Zoning Commission work session for September the 27th 2017.
This meeting's
been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will
call us to order at
5 o 2 and at this time I will turn the meeting over to Ron
for clarification
of agenda items. Thank you chair. Before we get to the
clarification for agenda
items I wanted to take a few moments to introduce some
staff members. First one
is Scott McDonald our interim director of development
services and then I'm
gonna have Jerry introduce Victor since he... Sure from
down in the proud city of
McAllen Texas Victor Flores joins us as a deputy city
attorney. Okay so the first
one is a plaque and I'm gonna have Julie come up and make
that presentation.
Hey Julie before you get started I'm gonna need to recuse
myself on this
item A and since it's a consent agenda I'll probably just
stay out of the next
item as well just hopefully it'll go quickly and then I was
going to ask
because I have a second item which is unusual to have this
many for me but
item B I'll need to recuse myself on that so if you all
want to take that in
out of order and just follow the consent agenda and I'll
just recuse myself for
both of those items then come back so we don't have to do
musical chairs of me
here and gone and back and forth if that's okay. Yes.
All right so this is a preliminary plot for a single-family
residential
subdivision it's Evers way it it is located on North Locust
and this will be
Hercules Lane and I'll stand for any questions that you
have.
Commissioner Sanchez.
I'm gonna I'm gonna call Jim Jinx up with DRC engineering
he can more fully
explain here. Tristan Trail well you have Tristan Trail
that's a that's a road
straight right that goes lead right into Hercules okay okay
I just wasn't sure
because it also called it so all your utilities are coming
on that on that
road because I believe it called it an easement utility eas
ement.
I see a label for four foot electrical easement looks like
it's just outside.
Just outside. Joe can I ask you to go to the mic.
Keep forgetting. Okay there's a four foot electrical eas
ement just outside of each
right of way and then typically for the city utilities
water sewer storm typical
sections those are within the street right of way. Okay
okay.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you Mr. Chair. Just along the same
line Jim then when they start
this development Hercules will be linked from where it ends
there Locust over into
that housing development you'll be able to take Hercules
all the way from near
Discovery Park to Sherman Drive. Would that be a good guess
? This Evers way does
not reach it by itself it does not reach far enough west to
connect to the
existing Hercules. It would connect to it would connect to
Locust.
We are going to widen we're going to take Hercules at least
the length of the
developer. Yes yes and we are in talks with the developer
this this property as
well as the adjacent property to the north whose frontage
does extend further
west and trying to work out an arrangement whereby the full
width of
Hercules is built the whole way for that connection. When
they're working on this
development? Yeah. As opposed to waiting for that area on
the north. That's all
that's a sort of all being discussed right now yeah and
there are more or
less at this point along with the DME substation kind of
coming in the process
together which is good. Okay thanks.
Yes sir. I have another question. Commissioner Sanchez. Oh
okay. On the here on the right side you have
a two what is it? Can you pick it up a little bit? What's
the name of that street?
Locust. Go up a little bit. Oh this way? Yeah. Yes sir. 21
64 and then you have
Skeleton Street that comes it's inside that that subdiv
ision is and I'm just
curious it's becomes the exit is going to be where though
the existing
subdivision is it seems like is that correct? On to 2164?
I was just curious. Okay it comes all the way down here.
Okay right here. Okay.
It seems like there's and I don't know if this if it's pert
inent but it seems
like that whole subdivision that they're building they're
gonna have to come all
the way down here is there is it pertinent to even ask if
there should be
another entry into 2164 so that it's all the all the
traffic from this
neighborhood it only has two exits and I'm just I don't
know if that's part of
this project would involve the connection of Hercules to 21
64 and then
they have an entrance shown off Hercules that Tristan Road.
Right there's that exit
right there going into Hercules and then the other one
comes down Skeleton
Road all the way down right and it comes in that that's a
subdivision already
exists so what I was my question is it seems like there's a
lot of homes there
you didn't have to go up to Hercules or have to come all
the way down to exit
out of that subdivision. I'm just curious. Can you explain
the separation for roads
and driveways for a subdivision? It seems like Mr. Sanchez
is asking if there
should there be a another entrance exit for this subdiv
ision on 2164?
Well I can tell you we've been in discussion with the
applicant about a
TIA to look at issues like that and you look at issues like
turn lanes and to
see what configuration would would work best. Some of that
is not resolved here
at the point of pruning plat and we don't really feel it
has to be but it's
certainly my final plat and it will be and we're in
frequent discussions with
the applicant about that with those concerns in mind.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you Vice Chair. There is a response form with a woman
who did request
that she does not wish to sell. Can you give me quick
clarification? Is there
is there a purchasing happening here? That has to miss
information on that. That
actually has to do with one of the zoning cases that will
be coming up. It
lines up with I'm sorry it does. You're right. Apologies.
Any other questions? Commissioner Sanchez.
At the bottom you have what there I guess the right what do
they call that?
I can't I don't know. The water right there where those
dotted lines are? Right
here? A little bit to the left. Oh right here? Is that you
have I guess some some
ponds there, settlement ponds or something for that
currently exist for
the drainage? Is that is that correct? This is a drainage
Eastman. Okay is that
is that part of what was going to help the previous the McC
amey Evers
phase one and how is that going to affect if you if you get
rid of those how
are you going to take care of the drainage in that area in
the other
subdivision? I was assuming that's why they built those. I
am not sure offhand
what is in that easement now but there is a detention pond
for McCamey Evers
phase one down near their southern or southeast property
corner and then we
would be I believe that the drainage layout for phase two
here basically
connects to storm sewers that stub to the north property
line of phase one
that that would be tied to. So coming down the street I
think Skeleton Way is
one such street and as well as the Doris Drive here is my
recollection. Okay. To
clarify this is the preliminary plat so once this all gets
vetted there'll be a
final plat coming back to us for final approval? Yes. Okay.
Yeah and as part of
the final plat we review the construction plans so we give
that a
thorough look. Any other questions? Thank you very much Jim
. So the next item is
the preliminary plat for the Robeson Ranch unit 2-5. Julie
would be making this
presentation. So this this proposed preliminary plat is
within the Robeson
Ranch plan development and it is for a single-family
residential development
that is in accordance with the plan development
requirements. It does meet
the technical requirements as well not only for the
engineering but also for
the gas well the nearby gas wells as well. So I'll stand
for any questions and
Jim's here if you have any engineering ones. Commissioner
Beck. Thank you Vice
Chair. In relation to the gas wells I just was kind of
confused the asterisk and on
the notes down there it points out that the asterisk den
otes those lots that are
within a thousand feet of gas well drilling and production
site and the
measurement was like was in there was one inch for 200 feet
so actually not
all those lots are within 1,000 feet so I was wondering why
they went ahead and
marked them as such anyway. I can't answer that for that
for the applicant. We have
reviewed it and within this boundary line. That was my next
question on the south side of
Creekwood is the boundary line. Yes sir. Yeah and it seemed
like all of Kirkwood
would be eliminated if that were the boundary line using
the measurement on
the plat so I was just curious why that was there and since
this is a preliminary
plan we can probably deal with it later too. Yes sir. Okay
thank you. Any other
questions? Thank you Julie. I think Julie if we go ahead
and move to the first
public hearing item Z1713A. All right. Vice Chair yes we're
gonna move to item B. Correct.
Apologies. So that we can discuss this and then bring Chair
Strange back for
the first item. All right so I'm Julie Wyatt, senior
planner at the city of Denton and
I'm presenting Z1715 McKinney-Mayhill. So the request
before you is to hold a
public hearing and consider a read of making a
recommendation regarding a
rezoning on 73 acres from ECI district to CMG district.
Just to orient you the
site is located or situated in the east side of town at the
corner of McKinney
and Loop 288. Currently as a zoning designation of ECI it
also has frontage
along Loop 288, McKinney, Market Street and then also the
future alignment of
Mayhill. So there's quite a bit of access to the property.
There's some
existing development on the site so I just want to go over
that briefly and
just let you know what's going on on the site. So first of
all there's an existing
vacant building to the north and I believe that is being
redeveloped as a
community service use. There are also some warehouses to
the south.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you Vice Chair. On that building
does not serve, didn't
occupy part of that building? I believe it does. I think I
saw that in the paper.
Okay so in regards to that are they moving or will they be
staying there?
Commissioner Smith. Yes, Sir Denton does actually own that
building now according to the
to the past executive director and one of the board members
Pat Smith. They do
own it so that was actually gonna be a question of mine.
They own that building
now. They have not received notification nor have they
talked to
anybody talked to them whatsoever about the zoning issue.
That was owned by the
building was previously owned by the person who's
requesting the rezoning as
well so I don't know if that's been clarifiable or not but
yes they do own
it they're owning the entire building now correct.
Commissioner Beck. Are they currently occupying the
building?
They're currently remodeling it yes. Okay so nobody's occup
ying it right now but they do plan on getting a certificate
of occupancy.
Well those are some great comments and what I'll do is I
can talk with the
applicant before the regular meeting and get some
clarification on that. There's
also three warehouses on the on the site. There was a
previous lumberyard I don't
know if anybody remembers that in this location and there
are some trees
there's the heavily treed in the center part of the site
and an environmentally
sensitive area assessment will need to be done prior to
development to determine
if that tree area is upland habitat so that would happen at
the development
stage it's not really something considered at the plot at
the zoning
stage but it is something to that will be addressed in the
future. So we look at
the compatibility and the surrounding zoning and uses.
First we look at what's
immediately adjacent to the site so as we've talked about
the subject property
has an ECI zoning designation there's also some adjacent EC
I there's some self
storage included in that there's some office uses as well
as some vehicle
repair across McKinney there's CMG and CME and those areas
are developed with
commercial development and multifamily. In this area there
's some NRMU zoning
with developed with multifamily. As we zoom out a little
further there are
there's RD5X off to the east that has office some office
use single family and
also agriculture. NR2 is in this location developed with
the school there's also
NRMU 12 in this location with multifamily and then that
there's a
single-family residential neighborhood here which has an NR
4 zoning district so
there's quite a mix of uses in the area. And what I really
want to focus on on
this slide is mobility because it kind of affects not only
the development of
this type of the zoning so we've got several large roads in
this area. First
of all McKinney which is a secondary arterial. A secondary
arterial is
intended to move move citizens throughout different areas
of the city.
Also you've got an arterial here you've got the loop as
most know it's kind of a
commercial corridor especially in this area and arterials
are intended to once
again move people through the city and also into and out of
the city so that's
the intent of that arterial. We've also have collectors
north of the subject
property as well as Mills is a collector and then and then
we have the future
alignment of Mayhill and and it's it's not finished being
built yet but it's
going to affect this subject property as it's going to be
adjacent to it. And I
wanted to spend a little more time on Mayhill because it's
going to be a
pretty a pretty dominant road on that side of town at some
point in the in the
near future. So I zoomed out a little further and we can
see this the subject
property is this yellow star and and Mayhill is going to go
continue north
from the subject property and it will also connect to the
south to 2499 at
Teasley so it will link Denton to DFW Airport essentially
so it's going to be
a real regional thoroughfare. The Denton plan 2030
identifies this area's
community mixed use. A community mixed use is intended to
promote a mix of uses
primarily commercial but can have some office uses some
multi-family those
supporting uses. This future development should be
developed in a commercial way
and raise the standards of the site design. A typical
development may include
like a grocery store or drugstore especially shops maybe
offices and
employment uses and then uses within the proposed CMG
district do align with this
future land use so it is it does conform to that future
land use designation. So
so although the future the the request does conform to the
future land use we
did also look at the compatibility of the request and what
's around the area.
So staff does believe that DCG is or I'm sorry CMG is
appropriate in this
location because it permits commercial development that's
typically found on
arterial roadways so you can see that there is going to be
access not only from
loop 288 and McKinney but also from Mayhill so this is the
type of development
you typically see on arterials. CMG would develop with a
commercial character
prohibiting the uses and design character that's allowed
under current
zoning. Undercurrent zoning is more of one of our more
industrial zoning
districts and so if it developed under current zoning it's
more industrial uses
and could be developed with an industrial character and
this is kind of
a large corridor that's going to bring a lot of commercial
development so
staff doesn't feel that ECI is is appropriate in this area
considering the
access and the visibility. CMG is a logical extension of
the existing zoning
as you can see in the map in the bottom it might be small
but all of the other
corners of loop 288 and McKinney do have that CMG zoning so
this would really
just complete that intersection. The existing and future
road network
provides the access that you typically want to see for
commercial development
but we do want to be sensitive to the nearby neighborhoods
and so when you see
that existing those arterials that surround the subject
property they do
provide that physical separation between any commercial
uses that would be
developed there and the nearby neighborhoods so to provide
that buffer
and a little little mitigation between any potential nuis
ances. Notification was
sent out we've received two in favor I did provide sorry I
stapled them
together and I believe though the the responses that I
received for this
project are at the back and there were two of them that I
received so based
upon the criteria for approval and the future land use and
the debt and
development code staff does recommend approval of your
request and I'll stand
for any questions. Commissioner Smith. What is the current
RL right away on McKinney
there bordering the proposed zoning change and if McKinney
ever does get
expanded will that our way be big enough to be able to
allow for the type of in
flow that you're looking for by changing the zoning? Well
when it if and when it
develops platting would be required and typically we have
additional right-of-way
dedication that comes in with the replatting so and
perimeter street
improvements so that type of improvement to McKinney would
come at the time of
development. There's a northeast residence up there on McK
inney I was
about to Google the address of one of the folks who replied
I think they were
on they're on Fawn Drive but if you look on the map there
if you're able to see
that just south of Saffron along May Hill it's a long
driveway backwards it's a
single-family it looks like a single family when I drove up
to the side it
looks like a single-family residence is that going to be
impacted at all by the
changing of the zoning in any way? I'm sorry but when you
said it's off of
McKinney in this off of May Hill I apologize. May Hill so
is it right there to the
left of your mouse? Right right here? Go down just a little
bit right there that
area if there's a single-family residence right there off
May Hill that
will be in that development is there? That's a part of the
request and so it
would I would and the applicant it will be here to answer
any questions specific
to the future development so they could probably provide a
little more
information about what's going to happen to those those
residences there now.
That's it. I'm done Commissioner. Thank you. Any other
questions? Julie does the property owner can you help me
out with the
applicant does is everything in the yellow box belong to
the property owner?
That was that is my understanding but I can certainly
confirm with them because
if we'll need to confirm that because it's not the case
then if they don't
own all that property within the yellow box they can't
request a rezone of that
property can they? Well and for instance this corner right
here on seven oh this
this is owned by 7-eleven staff did want this to come into
the request because we
didn't want to create an isolated zoning district by rez
oning everything around
it and so we did have to get 7-eleven's approval to move
forward with the
rezoning so yes if you they would have to have approval
from property owners if
they did not own that property. And who's the
responsibility on to document such
permission? It's a part of the application so it's provided
by the
applicant. Can we have that verified before the public
session about those
properties? Absolutely absolutely. Thank you. Any other
questions on this item?
Thank You Julie. Sure. We can invite chair back.
, please.
[inaudible]
All right so you're in a go with A now. Yes. I'm going to
ask Julie White to come back and
present the item for Justice Plaza. All right so we have
another proposed
rezoning on kind of on the east side of town. So this
request is to rezone
approximately 3.2 acres from NR 6 to NRMU 12. The subject
property like I
said is on the east side of town. It's north of McKinney
and east of Janney
Street in this yellow box. Just to orient you this is the
Denton County
courthouse. So this property was part of a rezoning that
happened in 2014 that
rezoned this entire a seven acre tract from NR 4 to a mix
of zoning districts
that included NR 6, NRMU 12, and NRMU. It was a part of a
comprehensive mixed use
plan that included office, retail, and some restaurants,
and some cluster
moderate density housing to the north or on the subject
property which is why the
zoning lines are a little different. Once again we'll look
at the
compatibility. First what's most adjacent to the site and
then we'll zoom out. So
first of all surrounding the subject property to the north
and the east and
the west you have NR 4 district which is developed with
single-family
residential uses. This is an established neighborhood that
's been there quite
some time. To the south of this subject property is NRMU 12
and that has a
single-family residence on it developed on it and then NRMU
adjacent to
McKinney right here has some office uses developed. Across
McKinney you've got the
Denton County courthouse and some other government
buildings. As we move out a
little further we've got additional commercial space
brought in on the on
McKinney. CMG has some additional government as well as
commercial office
and some multi-family development and then you can see that
that neighborhood
comes into focus as you zoom out. You can see it's a it's a
fairly large
neighborhood. We'll look at the mobility of the area. We've
got two roadway types
that are dominant on this map. First you've got your
secondary arterials that
is McKinney right here it's this in green. Once again this
is a road that is
intended to move our residents through the city to
different parts of the city
in a quick fashion. You also have Woodrow and Audra here
also a secondary
arterial. You've also got some collector streets. Paisley
to the north connects to
Audra as well as goes further west of it and then you have
Riddell Street which
goes all the way up to Mingo. Jani which is adjacent to the
subject property is
also considered excuse me to be a collector primarily
because of the
number of single-family residential uses that are on the
that are located on the
street as well as some of the commercial zoning that's near
to McKinney but as
you can see it really doesn't function as a collector
street because
it's got more of a residential nature on the north side of
it also because it
dead ends at Paisley it doesn't directly connect to other
arterials so it's it
doesn't provide a lot of connectivity. The subject property
is considered low
residential per the Dent Plan 2030 that's the future land
use designation
for the subject property. Low residential is intended to be
single
family uses for a maximum density of one to four dwelling
units per acre. So when
you think a low residential within the Dent Plan 2030 you
kind of think of
suburban type development. Single-family neighborhoods that
are that are distinct
and that are attacked that are connect to the city with
limited access to
arterials so that's that's really what the intent is. NRMU
12 does not conform
to this future land use designation because it permits some
commercial uses
as well as it has a maximum density of 12 dwelling units
per acre so it's more
of a moderate density zoning district. So when a rezoning
doesn't
conform to the future land use staff takes takes a little
closer look a
little more scrutiny is applied to the case in order to
ensure that any
request would conform to the character of the area and and
be compatible with
the existing uses. So and we did and we we perform that
analysis for this
request. So as you can see that this site is situated in
the center of an existing
established neighborhood. The development pattern around it
is
consistently low density single-family dwellings and and
this neighborhood
derives its protection from that that current zoning
pattern. So as you can see
the map on the bottom this is all in our four so if and
when any
redevelopment occurred within this area it would have to
redevelop in a
single-family way consistent with what is already already
in place so it's it
conforms to it. An extension of NRMU 12 into this
neighborhood would introduce
new uses new commercial uses and a higher density than what
is existing and
so it would really be inconsistent with what's surrounding
it. Under the current
zoning NR6 provides a nice transition between that lower
density NR4 and
then the higher intensity development that you typically
want to see along the
secondary arterial like McKinney. So that staff is in
agreement with this
existing zoning pattern in order to provide a gradual
transition not only
transitioning up to the higher intensity development on the
road but also
transitioning from the road into those single-family
neighborhoods. This current
zoning pattern could encourage a thoughtfully mixed use
develop a
thoughtfully designed mixed-use development that could
bring in some
compatible compatible uses and also just some moderate
density housing within
this area. Now the applicant has proposed a mixed-use
residential protection
overlay to address some of these compatibility issues
through some
design consideration and staff looked at that but we really
feel that the
incompatibilities are coming from the uses that
introduction of the commercial
development within that existing neighborhood that really
creates that
conflict between those uses and so the design
considerations we feel just
aren't sufficient and that the current zoning should stay
in place. Public
notification was sent out on the property we have received
some letters
in opposition I believe you have eight in front of you not
all of those were
within the 200 foot boundary I believe only three of them
so right now we're at
5.8% opposition and this map kind of shows you who was in
that that within
that 200 foot boundary we've also received two letters in
favor of the
request so based yes sir. Commissioner back. Thank you
chair. Going back to that overlay I
noticed in the background material you indicated that that
information the
things they wanted to do to gain favorability the applicant
that
information did not go out in the notification but they had
a meeting a
neighborhood meeting I believe on in July. Yes sir. Was
that discussed was that
overlay discussed at that meeting? There was a potential
for overlay discussed at
that meeting to address some of those site design
considerations so it was
something that the applicant did bring up that they would
be that they would be
open to and would consider putting on the site but nothing
nothing definitive
was was presented at that neighborhood meeting at that time
. Oh on considering
the overlay and some of the things they would do okay so
when they are at least
the ones we received that opposes project they really didn
't have a lot of
information about what the overlay would do. Correct. Yes
sir. Thank you. So based upon the
future land use designation in the Denton plan and the
goals that are
associated with that low density residential future land
use and the
character in the compatibility of a rezoning to NRMU 12
staff recommends
denial of the request based upon those factors and I'll
stand for any questions.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Julie it seems to be
the same owner that owns
all of that land is there a reason that they gave you why
they're not doing this
development at the front where it would be allowed to be
without a zoning change?
They are proposing to develop the the southern part the
front part of the the
land as as it is zoned they however and the applicants here
and they could
probably address this further but what they what they have
presented to me is
that they would like to continue that office type
development to to include
the whole seven acre tract. Okay so basically have it be
one development
from the from the south part. Okay thank you. Commissioner
Smith. And the
definition of NR6 says that there is the allowance for some
supportive
commercial uses. Is that definition of NR6 what's currently
zoned? Can you
help help define what that means by by some supportive
commercial uses? I'm
looking here at the just with the planning and zoning
department of city
of Denton is what it says for NR6. Hold on let me get my
staff report.
Make sure I'm looking at the right thing.
If you could direct me to where you're looking in that way
I can make sure.
Commissioner Rossell helped it's just very limited it just
the definition here
is very general but the actual use list now helped answer
my question. Okay great
thank you. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. Can you
help with the history of
the properties being zoned? MRU 12. I mean do you have a
timeline of when that was
done or? That was done in 2014. Was the NR6 also done in
2014? Yes sir. The entire
seven acre tract was part of a rezoning request that rez
oned it from the NR4 to
to these three zoning districts and the applicant at that
time presented a
concept that included some retail and and maybe some
restaurants or drive
through uses here along McKinney transitioning to office
uses in this NRM
U12 and then a cluster home type development in the NR6 so
it was it was
kind of a comprehensively planned mixed-use development.
That sounds like a
great idea in 2014. Is it the same property owner coming
back now? It is a
new no it is a new developer who would like to do something
different with the
site. Okay thank you. Sure. Commissioner Beck. Thank you
chair. The house that
seems to be about right in the middle of the area on Je
annie Street is that
property is that the owner of this property of this seven
acre tract? There
is the owner yes on this seven acre tract is I don't know
if he lives on that.
I'm not sure. It's a residence though? I believe so it is
still a residence yes
sir. That's my understanding. Okay thanks. Commissioner
Smith. Jeannie
Street's in pretty terrible condition if anybody's gone out
there. I know we're
talking specifically about zoning not to talk about plat
ting right now but with a
new zoning extending that type of commercial use backwards
is there some
sort of quality of street that we have to abide by in the
future that that
that would have to be repaired before you're allowed to
have commercial use
used that far back? Does that question make sense? It does
make sense. Thank you.
Yes during the platting and development stage and a
developer would have to
under current requirements would have to improve the
perimeter streets for their
side and their section so so half of Jeannie Street and up
to wherever the
development stops would have to provide improvements and
Jim is nodding so I
said it right.
Anything else? I'll ask a question of staff. They put an
overlay on here and reading
through the overlay it looks to be that they've actually
reduced some of the
things that are allowed as far as heights as far as set
backs that you could
do in NR6. It seems just as a question even though you may
not like the zoning
request the actual restrictions restrict the property more
than what they could
do there now and so I guess the question is are we looking
at it just because
it's a zoning classification or are we looking at it what
can you build there
with an overlay that it's actually probably less intense
and impactful to
the surrounding neighborhood versus I don't like it being
in our MU12. Well
NR6 without the overlay is actually more intensive than
what
they're proposing so they're kind of doing a give us a
little bit and make
our deal work and we'll take some stuff away. Is that a
fair? They have proposed
those those limitations on scale of development and we
looked at that and we
just felt that the incompatibilities came not from
necessarily the scale in
NRME 12 but more of the uses that those commercial uses in
the center of an
existing neighborhood. Well I've got to hear that
mechanical units have to be a
hundred feet away from adjacent properties and in NR6 this
50 by 120
lot so I mean they've got to have all that stuff a hundred
feet away whereas
you could have it right next door if you built houses there
so I'm gonna push a
little bit I'm I understand the argument of it being
existing neighborhood but I
think there needs to be some consideration when they put an
overlay
district that really caps what they're asking for that
might make it less
intensive than what you could do there with residential. So
just a question is
that if staff worked through all that and still felt like
even with all these
restrictions of things that you can't do there and the
heights and the setbacks
screening walls it's completely looks like it's surrounded
by a forest around
all the edges that what impact really is the concern that
would be against
neighbors other than when you look at it from up above on a
map it looks like it
versus impracticality the restrictions and what's around it
I don't know that
it's a huge impact. And we did look at that and it just was
centered on the
bringing in those commercial type uses within the
neighborhood so sure. Commissioner
Beck. Thank you chair and that's in reference to what you
're talking about
that's why I asked if the local residents had been made
aware of all
these details because I see where you're going that and I'm
okay with it to a
certain point but I would like the people that live in that
area to see
that and respond to that and they're still objected to it
then that would
definitely have an impact on my decision. Commissioner Rose
lle. Thank you chair
sounds like you opened up a can here but I appreciate the
symptoms. When I
first saw this I thought initially of individual you might
recall this but
right north of Chase Bank on University at Hinkle there are
single-story office
buildings that abut in our sixth neighborhood I believe it
's right across
the street from the church there and it seems to be that is
a workable
situation which is not to impose on the neighbors it they
have looks like
parking all across the fence line but it's a workable
solution that that's
okay it's not like a peninsula in a neighborhood over on H
inkle but it's
certainly adjacent to a pretty dense neighborhood for
single-story commercial
structures food for thought more than anything.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you
chair. Yeah it's a really incredibly generous overlay to be
certain so I'm
wondering yeah if if we wonder maybe ask the applicant to
re-look at discussing
it with the neighborhood I mean they they certainly should
have that
knowledge because it's it's it's very generous but I'm also
wondering too if
one of the concerns for denial is the area and what the
office building might
be what businesses might come in there because the spot is
very imposing on the
neighborhood I mean the houses are right there so I guess
that's the one thing
the overlay can't do is is eliminate types of businesses I
mean some to some
degree they did but I mean we're still gonna law offices
which we don't know
necessarily what they're going to be there's bail bonds
offices all over
there could be that right in the neighborhood not ideal so
I mean that's
certainly a concern for just the location.
Any other questions for staff? Thank you Julie.
So one more item. So next item is the development code
amendment that you guys
heard last meeting and Jim is Jim's gonna come up and
present a quick update
and provide a little more additional information on this
item.
Jim as you're getting ready for your presentation do you
know about how long
it's gonna be because I know we have food so I don't know
where we should take
a break and give you time to get ready or? I was envision
ing something on the
order of ten minutes.
It's really just an update and just talking about some of
answers to some of
the questions that were raised last time. Okay if I ask one
question before you start your
presentation are you gonna be asking for us to move
something tonight or is this
something that's gonna probably need to come back like we
talked last time and do
a little more work on that? I think the in my opinion the
logical thing would be
to postpone action until the next P&Z. We have done a
public hearing
public notice for the council meeting on the 11th or excuse
me the 17th of
October and we would still have time following the 11th the
October 11th P&Z
to revise whatever documents would go before council then.
Right if the
Commission's fine let's go ahead since we're gonna this is
gonna come back
rather than this is the final look and we're gonna go vote
on it. If the
Commission's pleasure let's go ahead and do the
presentation and we'll we'll eat
afterwards. Thank you. Good evening everyone.
This is intended to be to be like I said kind of an update
from from the last
time. I know not all of you were could be present at the
last meeting. What I was
going to do is do a very brief recap of what I discussed
before what I
introduced and then like I said get into some of the
questions that were brought
up from the Commission and from the public and the research
we've done
following that to answer those. As you all know that the
city is making a major
thorough effort to reevaluate and improve our processes,
our codes,
agreements in an effort to better serve the development
community to streamline
processes to protect the interests of the city. One
component of that is the
development contract process and this is specifically what
I'm referring to is
the stage between when P&Z approves a plat and when a
project is actually
authorized to go into construction and we can start turning
dirt. That's that's
been a historically a source of frustration from the
development
community as far as the time and the steps involved there
so we're looking to
streamline that and this this is part of that effort. A
request that Development
Services frequently receives is that the city file a plat
following approval by
P&Z and our code right now precludes us from doing that
until we get a
development contract. We call them two-way development
contracts because
the three parties named are the city, the developer, and
the contractor. It can
often take, typically it takes six or seven weeks or more,
well no about four
to six weeks for a developer to enter the contract with a
contractor and get
all the bonds ready, turn into the city, and reviewed and
approved. So in very
often developers want, we find they often want to file
their plat before they get
a contractor on board. Often I believe often that milestone
is tied to project
financing so we are trying to find a way to safely
accommodate that and then as I
mentioned we're also trying to streamline our overall pre-
construction
process. Very briefly this is our current process I showed
last time and as I
mentioned from final plat approval down the next line of
the three-way contracts
being executed typically a realistic best case is on the
order of six weeks
sometimes it can be much longer and you can see in the next
line after that the
plat filing there in yellow, the plat filing milestone
cannot be reached until
those contracts are processed and then I mentioned the hold
harmless agreements
last time that's a separate agreement it basically our code
as written does not
allow construction of private improvements to begin until
construction
of public improvements has been completed unless there is a
hold harmless
agreement that's executed it's a standard form and we see
we allow those
on everything but single-family residential so any multif
amily
commercial we offer that and it's almost always requested
so it's almost an
automatic step we're looking to fold that into this
agreement. After those steps
are done the permit can be issued. What I've got here shown
as the proposed
process is basically you'll see the plat filing would occur
much sooner we're
talking about breaking up the current three-way development
agreement into two
two-way agreements the first one being with just between
the city and the
developer and that would facilitate us following the plat
that can be even
before the developer enters into an agreement with a
contractor use so you
can see that would be the next step following that and we
will talk I'm
running through this quickly this is a recap from last time
we talked about
the standard note
Julie this is my last presentation from the first time is
Julie here I mean
these first slides were almost identical but the rest are
not okay it should say
maybe it's a good time to break for dinner I'm sorry I'm
gonna call a
recess at 555 and we'll reconvene as quickly as we can
you
okay welcome back and I will call us back to order at 602
all right thank you
sorry sorry about the interruption no problem I think it
was my fault I think I
may have sent Julie the wrong version of the we have the
right one now we're good
but basically I'll pick up where I left off I'd like to use
the pointer though
so some of the questions that were raised at the last
meeting from the
public and from the commissioners included what's a
developer's capacity
to get bonded as opposed to a contractor what do other
cities require could
guarantees be issued to the developer and the contractor
such that the relates
expense of the bond or the guarantee is not doubled because
that can be a
considerable expense and would the city consider allowing
single-family
residential houses to be constructed prior to completion of
the right public
improvements so we've contacted numerous surety companies
there was at least eight
talked to many agents and vice presidents underwriters were
we made
attempts to contact you yes media is asking if you can make
it full screen
I guess it has something to do with their ability to to
show it to the public
there we go okay thank you we have we found that it's it's
extremely difficult
to get access to the the underwriters themselves but we did
talk to numerous
agents and vice presidents of these these companies we have
also contacted
several cities in the Metroplex and across the state and I
'll get into what
what kind of responses we're getting the sureties having
the the companies that
issue the bonds or the policies they've informed us and as
I mentioned an
example last time I talked to you the one I had talked to
said that in many
cases they they do issue bonds these sorts of bonds to
developers but it is
more typical for them to issue them to contractors for a
surety to issue a
performance bond to a developer they they typically require
that developer to
sign personally and not as a newly formed LLC for instance
to demonstrate a
track record a good fiscal track record and more commonly
cities allow
developers to provide a alternative fiscal guarantee other
than a
performance bond and it could take many forms it could be a
irrevocable letter
of credit like from a bank what we found to be called a
subdivision in
maintenance bond some cities do something like that it's
very similar
to performance bond it's just with the developer named or
an escrow agreement
held by in which the funds are held by a third party and we
find the feedback
we're getting is the sureties recommend that cities require
that the developers
provide such fiscal guarantees they're not or they are and
that those
alternative guarantees are tend to be more readily
available to developers
than simply performance bonds some can get performance
bonds but for many
especially the smaller or perhaps newer developments it's
more of a challenge
as far as our feedback we've got from cities it's kind of
interesting because
we contact a lot of cities you know around the size of Dent
on or larger and
there's it varies greatly the requirements in contracting
and bonding
and timing of when they file a plat varies greatly from
city to city there
does not appear to be a typical process or protocol there's
there's it's quite a
bit of variance for instance some cities will not file the
plat until the
developer has constructed not just bonded but constructed
all related public
improvements you know some cities don't require development
contracts at all
just simply bonds we're not necessarily recommending those
I'm just I include
those as an example of how different cities can be we do
find that a lot of
the cities do offer several options as to what form the
developers guarantee
takes so as I mentioned before performance bond or
alternatively
subdivision development bond irrevocable letter of credit
and escrow agreement
or something like that and a couple examples of note that I
've included
because they are along similar lines as what staff is
exploring and pursuing here
as far as procedure changes and allowing plat filing
earlier one is Georgetown
it's about 64,000 people but it is growing rapidly and San
Antonio which of
course is a large city Georgetown in the Austin area they
allow the plat to be
filed prior to completion of the public's improvements once
a fiscal
surety or guarantee has been issued and again this can be a
trust agreement I
believe that's similar to an escrow agreement that can be
drawn from by the
city if need be an irrevocable letter of credit or you know
back to the
performance bond and I know one request that was mentioned
or a suggestion or a
concern raised last time was structuring this in a way that
homes could be lots
could be sold prior to the completion of public
improvements and apparently that
that is that is feasible with this arrangement that
Georgetown does San
Antonio is the only one I mentioned they will not approve a
plat until the
developer signs the three pages only three pages shorter
than ours the
performance agreement that ensures they complete the public
improvements but as
far as as far and we're not necessarily recommending
holding approval like that
but they do allow for an approved plat to be filed before
the public
improvements are completed if the developer provides the
fiscal guarantee
within three years of plat approval and again they they
give options performance
bond the irrevocable trust agreement or standby letter of
credit like from a
bank or a cashier's check. So before I head into that this
is in a nutshell
what we're finding is while there are cases that we had
found and are still
finding of developers being able to in some cases being
required to provide
performance bonds it is we do find that it is more
difficult for many of them
especially the smaller ones to acquire that sort of
guarantee but there are
other avenues to achieve that that sort of protection for
the city and that's
I should I should tonight say and again we will bring this
to you again on the
11th we are staff is continuing to to what we've gathered
this research now
we're having a lot of discussions internally we're working
with legal
department we are and other departments we are still in the
process of drafting
the agreements the two two-way agreements that we mentioned
last time
so we we are we're still this is still a high level
presentation but I did want
to show you our findings hopefully answer some of your
questions and you
know all this being said with some tweaks that I've
described here we are
hopeful that we can still pursue the same direction again
we think it was
streamlined things and we think it would accommodate the
frequent requests to file
plots earlier there was a also a request in the last public
hearing about allowing
or changing our code amending our code to allow for the
sort of hold harmless
language that we allow for multifamily or commercial that
is to say allowing
private improvements to start before the public
improvements are completed and I
want to address that a little bit and I think also I'd like
more than anything
like to just kind of discuss that a little more in the
public hearing we in
talking with with managers in in both our our building
inspections department
and our public works inspection department it's we it's I'm
told it's
not a request we frequently get certainly doesn't mean that
it's it's
not worth discussing and considering but I think one to
better understand the
request or the concern one one one kind of common response
it has been it's
say for a subdivision until the until the streets are grad
ed the utilities
installed the streets poured and cured it's going to be
very very difficult to
even get to the lot and of course there would be
coordination issues between the
contractors but perhaps that wasn't quite the scenario you
had in mind and I just
was what it would ask you I guess for further input or
discussion sure be
happy to that you want to do it in the public session
probably sure sure
next steps for staff as I mentioned will be continuing to
work with with legal on
generating revised development contract forms deciding upon
the allowable forms
of guarantee which options that the city of Denton would be
well served in in
allowing we will present this again in more detail at the
public hearing I
think we're talking about the the 11th of October for P&Z
and then the one
that's been advertised for October 17th for City Council
and that's the extent
of my presentation I apologize for the technical
difficulties thank you for
bearing with me I'd be happy to answer any questions
Commissioner Roselle I just one question I can re-ask in
the public but the
previous slide you had mentioned talking about allowable
forms of guarantee the
staff also including the development community to
understand what their
thoughts are on forms of guarantee whether it be a your
vocal trust or letter
of credit are those conversations happening internally and
externally I
know that internally for sure externally I know that mr.
Lee Allison who's here
tonight is has been in frequent contact with our legal
department as we are
going through this process and I believe legal has
addressed all your questions
thus far I realize what I'm presenting tonight no okay well
we will we will the
city will now I realize what I'm presenting tonight as far
as these
alternative guarantee forms are is new and and we certainly
can thank you
Commissioner Beck thank you just real quick Jim if you
could go back to those
slides that show the difference in the timeline from the
three-way contract to
the two-way contract sure you've got a total of looks like
13 weeks there oh no
that's cumulative so that's what I'm saying yeah from final
plan the
three-way agreement once you're at the three way the way it
is now it's about
six weeks before the plat can be filed is that correct yes
six six to seven
weeks okay and then that following process which includes
pre-construction
meeting and HHA is looking at seven so you had a total of
13 there right no no
yeah okay okay so I now go to the future so how how is the
developer served if
if essentially we're looking at seven weeks before permit
can be issued and
I'm sure I may be the only one who didn't understand that
but they get
their agreement signed earlier now the plan is filed
earlier so how does that
help overall with the project as far as building yeah yeah
that's a good
question well we we all can hear I guess when I'm at let me
try and rephrase it
from can they actually even though the plants been filed
can anything be done
on the ground yet before for these other processes are done
no okay so how are
they benefiting through this measure we get frequent
requests that to to file
the plant after approval by PNC and I think the most common
reason for that is
that developers often have financing for their project how
tied to the milestone
of plat filing but now oftentimes they're not necessarily
ready to hire a
contractor and start building a project we do see that but
it this change would
allow them to get the plat file earlier and give them more
flexibility is when
they can bring the contractor on board for that you know it
's I think it
was the response we got from I think it was San Antonio
they're saying it's very
common almost half the time the developers would rather
just bond or put
up a guarantee and not build right away we want to defer
that I guess what I'm
having fusion and maybe Jim can help with this is why would
a developer want
to get started if he didn't already have contractors lying
down is how is that if
you get your plan followed and you don't have contracts I
don't understand why
you don't already have them in place so can you help me
with that well someone's
gonna be the time frame and to Jim's point you're as a
condition depending on
each individual developers project the deal the drill
structure the business
structure right the filing of the plat may be a condition
of their loan to
fund for example and it's difficult to go start signing
contracts when you don't
have the funds in place and the letter of credit saying
okay yes we'll loan you
ten million dollars you're gonna go sign the ten million
dollar contract without
having that done for example so that's one thing another
reason would be it
may be as I mentioned I think last time was called paper
lots that they are done
they're they're ready to go and maybe the developer is not
going to actually
move the dirt and take them from a piece of paper lot to a
on the ground dirt lot
that they're gonna sell those lots as papers called a fully
entitled that you
can go out there and actually begin construction whenever
you would like as
long as that plat is still in full force to have a time
frame on them you would
then go over at whatever time that it is due to the market
conditions or
whatever external factors there may be there may be a sale
prior to actual
development so it's just more flexibility versus all of
these other
issues sometimes and things happen to go in and having
bonds in place they may
not even be ready to go to work but those are those are a
few scenarios maybe
not all but just some that come to mind right quick thank
you thank you
any other questions okay thank you Jim I think that's gonna
end our work session
so I'll close work session here at 620 we'll try to eat
really quick and then
reconvene at 630 thank you
good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and
zoning Commission
meeting for September 27 2017 this meeting has been duly
posted we do have
a quorum present and I will call us to order at 642 our
first order of business
will be to stand and give the pledge to us in the Texas
flag
invisible
our next order of business will be to have a motion for our
minutes unless we
have anybody has a change we'll just take those as one
motion okay a vote
individually okay we'll take a motion then for the August 9
th minutes
Commissioner Rizel I move to approve August 9th okay
Commissioner Beck
second okay I have a first and a second any discussion or
any changes seeing
none will call for a vote on board
motion is going to carry 4-0 with two recuse for not being
attendance for
those meetings and we'll move us to a motion for the
September 13th minutes
Commissioner Smith a motion to accept okay Commissioner Riz
el second okay we
have a first and a second for approval any discussion or
changes seeing none
a call for a vote on the board
that motion will carry 4-0 with three recuse for not being
attendance of that
particular meeting before we get started on the consent
agenda the chair is going
to change the order of the public hearings I'm going to
move item B to be
the first item that we will hear during our public hearing
section and the reason
for that is I have a conflict of interest on one of the
consent agenda
items and then I have a conflict of interest on item B and
so I'm going to
recuse myself on both of those items and I will turn the
chair over to our vice
chair Commissioner Rizel thank you
the next item on the agenda is the consent agenda and the
vice chair will
hear any votes or discussion on the consent agenda
Commissioner Ellis thank
you vice chair I move to approve the consent agenda and
Commissioner Sullivan
a second we have a first and a second any discussion you
vote on the board
the consent agenda passes 6-0 with one recusal the next
item on the agenda is
our public hearing item Z 1700 13 a this is a public
hearing so I'll open up the
public hearing and invite Julie Wyatt presentation vice
chair we're gonna move
item be it at the same thing work session Z 1700 15 still
miss Wyatt
all right did y'all want me to go through the end the whole
presentation
again or just do a summary it just fits up to you I think
we do the full
presentation great all right so the request before you is Z
1715 McKinney
Mayhill and this is to hold a public hearing and consider
making a
recommendation regarding a request to rezone approximately
73 acres from the
ECI zoning district to CMG zoning district just to orient
you the site is
generally located at the at the northeast corner of loop 28
8 and
McKinney currently the property has a zoning designation of
ECI it also has
frontage on on several major roads loop 288 McKinney and
then also the future
alignment of Mayhill it also has some frontage on market
and just to kind of
discuss what's existing on the site because there are a few
uses existing on
the site first of all on the north side of the property is
an existing building
it is come recently come to my attention that that that
property has actually
sold and I believe the property owner for that for that
piece of property is
here tonight and we'll be able to speak to you after my
presentation and I
believe that as it is currently being used as a community
service facility
there's also some warehouses on the property as well as
some single-family
homes there was once a lumberyard at the corner of loop 288
and McKinney that is
no longer there and then there's some there's quite a few
trees within the
center of the property so just to let you know prior to
development they will
have there will be an environmental sensitive area
assessment that will need
to be done in order to determine if this is upland habitat
if it is an additional
tree preservation requirements may apply
so to begin our analysis we first look at what the
properties are immediately
adjacent to the site so within about 200 feet so you can
see there is adjacent
ECI which includes some self-storage uses some office uses
as well as some
vehicle repair to the north there's also CMG and CME across
loop 288 and
McKinney which includes commercial development as well as
multifamily in
our MU is across loop 288 to the north which has developed
with a multifamily
use if we zoom out a little further we see that further
further west you've
got a single-family residential neighborhood that has an NR
for zoning
district some NR MU 12 in this area which has multifamily
development RD 5x
off to the east which includes office single-family office
and single-family
development as well as some agriculture and then in our in
our two which has a
high school on it so it has quite a few mix of uses one of
the large factors in
our analysis of this request was the mobility of the area
in terms of the
access to the site and that will the final access will be
done upon site
planning and platting but in terms of what what the nearby
road network is
first of all we've got a secondary arterial which is McKin
ney the intent of
a secondary arterial is to move our residents through the
city to different
parts of the city it also has an existing arterial loop 288
we probably
are all familiar with in this area it's it's a commercial
corridor and the
intent of an arterial is to move people not only through
the city but into and
out of the city and then we also have a an arterial that is
is soon to be
constructed and that is the realignment of May Hill and I
will go into that a
little further on the next slide but but that is also
functioning functioning as
an arterial to move people into the city as well as through
through the city
there's also some collectors Mills Road as well as some
collectors to the north
of the subject property and then let's take a little closer
look at or a little
further outlook zoomed outlook of May Hill so right now you
can see the subject
property is here in that yellow star and this this dot dash
ed line is is a a
schematic of the future of May Hill alignment and that is
intended to
connect to go to go north of the city as well as connect to
the south to 2499 at
Teasley and that goes all the way to DFW Airport so this is
going to be quite a
regional connection that will affect not only the
development of the subject
property but but a lot of the property along that corridor
didn't plan 2030
identifies this area as as in terms of future land use and
what type of
development we want to see as community mixed use the
intent of community mixed
use is to promote a mix of uses but predominantly
commercial commercial
development with some possible residential service or other
office uses
employment uses this development should complement the
existing development use
pattern and and design and should raise that standard of
design and have it
develop in a commercial way typical development it would be
the the
supermarkets drugstores specialty shops maybe midsize
offices and and possibly
higher density housing the uses within the proposed CMG
district do align with
the future land use so it is compatible and conforms to the
the goals of the
area per the Denton plan 2030 so when we look at a case we
we look at the
comprehensive plan but we also want to take a look at the
at the surrounding
properties and what the compatibility is and how we want to
see it develop so
staff does believe that CMG district is appropriate in this
location as we
typically want to see commercial type development on arter
ial roadways right
now under current zoning it is one of our more industrial
districts that
allows more some some industrial uses and allows us to
develop in an industrial
way and so staff feels like this is at this rezoning to CMG
would would would
not only get this property in conformance with the future
land use but
also would align with the the types of uses we typically
want to see when when
you've got this kind of access in terms of the Mayhill the
loop 288 and even
McKinney it is a logical extension of the existing zoning
pattern if you just
take a look on the bottom picture map you've got CMG on
three corners of that
loop 288 McKinney intersection so this really is just a
completion of that
intersection and as I said the future and existing road
network provides
adequate access and is appropriate for that CMG we do we do
want to be sensitive
to the adjacent residential and the nearby residential and
so in looking at
this that that existing roadway network does provide some
separation from these
commercial uses to those residential neighborhoods nearby
provides a little
bit of buffer a little bit of nuisance mitigation there was
a public
notification sent out and we received two notices in favor
and I believe I
provided those to you at the work session so based upon the
the criteria
for approval for that it must meet the future land use and
then also the
character of the area staff does recommend approval of the
request I'll
stand for any questions and the applicant is here to answer
any further
questions you have thank you Julie any questions for staff
at this time
Commissioner Beck thank you vice chair this probably isn't
necessarily
appropriate question for zone chain thing but the expansion
of McKinney
obviously if we're going to make the second arterial has to
be four lanes
correct two lanes going each way if this plan goes through
all the way can we
expect McKinney to be widened by the time completion of
construction or maybe
even prior to well I don't know about any city projects
associated with
McKinney but in terms of the current requirements for
development within the
city at the time of development a developer would have to
improve their
section of that road for their half so there would be right
of way dedication
associated with the plat so if there's not if there's if we
if the existing
right away doesn't match what with the future expansion of
McKinney is then
then if that would have to be dedicated at the time of plat
ting and then during
site planning construction any public perimeter
improvements would on those
streets would have to be completed so the developer would
be responsible for
at least two lanes that about their property on the Kennedy
well in terms of
I could why don't I call Jim jinx out and he can be a
little more specificity
so I'll have Jim come up
so the question was required improvements to McKinney
Street itself
right okay at the time of construction right right I don't
think on this
project I don't think a plat has been submitted yet right
so we really haven't
gotten to those issues yet okay however I mean our typical
exactions would be
right away along the applicants frontage McKinney is a
secondary arterial so
typical exaction there would be half the ultimate 110 foot
section 55 foot in
this case beyond that like I said we those sorts of things
usually are
determined upon platting okay and McKinney is still a text
dot no no sir
not anymore I believe last year it converted over to the
city okay I knew
that that was in the plans okay great thank you Jim any
other questions for
stuff Commissioner Ellis thank you vice-chair Julie did we
ever clarify if
there were private homeowners on that side of the property
I think the
applicant would be able to answer that a little more fully
I did speak with him
before this meeting and he said those houses were vacant
but you may want to
confirm it with him and make sure that we're all talking
about the same thing
thank you Julie I think that's all the questions we have
this is a public
hearing anyone wishing to speak can do so I have two cards
for individuals
wanting to speak the first would be Pat Smith if you would
like to come down if
you're wishing to speak if you just say your name and
address and you have four
minutes good evening I'm Pat Smith 1417 Cambridge Lane I
represent that an
assistant center also known as served in we are currently
the owners of the
building at 306 North Loop 288 we acquired that as of
September 1st just
simply to state that we fully support this request this
will become a
multi-tenant facility for nonprofits to include a health
clinic offices for
about nine different agencies as of right now with the
capability to serve
several other agencies and we're very excited about the
opportunity to begin
construction in the next couple weeks and we'll keep you
updated as we go any
questions Commissioner Smith Mr. Smith for clarification
just for any ethical
issues that I may fall into can you clarify your role
currently with serve
Denton yes I am a board member I am not executive director
you receive no
compensation whatsoever from the organization right now
correct thank you
I sure I do have a comment yes our question for mr. Smith
mr. Smith it's my
understanding you purchased the property in September or
closed or not not you
person but served in at the time of submittal of the
application it was
under a different ownership and so the application was
submitted under that
understanding however now that the served in owns the
property are you okay
with the zoning district because it is going to be included
the property is as
long as the current property owner is in agreement with the
application moving
forward and is this yes okay we've checked the
compatibility code there's
no issues for our perspective and so that to close the loop
we will require
served in the representative of served in to help clarify
the issue fill out
and sign the application so that it's in our records to
show that the property
owner is in agreement of the zoning change we'll be happy
to do that see no
other questions thank you mr. Smith the next card I have is
for Greg Johnson so
you can just state your name and address for the record and
you got four minutes
as well shocker but I actually won't take my four minutes
it'd be the first
time ever thank you all for your service I just want to
speak in favor of this
project our firm leases and sells a lot of property on loop
288 corridor I think
it's safe to say that that corner is rather blighted today
mr. strange has
assembled a lot of property there with the opportunity to
create a real true
quality mixed-use project I think we'd be really proud of
and that would
continue that quality development going to the north it's
kind of stopped you
know down there south of the county annex right now and I
think this project
would continue and and and really we'd love to see a
quality grocery store
there and I think that once this thing kicks off I think we
'll be able to
attract a lot higher quality tenants that have been a
little bit scared of
that part of town that all seem to want to be close to
raise a ranch and group
together up there and so I would highly encourage you to
recommend approval of
this project because I think it's really going to help that
part of town thank
you see any other questions I have one more card mr. JV
strange if you just
state your name and address you have four minutes good
evening ladies and
gentlemen my name is JV strange my office address is 531
North Locust in
Texas 76201 appreciate the opportunity to come before you
tonight I think that
mrs. white made a very comprehensive presentation both as a
work session and
tonight as to what the merits of this zoning case are
appreciate mr. Johnson
- he pretty much stole my thunder so probably could give
him giving him part
of my four minutes but I did want to reiterate a couple
things as I mentioned
except through your work session this afternoon and I heard
a couple of
questions and to clarify where we are when you look at the
property bounded in
yellow we owned on or owned all that property when we
applied for our zoning
back in I think was May 17th we did own the county building
we didn't go into
contract to sell that to them until July 7th and then as mr
. Smith indicated that
property was closed near the end of August 1st September so
we were well into
the zoning at the point in time that that sale was contempl
ated I would take
it oversight by having not made sure with city that we
needed him included
but I think you've heard tonight he is willing to be
included we do not own the
2.157 acres at the southeast corner down at the
intersection of McKinney and Luke
288 we sold that to 7-eleven corporation we did go back to
them and they
submitted a letter a letter of consent that they wish to be
included it's more
compatible with what they intend to do with the property so
that with the
exception of served in which we did own but we now don't
own and with the
exception of 7-eleven which we did own and sold but have
their letter of
consent we do have title to all of the other properties
that were within that
yellow just to be clear on it the properties along McKinney
Street don't
have a pointer but where that loop is where the small Oak
Hill office park is
that we acquired back in September of 16 the adjacent
property to it that runs
the entire length of the property along that kind of a gray
line we also
acquired back in September of last year then we acquired
several individual
tracks along McKinney Street there is one if you went out
there today there's
one little tiny tiny house there that in another good wind
will fall down and
we'll hold it off there is nobody living there there is a
nicer home up to the
north toward the northeast corner belong to Mrs. Fonny
George we bought that
property last September we allowed miss George to continue
living there for six
months rent free to give her time to find another home she
has something
moved out we did have a temporary renter in there they have
moved out in any
tenants that go in there will be our tenants and will be
subject to a
short-term lease so just to clarify those those points we
do on the
property I know that it came before PNZ and the council
previously but this area
was to be a CMG zoning it was in the Denton 2030 plan with
both which were
approved here at its City Council so we bought the property
felt like we felt
like that we were in compliance with the zoning that was in
place or the zoning
designations that were in place in working with staff we
have assured that
anything we plan to do out there hopefully will be covered
aren't this
zoning we just want to get this is owned at this time then
we will commence
working on plans to further develop a property but zoning
is a first step no
need take any steps out there beyond this until we are
zones that window
exactly what uses we can and cannot have but I will tell
you anything that we're
contemplating doing on the property will confront will
conform to CMG zoning if
you haven't been out there I would also tell you that as of
today the ME is out
there putting telephone or putting the new power lines up
along the west side
of Mayhill the gas line is gas companies already completed
their gas line so the
widening of Mayhill is underway thank goodness and one
question came up I think
earlier there's a little strip between our yellow line and
Mayhill and that is
right of way that has already been taken by the city of
Denton so we have no
further right of way requirements along Mayhill that has
already all been taken
in consideration and I think a portion of the right right
away alone McKinney
but my understanding has also been taken account if not as
it was mentioned
earlier as it comes down to the platting stages we will
consider a lot of
requirements are there so anyway I would ask you if there
are any questions or
anything and get was not clear to you and either either the
presentations or
if there's any other questions that you would have of me I
do not see any
questions thank you mr. strange I just want to say just you
clarified a lot of
the questions we had and those are some of the questions we
that I had was
ownership so I appreciate that yeah we also had letters
that we gave to see
the staff on all I appreciate you going to such detail
thank you very much any
other questions I do not see any thank you this is a public
hearing anyone
wishing to speak may do so seeing none I will close the
public hearing and open
the floor for discussion and or motion Commissioner Ellis
thank you vice chair
I think this is an ideal request for this property I think
this has been a
long-forgotten part of town as it was stated before and I
think it's going to
be a great development great for the town so I will motion
to approve thank
you commissioner Smith I will second that motion we have a
first and a second
any further discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on
the board
motion carries six zero one refusal thank you
a couple minutes clear to our item a public hearing for a
dash zero zero good evening I'm
Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I'm
presenting Z 1713
Justice Plaza the request is to hold a public hearing and
consider making a
recommendation regarding a rezoning on 3.2 acres from an NR
6 zoning district to
an NR MU 12 zoning district just to orient to orient you to
the site it is
it is located on the eastern part of town north of McKinney
about 420 feet
north of McKinney on Janney Street or I'm sorry east of Jan
ney Street a little
bit of background the property is part of a seven acre
tract which was rezoned
in in 2014 to include of mixes zoning districts the intent
at that time the
concept of that time excuse me included retail and office
and commercial
development along along McKinney in the in the in the NR MU
zoning district
transition transitioning to office uses in the NR MU 12 and
then finally in the
subject property some moderate density cluster type housing
so it was intended
to be kind of a comprehensively planned mixed-use
development so today we're
looking at that portion that was rezoned to NR 6 and so the
first step we do and
we analyze the project is to look at what's immediately
adjacent to it and and
in this instance in our four is is to the north the east
and the west and and
it is developed with with single-family residential uses so
that's a an
established neighborhood to the north and east and west of
the subject
property to the south of course is the NR MU 12 which was
part of the subject
tract it is developed with a single-family home and then
along
McKinney that NR MU is developed with office uses across
McKinney is CMG and
that has government offices the Denton County courthouse
building if we zoom
out a little further than you can see the neighborhood to
the north coming into
focus it's a rather large single-family neighborhood and
and it it surrounds the
property along NRM along McKinney that NR MU section you
bring in some
commercial uses as you zoom out and then the CMG you've got
some multifamily
here's also some commercial uses in the continued
government offices the
mobility of the area includes two secondary arterials and
some collector
streets the secondary arterials include McKinney and then
the Woodrow Audra and
and as I said before the intent of a secondary arterial is
to move people to
different parts within the city there are also collector
streets adjacent to
and north of the subject property to the north of the
property you have Paisley
it connects to Audra you all and and then goes and then
also continues east
there's also Riddell which which starts in McKinney and
then continues up to
Mingo and then you have Janney Street which is adjacent to
the subject
property it is classified as a collector Street due to the
number of single-family
homes that are that have access to that Street also because
of some of the
because of the commercial zoning that is on the subject
property but as you can
see it really functions as a neighborhood Street so you've
got you've
got these to the north these single-family homes and that
really it's
used as their neighborhood Street to get to their homes it
also Janney Street
doesn't really provide any connect access or I'm sorry
direct access to to
the broader network to the north that it stops at Paisley
so we looked at the
Denton plan 2030 and this area is designated as low
residential per the
Denton plan low residential is intended to be single-family
neighborhoods very
low density same one to four dwelling units per acre when
you think a load at
low residential you think suburban development these these
individual
neighborhoods that are distinct they have edges and that
they they do have
access to major arterials NRMU 12 does not conform to this
to this future land
use designation because of the commercial uses embedded
within it and
then the the maximum 12 dwelling units per acre it's it's a
little too dense to
be considered low residential so so because the requested
zoning district
does not conform to the future land use per the Denton
development code the
criteria for approval we have to take a little extra look
at it a little extra
scrutiny is is required in order to determine whether it is
an appropriate
zoning rezoning so when we look at the site and we look at
where it is it's
situated in the center of a neighborhood it's it it goes
pretty far into the
neighborhood and this this neighborhood is a very
consistent development
pattern of single-family low density residential and this
this neighborhood
gets that protection it's those single-family uses are
protected in the
character of that neighborhood is protected because of the
zoning that it
has because the NR for zoning on the single-family
neighborhood with any
redevelopment would require single-family homes to go back
into those areas or or
or residential uses that are compatible with what's there
that in our cert six
also serves to kind of protect that neighborhood because it
keeps that it
keeps that commercial development from encroaching further
into that
neighborhood it provides a boundary and allows a transition
between the the
commercial development along McKinney and then the
residential and so the the
further extension of that NR MU would introduce some more
commercial uses and
potentially impact that single-family residential
neighborhood as I said
before that NR six provides the a transition between the
lower densities
and I would say even the whole the whole seven acres
provides a logical
transition between that in our for the low density
residential and then the
development that you typically see on an arterial light McK
inney and we believe
that that current zoning pattern could encourage some
thoughtful redevelopment
thoughtful development of the property of a kind of mix of
uses the applicant
has proposed a residential mixed-use protection overlay and
their proposal
does address them some design considerations but however
staff feels
that that the incompatibilities are really centered on the
uses those
commercial and office and retail uses and less to do with
the cut with the
design considerations public notification was sent out we
have received eight
notices and opposition in two in favor I passed those out
during work session as
we as I said before three of those opposition letters were
from the 200
foot boundary which which is 5.8% so based upon the future
land use
designation of the property and the considerations that I
have presented in
the character of the area staff recommends denial of the
request I'll
stand for any questions and the applicant is here if you if
you to
present as well
I have a question for you Julie we talked a little bit
about this in work
session just was reviewing one of the other handouts you
said that the main
objection that staff has centered on the uses and you've
got a table that you've
prepared for us in our backup that lists the uses and the
different uses between
an NR six and an NR MU 12 will you tell us based on the
things that they have
limited that through their overlay that will not be
permitted in here I only see
three that are different from the NR six is that what you
have
that's my understanding that they're there I believe they
're limiting it back
to the to maintain the office and the retail uses and the
ones that I see that
are different or live work units community service and
adult or child care
and all the other ones they have limited in their overlay
is that fair
statement well I don't know that is that in the applicants
here and they may be
able to better okay because I know they've made some
changes to the
proposed overlay it was my understanding that they were
still maintaining those
office and retail uses but they may have made some changes
to it so so but
they're here and they can they can talk to you about what
they're proposing in
terms of that what were some of the other things I see
staff is going to be
in denial of this reason what were the other main concerns
that you all have on
this really had to do with the compatibility of uses within
NR MU 12 and
we wanted to to in and by further by furthering the
commercial zoning into
the neighborhood it could potentially compromise that
neighborhood it could
introduce new uses that may may prove to be incompatible
with the existing
development I think I think it was mentioned at work
session I think it's
it's a good point that you know some of these single-family
residential uses are
are next to and across the street from what could be a
commercial development
and I think that has a different feel than having you know
we often like to
see commercial development near neighborhoods because that
provides it
provides allows people to walk and it's a it's a good thing
but when you're but
typically we like to see that along at intersections along
maybe the arterials
and that's why this this current zoning actually it works
in our mind and that
as you move toward McKinney you do fold in some of those
commercial uses and
office uses and and that way you get that mix and that by
bikes further
extending that NR MU 12 into the neighborhood it then it
then could
compromise that single-family it's going further into the
neighborhood and
potentially impacting it so that's why staff really is has
concerns about this
case and it just and it it doesn't meet that future land
use which was the the
intent of what was in you know what that's the the vision
for this area is
to maintain it as that single-family residential thank you
any other questions
for staff okay thank you Julie this is a public hearing the
next card that we have
is Lawrence Holder if I send you're speaking for the
applicant okay you'll
give your name and address for the record I'd appreciate it
name is Lawrence
Holder I am at 2104 East
yeah that work 2405 that's it's a new one put the
presentation
sorry about that is that you yes there you are thank you
sure Commissioner back
I didn't get the last name clear Holder Holder yes sir okay
thank you thank you
okay it is the goal of Denton Justice Plaza LLC to go ahead
and rezone three
point one two five acres of a property off of North McKin
ney Street East McKinney
Street from NR six to NR MU 12 we have come against a few
oppositions for that
and we are basically coming up with an overlay restriction
for that but again we
are doing commercial development zoning change requests
from NR six to NR MU 12
our site location is is here kind of off of Jane Street and
North McKinney Street
the surrounding property uses is residential to the north
and to the west
but if you can see that there is the courthouse to the
directly to the south
and the Mary and Jim Horne Center to the east as well so
there are other
compatible developments within the area what we are
proposing our general
offices and closer to the McKinney Street which is not what
is being
considered for the zoning change but closer to this to the
street on this
property will be retail as well as offices per the zoning
requirements on
that so the current zoning is NR six there is an awkward
boundary line that
splits the NR six between the NR MU 12 I believe that was
developed originally
for the applicant who came in well something along those
lines and for
specific use and that plan didn't come to fruition so we're
now stuck with this
awkward zoning line between the NR six the NR MU 12 and we
are hoping to go
ahead and bring that NR 12 all the way through to the
property the proposed use
is general offices of that site of that northern part the
part that we are
requesting to be rezoned which is in conformance with the
NR MU 12 zoning
we're hoping to rezone this location so that we can have
one uniform single
comprehensive site as opposed to a bunch of broken uses so
we are hoping to
construct this site in a manner that is both appeasing for
the neighborhood as
well as comprehensively throughout itself so one cohesive
development the
zoning restrictions between the NR six and the NRI 12 don't
change very much if
really at all from the standpoint that there is the same
lot coverage you still
have a 60% lot coverage maximum you still have a minimum
landscape area of
40% and you still have a maximum building height
restriction of 40 feet so
the same type of overall coverage building to pavement to
landscaping will
be the same as though it was developed with the NR six even
though it's owned
in our 12 again we are proposing offices in this location
as opposed to
neighborhood unit dwelling units two of the other
restrictions general
restrictions actually go up for the rezoning minimum side
yards about it not
abutting it attached buildings goes up from four to ten
feet minimum yards when
abutting a single-family use actually goes from 10 feet to
15 so we're
actually becoming more restrictive on those two general
regulations we held a
neighborhood meeting and the concerns that were brought up
in that
neighborhood meeting brought us to propose an overlay
restriction we
discussed this with the residents at the time and I believe
we specifically
address them and what we would do specifically for
addressing their
concerns however there was not a follow-up neighborhood
residential
meeting that had been brought back that was because we felt
as though we had
received their input we did address their concerns and they
seemed to
reciprocate that their concerns basically are these eight
concerns of
stories the number of stories of the proposed buildings the
restrictions of
bars and late-night activity facilities preservation of
existing trees the
improvement to Janie Street was a another interesting
bigger issue that
was brought up and then again aesthetically congruent
development in
existing structures they didn't want something that was
going to completely
outdo their buildings or be something that was an eyesore
to that area fixture
drainage features to fix the current and future issues they
didn't want any
additional drainage they don't want any additional flooding
to their properties
with the development the property values was a concern and
then time of the
construction again they didn't want something that was
gonna like that was
gonna take 20 years to construct and they were going to
live next to
something that was being constructed for a very long period
of time the overlay
restrictions that we're proposing would be on the non-
residential buildings to
limit to one story and then 35 foot maximum height on that
as well so we were
willing to drop down the 40 foot maximum building height to
35 feet and limit
that to one story for non-residential buildings the
mechanical units that are
within 100 feet of adjacent properties we would limit to
five ton units there
they we would limit those so that would they would be
placed on the side of the
building such that there would not be more than two units
on both sides of the
building limiting the total units to four units if required
for a building
units then would be screened from the adjacent properties
for both noise and
aesthetics a screening wall is also being proposed along
the surrounding
property to help facilitate with any additional measures
mitigation measures
that the residents might feel necessary we also then
propose limited allowable
uses those uses we would like stricken from the allowable
uses would be the
dwelling above businesses group homes multifamily dwellings
fraternity and
sorority homes dormitories beds and breakfasts laundry
facilities semi-public
halls clubs or lodges kindergarten or elementary schools
middle schools
elderly housing and elderly housing
we feel that the applicant we feel that the opinion that
the impact of
the proposed development will be compatible to the
surrounding development
as the existing zoning regulations for inner six are very
similar to inner 12
as they require the same 60% or less lot coverage 40% or
more landscape area the
maximum building height restriction of 40 feet and we're
also again trying to
limit that down to 35 feet and one story and for non-
residential buildings and
the same minimum frontside and rear yard regulations the
proposed zoning
currently and the existing zoning regulates prohibits the
construction of
bars which was a concern for late-night bars and late-night
activity facilities
within the inner mutual so that concern is no longer or is
not a valid concern
at this time applicant will preserve and mitigate the
required trees per the DDC
we will provide the building materials per the DDC which
had to be compatible
have to be aesthetically pleasing and has to be in conform
ance with the
surrounding area the applicant will also provide drainage
improvements as
required by the DDC which we are not allowed to drain any
extra to the
surrounding properties we cannot negatively impact any
properties around
us so we will be taking on all of our proposed drainage and
either detaining
or releasing as required by the same these restrictions and
overlay
basically covered all of the concerns that the
neighborhoods residents brought
up in both their letters and that we received their letters
that we received
and phone calls and at the neighborhood meeting a hesitate
to bring this up but
if necessary the applicant is willing to suggest a
compromise if they cannot get
if a denial of the zoning in its entirety is proposed we
would like to
suggest adjusting that awkward line at the minimum pulling
that up so that that
NRMU 12 area can be used more effectively more efficiently
and that
in our six area can then be again also used effectively
again we're just doing
a typical general office use this is the general typical
office use rendering
from the architect at the time that we are proposing so at
this time I can take
any questions quite a few questions Commissioner Beck thank
you chair thank
you mr. Holford for your presentation and I must admit I
must admit and I think
every other Commissioner here will to that your overlay is
very generous and
and does appear to answer the concerns you indicated though
and it wasn't
clear to me before you said this that you've talked to the
residents explaining
the details of the overlay and they were essentially okay
with that yet we some
of the statements we get back are still in opposition to it
so I'm not clear
that they've had a clear presentation of this overlay is am
I wrong in assuming
that those that we talked to you were at the neighborhood
meeting as well as those
who would call in those who didn't participate in the
neighborhood meeting
or didn't contact us when we have sent out the notification
would not have
received any additional information so I don't know what
the comments are wasn't
provided with the eight comments that are in opposition to
the project so I can
specifically say to those eight whether or not they are in
opposition to
anything that that was already said okay and by the looks
of them I don't think
there is anything there but do you think you might not be
better served if you
perhaps went back and did a more complete presentation
tried to encourage
more input from the residents that would get them on your
side with this overlay
because I as the staff mentioned I would encourage
commercial development along
this area to McKinney that would allow people to walk
distance but your
development encroaches very deep into that community you're
surrounded on
three sides by residential homes and even with all your
efforts it does
detract it diminishes a single-family neighborhood and I
worry about that I
worry about it setting a precedent for not only this area
but other areas to
see where low-density housing is and how it can impact
things down the road so I
like your idea of maybe your alternate solution that seems
viable to me
straightening that line a little bit but again I just there
's a need in the city
as everybody knows for affordable housing and this is an
ideal spot to
build at least 18 units for that could serve this need
greatly I'd like to see
that this is an infill area we definitely want to get it
taken care of too so
we'd be willing to work with you but I'm just having a
problem how deep this
development goes into there and think you might be better
served if you went
back to the community with your overlay plan and laid it
out and got some input
some more feedback from them that we could see that would
make us feel
comfortable if we were to support your project any comment
on going back and
doing it well I know the applicant is hesitant to slow
things down at this
time however we could hold another neighborhood meeting and
discuss these
overlay restrictions with the neighbor the surrounding
neighbors I do know
that this area being across from the courthouse is turning
over more to red
offices the homes are being renovated into those the need
for offices in this
area for lawyers or for other facilities that facilitate
the courthouse is
greatly desired in this area don't disagree with that but
you do have that
front part of the track there at 3.8 acres that you could
use it for so I can
understand you want more but you can still do something
along those lines
with that without going that deep into the community and
perhaps disrupting it
too much and staff is mentioning just my two cents worth
commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you mr. Holder for
your presentation so
I think you're very generous overlay addresses a lot of the
restriction issues
to make it more compatible but as staff presented it's the
use that makes it
incompatible because the way that tract of land goes so
deeply into the
neighborhood can you address how the use how you feel the
use is compatible
absolutely so the use that we're proposing at this time
does not have
any greater impact than what the existing zoning has in the
size of the
facilities that are being provided so in other words the
your landscape area so
has to be a minimum of 40% so right now anybody who were to
develop that area
would have to adhere to the landscape and the lot coverage
requirements the
new zoning has the same requirement so the construction of
anything going there
would have the same footprint if not the same overall use
going into that that
building so we feel that we're providing general offices
that look similar to
what we have provided in our rendering it has that
residential appeal that
residential kind of look but is not a residence it is a an
office that the
community can use a good example would be the child care
that can be provided
for the residents as well as for those who are going to the
courthouse the
whole desire of this area is to go ahead and construct a
cohesive construction
that is both needed in this area and appeasing and to the
residents of the
area that both help facilitate needs of the residents as
well as those across
the street right and again I think you've addressed the
restriction part I
mean you know offices that look like homes and and and that
's great but again
it's the use that is the issue in this deep part of the lot
that that's where I
think everybody's getting stuck I think everybody would
love to see that piece
of land developed along McKinney and I think it's
definitely needed it's it's
that part that encroaches so deeply it's literally across
the street next to
behind single-family neighborhoods and a single-family
neighborhood that's one of
our most affordable dense single-family neighborhoods in
the city we have to be
careful not to negatively impact and destroy that since we
are running short
on affordable housing in our area sure so I must not quite
understand that
question as stated I'll go ahead and pitch it over to the
house and I'll
actually ask him to come up here to go ahead and possibly
answer that question
for for you okay or I can restate it if needed thanks
good evening Lee Allison with Allison engineering group 24
15 North Elm Street
I think we're trying to learn our new address sorry about
that in response to
a couple of questions obviously we'd like to avoid having a
another
neighborhood meeting we felt like we did a good job
responding to others the three
that are in opposition within the 200 feet I can't say
tonight whether they
were at our meetings or not if the Commission as a whole
felt like that we
really needed to go back and have another meeting I think
we're willing to
do that that's certainly not objectionable to us when it
comes to the
uses the one thing we've done is limit them to one stories
35 feet more to
allow for roofs so you're not going to have a taller even
two-story homes or
anybody looking into the area they again are intended to be
more of your
residential type buildings the type of offices that we go
there more likely
would operate during the days possibly on Saturdays mostly
during the week so
you're not going to have the nighttime evening when most
people are at home
when it comes to affordable housing the biggest problem is
the cost of
construction not the size of the home or where they are a
lot of these homes are
affordable in this area because they're older homes depreci
ated quite a bit not
quite as desirable in the marketplace today and they just
that's what keeps
them affordable at this point in time to think that we
could come in and put down
new lots at today's land prices and come in with a
competitive home as
affordable that was not really possible we're seeing homes
entry-level homes in
the hundred and twenty five to hundred and fifty dollars
square foot range and
these wouldn't be in that range you're not going to see the
big commercial
lights and things it'll be more similar to what you would
in another
neighborhood and in good separation distance between the
properties privacy
fence between the two that's been promised to practically
replace all the
neighbors existing fences and we're going with a taller
fence so that's where I
think the uses would make some difference the biggest
challenge might be
on on Janey Street as far as some commercial traffic but
that's why we're
proposing the access on McKinney Street at the front I
think it's interesting
that this is classified as a collector because of all the
houses on the front of
the street but when I look at the area all those streets
are collector streets
because of the number of houses on them so that's it's kind
of an interesting
facet of our development code in the way we classify
streets is there anything
else related to land use I you know granted you'll have
people coming in and
out but it's not just because of the zoning you're not
gonna have a big
shopping center with the massive parking lots and and the
huge crowds coming in
at Christmas or whatever for shopping events or things like
that right and I
guess if I can continue I think what's getting lost is my
question okay so what
I wanted from you is is you've you've definitely addressed
the issues the
neighborhood at least brought to you in the meeting with
your your overlay and
eliminating you know types of uses and and and great
restrictions on that
overlay but what I wanted from you is why do you think this
three acres in the
use that you're proposing is compatible with with the
neighborhood because with
the restrictions we're gonna see things like bail bonds on
the front they want
to be on McKinney Street what we can see in the back is
compatible uses such as
child care centers doctors offices people that would serve
those I don't know it's
hard to get businesses that can be supported within walking
distance because
usually with single-family home districts you can't hardly
support a
snow cone stand within walking distance it's just hard to
do you have to have
driving but it would be uses that were compatible I think
the marketplace would
drive uses that are compatible with the residents as far as
things like daycare
centers that could serve those residents over there it's
not going to really being
that far back in there just because of where it is it's not
going to really
attract the type of businesses that want to be on McKinney
per se it's going to
attract the type of businesses that want to be in that
neighborhood and I think
it works well with your neighborhood residential mixed use
and the ability to
provide the services within walking distance or short
driving distance so
they don't have to go across town to get to them well you
're at the mic if you
don't mind looking at the overhead map and we're talking
about affordable
housing and availability it appears that right across the
street to the west of
this site on Janey is a vacant lot it looks like on Hedda
Street there are two
vacant lots that are available on Riddell Street there's
vacant lot available
so there is single-family residential lots that are
available that are still
sitting there vacant even across from what is here a larger
track so this will
bring that to the Commission detention while we're talking
about that that
there are available vacant lots right across the street and
on neighboring
streets that are still vacant so talking about demand and
availability so
I recognize that next speaker am I allowed to respond sure
my issue with
affordable housing was not that we need to build more right
there it was I don't
want to see the demise of what is affordable there's a lot
of investors in
that neighborhood who would just love this to turn all
commercial there so
they can sell their property and we have now eliminated
affordable leasing and
affordable housing options that was my point okay thank you
well-said
lady did you have something else you wanted to add for our
recognize next
speaker related to that I was here the night the prior
zoning was approved and
saw the concept plans and I think the primary reason that
that development
didn't occur because it was not economically sustainable
yeah even for
the tiny houses it would be very affordable it just didn't
happen for I
think obvious reasons any other question yes Commissioner
Sullivan
thanks chair first I guess to staff I'm confused because
you had in your chart
that the building height was 40 feet on both and yet and
what I'm looking at it's
65 feet for the NR MU 12 is it 40 or 65
in our six is 40 did I show NR MU 12 is a maximum building
height the 40 feet in
our MU has a maximum building height of 65 feet okay wrong
in my chart no I
think they had it wrong in their chart that's why I was
asking is that you had
both heights were 40 yes okay well I've got NR MU 12 is it
's 65 feet in our
backup oh I apologize that I that I may have okay so that's
what it is so it is
40 yes okay I got that's fine I'm struggling with if when I
look at the
things that you strike from the district and all the thing
all the restrictions
the height from 40 to 35 one story what's the difference
between just having
an NR 6 I mean you're basically building an NR 6 from the
NR MU 12 with the
restrictions that you're placing in that zoning I'm
confused as to why the
why the restrictions that ends up looking like in our six
the primary
reason is because of the garden office type facilities that
we can have in some
retail and small restaurants and things that can go there
there's very limited
size of them so it does make them neighborhood residential
friendly if
somebody would come in and put a small restaurant it'd be a
good place to walk
to from within the neighborhood so it allows the primary
uses that this client
is looking at developing in that area I guess it doesn't
include everything but
we think it makes it even more neighborhood compatible than
then what
the neighborhood residential district allows for and it
just takes away some
of the taller higher people use activities such as
apartments and
schools and things of that nature but mean what and what do
you say you're
gonna do with about the density you were to keep that at at
the at 6 or 12
six actually I'd have to talk to our applicant here Nathan
iel Johnson I don't
see a problem with keep reducing the density from 12 to 6
because we're not
planning on building single-family residential anyway in
there so I don't
see that that would make a difference I didn't even think
about adding that
restriction I need Dodson Dodson legal group developing
this the Davis your
address please sir for the record 109 South Woodrow thank
you the big use and
restriction as far as I understood is professional space
the property itself
being just adjacent from the court building is really ideal
for the legal
community and the legal needs surrounding there's just not
a lot of
office space or any place for the legal community to get
housed in fact that some
of the buildings are being acquired by the county it's
actually a shrinking
area for people that are exactly in my position and other
of the legal
communities position that we're getting kicked farther and
farther out which is
not ideal the entire purpose of the development is to kind
of create a home
and an epicenter for people within the legal community to
kind of glom onto
being walking distance for restaurants being where I'm sure
there's a gun in the
effects or kinkos if there were still around as well as
being able to house
attorneys bail bonds towards the front and have a easy
access area that just
simply is not existent in the current area in terms of the
neighborhood itself
I understand the concern brought up about being such a
striking difference
from commercial to residential but in fact we're trying to
work appearance
wise into the neighborhood which pitched roof smaller
buildings so it won't be
that glaring difference between having a Kroger's right in
front of your house and
a neighborhood so all the the things that are being brought
up are considered
and very important and we don't want to have a problem with
the neighborhood at
the same time when you talk about affordable housing new
construction
isn't very affordable regardless of where you go and I
understand and agree with
what Lee was talking about previously of most likely the
last project for the
rezoning failed ultimately because the neighborhood couldn
't sell a new
construction is doesn't fit with the current neighborhood
either and my biggest
concern is is that would end up being empty raw land in the
long term because
until there's a change within the neighborhood which would
absolutely
destroy the affordable housing there's not too much that
can be done with that
property itself so really all I'm trying to do is increase
the value of the
surrounding community we'd be improving the road itself as
well as creating an
actual use for a property that may end up remaining raw
land for decades because
you can't build residential within that current community
although it's
understandable that you don't want to have a striking
difference between a
commercial space you know the the CVS and the residential
neighborhood it
occurs all the time everywhere but we are trying to our
best to work within the
community keep everybody happy not be a striking difference
between the office
space as well as the neighborhood itself
thank you commissioner Smith thank you chair before I move
on mr. Dotson thank
you very much for your words one of the things I brought up
today on the
Commission was the idea of valuation changing and the
affordable housing area
that surrounds the plot of land that we're talking about in
my own personal
experience to doing research on affordable housing
commercial property
purchases and development of commercial property doesn't
nearly affect
residential home values as much as being people think in
actuality a lot of times
you lose the demand for residential property when you're
getting when you have
it closer to commercial so if anything it might actually
keep home values less
if you see investors want to come in and buy a nice
residential home in the
middle of a nice residential neighborhood now if they have
possibly a
commercial space across the way it may be less of desire
keeping that value low
is what is what the way I perceive it so I just wouldn't
have that there on record
to mr. Allison and his associates the the genie Street
condition it was
something that was brought up during the neighborhood
community meeting is that
something and I'm asking a lot of the questions I'm gonna
ask you here are
dependent upon the platting process once we get to that is
the discussion of the
development bringing improvements to genie Street on the
table is that
something that is going to be addressed because that Street
is terrible the
condition of genie Street is deplorable and in accordance
with the city
requirements for development and perimeter street
requirements we will be
working with the city to accomplish that we are already in
the process of laying
it out one of our big challenges is to try and come up with
an alternate design
so we can try and keep those trees in the median where gen
ie is going to go
people really like those but if that Street gets rebuilt to
city standards
without some kind of exception by the city those trees will
have to go but
we're yes that was Street will be will be improved will be
upgraded as the site
is platted and only in portion of the part that is platted
so it may if the
site gets platted in three pieces it'll be three pieces is
that Street gets
does that mean the concept and the concept for the planning
that your
associate showed us a little while ago was there going to
be an entrance to the
property from genie Street or was it only be from the front
of McKinney that
concept was the concept whoops I need to find the word our
first one go there we
go I know it's small and hard to see there would actually
be two accesses to
genie Street we're proposing another access from McKinney
Street as well
didn't touch on the first presentation there last two
things specifically
talking about concept first of all there is an existing
tree wall that surrounds
the entire property that does shield it from the
neighborhood as it sits now so
it isn't like looking over raw land from the neighborhood
side is the idea you've
talked about a proposed screen is the idea to keep the
original facade of the
trees or to put up a brand new brick wall or I don't know a
lumber eight foot
fence what's the idea here on generally the idea is to work
with the neighbors
and replace their fences in place with a newer better fence
that would be a
privacy fence instead of trying to build a second one right
next to theirs and
that would give us better opportunity to maintain the tree
lines and we do have a
pretty good sized landscape buffer there and with the top
ography of the land it'll
be a lot easier to maintain the existing trees along the
edges of the property
will that pertain to the long the edges of genie Street as
well probably not
because of the city standard Street sections and the reason
need to dedicate
additional right away and widen everything in there and
utilities go
it's just almost impossible to save those great and the
last thing I think
to to you mr. Allison as well as you mr. Dotson number of
dwellings that we could
possibly project when it comes to the plotting process you
mentioned that even
though and the the new use that we're looking for from NR
six to NR MU 12 in
our unit 12 requests or has the allowance of 12 dwellings
per acre in
our six is six dwellings breaker you guys thinking that the
platting is going
to be looking more like six dwellings per acre versus 12
well if we get the
zoning approved there won't be any dwellings and sorry I
should I should
rephrase it units the ability for if you're talking about
talking about
building these as professional offices units per acre is
dwelling units it is
not building units okay and you can see in this plan we're
looking at on that
upper portion probably six buildings total okay that's what
I get 7500 square
yeah vernacular vernacular wrong but that the same in end
goal six total
buildings essentially as we're looking at and what we have
on this plan is
basically what we're anticipating in that upper area okay
no other questions
Commissioner a couple more questions still Commissioner
Roselle thank you
chair I've been taking notes this entire time so if this
seems like a stream of
consciousness and my questioning I apologize the overlay
that you submitted
to us was that completed before the neighborhood meeting or
in response to
the neighborhood meeting in response to the meeting okay
and they were
specifically discussed with those present at the meeting
line by line we
said we could do those and we did I think echoing other
commissioners I think
the overlay is gracious I think it's a it's a pretty good
attempt to mitigate
some of the concerns city staff brought up several times
that the main issue is
use that they don't want the use there was was used talked
about in the
community meeting did they bring up the opposition to a
office use no they
brought up an opposition to bars and clubs and things that
might operate late
at night which NRMU 12 does not allow at all they were
concerned about bail bonds
type facilities and while there's no restrictive of the use
of those that
specific those facilities tended locate on-street frontages
closer to the jail
the better because people walk out of there and go straight
to the bail bonds
but they need the the road visit main road visibility not
the background
visibility did you bring up the general office use in the
community being as
your intention yes we basically brought up this concept
site type plan and
there was no opposition stated at that time they were
against the office use
none had stated at that time no okay I have a question for
Julie why before I do
that I had one comment this this has no bearing on this but
as I'm looking at
the site plan I wrote up in the work session mr. Allison
you were there that
there's a very similar development like this off Hinkle
just north of University
across from the church behind the chase building and they
structured it where
the drive and parking abutted the adjacent properties
providing a little
bit more buffer from the fence lines the actual building so
I don't know if that
is possible or if that's desired I'm not sure I don't know
how to plan that but
I'm wondering if the drive on the east side and the
buildings were flipped if it
actually would provide more buffer if there's an issue with
cars driving I
don't know but I just it works in the other development in
terms of spacing
sight lines from the back door of the house the buildings
are pushed for
further away from the property line again that that's not
relevant to this
but in this weekend this I wonder if I didn't be more
manual to residents to
flip that I am very familiar with the facility you're
speaking of my personal
opinion is that this is a better layout because you have
landscaping in the back
we have any large mechanical type equipment has to be at
least 100 feet
from the property line which would kind of put it out in
the middle of everything
we've limited the units to residential style units and
requiring them to be
screened with screening walls there's more opportunity for
landscaping and you
have you just don't have the lights from cars pushing into
backyards etc so we
we feel like this is better I haven't heard anything from
the residents
directly related to that I leave it up to the professional
to decide that just
my thoughts miss why can I shoot two questions please you
had mentioned that
there's opposition because of the office use but it doesn't
sound like the
community was advocating that can you tell me about the
background from staff
having an issue with the use of office sure so so in terms
of these infill
areas where you've got established neighborhoods and then
you've got
development opportunities adjacent to it and I know we've
seen cases like these
come before come before this Commission in the last year we
have to look at
those neighborhoods and and and and ensure that often when
we have these
cases where commercial development starts encroaching in
those neighborhoods
it nibbles away it nibbles away at the edges of it and that
and that when it
nibbles too much then it compromises that cohesive
development pattern pattern
of that neighborhood and so we often need to in often in
some instances like
this one where it's really it's in it's it's centered in
that neighborhood we
want to hold the line to ensure that that neighborhood
stays protected and
that it and that those those those residents are that their
existing
development pattern and the uses that are in the area are
maintained and and
that there isn't that nibbling away so that one property
falls and the next one
falls and so that that's really our intent and in terms of
of a mix of uses
and an office yes often those things can be compatible but
we have to look at it
in a situational setting so in terms of this one you know I
we we looked at the
existing zoning pattern think you know that NRM U12 and
that NRMU the way it's
existing kind of makes sense in this area because there is
a need for office
space and we want to ensure that that those that it
develops in a way that's
appropriate for the area but but in this situation when it
's it's so far into the
neighborhood that's when it becomes problematic that you're
bringing in that
office use so so really that was our intent was to just
hold the line
maintain and protect that neighborhood against encroachment
and against the
nibbling away at the edges to that it's compromised to a
point where it would
change the character of the neighborhood and sure if I can
just add to that
really quickly I know we reference the development on H
inkle and University I'm
looking at the aerial and the the line is straight across
as far as residential
versus commercial so as Julie was talking about encro
achment there is Lee
there isn't any in this area specifically as we compare it
to this
particular one you're talking about like they haven't this
is more like a
peninsula in correct okay now that was one of our
considerations
thanks so I have two more questions do you know of the
eight oppositions we
have four of them are not homeowners their investment
properties do you know
of the ones within the 200 foot boundary which one of those
are those were
homeowners or investment properties do you know the
breakdown I don't in terms
of we sent out you know we send out notifications for
property owners within
200 feet and then residents within 500 feet property owners
are the only ones
who get that notice that allows them to submit for a
response now we did we did
have some response from outside that 200 boundary so they
got the notice somehow
but but in terms of who resides in that property I don't
know what the breakdown
is is whether they're who's residing there if they're
homeowners or if
that's a rental property is that your question did I answer
it is and I could
look up the addresses and with that is there follow-up from
these responses one
individual said they didn't want to sell the property it
sounds like they might
have been confused yeah we sometimes get responses back
from neighborhood where
there's some confusion on what the actual request is and so
yeah did you
did you follow without I haven't followed up with them now
so my last
question is this yes sir on the use case of retail sales
and service as well as
professional services and offices on those two uses is
there hours of
operation limitations we don't have our we don't have
limitations on the hours
of operation what we do have is a limitation on the gross
square foot per
lot so each lot I believe that's 5,000 for the retail and
10,000 for the office
space thank you per acre per lot per lot and there's three
lots here well it
depends on how they end up eventually flat property thank
you Julie's are my
questions sure commissioner back thank you chair my
questions will go back to
the applicant but as they approach I would just like to
make comment about
that 200 foot versus 500 foot those are kind of arbitrary
limits it's not that
the people outside the 200 foot within the 500 foot aren't
impacted negatively
or positively either way so I just want to you know don't
want that to be a
factor thinking it's not important people in the 500 what
was people beyond
the 200 foot limit thing now it was mentioned and I admit I
'm not the expert
here on what's affordable when you build and what you can
build there so I defer
to the developers here but affordable housing as
Commissioner Ellis pointed
out is affected when you do encroach and as Julie pointed
out it nibbles away
where people tend to sell their property and we lose that
existing housing there
but I mean you can build 18 lots 18 dwellings there and
that includes
duplexes is that not an affordable development that you
build and make
money off of that would benefit that would serve our need
for affordable
housing in your opinion with the NRMU 12 on that remaining
acres there could be
no with the NR6 the right 18 units where there's not can't
be 18 duplexes no
but you're talking about what would people buy they might
not buy a house
but you could build duplexes that people could buy and rent
out as affordable
housing no am I again not being the expert here is that we
are seeing more
rental property coming up in the forms of apartments and du
plexes in different
places I would have to refer to someone else as my
understanding that rental
property such as duplexes and apartments do more to reduce
the neighboring
property values and then apartments I could see I'm not
sure about duplexes
especially when you're only talking about a small number we
were agreeable
to something it's been months back where we allowed duplex
es to come in and on a
corner out on the front right was the gateway to single-
family I didn't have a
problem with that so there's there's some limits there that
could allow that
the other thing that you made a point of and I don't
disagree with and it's
shown in your concept layout is how this can look like it
can assimilate into
this neighborhood the only major impact that this
development have that sets it
apart from a residential setting is the extra traffic it's
going to bring in and
it's it's it's an unstable effect on a neighborhood where
it's going to be
people that are never the same so that has several
different effects on the
existing neighborhood and I worry about that too but other
than that again I
just think you know bottom line is we seem to have still I
'm not convinced
that the residents in that area are really for this enough
that's why I
would I would probably have less of a problem if you did go
back and talk to
them show them what you're going to do and make these
people feel comfortable
because this is their home this is where they live but then
again along the same
lines that the city's pointing out this is something that
will diminish that
neighborhood could diminish that neighborhood over time I
just never
went away and so anyway those are my comments thanks a
question for staff
Julie on the notification map that we have in our backup it
doesn't show any
of these properties whether they're for or against this
proposal so I did my
own due diligence while we were listening and our on the
paperwork that
you've provided for us here one of the homes is at 1427
Woodford that home
actually is the only home that backs or butts this piece of
property they're in
favor of this request the other homes that I looked up the
Hedy Street is a
street over and I don't know that it's within the 200 the
other ones at Campbell
another one at Campbell another one at Campbell those are
all at the very front
part that a back that a but to what is already existing the
NRMU 12 not abutting
this piece of property so they're already against in NRMU
12 not against NR6
and we're changing it so that they would be instead of abut
ting NR6 they
would be abutting NRMU 12 they already abut that so I guess
my point where I'm
going here is we've had a lot of conversation here so far
on this item
about the neighborhood and the neighbors and what their
thoughts are the one
neighbor that actually abuts this property is for it the
other ones that
are opposed to it are actually already abutting NRMU 12 is
that correct at
least that's what it looks like on my starting to Google
addresses while we're
up here looking and talking about this I had our GIS do
this map today based upon
that the responses we've received and I was looking to see
I'm showing the one
on wood Woodford here and I was but I don't have any
addresses on it so let me
see if I can the Woodford is in support 1427 Woodford at
least on this paperwork
says it's in support
so I guess more of a housekeeping thing if it's possible as
we go forward on
future meetings if we can have these opposition or support
letters that we
can get a better idea of where are they and are they within
the area are they
halfway across town or where are we so we have a little
more perspective as
commissioners as to who's in support who's opposed and
where are they in
relation to the property I think it'd be advantageous for
all of us up here
yeah I apologize my map doesn't have the addresses on it so
I see what you're
saying on the Woodford and I just have to check with our
GIS department okay
well I want to just clarify that because in our backup it
doesn't have anything
but we've got a whole stack and when you look at them I
think the one that's in
support is the one actually backs the property so thank you
for clarification
Commissioner Sullivan thank you on the concept that was up
there are y'all
proposed proposing just one entrance and exit onto McKinney
Street onto McKinney
Street yes sir there's only one entrance on McKinney Street
McKinney Street being
an arterial I'm sorry a collector
minor arterial we are proposing but we're having to beg for
it TIA is another
information with staff to get permission to have that on
McKinney otherwise
currently staff well until they finish reviewing our TIA
staff is only one is
to have two entries off of Jamie Street and from McKinney
and in your
wildest imaginations it becomes more successful than you
could ever hope for
how many parking spaces and how many people are going to be
going into that
space on any given day I can't answer that at this moment
and we haven't gone
to that level of study you know we've done that concept lay
out I can't get
back to it real quick
there it is that shows the the one driveway off of McKinney
one off of
McKinney that we're we've submitted to the city and trying
to get permission
to have and then it shows the two off Jamie Street that is
proportional
regarding the number of parking spaces and buildings we did
look at the sizes
gosh what a hundred and fifty two okay so so the two looks
like parking lots I
guess right those two spaces on Jamie or those are entrants
and exits yeah it's
not it's not shown that way in our or I can't see it in
that drawing but okay so
and so so what's your your preference would be one off of
McKinney and to
Jamie is that yes and that's what you're looking for and
meet the requirements we
could possibly eliminate the northern one to Jamie I would
like to point out
to we're just zoning an additional three acres to the NR me
12 so all that
other is gonna happen understand understand I would just
look at them
or number of parking spaces and I just saw the one entrance
and exit off of
McKinney I didn't realize there were two more on Jamie so
okay thank you
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I just wanted to clarify
the Woodford in
favor of request that's a non owner occupant that homeowner
lives in
Lantana that property owner lives in Lantana that's a
rental property the
rental property the Woodford property who said is in favor
of requests yes but
that is a non owner occupant the person who owns that lives
in Lantana so that's
a tenant in that it's not property owner who's in favor of
it but it's an
investor okay okay so the actual property owners in favor
of it correct
okay thank you for the clarification Commissioner Sanchez
I just have one question when you had your your
neighborhood meeting what kind
of attendants did you get did you get quite a few people
from the neighborhood
or was just one or two if I remember correctly about 30
that's I'm gonna air
towards 20 just conservative so you think you got a pretty
good response is
that considered a good response from a neighborhood when
you do work like that I
don't know I've had responses anywhere from zero to 400
like that but I think
that's a pretty good I would think that you know 20 to 30
would seem a pretty
good response and even though we had sign-in sheets we didn
't go back to
look at their addresses I don't know if they were from
right next door or if
they were across town okay Commissioner back thanks chair
one quick question
for thanks Lee thank you Julie mentioned and did I hear
wrong that when the
notifications went out they went to property owners only I
'm sorry say again
I thought I heard you say a while ago when notifications
went out they went to
property owners only property owners within 200 feet and
residents within 500
okay but I thought the new change would we'd be sending it
to property owners
wherever they live one lives in Lantana but that all the
houses in that area
would get one and that means that if they were property
owner good if they
weren't probably they'd still get that notification you do
get a notification
as a resident you get a different and Ron may may correct
me on this because
there's been some changes but how this was noticed and how
we've typically
noticed based upon direction is a postcard to residents
okay and then a
letter to property owners the letter that property owners
get is this okay and
then the and then residents get that postcard to notify
them of the case okay
that's my concern not so much what it looks like but that
everybody that lives
within that 200 feet whether they're on a house or not we
'll get some kind of
notification from the 500 feet for residents and up to 500
feet - yes okay
great great thank you Commissioner Smith thank you chair mr
. Allison the
invitation to everyone to come to the community meeting how
the process of
inviting folks out there was that just a blanket postcard
was there a 200 foot
500 foot what was the what was the thought process on that
we contact the
city of Denton obtained the mailing list for property
owners and for residents
within 500 feet we send out a one-page flyer with a map
description of the
project and what's about to occur what we're considering
and where we're
meeting great awesome thank you okay this is a public
hearing I have two
other cards requesting to speak first will be Greg Johnson
in support thank
you mr. chairman for my time starts
Matt
my name is Greg Johnson 319 West Oak Street here in Denton
and a couple
comments first one I love Julie Julie is awesome we love
working with her Julie
and I unlike some people in this country can civilly
disagree and I'm gonna do
that tonight what a dream applicant I've sat up there for
many nights and I don't
recall ever seeing an applicant who would come up and
expose and impose all
of these restrictions on themselves which proves which is
not always the
case he really intends to build office the current zoning
that is on the
property today I actually voted to approve and I remember
sitting right
there saying why in the heck are they proposing it this way
these three
different zoning's on one parcel it made no sense to me
when I looked at this
jagged line and the deal across the back what was proposed
I knew the day I looked
at it it would never work mathematically and so
Commissioner Beck to your point
you're so right we need more affordable housing the
challenge with dropping in
18 you couldn't fit 18 lots anyway because you have the
street in the
middle but whatever number of lots you could fit by the
time you pay for a
public street to our city specs all the utilities the cost
of a lot would be
more than half the house so the math just doesn't work
which is why it didn't
happen and the truth of the matter is now I know why it was
proposed that way
I think if it would have been proposed in our NU 12 in the
back it would have
passed mr. Gene Hartman owns this property he's been saving
this property
for many many years he wanted something great to happen
with it and frankly he
just had bad advice he had somebody advising him on what
they thought they
could do with the property they wanted to buy it and what
was proposed would
never work a couple of points there are properties all over
this city larger
than this one up against and into neighborhoods that are z
oned in our MU
12 in our M use neighborhood residential mixed use as you
know it's made to
provide those uses that serve the neighborhoods daycare
centers offices
etc the reason I wanted to pull this up is so here is here
's the houses we're
talking about being affected okay well really these about
the property these
for you know it was okay for NRM you for these to be up
against it these are
houses in the neighborhood these people over here back up
to a huge box that is
the county government office that used to be a grocery
store these houses over
here back up to the parking lot for the courthouse which is
a heck of a lot
taller than a single family or a single-story office and so
while I love
Julie the bubble plan the 2030 plan is a bubble plan it
doesn't get down to exact
property lines and so you know to say that this property
isn't compatible with
the future land use I'm not so sure but but our planning
staff has said for
years that offices are the most compatible buffer use
between single
family residential and retail commercial uses and that's
what is being proposed
here so I find it odd that that office is okay for these
guys to back up to but
office isn't okay for these guys to back up to it doesn't
it doesn't jive for me
there are tracks all over our city like this one and larger
that are zoned in
our MU 12 with houses backed up to it we have Kroger
shopping centers that back
up to houses we have self storage that backs up to houses
what I have always
liked about putting office next to residential is that
office people come
to work when the residents left and went to work and the
office people leave and
go home when these people come home and so these offices
aren't being used when
the homeowners are home but what do office people do they
drive up they get
out they go in their office they work all day and they
leave it's not like a
donut shop or dry cleaners and these sort of things which
by the way we have
dry cleaners and donut shops that back right up to single-
family residential
that we've approved for years and so I think it's just a
bit of a
mischaracterization to say that the back of this property
shouldn't allow for
office so I would respectfully press request that you
approve this
application and recommend approval of the council a couple
questions for you
Commissioner back thank you chair thank you Greg for
enlightening me I mean that
see I have some insights there that I haven't picked up on
but nobody's
really disputing the benefit of commercial areas next to
neighborhoods
when you look at this configuration there the depth of this
thing going into
that neighborhood is what's a little disturbing and I can't
help but feel you
know again that the argument that it will pick away at this
neighborhood is
other property owners sell those houses that are affordable
now and we lose that
all these areas that are non-residential now probably at
one time I'm sure were
residential and just slowly diminished over time so it's
not that I or anybody
else is opposed to commercial around a neighborhood area
and up against it but
this configuration here is is beyond you know just simple
next to it's deep into
the neighborhood itself so sure and I would offer that
maybe you look at if
you know we're dr. co everybody knows dr. Cobos I think F
ulton Street very
similar project it's a office complex on Fulton Street back
off of the
University Drive you got a residential all around it right
it's a very garden
office setting single-story to try their christen been
there forever to try to
off-crescent no I think maybe I can't remember what that
other side street is
but but you know it's right there off of Fulton Street
neighborhood surrounding
it and so I agree with what you're saying which is this is
an odd-shaped lot
okay the but you could certainly go build you could build
there's all kinds
of things you could build an nr6 that some neighbors might
say that seems a
little too dense to me and so you know to me again I just
think about if I if I
look at these why are these lots any different than these
lots and and and
and the other benefit that I see is well the city hasn't
chosen to go improve
Janey Street which is deplorable this project it would
force them to go build
a new street to new city specs which is going to provide
those residents a much
better access into their neighborhood
Commissioner else thank you Jim thank you mr. Johnson for
speaking don't you
think the house is on Janey Street will be negatively
affected they are directly
across the street staring at this plot of land you didn't
mention those when you
were pointing out around there yeah so so well you know
typically those who
back up is who you know folks are most concerned about you
know these over here
across the street again you've got you've got single-family
residential
across the street from office all over this this town and
so it's typically
when you have a street separating the front of a house you
've got your your
site your front yard setback and you got a setback on the
other side a screen
wall this is not uncommon to see about the city no I just
think I mean I think
the biggest issue here is the configuration of this land we
keep
talking about how we have commercial abutting neighborhoods
yeah all over the
place they're usually a horizontal plot of land and not
this vertical vertical
piece that cuts right into the subdivision and so in
driving this you
know when you go down Janney Street and you get to this
part of the lot I mean
all that's staring at you all around you are residential
homes so it's that's
that's the big difficulty and I'm sure that's where staff
was was as well in
denying this is is you're cutting deep into a subdivision
not not across the
subdivision where you're just cutting this straight line on
a handful of
houses but you're literally going into the neighborhood
yeah and actually I
would agree with you if you were talking about a two-story
anything apartments
you can build two-story duplexes right here you can go 40
feet by right and so
when I think about the use I think all these restrictions
the applicant has put
imposed upon themselves it's a very residential looking
product and so when
I think about what's the resident going to be looking at
well they could be
looking at a two-story something across the street and we
have a lot of
neighborhoods that have apartments that cut up into the
neighborhood that are
two stories and we wouldn't do that today we'd make them
have a setback
where they couldn't look down into somebody's house but
they're there and
and so again with him agreeing to single story with the 40%
landscaping I think
it's a great use because the reality is that 3.2 acres will
never develop for
single-family the math doesn't work thanks for asking I had
a question for
you I agree with what you're saying I also remember when
this track came
before us a number of years ago and it hasn't developed and
so to your point
the plan doesn't work it it was going to work it would have
already worked I
think one of the other issues that I would bring up or just
an observation is
I can't remember exactly when the courthouse was built
there it's been I
was gonna say I was gonna guess 20 years so it's been there
20 years and that
piece of property has been vacant for 20 years and we're
talking about chipping
away at the neighborhood if there was such a huge demand
and that this was
going to be developed overnight and then the neighborhoods
going to be raised it
would have happened a long time ago we're talking about a
parcel that's been
vacant never been developed it's been right across the cour
thouse for 20
years my guess is it'll be quite some time before this is
built out before
there's ever going to be demand to try to go and take any
of these other homes
and so the reality is there's a vacant piece of property it
's been zoned before
it didn't work and we have an opportunity tonight to take a
look at
someone else this idea and vision for this tract to see it
actually move in to
be developed and become productive versus I believe it's
had cows on it for
many years may not anymore but I know it has so I'm looking
forward to getting to
vote on that this evening and if you have any comments I'd
welcome those yeah
I just want to Mr. Dodson's horn for a second because he
has set with us we
represent mr. Hartman he owns the land mr. Jean is a icon
in our community
even cutting hair at the campus barbershop for I won't say
how long mr.
Jean but he came to us with this property and said what do
I do this guy
gave me a story he was going to buy it he was going to do
this thing it never
worked it never happened what do I do and and we sold the
we represented the
seller selling the law building to the county and as you
guys probably know the
county is buying everything on that side and when the
county comes says I'd like
to buy your property you can't sell it because they can get
it later anyway but
but mr. Dodson came to us and he said you know I want to do
something first
class and I want to create an office space and if you've
ever been on jury
duty and you want something to eat you got to go to Luke 28
8 you got to come
all the way downtown you have an hour and so he said I want
to provide
something for jurors where they can walk across the street
and grab something to eat
there was some comments earlier about bail bonds or
restaurants or whatever I
can tell you that no retail business of any sort will go
anywhere but fronting
McKinney because they can't make it if they if they don't
have frontage on
McKinney so what he has laid out is truly first class he
didn't lay out
something that would make him the most money it's he's
gonna have his own office
there and he wants to have others like him come in office
there and you know I
think this this is one of those where I think sometimes we
can get really caught
up and worrying about things that aren't real worries and
well I think it's
important to vet it and you guys have we're talking about a
class a project
that will do nothing but make I think the neighbors happy
they'll have a new
street and you'll have single family or single story
offices that aren't
intrusive in any way to a neighborhood and and you'll have
people that are when
they're home nobody's there and when the people are in
these offices nobody's
home and so I think when you look at this property again I
can't think of a
better project that could ever be presented because the
only other thing
that's going to work here is apartments you can't develop
it for single-family
residential and make the math work agree thank you thank
you guys for listening
thank you for your comments and your time I have another
card and again this
is a public hearing Greg price I have no other cards
wishing to speak on this
item this time thank you I'm Greg price I live at 2216
Great Bear Lane here in
Denton and one of the things that I want to say in support
of the project is the
number I'm also a commercial real estate agent and I have
met with probably a
dozen attorneys looking for office and didn't Texas and
there's two
requirements that they want I want to be close to the cour
thouse and close to
downtown and what's available is shrinking the law building
sold and
every one of those attorneys are going to have to go find
new offices because
the county district attorney's office is moving into those
and they want to be
close to the courthouse and this property being directly
across serves
that currently this property is ag exempt there are cows on
the property and
it's not producing tax dollars with what mr. Dotson is
producing is only going to
help the city of Denton I go to an office every day every
day I go in there
and I go sit down at my desk and everybody's looking at
email and it's a
very quiet use it's not disruptive I've not seen an office
that's really
disruptive to a neighborhood matter of fact just like mr.
Johnson said that when
you go in most of the folks have gone for the day you go
into your office and
you go home if you keep the current zoning and it gets
developed you
increase the density of the neighborhood I don't think that
helps the
neighborhood office is a quieter use it has a less dense
use and the timing of
folks using the property only makes sense plus the text the
tax incentive
that'll benefit the city also increases so just want to say
that I'm in favor of
the use and I commend mr. Dotson for his his project and
his plan and that I do
know that I represent mr. Hartman as well as far as selling
the property and
I know where his heart is on what he'd like to see take
place and he wants to
serve the community for the good I have no questions thank
you again this is a
public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item
please come forward
this time seeing none will close the public hearing and
open the floor for
discussion or emotion commissioner Roselle thank you chair
as I'm gonna
motion to approve this before I do I just I was just
thinking through
everything that's been stated tonight on both both sides
and I certainly
appreciate the work city does and I can courage Julia is
awesome she's a work
course and I appreciate the perspective they're bringing
but I also hear a lot
of positive things from the applicant in terms of trying to
respond to the
community both in what they've stated as concerns but also
needs of the
community and as we looked at the the aerial there is I
think Councilman
Johnson pointed this out there is development everywhere
except that plot
which is odd because if you go out further there's even
more development
which leads me to the conclusion that the current zoning or
uses is simply not
marketable that or something would have been done there so
what what the current
situation seems in my opinion a little broke if there's not
instead of
developed so and I don't think this is too far-fetched from
what this
commission I know what I have approved sitting here I can
think back to this
commission me included voted to approve a rezoning on
University where an Aldi
now sits that backs up to neighborhood we also recently
approved a rezoning for
self storage to go to university and they'll back up to
neighborhoods on
University I understand it's not a peninsula type situation
with the self
storage but the Aldi's are certainly right in the middle of
a neighborhood and
yet this commission deemed those two things appropriate and
so with that the
applicant has reached out to the community and not only has
been willing
to abide by restricted uses on the property they actually
created restricted
uses on the property in response to the communities
concerns so all that to say
I'm in favor of this project I think it'd be good for the
city to have this
developed and I think overall the concerns that have been
stated by the
community have been addressed by the restrictive uses in my
experience Lee
Allison his group do quality work and so I see no reason
that this also too
wouldn't be a high quality establishment that's generating
income for the city
and also productive for the community around it so for that
I motion to
approve this Commissioner Smith Commissioner Osella pretty
much got all
the hot of the hot air out of the room for us on that one
the thing I'll just
say to this is that if I was a developer and I was looking
to build a residential
development on a piece of land that would be a perfect one
for the for the
proximity that would be to downtown as well as just where
it sits within the
city of Denton that would be a prime location for a multif
amily usage if of
course we've talked about single-family not being
mathematically feasible so why
is it sat vacant for 20 years so I will say that I'll
second this motion
especially since that this is the next best option to
create this plot of land
and so they actually used by our citizens okay we have a
first and a
second Commissioner Beck thank you chair well before we
vote on it yeah I'd like
to comment and this is a tough vote it really is I don't
disagree at all that
the developers come in and has a good project is bending
over backwards to
accommodate the neighborhood and my heart goes out to mr.
Hartman for having
property that sit there for that long and having a tough
time finding a good
use for this that wouldn't negatively impact the
neighborhood and I'm not
sure that this project will but I lean on the side of going
into a neighborhood
in this manner with the depth that goes into it it encro
aches deeper than
anything I've seen the need for affordable housing is going
to be diminished
I still believe as it nibbles away and other people in that
area sell off that
property I think a code change of this sort sets a
precedent for other
commercial properties to come in and encroach on
residential low-density
neighborhoods like this and not only in that area but in
other areas of the city
and I worry about that and the opposition to to me still
doesn't seem
like it favors this I bet that's probably the biggest
sticker for me I
wish I had a better feel how the residents of this
neighborhood really
felt I'm not sure we've got that that's why I kind of
encourage you know going
back out one more time and getting people more involved in
this and then if
we had that kind of positive feedback I would have less of
concern for this
property shares the front part of it with an NRMU 12 where
you can get some
benefit out of it office space and serve that purpose
without going too deep into
the area but again the one thing that this will impact that
residential
housing doesn't or anything that looks like it is the infl
ux of traffic comes
in these are gonna be people that don't live there it's
gonna be different
people every day and I'm not sure it's gonna be all that
bad so I would be more
in favor of it if I felt like the neighborhood residents
were more for
this and we had a TIA that demonstrated the traffic wasn't
gonna be the issue it
is so I'm gonna I'm gonna vote against this before I
recognize the next speaker
I want a clarification from Commissioner Roselle and your
motion for approval
did you include or mean to include all of the restrictions
that the applicant
had presented for us yes it would include the overlay
presented to us all
of the all the restrictions here on the overlay provided in
the backup or part
of your motion yes don't need to restate my motion I don't
think so we just want
a clarification for staff and for the record that it did
include all of these
conditions yes so thank you for that and Commissioner Smith
us and you are
friendly to that clarification on your second okay
Commissioner Ellis thank you
so I'm just having a difficult time approving this I do
appreciate Allison
engineering groups great presentation and all the speakers
I just can't
discount the opposition that that I've read I can't
discount the fact that it
doesn't comply with a future land use I can't discount
staff's expertise on this
I love the earlier thought of a hybrid development on this
where we cannot
include those back three acres that encroaches so deeply
into the
neighborhood I would love to see this piece of land
developed it needs to be
developed I am very concerned about being developed as deep
into a single
family neighborhood we cannot regulate who is going to
office there we can
conceptualize it but we don't know what's going to be in
those offices and
where so with that I just don't think we've we've dealt
with the
incompatibility issue on that back piece of the land so I'm
just not
comfortable voting yes Commissioner Sullivan thank you
chair I'm having an
issue still understanding why you're gonna put more
restrictions in the nr6
has to begin with I just I can't get beyond that part of it
and when I think
of neighborhood restaurants and people walking to the
restaurants I think of
Locus Street now where we have a lot of neighborhood
restaurants and I don't see
anybody walking there because there's no place to park ever
and so I don't know
if that's if that's what is meant to be in a neighborhood
and so what I see is
commercial creep that soon we'll be hearing people across
the street saying
hey I want to sell my house and turn it into a an Italian
restaurant or something
I mean I just that's all I can see going in here and
especially because of the
restrictions that you all have agreed to that are more
restrictive than the
our six that it's zoned as now I just something is doesn't
ring right to me so
that's I can't support what y'all are requesting I mean
under different
circumstances it might be a great idea but I just can't do
it the way it's been
presented today okay Commissioner Sanchez I think you've
done a great
presentation on on why we should allow it and at first I
was against it but I
think the more I thought about it and the more I listened
to you all I I
changed my mind and the reason is I personally have an
interest in that area
and and like everybody else I've seen years and years where
that lot has just
sat there and and I don't think and across the street on on
on Janey if you
look at that was on the west side of Janey Street many of
those houses are in
really poor condition and I would think that one day
somebody might buy those and
maybe make make an offer make offices out of them but McKin
ney Street is a very
important because that area because it's close to the to
the courthouse I think
it's very important to like you mentioned is put offices in
that area
it's a big neighborhood so that's just those houses were
built years ago the
area has changed has changed drastically and I think we
have to meet those
changes and it's not going to hurt that neighborhood
because that neighborhood
overall is pretty good size I believe and so I'd like to
say I'm with I support
the project Commissioner Roseau thank you chair just wanted
to respond or maybe
bring up some points if I understood this correctly I
believe I did the
applicant held a community meeting which I don't think is
required to do so they
voluntarily had a community meeting based on the reaction
when Commissioner
Ellis asked if it was a good turnout or maybe it's
Commissioner Sanchez asked
is a good turnout the response I got it seemed to
communicate to me that that is
a great turnout for a community meeting they brought up
eight items of concern
that the applicant noted and brought to our presentation
those eight items so I
believe they listened to the concerns that the community 20
plus brought out
and responded to each of them and they even put a table on
how they're gonna
respond to each one of them and so it's hard for me to hear
that we don't know
what the community thinks because I don't know what more
the applicant could
have done or the Commission could have done and having this
meeting tonight to
acquire the opinions of the community they did acquire the
opinions of the
community that that desired to be vocal and they responded
to all of them and
answered all their concerns and so with that we also have
looks like seven
oppositions three from homeowners when including the people
that were spoke
tonight we have eight in favor so if we want to look at
that there's more in
favor than an opposition if we just look at respondents I
want to be correct in
me saying how many in favor in the response yes we have the
applicants
included yes so in total the people that we've gotten
feedback from who decided
to come here tonight and the responses mailed in are in
favor and so the
community issue that Commissioner Beck brought up I just it
doesn't resonate
with me considering the work that's been put in and then
Christian Sullivan
brought up the idea of he doesn't understand maybe
understand the
requirement of buddy putting the more restriction is so
they cannot build
offices in an R6 it's not possible they have to have a
zoning change to build
offices so that's why they're asking for a zoning change is
they want to put an
office instead of duplexes back there but with that
restriction they can't put
restaurants in the back that's prohibited by NRM U12 the
restaurants
could only go on the front MRM you so the zoning change is
going to provide
them the option to do offices only not restaurants back
there the restaurants
would be up on McKinney which McKinney area has a couple
restaurants to the
West but certainly none convenient for the individuals
working at the courthouse
or I just served jury duty and good luck finding food so
that I understand what
the need is in the community and so again I've already
motion to approve
this but I think there's a lot of good reasons for this
Commission to send this
forth to the council for approval Commissioner Ellis thank
you chair okay
so into in response to Commissioner Rozelle as far as
requests and support I
mean in favor of this I mean it's the broker for the
property and the two in
favor we're the property owner and an investor in the area
so we have all
opposition who as far as people who live there so nobody
who lives there in the
area is in favor we don't have any of that except for the
one investor who
lives in Lantana and bought his property this year also
wanted to state that
Commissioner Sanchez pointed out my concern beautifully
when he said perhaps
those properties on Janney Street will sell and become
offices that's exactly
the point I'm trying to illustrate not to necessarily make
this lot single
family homes but that the existing single-family homes that
are affordable
albeit not pretty but affordable either to rent or to own
by encroaching like
this with commercial property you absolutely introduce the
demise of those
single-family homes to become commercial property which is
great if you're an
investor owning one of those properties but not great to
creating less
single-family options in our city that's what we don't need
here
Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. I would just like to
point out the obvious thing that we
have parameters set for us through decisions made by
citizens city staff
and others that protect neighborhoods like this for a
reason and it's to help
guide growth if we dismiss these without deeper
consideration about neighborhood
consensus for such a change I think we do a disservice to
the 2030 plan and the
other efforts the future land use map and all those other
things I again you
know this is an excellent plan but it encroaches too much
in my opinion and I
just wish there was some other way we could work with the
developer and the
owner that would benefit us all but again the sense that we
're going in here
and I'm just not thoroughly convinced that the people who
live in this area
would thoroughly approve it. Commissioner Sanchez. I would
just like I would just
like to state that some of these older neighborhoods like
that like the one on
Janie especially on the west side of Janie Street a lot of
those houses are
pretty much falling apart and there I believe there it won
't be long before
those houses have to be replaced and those neighborhoods
have to have they
have to be renovated and some of this new ideas have to be
brought into the
neighborhoods and not just let them well this is the way it
's been for 50 years
or a hundred years because those those neighborhoods are
going to deteriorate
and that's why I think projects like this will help the
neighborhood. Okay I'm
going to call the question I don't see anybody else wishing
to speak we have a
first and a second before us for approval with all of the
conditions as
proposed by the applicant so I will call for a vote on the
board.
Motion carries four to three. We have one final item I don
't know if folks want
to stay or if they want to clear the room and if we need to
take a break or
if we want to try to press through our last item this
evening. Okay we'll take a
quick break at 850.
Okay we are back from our break and we'll call us back into
session at 9
o'clock and at this time I'm going to reopen the public
hearing for item C
which is DCA 17-0010 and I believe Jim Jenks is going to
make this
presentation. Good evening this is a follow-up presentation
to the one that I
made a couple weeks ago and I will start by saying I will
just very quickly
recap what I presented on the 13th and then show the
discuss the issues that
came up questions that were raised and research that we've
done and findings
that we've come across. As you all know the city is in the
process of a very
thorough analysis reevaluation of our codes our criteria
manuals our
development processes and our processes to get into
construction we are trying
to update them streamline them make them just better as far
as serving the
development community while still protecting the city's
interests this is
a part of that effort. The objectives again what we're
looking to do here we
get frequent requests that we file plats earlier and I can
talk about the
particulars of that we think that this may be a way to
achieve that also we get
frequent requests from the development community to file
plats prior to the
developer having to enter a contract with a contractor and
then
also we're seeking to eliminate separate whole harmless
agreements which would
simplify the process and also as we discussed some a couple
weeks ago this is
to help us get into compliance with the section of the
Texas local government
code that that I've quoted here that states that the
developer must execute a
performance bond for the construction of the improvements
to ensure completion of
the project. Right now while the developer is one of the
three parties
named in our what we call our three-way development
contracts it's almost always
the contractor who is named on the bond. This is our
current process if you can
see here the point at which we can current and this is this
is per the way
our development code is currently written we cannot file
the plat until the
developer has got his plat approved by PNZ and has executed
the three-way
development contract with the city and his contractor. Also
I have shown on here
following that stage following that step is when they can
get their whole
harmless agreement executed and by whole harmless agreement
I'll explain that
basically our code stipulates that no private improvements
construction can be
started before all the public improvements that are
associated with a
development project have been completed. Our code does
allow in the case of
multifamily or commercial it does or industrial it does
allow a developer to
enter into a whole harmless agreement basically allowing
concurrent private
and public improvements construction. The agreement
basically which is signed and
filed at the county basically formalizes that the developer
will hold the city
harmless if we were to hold withhold a CEO certificate of
occupancy because his
public improvements have not been completed. What we are
looking at moving
toward is basically splitting our current three-way
development agreement
into two-way development agreements. One being between the
city and the
developer after which we could file the plat. The next one
you can see filing we
think we would be able to file that plat much sooner
several weeks sooner than we
would if we were to hold plat filing till the developer
entered into an agreement
with a contractor. What we would propose is having a
separate agreement between
the contractor and the city after which we can have the pre
-construction
meetings and get into construction. So that's a recap of
what we've discussed
before and so there are some very good questions raised by
the commissioners at
the last meeting as well as by the public and I'll list
some of them here.
What is a developer's capacity to get bonded? Contractors
typically do.
Developers you know there's often smaller entities how
likely are they able to get
a bond. What do other cities require and could there be
guarantees issued to the
developer and contractors such that the related expense of
the bond or the
guarantee is not doubled so it's not redundant because that
can be an
appreciable cost. Also would the city consider allowing
single-family
residential i.e. houses to be constructed prior to
completion of the related
public improvements i.e. would we be willing to issue a
hold harmless agreement
for single-family residential as we do for other
development types. We've done
quite a bit of research since our last meeting and it's
still ongoing but we've
done quite a bit thus far. We've contacted about eight sure
ty companies,
various agents, vice presidents of companies got a lot of
good information
from them. We've contacted at least nine cities throughout
the Metroplex and
Texas and what the surety companies have told us there are
cases such as the one
I mentioned a couple weeks ago at our meeting. We do hear
of cases in
which sureties issue performance bonds to developers. That
seems to be less
common than the case of them issuing those bonds to
contractors. Basically for
a surety to issue a performance bond to a developer they
typically require that
the developer signs personally. In other words not as a
newly formed LLC. They've
got to demonstrate a good fiscal track record. We are
finding, well we're
finding from cities and from the surety companies, many
cities are now
allowing developers to provide a fiscal guarantee in a form
other than the
performance bond. For example in the form of the irrevoc
able letter of credit from
a bank or what some cities call a subdivision and
maintenance bond which
is similar to performance bonds just names the developer or
an escrow
agreement where they put up the money and it's held in
third-party escrow and
some many of the sureties actually recommend that the
cities require that
the developer provides such a guarantee and they are more
readily available to
developers than performance bonds are. That's and that's
not to say that every
developer would be able to acquire every such guarantee but
they they have a
better chance many of them especially the smaller ones or
the newer ones have
more access to these types of alternative guarantees than a
performance
bonds. And as far as the feedback we got from other cities
it's kind of interesting
there there is no sort of typical sequence or procedure or
protocol that
we have encountered. The requirements can vary quite a bit
from city to city.
For instance some cities will not file the plat until the
developer has
constructed all Israeli public improvements. Some cities do
not require
development contracts at all they just simply require the
developer puts up a
bond. We're not recommending Denton go down that path but
it's just kind of
interesting how different some cities are from each other.
Many do in our
research we found many of these cities do offer these
options that I mentioned
as to what form the developer guarantee takes.
Performance bond or subdivision development bond, letter of
credit, escrow
account and there's others. There's a couple notable
examples that I wanted to
share because they are they are from cities that have some
some policies that
are similar to what we're exploring and we're trying to
make we're hoping could
work here in Denton and trying to Institute. One is
Georgetown it's a
smaller city than Denton but it's growing very quickly and
the other is
San Antonio a large city. Georgetown in the Austin area
they allow the plat to
be filed prior to the completion of public improvements
once a fiscal surety
has been issued. So that can be not just the performance
bond board that could be
a trust agreement which I believe is similar to an escrow
agreement.
Irrevocable letter of credit or like as I mentioned
performance bond. This one
issue or concern or request that was stated at the last
meeting was would
there be a way in which the lot home lots could be sold
this could could this
be structured such that home lots could be sold prior to
completion of public
improvements and this would help facilitate that. In San
Antonio they
won't approve the plat until the developer signs the
performance agreement.
It's a it's just a short three page agreement and again it
's by the
developer and it ensures that they complete the public
improvements. They
will allow for an approved plat to be filed before the
public improvements are
completed if the developer provides his guarantee within
three years of plat
approval. So again that's and they like Georgetown and
others allow options
performance bonds, irrevocable trust agreement,
standby letter of credit, cashier's check being some
examples. And they
informed us that they they get the developers that they
deal with they
find that about half the time the developers prefer to the
defer the
construction a little bit and but are anxious to get the
plat filed and I
think mainly that's for two reasons. One is because often a
developers financing
is tied to the milestone of plat approval or plat filing
and then also in
many cases they would like to start selling lots that are
that are planted.
So basically I wanted to I propose coming back to you one
more time if that
would be all right on October 11th so maybe we could I
suggest a continuance
tonight. I wanted to give you a high-level
presentation on responses to your questions what we found
in our research
in a nutshell we do our findings are such that I think we
can I think we can
and should continue on the path we're on as far as what we
're looking to do it
does appear to be feasible. We will be working very closely
with legal and
others as we finalize this and the actual contract and bond
forms are
prepared and revised and I I would ask that I be able to
make one more
presentation to you in another continuance to the public
hearing at the
October 11th meeting. One other issue or question I wanted
to address or perhaps
more than anything tonight just discuss and explore a bit
more is there was a
there's a question from from the PNZ at the last at the
last meeting about or a
request that we consider in our amending in our process of
amending the code that
we consider allowing or issuing hold harmless agreements
again that's the
allowing the simultaneous private and public improvements
to be constructed
for single-family residential which is currently the type
of development we
don't allow it for per our code. I've discussed that some
here internally with
our managers in our building inspections department in our
public works
inspection department it hasn't been has it doesn't seem
like it's been a
request that we receive frequently but I wanted to hear in
our public hearing
maybe can request that we open up for a little more
discussion tonight as to what
the concerns are there or what what is hoped to be achieved
. I'll take the help
in the room. My question was just simply in bringing this
question up is we allow
it in other applications we allow it in commercial projects
we allow it
multifamily and the question is why don't we allow it in
single-family
residential. I think there was some initial conversation
about the timing of
it and and I think it if it's going to be considered it
would be under and
fall under the same exact rules that it applies with
commercial and multifamily
is until the streets or concrete or asphalt whatever they
are just like with
multifamily and commercial you can't go out there and begin
doing construction
that it's a fire ingress egress fire marshal type of an
issue and it just
looks to me like there's an opportunity if the city is open
to that and feels
comfortable with it that as residential subdivisions are
finishing up just like
with commercial and multifamily developments that there
would be an
opportunity for the builders that are going to be building
those homes to come
in and pull permits and begin construction while you're
finishing up
the last items that are on the punch list for substantial
completion the city
gets all the funds for the building permits all the impact
fees upon
permitting so instead of the city having to wait another
number of months for
those substantial completion punch list to be completed
permits can be issued
city collects the fees the revenue builders get started the
homes aren't
ready to be occupied typically for four to six months
construction depending on
what time you know how large the home is and how long it
takes to build it so it
just seemed like it's a little bit of an efficiency area
that we could take a
look at that city gets revenue sooner homes start being
built sooner and you
have a time frame instead of residential dirt is sitting
there trying to get
completed before you can ever begin and then you've got a
four or six month
construction period to even ask for a final inspection or
CEO that some of that
can be done concurrently so it was just a question because
I know we allow it in
other areas is if there was a particular concern or reason
why single family is
singled out and not allowed to do that when we allow it in
other places as long
as under the same rules as far as fire safety and access
and all those same
types of things that have to be in place for commercial and
multifamily so it was
more of a question and a suggestion looking at all parties
involved city
revenue piece of it developer home builder as to how those
things might be
looked at from an efficiency standpoint is how can we make
it more efficient and
it's still a win-win for everybody that was my point in
bringing it up thank you
chairman that's that's very helpful we will we will
continue to explore that
internally and report back to you to the Commission on that
I think our initial
thought or I guess the thing that first comes to mind is
thinking of say a
subdivision a large subdivision with a network of streets
and our utilities are
under the streets that typically typically the sequence of
construction
for the public improvements would typically be the grading
of the streets
the utility installation the then the pouring of the
streets and the curing of
the streets and not and fairly in fairly soon after that
the project would
typically be accepted but I understand your point about
there is always with
every project a time period of sort of finish up takes
longer for some yeah
longer than everyone wants I realize that and in that time
being that the
streets are be poured and cured and everything just I you
know I could see
how this the lots could be accessed for private
construction so we will continue
to explore that and get back to you and again I appreciate
the clarification
thanks for entertaining the question and doing some
research on it the next steps
for for the staff is to generate the revised development
contract forms and
related bond forms or forms of the guarantee I'll be
working with closely
with legal department as we as we finalize those and to
decide upon the
allowable forms the guarantee would we allow all the
options that mentioned that
that other cities allow that's something we'll be looking
at in depth and then as
I mentioned we will be presenting that at a future public
hearing they'll be
you know the one on anticipating on the 11th for PNC we
have one that's
currently been advertised on October 17th for City Council
that's the extent
of my presentation I'd be happy to answer any further
questions
okay well I know we're gonna need to get a motion on the
floor and I just make a
quick comment before we get a motion I'm like the fact that
city staff has taken
a look of adding flexibility I think that's a great
attribute that we should
take a look at is trying to figure out ways and giving
people options to be to
meet and be compliant with our code rather than there's one
way that you can
do it because one way doesn't work for every project and so
I want to come in
staff or take a look at the options and doing the research
and trying to come up
with a plan that's not a one-size-fits-all that gives
people some
flexibility and some opportunity to look at other ways to
meet our code so I
appreciate the effort because I think that's the direction
that our city
should go in is finding ways to be creative and flexibility
in working with
the development community just to be able to make some of
these projects go
a little smoother get done quicker less costly for people
and then there's more
room sometimes in those projects to provide amenities to
our city versus
some of those opportunities get lost because of ineffic
iencies and
additional cost that that money could be better used it
benefits other parties
and specifically the city that those funds get freed up so
with that I'm
gonna look for a motion for continuance Commissioner Smith
thank you chair thank
you mr. Jinks for your presentation and thank you for the
hard work on this I
make a motion to accept the request for the city staff for
a continuance on the
subject to the October 11th P&Z meeting okay commissioner
back approved second
we we have a first and a second for continuance to October
11th seeing no
further discussion we'll call for a vote on board the
motion to continue carry
seven to zero that will take us to our final item this
evening our project
matrix mr. chair yes I just want to keep can we get a
clarification in the
minutes that it's not a motion to approve as stated on the
agenda it's a
motion to approve the continuance and we'll have to modify
that in the minute
okay thank you legal for the clarification commissioner
Ellis thank
you chair we're on the matrix right yes okay thank you that
's what I figured so
I'm just gonna be a broken record and talk about signage
and these
notifications and that did we change anything I mean when I
drove by the lot
that we had a lot of discussion on today on Janney Street
there was no sign
anywhere on that piece of property that talked about a
public hearing for a
zoning change with regard to the property on McKinney still
the teeny
tiny little sign that you can't read so where are we
particularly with creating
some kind of a notice on this property that can be read
when you're going 50
miles an hour down a road I'll address that sure the
schedule is starting on
October 1st we went to City Council and we adopted an
ordinance to adjust the
fee so that was first and then with that we wanted to
market the fee change and
also the sign posting new sign size and where they posted
as well so we can do
that concurrently with the sign ordinance that was just
passed or the
fee ordinance that was just passed so starting October 1st
we see new signs
this we have to do something right so we right now we're
currently advertising
this to applicants so that they know in advance and so that
they're not caught
off guard that they have to post these signs they are going
to be responsible
for obtaining as well as posting these signs from here
forward from October 1st
forward of anything that is correct so so what are
applications we get you know
starting October 1st these individuals will know in advance
that they will have
to post signs with that's hopefully you'll see okay so
anything prior is
correct would not so hopefully in a month you'll see some
signs that are much
larger than what we currently have okay excellent thank you
good question
anybody else okay thank you everyone with that I will close
our meeting this
evening at 925 thank you everyone