a reason
why they were zoned out of every single category that wasn
't industrial and
that's because you can look around in you know over off of
Fort Worth Drive
sorry Dallas Drive where they're they really damaged the
value of the
neighborhood the damage of the appearance they keep areas
depressed if
they're unattractive and poorly maintained it's hard to
force maintenance
it's hard to force security so they do lead to you know
crime and debris and so
I think I think that's an important thing we consider here
especially we
just you know open it wide open part of the reason why we
want additional
cosmetic and feature things like the climate control is it
it leads to a
better development requiring the masonry wall guarantees
that you know in an SUP
in maybe a neighborhood that doesn't have a strong
community to come out and
argue at the SUP doesn't get a metal building with a wood
fence around it
with no cameras and you know lights that shine in backyards
and stuff like that I
really do think that this is one of the one of the most
potentially damaging
types of development to to a neighborhood if it's put done
wrong so I
think we do want to have a baseline that says you know full
screening at the
ground level masonry construction ground level doors not
visible to the street or
from adjacent properties I like some climate controlled
aspect to it in CMG
because CMG is a retail use like this isn't like out out in
the middle of an
industrial park sure you can just have acres and acres of
squat metal
buildings but I think in you know when we're talking about
next to grocery
stores and next to retail we we want to make sure that it's
a high quality
development and I don't know if it is a certain percentage
should be climate
controlled or if we can word it so that here's what you
need here's what we
recommend but you can deviate that from that with an SGP I
know like on site
development plans we basically have ADPs that allow you to
to break some of the
rules but you have to come justify why you think you should
have no climate
control or less than 30% climate control or whatever and so
all of these issues
make me lean toward a work session because I think I would
I want to have
some protections for the neighborhood in there while still
allowing the use I
want to kind of enter a dialogue back and forth possibly
here as you pay and
maybe Julie can help me with this with the requirement for
an SGP all of those
things if I understand SUPs correctly can be imposed by
this Commission so if
it's depending on the site if we felt like if it was 20% AC
required or 50% or
hey the site lends itself to a hundred we don't have a box
then that every
project has to start from this particular point and has to
be
customized it's the landowner developer comes forth with
what their vision for
that is and and comes to staff staff works through them as
to what issues
they are as where their neighborhoods or whatever and would
make recommendation
we feel like it needs to be a maximum of two stories or
three stories it makes a
recommendation to this board and this board would decide we
agree with staff
we want to add to it subtract from it but that all is taken
care of and the
protection for each of those sites is covered with an SUP
am I understanding
that that correctly so chapter 6 does outline what
conditions can be placed
upon a use within an SUP okay and that includes the
regulation and limitation of
uses a regulation setbacks and spacing fences walls
requirement to submit a
development plat the limiting the magnitude of traffic
points of vehicular
access signs building materials textures colors and
architectural features
landscaping screening buffering noise vibration dust odors
or similar
nuisances hours of operation regulation of period of time
that the use shall be
developed duration of use environmentally sensitive areas
and any
site development condition permitted by sub chapter 13 so
the only one in our
backup it's not really covered in that is the AC pretty
much all the other
things glass materials setbacks all those items are covered
with that and in
my understanding what you just shared with us I like a yes
or no okay good so
I don't know it includes height as well so with that I'm at
this particular
point I'm leaning towards supporting the motion and think
that's a way for us to
move this on forward I'm open if other commissioners are
concerned and feel
like there needs to be more discussion that we need to do
something different
but I think with that description I'm comfortable with an
SUP and see where
this goes Commissioner Ellis thank you chair just to your
point
Commissioner Taylor my concern is even if we have a work
session that we might
leave something out or put something in that that we don't
necessarily want in
there and and to chairs point with an SUP we can be very
site specific about
what we want to craft in there and so I'm I'm just I don't
know if we're gonna
get any better you know than what we have presented you
know to L35 and if we
could actually come to a consensus if we try to list all of
these things in
certain percentages and I guess that's that's just where I
am and getting rid
of that limitation and leaving it to site specific and you
know as you see
discussion that's that's where my mind is on that
Commissioner Hutzpah just to make sure I'm tracking with
you so given that list
of things that is accessible by the SUP what what path does
that give us for the
AC control none okay well I think I'm with Commissioner
Taylor there needs to
be some access to require that so if we can fold that in
some sort of friendly
amendment I think to not have that access then becomes an
access to require
that then becomes onerous and and so it I could see an
applicant saying that's
not on the list of things that I have to discuss I'm not
going to discuss it and
and then that opens the door for nothing to have AC control
what is it I need a
mechanism that triggers that into the their SUP process or
into the to the
code because I'm hesitant all the way around the board to
write the code I'll
tell you because they're rewriting the code now so if there
are we have
consultants rewriting the code for us to spot rewrite the
code I need to feel a
little better about it because all this is subject to
change well I want to jump
in on one thing that may we're leaving out on the air
conditioning piece these
gentlemen are in the business to please their clientele
there may be clientele
that say we want air conditioned and they'll that's the pur
view it'll have it
in there and we as a governmental body don't have to impose
that to say you
will have this if the marketplace dictates that you know
what we have AC
I guarantee it's in there so Commissioner Beck thank you
chair my
thoughts were along the same line said Commissioner us was
just spelled out that
the SUP doesn't allow us that option to include AC go along
with what
Commissioner Taylor said I think you know when you enclose
something that's air
condition it does create an attractiveness that we want it
to have
in certain neighborhoods so I just to be clear then the SUP
would give us an
opportunity to include air conditioning would not okay then
again I would I
would probably go along with Commissioner Hudson and
Commissioner
Taylor on probably pushing this down the road a little bit
okay I guess the board
is in order Commissioner Rozelle thank you chair I'm trying
to think about if
we had an SUP that had a height requirement and we said
that the the
front of the facade needed to be 30 feet or whatever it is
I've never seen an
outdoor storage unit three stories tall so it seems like
that just the height
like we can dictate how high it goes we in the SUP it seems
like then we have
kind of a mechanism to to more or less imply climate
control is gonna exist
unless there's people out that have like open three story
structures for storage
units I just I can't envision a multi-story self storage
unit not having
AC so it seems like the SUP could could get us thus far but
I also agree with the
chair if it needs AC it'll have it'll have AC but I do
validate Commissioner
Taylor's point about trying to provide some sort of shell
to encourage the best
we can as a commission the protection of the neighborhood I
totally get that and
I think that's valid I just to have a work session to come
up with with a code
change that could be what we got here seven limitations
long I'm all for it
I'll be happy to I mean obviously I would sit in and
participate I just
don't know if it's it's needed but I have one question for
staff miss Wyatt
an SUP does not allow it seems for us to regulate or force
climate control if
there is a limitation in 35 if if we included that
limitation in 35 could the
commission at any point change that requirement so for
instance if we said
any structure for self storage unit has to have 20% climate
controlled area if
you're saying an SUP can't touch that then that would be
the rule of the land
would be 20% correct that's my understanding yes so I have
some
serious concerns codifying that then I just wanted to
answer your point yes it
could be greater than that but not less perfect thank you
so if we said a minimum
that puts a lot of weight on us that we get that minimum
right and so we're
gonna err on a low minimum it's gonna be 10% 5% then at
what point it seems like
since we have limitations to direct climate controlled
requirements anyways
then I'm even more inclined not to put that as a direct
limitation but but
rather let the applicant decide what the market will bear
and what would be best
serving the clients and so considering that kind of control
is kind of off the
table to me in every sense in terms of enforcing it unless
we said just a
minimum I still move forward with the motion and if it gets
halted then we'll
have a work session see if we can come up with a minimum
percentage commissioner
Hatchbuth to your to your point chair thank you again if we
're talking if we're
rolling this back and talking a specific project sure I
think you know that's one
thing but to open the door for every person that ever comes
before us that's
where I draw the line because there are people that think
hey my car shouldn't
be required to have this that or the other my property
shouldn't require this
that or the other and there's and there's those properties
and those
storage facilities that it may be just driven by price the
market may bear a
lower price lower product and and does that mean it's okay
to put that back to
neighborhood because I have I mean there's a lot of other
for all the good
this property has there's a lot of bad there's a wooden
area we have an
increased homeless population where I mean you can get me
going down a hill
that's pretty steep but I'm trying not to so because it's
not relevant to I'm
just saying if we're gonna kick the door wide open I want
to have some ability to
adjust that and I think that I'm amenable to some sort of
minimum that
then allows us to keep that door open so that we don't get
a particular person
that says oh that door is open I'm gonna run through it
with the cheapest thing
I can find to then provide affordability in the storage
market that's needed
right so I that's my only hesitation if we can come to to
quote for Fred Durst
if we can come to an agreeance with that respect then then
I think I'm good well
since you pointed a question at me I'm not kicking the door
open and I'll think
Commissioner Rosales with this motion it requires an SUP so
each project that
comes before this Commission and and Commissioners after us
every project is
going to be voted on based on what the criteria are and
this Commission will
have the power and the authority based on the list that
Julie gave us to say
this is what your project will have or won't have or you
don't get an SUP and
you don't get to build it and so I think there is a great
amount of protection
with an SUP in that regard for all projects and it gives
this Commission
flexibility to let people be creative and come up with
unique solutions for
individual sites and if this Commission feels like those
are reasonable they can
grant them and if they feel like there are some changes
that need to be made
then those conditions can be imposed on each individual
property to make it
where it will pass this Commission and so that's where I
would think it would
have some quite a bit of restrictions on it. Staff I think
legal wants to chime in.
I just want to make the board aware that there is a catch-
all provision on the SUP
requirement under 35.6.5 it's under subsection P and it's
in addition to the
other criteria you can make such other conditions as will
make possible the
development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner
and in accordance
with the provisions of the SUP chapter that are reasonable
so that's going to
be allowing you great latitude in your conditions that you
impose. Thank you.
Commissioner Tyler. Thank you Chair. I did have a question
for Julie.
Would it be feasible to do something along the lines of an
ADP where there is
a baseline set that can be varied from for a use like
storage units? So the ADP
process gives site design plans and you can basically throw
out any of those
restrictions if you get approval for your ADP or a wide
variety of those
restrictions can be changed.
So we could amend the site design criteria for storage
units. Thank you.
So to the reason I'm asking that question is because the
risk I see here
is five years from now people won't know member of this
commission will remember
conversations about 20% or 50% air-conditioned or the mason
ry
screening or fenestrations they'll just see there's an SUP
and if it's if it's
in a neighborhood that has a very active community that
community will show up in
force and they will demand light restrictions and fencing
and masonry
construction but if it's in a neighbor if it's in a new
area that doesn't
have a neighborhood yet or if it's in a neighborhood that
is less politically
active then we will start at the baseline of what our code
says. So right
now the code will say any building material no screening
required you know
bay doors facing any direction no mention of air
conditioning anything the
five years from now the Commission won't even think about
putting a restriction
on air conditioning they might put a restriction on height
maybe but those so
if we don't have these base kind of levels of protection
and I think we can
say that every neighborhood deserves full wall screening
from bay doors we
don't want any bay doors on the ground floor visible from
adjacent properties
or the street or you can even say residential properties or
the street you
know the the landscape buffer requirements all of those you
know we're
we're looking at this one thing about possible height and
we're I think we're
ignoring a lot of the other potential risks with this use
so I would like to
if we're if we're moving forward tonight then I really do
want to reinstate the
masonry construction the no visible bay doors on the ground
floor and the
landscape buffer and the fencing materials. I have a
question for staff I
think if I understand Commissioner Taylor's concerns are
there not
universal requirements with buffering and screening with CM
G against
neighborhoods so it's not just a free-for-all there are
requirements
regardless of what we do here that that development would
have to meet.
Landscape buffering walls all those types of things in
regards to CMG being
against the neighborhood. They would have to they would
have to meet sub chapter
13 and yes there are buffer requirements between commercial
uses and residential
I believe it's a type C buffer which is a 15 foot buffer
there aren't any
masonry wall requirements there we do have perimeter fences
that are that we
have perimeter fence materials which include they can be
wood, wrought iron,
masonry, brick, vinyl, PVC or composite materials so those
are perimeter fence
materials we don't have any requirements for it but that is
that is
and then part of staff working with the applicant in order
to move the use from the industrial use tables to the
commercial use tables is that some of those site design
requirements in sub chapter 13 industrial uses are exempt
from and so to move those to the commercial use tables
would then require them to at a minimum follow the
commercial site design requirements.
That includes building materials.
It includes building materials standards on articulation,
orientation, trash storage areas, screening so so that was
the intent of moving that from the commercial to or from
the industrial to the commercial.
The minimum I mean the building materials I can tell you
what they are.
So fronts and street sides of buildings visible from the
public right of way
shall be non-reflective and shall be of wood, masonry,
stone, decorative block,
stucco, HDO board or other high quality material custom
arily used for the
building style.
So no metal buildings?
Metal buildings are customary for storage units.
You can't do that though.
It says customary for the building type.
Typically we don't see metal buildings in commercial areas
but the code I mean it so yeah it we don't typically see
metal in commercial areas.
I don't know if you're comfortable moving forward this or
not I'm trying to reach consensus and be able to move it
forward if we can.
If it's not it will be possible.
I understand that so.
Did you want to do a motion for postponement?
Well is the motioner open to a friendly amendment?
Saying I'm unamendable sounds so mean.
But I'm not and here's my thoughts.
Since I was on the board next anyways I'll go ahead and
take the floor.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you chair.
A couple things.
One way back Commissioner Hussbett said that we're kicking
down, kicking the door wide open.
And I think that's wholeheartedly a little off because we
're actually making sure no one builds by right and it comes
to staff to get an SEP.
So instead of us spending hours trying to think of the
exact shell that we want to put forth we're not omniscient.
We don't know what each plot's going to look like and so we
would then if we do a work session to find out exactly what
all limitations we want to put in.
We are then prescribing exactly how we think every
potential self storage unit in our city should be built
regardless of anything.
That's a broad stroke.
And so we could work a long time but we still could miss
something.
And what if we set the minimum for AC to hot.
There's just a lot of things that would pigeonhole
applicants from building where an SEP actually allows for
some creativity and flexibility.
And Commissioner Taylor's point earlier you talked about
individuals building metal structures or you elaborated
more squat houses and everything else.
But you also said in the work session that those generally
are just placeholders to flip the property.
And so it seems like there might be two different speaks
being said that you're against those per se but really you
know they're temporary.
Or at least you stated as such that the plan would be for
them to be temporary anyways.
So when it comes to it doesn't even sound like a middle
build metal building could be built anyways but it seems
like if someone's going to put up a cheap building
structure they are probably waiting to flip that property.
And so another development can come in because like you
said really easy to tear those down.
And so I'm not overly concerned about that because of the
point you brought up in terms of longevity of that.
And then the other point I have is in our backup we had
section 35 here.
I don't know if it's an exhausted list of everything.
It looks like it could be pretty exhaustive but as we're
talking I stopped counting at about 102 SUP cases in the
city.
Now Commissioner Taylor I know you believe that SUPs are
okay but you're also saying that in five years what is that
person going to think?
What is the commission going to do?
But we have SUPs.
It's not like this crazy thing to say we don't need an SUP
here because in five or seven years we don't know if we can
trust the commission at that point to know what's going on.
But yet in over 100 other cases historically and even us
have agreed that SUPs are okay.
So SUPs are known in the city and I feel that it's not like
thinking out like the way I heard it said from you is an SU
P provides this base level.
We're going to start at something that there's a new
neighborhood.
They don't know what to do as if the council and the
commission a decade from now is going to be ignorant to how
to facilitate a structure being built within CMG for self
storage.
So I think the idea of having self storage units permitted
by SUP in CMG is in alignment with a lot of other SUPs that
we have without adding a ton of limitations.
And further it seems like with legal's opinion we would
have some leverage to put into the SUP the climate control
portion.
So I feel pretty strongly that CMG with SUP is appropriate
and it provides this commission and the staff really great
power to construct a good project going forward on any
property regardless of the shape or size or where it's
located in the city.
Commissioner Taylor.
I move we amend the motion to also require an SUP in ECI
and ECC zoning categories.
Does that come back to me?
Commissioner Rossell.
Does that supersede the motion on the table?
Yes, an amendment would supersede your motion.
So we need a second on that.
But we have a motion.
I'm not going to second that and let me tell you why.
We had an applicant who brought this forth.
The applicant brought it forth as CMG and I believe his
point to this commission was staff added these other areas
on.
And I think when we have someone who takes the time and the
due diligence to come before us and bring a matter, I think
we should honor that and keep it there rather than we go
off into a whole lot of other areas.
So I'm not willing to second it.
I'm going to go with the CMG with the SUP and I think that
's a good way for us to address their issue that's more
pressing and also give us the flexibility that we talked
about earlier.
So is there a second for Commissioner Taylor's friendly
amendment?
Seeing none.
It dies and we will revert back to the motion that we have
a first and a second before us.
And Commissioner Taylor, before I call on the vote, I will
recognize you.
Thank you, Chair.
I move we amend the motion to reinstate requirements one,
three, and five as originally proposed.
That's 100% masonry stone or architecture or concrete block
.
No overhead bay doors or storage unit doors visible from
adjacent properties right away.
And proposed fencing materials will be masonry or wrought
iron.
Commissioner Bec.
I can second that.
Okay.
So we have a first and a second to add those extra items on
there.
We will vote on that measure first and see if it passes or
fails legal and then come back to the --
That's correct.
Okay.
So we have that motion by Commissioner Taylor, seconded by
Commissioner Bec to add item one, three, and five.
I will call for Commissioner Roselle.
Just for clarification, Commissioner Taylor spoke earlier
about having that third item limited to first floor only.
Are you not including that on this one?
First floor, yeah, I'm sorry.
Okay.
So to clarify, third, item three, no overhead bay doors and
storage unit doors visible from adjacent property or public
right away on the first floor.
Okay.
We have a first and a second.
I'm going to make a comment again.
Before you do that, Commissioner Bec, are you still second
ing that change?
Yes.
Okay.
I'm not in favor of amending and adding those things for
the same reasons we have in SUP.
And I am concerned about, again, going down the road of
putting all these things on that then when it comes back,
we have to start undoing things.
I think we have the SUP.
I don't think it's a baseline minimum.
I think just like these gentlemen have come before us
tonight, they didn't come before us with a bare minimum.
And I'm not going to make their project the only determiner
, but I have great faith in our market system.
And people come out and invest this kind of money.
It's not to build the cheapest thing.
It's for it to be successful.
They are already talking about on their own an air-cond
itioned space and all of these things.
And I think we are short-sighted at this commission to
think that we know how to tell them how to do business.
And so I think we need to stick, and that's why I'm not
going to support it, to do the CMG with an SUP and give the
free market the opportunity to provide the services that
each community wants, willing to pay for in our great city.
And so with that, any other discussion or comment before I
call for a vote on the board on this amended motion?
So a vote will be for and a vote no will be against.
I will call for a vote on the board.
The motion fails 4-2.
We will now go back to the motion that we had before us by
Commissioner Rozelle.
And I forget who the seconder was, Commissioner Ellis.
And I would ask Commissioner Rozelle to restate his motion.
So my motion is to approve item Z17-001, including the
relocation of self-storage units from industrial land use
categories to the commercial land use, to permit self-st
orage units in CMG district with an SUP.
And that's it.
Okay. Commissioner Ellis, second on that still?
Yes.
Okay.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion before I call for a vote on the board?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-1.
Okay. That will move us to our item C this evening.
Thank you for your presentation and your time.
And good luck on your project.
Look forward to seeing you again soon.
Item C, this item has been withdrawn by the applicant.
That will move us to item D.
And I'm going to open our public hearing on Z17-0002B.
And I will call on Julie Wyatt for presentation.
The applicant has requested to postpone this item until the
April 26 P&Z meeting.
Okay.
Since we have opened the public hearing, I'm going to ask,
since we've had some people come this evening, were either
of you all wanting to speak on this item tonight?
No? You here for something else?
Okay.
So we'll keep the public hearing open and then we'll do the
motion to postpone if you so desire.
I was just going to ask.
Okay. I was just going to leave the public hearing open and
make a motion to continue it to April 26. Is that legal?
Chair will motion that this item will be continued to date
certain of April 26 and the public hearing will remain open
.
So we don't have to re-notice this item.
Commissioner Taylor.
Second.
Okay. We have a first and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.
The motion carries 6-0.
I will move us to item E.
We'll open the public hearing for Z16-0030A and we'll call
on Julie White for presentation.
Good evening. I'm presenting 1630 to you tonight.
The request is to rezone approximately .4 acres from
downtown residential one to downtown residential two.
Would you like for me to go over the whole presentation?
I think the shortened version and we have people waiting
for a while.
Okay. So based upon the discussion items that we talked
about in the work session, the existing zoning pattern as
well as the existing land use pattern,
staff does recommend denial of this request as this change
in zoning could interrupt this existing zoning pattern at
the block level and potentially impede the development of
the area in a cohesive manner.
I'll stand for any questions and I believe the applicant is
here.
Yes, the applicant is here.
I have a question.
We talked about in work session that the property to the
southwest of this is DCG, which is even a higher, more
intensive zoning than what is being requested here.
With that said, why is staff not in support of this when we
have an even higher and greater zoning designation within a
half a lot away?
Sure. And we did look at that and we do see that
development pattern and that zoning pattern on the edges of
the neighborhood where those more intensive zoning
districts are there
and have developed in accordance with those zoning
districts.
However, because the zoning pattern on this particular
street and within that block is so cohesive and has
remained so,
then we felt like that this request, because it would
isolate the zoning district, wasn't appropriate for this
location.
So that was staff's analysis and that's how we arrived in
our recommendation.
I could see that if we were on the block to the east, but
the block that we're in, we have DCG in the bottom corner
and we have, I believe it is DR2 in the northwest corner.
So in that block already, there are higher uses and zoning
wise.
Yes, within the larger block and particularly that side
that faces the street behind it, that Avenue A, you're
right, there are those additional zoning districts.
But because Neff Street and that block on Neff Street has
that consistent zoning of DR1, that's why we feel like it's
important to maintain it.
Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation.
Any other questions for staff?
Anybody else? Thank you, Julie. Thank you.
This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this
item? Please come forward.
You have a card, great. Are you the applicant? Yes, sir.
Okay. If you'll give us your name and address and you'll
have 10 minutes to tell us about your project.
Name is Mickey Patterson.
The address for the property is that what you're referring
to?
Your current address where you live.
8805 Random Road in Fort Worth, Texas.
Okay.
Who needs a card?
I'm Sherry Patterson and I live with him.
Okay.
Well, are you all going together here and sharing the 10
minutes or are each of you going to take 10 minutes?
No, we'll be done hopefully.
Okay. Can we do two people speaking at the same time back
and forth?
No, you need to go one at a time.
Okay. So I was just clarifying.
I can dive into everything and then --
Okay.
Do you want me to look this?
Yes, ma'am. I didn't know where it was at.
And while she's getting that started, just a handful of
slides to go through.
I know a few of the slides will talk a little more in depth
about what we envision on the project,
just more to give a context of what we're looking at and
then it will go more to the --
I think more of a succinct approach is just what it is we
're trying to do, which is fairly well summed up,
is to go from a DR1 to a DR2.
Great.
And we do try to get the neighbors around us, you know,
because we do feel like --
I went to school here and I'm not going to say how many
years ago, but even parking then was an issue.
So I know how important it is to live close to the school
and now parking is just crazy.
You can't get a mile from the school and I know my niece
goes here and she's like --
I can see legal starting to squirm.
So we typically one at a time.
So if you'd like to go first, we'd be happy to hear from
you next.
Sure.
So just to kind of give you an idea of the project, just to
kind of put it in context of what our vision is,
I've got a couple slides.
This is what I think we've talked to you correct about a
little bit.
Kind of the scope of what we're looking at is a shipping
container apartment.
It's kind of an artsy, trendy design.
You see it pop up in a lot of cities, Austin, some of these
outskirts, a handful of places in Europe.
So this is our project and what we're looking at, obviously
because it appeals to young professionals,
college students and things of that nature.
This is really more for something to share with and you can
read through it later.
We don't need to dive into all of it, but it just talks
about more of what we envisioned on the project.
We've just got some supportive material about kind of,
again, what we plan to put there and that this is not just,
hey, we want to throw together something that's super cheap
and just a bunch of units to cram college kids into
because you can get more out of them that way.
So this, again, just gives a little bit of background on
this, but then I want to hop into particularly what the
location is.
And as she outlined this here, this is a high-level view.
Take maybe a little easier view, easier for me anyways to
look at.
And as you mentioned, the edges here, I don't know if I can
get a...
Like you mentioned with the DCG here and as well as the
additional DR2 that's encroaching already in the areas.
What we were hoping, given that there's this push with the
higher occupancy or higher density living,
that this would really go with the goal of what the area is
trying to do,
which is getting higher density living, more options
availability for the college students,
as well as the other young professionals moving into the
area.
One of the things that we did notice here is that these
upper parts and as well in the end, you do see a handful on
each side,
just more duplexes going up on the newer, on the ones that
have been, I guess, older homes that were bought, torn down
and duplexes put up.
As Sherry was saying earlier, the homes here, and we were
advised, and I think it was you or one of your counterparts
had mentioned that
one of the things that would make this easier is reaching
out to the people along this street or even on the edges
here
to see if there was a consensus of migrating to a DR2 or
alternate zoning.
The challenge we had is the people, especially there to the
south, everyone that was reached out to,
these are people that have either been in the property a
long time, elderly, 80, 90 years old, we just got very
limited response.
I think that, as you can tell by the properties, these are
older properties that are, yeah, they don't either not live
there, someone out of state that has the property.
So, you know, this was just a challenge.
I know that was the goal and we were hoping that we could
come here and say, hey, this is great, we've got all the
people around us that want to do this.
Unfortunately, we just don't.
And that's just not because the people don't think want to,
it's just because they can't get a hold of them.
So, again, that's our view of the area and the way we see
the properties migrating.
I think this fits in with the plan very well.
The build site, this just gives you a little view, I think
from a standpoint, the lot, you can see, is plenty large,
especially when you consider this spot that was just to the
southwest is a commercial apartment complex.
So, this is, I think it's an 18 unit complex.
So, this has got quite a few units crammed in this space
already.
And we would do everything here to maintain the
neighborhood, the trees, the greenery, having the green
spaces on the edge of the property.
This isn't a goal of coming in, rip everything out, cram as
many spaces as you can there.
So, the whole idea of what we're trying to do is to keep
this artsy urban design and we want to bring that home feel
here and something that can build out into the rest of the
neighborhood.
Just the main benefits we see in being able to do this, it
does add a lot of the much needed housing in the area for
your university.
I had a couple supporting pieces here.
This is stuff that you guys know as far as the universities
and the demand that you have both here and even on the TWU
side.
And then to the project we're proposing, I think really
fits into the cultural theme within Denton.
It's bold, unique, artistic design and this fits what
people are trying to move here for.
And then lastly, I think with the encroachment around the
surrounding areas with small kind of boutique apartments,
this fits that mold really well.
So, from our view, the area can support it.
It still fits in even though it's a variance in that area.
It still fits in with the general area and the theme.
As you go from street to street, you can't obviously tell,
hey, this is obviously residential and this is obviously
commercial because you make a right.
It's all apartments. You make a left. It's all apartments.
You go down here, it's a bunch of duplexes.
So, the field still looks the same from our perspective.
So, really, that's all I have.
I don't know if you have anything else. Questions? Is that
the process?
Yes, there is a process and I've got a full board of
questions.
So, beg your patience.
No worries.
Commissioner Rossell. Thank you, Sheriff.
Thank you for your presentation and some context to what's
going on.
I have a couple of questions about the two properties
themselves.
They're separate platted right now.
Are you looking to replat after rezoning?
That would be the goal.
Ultimately, whatever's amiable to the committee and what
makes the most sense.
Sure. What is the total acreage of those two lots?
I think it's roughly just under half acre-ish.
Okay. And then you might have pictures of this.
I'd be interested to see if you do, but what do you think
would likely be built on .4 acres?
Do you have like, are we talking about?
I didn't put, I can give you a perspective of just kind of
what the, it's not our design,
but I can give you a couple, like this is probably not the
best example.
So, when you look at something like this, you're looking at
something like this, maybe twice this size right here,
that's supporting that area. I think the guidelines that we
have in the city,
I think it was a one and a quarter parking spots per room.
So, from our view, you're looking at anywhere from 12 to
maybe 14 to 20 units out there,
and they can still support parking while maintaining the
green area.
That's the other part too.
We do have, as I showed there, a lot of green area that we
want to maintain.
So, we don't want to just clear cut this just for the sake
of being able to support the parking structures and
everything else as well.
So, I guess my answer would be kind of, well, it depends on
what makes sense with the committee.
Thank you.
I've got a question that I'll recognize.
Can you tell us why you want to rezone it?
Because in DR1 and DR2, both have got multifamily allowed.
The height is 45 feet in DR2 and 40 feet in DR1.
And the only other difference that I see is a slight
difference in lot coverage.
So, can you give us the rationale of why we need to do the
rezone?
And I could be wrong in my understanding here.
My understanding was that DR1, you could only do duplexes,
not multifamily.
I'll call on staff to address that question.
You're correct.
Yes.
I was looking at L5, and you're correct.
My apologies.
I missed that detail.
I'm looking at the chart.
I was looking at the box.
Glad you're prepared.
Well done.
Commissioner Hussbuth.
I'll tell you, I think you're a little ahead of the power
curve, right?
So, I want you to help me understand where I'm off.
Because if I look at that, if you go back to your map, here
's what we can agree on.
We can agree it's coming.
Yes, sir.
We can agree all that's going to transition.
I just think you're early.
And so, my palette right now is phase one duplex, phase two
, once everything else transitions to multifamily,
then I'm more at peace with it.
But I do want to give you an opportunity.
I mean, I want to hear from you and get kind of your feel
from that understanding that's my concern.
And then I'll tell you, this is just me.
I'm burnt out on everyone telling me about UNT, how close
it is to UNT, how walkable it is UNT.
Understand all that matters.
But it's just everyone to me, buzzwords, right, to make it
okay.
I want to know from Mickey, just hey, this makes sense
because, right, I mean, just from the heart.
Just let me have it.
I'm going to have a couple things and one that is first
going to address the kind of phasing it in.
The way I see it and with projects of this nature is you go
the route of doing a DR1, you build the duplex here,
and you look at some of the ones on the edges who have done
duplexes.
The reality is those are there for the next 30 years.
These aren't changing, maybe 40 years.
So this isn't really a hey, we're going to phase it in now
and then later when we really like to get some of the
multifamily,
it will come later.
It will.
I think if you do something, you stage it different and go
to this approach first, well, then later is 25, 30 years
from now.
And then you kind of end up in a situation where, man,
these are all single-family or duplexes.
We could have done an apartment here.
And I'll give you a good example, and it is another
university.
As you look over in areas closer to TWU and the surrounding
areas there, what was done there is everything was done DR2
around all the areas.
You still see kind of a mix and this homogenous mix of
homes and some apartments.
But the consistency there is all DR2, whereas this is DR1
and it's kind of segmented.
And in those cases, what you saw with the new builds, they
were typically apartments.
You don't have a lot of the duplexes.
And I know one of you had a concern earlier on home values
and values in areas.
Duplexes generally bring down values from a real estate
standpoint.
Apartments, single-family homes have a stronger value than
do typically duplexes or quadplexes in an area.
So that's kind of thinking of the forward-looking where I
would say is, you know, honestly, the commercial route
might be a better route,
but I think it would be a harder stretch to put that there
unless I was on that southwest corner.
But, you know, to your area, as far as why, I think that
what drove us on this project was we were looking at things
that were different.
We first started looking at some of the college areas.
That's just the way it is up here.
But we looked at some of the things that you could do that
were more modular concept.
And at Texas A&M, they had some of these neat modular
concepts where you do stuff.
And then we looked at some of the trends and designs, the
nice thing about this particular design, it is a green
build.
You use a lot of recycled products.
It is trendy.
It's efficient.
They're sturdy.
They last a long time.
So there's a lot of good qualities with what we're doing.
Having said that, we're not dead set that, yes, we have to
do this if there's pushback, I guess, on the next phase of
the project.
So we're open to those discussions.
I think it's just first steps first.
But that was kind of our thought here.
We actually have another property that probably had this
similar discussion later.
It's on a DR2 lot already.
But it's closer to the downtown.
And so for that, it's less about the college, but it really
is about that downtown, young professional life.
If I may.
Continue.
One follow-up.
But regardless, whatever parking requirements, you don't
anticipate any need for variances with respect to parking.
The number of slots, the material needed, you don't
envision any issues?
No.
I think the only variances are discussions that are
realistic to come up.
And I know we've talked about this a little bit, is the
shipping container design that we'd like to go forward with
is something that's atypical.
And so what we'd have to do is probably make sure that the
engineers and the people are comfortable with what's being
done for installation, whether it be panels here,
conforming to the build guidelines or having appropriate
alternatives.
So no, I mean, not to that phase yet, just on the zoning
side.
I just wanted to make sure kind of in advance that I don't
see anything inside that whatever we decide or whatever is
decided that I kind of get that out.
I was just curious about that.
Yeah, I think we're we're tracking on that.
Thank you.
We have an architect draw up the plans.
The site.
So that was just a minute.
Sorry.
We do one at a time.
Sorry. I don't have anything to say.
Okay.
If you could just take a seat back there, then we can just
have one.
Okay.
Sorry.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Kravis, right?
No, Mickey Patterson.
Patterson.
Sorry.
Excuse me.
Appreciate your presentation.
Appreciate the fact that you've got some avant-garde views
here on this.
Could I get you to put your picture back up where it said
the cube showing us?
The very beginning?
Yeah.
Yeah, right there.
That is unique.
And I was kind of wavering, to be honest with you, between
going along with denial with staff on this and considering
a move, a slight bump might not be so bad.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to have a hard time with this
design.
I think the people who live in that area, those older folks
, too, you know, are going to have a hard time.
This is going to stick out like a like a sore thumb.
This isn't going to fit in that area at all.
Usually we want to bring something into an area, something
new.
It needs to fit in better than I think this is going to.
And I don't mean to be over critical.
I think this would be great in other places.
And I think you're right.
This would appeal to the college student.
But you're going to put this in an area where you've got 70
and 80 year old homes and some of the residents are that
old, too.
And this is not going to transition well.
So if you have an alternate plan outside of storage
containers, I'd be glad to hear it.
Okay. And that's why I guess my question would be so from
your perspective, you would be on your your view would be
more on board if it was a traditional stick masonry build.
I would be more have to be on board. Yes.
At this point, looking at that, I'm probably going to deny
this.
I mean, so the reality is this is this is our preference.
It's not our dead set.
We own the property and we're in this to have an investment
that can make make some money, have an offering and it fits
in my perspective.
I would disagree with you on how this fits in.
That's that's just the way to disagree.
But having said that, if that was the general view for pass
or or not, ultimately, I still think it's better moving to
a D.R.
two with being a frame masonry traditional build than
staying D.R.
one and going with the duplex.
So it's regardless of whether it's this or another one, I
think the view is it's still better to go to the D.R.
two. Okay.
Commissioner O'Zell. Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner Beck, I disagree with you.
I think that would be pretty cool.
And it's kind of unfortunate that sometimes our
requirements make it a cookie cutter.
We have to have so much masonry and so much brick and
everything is kind of looks the same.
So, I mean, I think I think that could work.
But more importantly, that's not for discussion tonight.
He can build whatever he wants there.
Once the D.R. two is made.
So the however those get a little crazy.
But how thank you.
This will help better.
Help me prove your point.
I think the issue is is is a zoning request if we feel that
these two properties would be compatible to move into a
multifamily concept.
It's one of those times where sometimes the project itself
might filter into that decision or not.
But we're not deciding on design tonight.
So although this is helpful and kind of interesting to see
your thoughts on the property tonight, it's just a matter
of if D.R.
two is appropriate or not. So I just want to make sure that
we weren't being skewed in our decision based on the avant
garde, as you put it, design of this project.
I'll look that word up later.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you for your comments.
And again, I'm not opposed to it either.
I think it's it's it's interesting.
And living there wouldn't be a problem.
It's just that if you take something like that and stick it
in those two lots there with the existing housing that's
there, it's going to raise some eyebrows.
It's going to it's going to be offensive.
Some people it's just not going to fit in well.
Again, I understand we're looking at going from a D.R.
one to D.R. two.
And I was considering weighing in favor of maybe moving up
to D.R.
two, but I just just as a safety measure now, I'm almost
reluctant to do that if the possibility of something like
that goes in there.
So that's just me, though.
I don't know how everybody else is thinking here.
I may be the only one that's thinking like that.
It's just that if you're going to request a D.R.
two, it seems to me that you would want to fit in a little
bit more unnoticeably and whether it's cookie cutter or not
, it doesn't have to be cookie cutter.
It just storage containers just seem.
And I guess where I would ask on that is and to go back to
Commissioner Rosell's comment is in that case, I would say
that you would still elect to approve the D.R.
two and tackle that discussion when it came approving the
project.
And that's what I would respectfully request is that if you
're on board for D.R.
two, then D.R.
two would be the way to go.
And then we can tackle that because we still have to come
up to a building engineering and there would be some pieces
of variances because there are requirements.
So those concerns, I would say, would be fairly brought up
there and and and still push for the approval for the D.R.
two.
Well, I'll hold my thought on it for now until we get out
to the vote.
Fair enough.
I've got no other people on the board for questions.
Thank you.
OK, thank you.
And would you like to speak?
It's public hearing.
We're inviting you.
Please come up to the mic, give us your name and address
and give us your comments.
Sherry Patterson, 8805 Random Road, Fort Worth, Texas, 7617
9.
So I just wanted to address yours with the you know, we did
have a architect that has drawn everything up and so pl
atted it and the measurements are the good thing about these
things.
They're very large, so they don't take up a lot of space
and so that because it is a small lot.
So we have accounted for the green space, all the parking,
even, you know, park like areas for the tenants and so
forth.
So we have done all that and done all the measurements and
made sure of what will fit on there was still the
guidelines of how far you can be from the whole the street
and so forth.
So that's all I want to say, because I don't feel like he
answered that well and say that we actually have been
working with architects and everything that we have models
and the whole thing to see how it's going to fit on the lot
.
Right. Thank you. Thank you.
I've got a question for staff while we're still open to
public. Can we get Google Earth up and pull up that DCG
property that's there on the corner and see what's there
for Street View.
Oh, of course.
Right here. Yeah, right there.
That's what's there existing now correct. Yes, sir.
Okay.
I think that's helpful for us to get a perspective of what
's already there in the neighborhood.
It's not a whole lot different height wise and what's being
brought here before us this evening. I know this area is in
transition and there's a multitude of different style homes
duplexes and so forth but that's less than half a lot away.
That's the property I brought up about being DCG on the
corner. So thank you for doing that.
And this is a public hearing is there anyone else that
would like to come forward and speak on this item for us
this evening.
Great.
Please come forward and leave the car there.
Please give us your name and address, and you'll have four
minutes to speak.
I'm Dave Sutcliffe. My address is 1219 Avenue a Den right
around the corner from.
Can I ask you a question. Yes, you didn't mark your car to
support or opposition. Will you let us know how you can let
us know. I'll mark it for you.
I do not support it. Okay, you're in opposition opposition.
Okay, thank you.
I just wanted to I probably don't stand a chance here
whatsoever. He's going to do what he's going to do.
I just want to give you some my wife and I moved from Saint
Louis 7 years ago.
We both have family in Texas and we fell in love with then
moved to a place.
It was a 1313 Underwood, which was Avenue a and Underwood.
We were moved out of there. Our house was moved. The other
ones were destroyed on our block.
We live right across the street from where we used to live,
where they took our house.
And we were lucky we found that place or our daughter can
go to the same school as her buddies.
And that we had an easy time moving into a nice house,
another nice house.
But we're right across the street from a huge complex that
's being built on Avenue a.
And this thing right here is on the on the corner of our
block that we've we've learned to deal with it.
But this thing right behind us is going to is going to be
overlooking our backyard inside of our windows.
There's a big giant tree that holds a lot of wildlife and
he says he no not going to remove the tree for parking or
whatever.
I. That's that's most likely going to go to and that's
going to that's just going to.
Our privacy is just going to be absolutely gone.
And we're going to be able to just go back to the building
and replace that.
The trees like now the apartment complex is there. It's
just totally invasive.
We were out in our backyard all the time.
Got the sprinkler out there in the pool. And that's just
not going to happen with a.
The
Well over a year with with all the construct.
We we don't even know what it's going to be like when the
people start moving in and parking lot, the doors slamming,
the noise, the music.
And it's you can tell me it's a family friendly place, but
we know darn well that students are going to move in there
as they have in this place on the corner.
And and behind us, I'm it's says right there on your other
slide ideal for students and even says it right there.
It's not escaping us that students will be there.
Students are loud.
We were I'm just telling you my story because this is
getting out of hand.
We're something like that does happen where we've got to go
again somewhere where we could have some sort of resemb
lance of a family life.
And in that neighborhood, there is families around us on
both sides of us in back of us.
That's just out of place that that would be just he says it
would fit right in.
Sorry, I don't know your name.
But it would just just does not go.
Will not go no matter what. I mean, what angle you use to
try to get that in there.
It's just it just doesn't.
That's my personal story. I can't speak for anybody else
because, you know, nobody else bothered to show up.
But that is our story.
My time is your time.
I appreciate your comments.
All right, go. We have a question for you, Commissioner
Beck.
Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry.
What was your last name again? Sutcliffe Sutcliffe.
Thank you, Mr. Sutcliffe, for taking the time to come down
and speak.
If I could get hang on there, Julie, if you could come back
up and put the proposed zoning map on the on display for me
.
I want to ask Mr. Sutcliffe question.
Yeah, that one.
That better.
Yeah.
Well, OK. Where's your can you take the cursor and point to
your house, Mr. Sutcliffe?
OK.
Next one.
OK, so you're not right up against the apartments that are
on the corner.
Is that correct?
You're one lot down from where the apartments are.
Well, it's not directly behind us. OK, OK.
Let me ask you this.
And my question is, the lots that are still in DR one to
your knowledge, are those single family residential or
those just families living in there?
They've been converted to student housing.
All the houses, proper houses are family houses.
They have family.
They haven't been converted to.
No, no, it's the new buildings that are like better
students, singles.
OK, thank you, sir.
Any other questions?
Thank you, sir, for bringing your comments.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to speak for or against this
project, please come forward at this time.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Hudspeth.
Yeah.
I think.
One, I still think it's early.
I was getting closer to peace with early.
But Dave has a point and there's been no there's of the
points made.
When you're talking about someone looking into the back of
your yard.
So now it's almost like there's no there's been no
explanation for that caveat.
It's there's there's one thing to say, hey, it fits.
There's one thing to say we're in front of the power curve.
It's another thing to say to me, I liken it to when you're
in school and you're in the lunch line and you tell
somebody, hey, you can't cut in front of me, but you're
going to have back cuts.
Right. So you're you're telling the person behind you, hey,
I don't I don't value your opinion that much.
And so I think there's nothing that mitigates that to me
unless we add a caveat that that multifamily either stays
one story or there's some mitigation at the back that
protects Dave to fully use his backyard.
Because otherwise he's absolutely right.
There's some sort of balcony, there's some sort of window
that's looking right down in the back of his yard.
And I have to be OK with saying, hey, Dave, I'm going to
let Mickey have back cuts in front of you.
And I don't think that's right.
And I'm probably outside looking in, but I would challenge
the other commissioners to justify that and do it at your
house.
So imagine you lose the use of your backyard because the
property in front of you is staring down at your backyard.
And if you're at peace with that, then then you're
different than me.
I'm not I wouldn't be OK with that.
So unless there's some sort of mitigation to go in place
flat zoning as is because the way I rationalize it, looking
at the zoning as is, it's not my fault.
If I sign on saying, hey, this is OK, then I'm accepting
that it's OK for apartment to be to look in the back of
Dave's yard.
And I'm not OK with that. So that's where I fall.
Just as a point of order, we could not do an overlay on
this project because we don't have a commercial component
that we're buffering.
OK.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I would suspect to you know, Mr. Sutcliffe is the only one
that came to the meeting that they're probably just about
every other one person that lives in that neighborhood that
lives in a single family home probably has similar
sentiments.
And that's why I've always had a problem with the
notification issue.
We don't always seem to get the feedback that's really out
there.
But that being said, I would like to make a motion that we
deny this zone change request.
Commissioner Roselle.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Sutcliffe, for coming out and speaking and the
Patterson's for presenting.
It's an interesting predicament when an individual comes
with a zoning change and one person shows up against it and
it's the neighbor.
Because your concerns are valid and a lot of ways right.
But it's hard for me as a commissioner to hear the
testimony of one person, albeit the closest person, it
seems, and make the decision based on one person.
And I'm certainly not going to assume that any other
neighbor believes the same thing without them saying
something.
I think that's a dangerous assumption to make.
I don't know what they think.
And if we send that logical argument to its end, well, I
wouldn't want that in my backyard.
So probably the entire city's against this, right, if we
extend it.
And so I don't feel like we can say with any kind of
confidence what any other neighbor thinks.
It would just be an assumption on our part.
That being said, there's nothing else like it around.
There's nothing else looking in your backyard currently.
So it does change the landscape of your quality of life.
And so that's that certainly has some import to my decision
.
The greater scope, though, is just looking at this
neighborhood, the precedent, it seems, set that within a
stone's throw, 30 feet, there's there's a massive apartment
complex.
And to Commissioner Hutz's point about being ahead of the
power curve, if that assumes I'm not sure what a power
curve means, forgive me.
But if there's a momentum shift of this neighborhood,
someone's going to be first.
And so it's hard to put the onus on them that they're early
.
Maybe actually they're at the beginning of that power curve
.
Maybe they're the instance that actually propels what you
believe is a foregone conclusion already into place.
I just don't know about that either.
I know I'm being vague here.
I think it could go either way.
That being said, seeing that this block has already started
the momentum of changing on the northwest corner, the
southwest corner, even up Neff Street on the east side,
those are duplexes, but it changes the character of the
street, albeit not from a zoning perspective, from an
aesthetics perspective for sure.
Neff Street, it looks like, is evolving into just a more
dense type of living area.
So I say that all to say I'm interested in the other
commissioners thoughts.
I appreciate very much.
So I'm not undermining what you're thinking.
I just want you to know that the tension I have is I don't
know what anyone else thinks.
And I fear one property owner having so much power over
another property's owners ability to act on their property.
They've they've purchased the property.
And so they they have some authority over what can be built
within the purviews of zoning.
So there's a tension there.
What do you want for your property?
And then how greater impacts the city.
And so it's certainly kind of a sticky situation, but it
seems like precedent has begun to be set in the area.
That's all I got.
McCall on a Julie.
I'm going to have a couple of comments to pull up our
Google Earth again.
And I'd like for you to pull up in our map here.
It shows a structure to the west of this project right here
.
If you can go across the street on our map, it shows.
No, to the west, the apartment community that you have up,
if you'll just turn the street view 180 degrees and look
west, that's no longer there.
It's unfortunately it's OK now.
It just disappeared.
Well, magic.
Tomorrow might be a great day.
I'm going to try that when I get up in the morning and tell
them what might happen.
So I appreciate you pulling this up because I am torn also,
like Commissioner Roselle says, in regards to the map, the
testimony.
And yet I don't know who ever is going to be first versus
whose last.
First is there on the corner.
I think next is across the street.
It has been cleared.
It's obviously no longer single family.
The likelihood that single family will be built there, I
think, is zero.
It's it's D.R. 2 in North Texas area.
And I think, unfortunately, that's just the reality of
where we are.
And I think as you pan down the street, if you look to the
north, there's apartments there.
There's apartments being built further down.
It is a transitional neighborhood.
I understand that it is very invasive for single family.
And yet there is development and redevelopment taking place
across the street, probably getting ready to take place
across the street again.
And I'm torn because we have before us many times as a
commission, we don't want it here. We want it over there.
Well, now it's over there and I don't know that I want it
over there.
And so I'm I think I'm leaning to with just driving by and
take a look at what was around there that, you know,
even though it may be contrary to staff's suggestion that,
you know, to to rezoning, but I do think it's transitioning
and I think it's that's direction that it's that it's going
to go.
So I appreciate you pulling this up to be able to take a
look at it for everybody as to what is really going on over
there in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair.
So this is the intersection of a lot of things we we have
generally zoned to this area.
We've changed the zoning one or two lots at a time in this
area, mainly along Eagle.
The apartments that came in, we might have the occasional
apartment that would be 10 or 15 lots and maybe two or
three zoning categories that would change.
But inside along Fannin Street and Margie and trying to see
what all there is what there is over here.
I can remember cases along all of these where the first
house on the block was rezoned and then two more lots went
or the lot that backed up to it went.
So this area is is has been slowly transitioning for at
least 15 years or more.
And I realize that there there can be some stable
neighborhoods with rentals.
But typically the investment that protects the neighborhood
is with owner occupied houses.
And there are just a tiny handful. I'm flipping through the
tax rolls here and about 10 houses, 12 houses a block,
maybe one in 10 or one in 15 is owner occupied.
And about half the addresses are somewhere else in town and
half the addresses are out of state out of the country.
There's a there's a row of those giant duplexes at the end
of Neff.
They're owned by somebody that lives in Venezuela or
something.
So I think we I feel like this area is going to be going to
transition no matter what we can slow it down and we can
say the lot on the corner has to go first.
But I don't think that really helps.
I also worry that frankly those 5000 square foot two story
duplexes are probably a worse option than an apartment, a
small apartment with a maximum 40 feet or 45 feet in height
.
So so I feel the pain for I feel your pain of having a
development coming behind you.
I've experienced that myself and it made me move from where
I was renting at the time. But I I don't think there's
anything that would stop the development here.
And I think it would be better to have a smaller higher
quality, a small high quality apartment complex than
somebody maximizing a duplex on these on these lots.
And you'd have the same problem with the multi story duplex
right behind you as well.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I have been on the fence, you know,
since I started reading all the material on this in driving
the area a couple of times.
I think even though it's it's dear one, I think those
clusters of duplexes on the corners are already pushing the
limit of where this area is going to this higher density.
I would hate to see this this not redeveloped and this sit
vacant to Commissioner Taylor's point.
I think it is in transition and the transition is to go to
the air to and higher density.
I fully understand your comments. I know that the building
heights don't vary that that much.
It's five feet difference. It's 40 feet with the air. One
forty five with the air to.
But I am leaning in support of this because I do see that
it would it would fit with where the area is heading.
Commissioner Hodge with.
Thank you. Just again, I've heard the comments and and I'll
I'll take that.
I'll use that last little nugget if if the height
difference doesn't matter that much, then it doesn't matter
that much to change it.
Right. So either the height height difference matters or
does not.
And if I grab that quote, you said the height doesn't doesn
't matter.
Then I agree with you. It doesn't matter.
And so I would leave it as is personally just because it's
not that big of a difference.
And I again, we all agree that it's the area is changing.
No one's disagreeing with that. I've not heard anyone.
And I again, I'm certain I'm outside looking in. I did
second Commissioner Beck's motion to deny.
But I've not heard anyone. Commissioner Taylor mentioned he
's been victim of it and he moved.
But I've not heard anyone.
I guess by not saying that you are saying you're okay with
that dynamic of someone building something that looks
directly into the end of the neighbor's home.
But I'll tell you, there's nothing on that block currently
built that says that does that.
There's nothing anywhere in that area that simulates what
they're up against conceding it's going that way.
My only point is one, it hadn't been done to anyone on the
block anywhere in there yet.
Two, if everyone lives in all these different states and
all these different places,
then I find it interesting that they wouldn't be on board
for signing up to partner up with them and giving their
thumbs up.
I mean, they live elsewhere. It's an investment property.
They're all in.
Where are they? So I'm assuming they have businesses. I'm
assuming they have business numbers.
I'm assuming they have all these points of access, but
somehow they're missing as well.
So my point is simply point for point, we can agree the
area's transitioned.
We can agree it's coming. My point is this is in the middle
of the block, it's not the place to start.
My point is I didn't set the zoning for that corner, and
that corner lot does not look in anyone's yard.
And so I'd love to, I mean, we'll vote and we'll be done.
But that's my point, that no one's addressed the fact that
or not, in my humble opinion, made it okay,
that this is going, we're going to launch in the middle of
a street that has a direct vantage point.
And renting or not, I don't think, I mean, they're going to
lose their backyard to some degree.
And I count, get back to four, well, I lost my, no, it didn
't, here we go.
There are, let's see, on the back of that vacant lot, there
's one, two, three, four structures.
You call that one a garage.
So three structures that are going to volunteer their
backyard for this project.
And there's no other backyards in that neighborhood.
You can Google street, you can Google earth, you can aerial
all you want.
This will be the launching point for looking in people's
backyard.
They'll have a shot at Avenue A and they'll have a shot at
Greenlea's backyard, depending on what kind of structure
goes there.
So that's my only concern.
That's why I'm not supporting it.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thanks, Chair.
To your point, Commissioner, I think the property first
shown on the corner certainly looks into a couple of back
yards.
There's no windows on the end?
That's my assumption.
But I guess moreover to Commissioner Ellis's point, the
property owners right now could build a 40-foot building
right now.
And that would ostensibly ruin their backyard, is what you
're saying.
So it's not that by us approving this, we're systematically
ruining the individual's backyard.
That has the potential to be ruined, quote unquote,
regardless of this vote.
So if the deny goes through as you're voting, that doesn't
protect them from someone looking into their backyard.
I hope that's known that you're not protecting their
backyard by this denial.
True.
It would just be changing the scope in which the individual
is.
I mean, if they're running a duplex or part of a complex.
I've got one final question for staff.
I'm going to call on Menal to come up.
And I just want to throw it and ask your professional
opinion.
I think you hear the direction we're going on the mid-block
rezone.
I'd like to get your perspective on it.
A couple of things, I'd like to preface the answer with a
couple of statements that were brought up that staff or the
planning division has re-zoned several properties,
perhaps mid-block or at specific hard corners.
And that's been going on, and that's a trend that you've
seen.
However, if we look back a little bit, we've revisited that
methodology, so to speak, or that pattern and discerned
that we have a couple of issues that we need to take under
consideration.
One primarily being the integrity of existing neighborhoods
or zoning districts.
To follow that, we're also talking about small area plans.
We've been talking about what the activity associated with
that would be.
So when we visit this property and what's come before us in
terms of the analysis that the planning division has
conducted,
it's primarily based on we're taking a piece of a puzzle
out of a puzzle that's already built and leaving a bit of a
hole in there,
assuming that there will be vertical integration of some
type.
So some of that is assumption based.
And then it goes back to the bigger question that P&Z
raised with us several times is, why don't we look at
zoning from a cohesive standpoint?
Why don't we take bigger parcels and zone them together?
So putting that whole puzzle together, that is why you see
the recommendation of the planning division saying that at
this time,
I think the better way to put it is that it is not feasible
from a planning perspective to rezone this property.
And although you've mentioned that uses are very similar,
for example, or building heights are very similar when we
talk about zoning and the cohesiveness of the zoning
pattern,
that's the analysis that was conducted based on this.
I definitely agree that there are a lot of concepts out
there.
I also agree that there are separations.
You can create physical separations by street.
You can create physical separations by structure.
In this case, we don't have that solid line as it relates
to the subject property in association with what's around
them, abutting them.
That was the -- did I answer your question?
I attempted to.
I think you're doing a good job on providing staff's
perspective.
I guess I'm struggling a little bit with supporting staff's
perspective with the apartments already on the corner, I
guess the southwest corner,
and all of this going on across the street is -- why is it
so different?
Why is the one lot over with all that's going on around it
-- where do you draw the line of this is neighborhood and
this is multifamily when it seems to be somewhat intertw
ined?
Absolutely intertwined, perhaps based on the DR2 districts,
keeping in mind that we also have a development code that's
online.
So you've got so many parameters that are at play or so
many moving parts right now.
If there is a use that needs to be developed and we're
talking about .4 acre, then perhaps that ingenuity needs to
be broadened or expanded to take in a little more maybe in
terms of property area or lot area.
This is already subject to the small area plan that we are
currently initiating.
Since we're in public session, can we get an insight as to
the small area plan direction?
Is it going DR2?
Is it going DCG?
Well, we're still at the beginning phases.
Of course, we're going to take public input.
We're going to do some outreach to the neighborhood and see
how they want to see this area develop.
But what we can say at this point is that this area is
included in the study area boundary.
And so how it turns out is going to be dependent on the
feedback that we get from that area of the community.
Okay.
There you have your presentation.
Super.
So, yes, we do have the small area plan that's under
consideration, so to speak.
Looking at the aerial imagery that we have before us, the
abutting uses are primarily residential in nature too.
Chair?
Commissioner Rossello.
I just wanted to pick up on all this brain while you're
here.
Okay.
The small area plan.
Can you help me out?
If it is the direction of the small area plan to -- I don't
know how to word this.
Could they override what we change or deny tonight by a
zoning change?
So the small area plan is a vision.
It's a visioning document.
Through that, you can design patent books and you can
establish specific criteria or an implementation plan.
Then you establish your design criteria or your development
patent associated with that.
If there then is a need to rezone to bring everything back
into -- that's when -- are we altering -- the question then
is,
is this zoning case going to alter the land use patent of
immediate or adjacent uses?
And do we have a timeline on the small area plan?
It is approximately at a minimum an 18-month program due to
the public involvement that we're going to have with it.
So we're looking at the beginning of 2019?
So we are looking at --
Mid-19?
End of 2018 probably.
Okay.
Thank you.
But again, our initiative is to make sure we start bringing
things back to how you as a PNZ have visioned -- have done
your visioning with us,
highlighted several issues to us as well, which we concur
with as well to a great extent.
I mean, I'm sure we disagree on certain things, but --
Never.
Never, absolutely.
But from a basic framework standpoint, whenever we've
talked about what are we doing, what are we protecting,
what integrity are we maintaining, that's the fundamental
conversation.
Unfortunately, the timeline is so long on the front end. I
mean, if we had direction of a small area plan, this
discussion might be a little bit more guided from a
neighborhood standpoint.
Sure.
And Commissioner Reza, one of the things that when we look
at this property, we're talking about two parcels that are,
you know, they're in between.
They're not at specific hard corners.
They're at specific hard corners or slightly -- you know,
it's not even slightly removed. Then you can somehow vision
that there will be a domino effect or it would create the
impetus.
In this case, you're looking at two lots that are adjacent
or have abutting residential uses.
So what is the impetus?
Is the impetus to then have the entire area erode, which is
then not consistent with us saying we need to also maintain
the integrity of well-established older neighborhoods or
homes.
So it's a bit of a difficult -- it's a difficult decision.
Well, can you tell me how the southwest corner and
northwest corners are not that very impetus on the hard
corners to forward momentum into zoning?
If I'm not mistaken, when we look at the hard corners, I'm
actually referring to these and these right here.
As like an entrance into that street.
So it's like a micro gateway into something that could
potentially be eroding, but is there an opportunity then to
protect that erosion?
Or if we don't envision the erosion, then it goes back to
the whole component of should we evaluate block by block?
In terms of neighborhood integrity, does the staff view
owner, occupied versus rental, single family detached
differently?
No.
Owner occupied or rented property, it's still -- you've
still got that land use component.
Is it single family residential, for example?
One of the elements that we will be visiting is we
understand that there is a high rental market or rental
housing rate.
But then we have to understand how are we going to then
ensure that the infrastructure accommodates those types of
product as well as regular single family product.
Owner home, owner occupied.
Okay.
Thank you.
We have a motion before us.
Any other discussion for our call for a vote on the board?
I'm going to call on Commissioner Beck to restate your
motion and then take a vote.
I motion that we deny the zone change.
Okay.
And with that we have a first and a second for denial.
And we'll call for a vote on the board.
So a vote yes is to support the denial and a vote no would
be against the denial.
We'll call for a vote on the board.
The motion is going to fail four to two.
Commissioner Taylor.
I move we recommend approval to the City Council of the re
zone of this property.
Okay.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I will second.
You beat me by half a hair.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
The motion is going to carry four to two.
That will move us to our final agenda item tonight, future
agenda items.
Anybody have any?
I've got one.
I'd like -- forgive the wording.
I haven't spent a lot of time crafting this.
But I would like to explore in a work session soon the
possibility of adding to the cases that come before us the
financial aspects of projects being a couple fold.
I'm going to pull a controversial one that was before us.
A couple weeks ago, part seven, for example.
I think it would be helpful at least to me that when we
have projects like that coming before us that we have the
economic impact of what those projects bring to our city.
That that's added to all of the other things that are
covered in our presentation.
So when we're looking at properties that may have a tax
value of a few hundred thousand dollars versus 30-plus
million, what does that mean on a year by year, 10 years in
property taxes?
What does a 300-bed unit that's a thousand dollars per unit
in street impact fees, building permit fees, those types of
things.
And I would like to have that discussed in work session if
we can have those things, how those can be covered and
added as part of the presentations that are brought to us.
And how that economic impact may or may not play into some
of the decisions that come before this commission.
Are you talking about any application or just rezoning?
I know the one that you were talking about was a rezone
case, I believe.
Well, I don't know the correct.
Because we're not supposed to take into account the actual
project in a rezone case.
And that seems to be the one you're targeting.
Well, it was certainly taken into account in that one, and
so I'm just curious how we do it.
I'm not putting the framework around how staff does it.
I'm just using that as a test case.
I don't know the correct parameters that you use for it,
whether it's just in zoning or whether it's in site plans
or however it's done.
But I think at no time since I've served on this commission
do we ever come forth with what are the financial impacts
of the cases that come before us.
Whether we can talk about it in zoning or not, it's just
not a part of the decision making process or the backup
that comes before our commission.
And I don't know how that gets implemented or whether it
can.
And that's why I was wanting to talk about it in work
session, if that's a possibility for us.
And then if it is, under what parameters would that be done
?
That was long winded, but anyway, sorry.
We'll have to discuss it and then get with you to clarify,
narrow it down.
Fair enough. Thank you.
Commissioner Rozelle.
Thank you, Chair.
I would love to know more about small area plans.
We have a couple of pending updates for small area plans.
We kind of had one impromptu tonight, and Commissioner
Ellis asked for one.
But I would like to know kind of a tally on where small
area plans exist and if there's designated definitions or
directions that those small area plans help us guide our
decision.
I know a while ago the Ector Street area was encouraged to
create a small area plan.
I just don't know the process, is that always citizen
initiated and where's the education piece that staff or
commission can provide citizens to small area plans?
But they seem extremely helpful to what the neighborhood
wants in a lot of cases.
And so there's a way we can promote that more or streamline
the process.
I would just like a breakdown as detailed as possible about
small area plans and where they stand in the city.
Anybody else?
Okay. With that, I'm going to close our PNC meeting tonight
at 845.
Thank you, everyone.