.
,
Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and
zoning commission
work session meeting for June the 14th. It is 530 and this
meeting has been duly
posted and we have a quorum present and I will call us to
order at this time. Our
first order of business will be to receive a clarification
of agenda items
this evening and I will turn that over to Manal for
presentation. Thank You
Chairperson Strange. If there are any questions associated
with the minutes or
any corrections that staff needs to make we'll be willing
to take input at this
time. Seeing none we can move on to the consent agenda item
. We have a final
plat for Country Lakes West and Julie Wyatt will present
that for us. We saw
this preliminary plat a couple of meetings ago so this is
just the final
plat for the Country Lakes West third phase. This is the
last phase of this
subdivision and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner
Ellis. Thank You
Chair. Julie just a quick question as I was reading through
this. I noticed all
the X lots are noted in in the notes except 18 X is not in
the notes. Is it
supposed to be in line five perhaps? Or at least I couldn't
find it with my eyes.
So is it okay you know I I had to go through these with a
highlighter as well
so 18 X in the drawing. Yes it's between 17 and what is
that 80 something. So I'm
sorry you're asking. Well I don't see it in the notes as
the other X lots so I
don't know if it needs to be in the notes but that's that's
just what I'm. You're
right it does it's in the title block but you're right it
should be in the
notes and I'll I'll let the applicant know and make sure to
correct that before
it's recorded so thank you. Thank you.
Any other questions on this item? Thank You Julie. All
right thanks.
The next item is a final plot for Hickory Creek detention
addition. Is the
planner on this one? Does the Commission have any questions
regarding this plot?
I have a question on it. Okay.
While you're pulling it up I'll go ahead and ask my
question. Is this in regards
to I want to say it's been several years ago for some sewer
age facilities that
eventually get built here? Yes it's the wastewater. I was
wondering why it was
detention and that was the only reason I guess it's almost
like in case there's a
failure of the storage facilities that's what this is for.
Yes this is a water
wastewater facility. Yes Jim why don't you come in and come
to the microphone.
Good evening everyone I'm Jim Jenks with the DRC
engineering department. Yeah this
is basically a city project and it's a wet weather storage
and pumping facility.
Basically when we get a wet weather event and we get more
infiltration into
our lines this is basically serving as a wide spot in the
line to accommodate
those peaks so it's a it's a large tank and pump station
for pumping it back into
the collector sewer. Okay thank you sir. You may also have
any questions. Thank you sir.
Thank you.
Chairperson Strange do you want to handle the agenda based
on our revised items?
Let's do it that way. We'll have one dry run on getting it
right. Would you
like me to go over what we've switched? Sure. Okay the
chair has made some
changes in the order of the items to be heard during public
hearing just for
everybody's identification both our viewing audience and
our listening
audience here. Item 4A has now become 4B. 4B has become 4C.
4C will now be
4F. 4D will remain as 4D. Item E will remain as E. Item F
will become A and a
note on item F the applicant will be requesting a continu
ance to the June
28th meeting and item G will remain as item G and with that
we can go ahead and
dive into the plat discussion for the final replat. I beg
your pardon we can
talk again I messed up the order here. If we will go to
item 4B which is going to
be FR170002. This is Haley's case at Shady Oaks Industrial
Park. If there any
questions associated with that we'd be happy to address
those. Commissioner Beck.
Thank you chair. Yeah I just briefing question. We've got
one lot here that has
several businesses on it. I believe we've got one lot where
Roven Incorporated
sits on one of these newer divisions. Workforce Solutions
of North Central
Texas and then a third building that houses a Brockman
Premier Insurance PMI
Metroplex and United Way. So is this being divided to
accommodate
these individual businesses and concerns here? Yes and
speaking with the
applicant my understanding is they were previously leasing
these spaces out and
now they've decided to subdivide in the instance that these
individual
businesses desire to purchase the lots. Okay. Any other
questions on this
item? Thank you. Haley you might want to stay because you
're next again and that
is the Razor Ranch Town Center replant. I think you should
walk us through this
one Haley. All right. Yes so this is a replant of lot 10 R
for Razor. As you can see
there are several pages here so let me get to see this
sheet three actually
shows best what's going on here. So lot 10 R is was
previously one large lot and
the intent of this replant is to split out three out parc
els that will now be
lots 22, 23, and 24 I believe. I'm sorry 23, 24, and 25. So
its intent is to create
these three out parcel lots along the I-35 frontage road.
Commissioner Back. Thank you Chair. Is that the intent of a
large lot like this
then is to just parcel this out gradually or is that what
we're to
anticipate as time goes on then? That's been the trend. Yes
sir that's been the
typical pattern for Razor Ranch so in many cases you know
they'll create it as
several large lots and then as individual businesses come
in and seek
ownership of their parcels they can subdivide. Okay I'm
always interested in
what's gonna be built there do we know that now is that
something I can ask now?
I'm not aware of what these lots are for. No. Well I
noticed that is it 25
the tiny lot it's about half of what the other ones are. 23
. The southern most lot.
So what is the size of that? Not off the top of my head but
we can
find out. So 23 is just over a half acre. Okay thank you.
Commissioner Roselle.
Thank you Chair. I'm just curious about how to this is all
in a PD right? This is
there's a zoning overlay. It's an overlay but that doesn't
have any effect in
replatting that still they come to us like a general replat
. Yeah the
overlay is primarily for design criteria. Gotcha thanks.
Any other questions for
Hayley? Thank you Hayley. Thank you. The next item would be
FR 170009. This is
Mosey Brias's case and it is a replat of lots 11R1 and 2
block A of
Ridge of Southridge and an additional replant on that. Mose
y
would you please explain this replant? This is a replat
they're dividing one
lot into two lots. It's in the Ridge of Southridge subdiv
ision and it was
previously two lots but they the applicant the owner did an
amended plat
to remove one of the lot lines in between lot 11 and lot 12
of the Ridge
of Southridge subdivision and then they now they're coming
into dividing into two
lots again. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. So in all
likelihood block A is
probably going to be sold as a residential. The lot 11R?
Yes. Yes I'm
sorry the bottom. The bottom is already a single-family
residential home.
For residential. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan.
Thank you. So they're just redoing what it was to begin
with? No.
They're slightly changing the lot configuration. Okay that
's fine. I'm just wondering why they went from one to two
back to one or whatever. Thank you.
Ms. Aver, I believe you're next as well with item E FR 17
0005. It's another
replant of the East Ponder Estates. Are there any questions
associated with this
replant? Seeing none we will now go to item F which is a
replant of the Walmart
addition. Julie Wyatt would you please come and do a
presentation on this one?
All right sorry about that.
All right so this is the Walmart addition. It's located on
loop 288. It's in an RCC
in zoning district. The intent of the replant is to divide
this lot into
large lot into two. I'm cutting off this corner here and
for commercial
development. Commissioner Beck. Thank You Chair. Julie just
for the sake of our
audience that may be viewing us and is on record. There's a
lot of public
concern about this picture lot because of the tree so our
hands are essentially
tying as far as salvaging those trees so could you kind of
address that why PNC
is not going to be able to? I will try and then I may call
others up to amend my. So
this lot this plat does meet the technical requirements of
the Denton
Development Code and all requirements for the City of Dent
on and so in that
respect then yes it is it is just it's approvable in its
form but there were
questions regarding the trees and I'll certainly answer any
questions that I
can or I don't there are some trees on this lot that there
are some concerns
about. What are they obligated as far as salvaging trees?
They'll have to meet the
current Denton Development Code requirements for tree
preservation when
when they come to develop and and Julie may I interject?
Yes. Commissioner Beck
thank you for asking that question. For the edification of
our audience and our
PNC members I've actually provided a memo to the chair as
well regarding this
lot there has been several questions that have arisen as it
results as it
relates to the tree stand located on this subject property.
The question that
came forward was or the statements that came forward was
that this tree stand
and this area is protected and that the trees cannot be
removed. It is not just
with this item that we have been doing research in fact
staff conducted a very
thorough research of this tree stand of this property of
the original replat for
the Walmart edition of the general development plot that
was submitted for
this development of the plat and the plat notes and there
is no documentation
in the form of an agreement between property owners and the
city or between
or any documentation or conditions in the zoning ordinance
when the zoning
change occurred for the subject property which is the
entire Walmart site now
this which includes the subject site right now and so the
trees are not
protected. There was also discussion as it relates to well
there was an existing
tree preservation ordinance that existed and prevailed at
the time that the
Walmart site was developed. Well yes absolutely there was a
landscaping
screening and preservation ordinance I believe in 1995.
However that ordinance
did not require preservation. It actually said try to work
with the
topography of the site and accommodate the trees but it did
not require it. Now
as we fast forward to now which is 2017 we have a current
tree preservation
ordinance that requires preservation and mitigation and it
's really a 25%
preservation slash mitigation requirement which is split
into twelve
and a half percent which we've discussed in the past. So at
the end of the day the
applicant although this is a property that was plotted in
the past that you
know technically may not have to comply with certain
requirements it is now
complying with the current tree preservation requirements
and there is
nothing in our ordinances or any documentation that
supports that the
trees cannot be removed. Thank you that was very thorough
and I appreciate that. I mean
I'm looking at this lot and based on what I think is going
there including
the parking and everything I don't see them being able to
preserve any trees and
again there's nothing we can do about that. It will
mitigate, it will go into a tree fund but I'm not sure how
they could put a
raising develop commercial development in there with
parking everything and manage
the way those trees are located. Is that a fair assessment?
So what we're looking at
tonight and on the agenda is a plat any other development
regulations as it
relates to lot coverage, building height, tree preservation
, tree mitigation, tree
relocation for example that will come at the time of site
plan. Site plans are
not the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission so if
the site plan
complies with the Denton Development Code it will proceed
forward but just
for edification it is my understanding that they will be
able to comply with
preservation with mitigation and perhaps some relocation of
trees. Okay thank you.
Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair. I know that there were
some some emails and
I believe that our legal advisor gave an opinion. Is that
public or is that? I
believe it was released publicly. Okay so I just want to
touch touch on a few
things that were in that in that opinion. The the issue of
vested rights was
brought up because this was this development was plotted in
some time in
the 90s. 95. And so they would follow the 1995 would they
be expected to follow
the 1995 tree ordinance? There was a tree ordinance not
necessarily true
preservation ordinance but that was adopted in 1988 and
that would have been
the code provisions that would have been applicable to the
property at the time
that it was actually rezoned. It was rezoned and plotted
the same year. Okay and
so I this isn't really for this case this is just generally
what triggers the
application of new ordinances if you have if you have a
development an
existing development and an undeveloped area in the in the
subdivision and you
replat does that trigger or is it because you have a
general development
plan for it's a good question. The the answer is that
anytime there's a new
project and if it's the same project in a series that are
the same permit of a
series of permits for the same project then that's when the
vested rights
occurs. If it's a different project that's when the vested
rights may or may
not apply. Typically when there's a rezoning is when you
lose those vested
rights. So a rezone the rezone almost definitely uses
vested rights. So if you
have a lot that is like in a general development plan is
vacant like just an
empty lot and at some point ten years later or twenty years
later you replat it
and prepare it for development is that considered the same
product or is that
no longer the same project? That's no longer the same
project. So to keep the
vested rights you'd have to have a general development plan
or something
and abide by it yeah that that indicated you know lot
whatever is for commercial
correct okay and so same thing in in a same thing would
apply in like a
residential area if you had if a lot if an residential area
is platted then they
like in 2016 they would abide by the 2016 tree ordinances
for building those
single-family homes. Yes. And so you might even have like a
residential
developments platted in 1980 and there are ten lots that
never got built out
but they would still comply with the 1980 version.
Specifically with tree
ordinances because those are some of the zoning ordinances
that we have are an
exemption to the vested rights work or statute which is
under 245 of the local
government code. In particular that statute carves out
trees and lot
coverage I believe and a few other things that cannot be
exempted out
through zoning requirements so that's going to be included
in the vested
rights. But if a zoning so a 1980 lot just to continue this
this exercise a
1980 lot was SF3 or whatever that zoning designation was
and it had a you know no
lot coverage provisions the the rezone in 2002 makes it NR3
it now has some
lot coverage does it does lot coverage apply does the new
lot coverage apply or
is it still the 1980 no they would have to file for a
vested rights
determination under our code. Okay. I can't really say
because it's okay so
it's kind of specific but okay all right yeah so that I
think that's that's
enough information I was just when I when I first read the
opinion I was
worried that any replat would always fall under the
original subdivision and
almost everything's already been divided at some point. I
didn't I didn't go to
that because it wasn't in direct response to the question
now so I'm glad
you asked that question. Thank you. Any other questions on
this
item? I think you're doing G also aren't you? Yes Julie's
doing G too. Okay change out gotcha.
G is the zoning case. Yes it is. So this is Z 17-2. So the
request before you is to
consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding
a rezoning for a
some for property situated in the southeast part of Denton.
It's 29 acres
and it is bounded by I-35 Lakeview Boulevard and then also
the DCTA that
the railroad corridor in the in the rails to trails. The
current zoning on
the property is RCR 1 and sort of the light lavender and
then RCCD in the
more purple. The proposed is a commercial use is kind of a
large retail
establishment. So when we looked at the request we looked
at the compatibility
of the request in this surrounding area and we specifically
looked at the uses
as well as the zoning. So we first looked at what was
really really close to the
subject property around 200 feet. So adjacent to the
property you have RCCD
that's adjacent to I-35. You also have some additional RCR
1 and then a plan
development which is a residential plan development to the
north of the subject
property. Within that plan development it does have
residential single-family
residential lots as well as this treed area is an open
space lot that has to
remain per the plan development and there's a park right
here per the plan
development and then also you can see that railroad
corridor with that rail
to trails. To the south of the subject property is
commercial development
along I-35. So we zoom out a little bit we get to around
500 a buffer of 500 feet
around the subject property. You can see that that that
plan development comes
more into focus. We add in a little NR6 single-family
adjacent to it as well as
some of the open space areas for the the adjacent PDs and
some multi-family. We
also looked at the mobility of the area. Probably the most
significant thing you
see is the I-35 corridor here. You also have Lakeview Boule
vard. It is an
arterial it's actually going to kind of kind of jog and
that arterial is going to
on our mobility plan at some point in the future will
continue north through
Post Oak. There's also Shady Shores is a collector street
and then there's once
again that that alternative transportation mode on the
rails to
trails. Can I ask a question at this time Julie on the
transportation? There's
significant improvements that are being made on the over
pass over 35 from what
has been there in the past. Can you refresh our memory as
to how wide
that's going to be how many lanes it's going to be or u-
turns or how that's
going to be improved? I am not. Jim do you know the
specific I-35 improvements?
I'm gonna call Jim Jinx up. He probably have more specific
information.
I'm afraid I don't have information on the text doc
improvements there to the
ramp but I was asking about the overpass. Right right to
the overpass I'm in. I
don't have that information I'm afraid however Lakeview in
that area will
ultimately be a primary major arterial that's a six lane
divided. Well maybe as
I ask a chair can we between now and when we get in at 630
and before the
sign can we check and find out what text dots improvements
for that overpass are
going to be possibly? Yes sir. Okay thank you. Commissioner
Selva, sign for. I
believe it's going to be a four lane divided because they
had the two lanes
already built out the north side and the south side they're
finishing up now. Okay
and so you got two lanes coming out of the Oakmont area
that's divided I think
those will match up to go across the 35. There be any u-
turns do you know? I
don't see I haven't seen any it didn't look like there's
gonna be any u-turns.
Commissioner Back. Thank You Chair. Just for clarification
too I believe Shady
Shores isn't gonna change any as far as width is that
correct? It will the
traffic it can handle now it will be able to handle the
traffic when the
developments built if it's built? Well we have not seen we
have not reached the
planning stage we have not seen their layout here in the
zoning case. We will
exact what the code would support as far as street
improvements. One thing that
has been discussed is possibly widening the portion of Sh
ady Shores that is
currently unimproved or uncurbed to a right away of 40 foot
back to back.
That's one thing that's been discussed. A portion of Shady
Shores in this area is
improved it has curves the western portion does not.
Between Lakeview and
35 correct? From Lakeview going a little bit west it is
curved and then further
west along Shady Shores to 35 it is not. And again just for
clarification we're
talking about this eventually becoming a six lane road Lake
view that is. That's not
even in the drawing that's not even being drawn up that's
just. No sir but one
of our. That's our ultimate section. Right. But one thing
that has been
discussed for that may be triggered by this project based
on their their impact
would be a traffic signal at the intersection of Lakeview
and Shady
Shores. Thank you. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. I
have a question and
hopefully you can answer someone here could but with the
ownership that
Kroger would have on either side of the street what onus
can we put on them for
improvement or is it ever applicable in which they just
take over the the road
as an internal road to their construction and the city
doesn't have to
worry about the improvements is there any thoughts behind
either one of those?
Well Shady Shores is on our mobility plan as ultimately
being a collector
street so just for for the local mobility there I think we
would want it
to stay as a city street in that designation and again we
we anticipate
exacting a widening and improvement of Shady Shores to 40
foot back to back at
least where it's not curb that would be wide enough to
facilitate one lane in
each direction plus a continuous left turn lane in between.
And do they have
the ability to do that themselves or they we've talked
about in the past what
options they have if because couldn't they do the
improvements and get credits
back for the road impact fees if they do that? Yes sir.
Okay that's all I have.
Thanks. Any other questions on mobility or traffic? Thank
you Jim.
All right so taking all of those factors the adjacent land
uses the the adjacent
zoning and also the mobility we looked at the compatibility
of the request and
the conditions around it. So CMG district is one of our
commercial mixed use
districts. It's intended to provide the necessary retail
service, office, and
some residential uses that are intended to serve the
community. It's kind of
it's a bridge between our more neighborhood scale and use
district of
like the NRMU, NRMU 12 and the more regional zoning
districts and in terms
of uses and scale and that RCCD and those those regional
family of districts.
So this is kind of between that it's that transitional
zoning district. CMG
often requires access to major roadways or at their
intersection of local roads
and arterial streets we want to make sure that there's
access to the sites. And as
I said it is that transitional between that high density
highway development
and the residential development to to the north. This site
in particular
has physical barriers between it and the residential
development. It's got that
rails to trails, it's got the railroad corridor, it's also
got the open
space in the park so it does there is a physical separation
between the site. So
when we looked at that we felt like that this was an
appropriate zoning district
because it's in this it's in this area between the highway
and the residential
development so it provides that that transition. We also
looked at the Denton
plan. This area does is designated as community mixed use.
CMG aligns with that
community mixed use future land use designation. As in CMG
the zoning
district the typical development is is more retail service
office with some
some high density development and and as I said those uses
in CMG do align with
this future land use. So when we look at CMG we wanted to
see where CMG actually
was located within the city of Denton and how it how it
related to not only
access areas of access but also nearby residential
development. So hopefully
y'all can see this but here is so just to orient you here's
here's the loop. We
have I-35E coming here. Here's University so so those are
kind of the big
landmarks and the pink is the areas that we see CMG and so
you can kind of see
those areas where it's typically located. It's typically
located along our
arterials where there's there's access but close to
residential so that so that
neighborhoods and our communities can access it easily.
When you look in the
southern part of Denton you can you can then see it's it's
in this area it's
along I-35 and Teasley and then here is our subject
property. And the intent of
the CMG future land use in this area is to provide some of
those necessary
services for our southeast Denton area where we don't
really have that sort of
neighborhood that community center. We also looked at how
these zoning
districts compared so we'll go over this briefly I won't go
over every use but I
wanted to talk about the intent of why we have those uses.
So I think I think we
kind of understand CMG it's it's intended to be that sort
of mixed use it's sort
of the mid-scale maximum height the 65 feet. RCR 1 is one
of our regional
zoning districts but it's more of the neighborhood regional
district so it's
intended to have commercial uses a mixed use district and
and and residential
uses all together but on a neighborhood scale. RCCD is one
of our highest
zoning districts it's it's got a lot of commercial uses at
a very high intensity
the types of things that you would see on highways. So you
can see here their
residential uses commercial land uses CMG has it has a lot
of commercial land
uses embedded with it as well as do RCR 1 and RCCD.
Industrial land uses
institutional and then building scale so here we've got the
build the maximum
building height of CMG is 65 feet and RCR 1 is 40 feet and
the RCCD it's 100 feet.
So we did send out a public notification for the request
and we've received one
letter in favor I know you've got a lot of letters in your
backup there was a
lot of a lot of neighborhood interest in this request. The
city did have a
neighborhood meeting and they we had quite a few attendees
there wasn't a
real consensus on on the on the feeling of the neighborhood
we had got a lot of
good feedback and and a lot of comments but but there weren
't a lot of the
residential areas that fell within the notification
boundary so that's why the
city went ahead and did that neighborhood meeting so we
could make
sure that we reached out to the neighborhood and made sure
they knew
what was going on. So based upon the future land use the
the area the
location of the property the character of the area we staff
does recommend
approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions.
Commissioner Roselle.
Thank you. Do you know approximately how many people showed
up for that
neighborhood meeting? It was probably around 40 and in your
estimation it was
a split kind of vibe approval denial or can you tell me
more about that? Well
there wasn't an overwhelming feeling on either side we
really did I mean I
didn't I don't know exact numbers but I would say just the
comments that we
received from that group there was it was pretty evenly
divided between those
who are like okay that's fine I just wanted to hear about
it and those who
had concerns about the rezoning. Is it ever appropriate in
those meetings to
actually get a poll or a tally since they don't have the
official
notification just to kind of get more tangible numbers for
the Commission and
Council to say 40 people showed up 30 people said there has
that ever been
done in the past these meetings? I've never seen it. Okay
thank you.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Julie I just had a
quick question with the way
this rail trail comes in there on the north there would a
buffer still be
necessary on this site when developed? The code wouldn't
require it because
there isn't a use adjacent to it that would require that.
Is that something
that could be done when the site plan is discussed? We
could always discuss it
with the applicant it's certainly something that that we
could discuss
with but it we don't have anything in the code that would
require it. Okay
thanks. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. Just a couple
of questions on it
looks like a fair portion of the northern portion part of
this these lots
are in floodplain. Yes sir. Is there does the had the
applicant considered
intentionally leaving a part of that out of the development
to to provide it more
of a buffer? The applicant is here and I think that would
be something that they
could probably answer at the regular session. I know before
they could impact
that area that they would have to get the necessary appro
vals to do it so it's
not they have some work to do on that on that end in order
to if they did want to
impact that area. Yes and there is ESA on the site so they
would have to get if
they wanted to impact that ESA they would have to get City
Council approval
to do it. It would come back to this board and then City
Council approval.
Would it be possible to see the ESA map in there? Sure sure
I can pull that up.
Any other questions for Julie on this item? Thank you Julie
. Okay that is all
the items on our agenda for this evening so at 6 10 I'm
going to close our work
session.
.
, and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning
commission meeting for June 14, 2017.
This meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum
present and I'm going to call us to order at 635.
Our first order of business will be to stand and give the
pledge to the U.S. and the Texas flag.
Our next order of business will be to consider the approval
of our planning and zoning commission meetings for May 24.
I was absent so I'll be abstaining from the vote.
The chair would entertain a motion.
Commissioner back.
Thank you chair.
I move we approve the minutes.
Okay.
Commissioner Ellis.
I will second that.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries five to zero.
I will move us to our consent agenda.
Commissioner Roselle.
I move approval of the consent agenda.
Commissioner Beck.
Second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval of the consent
agenda.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries six to zero.
That will move us to our public hearing section.
We've had a number of changes this evening.
We're going to be changing the order of the items that we
have tonight.
We're going to hear item what was item F first is going to
become our item A this evening,
which is going to be S16-0007.
Do we even open it or just go ahead?
Do we have to have a motion to continue it?
Okay.
So we just ask for a motion.
Okay.
So this item has been requested to be continued by the
applicant to a date certain.
And that date certain is going to be June the 28th.
So the chair would entertain a motion for a continuation to
June the 28th.
Commissioner Roselle.
I move to move agenda items S16-0007 to June 28th.
Okay.
Commissioner Sullivan.
I second that.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for continuance for date
certain of June the 28th.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.
The motion has carried six to zero.
For those of you that have come out this evening, please
come back on June the 28th on that item.
That will move us to what was our item A will now become
our item B.
So I'm going to open the public hearing for FR17-0002.
And I will ask Haley to come down and make a presentation
on that.
Yes, so this is a final replat of the Shady Oaks industrial
park.
It is presently one lot and the purpose of the replat is to
subdivide this into three lots.
All of the lots are currently fully developed with
commercial uses.
And I can answer any questions.
Any questions for Haley?
Thank you, Haley.
This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on this item?
If so, please come forward at this time.
We do ask just as an announcement if you would like to
speak, you can fill out cards.
They're outside the door.
If you haven't filled out one, you can certainly still come
speak.
And then we ask that you fill out a card before you leave.
So is there anyone that would like to come forward on this
item?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I move that we approve FR170002.
Chair will second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on board.
The motion carries six to zero.
We'll move us to what was our item B that is now our item C
.
And I will open the public hearing for FR170008.
We'll call on Haley for presentation of this item.
So this is a final replat for Razor Ranch Town Center.
The intent of the plat is to create three out parcel lots
within what was formerly lot 10R.
That will now become lot 10R2.
And then there will be three out parcels along the I-35
frontage road that will now be lots 23, 24, and 25.
And I can stand for any questions.
Any questions for Haley?
Thank you, Haley.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Taylor?
I move we approve FR170008.
Commissioner Ellis?
I will second.
Okay, we have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries 6 to 0.
We have moved what is our item D will become our item F.
So that will move us down to -- excuse me, item C is now
our F.
Still getting that confused.
Our item D is still going to be our item D.
I'm going to open the public hearing for FR170009 and I
will call on Zabe for presentation.
The request is for a final replat of two lots in the Ridge
of South Trace Subdivision.
It's located at Holly Hill Lane and meets all the subdiv
ision regulations.
I'll stand for any questions if you have any.
Any questions for Muzza?
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner O'Zell?
I move approval of FR170009.
Commissioner Beck?
Second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
I'm going to carry 6 to 0.
We'll move us to our item E.
I'm going to open the public hearing for FR170005 and we'll
call on Muzza for presentation of this item as well.
The request is for a replat of East Ponder State's lot 13
into 6 lots.
The replat meets all the subdivision regulations and I'll
stand for any questions if you have any.
Sorry.
Commissioner O'Zell?
Thank you, Chair.
Just for clarification, this is ETJ.
So if there was to be development on this, they would come
back for another rezoning to move it.
Or can they develop in the R5DX or is it they can develop
in ETJ?
No, they can develop in ETJ.
They can?
Okay.
Any other questions for Muzza?
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to come forward, please do so at this
time.
Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Taylor?
I move we approve FR170005.
Commissioner Beck?
Second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
The motion will carry 6-0.
At this time, we're going to backtrack a little bit and we
're going to revisit item A for some housekeeping.
Since this item is a public hearing, in order to meet the
deadline of the 28th, we do not have enough time to re-not
ice it.
So staff has asked us to come back and open the public
hearing on that.
Ask if anybody wants to speak on it, close the public
hearing or continue the public hearing until June the 28th
so that we can stay on schedule for the requested day to
the 28th.
And we won't have a delay then because we don't have enough
time to re-notice it and give enough time for the meeting
on the 28th.
So excuse us for that.
Let's do a little housekeeping.
So at this time, I'm going to go back and we are going to
open public hearing for item A, S16-0007.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on this item?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and the chair
--
I apologize.
I did not close the public hearing.
I thought I did, but I made a mistake again.
The public hearing is going to stay open and we are going
to have a motion for continuance on the 28th and the
meeting will stay open.
Commissioner Roselle.
I move to continue this agenda item until a date certain
June 28th.
Commissioner Beck.
I think you answered my question.
The three people that were here for this originally got up
and left so they still will be able to speak.
That is correct.
Commissioner Ellis.
I will second the motion.
We have a first and a second to continue the open public
hearing until June 28th on this item.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board.
The motion to continue passes 6-0.
Thank you for allowing us to do that.
Clean this up.
We will now progress to our item, what was C, which has now
become our item F on our agenda this evening.
At this time I am going to open the public hearing for FR17
-0004.
We will call on Julie Wyatt for presentation.
Good evening.
I am Julie Wyatt.
All right.
We have a replat here of the Walmart addition.
The purpose of the replat is to divide one commercial lot
into two commercial lots.
The zoning for the subject property is RCCN and the
property is located on loop 288.
I will stand for any questions.
Any questions for staff?
Seeing none, thank you, Julie.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
Please state your name and address for the record and you
will have four minutes.
Mr. Chair, did I miss it?
Maybe I missed it.
Did you announce that this is supposed to be continued for
two weeks?
Is that the case?
No.
This is not going to be continued.
This is Walmart, right?
This is Walmart.
We have had quite a few changes on our agenda.
This is the Walmart issue.
This is not going to get continued for two weeks?
No.
We are hearing it this evening and it was our item C.
We moved it to the back because we knew we had a number of
folks interested in this item as well.
We had one that was going to be continued and move them to
the beginning.
We shuffled the agenda.
Hopefully everybody's ease.
This didn't mean to be confusing.
This is a Walmart project.
Okay.
Well, it's okay because I did not prepare for since we were
going to continue.
But let me start.
Okay.
Sure.
My name is Brian Bentley.
I live at 2528 Jamestown Lane in Texas 76209.
There has been many items sent in to staff with concerns
about this property, concerns with the 1995 P&Z minutes on
this case.
And what was recorded in those minutes.
But there was a legal opinion letter sent out this week and
it was made public.
It was sent to the city manager.
And that letter I'm going to take issue with.
I find it to be a misleading letter in the way that it's
worded.
And I'll give you some examples.
It says at the time of the 2001 replat there were no tree
preservation requirements in the city.
And in the work session earlier tonight it seems that that
statement really hinges on that word requirement.
You take the word requirement out, it changes the meaning.
There is a sentence the tree preservation regulations are
not adopted until 2004.
Again in the meeting we heard there was landscape and tree
stuff as early as 1988.
And if you take the word preservation out of that sentence,
it changes the meaning.
There is another one.
The minutes of the discussion that took place with the P&Z
back in 1995 do not legally bind the property owner to
preserving trees.
The word minutes is very misleading.
City staff made statements that said the trees were
preserved.
The applicant made statements that the trees were preserved
.
So yes, maybe the minutes, the whole general discussion is
not binding on the applicant.
But when they make a statement and they tell the P&Z and
the P&Z relies on that statement,
then I think we ought to follow it because otherwise why do
we even hold these public hearings?
If you cannot rely on anything that the applicant says,
does, or what public says or does, why are we here?
You can simply look at your books and what's printed in
your books and make the vote without us.
So I have many issues with that.
I have issues with the fact it says that I pointed out that
the tree preservation is calculated based on the entire
Walmart property and not just the lot.
No, I didn't do that.
That is in the staff notes.
The staff did that.
So what is it?
I get pushed off and given the blame for it or, you know, I
'm just crazy, it just came out of the thin air on me.
No, staff did it.
So I have issues with this letter.
I have issues.
I know my time is up.
It's going to be real quick here.
So I'm sorry.
I got to take a breath.
You all know me.
You know I'm passionate about this stuff.
So my issue is not so much the trees.
The city made agreements.
We know the city made agreements.
We know Walmart made agreements.
And Devin Taylor brought up some very good points about
when is the vested -- when does the vesting end and when
does it start?
And as I still understand it, the vested rights are going
to end when this is replatted.
So I'm done.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bentley.
And I would encourage you if you have some concerns about
the letter, I would invite you to get with the city.
I would invite you to get with city staff and let's get
those addressed and make sure that we're all on the same
page.
So thank you for your time and your comments this evening.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
And if you haven't filled out a card, please do so after
you give your comments.
Thank you.
Hi.
Deb Armentar, 2003 Mistywood Lane.
Hi.
I'm concerned about the confusions that the gentleman who
just spoke named.
And looking forward on what ends up happening to this
property, I'm concerned about our tree ordinance,
which is already kind of weak and might be forced to be
even weaker at a time when we need to be strengthening it.
And so I wanted to thank everybody who's been working on
trying to strengthen it and just to underscore that I
believe we really do need that.
And we also need just to follow up on what the gentleman
was just saying, to have trust in the process,
citizens do need a sense of consistency that we're not
getting different legal interpretations for different
petitioners.
So I also just wanted to add that-- I'm trying to think how
best to put this.
I guess I'll just say that in the case of Buckees, there
was a promise that was made by Buckees that they weren't
going to mess with this one environmentally protected area.
Now, I knew at the time-- I was not so naive at the time to
think, oh, they promised, so it's not going to happen.
You know, a promise is not legally binding.
But, you know, I'm seeing in these kind of discussions
about, you know, what's going to happen to this Walmart
property here.
Also, you know, in terms of the Kroger property, this is
also an issue where we have people promising in writing
that they're only going to cut down this many trees
or they're not going to mess with this one area, and I
would like to see PNZ or staff or both be a little firmer
with these people
in kind of making them either put it in writing and if they
don't want to, then just letting the public know that this
is--
that any kind of promise like this is not legally binding
because the public has just been disappointed too many
times with this kind of promise.
So anyway, apologies for my hesitation and thinking about
how to most tactfully word that.
I hope I was tactful. Thank you very much for your time.
I have a question for you before you go. Commissioner Ros
sell.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here and expressing
your concerns.
I don't necessarily have a question but more of a support
of what you said.
I appreciate your feedback on Kroger.
It's my interpretation that there are precedents already
set for that.
But to your point about Buc-E's and other times in which
individuals have said or agreed to do something and not
fulfilled it,
there's been a couple that I know of where they said they
wouldn't cut down a tree and did or they blurred lines.
I'm in complete support of you and the process of the
commission and staff to increase our teeth when we come to
enforcing these rules
because so often not imparting that power and authority
over these decisions allows that gray area to get wider.
So I appreciate you saying that.
I'm in full support of looking about ways in which once
there's an agreement set that there is some continuity in
backing that up.
Thank you very much. That's great to hear. Thank you.
Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like
to speak on this item?
Commissioner Back, did you have a question?
Just a statement. I don't have any question. If you were
opening up for us to speak, I wanted to speak to it.
If you don't mind, I'll come back to you as soon as we
close the public hearing.
Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to
speak, please come forward at this time.
Council. Clay Christie, Clay Moore Engineering, 1903
Central Drive, Bedford, Texas, 76021.
We're just here on behalf of the applicant. I'm not
necessarily here to speak in the public,
but just to answer really mainly here to answer any
questions you guys might have.
I do know that there were some concerns that's obviously
been brought up about the trees.
Obviously, I wasn't here whenever they replanted the
property originally back in the early stages.
But I do know that we worked with city staff.
We've come up with a tree preservation plan to make sure
that we were following all current ordinances and that the
tree preservation at this time is in compliance with the
current ordinance that is in place with the city.
If there's any other questions, I'll be happy to ask. But I
just want to let you guys know, you know, there is some
concern about that.
Thank you for coming up and making that statement. I think
we're just doing tonight.
I think you're going to be coming forward with a site plan
in the future.
Okay, that's very true. We have city site plan. This is
just for planning. That's all that we're here for today.
So thank you for clarifying that.
And this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to
speak on this item, please come forward at this time.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion. Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. I just want to state that I appreciate Mr
. Bentley coming up and speaking out to this.
I've personally had some reservations too, and I think a
lot of us do here, but I felt that our hands were tied and
we've gotten feedback from legal -- excuse me.
And so, again, felt like we couldn't do much. But I have
reason to have pause now based on what Mr. Bentley said.
And I don't want to -- I'm not the legal expert here, but I
'm inclined to table this for a little while longer and have
legal and staff look at this a little bit more deeply and
make sure that what Mr. Bentley is saying is in fact not
the case or maybe it is and get it straightened once for
all.
Just for my own piece of mind and I think perhaps some
other people here too. So if that's possible, I would make
a motion that we table this thing for 30 days.
Okay. Let me ask an opinion of staff. This will go on to
City Council. We'll have the final say. Okay. Commissioner
Taylor.
Thank you, Chair. So I think Mr. Bentley's points about
things that are said in front of the commission and
promises that are made is a good example of a cautionary
tale for the members of this body.
Many times we've seen the site plan for the rezoning and of
course the site plan is not binding. And we've heard all
kinds of promises uttered by developers.
A lot of times they'll say that they want only this one
thing. So when we try to put that requirement into writing
in a recommendation, they withdraw their request or
suddenly are backtracking and saying they can't really just
have that one thing they said they needed.
And unfortunately that is the nature of this. And a lot of
times the applicant might not even have ill intent. In this
case, it was 20 something, 22 or 23 years ago.
Maybe ownership has changed or management has changed. The
original people that stood here and promised that, that
promise held for 22 years.
But something else has changed. You know, same thing on
ownership of land, a rezone, the company that had the
beautiful site plan goes bankrupt and somebody else buys
the property and builds the ugly monstrosity that we wanted
to avoid.
That said, in 1995 it was a plat and we cannot place any
binding requirements on plat. You know, if it's not an SUP
or an overlay, then there isn't a binding requirement.
Those were just verbal promises. Those were just, you know,
somebody saying they intend to do something. So all of that
says that unfortunately there wasn't anything binding in
1995.
We did not have a binding tree ordinance. And I think it's
a really good indicator. Our current tree ordinance, it
goes onto the plat now.
How many square feet of canopy coverage and how many inches
of trees they have to have. So 30 years from now when they
go to redevelop, you know, or replat or whatever, you can
pull up that document filed at the county and you can say
1700 square feet of canopy or 182 caliper inches required.
And that's what it takes in order to make this stuff stick.
The voluntary preservation only works as long as people
keep volunteering to do it.
So I don't see what we could possibly find in the record on
a platting request that would change any of the facts of
the case.
Even if they did make those promises, those promises aren't
binding and there's nothing that they could have done in
1995 or we could do today to make any promises binding on a
plat.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair.
Thanks for that, Commissioner Taylor. I would like to give
Mr. Bentley an opportunity to come back and respond to that
if he would so desire. Please do.
Mr. Taylor is correct in a lot of ways on plats. You are
very limited. You're you are governed by state law on plats
.
The question is the validity of this process. If city staff
can stand up here and make statements to you and you cannot
rely on those statements, then why are we here?
Owen Yost, who was city staff, stood up here and told the P
NZ in 1995, those are protected trees.
Wal-Mart stood up here and said, yes, we are not going to
touch those trees. That is all recorded in the minutes.
This is not. And I understand your point. I served on this
commission for six years.
Yes. Maybe we see a building design and we cannot tie the
developer to that design as the PNZ.
But when we have legal processes and we cannot even rely on
the information we're given by the city staff, why are we
here?
I think city staff is going to respond with some
clarification and some more history on this particular item
.
If you may want to stay close by if there's some follow up
questions. I'll call on Manal for some more background on
this item.
Thank you, Chairperson Strange. A few things that I wanted
to make mention to.
If you recall, during work session we talked about the
extensive research and quite frankly thorough research that
staff has conducted to determine
were those trees or was that area indeed protected? And
there are no plat notes.
There are no notes on the general development plan. Nor are
there any conditions attached with the zoning.
If you recall, some of you, when the zoning change occurred
it actually just prohibited some uses but there were no
other changes associated with that
from a development perspective. In fact, that could have
been conditioned as part of the discussion that the
Planning and Zoning Commission had
and ultimately the City Council associated with this case.
Mr. Blentley, you have made mention that a past planner
with the City of Denton, Mr. Yost, I believe, had indicated
that there are saplings and mature trees on that side.
I believe that's the paragraph you're referring to and seed
lings and those are preserved and that the development can
proceed.
I paraphrase, that is not a quote. However, when you look
at that packet and those records that you're reading, the
Walmart case actually precedes that discussion.
So that conversation that you have pointed out to or the
meeting minutes that you've pointed out are actually in
reference to a previous case, not the Walmart zoning case.
So that preservation paragraph that you were referring to
is not applicable.
And I'd be happy to sit down with you and go over all the
documents that we do have and share those with you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. If I may, Menal. So if, as Mr. Blentley
says, staff and somebody from Walmart said something
specifically and it is on record.
It's in the minutes. That's not an official record of any
kind that we can --
It was a discussion that potentially occurred.
The developer did indicate that as part of the
infrastructure development, when you look at the meeting
minutes, it references the Walmart site.
What Mr. Blentley, in my understanding, is referring to is
a previous discussion on a previous case.
However, Mr. Bentley is correct in saying that the Walmart
developer or the representative of Walmart at that time, I
believe it was a -- done away in associates.
I'm not quite sure.
But they indicated that they would be utilizing that area
for signage, perhaps some infrastructure development.
Now, that does not preclude for future development to occur
and for replatting or subdivision of land to occur.
However, unfortunately, through meeting minutes, none of
that information was memorialized as part of that zoning
change ordinance.
So there is no documentation that then supports the
preservation of those trees.
Ms. Molladad, I'm going to take serious issue with some
statements you just made because --
I think, Mr. Bentley, maybe the more proper way to handle
this is what we offered earlier.
I think it would be best served for all involved and all
the people in the audience for whatever the questions are
to get together and let's get to the bottom.
Because right now we have no documents in front of us that
can get to the bottom of the points and the concerns that
you have.
Okay.
So we're going to continue on in this with our -- I think
we are still -- are we still open public hearing?
We still have -- we have a motion that's been made and not
seconded.
Okay.
And it was a motion to continue for 30 days.
Okay.
So --
Did you -- was it a second you didn't get one?
I don't think we had a motion at that -- a formal motion.
Okay.
You're correct.
The public hearing has been closed and we have a motion on
the floor and we're going to do discussion.
So give us some time here to talk through this and let's
see where we end up on this item tonight.
So we have a motion on the floor to table for 30 days.
I think we had a clarification that P&Z will be the final
city body that will make a decision on this.
This will not move on to city council.
So wherever the decision of P&Z board on this item is, that
will be where it goes at this point.
Correct?
Correct.
I'm just going to say if you could put the motion on the
board.
I think we've got it in Commissioner Rozelle.
I recognize Commissioner Rozelle for --
So given the motion that's on the floor, I just wanted to
speak into my hesitancy to vote for that motion, namely
because it seems convoluted.
And I appreciate Mr. Bentley's efforts and the city's
efforts to cull through seems like a lot of documents,
and I'm not underestimating the work put forth into trying
to understand what happened.
But where I sit, it still seems unclear that if there was a
protection back then, what it actually entailed.
And given that the applicant is coming under the provision
of current tree ordinances,
if the property was to come to us fresh, they're abiding by
current statute,
I just don't know if tabling this would be the appropriate
action if in 30 days we come back to the same conclusion,
because I do trust the city's and attorney's work to
understand what happened 22 years ago.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
And I agree.
I trust them too.
It's not that it's just that for whatever reasons, the city
didn't also, you know, staff and commissioners, elected
officials.
There's a sense out there with some in the public, you know
, of a little mistrust and just delaying this, I realize may
not change anything.
But it just gives that that that second chance to make sure
that we've read everything clearly and that we can come
back and feel comfortable about it
and put anybody that doesn't feel comfortable about it at
ease that at least they had that opportunity.
So I would encourage us that we adopt this motion, table it
for 30 days.
Okay.
Do you feel like there hasn't been enough discussion on it
so far?
I do, yes.
I'm not sure that there's a sense out there with some of
the citizens that there is.
And I want that opportunity to vell itself to them.
So there there there isn't any question for an opportunity
for Mr. Bentley to sit down with our planning director and
get the kinks worked out.
And if it's still the same, then I'll have no choice then
to vote against it.
Okay.
But I think for the purpose of just feeling good about the
whole thing, if I can say that, if it sounds a little
immature, that we have done everything.
We have taken our.
Not that again, I'm accused and all are legal that they
haven't honestly tried that.
But until this minute, I didn't have any doubts either.
Now I do.
And I just think if we could take that extra little time
and walk it back one more time.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Bentley, I do appreciate your comments.
And I would urge you to sit down with this very competent
and hardworking staff.
My question to staff would be, if we would postpone this,
is there anything else for you to look at that you haven't
already looked at?
Because then we're really just wasting the time of yours
and the applicants at this point.
Commissioner Ellis, at this point, given the extensive
research we've conducted, not just prior to this item being
placed on the agenda, but actually from the onset of a
reconnaissance meeting that started with the applicant.
So this has been, the research was conducted many, many
months ago.
And this information was also provided to certain members
of the community many, many months ago.
So based on my understanding, we can revisit all the data
again and all the information again.
But at this point, given what I have in front of me in my
capacity and in my position, I would come back with the
same recommendation to the PNC.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Thank you, Chair.
I appreciate the concern, things that happened 20, 30 years
ago.
And I understand your situation and position and everything
.
When we have the current developer coming in saying that
they are going to go by today's tree mitigation program and
do the things that need to be done to offset whatever
damages are going to be done and trees removed and new
trees planted,
I'm more, I lean more towards what's going on today and not
what happened 30 years ago.
Raising canes wasn't even a business 30 years ago.
So things change, times change, and I think that if we have
the current developer who says this is what we're going to
do and have him on record of saying it,
30 days from now, I'd be much more in a mood to hold their
feet to the fire than I would something that happened
before no one on this board was on the PNC board at that
point.
And so I don't think that we can be held by something that
was said 30 years ago and try to make decisions in today's
world.
And so that's, you know, I'm just hesitant to postpone this
any further.
Let the developer do his thing and come back with a site
plan and hold their feet to the fire that they are going to
do what they say they're going to do with the trees.
Thank you.
We have a motion on the floor to postpone. We're going to
have a second.
I declare that that motion fails and the chair will
entertain a new motion.
It's not clear.
It's clear now. Thank you. No problem.
So the previous motion has failed for lack of a second. It
has been cleared.
Commissioner Taylor.
I'll jump on this hand grenade.
This is the fate of these trees and that fate of that
corner really bothers me because, you know, for the last 20
something years, it's had a plaque talking about how it's
been preserved.
It's part of the cast iron forest, the post oak forest of
Denton, which is diminishing.
It really frustrates me that there was nothing binding in
1995, but there wasn't.
We didn't have tree ordinances at that time. We didn't have
binding preservation ordinances at that time.
And, you know, we're paying the price for that now.
If in 1995 we would have had preservation ordinances, the
key here is they're following the new ordinance for their
little half acre.
But the entire 200 acre development had trees that they
removed on the promise of keeping this little half acre.
All that said, none of that stuff on a plat in 1995 is
binding. You know, if it isn't written in a plat note or
there isn't an additional ordinance somewhere, we can't
enforce a law that doesn't exist.
So for those reasons, I move that we approve this plat.
Commissioner Reynolds.
Thank you, Chair. And I will echo Commissioner Taylor's
remarks.
I will second this motion. It is a gorgeous lot. The trees
are amazing.
We don't have any reason to deny this replat is basically
what it has come down to, which is why I will second this.
It is an excellent learning plan going forward.
I think we've made improvements from 1995 and putting
things on plats now that will be binding for the future.
But right now, this is what we can do.
So we have a first and a second for approval. Commissioner
Rosell.
Thank you, Chair. As we had this discussion and some of
this banter, it kind of dawned on me.
We are talking historically how the words of promises of
developers are not binding.
It needs to be on a plat note. It needs to be something.
And so we can't go forward with Walmart 95 saying, we
protect these trees.
Well, it dawns on me a little bit ironic that we have a
developer saying he's going to do something.
And I'm just wondering, is that binding going forward?
He's promising to protect those trees, but it's a volunteer
act.
I'm wondering if in 30 days or six days, we're like, oh, he
decided not to do that.
And staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but we have to go
through the site plan process with this,
which will a part of that required is the tree preservation
plan that will have to meet the ordinance.
And so we will actually have to come back and have the
legal document that is associated with the site plan
that will memorialize or do that to make that actually part
of the document.
Is that a requirement for them is to bring a tree
mitigation plan?
Absolutely. As part of the development process, they will
be required to submit a site plan and a landscape site plan
and a tree preservation, a tree survey for the tree
preservation slash mitigation plan.
That will be reviewed against the Denton Development Code.
If that is in order, if those documents are in order and
there are the documents are in order,
then they will proceed to submit for the building permit
plan set.
That will be cross referenced against the approved site
plan to ensure that it is indeed the same site plan and
landscape plan.
Only then will they secure a building permit to break
ground.
As we understand that there's a voluntary action by them to
come under the new plans, is that correct?
I would actually defer that to legal.
However, because they're pulling out a portion of a
property that is plotted and they're replatting it,
then the new requirements would be applicable to them.
Thank you for the clarification.
I will say that I've visited the site and that every tree
that's on that corner has already been marked, it's tagged.
And so I assume the tree survey has already been completed
and all of that is in place
and the city has full knowledge of exactly what's out there
and what size and what species it is.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Needless to say, I'm a little disappointed that my motion
didn't go through, but the fact that it did and doesn't
upset me,
and I could be on or in, do a protest vote and it wouldn't
do any good either.
And I'm not going to do that though because I do have
confidence in our staff and I want them to know that.
So that being said, I will vote for this motion myself.
Okay.
Any other?
Commissioner Rosell.
I'd hate to be a dead horse.
I'm looking at this email and if I could just give
additional clarification.
It says, "It is important to note that developer in this
case does not have any tree preservation requirements
and is going above and beyond what is required in this case
, incidentally, what is required under current code."
Can you help reconcile that to that they are required?
I'm sorry.
What document are you referring to?
This is an email from Jennifer DeCurtis.
Would you please respond?
Sure.
I think that in order for them to get vested rights, they
have to file a vested rights petition in accordance with
our DDC.
So I can't make that determination alone.
I think that's made by the city manager, whether or not
that they're vested.
But absent vesting, they're willing to do it without the
petition.
So at this point, it's consensual.
So if I understand you correctly, they fall under current
code unless they were to apply for vested rights.
That's correct.
But they are deferring, it seems like.
That's correct.
Gotcha.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sorry.
I had to wander down that path.
Any other discussion or comments?
I'll make one quick one.
I know we sit up here a lot of times and talk about
developers' promises and failures.
And I want to remind everybody on this commission that the
beautiful city of Denton that we live in is built by
builders and developers.
And I know there's a lot of conversation about tree
preservation.
And I think when we all reviewed the ordinance that we're
still working on in the survey, I think Denton has the
highest in our area of tree canopy.
So I know that it's easy sometimes for us to sit up here on
this commission and think about the things that maybe haven
't gone as well as we'd like or promises were made.
But I think in fairness, when you step back and look
overall, we have a beautiful city and a lot of people work
very hard to do it.
And I want to remember that part as well as some of the
things that maybe haven't gone as well as we would all like
.
Overall, I'm proud of our city and the beautiful buildings
and things that are here, the trees that we do have
preserved.
And with that comment, I'm going to call for a vote on the
board.
The motion carries 6 to 0.
I move us to our final agenda on our public hearing this
evening.
Will be agenda item G and I'm going to open the public
hearing for Z 17 dash 0 0 0 2 C.
And we'll call on Julie White for presentation.
I'm Julie Wyatt.
I didn't know if I was going to be closing it out.
All right.
OK, sorry about that.
All right.
This is Z 17 2.
So the request before you is to hold a public hearing and
consider a recommendation for rezoning for 29 acres.
The subject property is situated in the southeast part of
the city of Denton.
It is bounded by I 35 Lakeview Boulevard and then Shady Sh
ores Road by sex, the property.
Current zoning is RCR 1 and RCCD and the proposed use is
commercial.
So when we looked at the request, we looked at we did an
analysis of what analysis of what was around surrounding
the property.
So first we started and looking what was adjacent to the
property.
If you look to the north of the subject property, that part
in green, that's a planned development that is mainly made
up of
single family residential homes.
Just adjacent to the property.
You'll see this area right here.
This is a this is an open space area that was preserved by
the plan development has to remain as that is that tree lot
.
And then next to it, this this area right here, this is a
park.
This is a this this property has an RCCD zoning and that
has I believe it's being developed with a commercial use.
This this property here has a residential use on it and it
is zoned as RCR 1 and this property right here, this is
part of the subject property.
That's RCCD as well.
And this as you can see, this property is located between
that I 35 corridor.
And then here we have the DCTA Railroad Corridor as well as
the rails to trails.
As we zoom out a little further, we add an additional in
our 6 single family development as well as more of the plan
development that's adjacent to it.
Some more open space as well as some multifamily.
You can also see some other commercial development that's
adjacent to I 35 outside of the city.
We also looked at the mobility of the area.
There are several roads that affect the subject property.
First, I 35 is a pretty big, big road adjacent to it.
That is that is a highway Lakeview Boulevard is right here.
It is a primary major arterial.
It will eventually sort of turn north in this direction and
link up with post oak to continue on as that primary major
arterial sometime in the future.
It's identified in our mobility plan.
Shady Shores is a collector.
And then we have once again that green is the trail rails
to trails.
And this is the broader area.
So you can see that this is the entire sort of southeast
area.
You can see all the development, all that residential
development that is that has come in and will continue to
develop in the area.
So we look at CMG and what the intent of the proposed CMG
is.
It is one of our commercial mixed use zoning districts.
It's intended to provide the service, the retail, the
office and the higher density residential uses to serve the
entire community.
It's kind of a transitional zoning district between our
higher, higher intensity, higher scale, regional zoning
districts and our lower scale, less intense uses of our
neighborhood mixed use commercial districts.
CMG requires access to major roadways.
And as I said, it provides that transition and you can see
where this property is situated.
It is situated in kind of a transitional area between the I
-35, the higher intensity development and then the single
family residential to the north.
So this is kind of that transition area.
There are physical barriers between the subject property
and those adjacent residential properties to provide some
additional buffering and transitioning between the uses.
We also looked at the Denton plan.
The Denton plan 2030 identifies this area as community
mixed use.
The intent of community mixed use is to provide the grocery
stores, the shopping, the specialty shops and the employers
and offices that are needed for the community.
And the uses in CMG align with this future land use
designation.
We also looked at where in the city we locate CMG.
So what kinds of places do we often find this zoning
district?
Hopefully this is visible, but just to orient you, this is
Denton and here's the loop.
I-35, it comes down, swoops down here and then we have
university that comes through.
And so you can see those areas in pink.
Those are our CMG zoning district.
And you can see it's often found in arterioles, often at
intersections and nearby to residential neighborhoods to
provide those necessary services.
This is the southern portion.
This area in the red circle, that's our subject property.
So you can kind of see that the future land use identified
this area is kind of a commercial center that they wanted
to see it to develop.
We did compare the permitted uses and the development scale
within all three zoning districts.
I know we've talked about CMG, but just to talk about RCR 1
and RCCD.
RCR 1 is regional center commercial, I mean, regional
center residential 1.
And it is a mixed use zoning district that it's intended to
have commercial uses as well as some higher density
residential uses to provide that kind of mixed use, but
smaller scale mixed use development.
RCCD is one of our highest, most intense zoning districts
within the city of Denton.
It is also mixed use and it permits development at a very
high scale and intensity in terms of commercial.
So as you can see, and it was in your backup, the uses and
how those compare.
And then the development scale of CMG permits the 65 feet,
RCR 1 is 40 feet, and then the RCCD is 100 feet maximum
building height.
Public notification was sent out and we received one letter
in favor.
And so based upon the considerations I talked about, the
future land use staff does recommend approval of the
request.
I know you'll have some questions in work sessions.
So I did want to hopefully, if I haven't gotten out of it,
I know Commissioner Taylor wanted to know about the flood
way and some of the environmental aspects to the site.
So I wanted to, so you asked that I pull that up.
So here we go.
It's a little busy, but here's the subject property here.
You can kind of see the outline.
And you're correct.
A lot of the back end or the north end of the property is
encumbered by floodway.
And that will have to be addressed before it's developed.
It's also encumbered by environmentally sensitive areas.
So if the development did want to impact those
environmentally sensitive areas in a way that was in
accordance with the regulations, that they would have to,
per the Denton Development Code, obtain approval for that
impact from city council.
And that's through the dual public hearing process.
So it would come before you.
So there's a lot that needs to go on on this site before it
develops, but I know you did ask about that, so I wanted to
share that with you.
So I'll answer any questions.
And the applicant is here.
While you have that up, is there an upland habitat layer
that you can turn on on this site?
There is.
However, I did want to, upland habitat commercial
development isn't required to preserve any upland habitat.
So only residential development is required.
That's why I turned that off, because it kind of looked a
little funny with it on there.
But because it would be, if, now I guess the caveat to that
, if it did, if the developer did want to develop it with
residential uses, then that upland habitat would come into
play.
So as it's proposed, it would not, the upland habitat would
not be required to be preserved.
But if a residential use did come forward, a multifamily or
a town home project, they would have to preserve 50% of
that, of that habitat contiguous to adjacent properties.
So my apologies, I'm mostly familiar with residential.
A lot of green.
I'm like, wow.
Yeah, it's.
So any other questions?
Yes, Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
Could we walk through these colors, maybe one layer at a
time?
All right.
I'll see what.
So starting with the floodplain here.
I may get engineering involved on this one.
So the, the two colors of blue would be actual floodplain.
The red is like a 500 year, not really binding floodplain.
And this is actually the floodway.
The dark blue.
Yes, sir.
Jim may be able to speak a little more fluently about this,
but there are, there are provisions that they would have to
work through with FEMA and with the city in order to, to
impact that.
And here comes Jim.
Good evening.
I'm Jim Jenks.
I'm with our DRC engineering division.
Yes, the dark blue connotates the floodway, the 100 year
FEMA floodway.
The sort of medium blue is the 100 year floodplain.
The red is the 500 year floodplain, which we do not
regulate.
We do regulate, of course, the floodway in the 100 year.
And I noticed the, the hashing that I believe that's a, a L
omer that was done maybe in, I guess in 2007 or 2012, it
looks like, by the numbers there.
And so, and that probably cleared up, narrowed up some of
the floodplain further downstream.
It's possible that they could do a letter of map revision
through here, but unlikely that it would get narrower than
the floodway.
Is that correct?
Yes, the floodway is reserved for conveyance of the storm.
We don't allow fill within the floodway.
If they want to fill and encroach into the 100 year flood
plain, they would have to present something to us.
Once we review, if we approve it, we would forward it to
FEMA.
But they would have to mitigate whatever they fill in.
They would have to take something out elsewhere to make up
for it.
Right.
So, so the light blue is, has some potential for change,
but the dark blue is very unlikely to ever.
That's correct.
Can we move to the next layer?
I believe the ESA stream riparian buffer.
Let's turn that off.
All right.
And what are these colors?
Let's make sure I.
All right.
So we have, that looks like 100, that looks like 100 foot
stream buffer.
So this sort of brownish orange, that is a riparian buffer.
So that appears to be a 100 foot riparian buffer.
The way I understand it is from the center line of the
stream, it would be 100 feet each way.
Is that right?
Yes.
So, so in order to impact that, they would have to go
through that, go through an alternative ESA plan,
which would require the dual public hearing and would
require approval from city council.
And then the purple would be the ESA floodplain.
My understanding and conversations with our water
administration is that generally follows the floodplain.
So. So in this map, they might go to a lot of engineering
effort and get some of the purple back, some of that flood
plain.
But again, they'd have to contend with an alternative ESA
if they enter the brownish color.
And then it would be very unlikely that they could get FEMA
approval to go into the floodway.
Like on the previous, the dark blue on the previous map.
As far as the FEMA issue, yes, I can't see them approving a
narrowing of the floodway.
And one more thing.
So this is a 100 foot, is it 100 feet each direction from
the center line or is it 100 feet wide, 50 feet from the
center line?
I'm questioning myself.
Let me see.
I don't know if this will tell me, but I'll find out.
It just defines the right hearing buffer.
It doesn't give me a.
Is it possible to just measure on the screen approximately
how wide that.
I can try.
The measuring tool doesn't always work for me.
Cross your fingers.
So it looks like.
There there's room for error on these maps and the
projection can be a little off.
So it does appear that.
Let me look at it.
So it did look like that was 90 feet.
That was only less than half of it.
Right.
So if you zoom out, just one one zoom out to catch just the
parcel to the north.
It doesn't.
There.
So you're looking at probably a good 200 feet.
From the railroad tracks will be inside of that riparian
buffer and floodway.
And then you have about a hundred feet of railroad track
easement and then parks to the north.
That is correct.
Yeah, there's quite a bit of there.
Does that help?
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sure.
Any other questions.
Any other questions for staff.
Thank you, Julie.
Jim.
This is a public hearing and call the applicant to come
forward at this time.
With that 10 minutes.
10 minutes total.
Good evening, commissioners.
Excuse me.
My name is Michael Clark.
I'm with Winkleman and Associates.
I'm here representing the I realty, the owner, John Weber
with the I realty is here and I
think would like to speak after me.
I think Julie did an excellent job of explaining what our
request is and the surrounding uses
and things like that.
One thing I did want to clarify and it's obvious on this
drawing, so I'm glad it's left up
because I'm technically challenged and probably couldn't
get it back up here.
Is it is a car dealership to our north.
She mentioned a commercial use and we were unclear what it
was.
It's a car dealership right on our I guess it's our west
property line.
That 35 turning sideways is a problem for me.
This CSA drawing is telling from a standpoint, it really
does show what's going on on the
property.
Some of the things I'd like to point out that the I realty
has done in their purchase of
the property.
We performed topographic surveys on the ground.
We performed on the ground tree surveys.
Excuse me.
We've analyzed the flood plain to establish our benchmark
for any potential modifications.
In addition, we've established the ESAs with a more formal
document which your staff has
approved.
The way I understand it and I'm not an environmental guy, I
just kind of do a little bit of everything.
These are broad brush.
The brown indicates that there's a riparian buffer zone
there.
We've gone out there.
We've had consultants go out and define where the width of
that riparian buffer and where
it is and to find it on a map and your staff has approved
that.
That's actually been done.
All the things necessary for us to meet the staff criteria
when we come forward with subsequent
documents being whether it's a flood plain variance request
, the tree mitigation, tree
preservation, our site plan, all those things.
We have all those benchmarks for us to do.
In order for us to proceed forward, we need zoning that
would allow the uses that would
help us move forward to get the questions answered that you
all want to know.
I understand that everybody wants to know those questions,
but until we get an actual site
plan, I can't tell you that we're going to save this tree
and that tree and I know we
just got done talking about promises and things like that,
but there are a lot of city rules
and regulations that require developers to meet the ordin
ances or come before you and
explain what they're doing to enhance, let me say it a
different way, what they're doing
to mitigate the things they're not doing to give you
something in return.
So what I'm saying is that we have that information to do
that.
In addition, I know that there were some questions asked
about the transportation and things
like that.
The shady shores will be widened.
This is a great drawing.
It has everything.
You can see it's improved about halfway.
You can see it's improved to about here and it would be
improved the rest of the way through
the property.
So it would meet the thoroughfare plan, the collector
section, and I think there's a little
bit of right of way to dedicate and the payment being
extended.
There's been some discussion with a signal and we would
desire a signal here at the intersection.
That's something we've had some discussions with staff
about in our pre-development meetings
and would look forward to achieving that goal.
There was some discussion about I-35 and we all managed to
find a drawing.
There's eight lanes, two through, two left in each
direction going across the bridge,
and three-lane frontage road with a free right turning
northbound on Lakeview.
And I think, I don't know if there was a question asked,
but those improvements will be in place
before we can work our way through all the city development
procedures and get under
construction and be underway.
So our use seems to comply with the debt and plan.
We think it's a good use for the neighborhood.
We think it provides services that the neighborhood can use
.
We will not be, we're rezoning a larger piece of property
that we could possibly use as you see
from this drawing.
Staff is informed in our pre-development meetings that we
are not able to touch the floodway.
So the floodway, as we've defined in our actual flood study
, that's a line, that stays.
Floodplain, yes, we can manipulate through a variance
process and maintaining valley storage
and equal capacity and things like that to mitigate any
potential downstream issues.
But all those things get answered in the subsequent submitt
als.
And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
And if John would like to speak, I guess I have a few more
minutes left.
But he gets, I think, some time as well if he --
20 minutes altogether.
So we've got plenty of time.
I have a question for you.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
So you said you already have a more detailed floodway
survey.
Can you give us some idea as to is it dramatically
different than what's the riparian buffer now?
I don't mean to be a wise guy in any way, but I don't know
what you mean by a floodway survey.
Or you said you've done a detailed topographical survey.
Yes.
Do you know where the floodway is on the --
Yes, we do know where the floodway is based on the actual
on the ground, which FEMA does a pretty good job,
especially when they've got a floodway mapped, and we found
it to be reasonably accurate.
Okay.
This is pretty -- this is not reflective, really.
This is bigger, the other drawing, which was up -- is more
reflective of the actual floodway document, I believe.
Okay.
The blues.
Is that better?
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
I have a comment.
Because one of the questions I was going to ask was in
regards to if anyone has been out to check the ESA,
because I know until it's certified, it can change, and I'm
glad to hear that you say you all have already done that.
So the ESA has been certified and verified.
It's exactly where it is versus it looks like it's on a map
, and somebody goes and looks at it and says,
well, it doesn't meet the criteria, and it goes away.
So for our purposes and discussions tonight, it's certified
that it's there, and we all agree on that.
Just to clarify.
Yes.
What's on the map we're looking at is not what we found,
precisely.
I understand, but my point was that there is ESA certified
that it's on -- because there are some red areas that have
come out that are no longer ESA,
and you've determined that there is definitely ESA on the
site, and city staff has certified that and agreed.
Everybody's on the same page.
There is ESA and active out there on site.
Yes, sir.
Great.
Thank you.
Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
Great. Thank you, sir, for a great presentation.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please
come forward at this time.
If you'll give us your name and address, and if you haven't
filled out a card before you go to the meeting, please do a
card for us.
Okay.
My name is Jackie Bruce.
My husband Tom and I are here tonight.
We live in the preserve at Pecan Creek at 4215 Boxwood
Drive, 76208.
We shop at Kroger, so this is not about Kroger.
This is about rezoning.
We were house number 14 when the development opened.
We moved in in 2001.
It will be 16 years next month.
So we've seen a lot happen in that area, and we understand
that the buildout is not quite complete, but it will be 1,
153 homes.
That is just for the preserve at Pecan Creek.
That does not include any of the other housing, Shady Sh
ores and Villages of Carmel and all the other building that
's going on.
Lakeview is our outlet, 235.
There's the back road Edwards, and if you all have ever
been on it, it's just a little lane and very bad repair.
So those are the two ways to leave our subdivision.
We also have a school, so we have school traffic.
Every home in our subdivision has a minimum of two cars.
I think I could stand by that.
And many have many more.
If you drive around our streets, you'll see lots of them
out in the street.
So my only concern is mobility, and I knew there would be a
light at this intersection because it's just calling for
that.
But the backup is going to be really bad, and that is my
problem with rezoning this area.
And especially it will be a larger Kroger.
It might have gas pumps.
It will bring traffic from all around.
We are only minutes away from another Kroger, so it's not
as if we're desperate down there to have another grocery
store.
I can only speak for myself and my husband.
I did attend the meeting.
He and I attended the meeting at the school, but we only
accidentally found out about that at the last minute.
As I understand it, letters did not go out to people who
lived in the preserve at Beacon Creek.
They only went out to the homeowners that were closer.
But that's our exit to get out.
And if you'd ever come down there at school times
especially, it gets pretty heavy duty.
And even though the bridge is going to be bigger and 35 is
going to be bigger, we have to get to it.
So that is my concern.
I think that's all I have to say.
I found your card.
You didn't have it marked as some support or opposition?
I didn't, but if I have to say, I would oppose it because I
don't want it changed.
I think we've got all the traffic we can handle.
And I did speak to Julie the other day and I did say we
might have to have flying drones to get out of there.
I don't know.
I have a couple questions before you go, if you please.
Commissioner Rizel.
Thank you, Ms. Burns, for being here.
We talked in the work session about getting some text-on
updates.
I was wondering if staff had gotten those together.
But could we have staff talk about the mobility increasing
at 35 and Lakeview?
And also, could staff address what's happening on Lakeview
between Shady Shores and the new post oak?
Is there going to be improvement or widening on Lakeview
past Shady Shores, across the tracks, and into the preserve
there?
I have one more question before you if you'll stay close by
, please.
According to TextDots schematic of their 35 improvement
project, the overpass bridge there at Lakeview and post oak
will involve two
through lanes in either direction and two left only lanes
in either direction.
As far as improvements that are planned to Lakeview, I'm
not aware of any at this time.
I will say that this project where it stands right now is
at the zoning phase.
There will be a preliminary plat.
There will be a final plat.
And we will-- that's sort of the point at which we
typically evaluate these engineering issues.
We put on the record that our department's approval or
acceptance of the zoning does not grant them any approvals
on any specific
engineering issues, access, and so forth.
So we will look at that closely during the planning stage,
which is going to be coming up.
Does that answer your question?
It kind of does, and I appreciate that.
Can you tell me the mobility plan, what the roadway Lake
view Boulevard is classified as?
Yes, sir.
Could we get that on the overhead?
I'm sorry?
You have to show me.
If we could turn on the overhead.
Will you turn on the overhead, please?
So what is the classification of Lakeview?
I've got that here.
Here we go.
Per our mobility plan, Lakeview-- the portion of Lakeview
from 35 to Post Oak is classified as a primary major arter
ial.
That's a six-lane divided.
Beyond that, going further northeast, it's classified as a
collector.
And a collector is a four-lane divided?
That is correct, yes.
It's the primary major arterial is six-lane divided.
The collector is-- I mean, basically, that's what it is
right now, is the four-lane divided.
And that would-- yes, that is essentially a collector.
OK.
Per the mobility plan, it's not called for that to be
further widened.
Understood.
Mr. Burns, I hope that answers some of the concerns, as I
think about from Post Oak to the highway, having three
lanes dedicated one way to get out would help.
And then Lakeview Boulevard past Post Oak, or Sunray, I
think it is now, is currently four lanes divided before it
goes down to two lanes further up.
So I think your concern about exiting the neighborhood is
certainly valid.
I hope the mobility plan in the future of the city to widen
that to a six-lane road like Carroll Boulevard or
University would certainly provide some bandwidth to exit
your neighborhood.
I'm not sure about the timeline.
I think the overpass will be done way before that.
And that, in my experience, has always been the bottleneck
in that area.
So I'm glad to see that being improved to eight lanes from
what's been two.
One each direction, big improvement.
You don't agree?
Oh, it would definitely be an improvement.
I think I'm skeptical about when that might be.
I hope I'm still here then.
This summer.
Oh, to widen it to six lanes?
No, the overpass.
Oh, that I know.
Yeah.
Uh-huh.
We understand that.
We're dealing with that.
It's just trying to get in and out past the highway.
OK.
Great.
Did you need me here anymore?
I do have one further question for you.
Thank you, Mr. Jenks.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you.
Ms. Burns, is that correct?
Bruce.
Bruce, I thought it was.
OK.
Thank you.
OK.
Thank you, Ian, for coming down this weekend.
I, too, appreciate your concern for traffic.
But let me pose a scenario for you now.
Right now, where you all live, you pretty much have to get
in your car and drive out of your
neighborhood to get to pretty much any kind of service
right now.
Is that correct?
Uh-huh.
OK.
Not only is Kroger coming in here, where you can buy a lot
of things, but there's going
to be other shops there.
And these will be in walking and biking distance for-- not
everybody.
Not everybody can walk and bike a certain distance.
But a lot of people can.
And that, in effect, could reduce traffic.
I think anything we can do as a city to reduce the use of
our vehicles improves our air quality,
as you know, is probably one of the worst in the state.
So in the long run, this has that advantage of making your
area a little bit more dense,
where you will be in walking, biking distance from services
that otherwise you would have
had to get in your car and drive to.
Does that help?
It might be possible that some people will choose to walk
or ride a bike to the smaller
shops, probably not for groceries.
Not if you're going to do shopping for the month, that's
true.
But if you forgot tomatoes for the salad, you could just--
I understand.
OK.
I just have lived in that neighborhood long enough to
understand--
Ms. Bruce, could you step back to the microphone so we can
make sure to hear you?
Yes.
Thank you very much.
I understand.
I appreciate what you said.
I think we've lived there long enough to understand what
the traffic will continue to be.
Even if we have the smaller shops around the larger grocery
store, I think we're going
to have a mobility problem.
And that is my concern.
OK.
I hope not, but thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to come forward and speak at
this time, please come forward.
Deb Armentar, 2003, Mistywood Lane.
I just want to speak to something identified by the woman
who just spoke from a nearby
neighborhood where they didn't receive notices.
I know that it's the city's policy to only give
notifications to, I think, within 250--
I think it's state law, too.
State law as well.
We follow the state law.
Yeah.
And this is something that came up in the debates about the
gas plant and where there
were people who lived close enough such that they at least
considered themselves stakeholders
who were directly affected.
They considered it their neighborhood.
So I just wonder what we can do as a city to increase that
area of notification so that
people in nearby neighborhoods outside of that, 500 square
feet or whatever, will be
notified.
It's just a shame to see this happening time and time again
.
And I also wanted to mention that I hope that as
Commissioner Beck said that we have people
walking to the shopping area and there's no problem with
mobility.
But I do fear in a situation like this that mobility issues
will arise.
So I second whoever it was who said before we should have a
mobility study for this.
I second that concern.
And I would also say that when it comes to grocery shopping
, as nice as it sounds to
be able to walk over to Kroger and get some basil for the
salad, I think most hardworking
families tend to go and get -- yeah, you pick up the basil,
but also a big thing of toilet
paper and roach spray or whatever, things that you're not
going to be carrying in a
little wicker basket.
So people do tend to go to -- I go to Kroger in my car and
there are situations where even
if it was two blocks away, if I needed to go for a full
weekly shop, I'd go in my car.
So anyway, thank you.
>> Before you go, I want to clarify with staff, did we do
500 foot notice as well on this?
>> We did the 200 foot property owner and the 500 foot
resident.
In addition to because we heard some feedback from some of
the neighbors that because of
the -- where this property is located and the open space
behind it, there weren't a
lot of people who were notified.
So the city went ahead and worked with those HOAs, the
villages of Carmel as well as the
preserve in order to get the word out to those
neighborhoods and do that neighborhood meeting
because you're right, there weren't a lot of people
notified by the state law standards.
>> Okay.
>> So we went above and beyond on this to actually notify
the HOAs.
I think there's a neighborhood meeting and -- okay.
Thank you.
>> Sure.
>> Commissioner Roselle.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to reiterate Ms. Wyatt said and even the
chair, I just go on record to say
that state law is 200 feet minimum, Denton does a courtesy
of 500 on every project that
we notify as a courtesy to go beyond that.
And I was really glad to see that because it is an entry to
a larger area, the city
actually hosted a meeting for some feedback too.
It comes up often about notifications.
We're always trying to figure out how to best get responses
back and make sure people actually
get the responses because there's just been ongoing
discussion about that.
But I think in this situation, city tried their best to try
to get the community that's
affected northeast of the highway involved.
I give you credit for going beyond even what we generally
are gracious to do at 500 feet
even further.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Deb, thanks for your comments.
I would echo what Commissioner Roselle said about trying to
get the community involved.
We do have a little bit of a broken notification process
when we draw these circles.
We miss an awful lot of property owners and I know they
made a point to see that and reach
out to the north of that.
Also, we have an ongoing discussion.
I think it's still sitting in our matrix.
We've been trying to improve the notification process and
it is of concern to this commission.
It's been brought up multiple times.
We've had a work session.
We are trying to make improvements as we go forward.
So it's definitely on our radar.
>> Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to come forward at this time?
I have two additional e-mails.
I think there are a number of e-mails that are provided in
the backup so I won't bring those up.
But we have an e-mail from Amanda McCullough and she was
opposed and Earl Armstrong and I believe he is
opposed as well.
I don't know that state specifically, there's some concern.
Those two other comments, is there anyone else who would
like to come forward and speak at this time
before we close our public hearing?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight.
I appreciate the comments from the applicant and the
homeowners that live over there.
I've looked at this thing pretty close too.
I went over and visited this back when we thought we were
going to do this at PNC two months ago and
looked at the area.
I knew the concern would be this is a nice area that's
tucked away and any kind of development in there is
going to be upsetting to the neighborhood.
Traffic, that's going to be an issue.
But we're looking at property that's currently zoned where
commercial development can happen that's going
to bring in traffic no matter what you do.
I'm not sure CMG is going to bring in any more than RCR.
>> Commissioner Beck, can you speak directly in the
microphone of the guys in the back?
Always ask me.
Please help them with that.
>> Okay.
So trying to control the traffic by not rezoning is I don't
think going to work and we're not sure what
we're going to get in there.
The one more dense zoning that would allow taller buildings
will probably intensify the situation.
We didn't rezone to CMG and left the RCR one.
But when I go over to the neighborhood, I actually stood on
, is it sundown at 1 Street?
I was concerned about a buffer, too.
And it looks like depending on what the developer does, we
may get more of a tree line there than we
hope that remains to be seen.
But standing on sundown, you've got that park right there
that's elevated about five or six feet.
When you stand on sundown, you cannot even see that area
over there.
You can see the tops of the trees.
To the east of that is a thick tree grove that blocks the
view from that, too.
And that's not going to go anywhere, too.
So there's not going to be a visual that will distract the
neighborhood.
And it will, in fact, as a sound barrier, too.
So I've looked at all the considerations I would if I lived
there.
I kind of like the idea of having a grocery store close to
me.
In fact, I live on Sherman.
They built Liostec.
I was pleased because I get to run down there.
And I do my big shop and I go in the vehicle, but I make
some small trips, too.
So I was pleased to have something within walking distance.
With all those considerations, again, part of our job as a
city is to develop along lines where
density is important, where people can, within short
distances, walk and bike or travel,
even in their car, just a short distance, because if you're
not driving 3 1/2 miles,
you're just driving a couple blocks, you're still using
less fuel,
putting less toxic elements into the bad air that we
already have here.
So that was one of the positive considerations.
So with all that being said, I am going to make a motion
that we approve this.
We have a motion on the floor.
Any further discussion or a second?
I don't have anybody else on the board right now.
Commissioner Sullivan.
I second the motion.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any further discussion or comment?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a couple of words.
I do appreciate people speaking and coming out with concern
.
You know, the property is going to be developed at some
point.
The zoning that's on it now allows for commercial
development, and it's going to happen.
And sometimes these conveniences come in prior to all the
mobility being in place,
but the mobility plan is in place.
Improvements are being made.
And I do support this, because I actually think it's a
really good thing for the community.
I'll just second your comments.
I think it's a unique opportunity that there's the
improvements to the overpass before it's built,
which is nice before this board, because that's not always
the case.
A lot of time it's after the fact.
And so I know there are some concerns about that.
But being a dead resident, born and raised here, that's
been a little two-lane bridge for a long, long time.
And it's great to finally see it be eight lanes now.
And I think it's going to be a tremendous benefit for that
neighborhood.
I'm glad to see this site be developed.
And I know there's been a lot of people that have been just
as adamant that may be concerned about it,
that they are thrilled to have a grocery store up at the
front of their subdivision
and the services that that will bring as well.
And so with that, I'm going to support this motion as well.
And seeing no other discussion, I will call for a vote on
the board.
The motion carries 6-0.
That will end our public hearing session section this
evening, and that will move us on to our project
maintenance matrix.
I can't speak.
Our project matrix.
So Commissioner Rozelle.
Thank you, Chair.
I would like some direction from staff regarding the
specific request I have and how to enact this.
I don't know if we can put this back to a different
committee for action or what.
But given the events of yesterday at Lakeview Boulevard and
the DCTA rail,
as well as the stated increased traffic that's about to
happen in the same block,
what does it take to increase the crossing guard to cover
the sidewalk, not just the road at that train crossing?
Who does that and how can we get that added to that
sidewalk?
We would have to -- I will visit with the transportation
department, number one, the transportation director, and
discern next steps.
I believe it might have -- we will also have to contact the
county and see what we need to do in terms of enhancing the
security features on that.
But it's something we would have to research and perhaps
have someone give a presentation at this commission
or have an opportunity to provide you what the steps are to
establish those parameters.
Yeah, if I need to do it offline from a commission, that
would be great.
If I could just get information of who to go to, I would be
happy to follow up on that independently.
Okay, superb.
We'll get you some info.
If not, we'll try and get someone to come in and speak to
it.
If not, we'll try and gather some info for yourself.
That sounds great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay, I have just a couple of things to put on there, Manal
, if you could.
One of the things in the Denton 2030 plan talks about
minimizing waste and enhancing our resource recovery.
Can we have a discussion on where we are with commercial
recycling bins in the city?
I see them in certain places, but we are missing major
opportunities in the city to have these.
I volunteered over a weekend for a festival in town, and I
was at the arts center.
They do not have a commercial recycling bin there.
I talked to staff there.
They do what I ended up doing that weekend and took as much
of it home,
because it was devastating to throw all of this perfectly
recyclable material away.
So could we maybe talk about this and get things moving?
Absolutely. I'll see if our Solid Waste team, Ethan Cox,
can provide us some info on this in a memo format for the P
NC.
I believe it's required for all new commercialists.
For new commercialists, it is, but I was going to allow him
to put that in writing as to,
and then if you need something, how do you secure that?
Oh, I had one more thing.
Well, you have the floor. Continue.
Thank you.
Okay, we had a night of replats today, and my issue with
replats is it's kind of a formality what we do here,
because we really can't -- when you bring it to us and it
complies, we really have to say yes.
So to have public discussion and commission discussion and
money spent for notices of public hearings in the newspaper
,
I truly feel like this formality is a waste of time and
money in a lot of cases.
It slows down the process for the applicant.
If we truly can't do anything with our discussion, can we
maybe have a discussion on either to allow public
and commission discussion to have some teeth with regards
to these replats, or maybe we don't need it on our agenda,
and we can save time and money on all parts.
So I don't know if that requires a work session discussion
or what, but I do have that concern.
Sure.
Commissioner Ellis, as it relates to the replats, there is
a specific formality,
and that is the notification and public hearing process as
it relates to the type of replat we're addressing.
In terms of teeth for the commission, I think we've had
this conversation before, too,
but what we could do is actually have a work session and
talk about platts in general, if you like.
Good?
Okay.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
The mention of trees today in more ways than one just
motivates me again to bring up the tree ordinance and get
it moving once again.
I don't know that we've made any changes since we last
talked about it, but it's something that needs to get
moving forward.
I think we've kicked the can down the road too long.
So Commissioner Ellis mentioned this last commission
meeting and put it on the matrix.
So did we make any move or any motions made to get it back
on the agenda anytime soon?
Absolutely. Actually, what we've had the opportunity to do
is actually work with our green team, as Chandran calls it.
Our DRC administrator has been working very closely with
Bob.
I'm sure you've all had an opportunity to meet Bob.
I'm rather new to this arena again.
So they are in the process, this green team, Haywood and
Bob and Chandran, and the planning division in general,
diligently working at creating or establishing a framework
for a comprehensive urban forestry program.
Now that we understand what that framework will eventually
look like, we are in a position to start moving forward
with the tree code.
In fact, we are keen that there is a recommendation from
the commission that can move forward to the council as well
.
But we will be coming back with some minor tweaks to our
last, if you recall, we had a work session.
We had a special called meeting and we discussed the tree
code.
So we should be bringing it forward very soon.
Okay. Before we do, I think I've mentioned to you briefly,
I have a couple ideas that will help maybe get us across
some rough areas with developers.
So would we have an opportunity to discuss that and if it
looks feasible, get it into the tree code before it
actually gets to us?
Absolutely. Let's do this then.
If it is the wish of the commission and Chairperson Strange
, I pose this to you as the chair.
If it is the wish of the commission, in fact, we had
requested it last time, go ahead and email.
I believe it's Shandrin that we emailed the comments to or
Heywood or copy everybody and Bob.
And if you have ideas or options or issue with certain
language with the last document that you read, send it to
us.
We'll do a couple of red lines for you.
We'll do a page turn and hopefully from there we can agree
to disagree or agree to agree and move forward.
Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else? Nobody else is on the board.
Okay. At 820, we will close our PNC meeting tonight.
Thank you, everyone.