This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum
present and I will call us to order at 505.
At this time I will turn the meeting over to Richard for
clarification of our agenda items and presentations.
>> Good evening, I just wanted to point out one item is
going to be moving off of consent.
That would be item 3C, which is a final plaque.
This is the Duluth and Northern tool that is going to be
moving to item 4,
it will be item 4A, so it will go under items for
individual consideration.
And Haley, if you can just come up for a second and
maybe explain why we're moving it from consent to
under items under individual consideration.
>> And I'm sorry, so that we're clear that's going to be a
sub item of 4A?
>> Are we taking that up before the alternative development
plan?
>> After the alternative.
>> Okay, so it's a separate item?
>> Separate item.
>> So 4B.
>> 4B.
>> Okay.
>> Did I say 4A?
>> Yes. >> 4B, I'm sorry.
>> I'm the only one that made it.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, so this is a final plaque.
It's fairly straightforward.
The reasoning for pulling it from the consent agenda is
that there is a drive location down here on the south side
that is within text dot right of way.
And the applicant was not able to get a hold harmless
agreement executed prior to this meeting.
Holding the city harmless if their text dot permit is not
approved after the fact.
So we're requesting that you will conditionally approve
this pending that their text dot permit be approved after
the final plat is approved.
Or that they complete that hold harmless agreement after
the fact.
>> Commissioner Rizal.
>> Does that mean they couldn't move forward until they get
the text out of agreement?
Once they get that, they don't have to come back to us?
Or can they proceed with their work on a conditional
approval from us?
>> This would allow the plat to be approved and then they
could get that text dot permit approved in the interim
before their plat is filed.
>> Okay, thanks.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So from what you're saying, our affirmative vote should
have that condition behind it.
Is that correct?
>> Yes, that is correct.
>> Okay, thanks.
Okay.
Seeing no more other questions, I'll turn it back over to
Richard for continuing of clarification of our agenda items
.
>> 3A, actually Haley, can you mind just kind of going over
a little bit of item 3A, the Mission Street offices?
Yes.
So this is a final plat of a property that you all have
seen a couple of times before at the corner of Mission
Street and Fort Worth Drive.
This final plat is for the first phase of the office park
development.
We had an alternative development plan for this property a
few months ago, and so
they're now moving forward with phase one of their final
plat to begin that project.
>> I think you've got the next two as well if there are
other questions for B or C.
>> Not sure where the rotate button ran off to.
>> Okay, so this is a final plat of Denton Commons.
I believe we saw the preliminary plat for this site last
week.
So they're final platting these two lots at this time for
the construction of a hotel on lot one.
>> Any questions for Haley on this item?
Thank you.
I move us to C.
You're next.
>> That was the one we just discussed, actually.
>> I'm sorry, you're correct.
That's been moved to 4B, my bad.
>> The next final plot that we have is for the Warshin
addition.
The property is in the ETJ and it is just a two acre lot to
accommodate a single family dwelling.
Be accessed by a private access easement.
That's in conformance with subchapter 16 of the Denton
Development Code.
>> Why are we seeing this?
Is it ETJ?
>> The city of Denton still has platting authority within
the ETJ.
So in order to get a building permit through the county, we
wouldn't do the building permit.
But the plat is run through the city and the city reviews
it.
>> Okay, I thought it had to be five lots or something like
that before we saw it.
I may be out of step, so thank you.
>> We don't see many of them, so.
And then the final one, I did not pull up in this, so let
me pull it up really quickly.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> The final plot we have is in Robeson Ranch.
It's unit 18 one.
And this plot is just to accommodate a single family
residential neighborhood in their private street,
in their open space lots.
>> Does this have a certain kind of home that can go on?
I remember we had a lot of discussion on that a number of
months ago.
>> It would not be one of the villas, it would just be one
of their other products,
just one of their, depending on the lot size and what they
classify it as.
>> Okay, thank you.
Anybody else?
That's our consent agenda.
Looks like we'll have, Julie will be here for 4A, the Ross
Law Office.
>> All right.
So I'm presenting ADP 17 to Ross Law Office.
So request before you is to consider an alternative
development plan to deviate from sub
chapter 13 of the DDC, which requires permeable paving for
excess parking.
So the subject property is located off of Woodrow Lane, I'm
sorry,
south of McKinney, about 275 feet south of McKinney.
It's about a half acre site and it is located in a CMG
zoning district.
Just to walk you through the site plan, the proposal is for
a professional office about 4,300 square feet.
The proposed lot coverage, which includes the building, the
drive aisle, the parking spaces,
all of the concrete, what rain can't get through, is about
58.3% of the lot.
CMG actually allows 80% lot coverage, so it's less than
what is permitted.
Sub chapter 14 outlines the parking requirements.
One space per 450 square feet is required for this use, so
that's about ten spaces.
The applicant felt like that wasn't sufficient in order to
accommodate all of the parking that they needed, so they're
proposing 15 spaces.
Sub chapter 13 requires that any spaces over the required
amount has to be constructed of a pervious surface.
But sub chapter 13 also allows for a deviation from some of
these site design requirements,
provided that the request meets the criteria for approval
and that the site plan's approved by the Planning and Z
oning Commission.
So that's why we're here. So you can see the proposed
building here in blue.
That's that 4,300 square foot building, or 4,350.
And then here are the proposed 15 parking spaces.
The landscape plan shows a grass channel to be constructed
adjacent to the additional parking spaces.
This is intended to be planted with dense grasses, and the
reason for this is to allow storm water to run off into
this channel.
It's designed to remove pollutants, so as the water slowly
drains through this channel,
it would pull out some of those pollutants that would be
suspended within runoff in rain events.
Yes, sir?
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
So this is going to be, when they design this, this is
designed to drain to that and then drain into an area that
will carry it to where?
Yes, sir.
To probably, and Jim might be able to speak to that.
I would assume to the street is where they might be
draining to, but maybe he can-
To our sewage system?
Yeah.
Either storm sewer or the street.
Okay.
So it's going to drain out towards Woodrow then, I assume?
Yes, sir.
And we'll go over the drainage- he's nodding, so yes, sir.
Okay.
We'll go over the drainage plan in just a minute.
So the intent of this, and I guess I should back up, the
intent of why we have these pervious surface requirements
in subchapter 13
is to ensure that the parking areas have, that they don't
overly impact the environment with the pollutants suspended
in the runoff.
Also to ensure that any visual impacts associated with the
parking, the additional parking would be mitigated.
So in this sense, it's just five spaces.
It's a pretty small area.
And so by putting in this channel here, it would address
those environmental impacts of those additional parking
spaces.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I just- something struck me curious about this, it seems.
And correct me if I'm wrong, and maybe you don't know if
you don't, that's fine.
But the cost of- wouldn't the cost of adding five more
impervious parking spaces be a little bit more than not?
In other words, if they just put gravel there, that would
be pervious.
Right.
I got to always think about it.
But if they- and the fact that they've got to condition
this area now where the water is going to drain out,
it seems like cost-wise, it would be cheaper to do the per
vious.
I don't know what the balance sheet would be on both of
those.
I know that gravel would not be a permitted surface for
parking in this area due to the zoning classification.
So it would have to be something-
It would have to be like grass creed or a pervious concrete
or brick or some sort of paver.
Gotcha.
Okay, thanks.
Commissioner Smith.
Questions be answered.
Thank you, Commissioner.
All right, and then here's the drainage plan.
And as you can see, the purple, there's some arrows here
showing that the runoff is intended to drain toward this
grass channel.
So the considerations that staff looked at when we analyzed
the request is, first of all, what is the intent of the
requirement?
And that's to ensure that we reduce negative effects
associated with extra parking like pollutants and dirt
packs.
We also looked at the proposal against the criteria for
approval and staff has determined it meets the criteria for
approval.
We'll just go over those briefly.
First, preserve existing neighborhoods.
Because this is a commercial area, this request is not
anticipated to negatively impact the area.
To assure quality development, the request is not to lower
design standards, but
just to adequately park the property and make sure that
they have enough spaces for their employees and clients.
To focus new development to activity centers, the location
of this proposal is on an undeveloped lot adjacent to an
existing secondary arterial and existing commercial
development.
So this wouldn't produce sprawl.
It's gonna stay localized in an existing commercial area.
To ensure that infrastructure can accommodate the
development, the necessary infrastructure is in place.
You have adequate access.
And then it results in a high quality development meeting
the intent of the standards.
So the intent of the standard is to make sure that we
accommodate for that additional parking.
The proposal exceeds the lot coverage requirements.
And it also by proposing this grass channel will mitigate
for
any environmental impacts associated with that additional
parking.
Also staff- >> Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
>> Just a quick question on this.
So this is gonna be on their private property, correct?
So the upkeep is gonna be left to the property owner,
correct?
It's not gonna be like the median of a street where it's
gonna be the city's responsibility?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay, thank you.
>> And then also because this is a secondary- >>
Commissioner Sullivan.
>> While we're there.
Thank you, Chair.
Is there a soil survey that's been done?
I mean, the reason I'm asking is if it's clay, it's not
gonna absorb much water.
It's gonna go straight to the curb.
So I don't see where pollutants are gonna be removed.
If it's sandy loam, then obviously there's gonna be much
more absorption going in.
And if this is really designed to take the place of a
simple retention area,
where they just dig a hole, let the water go, and then
eventually seep into the ground.
I'm just wondering why that's not an alternative that would
be less expensive,
talking about the different types of materials to put on
the ground and
to do what they were really wanting to do, which is remove
the pollutants from the cars or what have you.
>> Well, and I don't know about what kind of retention or
detention that they would need regarding the site.
That's being reviewed with our engineering department.
This really is just to accommodate for these additional
parking spaces.
This channel has been reviewed by our water administration
and how they're proposing to design it.
And so they feel that it meets the requirements in order to
make sure that it's gonna do what they want it to do.
And part of that was that they felt like the runoff was
going to get to the channel and drain out too quickly.
And so that's why the dense grass requirement was important
to slow down that water and
allow the water to percolate down so that it drains more
slowly and it can capture those pollutants.
And our final point of analysis was to look at the street
classification of Woodrow and
the fact that parking isn't permitted on there.
So really they do need to accommodate that excess parking
on their site to ensure that they have that sufficient
capacity.
So we feel like that was something that they needed to
accommodate for.
So based upon the criteria for approval and the
considerations that we just discussed,
staff does recommend approval of the request with the
following conditions to construct the grass channel
designed to treat approximately 972 square feet of drainage
area during
an event generating 1.5 inches of rain or less as depicted
on the landscape plan and drainage area map.
And align that channel with dense types of grasses to
reduce the flow velocity and
increase the treatment residence time as depicted on the
landscape plan.
So I'll stand for any questions.
>> Commissioner Roselle.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Was the applicant already planning to put in this drainage
control prior to needing the ADP?
>> The applicant should be here tonight.
I don't know if that's something that they were planning on
doing prior to the alternate.
>> Do you know if they're agreeable to such conditions?
>> You might want to check with them, but it is something
that we've worked with them and
this was something that they submitted to us, so.
>> And then the last question I have is if this is 810
square feet for the parking spaces,
if they were to increase the size of their building by 810
square feet, that doesn't require an ADP?
>> No, sir.
>> And that would obviously be impermeable material.
>> So because it's a parking space, that's what has the ADP
?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay, I'd be interested to know their willingness to do
all this, not all this, but these two extra steps.
But I can talk to them at meeting, thanks.
>> Sure.
>> Commissioner Sanchez.
>> Yeah, I was looking at that.
What he just mentioned is as far as why give them an extra,
it seems like they have extra work to do simply because
they're adding five parking lots,
parking spaces when they have, they've only met what is it,
53% without it, the way it stands.
And so they haven't met the 80%.
So it seems like we're giving them more work or giving them
, like he just said, it doesn't seem right.
I mean, we should make things easier.
If they haven't met the 80%, then they should be, because,
okay,
because they haven't met that 80%, then they should still
be able to build enough parking spots until they cover that
.
So it just doesn't make sense to me why we would enforce
something based on,
because we also have not looked at the soil that was
previously mentioned on the periphery of a parking.
Area.
And so we're just throwing an arbitrary, seems like an
arbitrary number, say 80%.
Okay, this is what we're going to give you based on what,
what if you have clay on the outskirts,
on the perimeter of the parking lot, or what if you have
soil,
would that make it increase the permeability or the area
that can be covered?
So there's a lot of stuff there that, you know, has a
little bit of concern.
So I throw more work on the individual when our job, it
seems like, is to not necessarily give them a pass,
but not to add additional cost to the project based on just
because they have five extra parking spots.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
My question is probably really for either Richard or
Jennifer.
I've noticed in options down here, it says approved
submitted or approved subject to conditions.
Seems like it's submitted with the conditions, so I would,
it seems redundant.
So, I mean, I don't see this being a problem and approved.
I would like to make sure the conditions are applied.
But so if I did one, would I be negating the conditions if
we approved it?
I think that's approved as submitted by the applicant
originally, which did not include those conditions,
but they were developed over time through negotiation.
Okay, okay. Got you.
All right. So that's something to keep in mind when we cast
a vote.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
With regard to what Commissioner Sanchez said, which makes
total sense,
but doesn't the code limit us from saying because you're
only developing 53%, we can negate this?
I'm assuming we're somewhat handcuffed here with...
We still have to come to you with a...
With the parking.
And ensure that it meets the criteria for approval.
So, yes, it's something that is put into the code that we
have to follow.
Right. And there's nothing that would allow us to say we
don't have to do this because you're 30% under lot coverage
.
I mean, is there any way we can...
Staff doesn't have the authority to do that in Richard.
I mean, with respect to this kind of item, we're sort of...
Our hands are sort of...
We're locked in.
Obviously, it would be much better if there were some
thresholds and some de minimis where if you were only...
If you were less than 60% coverage, you can go... You can
add additional parking up to a certain percentage.
Unfortunately, it wasn't... I think the intention was good,
but that sort of one size fits all doesn't fit all.
We are putting together an item, just food for thought,
with respect to parking and parking maximums, which this
kind of situation is very similar to City Council.
I believe it's November 14th.
So we will sort of be bringing this up under that item.
Just...
And if we're going forward with our code rewrite, then this
is certainly something to take into consideration that we
can write in there.
So that we can perhaps alleviate them from having to do
this and have that kind of power.
Okay. Thank you.
Just as a legal matter, and before the Chair takes over, I
just...
And I'm not sure about the percentages or whatever, but
whenever we do an alternative development plan,
we're allowing them to do something they would normally be
allowed to do in exchange for something that benefits the
city.
So if you don't have an exchange of benefit, then there's
really no alternative development plan.
It's more like a variance of sorts.
So it wouldn't go in front of this body.
But what they're doing is saying, we'll give you this in
order to get this.
And so that's why the requirement...
So, you know, something that they've negotiated.
And I think I'm going to step in here now, right?
I could feel the vibe of all the conversation.
I know one of the things that we've tried to do as this
commission during work session is get a general background
of the items.
And then when we're going to have more detailed discussions
and things, we would prefer to have those in our public
session in front of folks.
And so I think if there's something that's a very
straightforward clarification on this item, we'll take that
.
And if we're going to get into some of these other, let's
finish it up in council.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
We are going to see this as a consent agenda item before
final plotting, correct?
After this?
No, this is the individual consideration for this.
And then it will.
And in fact, it's a plotted lot.
It was a minor plot because the public improvements weren't
required in association with it.
So this will be the last time you see it.
Yes, sir.
Any other clarifications on this item?
Okay.
And we've Haley will be back for 4B.
I'm glad I'm not the only one trying to keep up with
musical chairs here on the agenda.
All right.
4B we discussed briefly earlier.
This is the plot where they did not get their whole
harmless agreement put in place before it came to you.
For this outstanding text up permit that they're seeking.
If you have any other questions about the plot, I'd be glad
to answer them at this time.
Thank you, Haley.
That's going to move us to our public hearing section.
And I believe A and B are both going to be postponed.
We're not going to have a presentation on those and skip on
the C, correct?
So Julie.
All right.
This is a replat.
I don't know how to turn it either.
So this property is situated east of downtown.
It is currently two lots that they are replatting into one.
And that it's current, I'm sorry, it's one lot they're
plotting into two lots with an access easement.
It's developed with an industrial use.
Any question?
I think if everybody looks like we're searching, make sure
everybody has an opportunity to ask a question if they have
one on this item.
No? Okay.
All right.
And then next one.
And D.
All right.
And this property is adjacent to Highway 380, south of 380.
It is partially in the ETJ and partially within the city.
The portion that's within the city has an NR2 zoning
designation.
They are requesting, it is currently plotted as all one lot
.
They're requesting a replat to subdivide it into two lots
with an access easement in the back for residential
development.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
This area looks like it's going to benefit from our
mobility plan when I guess what is it, post oak road, the
six lane road comes through there.
So is this in anticipation of that?
I am not sure what their intent is other than just to
subdivide the lot for residential development.
So I'm not sure.
That will be up.
Right now they're not zoned for a commercial use.
So if they did have an anticipation for some sort of rede
velopment that would include some something of a more
intensity than two dwelling units per acre, then you would
of course see it again.
All right.
That is going to be a primary arterial that's coming
through there.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Yes, sir.
All right.
Thanks.
Sure.
Commissioner Sanchez.
So I was looking at that.
I kind of made the sense that maybe this lane that you did
that front side because it's right next to 380.
Yes, sir.
Do you have your microphone on?
I'm sorry.
As I was looking at that.
You got the glowing globe here.
As I was looking at that, it kind of made sense to me to
divide it because that close the front part belongs is on 3
80.
And if you wanted to sell it, I mean that would bring in I
mean as an investor, that's probably what he's looking at.
I mean I'm just thinking about that.
Sure.
And the backside, if you want to sell it altogether,
probably bring the price down.
So he's probably looking at that front end of it as a much
more expensive piece of property.
It does have that frontage.
Yes, sir.
Yes, that frontage is very important.
Any other questions on this item?
Thank you, Julie.
Thank you.
Move us to item E and looks like Haley will present that.
All right.
So this is a replat of a single lot at the time located on
the south side, I'm sorry, on the east side of Dakota Lane,
that's south of Airport Road.
And the intent of the plot is to split this existing single
lot into two lots.
What's seen here as lot two is currently developed with an
industrial use and then lot one is undeveloped at this time
.
Can answer any questions.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay, so those lots are up against Dakota, is that right?
Yes, sir.
The orientation is a little strange.
North is off here on the right side of the page, Dakota
Lane.
Do you have the Google map showing the physical character?
No.
I can get to that if you'd like me to.
Well, isn't there a building on one of those lots now?
Yes, sir.
Lot two has an existing industrial development on it.
I believe it's here in this portion of the lot.
Okay, and that's not going to be impacted by this change?
No, I believe that's staying the same.
They're just subdividing off the property next to them.
Okay, thanks.
Any other questions on this item?
Okay, we'll stay with Haley for item F.
All right, so this is case Z1723 for the COPE addition.
This request is to hold a public hearing and consider a
request for an initial zoning of
neighborhood residential six on a property that is
approximately 16.39 acres.
It's located here at this northeast corner of Mayhill and
Mills Road.
Looking at what's in the area,
you can see there's a mixture of things going on in this
area.
So we have the subject property and some other properties
to the east are zoned RD5X.
That's our placeholder zoning designation after a property
has been annexed into the city.
Within that, we have a variety of residential uses.
There's some commercial uses and auto repair here north of
the property.
There's also some property in this immediate vicinity that
's still within the ETJ,
so it hasn't yet been annexed into the city.
Much of that is undeveloped, but there are some existing
residences to the east of the subject
property. Across Mayhill and to the south on Mills, we have
our ECI district, so Employment Center
Industrial. This is again developed with a variety of
things. We have a Denton ISD facility here to
the south and then a variety of industrial uses across May
hill and there are even some
single-family residences along Mayhill as well. Also to the
south, we have our neighborhood
residential 2 district. That's our lowest intensity
residential district and that's actually
developed right now with Ryan High School and some other
Denton ISD has a bus facility here to the
south that you can see. And then there's a small parcel of
NR6 in this area as well that's actually
developed with an industrial use at this time. Looking at
the future land use map for this area,
you can see the subject property and everything to the
north of it along Mayhill Road is designated
for moderate residential. So that's a designation that's
intended to promote a little bit more
compact single-family development primarily between 4 and
12 dwelling units per acre.
And it's often intended to serve as a transition, which we
see in this case here because we have
business innovation and community mixed use to the west
along Mayhill Road. And then this
moderate residential would serve as a transition to lower
density residential development to the east.
Just looking at the mobility and what we have going on in
the area, Mayhill Road is a primary
arterial that adjoins the property on the west side. There
are currently plans for the expansion
of realignment of Mayhill. On the south side we have Mills
Road, which is designated as a collector.
Right now it's a relatively unimproved road, a two lanes
undivided. And the requirements for
this development making improvements on Mills Road would be
assessed at the time of platting.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Does the City see any
problem with that?
Needs an assessment depending on an ultimate development
proposal. Does the City see any
problems with this? Not at this time. We haven't seen you
know what their final plans would be
in terms of density. I know their intent is for single-
family homes. But once they get to that
preliminary platting stage we would look more closely at
what they're proposing and what
infrastructure improvements are needed on Mills. Okay, but
I mean knowing what's probably going to
go on there. Do we not anticipate any problems? At this
time I don't think we've looked at it
that closely yet. That's not typically a consideration with
zoning. But we do know that
that infrastructure assessment will be done and that that
will have to be addressed when the
property is plotted. And this may be for you. But what's
the timeline? I know we're widening
Mayhill but what's the timeline like on it for that area?
Do we know?
Hello.
Yes sir. The overall project is actually under construction
now. Okay. Some utility relocations
and some portions of the road I believe. And it's currently
anticipated that that overall may
hill project construction will be completed for around
summer of 2019. Okay. Very good. Thanks.
Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. Jim, stay up there. In
regards to the alignment and the
expansion of Mayhill, has there already been discussion
about what effects it's going to
have on the collector and the secondary arterials that
connect into Mayhill? In this instance,
this collector of Mills Road, is that going to have to be
expanded along some future
conversation because we're going to be expanding Mayhill?
They have, on our mobility plan, it shows Mills to remain
as a collector ultimately. That's how
it's currently designated now even though it's a very
narrow road. The intersection right of way
dedication acquisition that was acquired as part of the May
hill Road project is shown accurately
on the applicant's initial submittal that they came in. But
there's, to my knowledge, and I did
check on this internally, I don't believe the city has any
plans for any capital improvements
projects to Mills Road. What's the traditional standard
whenever we do an expansion of a primary
arterial road? Is it going to be a stoplight for collectors
? Is it just a stop sign for collectors
to turn on to the primary arterial? It's really site
specific. Is it? Yes. We have made the comment
to the applicant here already that we're going to need to
see their trip generation numbers
and we're going to have to look at that when we get into
preliminary planning. Their initial
written submittal to us a few months ago had a certain
number of lots and then I think they've
talked since about increasing that a bit. So we will look
at that closely. I don't really have a
pat answer for that. It's kind of site specific. So that
site specific, that conversation happens
after you see those trip gen numbers to say, hey, we think
there's going to be a lot of movements.
We're going to require you to expand and to help pay for
stop sign or stoplight. There can actually
be an intersection there rather than a stop sign turn on to
a very busy, about to be a very busy
primary arterial. All right. Thank you. Commissioner San
chez, again, this is just a zoning case. So
we're kind of getting off into platting but zoning only on
this item at this time. All right.
My concern was Mills Road and the way if it's not going to
be widened or any work is going to be done
to it because the school is just down from there, right?
And some of those students are going to be
walking up and down that street and that can be dangerous.
McKinney right now has, there's been
several accidents, a couple of students being hit right on
McKinney Street because they walk along
the side of the road. Well, we have not said that there won
't be any improvements to Mills Road.
Okay. Mills Road is one of them. That is something we have
identified as a possibility. Again,
and we would look at that more thoroughly at the at the at
the planning stage. In actual fact,
just last night there was a presentation made to city
council public hearing and
it was approved for incorporation to our transportation
design criteria manual clarifying
what the perimeter street improvement policy is as part of
our new roadway impact fee ordinance.
We will definitely be looking at that here in this case and
just on every project going forward.
Any other questions for Jim on this and if not we'll get
back to Haley on the zoning portion of this
item. All right, almost to the end here. Notification was
sent about this case.
We sent 13 notices to the properties within 200 feet and 20
to those within 500. One came in just
this afternoon and I placed that on your table for you. It
was in opposition and that property
owner is located here just to the northeast of the property
. Thank you for doing that. That helps.
And based on the discussion that we've had here and the the
compatibility with the future land use
and the mixture of uses in this area, staff is recommending
approval of this request and
you can answer any other questions at this time. Great,
thank you Haley. Good presentation.
I believe that will end our public hearing item. So with
that, unless Simone has anything
else, I will close our work session at 5 45 and we will
reconvene in council chambers at 6 30. Thank you everyone.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting
for October the 25th 2017. This meeting has been duly
posted and we do have a quorum present and
I will call us to order at 6 30. Our first order of
business will be to stand and give the pledge
to the U.S. and the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the
flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under
God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
I, the Texas flag, pledge allegiance to the Texas one state
under God, one indivisible.
This will take us to our next item on our agenda will be to
consider approval of the Planning
and Zoning Commission minutes and I'll take these in two
separate motions in case we have any changes.
Commissioner Smith. A motion to approve. For the 27th? For
the 27th, yes sir. Okay.
Commissioner Back. Second. Okay we have a first and a
second for approval.
Is there any discussion or changes need to be made to the
minutes?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on board.
Okay so we just have an error on the read. It should be
seven yes and no opposed. Motion passes.
I move us to our second item on our minutes. Commissioner
Smith. Thank you chair. A motion
to approve October 11th minutes. Okay. Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you. I will second that. Okay we have
a first and a second for approval. Any discussion or
changes that need to be made to the minutes?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on board.
The motion is going to carry six to zero with one recuse.
That will move us to our consent agenda
and before announce that we do have one item, item C FP 17-
0021 that is going to be moved to our
individual consideration agenda and it will become item 4B.
So we will be considering A, B, D, and E
for our consent agenda. Chair would enter. Commissioner
Smith. Thank you chair. A motion to
approve our consent agenda as written. Okay. Commissioner
Rossell. I second. Okay we have a
first and a second. Any discussion? Just for the record,
you mean not as written but as
modified by the chair. Modified by the chair. Okay. Thank
you for the clarification. Any other
discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote
on the board for approval of the consent
agenda as modified. That motion is going to carry seven
zero. That will move us to item four, our
items for individual consideration and I will call on Julie
White for presentation of item A ADP 17-0021.
Item number 002.
Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting ADP 17-2
Ross Law Office.
The request before you is to consider an alternative
development plan to DVA from subchapter 13
regarding the requirement for permeable paving for excess
parking.
The subject property is located on the east side of Woodrow
. It's south of McKinney, approximately
275 feet and it is located in a CMG zoning district and
this CMG zoning district permits an 80%
lot coverage. So that's something you'll want to know for
later in the presentation. So here's the
site plan. The proposal is a professional office about 4,
300 square feet. They're actually proposing
with their office, their parking, their drive aisle, all of
the impervious surface. They're proposing a
53.8% lot coverage. Subchapter 14 outlines the parking
requirements for development in the city
of Denton and professional services and offices require one
space per 450 square feet of gross
floor area. So that equals to 10 spaces for this use. The
applicant, however, would like to provide
15 spaces in order to accommodate their development. Subch
apter 13 requires that all parking spaces
over the required number be constructed of a pervious
surface. However, subchapter 13 also
allows an alternative development plan if they want to vary
or deviate from those site design
requirements provided that the development meets the
criteria for approval and is approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. As part of the proposal,
there is a landscape plan and that
includes a grass channel adjacent to the additional parking
spaces. It is to be planted or is proposed
to be planted with dense grasses and the intent is to be
designed to remove pollutants that would
be suspended in the runoff produced by that excess pavement
. This is intended to reduce the
environmental impact of those additional parking spaces.
And here's their drainage plan and that
depicts how this water is going to drain. As you can see by
the purple arrows, the drainage is
intended to go toward that grass channel. So the
considerations that staff looked at when we analyzed
the request was first what is the intent of the pervious
parking requirement. We typically look
at that the intent is to minimize any environmental impacts
associated with additional parking and
then also any visual impacts. In this case, five spaces is
pretty small so the visual impacts weren't
as germane as maybe the environmental impacts. So we looked
at the criteria for approval
and we felt that it met the criteria for approval what they
were proposing and we'll just go over
those quickly. First, preserve existing neighborhoods. This
proposal is not anticipated
to negatively impact the area. It's already a commercial
area with lots of offices and retail
uses. Assure quality development. The proposed five extra
spaces are not intended to design to lower
design standards but just to accommodate the additional
parking. Focus new development on
activity centers. The site location is on an undeveloped
lot in an existing commercial area
and adjacent to an already constructed arterial. So this is
focusing that development toward an
existing commercial area. Ensure infrastructure can
accommodate development. There is adequate
infrastructure in the area to accommodate it and there
results in a high quality development that
meets the intent of the requirement and based on what we've
talked about the lot coverage,
what they're proposing, the 53% lot coverage that exceeds
the requirement for or the standard for
the CMG zoning district and then also that grass channel
that we discussed that meets the intent
of why we have these parking maximums or these pervious
surfaces to ensure that we minimize the
amount of pollutants. And then also we looked at just why
they would need the parking and
this property is located adjacent to an arterial which
doesn't allow for parking on the street. So
they really do need to accommodate their parking on site.
They need to have sufficient parking
to ensure the safety of the visitors and the employees. So
with that being said, staff
recommends approval of the request with the following
conditions. First that they construct
the grass channel as we discussed to treat approximately 97
2 square feet of drainage area
in an event generating one and a half inches of rain or
less as depicted on the landscape plan
and drainage map. And then also align that channel with
some dense grasses to slow the velocity of
the water and ensure that there's a proper amount of time
that that water stays in the channel so
the pollutants can be removed from that water. So I'll
stand for any questions.
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Julie, in regards to
the construction of these grass
channels, usually is there a retaining wall that holds this
grass? Like it's not going to be the grass
up against other undeveloped land that it's being built
next to, correct? Let's look at that.
Because on that very top line there that's against other
undeveloped land, is there a retaining wall?
What is, how does that look? They're not proposing a
retaining wall. It would just be... Is it curved
off? Is it just grass and then it's undeveloped land next
to it? It would be. There will be a
depression there. So it'll channel the water there. But yes
, it would just then be adjacent to that
property. Thanks. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you, Chair. I
had some questions about this in work
session about the requirements and we might be tied here
with the code when it comes to ADPs.
Maybe a question, I'm not sure, Julie, if it's for you or
maybe it's for legal.
Is it possible to have an ADP without conditions placed on
it? I am going to let legal answer that.
Generally the conditions are part of the plan. That's why
it's an alternative plan.
My understanding is this was submitted without any
conditions.
And then the city added the conditions. I think it's
because in our code it actually states that
if you want to vary from the parking standards, it requires
an ADP and it only provides the
criteria by which you're supposed to review those requests.
But we have to have some,
a stricter standard or a heightened level of design in
order for it to qualify. And to do that,
we had to add the conditions. So it's almost like it goes
hand in hand. When you see most ADPs,
they have designs that aren't normally required by our code
and this is just one of those. So
here we've listed as conditions. I'm not, you know, I'm not
sure how they originally submitted it.
So. And in terms of planning staff, when we look at these,
we do look at the intent of why that
requirement is there. So why you would need pervious
parking for spaces that were in excess of what
was required. And so we work with the applicant to try to
come up with a site plan and a design
that will meet the intent of that requirement while still,
you know, if approved by city count
or by the planning and zoning commission would allow them
to move forward with their development
in a way that they need to develop it. But to have type
interventions that allow it to meet that
requirement. Sure. That makes sense. My take on this is
they're substantially under the lot coverage
to begin with and under code they could build a larger
building without any ADP requirement. They
could have a lot more impervious structures on their lot
without requiring an ADP. But because
it's fallen under this parking, it seems to be this kind of
nuance of the code in which if they
want additional parking, they'd have to do an ADP. I think
it'd be most productive rather than me
trying to think about these conditions as required or not.
Is the applicant here who can speak to
the willingness? Yes, please.
Good afternoon. Please state your name and address and step
over here for the mic for us.
John A. Ross Jr. Mr. Ross, I appreciate you being here. Can
you tell me about the conditions and
your willingness for these conditions? Specifically as to
what? Constructing a grass channel storm
water of 972 square feet. Are you okay with that? Oh,
absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Then I guess my point
here is mute, but it might be worth something to consider
down the road about the requirements for
an ADP for parking when lot coverage is underneath the 80%.
That's more for staff, though. I can tell
you right now with this parking, if this is approved, we
don't intend on doing any additional
parking and we'd obviously know that we'd have to resubmit
anything to the commission. Out of
curiosity, is it more expensive for you to plan a channel
of those dense grasses in terms of
construction? I would assume, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.
Is that everything?
Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair.
Julie, the drainage you showed us a while
ago, it showed those, I guess it's five parking places,
shoots towards that grass area, but the
whole parking lot area, is it all, is it drained to in that
same direction or are we going to get?
In looking at this, it looks like there are other parts of
the parking lot that drain in other ways
to get the water to Woodrow. Okay. So the intent really was
just to get this part. Okay. So that
right, that grassy area there is not intended to
incorporate all the drainage off the parking lot.
No, sir. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Sure.
Commissioner Sanchez. You mentioned several times that the
channel is to pick up pollutants or to
stop pollutants over time. You know, if you have pollutants
going into that grass area, I would
think that that would have an effect on the vegetation. And
so what I'm thinking is how are
you going to monitor? We're implementing something that we
probably can't even monitor over time.
We don't really have a mechanism to monitor that after the
fact. So yes, you're correct. So if
something did happen where it got clogged or there was
something that would impact adjacent
properties where it wasn't functioning correctly, then the
city may need to get in with our
community development in order to ensure that it's working
properly. But you're right. There's no
mechanism to verify, to do soil samples or anything
regarding the pollutants. It would just be if it's
not functioning and it would impact the drainage on
adjacent properties. It's when the city may
get involved in ensuring that it's maintained. I guess I
was just looking at the vegetation.
That, you know, it's going into the vegetation and over
time, I mean, you would think that
pollutants would affect the vegetation. And that's all I
was thinking about.
Our water administration department looks at these and they
presented this or they
formulated this based upon I-swim. So some interventions or
some best practices that were
developed by our North Texas Council of Governments. So
these are some best practices
that have been developed with the environmental community
and with in order to ensure that it
does what it's supposed to do and it can be allowed to
thrive and those plants would stay there.
I have a question for you. Since they're so far under their
lot coverage and there's one
parking space for 450, if their building had been, they
wanted five spaces, 2250 square feet larger,
they would have still been under the coverage percentage
and they could have done their spaces
without doing any of the ADP at all. Correct. So they could
have built a larger building,
had the same parking lot and not have to do any of that.
Yes, sir. That's correct.
Okay. I'd have a question for the applicant then and then
we'll move on.
Yes, sir. About how long has it taken you to go through
this process?
About a year and a half now. Just on the ADP? Not on the AD
P. I started the ADP
about three months ago. About three months ago? Yes, sir.
Three, four months ago.
About how much does it cost to go through that process
engineering wise? Approximately?
I'd say probably 10 to 15,000 so far. Okay. Just for the AD
P before you even do any of the work?
I'm guessing because I haven't got the civil engineers bill
yet. I know that will be high.
I just want to bring that to attention. I know they have a
DDC rewrite that we're working on
and this seems to be one of those areas where you're under
what you're allowed lot coverage wise,
80 percent, but yet you've spent at least three months and
a considerable amount of money
to do something that if you built a larger building you
could cover more than the lot than
what you are at this stage. So I just want to bring that up
here for us to consider as we're
talking about DDC changes. So thank you for sharing that
information with us. Thanks, sir.
You bet. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.
Thank you.
This isn't a public hearing but if there's someone who
would like to speak you
may. You would have to fill out a card. It is an individual
consideration item. In seeing none,
I will go ahead and open the floor here amongst us for
discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Rossello. Thank you, chair. I'm going to go
ahead and motion approval of this
with the conditions stipulated by staff. But I also wanted
to use my time here to reiterate chair's
thoughts on the process here. If there's an ability to
address this in the DIN development
code then we should. It seems quite obvious that there's
been a lot more added to the applicant
than needed for five parking spaces when again the lot
coverage is exceptionally lower than what was
required. And he has rights to build other things. It's
just this parking has created a lot more
effort from the applicant. So I'd like to see this project
move forward and not delay on this
anything past that he has since the 1st of August it looks
like. So I'll go ahead and motion this.
But with the hope that this is addressed in the DDC or some
other conversation.
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, chair. Motion to or second
motion to accept.
We have a first and a second for approval. Commissioner San
chez.
Yes. I just want to mention the same thing that Andrew
talked about. I think we put a larger burden
on the applicant and it's something we have to look at. And
also the other concern I have is even
this idea of having a channel there that we can't monitor
over time. I just feel this is an additional
burden that we put on him that really is not going to that
we can't prove it's going to help over time
even though we talk about best practices. You know those
are things we implement in trying to mitigate
environmental issues. But at the same time those best
practices have to be monitored and looked at
over time. It's just not implementing it and then we'll see
20 years from now. So. Okay.
Any other comments or questions before I call for a vote on
board?
Seeing none I will call for a vote on the board. We have a
first and a second
for approval with conditions by staff.
That motion is going to carry seven zero. Good luck with
your project.
That will move us to our individual consideration. Item B
which is going to be
FP 17-0021 and I will call on Haley for a presentation.
All right good evening. This is a final plat for two lots
located on the west side of the I-35
service road. The lots are intended to be developed with
retail sites. The reason this plat was pulled
from the consent agenda is because there is a driveway
proposed to the south of the property
that requires approval of a permit from the Texas
Department of Transportation because it is in their
right of way. The permit for that is not yet approved. So
the typical practice would be to
have a hold harmless agreement signed and put in place
before the plat is approved by you all.
That was not done in this case so we've brought the plat
forward with the condition that that
text up permit be approved or the hold harmless agreement
be filed before this plat gets filed
after you all approve it. And can answer any questions.
Commissioner Beck. And again I think
it was stated that if we do approve this and all moves
forward like it's supposed to they don't
have to come back to the PNC is that correct? Yes sir if
you approve it with that condition it
wouldn't have to come back before you. Okay thank you.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Do we
have any reason to believe that the permit would not be
approved it's just is it just pending status?
Yes yeah it's in review with text up at this time. Okay so
we would need approval pending the
permit as well as a hold harmless agreement signed by the
applicant? Either of those options.
Either of those. If the permit is approved before it's
filed the hold harmless agreement wouldn't be
required. That hold harmless agreement was intended to and
Jennifer could probably speak to that but
my understanding is it's provided in case the permit's not
approved the city wouldn't be liable.
The hold harmless agreement only comes into play if we're
substituting it for no permit. So they
either have the permit or they have the hold harmless
agreement just saying well we didn't get
the permit but we're not going to hold you responsible for
it if we can't get it later.
And so if we don't have either one of those you can
condition your approval on that.
We won't file any plans with the county until we receive
that.
Any other questions for Haley?
Thank you. Okay this is an individual consideration item.
It's not a public hearing but
you're welcome to speak on this item if you'd like. You
would need to fill out a card to do so.
Seeing none I will have a motion from Commissioner Smith.
Motion to accept this with staff's conditions also added
onto it.
Okay the two conditions okay Commissioner Sullivan.
Second the motion.
Okay we have a first and a second for approval with
conditions. Any further discussion or comment?
Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board.
The motion is going to carry seven to zero. That will move
us to our public hearing section this
evening. At this time I'm going to open the public hearing
for item A DCA 17-0010B.
Actually that has been postponed. My mistake.
That's the one that's postponed definitely. Okay I didn't
do it right then.
I know how that is. Keeping up with it. Okay so this item
is open. It is a public hearing.
It is open and the chair would entertain a motion for
continuance indefinitely.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you chair. Mr. Jenks you can just say it if you want
to come to the mic go ahead.
I know it's postponed definitely. Do you have a time frame
when we're going to see this again
or is this just postponed because we're busy in the office
or what's
what's the time frame of seeing this come back before our
commission?
Yes sir that's a that's a good question and basically what
's driving the postponement
I would say more than anything is that since the item was
initiated we've had a lot of changes
in management in the development services department. The
new management that's come in
has brought in some perspectives of their own and
experiences from other cities that I think are
valuable and that we're considering. I think we're still we
're still going along the similar path
but the details of how the new agreements would be
structured and the bonds the financial guarantees
that we talked about we may we may tweak somewhat as far as
when we will be coming back to you.
I would say very soon by I would I would say probably next
month sometime or possibly December
at the latest but very soon we're we're we're not stopping
the item we're just hitting pause as we
have some new faces and new experience come in and try to
get a better product. Thank you Mr. Jinks.
You bet. Commissioner Roselle. I move to postpone this
agenda item indefinitely. Okay.
Commissioner Smith. I second. Okay we have a first and a
second for postponement indefinitely.
Yes. Okay so we will leave the public hearing open and then
we'll call for a vote on the board.
I'm sorry it was an indefinite postponement so the public
hearing really needs to be closed
because I think they're going to republish notice for it so
okay on this one we will close the public
hearing. Okay well we'll back up a step then and I'm going
to close the public hearing on this item
and I will call for a vote on the board. Do we need a re-
motion or can we leave the motions as
stated earlier? We can leave the motions as stated. Okay I
'll call for a vote on the board. Same motion.
Motion is going to carry seven zero. We'll move us to item
B and I will open our public hearing for
Z 17-0022. Actually well I'm having a hard time tonight I
can't read.
Do we have to open it? This one we will leave open the
public hearing because so that we don't have
to republish I think that the applicant actually wanted to
amend the request and it's going to be
postponed to a date certain so we would entertain a motion.
Okay so we're going to lay the public
hearing open not close it and then we will take a ask for a
motion and take a vote. Okay so this
item is open and then Commissioner Smith. A motion to postp
one this item until November 8th planning
is on a commission meeting. Okay for a date certain.
Commissioner Beck. Second. Okay we have a first
and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a
vote on the board.
Motion carries seven zero and this item is still open. We
'll move us to item C and I will open the
public hearing for FR 17-0021. We'll call on Julie Wyatt
for presentation.
All right.
Now I've completely messed it up.
All right this is a replat. Let's try again.
View. Rotate.
There we go. All right this is a replat for a previously pl
atted lot. One lot they're they're
dividing into two lots. It's situated on the east side of
kind of downtown on Duncan Street. It is
developed with industrial uses and they're just splitting
it into two lots with some access
agreements to ensure access on the site and I'll answer any
questions. Any questions for Julie?
Thank you Julie. This is a public hearing so if there's
anyone who would like to speak on this
item please come down at this time. And this is a public
hearing. Please come down if you'd like
to speak on this item. Seeing none I'll close the public
hearing and open the floor for discussion
or motion. Commissioner Beck? I move we approve FR 17-0021.
Okay. Commissioner Ellis? Second. Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval. Any other
discussion or questions?
Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board.
The motion is going to carry 7-0. We'll move us to item D
and I will open the public hearing for
FR 17-0013 and call on Julie for presentation of this item
as well.
All right this is also a replat. Subject property is
located south of 380.
It has a part of the property is in the city of Denton and
it has a zoning designation of NR2
and part of it is in the ETJ. They are splitting one pl
atted lot into two lots with an access
easement and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner
Ellis? Thank you chair. Julie as I
was looking at this I'm curious is there not a commercial
site already in use on the property?
I think there is. If any redevelopment happened and they if
any redevelopment was proposed or
contemplated they would they would have to comply with any
zoning regulations that are on the
property. So this replat does not negate their use
currently? No ma'am. But if redevelopment happens
it would have to fall in the part within the city. Correct.
Correct. Okay thanks.
Just for clarification on that that's just going to be on
the city portion the portion that's going
to be in the county or ETJ would be governed by the county.
They would they would all permits would
be through the county. Okay any other questions for Julie?
Thank you Julie. This is a public hearing
anyone who would like to speak on this item please come
forward at this time.
Please state your name and address for the record and I
believe you have four minutes.
If you haven't filled out a card for us before you leave
this even there's cards right outside
the door and please fill out a card for us. My name is M
ignon Laughlin I am the mother of one
of the applicants and he didn't tell me I was need to talk.
I was just supposed to say nothing's
changing except there was a divorce and so they're dividing
stuff up so they had it resurveyed and
replatted. Okay sorry to hear that. Will you give your
address for us please? Oh I'm sorry I live at
630 Lakeshore Boulevard in Oak Point. Okay thank you and
please fill out a card for us.
This is a public hearing anyone else who would like to
speak on this item please come forward at
this time. Okay seeing none I will close the public hearing
and open the floor for discussion
or motion. Commissioner Rozelle. Thank you chair I move
approval of FR 17-0013.
Okay commissioner Smith. I second that motion. Okay we have
a first and a second for approval
any other discussion or questions? Seeing none I'll call
for a vote on the board.
Motion is going to carry seven to zero. We'll take us to
item E. We'll open the public hearing for
FR 17-0018 and we'll call on Hattie Lee for presentation.
This is a replant of lot one of the Ryan Company's addition
. The property is located on the east side
of Dakota Lane that's over in the west part of town near
the airport. It is zoned for industrial
development and currently lot two you've seen here is
developed with an existing industrial use.
My understanding is that will stay in place they are simply
subdividing off
the southern portion of the property. I can answer any
other questions you might have.
Any questions for Haley?
Thank you Haley. This is a public hearing anyone who would
like to speak on this item please come
forward at this time. Seeing none I will close the public
hearing and open the floor for discussion
or motion. Commissioner Beck. I move we approve FR 17-0018.
Okay commissioner Smith. I second
that motion. Okay we have a first and a second for approval
any discussion or comments or questions?
Seeing none I'll call for a vote on board.
That motion carries seven zero. That will take us to item F
. I will open the public hearing for
Z 17-0023 and call on Haley for presentation of this item
as well.
Good evening this is case Z 17-23 for the co-pedition.
The request is to hold a public hearing and consider a
request to establish an initial
zoning designation of neighborhood residential six on a
property you see outlined here in yellow.
It's approximately 16.39 acres located at the northeast
corner of Mayhill Road and Mills Road.
If we look at what is around the area in terms of zoning
and land use you'll see a mixture of
things. The property itself and several other properties in
this area currently have our
placeholder zoning designation of RD 5X. I said that's a
placeholder when a property is annexed
into the city it's assigned that designation until such
time as an initial zoning application is made.
Currently we have a mixture of uses residential some
commercial there's an auto repair shop
immediately north of the property. Then if we look to the
other districts you'll see in the blue
hatched area that's outlined in green all of those parcels
are still in the ETJ so not yet annexed
into the city. Again there's some undeveloped land and some
residential uses in that area.
Looking across Mayhill Road we have the ECI district so one
of our employment center districts
and in this area we have a mixture of uses we have
facilities for Denton ISD to the south of
the property a mixture of commercial and industrial uses
and then even some single-family residences.
To the south we have NR 2 district that's immediately south
of the property is developed
again by Denton ISD we have the Ryan High School as well as
a bus facility in this area.
And then there's also a small patch of NR 6 zoning in this
area.
When you look at the future land use map this parcel and
much of the property to the north of
it is designated as moderate residential. That's a
designation that promotes more compact single
family development a little bit higher density generally
between four and twelve units per acre
is what's encouraged in that designation. And this
designation often serves as a transition
between a commercial or mixed use areas and lower density
residential and we see that in play here
along Mayhill Road we have business innovation and
community mixed use designations that would be
commercial maybe some light industrial employment uses and
then the moderate residential area would
be a transition between those commercial uses and lower
density residential that's intended to the east.
Looking at the roadways and access to this site it does
have frontage on both Mayhill and Mills.
Mayhill Road is a primary arterial it's currently under
expansion and realignment at this time
and the Mills Road is designated as a collector and all of
the requirements for improvement that
would come as part of this development will be further
examined and determined during the
preliminary and final platting of the property. Not
ification was sent about this case we sent 13
notices to those properties within 200 feet 20 to those
within 500. We received one written
opposition that was provided to you at the work session and
that property is outlined here in red.
Staff is recommending approval of this request because it
is generally compatible with the
surrounding properties in terms of use and zoning and is
also consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Denton Plan 2030 and I can stand for any questions.
Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair.
We talked about in work session but just to make clear to
hopefully clear up anything that might
be brought during the public hearing portion of this the
mobility specifically on mobility
that will be handled the expansion of Mills Road in regards
to population density due to this
rezoning and possibly the development of the single-family
residential use that mobility will
be decided upon at platting. Yes sir when they go through
the preliminary plat process the applicant
will have to provide trip generation calculations based on
the lot and density that they're proposing
and at that time it would be determined what perimeter
street improvements are required
for this development. So during this zoning process we're
not going to be needing to worry about
mobility issues right now. Yes sir. Thank you ma'am.
Any other questions for Haley?
Thank you Haley. Again this is a public hearing anyone who
would like to speak on this item
please come forward at this time. Please come forward.
Please give us your name and address and thank you for
filling out a card for us.
Thank you Commissioner. Appreciate it. It's William Butler
actually Bill. Okay. I live at 4923 Mills
Road. If the map was still up I could show you where our
property is but it is adjacent to this
proposed development. I'm kind of new at this so. Sure. I
'll ask Haley to. If I'm wrong you'll help me keep my
thoughts straight. I'll ask Haley to come up and make sure
and help you if we need to do the eye
in the sky on something or. Yeah I mean I had some. You
have some things you'd like to show us. Well I
had stuff I'm taking off the Google map. I know you sent. I
know she sent proposals out like 13
you said or so. Yes sir. We never got one. I found out
about this yesterday. Okay. So I'm not nearly
as prepared as I would with a. I also was a commercial.
Please come forward. I'm sorry. That's okay sweet.
I want to make sure we can hear you. Okay and I'm also was
a commercial estate broker and was
involved in some development in Houston Texas which zoning
is a lot different there. So some of my
concerns is that the the density will significantly
increase the traffic at that intersection which at
times especially during school year already has substantial
amount of traffic. I don't know this
for sure because I didn't get a chance to verify this but
my understanding is that Ingrass and
egress is only on Mills Road and not on Mayo. Well at this
time we're just doing zoning and. Okay so
that's not part. Okay. Whenever they do come forward for
preliminary plot they will have to
address all those issues. Okay. My feeling is that the this
type of housing is quote unquote
considered low income housing and I think it might have a
negative impact on the existing properties
and even more importantly on future development. This is
like a gateway Mills dead ends in the May
Hill Road. So what you see when you turn the corner says
the tone I believe for the rest of the property.
My wife and I we own a 6,500 square foot house under roof
at 43 4923 Mills Road.
My wife and her siblings own they actually have to address
wrong on the wrong house but 4921 Mills
Road is adjacent to the property as well and they are also
concerned about the density of the property
being developed or proposed along with her family. My wife
and I own a total of 40 acres along Mills
Road which includes the two residences and two more
residents as well. High density residential
development will negatively impact the values of the acre
age for future residential development.
The area would better be better served if the property be z
oned density of nr2 and certainly
no more than nr3. And one last thing if you drive up and
down Black Road and you see the development
that's going on there that's a quality higher end type
development. I'm not saying that Mills
Road will ever reach that level but I think we ought to
strive for that and can raise the whole
feeling of that area and as time goes by. Thank you. Thank
you. Commissioner Smith.
Thank you Chair. Yeah if you could real quick. What I
mentioned Haley before we opened up the
public hearing to the floor to folks. Mobility issues I
feel like it was I didn't know until
you brought it up that you know you're really worried about
low income and kind of what's
going to be used for this. At this point with zoning just
deciding the zoning of it it's going
to be really hard for us as commissioners to vote against
it because it does fit with the future land
use map that's already been decided within the Denton 2030
plan. Now your objections and your
concerns are extremely valid and things that should be
definitely brought back up whenever it
gets the preliminary prating plotting process that's going
to come in front of this commission.
I'd love to see you back in here again to talk about it and
bring that up then because that's
something that we can vote down based off that evidence
that yes the what their plats but they're
asking for us to approve here to be you to actually use
this land for. Yeah that doesn't
seem like something we want to see within our community
then we can make a stand. It's really
hard for us as commissioners to say hey you're just wanting
to rezone it to fit with what we
already said as a city we want to see there. It's hard for
us to say no to it so thank you for coming
out. Thank you. Any other questions? Can I say one more
thing? Sure. I am not opposed personally to
the residential development. In some ways it's preferred
over possibly over industrial which is
what I thought might be how it would be zoned considering
its location. The only thing I'm
opposed to is the density. Okay. Commissioner Schmidt.
Thank you chair. Haley could you he did
bring up two different two different zones NR2 NR3. Can you
give us a quick rundown of the
difference between the NR we're looking at NR6 versus NR2
NR3 in regards to population density
you know I'm saying density sorry. Yes sir so under the
proposed zoning of NR6 that would allow
up to six dwelling units per acre. NR2 and NR3 same thing
with the numbers two dwelling units per
acre or three dwelling units per acre so less than half of
what they would be able to achieve
with the proposal. Thank you. Commissioner Begg. Thank you
chair. Haley. Don't go.
Can you put the proposed zoning map up? Okay. That's it.
Right. Don't have present it would be
the same as there. Yes NR6. Okay and I wanted Mr. Butler to
see that that there is an NR6 across
the street from you already and I was curious and if you
want to you can come back up to the microphone
and inform us if there's been a been a problem with this.
It is.
Okay but it is zoned as such. I understand. Okay. But at
this point had that had you be
had you asked me if that should be NR6. A little closer to
the mic. I'm sorry had you asked me if
that should be NR6 if it wasn't already I would have also
been opposed to it. Okay okay so it's
I guess in your thinking NR6 is just not appropriate for
that area. Well we were talking earlier
and I'm not saying that NR6 is inappropriate everywhere and
there may be areas further
where the tone has already been set. If you go further east
there are trailer parks
a nice trailer park where you already have density. All I'm
trying to do is upgrade the area
and I feel like it's for personal personal reasons but I
also have 40 acres from possible development.
I'm not going to develop it if I can keep from it at high
density levels. Okay all right thank you
sir. Have some more questions possibly. Commissioner Rosell
. Thank you chair. Mr. Butler I appreciate
you you coming in and providing insight and I'd love to see
40 acres in that area be developed
NR2 if that was your pleasure. My question to you is you've
been in real estate. Mayhill is
being expanded to a six lane divided street and NR2
neighborhoods generally are like you said they're
nicer or higher income generally to build out an NR2
neighborhood and the houses that those invite.
I'm wondering your perspective on the likelihood of a
successful project like that happening next
to a six lane road because I'm thinking if if 16 acres was
to be developed that bordered loop 288
I'm not sure there's going to be a lot of developments for
you know half acre homes right
next to a main arterial which is why to me an NR6 makes
sense because it backs up to that but I'd
love to hear your perspective on that. Well like I said I
would rather be residential if it were
NR2 or NR3. If it has to be NR6 then I'd rather see it
developed as industrial. The density I think
is too great for that intersection even though we are
expanding it I don't know what the plans are
for Mills Road and I know that's not apparently part of the
discussion at this time. I see
pretty nice homes and flower mounds and other high-end
developments that have
homes right on major thoroughfares. Some of them have
retaining walls they have
blocked the sound but I can show you many many locations
where there are plenty of examples
where there's a higher end home development NR2 or NR3 on
high traffic roads. Thank you
appreciate it. Any other questions Mr. Bellewally is at the
mic.
Thank you sir for your comments and answering our questions
.
This is a public hearing so please come down give your name
and address and thank you for filling
out a card for us. My name is Kenneth Stout and I live on
Mills Road right off of Mayhill
where the school property splits our place on both sides.
They have five acres on the corner
and this property they're talking about rezoning it. It is
going to anything east of it the rainwater
and everything's going to have to be pumped all the way
down to a creek that'll run down to
Cooper Creek Road which is about two miles down east where
we're at. On the north end on the west
end of it we got a hill that's in there that it's very
difficult to navigate when it gets water on
the rain freeze. We have about a thousand buses on that
street. We also have about a thousand buses
going over right by my within 30 foot of my back door. So I
'm concerned about the amount of traffic
and us getting out on the street and I'm also concerned
about how we're going to get water and
sewer down through there to where we might be able in the
future go ahead and attach into it.
Now they y'all's chart says 16 point something acres. Well
if that includes half the road they
don't own all the they own it but they pay taxes on it but
they won't get to build on the road
except they wrote. So we're concerned we're not against the
project. It's this simple fact we see
we need to know what's going on whether very much of us can
go south or north on Mayhill Road. They
won't put very many red lights down the thing and there may
be some I don't even know there's red
light going in it mills that Mayhill because if the street
comes clear across over and hooks into
the development on the west side we need some relief in
there either some traffic control or
something and I'll be happy to try to share something else
if you know in the future.
We appreciate y'all listening to us. I don't know how to
run a computer don't intend to learn to run
one. I'm old enough that I don't have to so but I am
concerned about all of our neighbors out there
and if you don't like to wake up about five o'clock in the
mornings with that many buses
you got a problem. Now I will mention somebody in the city
years ago built Ashley Oaks. They've
turned water down across some of this property we're
talking about east of there about two miles
just washed the thunder out of the road and now we have a
one lane bridge down there at the end
of it where it hooks up to Trinity. Now that's not progress
that's loading us up down to where
we cannot even get out of the place if we want to go east.
I would like for y'all to consider it.
I'm not totally against the project it's just that we need
to know what's going on and how long the
sixth school district may want to develop the corner up
there. Appreciate y'all. I have a question
for you Commissioner Roselle. Thank you Chair. Did you say
your last name was Scott? Mr. Stout. I
appreciate you being here. How long have you lived in your
current home? Well my wife has lived on
there since 1946. It sounds like you're an expert in the
area which I think is valuable. I had some
property the city obtained on Mayhill Road about two years
ago. So in terms of Commissioner Smith
might have mentioned this earlier but I wanted to encourage
you if this passes tonight and it goes
to NR6 I think your testimony will be invaluable during the
platting process to encourage a stoplight
to encourage the improvement of Mills Road and so if this
passes tonight once the vote happens
I would like to see you come back during the platting
process to hear more about your expertise
in the area. One more question I'd like to ask. When was
this thing changed from agriculture to
this other? We got no information when that change was made
and it's probably made within the past two
years. So that makes it a problem for us not even being
notified to want to change it from agriculture
because I was acquainted with the people that lived there
for 40 years. I think the staff could
speak to this but it was originally brought into the city
under a zoning called RD5X which is a
temporary zoning that we're trying to update today. It's
still agricultural. It's still
agriculture today. RD5X is just a placeholder designation
it doesn't mean anything as in regards
to the agriculture. Well I was just kind of concerned
because I didn't get a letter during
that time. I found it in the newspaper and then that's when
I got interested in the past couple
weeks you know kind of checking things out a little bit
because I'm not trying to run the country out
that way I'm just trying to live in that country out there.
Another question for Commissioner Smith.
Thank you Chair. We got we saw earlier tonight on a
different autumn that it took a you know a strip
of grass took about three months to come before us. Pretty
sure they said that the Mayhill expansion
is going to be 2019 so I think your I think the development
that happens out there if it does
passes tonight it'll take a little it'll take a little
while for it to come becomes up here so
there'll be some time to bring up any any type of issues
you may have so just sit tight and
and come on back whenever preliminary plotting comes to
comes to before us okay. Thank you very
much. Thank you sir. One more question to come up.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. I do appreciate
y'all pointing out that you didn't get any notices either.
That's been a big concern for us
and as a commission and the city staff we have set plans
aside to address it so it's so disappointing
to hear these things have been set in motion so it's
disappointing to hear that still you're just
hearing about this today or the day before yesterday so
there's obviously some kinks in the system
that we've tried to improve here but we did want you to
know that we are aware of the
informing residents when changes are made and hopefully
those kinks will get worked out in the
future where you're not left in the blind so thank you for
coming down speaking to it tonight.
Thank you sir.
This is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on
this item please come forward at this time.
David Shelton. I live in a 5050 Mills Road which is I guess
in our six already and I have no
intentions of ever developing it that I'm just it's my
house that's where it's going to stay.
What worries me is we're kind of limited on our road down
through Mills Road
and then we have all the school buses. Can I get you to
step over closer to the mic so we can make
sure to hear you well? We have all the school buses and all
the school traffic and it's hard to get in
and out of there and now is it 84 houses or 94 houses that
they're going to build?
We don't know at that at this point with the zoning allows
six homes per acre for whatever
their acreage is. I think there's going to be a whole lot
of houses and you know two or three
cars for house and it's just going to squeeze us. Do they
have any plans on expanding Mills
Road or anything making it wider so we can? Well we don't
have any of that at this time
when whenever the property comes back before us for what's
called platting they will have to
address all those questions sewer, water, stormwater,
detention. I don't have any of that
you know when we got drafted into the city we didn't get
any kind of sewer or anything
so we don't get any benefits other than tax and that's just
taken from us so that's just that's
I'm not against building the expansion just that I'm just
against the so many houses right there
in that area and there's not enough road to handle it all
so so anyway that's it. Okay thank you for
your comments any questions for the speaker? Thank you sir.
Hi my name is George Carroll I live in 5200 Mills Road. You
'll have to pardon my voice
the army gave it to me but I live in 5200. I back up to the
Detroit Parks. I have lived
out there 12 years now and the Detroit Parks for a while
was pretty wild. They had to put a police
substation in there. I'm here just to back up what Peter
and the other folks said. In my area
there's multi-million dollar houses and the landscape is
beautiful. Now in the end,
our six, I would like to see the place stay halfway. I'm
just an old man or getting there
and our six would just bring in more. I mean I know it's
always but let's have some class.
And that's really nice. Thank you. Thank you for your
comments.
This is a public hearing anyone else who would like to
speak on this item please come forward
at this time. Please give us your name and address and you
'll have four minutes.
Tina Crawford 520 Fox Creek Court in Texas. I got three
notices by the way just had me covered
and actually we have the property next door to this. We
have the back five acres next to it
and then the tent in front of it my in-laws on. And when
they went to the tax office they said
they got yellow slips saying that it was a zoned commercial
. So I don't know what the difference is
there but I would be against the NR6 just for the reasons
that the gentleman outlined here.
Just it's low lower scale too many houses and to address
the question about nice houses on big
roads four lane highways. I mean I work in Frisco
everything's a huge road and everything's a nice
house. So I mean it works very well and that's what it's
what the rich folks want they want to
get someplace fast. So I you know we're all about
developing we've had the land for a long time we
want to make as much as we can on our land and putting
something like that right there on the
corner is just something I would be against. Okay I see no
questions thank you ma'am.
This is a public hearing so please come forward this time.
Hi I'm Sandy Butler and 4923 Mills Road is our address. I
represent several family members and
we have a house up there that was my husband that spoke
before and none of us got any notice
whatsoever of any of this and our house is right there you
can see the picture of it on there.
So it's very disappointing that this major of a of a plan
would happen and nobody has any notice
and we've lived there for a lot of years. My parents moved
there in the 60s so you know
it says that it was sent to the street address you know of
the property and we have a PO box
but it would be nice if you sent the notice to the same
people who pay the taxes you know because
obviously the city knows who pays the taxes and who lives
there so that would be nice in the
future to get notices that way. Can you show us where your
property is maybe Haley can get the
pointer up on the maps. The big white spot see that big
white spot that just that looks north
from here but anyway the big white house that's my house.
This one where the cursor is or this one.
Just up yeah that one the big one yep and the and the
smaller one that's beneath that is my
mom's house so. We only send notices to property within the
city limits.
Well I mean those those parcels are in the ETJ so they're
technically still in the county.
I believe our address list only sends notices to properties
within the city limits.
But we're I mean that's my that's my road you see that
little line that comes down to Mills road
and it's within spitting distance of that property you're
talking about we're right there. Yes ma'am.
Yeah we'll talk about that in a minute.
This this is a public hearing anyone who would like to
speak on this item please come forward at this time.
This is a public hearing anyone else who would like to
speak on this item please come forward at this time.
Okay at this time I will close the public hearing for a
discussion. Commissioner Smith.
Thank you chair. Haley just a clarification on the mailing.
So we only we do only send of course to people in the city
and then if we're looking at who's
paying the property taxes that's not even held at the city
that's held at the county level correct.
From the county so it's about one year behind because it is
the certified roll
and then all properties within 200 feet that are on that
certified tax roll we send a notice
to the property owner at their home address and then as a
courtesy we extend a postcard notification
to properties within the city that are within 500 feet and
that just goes to the address not
necessarily correct. Yeah so if there's not if there's not
a if there's not an actual
mail receptacle at the physical address what happens to
that mail? I'm assuming it comes
back to us because it does it just goes to current resident
at that address. Okay all right.
More questions. Commissioner Roselle. Haley.
I I I very much hesitate to beat the drum about the
notifications but we got a response from the
property in the northeast that is also ETJ. Yes sir he
called me today so I forwarded him
and I emailed him the notification form so he could respond
. Thank you for that clarification.
Any other questions for Haley? Why is she set the mic?
I'll ask one. We've had a number of people here tonight
that have come up and obviously spoken
in opposition. I don't know exactly where they are located
in regards to the property and if
that's changed the percentage that may be opposed for what
is was presented earlier in our work
session. I know we had one property that it was adjacent
and I don't know exactly where all of
these other properties are and if that's going to change
the percentage as far as opposition for
the vote here this evening. I don't know if we need to take
some time to gather that or
I'll leave the legal to give us some guidance on that item.
Thank you chair. Obviously we
we won't be affected for the purposes of our vote here
tonight but if in fact that does go
toward the 20 percent and they are in the city limits which
is what the law requires
then that would trigger a super majority vote in front of
council when it goes to council.
Okay so just a council. Just a council not a PNC. Okay all
right thank you.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. For clarification I
think of the property
owners that spoke here can we maybe get Haley to describe
what that 20 percent is?
Sure. I think she was out of the room if you'd like to
Commissioner Ellis restate your question.
Thank you. For the benefit of the property owners who spoke
there and what was just
conversed on the dais regarding the 20 percent can you
explain that? Yes so I believe the
requirement is if more than 20 percent of the property
owners of the land area within 200 feet
that is within the city are opposed to the request it
triggers a super majority vote at
city council so they could only have one opposing vote at
council and the motion still carry.
Okay any other questions for Haley?
Thank you. You might want to stay close to the mic here.
Okay so the floor is open for discussion or a motion.
I don't know if we have or not. Okay you sure didn't? Well
if I haven't already I will close
the public hearing since no one else is coming forward and
I will open the the floor for
discussion or motion. Commissioner Sanchez. It seems like
everybody that came up and talked
is concerned about Mills Road and that's probably the
unknown is the fact that.
And I've been at Mills Road and yeah it is it is a pretty
narrow road and I've also heard
that some students coming off Mills Road have gotten hurt
from because the school is there
and people coming off the back road. So I think we're bas
ing all our information on
what we currently see at Mills Road but I think long term
that area is going to develop and the
fact that it's close to the school is to me a positive
thing about having homes you know
affordable housing close to the school long term as a city
but I think our biggest fear is
what we see at Mills Road. I mean I drove up there today
and I went down Mayhill Road and I've been
Mayhill Road to me has always been an accident waiting to
happen and Mills Road is just about
just about the same thing but I think if we can guarantee
or not guarantee but if the city we have
to talk to the city and those that are in charge of those
two roads make sure that they get
developed correctly so that the congestion won't be there
but we can't do that today but I think
long term that should have been taken care of a long time
ago because that road has been a
disaster Mill Road has been a disaster for years and so it
's something that should have been taken
care long time ago and I don't know probably we're trying
to work with the school and with the city
and trying to get those those two roads those that
particular road taken care of and I think it would
alleviate a lot of the anxiety that most of you feel. Okay
Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair.
Sometimes we have to pick and choose our battles of course
when we want to have knockdown drag out
fights till 1 a.m here P and Z. Zoning is not going to be
that that time when we get to preliminary
plotting it will be that time. I went to Ryan High School I
've had a drive up and down Mills
Road I've lived out in Oak Point Texas and I drive up down
Mills Road more times than I ever
probably want to probably just just a little bit less than
you guys of course so I will agree with
you that Mills Road is a mess and it's definitely something
that will need to be fixed and will be
addressed but it won't be addressed at zoning it's got to
be addressed at at that point in time
when we get to plotting and in regards to zoning then if we
're saying you know NR2 and NR3 then
you know what about why are we going to do NR6 I think it'd
be be in the best interest of the city
if we if we allowed the most amount per per acre that we
can and then back down during preliminary
plotting to say well we think you should only have four per
acre to have quarter acre lots
or maybe we should think you have third acre lots we can
back down from the NR6 just because the
maximum density of six doesn't mean we have to approve it
for six and so I think allowing
those we can and then fighting down from there instead of
having say NR2 and then having to
come back and rezone it for NR3 or rezone up to NR6 if
there's that need for it so rather shoot
high than have to come down have to shoot low and have to
go through a whole new rezoning process
and then honestly just lastly when it comes to construction
costs nowadays we've discussed this
in past planning and zoning commissions and meetings that
when it comes to construction costs
nowadays there's not a whole lot of new builds they're
going to be counted to quote-unquote
affordable housing just because of the the cost of the time
it has to be put into developing a
piece of land so I think that the preliminary planning
process is where we're going to need
y'all's input and I would greatly like to see you guys come
back and bring up your your issues and
your concerns at that point in time and we will most
certainly take them into consideration.
I'm going to call on legal just to pause for just a second
and clarify once we zone property
and how it comes before us back as platting and the density
and what our abilities once something is
zoned if the criteria met on the plat what our ability is
to approve or not approve those.
First in addressing the zoning issue we do advertise in our
notices that we can
take a lesser zoning category at the time of the zoning
request into consideration but we can't
take a greater amount of zoning category so that's going to
be something a little bit more intensive
like the nr6 so if we were to approve the nr6 tonight we
wouldn't necessarily be able to come
back and lower the zoning category because that would be a
down zoning and it would be up to the
property owner whether or not they would be amenable to
something like that we can't do it
unilaterally or we shouldn't and when the the platting
stage comes you will not receive a public
notification you only receive a public notification for the
zoning piece so you're going to have to
watch the agendas to see when that preliminary plat is
going to come and really the final plat
is the most important sometimes they come together
sometimes they come separately but the the zoning
commission can only look at the technical requirements and
make sure that they are met
on a plat they have no discretion as to whether or not they
're going to approve a plat so long as the
technical requirements are requirements are met so in this
case you won't get notice of a preliminary
plat you're going to have to look at the agenda number one
number two you're going to have to look
at the technical requirements of the plat which would
include access it would include the traffic
impact analysis to see if there's some way to focus your
your comments on those things otherwise
the commission is not going to be able to overturn it at
that time either so we just wanted to give
you that information so that you're fully aware of what our
limitations are here at the commission
just a second hold on let me let legal finish and then we
'll
no i'm finished you can if you want him to come forward
if you hold on just a second let us ask you a question
because you've already come to the mic
to speak and with that's under the rules so if you'll
please come to the mic we'll be happy to
ask you a question and give you an opportunity to hopefully
engage with us here and get your
concern addressed so we were going to ask a question you
had a question in regards to legal
on how the explanation was and the zoning and the planning
so can you express what your concern is
with that yes how do we know what when or where the agenda
is reported do we go online or so the
agenda is required to be posted 72 hours in advance of the
meeting and you're going to be able to find
it on the city's website under the open government section
if you have access to a computer which i
know you don't but if you do then it's on the website and
you can actually click on it and pull
it up it'll go by date and if you have problems finding
that you can always call someone at the
city maybe the city secretary ask her how to access that if
you do not have access to a computer we do
post the agenda in the hallway at city hall main which is
this building and there is one posted at
the end towards the legal department on the outside just
interior to the door but outside of the
hallway and it's posted where you can see every page and so
if you just want to come up and look
at that or you can call and you can check with the
department of development services to see
if or when it might be placed on the agenda occasionally so
that you can make sure that
you're up on whatever yes i think there's also an
opportunity on the website i believe there are
uh projects that are posted on the website as they have
been applied for that are in progress
and maybe we can speak to that as to how that shows on our
maps so you can just go on the map
and look at projects and it will actually highlight every
single project that's currently being
applied for or worked on through the process of the city
didn't is that correct still okay so that's
one more way that you can can do it if you have access to a
computer thank you i was confused
thank you commissioner back thank you chair and i want to
thank everybody from the public came
down and speak spoke to this subject tonight your input is
very important and it does impact our
decision i realize too that this little corner of the world
that y'all been living in has been
you know nice the way it's been for a long time and i
understand that
city of denton is growing though and it's going to reach
all areas of the city and it looks like
unfortunately it's starting to come into your area
understand the concern about nr6
it's not going to be low price but it is compared to houses
of more square footage
yes they're not going to be as expensive denton's in dire
need of affordable housing if we can call
it that and for some it would be as opposed to a house that
's three or four thousand square feet
we also i think everybody's mentioned here that we're going
to look at the other factors that
you're concerned about we talked about them in the work
session briefly so they will be
addressed the roads traffic stuff like that and other
concerns but there will be when they
when this nr6 area comes in they'll be putting barriers up
to that that are next to different
zoned areas so in that capacity you'll have some separation
there and a little bit of privacy but
there's a it's not going to be i know you're you've got the
worst scene scenario here and
i'm not going to say it's not going to be a little bit more
of a headache than you're used to but it
won't be designed such that it's going to have a negative
effect on your property in my opinion i
i've lived in those areas i've seen these areas build up
and develop and do quite well and the
fact that it is close to a school that this this is just an
area that affords an opportunity for
him at least to move closer to it than to travel the long
distance that some of them do so but i do
appreciate your input and i'll let go what everybody else
has said here please come back when we clap
that and uh like to hear uh more of what you have to say
thank you
commissioner rooseau thank you chair i appreciate everyone
coming out and hearing your perspective
some of you all have been there 70 plus years and so i
certainly don't take that lightly looking at
the overall area i do feel nr6 is an appropriate zoning
classification for that land and so i'm
going to go ahead and motion approval of this and i think
um just based on this feedback i'll be
highly interested to see how the plat looks to see how the
traffic comes in from mayhill versus mills
it could be that the majority of traffic can enter from
from mayhill and not take uh too much
traffic on mills i'm so i'm interested that i haven't seen
any of that so i don't know
but i think uh during that plotting phase we'll better
understand what kind of uh left turn right
turn is going to be happening at mayhill and mills and and
the curb cuts needed to access
the development there and so i encourage you all to be
involved in that as legal said
to look for technical requirements to make sure everything
's copacetic in terms of managing
traffic appropriately in sewage and all those things rain
water but i do feel that it's an
appropriate designation for that area given the development
that is persisting on mayhill
commissioner smith i second the motion to accept okay we
have a first and a second for
approval of the zoning is there any other discussion or
questions commissioner ellis
thank you chair uh just want to take a couple moments i am
going to support this um thank you
all for sharing your concerns um i guess my thoughts are
development has to start somewhere
especially with property coming out of the etj so it's got
us the first place of development is to
start with zoning this zoning with what's been going on in
the area what our future land use
looks like what our 2030 plan looks like makes sense for
this corner we can all agree that road
infrastructure never seems to be ahead of the development
but it will all happen eventually
so to me this does make sense but do please pay attention
look at the agenda come back and talk
with us and share your concerns it is important to know
your concerns especially as this moves
forward to to platting site plan what what have you thank
you commissioner sanchez
i also appreciate you all coming out i think it's giving us
a sense of what to look for in the
future when this uh you know when uh other when we get some
more information on on that area and
what uh on the plat on the platting of that particular area
i think you've get you've made
us aware of what your concerns are and that's going to make
us more uh push for for better
improve improvements in that area based on your input so we
do appreciate you coming out i mean
that's the only way we know what's going on in those
neighborhoods by you people by the neighbors
coming out and telling us what their concerns are and so i
think in the future anything
associated with mills road will be better equipped to make
better decisions thank you
commissioner smith thank you chair i have one business card
so if anybody over here would like
to make it a little bit easier on you instead of having to
keep checking the website uh feel free
for one of you guys to grab it shoot me an email just
saying hey this is so and so from the
from the bnz meeting i'll put it somewhere and i'll make
sure whenever i see it on the
agenda i'll shoot you an email and let you know when it's
coming up so i'll take that upon us as
a commission to make sure you guys are notified and you
guys aren't lost especially with the
mailing issues that we've been taking on so thank you thank
you tim any other questions or comments
on this item before we call for a vote on the board
thank you all for coming out this evening and giving us a
lot of feedback and input
um been a good discussion on this item and i will call for
a vote on the board at this time
we have a motion to approve on the floor
that motion is going to carry seven to zero
we'll move us to our final item on our agenda tonight our
project uh matrix i've got
one for sure i'd like to put on there give the room a
minute to clear
thank you for coming out this evening
thank you all for coming out tonight
Mr. Stout since you don't have access to a computer why don
't you get with Haley
thank you
it was a pretty good discussion so i have one item um i don
't want to put on our uh matrix we've been
talking about notice and i know that's coming back to us um
i guess i was unaware that we don't send
notice to etj and i'd like for us to consider that as we
look at that again um here that we might
want to consider doing that to properties that are adjacent
to things that are in the city in this
particular instance where they're right next door but they
don't get a notice because they're in the
etj that may or may not be something that we can do but at
least to put it on that list and then
we can talk about whether that's appropriate or not at the
time in the future unless you want to
have some discussion about it now we could do it in the
context of a potential ddc amendment if you
i know that we're putting some notice provisions in the
clarion updates um currently we go by state
law that that 200 feet within the city limits is by state
law they don't they don't require it out
in the etj so that's why we have not been doing that we do
have that 500 foot courtesy notice but
we keep it in line with the state statute so that we just
do it within the city tax rules but if you
want a policy change to where that courtesy notice can go
into the etj then that's something that we
can propose we probably would want to brief council on that
sure see where they want to go
from a policy standpoint okay um i just know it was on i
think it's supposed to be coming back on
our agenda i think it's been on there for a while for
notice and so while that's going to be coming
before us i guess in a work session at some point again i
think this would be an item that we would
want to include in that discussion unless staff feels like
it needs to move forward quicker than
that and take it to city council but i think this is a
great case to to bring that as an example of
they will ultimately be in the city but they have no say at
this time so anyway that's my one
commissioner rozzelle thank you chair i have two for
clarification the new mailing mailers
posting requirements those are in place but for only new
projects so projects that happened back
in september wouldn't be under the new mailing is that
correct can someone clarify those mailing
when what projects get the new mailers that is correct so
any that were submitted uh october one
which was the start of the new fiscal year would be subject
to the new the new requirements okay
perfect so we'll hopefully start seeing that implemented in
projects coming forward the next
couple meetings uh the other thing i had was many moons ago
there was talk about commission getting
together with council more formally and i didn't know if
there's been any traction with that
in regards to some of the there's there's been a lot of
things that we wanted to talk to council
about so i didn't know if there's been any momentum in
trying to have a joint meeting with
the commission and council can i ask what subjects i knew
you would
i thought tree ordinance is one of them but there might
have been a couple of their items in which
there was discussion about getting together if that is
needed information i don't have it
perhaps we can discuss it offline sounds good okay
commissioner solvent uh back to the uh
mailing would it be possible to put the uh 200 and 500 feet
you know outline where you have it
on an actual map uh because the more i looked at what we
get which is sort of a very basic map
and you look at a google map it appeared to me that nobody
lives within the 200 feet area
and much you know much less than 500 feet but i couldn't
really tell because the map doesn't
appear you know it doesn't you know it doesn't match up and
so i'm just wondering uh since we've
got the uh the zoning future zoning maps and all those
things uh that are on actual google map kind
of things put that 200 and 500 radius on an actual map
where we can see what houses so somebody can
come up and use the pointer and say that's my house well
they said that's my house and they're
you know a thousand feet away from it just a thought in
fact i made that exact same note on my
on my map to to delineate it better to have to show an
aerial but then to also delineate between
city city property within the city and unincorporated
properties
anything else for our project matrix
no okay then i will close us at eight o'clock this evening
thank you everyone and thank you
everyone for coming out tonight