This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum
present and I will call
us to order at 5 o 5 and I'll begin with starting with
clarification of agenda
items so we will go on to the consent agenda and I will
call well I guess does
anybody have questions on the consent agenda?
Do you want to go through each item or just if we have
questions?
Yeah we do.
You do? Okay well we'll just go through each item then and
we'll address any questions and Haley will you come forward
and give us an
update on the consent agenda item A and I think you also
have B, C, D.
Yes sir.
So we got pretty good odds.
Commissioner Beck did you have a question on a particular
item?
Not on this one, on B I think it is.
FP 17003329.
Okay.
Would you like me to go over item A?
Well I'll just go over we've got a lot of people here today
obviously so a lot of interest in what's on our agenda and
we'll just do your standard quick presentation for work
session and we'll see what questions come up.
Okay so this is a preliminary plat for the Titus South
development. It's located at the corner of Mosk Branch Road
and Jim Crystal.
This plat is for eight commercial lots and one common area
lot that would be for drainage.
Three of the lots have frontage here, I'm sorry four of the
lots have frontage on Mosk Branch.
The remaining lots are accessed by a common public access
easement that you can see kind of winding through here.
I can answer any questions about the plat if you have them.
Okay.
Not on that one.
Okay.
Thank you.
We'll go on to B then.
Okay.
Item B is a final plat of four lots within the Razor Ranch
South development.
It's lot 17, I'm sorry five lots, lot 17 through 20 of
block A and then lot one of block B which is a detention
pond and drainage area.
These lots are located along Panhandle Drive and Heritage
Trail and I can answer any questions if you have them.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you Chair.
Julie for our clarification here.
Could you focus in on lot 20 block A where it shows if you
've got a bigger version of it.
On my plans, it shows what appears to be two different
outlines of storm drainage in close proximity to one
another one being 105 square feet, the other 42 square feet
.
Am I reading this right?
There's two different ones on this one lot close together.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
So now is that supposed to serve the entire drainage for
this entire plant for all four lots or?
I'm going to look to Jim and see if he can speak more to
the specifics of what those two drains would be serving.
I'm trying to add the two storm drains here.
I believe that those two storm drainage easements are
basically, I would assume that they are being dedicated for
future tie-ins of a private storm sewer system in that lot,
the southern part of that lot, into the new public storm
sewer that is going down that street, that north-south road
.
Okay.
So I would assume that that's, I mean, we sort of have this
throughout Razor Ranch water and sewer and storm.
And I suspect that it's no different here that that's the
intent.
Well, my concern was they were so close together, so I'm
assuming that the way everything designed here that water
is going to flow in that general direction.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
So I'm not sure that we can set up for that.
And some of these are sort of leave-outs for the future.
I don't know if that part of that lot, I don't think it's
been designed out yet, but that's sort of a judicious
location that the designer has left for an anticipated
future connection to the storm sewer system.
So this is subject to change if necessary?
Yes.
Okay.
If absolutely necessary.
Okay.
And then the other thing I got, Ms. Mayor's Hayes, is the
property line seemed to encompass Heritage Trail, that main
road.
They're on that side of it.
Am I reading that right?
And if that's the case, does this mean the developer will
be responsible for developing this part of that road, on
this stretch of the road?
Yes, sir.
Heritage Trail is within the boundaries of this property.
The only other part of that is being dedicated by this plat
en is right up there.
Okay.
So they're going to do it all at one time and not half on
one side and then wait for the other side to develop?
It's actually currently under design.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
Would you have that, sir?
Recommendation.
If we've got a move in.
Okay.
Anything else on this one?
Anything else on B?
[inaudible]
Okay.
How about item C?
All right.
So we need to announce that B is going to be pulled and go
to individual.
Because we've got a recommendation on item B that's going
to be pulled from the consent agenda and that can become
our, you want to make it item B then for individual
consideration items to add that condition?
Okay.
Pardon me.
What are you doing then?
There's a condition on that.
It actually is tied somewhat to your question if there has
to be a tweak or a change on that storm drain.
Gotcha.
It can be handled at the RC level rather than having to
come all the way back to PMZ.
Okay.
Thanks.
To C. Thank you, Haley.
All right.
Okay.
This is a final plan for eight residential lots that are
located in the ETJ.
So this property is situated at the corner of Hickory Hill
Road and Bell Cote Circle.
So these will be eight single family residential lots.
Any questions on this one?
Any questions on this?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
It's more of a typo question.
On the plat, it's got PRDCT instead of DRDCT.
I don't know if that makes a difference, but the legend and
the plat do not match.
Thank you for pointing that out.
You are welcome.
Anything else on this one?
Let's go on to D.
Okay.
This is a preliminary plat for a single lot.
It's located on the south side of the Razor Ranch
development.
It actually has frontage on Panhandle, the service road,
and Scripture Street on the south.
Thank you.
Anybody have a question on E?
Does Julie need to come up on anything on that item?
Okay.
And if you want to stay there, we'll move on to 3A then.
Okay.
This item is a site plan for an entertainment center to be
located in Razor Ranch.
So the request is for approval of a site plan for an
entertainment venue to be constructed on lot 17, block A,
that we just saw on the final plat that we looked at.
You can see general location outlined here in red.
You may remember this property was recently part of a rez
oning request.
We brought it from the south mixed use district to the
south RR2 district.
To give you a better idea of where this is located, you can
see the property is situated just south of the Embassy Suit
es and Convention Center.
It will be located just a little ways north of the future
extension of Panhandle Drive.
As we've discussed before, all site plans for properties
within the south RR2 district of the Razor Ranch overlay
are subject to certain architectural and landscape
standards that are outlined in the overlay district.
So with a site plan approval, they are required to submit a
site plan, a landscape plan, and building elevations for
your consideration.
So to walk through the site plan we have here, it's a
building is just over 41,000 square feet.
Outlined in red are the areas where there will be 20
bowling lanes.
There's an arcade also proposed outlined here in green.
There's an event space within the building that's in this
blue box here.
And then there's also a restaurant in the remainder of the
building.
There will be a total of 165 parking spaces as it's shown
here.
151 would be the minimum requirement, but Razor Ranch doesn
't have a maximum on the parking, so they're able to go over
that minimum.
There are bicycle racks proposed on the site.
They'll be located here just outside the building.
And this will be accessed from two internal private drives.
You have what's called Private Drive C here on the side and
Private Road A will be over here.
And then looking at their landscape plan,
they're proposing a site that would have just over 16%
landscaping, 50% mature tree canopy.
You can see all the areas in green would be landscaping
throughout the parking lot and around the building.
They're also proposing about 4,800 square feet of plaza
area located outside the building here on the south side.
That will contain benches, tables, some shade structures,
and as well as some landscape plantings.
To give you an idea of what the building will look like,
this is the elevation for the south side.
So that would be the front of the building and well as the
left or the west side of the building here on the bottom.
And then this would be the back side of the building, so
the north side and the east side of the building.
The Razor Ranch Overlay District outlines criteria for
approval for their site plans.
The site plan shall substantially comply with the concept
and schematic plan that was approved by council.
The site plan provides for a compatible arrangement of
buildings and land uses that won't adversely affect
neighboring properties.
Provides for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular
traffic and complies with all sections of the overlay.
And staff through our analysis and study of the site plan
found that we have met these conditions.
>> Commissioner Sullivan.
>> Anytime something comes in along the service road here,
I'm concerned about the traffic.
And even though the main entrance is on a smaller road,
they all gotta get there somehow, they all have to leave
somehow.
And that's either through Bonnie Bray or the service road.
And anytime you want to look at the service road on Google
Map, you see all the backup, the red line is always there.
I think it's, so what's gonna happen to that intersection
and to Bonnie Bray and
all of that to alleviate any traffic concerns that the
residential area is gonna have in this building.
I mean, I think it's great to have a rec center there.
I think it's great to have the bowling lanes and all those
things.
But I'm just concerned about the traffic getting to and
from.
And what that's going to do to already a bad traffic
situation.
>> Certainly, so there would be multiple means of access to
the site.
Just to walk through a few of them, we have the service
road here, as we've mentioned.
There will also be heritage trail that is under
construction and design right now that will also be a north
south option off of university.
And then Bonnie Bray is also under improvement.
This phase is, I believe, under design right now.
So within the next few years, Bonnie Bray will be widened
and expanded in this area.
And then there will also be Panhandle Road on the south
that would provide some cross connectivity there.
>> What's the few years versus the construction for this?
>> I believe they're looking in the ballpark, 2020, 2021,
somewhere in that range for Bonnie Bray.
So potentially for a few years, it would be kind of tight.
But you do have multiple means of access east, west, and
north, south in this area that would provide options.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner Sullivan, I think if you look at the Google
Maps, the exit off of 35 to go to 380, if that's what your
real concern is, where the backup is there.
That is much further up from where the site that we're in
conversation about.
So they'd have to exit off at Oak Street to be able to get
there.
>> I understand.
>> But when they leave there, they want to go back home
south, they've got to get on the service road, get into the
Mixmaster stuff at the university to then come around and
go back south on 35.
>> Sure. >> Or they go on Bonnie Bray, which is a four lane
road when it turns into, when you get down to scripture, it
's terrible.
I mean, it just doesn't make sense why all of those roads
aren't being done at the same time that we're planning on
having how many more cars, 165 cars potentially enter that
area.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
>> Okay.
>> I'm not against the development.
I just wish the roads and streets would get built out, the
infrastructure would get built out at the same time so we
don't have the same mess that we have every time something
happens like this.
That's all.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I think the answer to all this is bicycles.
I'm glad, I'm delighted that there's bicycle racks there
and this will encourage people to bike there and they can
avoid all that traffic.
So that's one solution.
My only concern here, or just question, really, the site
plan shows six parking spaces that are proposed 165 for
handicapped parking.
So I'm assuming that's meeting a minimum requirement?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
>> Commissioner Rozell.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I have one question that I think is going to be stopped by
the overlay, but you said that there's not a maximum
parking requirement for this entire overlay.
Within the overlay ordinance for razor ranch, they have to
meet the city minimums of our code, but they are allowed to
exceed that parking as much as they choose.
There are landscape standards that come into play, though.
They're required to have a landscape island every 15 spaces
, end caps with landscaping and things like that to help
enhance the parking lots.
>> Yes, so I don't know if there's anything we can do with
this project, but I just know the shopping center at
University in Carroll is a concrete jungle because there's
not a maximum parking requirement for them and they just
pave the entire thing.
And I would hate to see razor ranch turn into a ton of
excess concrete when it's not needed.
So 14 spaces isn't too much, but it's still probably a
couple thousand square feet.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So that has a little pause in just future development.
Maybe the city can think about ways to council development
not to have excess parking.
The other question I had, because that wasn't really a
question, is on the elevations, can you show me this?
So on the southwest, is that a massive poster?
What is the proposal there?
>> That will be a still graphic that will be on the side of
the building there.
It will be required to go through a sign permit, but it is
intended to be a static graphic on the side of the building
.
>> And it wraps around to the side, it looks like.
>> Yes.
>> So that's outside our, within the elevation requirements
, they're allowed to put a billboard more or less on the
side of their building?
>> Yeah, they have signed standards, so it can't exceed, I
believe, I think 30% of the total building can be signed.
I would have to look into that to confirm that number, but
yes, they are allowed graphics of this nature.
>> Okay, thanks.
>> Commissioner Sanchez.
>> My question was also on the parking.
How do they come up with a number?
I know last week, I mean, at our last meeting, on one of
the construction sites, areas that were being constructed
building,
there was like one parking lot for every 420 square feet.
How do they arrive at here as how many parking lots, how
many parking spaces there's going to be?
>> So there are different ratios for the different uses
within the building.
So I believe there is, I don't have the full site plan here
on the screen, but if you look, there's a parking tab
ulation table on the site plan that walks through what the
different ratios are.
So many parking spaces for each bowling lane, for each seat
in the restaurant.
It is looked at depending on each individual use within the
building.
There's a different ratio applied to each use.
>> Okay.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Haley, what is the percentage of landscaping that a site
must have in the razor ranch overlay?
>> Let me grab my files real quick.
>> Thanks.
>> For this district, it is 10% landscape area and 20% tree
canopy.
Any other questions for Haley on this item?
>> And just for housekeeping purposes, we do have the one
item that was our 2B consent agenda item.
That's FP 17-0023 and that will now be moved to our item B
under items of individual consideration.
>> That will move us on to public hearings.
Haley.
>> Okay.
So items A and B are for the same site, so I've combined
this into one presentation for you to try to keep things a
little simpler.
We have two requests for this site, the first being a rez
oning from ICE district to NRMU district.
And the second being an SUP request, so a specific use
permit for two different uses.
Multi-family use on a portion of the property and outdoor
recreation use on another portion.
In total, the site is just over 72 acres.
Located on the west side of town, on the south side of Oak
Street, and along the rail line.
Looking at the future land use, this area is designated as
industrial commerce.
The intent of that designation being to promote both light
and heavy industrial uses in and around the airport.
The proposed NRMU district does not meet the intent of that
future land use designation.
So when a rezoning request doesn't conform to the future
land use map, the Denton Development Code does provide
additional criteria that we're charged with looking at.
These criteria are intended to balance a lot of competing
interests, public health, safety, and the general welfare
of the public against the right to the use of the property.
These criteria include the existing land use pattern,
whether or not an isolated zoning district would be created
.
Is there adequate infrastructure to serve the property?
Any potential environmental impacts?
And then just the overall character of the district.
So we'll kind of go through those and look at some maps to
see what we have going on here.
One of those being that the site is within the West Park
Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone.
So that's an approximately 800 acre area that you can see
all hatched here on the map.
The intent of the TERS is to promote industrial development
in this area by providing some incentives to help
compensate for the cost of public infrastructure that is
required to help support this development.
Looking at what's going on in the area in terms of zoning
and uses, you see the subject property and much of the
property to the north and south.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I have a question here concerning the TERS. So it's
explicitly for industrial development, is that correct?
That is the stated intent of the TERS.
And just for the record, not for an NRMU usage, as the
applicant wants to do for multifamily dwellings.
I can speak to the intent of it is to promote industrial
development.
So this would be outside the intent of that.
Okay, thanks.
I can read the mission statement.
The mission of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone number
two is to provide a source of funding for public
infrastructure improvements to encourage and accelerate
necessary development within the largest industrial zoned
area within the city.
That's the mission statement.
Commissioner Beck.
Does that go along with what I was saying then?
It kind of negates anything outside of industrial use?
Correct.
I'm going to call them legal.
If I could chime in just a minute.
The intention is that it would promote the industrial, but
that's not to the exclusion of all else, because it's the
least restrictive.
So you're going to be able to have whatever accumulation is
under that. So we anticipate that there are going to be
commercial uses in that area, for example.
And I think that there is a current agreement for the TERS
that contemplates that, that there would be industrial and
commercial.
Okay, my concern, I guess, here is, and I'm not trying to
jump ahead, but to me this proposal is a round peg trying
to fit a square hole.
But should this thing go forward, then I guess, are you
saying, Jennifer, that the money from TERS could be used
for this multifamily development?
That's exactly what would happen. I think the reimbursement
agreement, the money goes to RASER, but I think there might
be a pass-through.
But you can ask the applicant when we go into regular
session.
Okay, thanks.
Okay.
All right.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Quick question. It seems like the major thing that I see
here is a lake pond retention something.
How is that going to fit into the overall scheme?
And I guess being neighborhood, might be less runoff, less
waste than industrial?
So you're correct, there is. I believe it's about 15 acres
of pond associated zone X flood plain and environmentally
sensitive area that all surround the pond.
So as far as the drainage and runoff from the site, when
they're going through the planning process, they will
analyze what the best plan is for that.
But I would anticipate that it would drain to the pond in
general, as the site does currently based on the topography
.
Well, I'm guessing neighborhood would be a better fit than
industrial.
I mean, I'm just guessing that there's a lot less waste
that could go into that area.
If it were homes or apartments, then it would be from
factories, car washes or whatever.
I would imagine that's correct, but not sure of the
specifics.
Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Yes. When you were talking about the 800 acres of
industrial designation, and it also talks about
environmental impacts.
Now, when you looked at the 800 acres, did somebody go out
there and actually look at it and say, okay, these areas
within this 800 acres, or there's different topography,
there's different issues.
Are we going to look at that and say, you know, not the
whole 800 acres are identical.
And so each area has to be looked at, just not designate
the whole 800 acres, without doing some type of impact
study.
As are they all equal, or is there some areas that are much
more sensitive?
Yes. So the 800 acres that's shown here, that's just the
boundary of the towers.
Of course, each site will have to be looked at individually
as it develops, based on the unique conditions of the site.
In terms of one of the considerations for the rezoning
approval, environmental, potential environmental impacts on
this particular site are a concern that should be looked at
, certainly.
One thing to point out, you might want to go through the SU
P, because the lake is actually not a component of the SUP
application. It is excluded from that.
From the SUP, that's correct. It is within the boundaries
of the rezoning request, which covers the whole 72 acres.
What difference does that make? Commissioner Smith. Thank
you, Chair. What difference does that make?
It has rights to other, I'm not sure if there can be convey
ance. Maybe that's a question the applicant can ask for.
There's specific rights to that water, so I don't know if
conveyance from that site could go to that.
Again, that's a question for the applicant, and we would
look at that at Platting, but it is not part of this
application.
Well, and one thing the Chair wants to step in is this is
going to be a public hearing item, so the applicant will be
able to speak, and they'll have their engineer, and a lot
of these questions that we're kind of getting off on,
we can actually address to somebody that can answer those
questions. So let's try to get through the presentation and
the high points, and then we'll get into some of these
details when we get into our public session with the
applicant to address them specifically.
So if you'll please continue. Thank you, Hayley. Certainly.
Yeah, so looking at the compatibility of the rezoning
request, the subject property and properties to the north
and south are within the ICE district.
There are existing industrial facilities developed both to
the south and the east along the rail line.
Just a few specifics, there's the Benning Keith Dist
ribution Center reader link distribution, 84 lumber to the
north.
We also have the ICG district to the west of the property.
You can see here the Peterbilt site.
There's several Gaswell sites and quite a large chunk of
undeveloped land in this area.
If you cross I-35, you'll see a much larger mix of zoning
districts, just some high points. There is Razor Ranch here
to the northeast for orientation.
There is the hospital, quite a bit of residential
development, and then the UNT campus here and UNT Stadium
here to the southeast.
Looking at how access would be provided to the site, one
condition, there is an existing rail line that runs along
the east boundary of the property.
We have Oak Street, which turns into Jim Crystal here on
the north, which is a primary arterial.
Currently, two-lane undivided roadway intended based on its
classification to eventually be a six-lane divided road.
All dedication and improvements required for this
development would be determined at the time of platting.
Precision Drive currently extends just up to the southern
boundary of the property.
It is intended to be extended north as part of this
development, and that is intended to be developed as a two-
lane undivided roadway per its classification as a
commercial mixed-use collector.
Now looking into the specifics of what they're hoping to do
on the property, they've applied for an SUP for two uses,
as I mentioned.
So we have two phases of multifamily development proposed.
Here in green would be phase one.
The red area represents phase two of the multifamily
development.
In total, that's about 32 and a half acres of the property
that would be dedicated to multifamily.
Phase one is proposed as 189 units.
That would be 700 bedrooms, a density of about 8.8 dwelling
units per acre.
Phase two would contain an additional 100 units, 376
bedrooms, and again, be just under nine dwelling units per
acre in density.
Then phase three of the development is the proposed outdoor
recreation use.
It would be on approximately 20 acres of land on the south
side of the property.
And as it's shown here, would contain approximately five
ball fields and associated parking.
The remaining area of the property, the balance of the acre
age being the large lake that's in the middle of it,
I've outlined in blue the boundaries of the riparian buffer
environmentally sensitive area that is associated with the
lake and the upstream and downstream of the lake.
And as Richard mentioned, that is excluded from the SUP
request.
They're not providing-
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Either of those uses in that area.
So can you give us stream flow on the blue lines there?
Just in regards to the recreation area, would that come
into an area where that lake flooded, that those
recreational areas will be flooded too because they're
downstream?
I believe that's downstream, yeah.
So I'm not sure of the conditions there for flooding, but
it does flow to the south.
Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Rosell.
Thank you, Chair.
Would they have to change any floodplain regulations or
stipulations in order to build phase two in red?
Yes, so there would be a lengthy process ahead of them.
There is FEMA designation on there, so they would have to
go through the conditional letter of map revision to
potentially develop within the floodplain.
On top of that, this whole area in blue is ESA, so they
would need to first do a field assessment to verify the
existence of the riparian area.
And then if that is verified, there would potentially be
the alternative ESA plan that would come back before you
and council.
Thank you.
Just to give you an idea of the product that we're looking
at, these are some of the conceptual elevations.
Many more examples were included in your backup, but this
is the type of apartments they would be looking to build.
You can see some look more like traditional single family.
Others would contain multiple units and be more like a
triplex or a fourplex.
Notifications were sent about the request.
We received two responses.
One of those was included in your backup in the packet.
The other I passed out prior to the meeting.
One was in favor and one was in opposition.
You can see those outlines here on the map.
And I did want to point out we ran the numbers, and it's
currently at 22% opposition, so that would trigger a super
majority vote at council, not at P&Z.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Do we know at this point the average square footage of the
residential uses and approximate cost?
I know that's a long way away, but I'm just thinking, would
this be considered, quote, low income or moderate housing
costs or something of that nature?
It is intended for student housing.
That's what it would be marketed towards.
I believe there were some floor plans included in your
backup.
I'm not sure of the exact square footage on those.
It would have to meet our minimum of at least $500 per unit
.
And as to the cost, I'm not sure what that would be, but
the applicant will be here at the public hearing.
Okay.
Could maybe speak to that.
Okay.
All right.
In terms of the rezoning request, staff is recommending
denial of the request for these reasons.
Incompatibility with the surrounding property uses, incons
istency with the goals of the West Park TURS, and inconsist
ency with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030
and that industrial commerce designation.
Similarly for the SUP, we're recommending denial of that
request for the same reasons.
However, if P&Z votes to recommend approval, we do have
some conditions that we would like to see on that.
The first of those being that the site plan, landscape plan
, and elevations provided to you would be considered
conceptual.
So that the site would need to go through a full site plan
submittal for each phase to ensure that it meets all of the
requirements of the Denton Development Code in terms of
landscaping, parking, and building design.
Let's go through these first.
Yeah, that's what I'm going to do.
The second condition is we would require that before any of
phase two or phase three be developed that that ESA be
examined fully through an assessment and then a potential
alternative ESA requirement there.
And then the third requirement would be that the multif
amily use be limited strictly to the acreage that was
proposed here with this conceptual site plan.
Similarly for the outdoor recreation, it be limited to
those approximately 20 acres and that the multifamily not
contain more than the maximum number of units shown here,
which was 289.
And can answer any questions you might have.
Call on legal for clarification.
I just want to address what I had indicated earlier about
reimbursement.
It looks like in the project plan for the TURS, multifamily
was specifically excluded for reimbursement.
Thank you.
Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair.
Just out of curiosity, part of our information deals with
cost to the city to help develop this area.
Would the expense to the city and other government entities
and providing improving increasing or maintaining public
utilities school streets and other public safety measures
in your opinion, or if you know, be greater or less for an
NRMU district over an ICI district.
Unfortunately, I can't speak to that. This would be a high
volume of students. So I imagine the potential traffic
impacts could be substantial. I believe it was total of
1000 bedrooms roughly.
But I'm not sure what the comparison would be there.
I think my impression that when you develop a residential
area like this, the demand is going to be greater on
infrastructure and everything as opposed to industrial uses
more plumbing, that type of thing.
But that's just my.
I would say, given the topography of the site and the
unique conditions there with the lake it's unlikely it
would be a large industrial user more likely, if not this
then develop as smaller supporting commercial uses or
something similar to that.
Okay, but that just the concern to the cost of city should
I think you know way in here on which way we go.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, not to bog things down legal
.
If we were to make if we were to approve this what we have
to make the motion to accept it with second staff
recommendations then.
Correct.
If they're saying that yes, do we work with we recommend
denial but if you do approve we recommend that you approve
with these recommendations will we need to make our motion
to say yes we need to.
We recommend we approve and we are, but the motion is a
motion to approve but with staff recommendations then.
Yes, because they would be in the record already. Thank you
.
This is your backup right. Yes. Yes. Okay.
Commissioner Sanchez.
And there's two ponds big ponds in there.
Two lakes.
And some of those areas further down properties, the land
there's pretty flat. So my biggest concern would be, what
would you, how would you, there'd be a lot of, what do you
call it, runoff in that area because of the topography and
putting the large industrial complex there or several of
them would increase that erosion or you know you couldn't
do that because of the.
Because of the landscape.
Thank you. Microsoft over there.
Commissioner.
Did you hear me. Yes, sir. Okay.
Yes, as I mentioned, I don't think even, you know, this
request aside, given the topography and that, like, I think
it unlikely the site would ever develop with large
intensive industrial users, such as what's out there at
this time.
But in terms of the runoff, I'm not, I'm not sure how that
would compare between the residential and the industrial
use.
Other than I can speak to the NRMU zoning would require
more landscape area overall on the sites that could
potentially treat runoff, then would be permitted under the
industrial district.
If that gives you any comparison there.
The only question I have is in regards to the changing the
zoning, what would it do as far as the buffering or set
backs for neighboring properties like to the west being
industrial against a residential use versus if it stayed
industrial.
Yes, so with the current industrial abutting industrial
there wouldn't be buffering requirements. There wouldn't
necessarily be buffers required across precision drive here
but there would be buffers between the uses required on the
south side.
Assuming this would develop with those recreation uses.
I believe it would be a 15 foot buffer that would be
required between there.
But the buffering would be against an industrial use coming
up against a residential use in the future. Is that correct
.
I don't believe there's any place where the industrial
would immediately about the residential as they've shown it
, because there would be streets separating it on both the
north and west side.
The railroad currently exists between that on the east.
So the red light that has the buffer that we've gotten into
sometimes before so that's fine so the property to the west
then wouldn't be impacted that they would have to set back
further for buffering because of the street, because it has
that separation.
Any impact if we did changes are all on this side it doesn
't impact the uses to the west. No sir. Okay.
One other question that I would have or ask of staff or
spend a couple questions about the impacts.
Would it be possible between now and when we get into our
public meeting to get what the impact fees based on this
site plan would be as far as the traffic impact fees
wastewater.
I can see numbers see how big that number really is for if
they decide to move forward what those fees would be to the
city.
I can hear the demands on the infrastructure rough numbers
there for you. That'd be great. Any other questions on this
item.
Okay.
I think Julie gets to come up now.
Thank you Haley great job on all your presentations.
Okay.
So I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton
and I am presenting the 1722 East side of Mont.
So the request before you is to consider an initial zoning
of neighborhood residential mixed use for a property that's
approximately six acres here in the yellow is generally
located on the east side of the future FM 2499 alignment
about 1400 feet south of Robinson Road.
So most of us haven't traveled this portion of the road. It
's and and it doesn't look today like it does in the aerial.
This is a new road. I believe it's opening in 2018.
So, so we're going to have to use our imaginations tonight
about what it's what it actually looks like adjacent to the
property.
So currently the property has an RD 5x zoning designation.
As you probably are aware this is our place holding zoning
designation for properties once they're annexed into the
city of Denton.
When this property was annexed a long time ago it received
that designation.
It didn't develop at that time and it's it was it was kind
of landlocked until until until about next year. So, so now
the applicant is proposing an NRM use zoning district to
develop the site.
The didn't plan 2030 designates this area is low low
density residential. The intent of this is to encourage
that sort of low density suburban development pattern those
those single family neighborhoods that we're all familiar
with the proposed zoning does not technically meet this,
this low density residential designation.
So in that case the section 35 dot 3 dot 3 dot B dot 3
kicks in and we take a little closer look at the request.
There's a there's a little more criteria as you talked
about a Haley's case.
So these criteria are intended to look at the existing land
use patterns see if the proposed zoning conforms to it.
See if this creates an isolated zoning district if there's
adequate infrastructure, what the environmental impacts
would be and then what the character is of the area and the
proposed district.
So we're going to go through the area and just kind of talk
about these together. So first of all, I'm sure you all
remember this slide. We've had a lot of zoning cases come
adjacent to this future roadway.
And so this one's no different. In this case, the 2499
arterial will run through Denton in this fashion.
The the star is the subject property and this this road is
going to connect Denton to DFW airport south of Flower M
ound. So it's going to be a major thoroughfare and regional
connector.
So based upon that staff does not believe that this
property would actually develop with single family uses.
It's because of this 900 feet along the arterial. It really
is sort of sandwiched up against this arterial.
We don't we don't really don't believe that single family
uses would actually develop on the six acres and that
commercial use is a really more appropriate given the
visibility and the access of the site.
So 2499 in this area. Here's a text dot plan of it. It's
proposed to be a six lane divided roadway. As I said, it's
currently under construction.
The final design just just to point out has some noise
walls in this area. So one that will actually affect the
subject property on the south end of the of the property
line and then one across across the street from the
adjacent residential.
Here's the subject property here in in the light green. So
we also looked at the neighboring subdivisions and area.
So in this in this to the north of the subject property, we
have a single family subdivision.
It is part of plan development 176 that included
neighborhoods as well as public utilities.
If you'll see right along here, this is actually an
electric transmission line that cuts between the subject
property and the neighborhoods to the north.
And then there's also some commercial kind of over here
near Teasley. And then there's some undeveloped commercial
in this plan development in this location to the north is
already five X as well.
It is developed with a gas well facility to the to the east
of the subject property. You have in our four that's
developed with the single family neighborhood.
There is an open space lot that separates the subject
property from those neighborhoods and to the south. You
have PD 111, which is also a single family neighborhood.
It also includes some open spaces. So when we. Yes, sir.
Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair. That open space like
that separates that housing development from what are we
talking about in with dimensions?
I mean, yeah, I measured it. You know, it gets a little
gets a little wider here on the south end, a little
narrower here in the middle.
I want to say it probably isn't more than at the narrow
part, maybe 30 feet wide. Okay. Is there a whole landscape
in there?
I think it's more natural. It isn't a floodplain. And so it
's kind of just natural existing canopy in that area. Okay.
Okay. Thank you.
So when we talk about commercial development next to next
to single family residential neighborhoods, we want to be
sensitive and in use and scale.
We we understand and in the comp plan, we want our
neighborhoods to have commercial services that day to day
type shopping near them.
You know, the the the dry cleaners and the drug store and
and maybe a doctor's office.
But we but we realize that there are some commercial uses
that really are incompatible with single family residential
, something like vehicle repair where it would create a lot
of noise and potential potential nuisance for that single
family neighborhood.
So so that's why we we we looked at NRMU because it does
sort of limit the scale of development of some commercial
uses as well as limit some of those more high intensive
commercial uses.
The intent of NRMU really is to be located near those
residential areas to provide those necessary services for
those neighborhoods.
There is a flood zone on the back. Of course, you know,
they would have to meet any requirements associated with
that once they get to development.
Just just wanted to show you where that that flood area is
and how it takes up that that open space lot adjacent.
So public notification was sent out for the the the
proposal.
Thirty five notices were sent in the 200 foot buffer. We've
received five in opposition and zero in favor of the NRMU.
Now, I want to caution you and Commissioner Beck and I
talked earlier today about this in your packet.
There was there were some notifications that were sent
regarding a rezoning to maybe a higher intensity commercial
use.
So I wanted you all to have all of the available
information that the city got from the residents.
So that's why in your packet you had you had some responses
from neighbors that were in association with an already
five X to a CMG.
However, they've actually dialed back that commercial use
to that NRMU because they wanted to make sure that they
were compatible with those residential areas.
So you received some additional responses on your table
that were in association with that NRMU.
So that way you have all of the information that the city
that the city received in terms of response from the
neighborhood.
McCall on staff. Richard has a comment.
I just wanted to add, if you recall, this item was on the
last agenda and we had continued it to this one for this
very reason.
Commissioner Sullivan. I realize that there is a buffer on
the east side, but I'm concerned about the buffer on the
south side.
Any idea what those people thought were going in at the
time they bought their homes?
I don't know what was told to them at the time they bought
their homes.
I think one of the responses in front of you, the neighbor
did say that they were told that that was going to remain
open.
So I really don't know what they were told at the time.
I can tell you that the Denton Development Code does have
requirements in terms of buffers.
So a commercial use adjacent to a single family use would
be required to put in a 15 foot buffer that included a
certain number of trees and shrubs.
Any development would also be required to conform to any
light and glare requirements in the code, any tree
preservation as well as landscape screening, parking lot
screening.
So they would be required to have some design interventions
in the development to try to ensure compatibility with
those residential.
I guess my concern is that the only way that they could
service the people closest to them is to come all the way
24/99 to Robinson to Pine Hills to then do all of that.
And I just don't see what kind of a service industry other
than Domino's Pizza maybe would want to travel that each
and every time they want to service.
Or if their customers are coming the other way, how are
they going to get from the east side of 24/99 down Robinson
and now come across to that area?
I don't know what streets are going to be like and so I'm
not sure.
That's a really good point and part of what we looked at is
that this commercial area didn't provide direct access to
those residential areas.
So it did provide that seclusion from those residential
areas.
If you'll look at text dot plans, you'll see that Pine
Hills here does actually will connect to 24/99 in this
location.
So it will provide some connectivity for those residential
areas if it ended up being some sort of convenience use.
I know the applicant spoke in their neighborhood meeting
that they were looking at more office uses.
But retail is permitted in the zoning district so it could
be a retail type use and there is some connectivity in this
area to get neighborhoods in there.
While you have the map up, I know Jim Jenks had to step out
.
Would you mind getting with him between now and when we get
in public if they're going to be allowed to have any curb
cuts out there in that center divider?
Because according to that map, it doesn't look like there's
any left turn lanes on the southbound to be able to get
access.
I don't think there is, but I'll confirm. I think it would
just be a right in, right out at this location.
Okay.
But I'll check for you.
Great. Thank you.
Commissioner Smith, did you have a question?
Yes, thank you, Chair. You did say that they did have a
community meeting?
They did, yes, sir.
Okay, gotcha. Is the applicant going to be present tonight?
He is supposed to be, yes, sir.
Okay, gotcha. Thank you. I'll ask him then.
Any other question?
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. You threw me your presentation, though. I
wanted to let you at least finish. Are you at that point?
Yes, sir. I'm done. Absolutely.
Okay. Just to better visualize this for me and anybody else
, 2499 is that part that currently is developed, and it's
four lanes.
Two lanes going each way until it switches to road.
So are you saying when we cross over, it says in the
information here, there's going to be a six lane, three
lanes in each way.
So it changes at that point. And this is a road that goes
up and eventually connects to State School Road.
Yes, sir.
So we can see what that's going to look like, that whole
area is going to look like if you go up to the State School
right now and see anybody that's been up there.
It's wide. Yeah. And it's going to haul a lot of traffic
through there.
So I understand residents' concerns about this being
developed for commercial.
Are we, if we do approve this, when it comes back around to
us, then we can, because I'm concerned that you can put
hotels in and NRMU, and I think residents would be too.
You can put clubs and other things that would probably be
unsuitable for that area.
But there are other things like laundering mats, you can go
in there, things that are quieter, low key and stuff like
that.
So will we as a commission be able to be a little selective
there as to the type of commercial enterprises that go in
there?
I'll call on legal to give a response to that.
I just wanted to remind everyone that this is one of the
few times where you can actually use your overlay because
it's an NRMU and it's a budding residential area.
So we have that mixed use overlay that we can use and we've
already provided notice for it in the agenda.
We do that now. So if you want to remove uses from the
zoning category, you can do that with an overlay.
And when would we, at what time would we be able to do that
? When you do your motion.
Tonight? Okay. Thank you.
I think that's it, yes.
Any other questions for Julie on this item? Commissioner
Smith.
Thank you, Chair. You said earlier, you said it's at a
floodplain.
Well, there's a portion of the lot. This is schematic. This
isn't based upon it on the ground.
This is really just sort of generally where that would be.
Got it. Thank you.
Move us on to agenda item D.
All right. This is PDA 17.6 CARMAX.
So this request before you is to consider approval of a
detailed plan for Plan Development 12, that's PD 12, to
depict a new or used car sales lot on approximately 7.11
acres out of a 34.4 acre tract.
So the subject property is generally located adjacent to I-
35. It's south of state school, so we're still in the
general location we were before.
The area outlined in yellow is that 34 acre tract. The red
is very conceptually where the proposed development would
go.
So the Denton plan calls this area regional mixed use. The
intent is to serve as a regional destination. These are
primarily found along our I-35 corridors.
So it brings people to the area and either from outside the
city of Denton or within the city of Denton.
And the proposal does meet this future land use designation
, the car lot.
So let's talk about the current zoning as well as the
adjacent zoning.
So this is in PD 12. And PDs in the city of Denton were,
our current development code doesn't actually have plan
developments except for 15 that were left over from the pre
2002 code.
And the pre 2002 code, it was the 1991 code, it was a plan
developments were a two step process. The first process was
the concept plan,
which outlined the boundaries of the plan development and
the uses and the general areas of where those uses would go
also design considerations often.
So this was PD 12, it was approved in 87 and it did permit
the use. At that time they called the use new or use car
sales lot in open and that was permitted.
The surrounding zoning includes RCCD adjacent to the
subject property and those are developed with similar uses,
vehicle sales.
RCCN is to the north also developed with similar uses. And
then we have some vehicle sales to the south within the PD.
There are properties, single family properties developed to
the west of the subject property.
And then across the highway there's also some single family
development. So that's really what's surrounding the area.
Commissioner Sullivan. Just to be clear, because in my map
I don't show the red box. Oh yes you don't.
This is just for our- So we're only talking about the red
box, we're not talking about the black box or whatever.
It includes the entire black box, but their detailed plan
is only for the red box. And here's where the difference in
our straight zoning versus plan development lies.
So in a straight zoning we would be talking about should it
be RCCN, RCCD, or whatever one of our zoning districts.
And then it could develop in accordance with that zoning
district.
PDs are a little different in that what they're really
essentially doing with this plan development is getting
approval of a site plan for their development.
Because we're really now looking at the details of the site
. The use is permitted under the PD.
Now we're looking at just how the site develops. And it
will have to develop in accordance with whatever is
approved or denied by virtue of this public hearing.
So the site plan, the landscape plan, and the elevations
that are in your backup, and we'll talk about the site plan
and landscape plan in the presentation.
Those are what would be approved and it would have to
develop in accordance with that.
So my concerns with the black line backing up to the houses
on Waterford is nonexistent.
Because we're only talking about the red box.
Yes, sir. And if they did want to expand their use into the
part that is beyond the red box, they would have to come
back again and amend their detail plan.
That's probably the way I should have said it at the
beginning.
It's almost similar to what we just did with Razor Ranch.
Yes.
Where we kind of set the boundary of the whole area and
then we're sort of looking at these individual parcels.
Almost the exact same thing, just a different, calling it
something different.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. And that's already planned.
That's already, like, the black is, it's already been
approved.
It's been in place, correct?
Yes.
So because we don't have planned developments in the 2002
code, we look at the 1991 code to review these projects.
And there are criteria for approval for detail plans in the
1991 code.
And just generally that the proposal must comply with the
concept plan, that it must provide for compatible
arrangements of buildings that would not adversely affect
adjoining properties outside of the PD.
That it would provide adequate circulation of traffic.
And that would be in substantial compliance with the city
regulations.
Staff has reviewed their request in association with the
criteria for approval and we believe that it meets the
criteria for approval and we'll go over some of these
things now.
So first of all, we'll just take a look at what the concept
plan called for.
And there were a couple maps in the concept plan and they
're a little hard to read, so we're going to do our best
together.
But so here is the general area we're talking about.
Here was the concept plan and the yellow circle is about
where the property is.
And I can tell because here is the city of Denton municipal
boundary.
And then you can tell this little corner is right here.
So it's in this general location.
Yes sir, yes sir.
And this was in a commercial shopping area which permitted
the use.
So that's the concept plan and that's what laid out the
uses in this area for this use.
And then we'll look at the site plan.
So this is kind of a just a zoomed in part of the site plan
.
So they're proposing an approximately 7400 square foot
building made of or constructed with masonry materials.
They're proposing, and that's in the yellow, they're
proposing a one access point to the I-35 frontage road.
This is the sale staging area here and it will be screened
from public view with a six foot masonry wall.
The code also in subchapter 13 has requirements related to
light and glare,
which they would conform with when they get to the building
permit stage.
And they are also agreed to making sure that those public
access address speakers would be faced in a way
that would minimize any impacts to adjacent properties.
This is their landscape plan.
They're proposing trees and shrubs along I-35 to present
well to the I-35 frontage road.
They're also proposing additional tree canopy to be planted
71,000 square feet at maturity.
And that they're also sort of back loaded those trees right
here adjacent to those residential areas to try to mitigate
any impacts that any light that would or noise that would
come from the site.
Public notification was sent out.
We've received two responses in favor and three in
opposition.
And I will, staff does recommend approval of the request as
it's consistent with the future land use.
It's compatible with the surrounding property and it meets
the criteria for approval for detail plans in the 91 code.
Can I stand for any questions?
Commissioner Sullivan.
I think in your presentation, if you would make it abund
antly clear that you're talking about the red line and not
the black,
because I think every one of these people who are opposed
sees the yellow line coming up next to Waterford and they
're going, whoa, Jack, back it up a little bit.
And so I think that needs to be clarified that we're not
talking about that hole in your map here, yellow, but in
the red.
Yes, sir. I will. I will. I'll do that.
Thank you very much.
You bet.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
So down the road, because this is a planned development
area, things that would probably, but up close to these
neighborhoods would be something more amenable than a high
traffic business.
I think all of that area is in floodplain anyway.
Yeah. So here's the floodplain.
So as you can see, this is probably even better look at
where, really where they're proposing, because they're
trying to stay out of what are some natural conditions.
Okay, so there isn't much room for any other development
because of the floodplain unless they do some extensive.
I would say with any amount of engineering and money, you
could probably make a lot of things happen.
But, yeah.
Okay. So that's kind of a safeguard.
Would that be you then as a safeguard for these residents
that they're worried about?
I would ask C staff, but I don't think you can do anything
at the floodplain like that.
Thanks.
Okay. Any other questions on this item?
I'm going to call a break at 10 after six and let's try to
grab something to eat real quick and I'm going to visit
with Roman right quick.
To our agenda item five, I think it's E, four E, excuse me,
four E. I'll call on Roman for presentation.
Thank you, Chairman. I just want to give you all an outline
of this.
This is ordinance revisions of the historic preservation
ordinances.
The work for this, these revisions began in June and July
of last year with some community meetings.
And so I'm just going to actually I've got all that in here
. So the updated timeline of what happened here back in
April of 2016, we went to the Landmark Commission and City
Council and briefed them and received input to go forward
with revising the code.
We had meetings in June and July with the three historic
districts and got their input about the code.
And then we went in September to the Landmark Commission,
which asked for a month to look at the documents and then
unanimously recommended approval.
It's not on your staff report there. It was eight to zero
on the approval.
The major changes are it's just a thorough house cleaning
of the ordinances, which were really began, they were
really drafted in 86 and then amended over the years.
And through the good work of our staff and the legal
department, we're presenting a much more refined ordinance,
which can be easily integrated into the development code
amendments.
The multiple references to certificate of appropriateness.
There were like five sections that have that. That's all in
one section now.
The definitions have been aggregated into a section of the
city code that has definitions.
Criteria for designation has been clarified and all proced
urally oriented subsections were combined into a different
procedure section.
Substantive changes were recognition of the Belle Avenue
Conservation District.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Roman does changing that from a conservation district to
historic district have any immediate impact on the property
owners there?
No, it doesn't. There's an additional change in the
ordinance itself with respect to a differentiation between
historic districts and conservation districts.
When that district was created as a conservation district,
the way we treated him was practically identical to the way
we treated historic districts.
With these amendments now, if you have a conservation
district, it truly can be called historic district light
because the only items you have to take to the Landmark
Commission would be demolitions and new construction.
Any other request in a future conservation district can be
approved administratively by the preservation officer.
So it's a way for a neighborhood that says we kind of want
to preserve the way this neighborhood looks.
If you're going to tear down one of our buildings or build
a new building, we do want the Landmark Commission to look
at that.
Anything else we want it to ride through quickly. And so
that is a differentiation in this code.
So for the district there, it has no difference other than
the name and whatever that comes with that.
So this is the way that looks in terms of seeing it struct
urally.
What happened on their left is the original sections or the
existing sections on your right is what you'll have.
So it's a little shorter and just a little more precise and
easier to read.
The minor changes are here.
The definitions that we that we have that are being moved.
And then on this item, this section 35, four, three, with
respect to the Landmark Commission, it's real simple
changes.
We're changing chairman to chair and we're changing that a
preservation plan will not be created by the Landmark
Commission itself, but that they will bless that that
creation of a plan because they wouldn't be creating that
plan on their own.
These are the input posters that I used in the community
meetings.
We had questions on fencing and landscaping and painting
and administrative authority and asked the people who
attended the different meetings to vote on what they
whether they wanted administrative approval or to go to the
Landmark Commission, where they wanted people to look at
the paint color.
So it was a good how we got the input and.
The next steps are we're here today and based on what you
recommend them will go to City Council.
And take any questions.
Commissioner Smith.
So the changes have no real real impact whatsoever on any
development done in those overlay districts correct.
That's correct.
Okay.
Not that wouldn't just just clerical cleanup.
If you're doing a new construction in any of the districts,
you'll be required to get a certificate of.
Of course, but no, no, no changing.
No real big changes other than just it's clear.
Thank you.
Right.
Wonderful.
We'll look forward to going through it a little more detail
in our public session.
Thanks for the abbreviated.
Thanks for at least getting through it.
Let us take a look at it before we run out of time.
So with that, no questions, I will close our work session
at six twenty two and we will try to reconvene as close as
we can at six thirty and council chambers.
Thank you.
Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and
zoning commission meeting for November the eighth, 2017.
This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum
present and I will call us to order at six forty.
Our first first item of business will be to stand and give
the pledge to the U.S. and the Texas flag.
To the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
one state, one God, one invisible.
And we'll move us to our consent agenda.
And we have one item it's going to be item B, FP17-0023.
That item is going to be moved to our items for individual
consideration and it will become
3B.
Other than that clarification and change, the chair would
entertain a motion for the
consent agenda.
Commissioner Smith.
A motion to accept with moving item B to items for
individual consideration.
Good.
Go ahead.
You have something?
I say correctly.
A motion for the consent agenda.
A motion to accept consent agenda with moving item B to
items for individual consideration.
Thank you for repeating that.
We're all on the same page now.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, chair.
Second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval with the change
of moving item 2B to our individual
consideration and that becomes 3B.
Any other discussion or clarification on the consent agenda
?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries 7 to 0.
That will move us to our items for individual consideration
.
I will call on Haley for presentation of SP17-0051.
Good evening.
This request is for approval of a site plan for an
entertainment center to be constructed
within the razor ranch south RR2 district.
It's located on lot 17, block A of the razor ranch within
the razor ranch town center.
This area was recently rezoned to bring it from the south
mixed use district to the south
RR2 district.
The approximate location is shown here on the zoning map
outlined in red.
The property is about 3.7 acres.
It is located north of the future extension of panhandle.
You can see on the map here the general location in yellow.
It's just south of the current embassy suites and
convention center that's under construction.
Site plans within razor ranch are required to bring back to
the planning and zoning commission
for approval.
They are subject to the architectural and landscape
standards outlined in exhibit C1
and D1 of the overlay.
The site plans are required to contain a site plan, a
landscape plan, and building elevations,
which we'll now look at.
The site plan for this facility can be seen here.
It is just over 41,000 square feet total in building.
It has multiple uses that will be within there.
In red you can see an area where bowling lanes will be.
Outlined in green is the approximate location for an arcade
.
There will be an event space, which is outlined in blue.
And then there will be a restaurant within the remainder of
the area.
The site will feature 165 parking spaces, which are all
shown here on the map.
Bicycle racks will also be provided.
They'll be within what's labeled as a gathering area on the
south side of the building.
And access to the site will be taken from internal streets
within the razor ranch development.
The site will contain around 16% landscaping and 50% tree
canopy.
Those both exceed the minimum requirements for the overlay,
which would be 10% landscaping
and 20% canopy.
The site also exceeds the requirements for plaza area.
So it's going to have about 4,800 square feet of outdoor pl
aza area that will include
benches, tables, trees, other shade provided by the
building.
And those bicycle racks will be incorporated into that pl
aza area.
The elevations for the building can be seen here.
This is the south side.
So the front of the building will face south.
The west elevation is shown there on the bottom.
Then we have the north elevation, which will be the rear of
the building and the east elevation.
As outlined in the overlay, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall approve a site plan
if it substantially complies with the concept and schematic
plan.
If it provides a compatible arrangement of buildings and
land uses, it wouldn't adversely
affect adjoining properties.
If it provides for adequate and safe circulation of veh
icular traffic and if it complies with
all other sections of the overlay district.
Through our review of the site plan, we did find that it
meets all of these criteria.
Staff is recommending approval of the site plan because it
is compliant with all the
regulations of the razor range overlay district and meets
the criteria for approval that were
just outlined.
I can stand for any questions.
One question.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Does the plaza area have a canopy over it or is it open?
Much of it is open.
There will be shade provided by some protrusions from the
building as well as from the trees
that are planted within it.
Okay.
But no canopy of any kind.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions for Haley?
Thank you, Haley.
This is an individual consideration item.
It's not a public hearing, but if you would like to speak
on it on this item, you're welcome
to come forward.
I don't know if the applicant would like to add anything to
the staff's presentation.
No?
Okay.
Seeing none, the chair will open this item, put it on the
floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you.
I move to approve Z170016.
Okay.
Thank you.
Oops.
Sorry.
Not the right one.
I move to approve this item.
Okay.
Commissioner Smith.
I second the motion to approve SB170051 just for correction
.
Good.
Thank you for the clarification.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any further discussion?
I'll call for a vote on board.
Motion carries 7-0.
Good luck with your project.
That will move us to our item.
Get the correct number.
Our second item on our individual consideration tonight is
going to be FP17-0023.
And I will call on Haley for a presentation of that item.
FP17-0023 is a final plat of five lots within the Razor
Ranch Town Center.
We have lot 17 through 20 of block A here on the north side
of Panhandle and lot 1 of
block B located on the south side.
This plat also includes the dedication of right of way for
Heritage Trail and Panhandle
Drive.
And I can stand for any questions.
I'm going to ask for a clarification from Richard.
I believe we pulled this item off the consent agenda
because there was a recommendation.
Do we want to add that to this?
Yes, sir.
Have that correct?
Yeah, I can discuss that.
So the condition for approval is that this is still pending
approval of the associated
civil plans.
Those are under review by staff.
We don't anticipate any major changes, but there could be
minor tweaks to easement locations
or something like that that we would request to be able to
be approved at the staff level.
Does that take care of it?
That does.
Okay.
Great.
I'm going to call for a clarification.
Commissioner Roselle.
I motion to approve FP 17-003 with those conditions.
Commissioner Smith.
I second that motion.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
Good luck with your project.
That will move us to our public hearing section this
evening.
At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing for Z17-
0016, and I will call on Haley
for presentation.
Because while we're waiting on that, I want to pause.
We have one card from Jason Dernbos.
It doesn't have an agenda item, and I just want to clarify
which agenda item you would
like to speak on.
This one?
Okay.
Glad I asked at this time.
All right.
Good.
Lucky for you.
Thank you, Haley.
Please continue.
All right.
So this presentation will cover both items A and B on the
public hearing agenda, so Z17-0016
and S17-09.
So there are two requests.
The first is for a rezoning that would be for the entire 72
acres outlined here in yellow
from an industrial center employment district to
neighborhood residential mixed use district.
The second aspect of the request is for a specific use
permit to allow for a multifamily
use on about 32.6 acres and an outdoor recreation use on 19
.9 acres.
As you can see here, the property is located on the south
side of Oak Street.
This is west of I-35 near the airport.
The future land use designation for the property is
industrial commerce.
The intent of that designation is to promote both light and
heavy industrial uses.
This area also encourages supporting commercial uses as
well.
The proposed NRMU district does not meet the intent of that
future land use designation.
And when a request doesn't conform to the future land use
map, the Denton Development
Code provides for additional criteria for consideration.
Those criteria are meant to balance the competing interests
that occur between public health,
safety, the general welfare versus the right to the use of
the property.
These criteria include examining the existing land use
pattern, whether or not an isolated
zoning district would be created, adequate infrastructure
provision, potential environmental
impacts and the general character of the district.
So looking into those a little bit further, it's important
to point out that this property
is within the boundaries of the West Park tax increment
reinvestment zone.
That entire area shown here in the hatched orange lines, it
's about 800 acres total.
This entire area is designated this way to promote
industrial development by providing
some tax incentives to help support the public
infrastructure needs that would be here as
the area develops.
Looking at what's around the property in terms of zoning,
we have primarily industrial districts
west of I-35, so the ICE district, which includes the
subject property, as well as some other
key features such as 84 lumber to the north.
There's a reader link and the Benny Keith distribution
centers in the area.
We also have the ICG district adjoining the property across
what would be precision drive,
it's undeveloped land.
There's some gas wells in the area.
And then we have the Peterbilt facility here to the
southwest of the property.
Across I-35, you get a much greater mixture of zoning
districts and uses, some key features
being the razor ranch area here to the northeast, the
hospital area.
We have UNT's campus and many of the associated multifamily
uses there.
And then the UNT football stadium here to the southeast.
Access to the site would primarily be from West Oak Street.
That is designated as a primary arterial.
Currently it's a two-lane undivided roadway.
Based on its classification, it's intended to ultimately be
a six-lane divided road.
We have precision drive, which currently dead ends as a two
-lane undivided road here at the
south end of the property, that would be extended north
with this development and would continue
to be a two-lane undivided road as it moves north.
There's also a Kansas City rail line that runs along the
eastern boundary of the property.
Now getting into more of the specifics of what this request
is intended to help develop,
and that would be multifamily and outdoor recreation uses.
So the specific use permit is requesting the permission to
do a multifamily use here in
the area shown as green.
That would be phase one of the development.
That would include 189 units of multifamily, a total of 700
bedrooms, with a density just
under nine dwelling units per acre.
Phase two would also be multifamily, shown here in red.
That would be 100 units, 376 bedrooms total.
Again, just about nine dwelling units per acre in total
density.
The third phase includes the second use, which is outdoor
recreation, and this is shown here
as five ball fields and associated parking.
The balance of the acreage of the property is encompassed
in this lake, which is about
15 acres total.
The lake also is surrounded by a floodplain as well as rip
arian buffer environmentally
sensitive area.
The boundaries of that environmentally sensitive area are
outlined in blue on the map, so it
is a sizable portion of the property.
And any development within that ESA would require that the
applicant go through a field
assessment to determine if the ESA is in fact intact on the
property, and if it is, they
would then have to go through an alternative
environmentally sensitive area plan to allow
any development within that boundary.
These are just some samples of the elevations and the type
of building that they would be
including on the property.
You can see it's a mixture of styles, some looking more
like single family, others looking
more like a threeplex or a fourplex.
Notification was sent about both of the requests, the
zoning and the SUP.
We received two responses from those within 200 feet.
Both of those were for the zoning request.
One was in opposition.
You can see the property outlined in red, and one was in
favor.
Within the 200 foot boundary, based on the area that is
just within that boundary, 22%
of the land area expressed opposition to the request.
So at City Council, there would be a super majority vote
required.
Staff is recommending denial of the zoning request based on
these three criteria.
It's incompatibility with the surrounding land use pattern,
inconsistency with the goals
of the West Park terrors, and inconsistency with the goals
and objectives of the Denton
Plan 2030 in terms of this area being designated for
industrial commerce.
Staff?
>> Can I just clarify for the record that that 22%
objection is for the SUP portion?
>> Those were -- >> Or the zoning?
>> Those were sent in for the zoning case.
>> For the zoning case.
Okay.
>> Staff is also recommending denial of the SUP request for
those same reasons.
Incompatibility with the land use pattern, the goals of the
terrors, and the goals of
the Denton Plan 2030.
However, if the Planning and Zoning Commission votes to
recommend approval of this request,
staff would recommend the following conditions be placed on
the SUP.
The first condition being that the site plan, landscape
plan, and building elevations as
presented to you tonight would all be considered conceptual
.
A full site plan submittal would be required for each phase
of the development as it moves
forward to help verify and ensure that all aspects of it
are compliant with the Denton
Development Code in terms of site design, landscaping,
parking, and building design.
The second criteria or condition would be that a full
assessment of the ESA on site
would be required before any development could occur within
those boundaries and if that
is verified that an alternative ESA plan would have to be
approved for that development to
occur.
The third criteria would be that the development of the
multifamily use be limited to the 32.6
acres shown here tonight and the outdoor recreation use be
limited to the 19.9 acres that were
outlined.
The multifamily use we would encourage to not contain any
more than the 289 units shown
and the density for that be calculated strictly on the land
area that was outlined on the
site plan rather than the total acreage of the property.
And with that I can stand for any questions.
>> Yep.
Got a couple questions for you.
Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
We did clarify in our work session that the TURS would not
be applicable for a multifamily
within an RMU.
>> That's correct.
The TURS project plan specifically excludes reimbursement
for multifamily.
>> Got it.
Thank you.
Jim, Jinx, can I ask you a quick question about mobility?
I don't think Haley wants to answer questions about DCTA
bus lines.
Not even sure if you're 100% the right person to ask on
this, but if we were to approve
it and this is the applicant wants to use this for student
housing primarily, no bus
lines go on that side of 35 to be able to service student
housing, be able to get students
to the university, what -- would there be a process for the
applicant to have to go
through to try to get expansion that way or there's nothing
we can do with DCTA to try
to get bus lines over to that side at all, correct?
>> I would think that we could approach DCTA.
>> But otherwise they'd have to drive to the university,
drive to the closest bus stop
or walk to the closest bus stop.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Correct.
Got it.
That's all.
>> Commissioner Rossell.
>> Thank you, chair.
Excuse me.
Haley, can you tell me a little bit about the TURS,
specifically, do you know when it
was established and what established that?
Was that a council vote or was that a citywide vote that
established that?
>> You're talking about the election, an election or a city
council vote?
>> I just -- the TURS, how did that come into being?
>> The TURS is created by city council and there's a board
that's established and then
the project and finance plans are approved through the
board and then to city council
for approval.
>> It didn't go to a citywide vote?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> It was created in 2012, I believe.
>> 2012?
>> Mm-hmm.
>> And then can you also help me understand the density?
Typically they would have the ability to use their entire
property to calculate density.
Why are you recommending, if the zoning was to approve it,
the third condition on the
density?
>> The intent was to limit it to the number of units shown
because 1,000 potential bedrooms
in this area is quite a large enhancement to the number of
people driving and living
in the area.
The intent with the density was that there not be a density
bonus obtained by using the
acreage for the lake or something that's not going to be a
multifamily use count towards
that.
So it would be limited to the 32 acres that they're
proposing to actually do a multifamily
development.
>> If they could build by right, they would be able to use
ponds in the density calculation
traditionally in the city?
>> Traditionally, yes, if it's all on the same lot.
They could potentially count that.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> And we also ran some numbers for your question, Chair.
So, granted that these are all very rough estimates.
Typical industrial use would generate $100,000 to $200,000
in water and wastewater impact
fees.
For the amount of units shown here, it's estimated that
phase one would be around 1.1 million
and phase two would be at 600,000, roughly.
In terms of roadway impact fees, that would be offset by
the improvements that they would
be doing with precision drive, the construction of that
roadway.
>> Okay.
So they're going to be responsible for the perimeter street
paving rather than in lieu
of paying traffic impact fees, essentially, approximately
for discussion purposes.
>> Yes, because in this case, the precision drive does not
exist currently along their
perimeter.
>> Okay.
And based on that, it's going to be a considerable sum to
put that in.
>> Yes.
>> Millions.
Million.
>> Probably between half a million and a million.
>> Okay.
Sorry.
>> It's okay.
>> Okay.
So it's a substantial difference in impact fees to the city
if this is rezoned versus
industrial, because I know there were some other questions
as to what kind of impact
it would have on our services, but it's a considerable
additional funds that they would
pay.
>> I think whichever the use is, irregardless of the use,
there would be that perimeter
street pavement exaction.
Or the difference would lie would be with the water sewer
impact fees based on the number
of bedrooms, the very high number of bedrooms that they're
talking about for this project.
That's what the source, that's directly related to the
numbers that Haley gave you.
For industrial water demands can really vary depending on
the industrial process.
So we're given a range of common meter sizes we see, you
know, like she said, anywhere
from 100 to 200,000.
>> Okay.
Thank you for the additional information.
Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Let me ask you a hypothetical here.
If this were approved for this residential area, how would
this impact future development
in those ICA areas, say another Peterbilt type or 84 lumber
type built across the street
from them?
Would they have to do changes with sound and lighting as a
result of being in close proximity
to a residential neighborhood where that wouldn't be a
consideration otherwise?
>> The lighting provisions in the development code would
apply no matter what the development
is.
So that would be the same between the uses.
In terms of their site layout, because we go back to one of
the maps here, because they
are separated by right of way on both the north and west,
there wouldn't be any additional
buffer requirements there.
Standing on the east because of the separation of the
railroad, there could be some buffering
requirements here on the south side where we would have --
>> Not so much buffering issues, but if you've got a
business in there that its production
creates a lot of noise, okay, that's going to reach across
that street there.
So would they be inhibited then because they are in close
proximity to a residential area?
Would that negatively impact their business?
>> I would say it could create some nuisances potentially,
but they would ultimately have
to follow the city's sound ordinances.
>> Okay.
But if that residential area was there, would it be any
different?
>> No, sir.
>> In an industrial area, aren't they allowed a certain
decibel level as opposed to areas
that are in close proximity to residential areas?
>> I'm not familiar with what the code of ordinances states
on that, but they would
have to follow the city's general ordinances.
>> Okay.
Thanks.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I'm going to go back to a question on the TURS.
Okay, so that was put in place in 2012.
How often is that revoted on to continue it?
>> For the TURS, it usually -- the reinvestment zone -- I'm
trying to think of -- till August?
Oh, it was just put in last August.
And it seems to me like this one was for quite a few number
of years.
It wouldn't be revisited unless there was a change to the
project or finance plans or
they wanted to dissolve the TURS.
I think this is only the second TURS in the city.
And so the first one is the downtown area.
And so there was a lot of talk about that.
It's not like a tax zone or like a reinvestment zone where
you have to do it every five years.
It's a little bit different.
>> So does it have an end date?
>> Yeah.
Do you have the exact end date?
Let me see here.
You don't have the actual -- >> I believe that's just the
annual update.
>> Yeah, this is not the right document.
So I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what the end
date is.
>> And I guess the reason for my question is if we're --
>> 20 years.
>> Yeah.
>> I think it's 20 years.
It's usually between 20 and 20.
>> And taking 72 acres out of this does not weaken it as we
move through it, correct?
Does this do anything rezoning these 72 acres to the rest
of the TURS area?
>> Only to the original developer because we have an
agreement for reimbursement for
the infrastructure to the original developer.
And so since multifamily is specifically cut out of the
project plan, that tax increment
for this particular parcel, if we change it, they won't get
that money flow back.
So it will take longer to pay back.
>> It's just for this particular parcel, though, correct?
>> Right.
>> So other areas that will continue?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Next question, Rosalyn.
>> You mentioned that multifamily is specifically called
out in the TURS.
Is there any other zoning classification that is
specifically called out in the TURS?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> The TURS specifically contemplates industrial and
commercial use.
And there's actually a limit in the statute as to how much
residential you can have in
a TURS.
So --
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
Any other questions for Haley?
Okay.
This is a public hearing.
And I have several cards that wish to speak on this item.
First will be Jason Dernbos, the applicant in support.
Is there someone else who would like to speak first?
>> Mr. Chairman, may I?
>> Sure.
>> First, I'm sorry.
I may not have gotten the cards in the right order.
I'm Lance Van Zandt.
>> I probably reshuffled them.
My apologies.
>> I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
>> Just as a point of order, if you are representing the
applicant, then you, too, get ten minutes.
Or you'll have to share your minutes for a total of 20.
You can't take more than 20 minutes.
>> Okay.
Yeah, we had planned if we have about three folks, we were
going to divvy up 20 minutes
if that's acceptable from the Chair.
>> Sure.
Absolutely.
>> I was going to kind of get things started if I could, Mr
. Chairman.
I'm Lance Van Zandt, 512 West Hickory here in Denton.
I represent Landmark Properties.
I've had the pleasure of working with Landmark and our
development team here as well as Haley
and the staff in putting this application for both these
items together on your agenda
tonight, the zoning change and the SUP.
We've got it before you tonight for the final decision.
We're asking for your approval.
There are many good questions that were brought up in the
work session.
We took notes on those and want to make sure we get those
addressed.
I believe Mr. Jinx's comments on the impact fees and the
road costs were fairly consistent
with our calculations.
We understood we were going to have about a million dollars
in water and wastewater impact
fees.
And our estimated construction cost of precision drive,
which we will have to do to develop
this project, is approximately a million dollars.
I believe we're going to be paying roadway impact fees of
about 800,000.
So we're actually going to contribute a little more cost-
wise.
We anticipate that we would have just paying impact fees.
So those are the numbers that we have on those two items.
And if anything comes up, we've got our engineers that will
be able to address that.
So I won't go in detail through the application.
Haley did a good job of summarizing that, but I did want to
respect our time limits
here and make sure we address questions that were brought
up in the work session.
Also, some items that we thought were of importance.
I think if you just look at this project as a whole, with
especially the 22 acres that
we're looking at doing in phase one, the quality of the
vertical construction that we're looking
at-- and you all saw some examples of that in your packet--
the fact that we're going
from an industrial to an NRMU greatly enhances the
landscape requirements.
You go from about a 10% tree canopy to a 40% tree canopy.
We have some existing natural features on the property that
to an industrial user would
be a significant challenge.
We think in an NRMU district, this will eventually be an
amenity and will create an aesthetic
feature that can be used with the ball fields.
So along with bringing public infrastructure now to the
area, the extension of precision
drive, the extension of water and wastewater utilities to
serve that area, we think this
is a great project.
And I understand that the real question we have to answer
here tonight is, well, as great
as this project is, is this where it belongs?
Is this a good location?
Mr. Beck, you addressed that specifically.
Is this a square pavement around Houghton?
And we actually don't think it is.
We think that maybe this is a unique, particularly unique
tract of land that doesn't at all fit
the current zoning category for a number of reasons.
And I'm going to ask the representative of the owner to
come up and speak.
He's got quite a bit of institutional history.
He's got a lot of experience in the area.
And Dan Grant, who serves as the engineering consultant for
the Razor family and their
properties has a great deal of experience with marketing
and developing properties in
this area.
So I'm going to ask him to come up and speak as well.
First off, I wanted to introduce to you directly to you my
client, Jason Dornbos.
Jason's the principal with Landmark Properties.
They develop student housing across the southeastern,
southern United States.
They have one existing project in Denton, the retreat at
Denton.
It's been a successful facility that they constructed and
continue to operate.
And, you know, one thing that brought Landmark not only to
Denton, but to this particular
piece of property is they were attuned to some of the
debate that's gone on around student
housing in the last couple of years in Denton.
There have been some controversial projects that have come
before you that I know have
been really tough votes.
And you spent a lot of time thinking about this.
And the community's been very involved on one side or
another of this issue.
And what Jason and Landmark heard was that there's a
significant concern in Denton about
student housing being placed in existing residential areas,
especially in the historic areas around
the university.
And he has an understanding of how student housing in
existing residential areas can
worsen the affordable housing problem when investors buy up
rental properties and rent
them to students.
It becomes harder and harder for your residents to live and
work and buy houses close to where
they work and where their kids go to school.
So it was really an intentional targeting of this property
to, in fact, remove this
while still close to the university and reasonably close
proximity, completely away from any
existing residential neighborhoods or historic districts or
any other uses that this would
significantly impact.
I'm going to let Mr. Baker talk in detail about his attempt
to market this property.
That's something he can talk about in more expert manner
than I can.
But I think the fact that, one, we really intend on trying
to answer the community interest
of keeping these projects outside of existing residential
historic areas.
We've got a really unique piece of property that the owners
have had an impossible time
marketing over the last 20 plus years to users in the
industrial category.
And three, there's a reason for that.
And Mr. Grant's going to talk briefly about this, is the
just topographical characteristics
to the land that you saw on your map, the lake in the
middle of it and the slope and
the very just not a lot of land mass there outside the
water to have large industrial
type warehouse commercial uses.
So those are some of the challenges that we would like to
alert you to, make you aware
of, and try to convince you that this is, in fact, the
highest and best use for this
property.
And actually, what is a very difficult piece of property to
develop as an industrial use
actually presents a lot of attractive qualities for a
student housing.
So if I may, Mr. Chairman, I ask Mr. Dornbos to come up
here next.
That's convenient for you.
Please give your name and address also and you approach the
mic.
Jason Dornbos, 455 Epsbridge Parkway, Athens, Georgia.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Appreciate your time tonight.
I'll skip the slideshow.
I was going to give just and hit some highlights as really
just talk about our experience.
But we're a nationally, or the largest national student
housing development company.
We are vertically integrated.
We special out, we have our own management company,
development company, obviously the
development company as well.
So just kind of real quick, just wanted to give you some
information.
We developed what was originally called the retreat, now
called the Republic, back in
2011.
And since that time, we've been actively looking to try and
find another project in this market,
another site to do a project just to meet the increasing
demand from students at the
University of North Texas, and the feedback we received in
reading the news articles and
watch monitoring the market was that there was just getting
a lot of opposition and push
back in the neighborhoods to the north of campus, which is
really the side we prefer
to be on just because it's closer, it's an easy shot into
campus on Oak, and it just
made a lot of sense.
So we've been actively looking at that and I've been
working with Phil for probably two
years to try and, he's thoughtfully trying to find a way to
do a project on his property
that maximized the value of that portion was the highest
possible use and we really felt
like this would really fit the bill.
So you know, again, we've developed industrial properties
around the country.
We've got several that are under construction right now
that we've had to rezone, do a
new comp plan amendment to do those projects.
They were all similar in a lot of ways to what we're doing
here or proposing to do
here.
Just large pieces of property that were very close to
campus and industrial just didn't
make sense on those particular pieces of property due to
environmental concerns or just where
the market was.
You know, this project, this product type is really
designed to appeal to students that
are seeking single family residences.
So what we've seen, we've done a bunch of polls of our
residents and we've found is
that these projects actually pull a lot of the residents
that would typically be renting
single family houses and neighborhoods out of those houses
and puts them in a project
where they can live among their peers as opposed to living
in houses and neighborhoods where
they're living next door to professors or families where it
's just kind of a conflict
of use even in those single family neighborhoods.
So we feel like this property is a way to, because of the
size, we can do something like
that and appeal to those students.
And again, someone had mentioned earlier in the work
session about the environmental sensitivity
to this on the site.
This, our project, as opposed to a lot of multifamily
projects, has an extremely high
percentage of pervious surface.
I think it's, talking to Dan, it's like over 40% on this
particular project, which for
an apartment complex is really high, which is great given
that the lake is next door.
There's a lot of other features we do that we build all of
our projects.
They're designed to meet national green building standards.
So we put a lot of thought into it.
It's important to our residents to have features like that
that are, you know, appeal to that
environmental nature.
And then it came up earlier about running the bus.
We will do one of, we're required to, by our lenders, to do
one of two things.
We're either going to have to work out an agreement with
the university to run the bus
over there, or we will run a private shuttle ourselves.
And that's just because there's never parking on campus.
All of our residents are going to the same place.
It's easy.
It works out well and it helps us market the property.
So with that, I will kick it over to Phil.
Thank you for your time.
Phil Baker, PO Box 2424, Denton, Texas.
My name is Philip Baker.
I am Vice President of the Razor Company, which controls
both Razor Investments and the
current owner of the subject land and its affiliate West
Park Group.
I've been employed with the Razor Company for over 30 years
, the last 15 of which have
been involved in responsibility for real estate management
and sales.
In addition to the subject property, Razor Investments and
West Park Group owns hundreds
of acres to the west, northwest, and southwest of the
subject property within the West Denton
area.
I'm here tonight on behalf of Razor Investments and West
Park Group to express our support
of the requested zoning change, not merely because we have
an interest in the pending
sales transaction, but also as the largest remaining land
owner in the immediate vicinity
with an equal interest in maintaining land uses which are
compatible to the anticipated
future uses of our other remaining lands.
Like the city planning department, we have historically
been of the mindset that the
area south of University and West of Iowa Interstate 35
corridor is generally industrial
and warehousing, and we've had no interest in straying from
that focus.
And all of it is identified as such in the Denton 2030 plan
.
Our prior sales of tracks to users such as the original
Peterbilt Motor Company plant,
the Tetra Pak plant, and Anderson Merchandisers, and more
recent sales to Target Fest and all
Peerless Manufacturing, Winko Foods, additional land to
Peterbilt Motor for their future expansion,
and 84 Lumber for their future expansion, all point
development of this area as an industrial
area with high quality users.
This has always been our focus and continues to be so in
general.
And I have a map I want to show real quickly here.
On the left is what this land looked like in 2007.
You can see it's pretty much Peterbilt, Tetra Pak, and
Anderson, and that is all that's
been there since that land was virgin ground.
On the right, we'll show you what we've been doing for the
last 12 years in developing
that industrial land.
You'll see those companies, Target, Winko, Rush Enterprises
, I didn't mention that one.
They're taking 30 acres and they're under development right
next to Tetra Pak.
We saw the corridor of Western Boulevard put in all the way
to the university to open up
that area.
But when other interested parties with extensive
development experience actually evaluated
the subject property, we began to develop a different
viewpoint of this subject site.
After gaining development insight from several experienced
parties, we came to understand
why the site is uniquely situated as compared to the others
lands in the area and is not
suitable for light industrial warehousing or other
currently permitted uses.
In 2007, IDI Gasly, one of the world's leading investors
and developers of logistic warehouses
and distribution parks in North America and Europe,
evaluated acquiring all of our land
in the US 380 and west of Interstate 35.
While IDI confirmed the existing industrial warehouse uses
under the Denton Plan as the
highest and best use for most of our lands, they concluded
that the subject property would
be best slated for multifamily and planned to simply sell
that portion off to a multifamily
developer.
This is what they proposed and was going to be the accepted
zoning plan.
That portion in red is the multifamily site that they
intended to get rid of because they're
not multifamily developers.
But when other interested parties with extensive
development experience actually evaluated
the subject property, we began to develop a different view
of this site.
After gaining development insight from several experienced
parties, we came to understand
why the site is uniquely situated as compared to other
lands in the area and is not suitable
for light industrial warehousing and other currently
permitted uses.
I'm sorry, I've repeated myself.
Let me go back.
Sorry, I was out of place.
The community planning staff at the time that IDI proposed
this zoning, they agreed with
the proposed land uses under the IDI plan including the
multifamily use for the subject
property.
But because of the downturn in the economic conditions in
2008, the sales transaction
ultimately did not go through and the zoning changes were
not pursued by us at that time.
More recently, Landmark approached us with interest in the
subject property.
They like IDI identified the subject property as being most
suitable for multifamily.
Before moving forward with this, we hired Kemley Horne
consulting engineers to give
us their evaluation of the best land use for the site.
Kemley Horne has significant experience in industrial and
other developments and assists
major U.S. corporations in performing site analysis for
various commercial projects.
Kemley Horne confirmed the analysis of both IDI and Land
mark.
They concluded that industrial and warehouse users would
never be interested in the subject
property because those users inherently need flat land
suitable for large single buildings
without topographical variations, floodplain areas and
drainage constraints.
The subject property slopes significantly from the east and
the west boundaries to the center
and from the north to the south with a 15 to 20 acre lake
located in the middle.
It is affected by an area wide drainage channel running
from the north to the south that essentially
splits the track into two long very narrow rectangular
pieces and contains approximately
15 acres south of the lake dam which would be in the flood
way and in all likelihood
can never be developed for any purpose other than green
space.
Natural features such as these are precisely those which a
potential industrial or warehouse
developer wants to avoid.
We recognize that other uses beyond light industrial and
warehousing are permitted under
the existing zoning classification such as hotels, motels,
indoor recreation and medical
facilities.
But development of those type of facility and uses would
substantially face the same
issues and challenges in dealing with the natural features
of the subject property.
And because the subject property would not be located on a
major roadway with high traffic
volume it would never support such uses as hotels, motels,
entertainment centers and
restaurants in any case.
Lakes, creeks and flood plain areas can be utilized as
attractive green space and recreation
areas to enhance the vibrant residential community but
present nothing but obstacles to the needs
of industrial, warehouse and other types of users.
Development of the subject property for any uses other than
the multifamily would present
site characteristic issues and would fail to meet the
threshold requirements as to their
juxtaposition to major highways and roadways.
We certainly recognize the need for land uses on the
subject property that will be compatible
with existing anticipated and industrial warehouse uses for
other lands in the area.
We are confident that the proposed zoning change will work
for the subject property
and will not create any conflict with any industrial users
concentrated to the west
of it.
The construction of precision drive on the west boundary
lane of the subject property
along with the drainage channel on the south boundary line,
the Kansas City southern railway
on the east boundary and Oak Street on the north segregates
the subject property in a
manner that will give this site its own identity with
physical boundaries that will make it
distinctly separate and apart from the industrial areas to
the west.
While we respect and support the Denton 2030 plan and
understand city planning department
simply following it as the basis for its current
recommendation, the 2030 Denton plan is by
its nature conceptual in providing general guidance for the
future development of the
city within the city.
It is a good starting point and it is an important document
but it by no means tells the whole
story and how the city should be developed in every
instance.
While a well thought out concept plan certainly provides
the critical foundation to foster
good development, it is just as critical for the city to
recognize unique dynamics that
apply to specific situations as actual development unfolds.
We know from dealings with the city on prior development
situations evolving our lands
that city staff often tends to be overly dogmatic in
applying conceptual principles under the
mobility plan, the city environmental sensitive area map
and the Denton 2030 plan within sufficient
analysis of particular development dynamics and constraints
.
While the pursuit of development in the city without these
concept tools as a guiding force
would be dangerous, ignoring and failing to properly
analyze specific development constraints
and opportunities for specific development situations could
be just as detrimental.
We need smart and sensible development decisions based on
actual realities in the context of
the intended goals and principles laid down under those
concept tools.
As highlighted in my discussion, an in-depth examination of
the subject property by experienced
development professionals clearly reveals that the existing
permitted uses are not viable
on this site and multifamily use provides the best
opportunity for the site to contribute
to the needs and the tax base of this community.
We believe the zoning change should be approved for the
good of the area, the good of the
city and respectfully request your approval.
Thank you.
A couple of questions.
I'm sorry.
I burned up all that time.
We appreciate your comments.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Baker, for your presentation.
It actually answered a lot of things for me and makes I see
now why we're looking at someone
that's actually looking at residential development in an
industrial area.
I see that you're trying to address the issue for housing
for college kids, and I appreciate
that.
This development, I've got great admiration for it.
I love the designs and everything.
I am having a problem with it being where it is, and I
would ask you why the buildings
that you can use, offices, hotels, vehicle repair, research
facilities, limited retail
and restaurants, why those smaller building units pose a
problem for this landscape area
where the individual apartment complexes don't.
If we're talking square footage, why is there basically
equal?
It's a matter of the ... I'll let Mr. Grant talk more to
that, but it has to do with the
kind of development it is.
The apartment, the multifamily can work with the topography
.
Industrial commercial uses, they need pretty much the same
thing.
They need flat land.
They don't need drainage running through it, and they need
flat land to build on.
They can't afford to ... The economics of doing the dirt
work breaks the budget.
I guess what I'm visualizing is say like an office park in
this area with building sizes
... The footing, if you would, is basically going to be the
same as a unit of apartments
there, where they're spaced about the same too.
I don't understand why that wouldn't work.
I can see where some big industrial complex would have a
problem, but when you're essentially
building commercial buildings that have about the same foot
as an apartment complex, I'm
not sure why it becomes a problem with one and not the
other.
My understanding from the engineers is the topography is a
big factor, and it all comes
down to dollars and cents.
It works for residential.
It works for the multifamily.
It doesn't work for commercial.
Also, the problem is commercial ... It's a matter of
economics too.
Precision road, when built, is essentially a fixed road.
It dead ends in Oak Street.
It dead ends at airport.
It doesn't take anybody anywhere.
Those kinds of developments want to be on roadways that go
someplace, that take traffic
through them, and that makes sense on the way people travel
.
Nobody's going to make a loop around to that area.
It makes no sense for restaurants.
We could hold it forever.
We could build the roadway, but it's not like the movie.
We build it, they will come.
No, they're going to go like over ways of ranch, where
there's a lot of through streets
and a lot of traffic, where they know they're going to pick
up people.
Nobody's going to be traveling just for pleasure over in
that area.
It's industrial.
It's just if you're going to be there, that's why you're
going to go there.
I will defer to you because you're more the expert on this
than I am.
I'm just still having a little bit of problem accepting
that completely.
I understand that you're trying to address the student
population here.
I think that's great, but this isn't going to be limited
strictly to students.
You probably will have working families in there with kids.
Again, this area being close to the interstate and a
railroad track, I'm concerned about
that too.
How would you ameliorate that concern where you're dealing
with families with small children
in an area like this?
I don't see why it would be a problem.
Traffic laws, last time I checked, we all have to play by
the same rules.
Whether you're driving a truck or an automobile, you have
to respect the rules of the road
and all the other things.
Parents will always warn their kids to stay away from the
railroad tracks, but how many
times?
Well, I can tell you that railroad track is probably 50
feet up in the air.
Nobody's going to play on it, much less walk over.
That would have been a great challenge for me as a kid
scaling that mountain.
That would have been a great challenge for me as a kid, but
I hear what you're saying.
I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that.
Okay, I understand.
It's just, I think there's protectors there that we haven't
probably looked at deep enough.
We have, well, all I can say to you on that point is there
already are existing developments
this city has put in by railroads.
When you look downtown area, you've got two multifamily
units within spitting distance
of the city.
No, no, I understand that.
The family in Northern, which goes through this town
several times a day.
And I'm not disputing that.
I'm just as uncomfortable with those as I would be creating
a whole new one too.
In the, in the, in the Rose lawn area, there's two main
tracks, Kansas City Southern and
Union Pacific.
Right.
Okay.
One other little small question and it might be for one of
the other gentlemen, the material
that you're using, I didn't see any brick on these units.
So it's all siding and I assume that's going to be hardy
plank.
Thank you, Mr. Baker.
Yeah, it'll be brick masonry up above the water level.
Okay.
We do built up slabs and this kind of answers your question
earlier about the footprints
because we did built up slabs so you can stagger the
buildings.
I mean, these, these footprints are actually, I mean, they
're single unit buildings or duplexes
or quadplexes.
So they're, they're really not like a typical gardens out
apartment complex.
We've got a big footprint that may be similar to like an
office building or something.
These are very small.
What are, what is the biggest unit should be building?
Fourplex type?
I believe in the plan is that there's a six unit building.
Six units.
Okay.
Yeah, it's like six town names.
Square footage would be for that whole thing.
I'd have to check.
I think the square footage of the building, I mean, it's
obvious it's three stories.
Well no, let's just say the ground, at the ground level.
Yeah.
Foot, the footprint.
I'd have to check on it.
I don't know if I'm going to have time.
Okay.
Let me put you on the spot a little bit here.
Are we looking possibly at affordable housing here?
I mean, I know you're, you're targeting for students and
the Lord knows they, they need,
but I mean, are we looking at reasonable price units here
and I'm out of place in asking
this right now or?
Yeah, I mean.
We are getting kind of outside the boundaries.
Okay.
Way.
It'll be market rate.
Okay.
Thank you, sir.
So I've got several other questions.
I don't know which of you gentlemen will be for
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Well, sorry, you Jason, you're under the mic.
Just to address some of the Mr. Beck brought up, this is
student housing?
Yeah.
Correct.
So it's designed and marketed to students.
Got it.
So are the ones you have now, I can't, the Republic, I
think is what you said it is currently
now.
Is it going to be, I don't know how the Republic set up,
but most student housing, the way
you can't necessarily say these are only for students or
some policing, there's some Texas
real estate law issues on that, but you can design the
apartment to where it is individual
with each individual inside the bedroom has its own
bathroom.
So it is designed to be more for individual living.
Is it the same thing in your guys?
Is that what you're building now?
So each unit, the bedrooms are all the same size.
There's not like a master suite.
There's no dining room.
And you're right, like a typical unit would be a four
bedroom, four bathroom with the
bathrooms inside and then like a common area.
So they're not legally, of course, not legally restricted
to student housing, but they are
designed for student housing, probably not encouraging for
family use with small children
who like to play on railroad tracks.
Okay.
So the question I have for you was brought up during work
session, the ball fields that
are down there, as Mr. Vincent liked to refer to them, I
don't know if they're ball fields
or soccer fields or whatever, but-
Recreational fields.
Okay.
Those will be downstream.
Is that a worry at all?
I mean, if this is something we're approving and putting up
there, is that an issue of
having it downstream where flooding can come in?
Can I kick that one to Dan?
Yeah, come on, Dan.
Thank you.
Good evening, Commissioner.
Dan Grant, Kimley-Horn, 13755 Dwell Road, Suite 700 Dallas,
Texas.
You asked about downstream.
I'm an engineer, so I like to talk off maps.
So Haley, you might have to help me get back up to your
presentation.
So let's actually go to the actual land plan.
Let's speak off of this one.
In short, I think your question is more concerned about
what's happening in this zone.
Yeah, I guess the question's more about, I don't care if
you guys put soccer fields
or baseball fields, but just that it's downstream and if we
did approve it, there could be a
heavy rain that could fully wash out the entire development
.
Today, let's talk about the end phases.
We have this currently phase in.
Phase one here in green, which is everything we'll call
high and dry to the west side of
Lake.
Phase two of multifamily and phase three are both gonna be
conditioned as presented by
staff on some continuing analysis of the dam, which there
is an existing TCEQ dam on the
property that retains Razor Lake.
You're looking at the limits of Razor Lake within the blue
lines.
The dam would need to be reconstructed.
And downstream of that, one of the highest and best uses of
land downstream or in an
encumbered area by floodplain is recreation.
Perfect.
So that's the intent here, is to create a use that is
compliant with the highest and
best for the animals.
Great.
Thank you, Dan.
Mr. Baker.
This is a zoning case, right?
Yes.
This, you've talked a lot about the history of the sale of
this land, the possible sale
of this land, correct, and that you've had other industrial
manufacturers try to come
in and buy it and it was not feasible, correct?
Just to get clarification.
No one's ever looked at this land.
No one's?
Just because they just, they knew right off the bat that
there was no way they could ever
do it because of the way, just the feasibility of the cost
of having to move dirt to make
it usable for manufacturing use.
That's right.
Okay.
Currently, is it ag exempt?
Yes.
Okay.
So currently it is untaxable land?
No.
Well, it's in ag use.
Correct.
Which is, as you know, it's a reduced tax value based on ag
value, which is-
Sorry, miscommunication.
I think we chip in about 50 bucks a year to the tax bill.
Thank you very much for that $50.
Okay.
And a lot of manure.
Hey, that works.
All right.
That's all the questions I have for me, Mr. Baker.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
You're welcome.
I'm just going to, as the chair, kind of bring us back to
focus that this is a zoning case
that we're considering at this time.
And it's nice to have some of these other exhibits for us
to see what the possibilities
are to evaluate what another use might be on this property.
So I'd like to ask the commission, let's pull it in and
keep it our time.
We have a lot of people here before us tonight with a lot
of other items, and it's almost
eight o'clock.
I'd like us to stay focused on the zoning items at this
time.
I might add to that we have a separate public hearing for
the SUP, which is to determine
whether or not they would be able to have a multifamily on
the property.
So you, of course, would be allotted some time for each
item, but you may want to choose
which item is most important to you just for time's sake
and speak on that particular item.
Okay.
And with those two clarifications, Commissioner Rosell.
Thank you, chair.
This might not redirect us wholly, but I'd like two
questions.
Jason, I didn't get your last name.
We can ask you two questions real fast.
Does landmark construction do any single-resident, single-
room occupancies?
No.
Oh, yeah, sorry.
All the rooms are going to be single-occupant restricted.
Okay.
The retreat to the Republic, was that a rebrand or a sell?
That was a rebrand.
Well, we did sell it and they rebranded it.
Does landmark typically hold and then sell later?
What's your ownership duration typically?
We probably, we do both.
We hold stuff in perpetuity and then we sell some
properties as well.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sure.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Tim asked the question I was going to ask about the housing
, student housing.
Okay.
It's been taken care of.
Great.
Okay.
This is a public hearing and the only other, I don't have
any other cards.
So if there's anyone else who would like to come forward
tonight and speak on this item,
please do so at this time.
Well, I have a bunch and if I'm, missed your name, if you
'll give me your name and address,
I will.
I'm Jim Flikes.
I represent Peterbilt Motors, 3200 Airport Road.
And I want to speak in opposition of the zoning change.
Found it.
Thank you.
Manufacturing and industrial facilities require a buffer.
I-35 and the railroad track provide that buffer from the
residential areas in the university.
We also own the area that's directly across the street from
where these are, this multifamily
will be constructed.
We currently have 60 receiving docks in our facility.
We move about a hundred tractor trailers a day per truck.
So we're moving material all day long from all over Denton
and north of here.
So precision drive going through would be a good thing for
us because we need another
outlet.
I mean, if anybody's ever been over there at Shift Change
on Airport Road, it's a zone.
Western Boulevard has relieved that quite a bit, but what
we're getting now is people
going up Western, cutting back through Jim Crystal and
going over Oak Street to I-35.
So this would help relieve some of the traffic congestion.
But when you start putting pedestrians and bicycles and
other things in a roadway, that
you've got that much traffic going down, it presents a
safety issue.
And that's where our concerns are.
Industrial environments, you talked a little bit about
noise.
Yeah, we have to comply with the noise ordinance, but still
you've got lighting and we're a
24-hour, seven-day-a-week operation.
So it would be an issue.
We have 250 acres out on Airport Road between three
different sites.
Can I answer any questions?
Yes.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Jim Wyatt?
Fights.
Thank you for coming down.
So am I hearing you right that building this residential
development creates future problems
for you from an industrial construction?
We feel like the potential is there just because of the
residents and what you're putting in,
the density that you're putting in there.
And that was a concern I raised earlier and I was wondering
if you concurred with that,
that this imposes on you a little bit now.
It could.
And down the road.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'll see you on the questions.
Thank you, sir, for your comments.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone else who'd like to speak on this item, please come
forward and give us your name
and address and fill out a card for us if you haven't
already.
My name is Kate Linus.
I live at 1120 North Locust, Denton.
And I did not fill out a card.
I'm sorry.
I wasn't actually going to speak on that.
You can fill in after you speak.
Thank you.
Okay.
There had been a number of questions from the members of
the PNC regarding the TURS
and how long that was going to be.
So that you know I work for Denton County and West Park TUR
S is actually one of the
TURS that the county has also signed off on.
And as it was indicated, December of 2012 was when it was
initiated.
And it is to go through December 31st of 2037.
And the city contributed, but the county, according to the
forms that they filled out,
the participation agreement with Denton County was 40% of
the real property taxes levied
and collected by the county for the year captured assessed
value of real property taxable by
the county.
So there is some of that tax also then is part of what the
county has given up and everything
else.
So you had questions about that.
My concern primarily is as a parent who has actually rented
student housing for her university
child living in this kind of an environment without public
transportation, without easy
access to where the university is or to the highway, those
two streets, there is a whole
lot of traffic coming in because of industrial, all the
industrial and commercial use of the
streets.
It's already there.
And it would be very difficult for the type of renter that
's wanting to go into that.
Also if there are ball fields in this way, are they for use
for the city and they're
helping to have the kids from the city out there with all
the industrialization that's
around working 24 hours as the gentleman from Peterbilt
said.
And this is all industrial and commercial area very clearly
on the maps.
And if the exception is made under the request for item 4A,
then what's to stop the exception
being made further out?
There is an airport there.
And housing and airports don't really work well together
because people who rent houses
or buy houses or invest in housing multifamily or single
family property out there don't
want airplanes buzzing across them, let alone trucks coming
in and out 24/7.
So it is something to consider.
That's why it's coming before the P&Z.
It's also why the staff denied the request.
They don't approve it.
They don't think that this is the best use as presented in
this way.
So that's my comments.
One question for you, Commissioner Beck.
Thank you for your comments.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
While I'm waiting, I have one other response form that was
sent in by Leon Hent with Peterbilt
at 3200 Airport Road and he was opposed to the request.
Commissioner Beck, if you've got a question for staff.
I do, I'm not sure who to ask.
Hayley, maybe we can start with you.
Oh dear God.
I hate brain farts and I think I've just had one.
I sit here and let this slip by.
Forgive me.
Hopefully it will pop back up later.
Stand by.
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
or question possibly.
Commissioner Beck.
I'd like to make a motion before I do just make a statement
first.
I'm always sympathetic to people who have property that
doesn't seem to move, sits
there for long periods of time.
The only way to be able to be developed is laid out with
the zoning designations we have
and per the future land use map.
But I'm equally reluctant to change zoning that can allow
for residential dwellings in
an area in town that is surrounded by property established
for industrial uses.
City planning is best served, best served the public when
it sets aside areas that accommodate
specific uses and prevents the effects of certain
businesses that can negatively impact
residential domains.
I feel this zone change request will have this negative
impact.
In my opinion, it also weakens our commitment to well-conce
ived future land use designations
as they're currently set and alters land uses in a random
manner, which contributes, I think,
uncertainty for other property owners in the area.
And I do have some concern for the ESA area, too.
I'm always worried about when these type of developments
come in how effectively they
will preserve these ESA areas.
So I would encourage -- I'm going to vote for denial on
this and encourage the applicant
to consider the suggestions that the staff made about
smaller scale uses here.
I'm still just not convinced that it can't be worked out
that way.
But I'm going to follow suit with the developer review
committee and city staff and move to
deny this request.
I think what you want to do is move to approve the staff's
denial.
>> I move to.
>> Okay.
So we have a motion on the floor.
Do we have a second?
>> What exactly is the motion?
What was that?
I didn't hear what it was.
>> To approve denial.
>> I'm going to approve denial of the request.
>> Okay.
We have -- >> Commissioner Sullivan.
>> Second.
>> I will second the approval to deny.
>> Commissioner Rozelle.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Before we go to a vote, I just wanted to take a minute to
express my thoughts.
I'm not going to be supporting the approval for denial for
a couple reasons.
I'm convinced based on the testimonies tonight that land
has a very real chance of lying
dormant for a lot of years like it has in the past.
And so I would like to see development and it sounds or at
least I'm convinced based
on the things said tonight that it's not going to be
developed for industrial.
And the concerns against it in terms of the fields and
residents near airports and what
Mr. Fikes said about his business interests, UNT already
has several acres of fields right
on Airport Road in the more dense area.
And so I think we've seen that fields and recreational
outdoor use can be used.
There are great estates on Jim Crystal right under the
airplane paths that people have
invested in and continue to reside in.
So I don't know if residents near airports don't always
work.
It seems to be working on Jim Crystal.
And so yeah, it's just a tough one because coming into this
, I looked at the future land
use and I saw it was all industry and I thought this is a
no-brainer.
I'll agree with staff because of the TURS and the pre-plan
ning we've had for industrial
in that area.
But this is the very far east of it.
It's not dead center and I don't feel there will be zoning
creep because it seems like
there's a lot of interest to still develop industrial on
that area.
And so based on those things, I'm not going to support the
motion that Commissioner Beck
put in.
Commissioner Smith.
Oh, you're good.
Don't worry about it.
Okay.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Yeah, I would like to say that the history that you
provided, I think, gives us a good
indication that that property is not suitable for
industrial.
I myself went by there today and I kind of had second
thoughts about it too.
I drove the whole area and I saw those areas where there
was big warehouses, nice and flat.
The topography was flat.
But once I hit that Crystal Road and Western Road, you
could see the topography change
completely.
And having those two ponds, to me, indicated that there is
a, what do you call it, issue
when it comes to water runoff.
And that's why those ponds were put in there years ago.
So again, I'll probably, my vote will probably not support
what the city has recommended.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to echo what Commissioner Rozelle said about the
land being dormant and everything
else.
My bigger thing is this, is that my recent research due to
other forces in the city
to look into student housing as a way of effects,
affordable housing, the biggest problem we
have is an enbyism.
And we see it.
We saw it with the Scripture Street project that we came in
front of this commission and
came in front of the city council and ultimately got voted
down back in April.
If we're going to put student housing in the city, it's got
to go somewhere.
And if we're not wanting to put it in residential
neighborhoods around the university, it's
got to go somewhere.
And if this land is going to lay dormant or we have a
chance to put it on, make it multifamily
and build student housing, it's really, really hard for us
to vote against it.
Really hard for me to vote against it.
So that's my little input there.
Okay.
Any other comments before I call for a vote on this
particular motion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
We have a motion before us with first and a second to
approve the denial.
So a vote for would be to approve the denial.
I am messed up again.
Okay.
Can I change that?
Sure.
Request?
Okay.
Request?
So, we can't show it up yet.
Maybe you can just state for the record.
Okay.
Revote?
Okay.
Revote.
So we're going to vote to...
I got mixed up there.
Sorry.
The motion is to deny the applicant's request, which would
be no rezoning.
What would be no rezoning?
Okay.
That motion is going to fail four to three.
The Chair would entertain another motion or have some
further discussion on this item.
Senator Rozelle.
I've already said my piece, so I'll just go ahead and
motion to deny staff's recommendation
and approve the rezoning of this project.
You can say motion to approve applicant's submission.
I motion to approve applicant's submission.
Okay.
Let's make it easy.
The Chair will ask for clarification if you have any of the
conditions.
I think there were three conditions that were requested if
those are going to be a part
of your motion or be excluded.
Just as a comment, you don't have to use those conditions.
You can use whatever conditions that you would like.
Are they for the SUP only?
Are they for the SUP or the rezoning?
Okay.
Chair's apology.
I'm ahead of myself in the next item.
I second.
We have a first and second to approve the rezoning.
Any other discussion or comments?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
The motion to approve the zoning change passes 4 to 3.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I believe we stated earlier that the opposition met the
criteria that it would require a supermajority
in city council.
Is that correct?
I believe that's correct.
That's correct.
Okay.
Thanks.
Okay.
To continue, do we need to take a break?
Good.
Okay.
I will move us on to our next item.
I'm going to open the public hearing for B, which is S17-
0009.
This will be to have a presentation by Haley.
Are we going to, I think, just for clarification.
We can just incorporate your presentation from item 17-0016
into this item.
Just clarify that this is just for the SUP?
Just for the SUP portion.
If the recommendation of denial is rejected, we have the
three conditions associated with
this issue.
Correct.
To consider.
If we'd like.
Okay.
Just for clarification, this is the same item.
It's just going to be to consider the SUP component to
allow multifamily.
Do we need to call for any, this is a public hearing.
So if anyone would like to speak on this item, whether it
be the applicant or a member of
the public, please come forward at this time.
Please state your name and address for us again.
Mr. Chairman, Lance Van Zandt, representing the applicant
landmark properties.
Just don't want to take up any additional time that we don
't need to, but we're here
available for questions.
And of course, we want to hear the speaker in support of
the SUP.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Van Zandt.
Have you guys read over the recommendations that have been
made by the city if we have
approved the rezoning?
Have you guys read those?
Did you guys read the three conditions that were presented?
Yes.
Any comments?
Anything you'd like to add?
Anything that.
I don't believe that that elicited any comments or concerns
from us.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Just a quick question for clarification.
So if we voted yes on this, we're voting for the SUP.
Is that my understanding?
Yeah.
You can just vote.
If you're voting in the affirmative, you can vote to
approve the applicant submission.
Right.
Okay.
Thanks.
Commissioner Smith.
I motion to accept the, to accept the, what am I trying to
say, legal?
Approve.
Accept to approve the SCP taking into account the
recommendations made by city staff for
additional recommendations.
Okay.
The three conditions that are in our backup?
You got it.
I think we're going to break after this.
Yes, we will.
Since we have a motion, let me, I haven't yet.
That's why I was going to say we're getting a little ahead
of ourselves.
Since this is still a public hearing and public hearing is
still open.
So we have tabled the motion for right now until we make
sure everyone that would like
to speak on this item has an opportunity.
Then I will close the public hearing and then we can get a
motion on the floor.
Since a public hearing, anyone who would like to speak on
this item, please come forward
at this time.
I have no other cards up here wishing to speak on this item
.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and I will
call on Commissioner Smith for
a motion.
I motion to accept the SUP as written plus the city staff
recommendations.
Commissioner Sanchez.
I second the motion.
Okay.
We have a first and a second with the three conditions that
are mentioned in our staff
backup on this item.
Any further discussion or questions?
I'm going to request to speak on this item.
I'm going to speak in favor of the SUP and recommending the
multifamily.
And the reason being is that there's currently multifamily
just on the other side of 35 on
Oak Street.
There are a number of apartment communities there.
And I understand Peterbilt's concern about it, but it's
essentially the same roadway.
And I think the bus service currently comes to those
apartment communities that are right
there.
And I think it will be a very easy transition for them to
come a little bit farther west
and serve y'all's community as well.
And so with that, I'm going to be in favor of supporting
the SUP.
And I will call for a vote on the board.
That motion is going to pass or carry four to three.
It's approved.
I will move us to our item C.
Good luck with your project, gentlemen.
Give a couple minutes.
It's 8.05.
I'm going to call a recess.
And let's try to take about a 10-minute break.
And we'll come back.
And I will call us back into order at 8.24.
We are in our public hearing section.
And we are now on item C. This item is still open.
It was continued at our last meeting and left open.
So I'm not going to have to reopen this item.
And so at this time, I'm going to call on Julie Wyatt for
presentation.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton.
And I'm presenting Z1722 this evening, east side at Oakmont
.
The request before you is to consider an initial zoning for
the subject property of Neighborhood
Residential Mixed Use District.
It's approximately six acres.
And it's located on the east side of the future alignment
of 2499, about 1400 feet south of
Robinson Road.
The current zoning is RD5X, and I know you all are familiar
with RD5X.
That's our place holding zoning designation for when a
property is annexed into the city.
They are proposing on the bottom photo of NRMU.
So when we look at the Denton Plan 2030, this area is
designated as low density residential.
The intent of this is to encourage single family
development, one to four dwelling units
per acre, think suburban type development with individual
neighborhoods.
So when we analyzed the request against the Denton Plan,
the future land use, we determined
that the use does not technically conform to low density
residential in the future land
use.
So when that happens, we have to take a little extra
scrutiny of the site.
And additional criteria for approval are required in the
Denton Development Code.
Those include looking at the existing land use pattern,
creation of an isolated zoning
district, if there's adequate infrastructure that can be
provided, environmental impacts
in the character of the district.
So we'll kind of go over those as we go forward in the
presentation.
So I'm looking at access of the site, it is located
adjacent to the future extension of
FM 2499.
And I believe that's going to be opening in the next few
months.
This road is intended to connect Denton to DFW Airport.
And it will actually extend north of the site, will cross I
-35 and then head to points north.
So this is going to be a significant corridor within the
city of Denton and for the entire
region.
The subject property is located adjacent to this.
And it has 975 linear feet of frontage on this corridor.
So when we look at the request and we look at what the
existing zoning is, what the future
land use is, staff didn't feel that the property would
develop with a low density residential
use.
So really this isn't the type of site for that use.
And that commercial development given the access and the
visibility is probably appropriate
at this site.
And then here we'll look at a little more deeply at FM 2499
.
So here are the tech stop plans, the subject property is
here in green, it's that triangle.
There are noise walls that are planned for this road that
will impact the southern edge
of the subject property.
As I said, this is currently under construction.
It is intended to be a six lane divided roadway.
I know there was a question in the work session regarding
full access to the site, whether
they could have a left turn lane in and out of the site.
I spoke with engineering and they said that is something
because this is a text dot road,
that's something that the applicant would have to approach
text dot with and see if
that would be something that they would permit.
And then it would be at the expense of the applicant as to
whether or not they wanted
to punch through that median.
We also looked at the compatibility of the request with the
surrounding area.
So we'll just take a minute to look at what this
surrounding zoning and uses are.
So northwest of the subject property is a planned
development.
It includes single family uses.
There is a public utility that cuts across this PD and
actually is adjacent to that 2499
and actually cuts across that 2499 corridor.
There's some undeveloped commercial just south of the
subject property in that planned development.
Their concept plan set aside that land to be commercial
developed, to be developed in
a commercial way.
To the south there's a planned development that has a
single family uses and open space.
To the east is NR4 and that has single family development
and there is an open space lot
that is a slender lot that separates the subject property
from the adjacent residential.
And then there is a gas well facility to the north east of
the site and that is RD5X.
So when we looked at the request, and I should back up a
minute, when the applicant first
submitted the request, they came in requesting CMG, that is
our community mixed use general
zoning district.
That is one of our slightly more intense zoning districts
in terms of commercial uses in the
city of Denton.
Whereas NRMU is intended to be close to neighborhoods and
to provide some smaller scale commercial
development and mix of uses, CMG is the next step up.
It's more of the community mixed use.
It's below regional, but it's a step up.
We half looked at their request and we felt like it was too
intensive because it was so
close to residential.
It's kind of a compact area and we felt like it would be
just too close together.
It's got some intense commercial uses like vehicle repair,
things that could present
nuisances for those residential.
So we talked to the applicant and they said they agreed to
the NRMU because we felt like
that allowed the commercial development that is typically
appropriate on arterial streets,
but something that's a smaller scale, scales back the uses
a little bit to provide that
more compatible development pattern.
There's also FEMA flood zone on the subject property.
That's something that they will have to deal with and look
at as they move forward with
development.
I just want to caution you that this is just schematic on
this map.
It's not necessarily studied and this isn't based upon a
study, but just to let you know
that that's a factor once they do develop.
Public notification was sent out on the proposal.
I also want to bring up the initial proposal of CMG because
we initially sent out a notification
with the CMG.
I provided those responses that we got from those neighbors
in your back out because I
wanted you to have all of the information that we heard
from the community in terms
of the intensity of the use.
But this reflects, this map only reflects the responses
that we received for the NRMU,
the current request of the NRMU.
So we received five notices in opposition and that is five
percent of the adjoining
land area.
So based upon all of these factors, staff recommends
approval of their requests.
And although the request is technically inconsistent with
the future land use designation, we feel
it is consistent with the overall goals of the Denton Plan
2030 and that the proposal
does conform to their criteria for approval in the Denton
Development Code and I'll stand
for any questions.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Julie, whenever it comes to the trees that are being put on
the buffer that I was discussing
during work session, the bottom, that bottom, you know what
I'm talking about, the landscape
buffer down there, what are the guidelines in regards to
those trees being put in?
I mean, is it something where the developer has to put in
something that's actually large
and of scale so it actually is blocking something or is it
oh, just, you know, plant an oak,
it doesn't matter if it's a little sapling and it won't be
big enough to really block
any noise or light for, you know, five or ten years?
Sure.
Our code does require two-inch caliper trees to be planted
and to be irrigated and they
have to stay alive.
So there are, so they are smaller trees.
That helps them, you know, gives them a better chance at
actually growing.
So it's a two-inch caliper tree and then there are also shr
ubs that are associated with that
buffer and the trees also have to be a mixture of evergreen
and deciduous.
So we want to make sure that there's leafy coverage there.
Okay.
But it won't go away in the winter?
Most of it won't go away in the winter.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Hey, Julie, we talked in work session that pine hills will
be going through out to 2499.
Do we know if there's a road in the Wheeler Ridge subdiv
ision that also will be coming?
I don't.
But we can provide, we can pull those text-out plans and
get them to you.
But I don't know specifically if there are any.
Yeah, I'd be curious if one of those roads as well.
Okay.
Thanks.
I see no other questions for staff.
Thank you, Julie.
This is a public hearing.
I do have some cards on this item.
I have three so far.
I will call on Kay O'Keefe first to be followed by Renee Is
erman and then Chris Smolke are
the cards that I've got.
The applicant is here.
I'd call on the applicant first.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, commissioners, for your service.
I am one of the partners in the applicant group.
I wanted to just address a few things.
Give me your Greg Johnson 319 West Oak for the record.
Here in Denton, Texas.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Just a couple of things I think that merit clarification.
Obviously you guys are very familiar with RD5X.
So this property has to get zoned to be used.
The 2030 plan didn't contemplate 2499 coming through.
And so had it, I think it probably would have addressed
what should have been contemplated
in terms of commercial uses along 2499.
So just point of clarification.
Obviously staff has to point to the 2030 plan as it's
written.
But had it contemplated 2499, I'm guessing that the
commercial uses would have been shown
up and down there.
Second point of clarification is we did apply originally
for CMG.
That was upon recommendation of staff.
That staff member is no longer here.
So we got when Julie took over the project and started
working with us, we did have a
neighborhood meeting.
We had about 15 or 20 folks show up.
We heard what their concerns were in terms of use types in
the CMG.
Julie contacted us afterwards and said, you know, some of
these use types that they're
concerned about, I really agree with.
Our position was those use types would never go there
anyway.
And so we're fine.
We just have to be able to zone it for the kind of uses
that would go there.
Julie did put the map up showing the floodplain.
A couple things about the site.
Julie, I don't want to mess with your stuff, but is there
one of the site that kind of
shows the trees or just an aerial shot of it?
You can go to the one that had the flood on it.
Okay.
We'll use that.
So to orient you on the site, there's a really big -- this
line is kind of covering it.
But up against this residential on the south side, there's
a big stand of trees, probably
I would say 6 to 10 feet from their fence line, a lot of
big oak trees.
You can't build in that anyway in terms of -- because of
the setback.
So logically -- are you coming to save me, Jim?
That's perfect.
Thank you.
That doesn't count against my time.
You can really kind of see here the dark area along the
south side.
You can get a good feel for -- those are big trees.
In fact, the lady called us literally like three days after
we bought it, and one of
these fences was on her fence.
I mean, one of these trees was on her fence, so I owned it
for three days and got to go
fix it.
There's big, big trees along that southern border.
The reason I'm bringing that up is on this site, if you can
come back to the main screen
instead of that one, Billy.
On this site, the floodplain actually -- this is pretty
close, but the floodplain is actually
more like up here.
So while this is six acres, really the only place you could
logically build anything is
right here, because the topography falls off dramatically
at about this point right here.
It falls off about 20 feet into a drainage system that Tech
Stat put in right here when
they built the road.
So there's a TechStat culvert, and this almost looks like a
bridge when you're crossing it.
There's a wall right here.
And this is about a 20, 25-foot drop-off down the center of
this property, and it drains
back here into this drainage system.
So really the one part of this site you can really use is
right here.
So what goes there?
It's mid-block.
There's no traffic signal.
It's not retail.
So NRMU was fine with us, because what would go there if
you look at this today, it's going
to look like Teasley is what 2499 looked like.
And so if we could go look at this exhibit -- if you can
zoom out a little bit, Billy.
That's my wedding ring right there.
You see it, honey?
I'm sure she's watching.
If you look at this -- here is Teasley.
So CMG, CMG, CMG, CMG, NRMU, NRMU, NRMU, right?
You guys have been up and down Teasley.
You know what it looks like.
You've got offices, and the public library is a large
building with houses sitting right
behind it.
2499 is going to be built just like Teasley.
Six lanes divided with a median.
So this is a logical use for there.
Nobody's going to build a house on it.
We need to bring this property into use, an office, medical
office, doctor's office, vet
clinic, something like that is what makes sense.
Like I said, two-thirds of the site is not usable because
it's in the floodplain.
So you've got tons of trees that will remain.
There's about a -- there's that big piece that Julie
referenced behind it separating
the houses to the east.
It's actually owned by the city, I believe.
It's a utility easement.
So there's a ton of separation between the usable area of
this site and where there's
actually houses.
So I won't use my 20 minutes.
I would just say that this requested zoning is consistent
with what you see up and down
this corridor.
It's a logical use.
I understand some of the opposition.
I think you'd find the opposition backs up to the site, and
I totally get it.
If I had a free view of something for a long time, I really
wouldn't want anybody building
anything back there either.
So I don't make anybody wrong for opposing something being
built behind them.
It's just the property needs to be used at this point.
So we would appreciate your support.
Got several questions for you.
Commissioner Rosell.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Price.
The majority of the oppositions we received were from Pan
ina Trail and Palmetto Court,
the two streets here.
But it seemed like through what you were saying from the
east side, which is that Panina Trail,
there's a significant portion that wouldn't be able to be
developed because of that flood
plain?
Well, so we only own where this yellow line is.
Here's the back of their houses right here.
So this is actually a big utility easement that runs
through here that I believe is owned
by the city.
So nothing can be built in there.
And then secondly, you jump all the way over to here.
I mean, I don't know how many feet that is, but so here's
somebody's house in their entire
lot.
So you're talking one, two, two and a half, three times the
size of their entire lot before
you get to usable property.
So and there's a ton of trees back here in this back part
of this flood plain, which
you can't build in.
So there should be significant screening there, noise
barriers.
And then the other piece of it is when somebody's at an
office working is when people are gone
from their homes and when people come home from work, the
offices are vacant.
So it should be a pretty compatible use and plenty of
screening there.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Okay.
So my concern, of course, is that this is just right there
in all this density of single
family houses.
Have you considered an overlay on this being that it's a
zoning change, we can't tie it
to any kind of development or anything that you're saying
that it might be tonight.
Have you considered eliminating certain uses, creating an
overlay with this zoning change?
Nobody has brought that up to us.
I mean, so when I look at the site, if I look at the allow
able uses in NRMU and I look at
roughly 1.9 to 2 acres that's usable, I don't really know
what else would go there.
So the staff didn't ask us for one or nobody asked.
I mean, the concerns from the citizens that we heard were
automotive repair, the stuff
that's allowed in CMG, or really tall buildings that can
see down into my yard over the trees
and those things.
So with going from CMG to NRMU, I don't really know what
else there would be that anybody
would be concerned about.
Well, I mean, it could be concerned with height.
It's possible.
I mean, I think we're at, what, 65 feet with NRMU?
Within NRMU?
I think so.
I don't know what goes there that's 65 feet, meaning just
with the area, the buildable
area that you have, so.
Were you at the community meeting?
Yeah.
Okay.
Did you, were you able to address citizens' concerns,
residents' concerns?
Well, we answered all the questions that people had.
Was that during the CMG discussion?
That was during the CMG discussion.
So you didn't have another one with the NRMU then?
No.
Staff just came back to us and said that based on the
concerns that we heard, if you'd switched
to NRMU, I think that would address the concerns, are you
willing to switch to NRMU?
Because what we think really goes here, I mean, we don't
know, right?
We don't have a user yet, but what we think really goes
here is mid-block, no light, right
in, right out access, and it's a pretty small parcel.
So if you just look up and down Teasley, what's up and down
Teasley, it's logical to understand
that's what's going to happen over here, just because you
're pretty limited on your
buildable area.
So in other words, could you build 65 feet in NRMU?
I guess you could.
I've never seen anybody do it.
Okay.
Because it just doesn't.
But it can be done.
It doesn't pencil.
Won't be by me.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Greg, I think I was the one that raised the concern about
what citizens around that area
are concerned about, about what's going to be built there.
So bringing up the overlay district, I don't think would
hurt either side.
You're right, there's certain things that can't be built
there, and it would convey
a sense of security for the people who are concerned what
can be built there.
I mean, a hotel can be built there, obviously.
I don't think there's room for that.
The only other negative thing I see that would be allowed
in an NRMU that people might object
to is the semi-public halls, clubs, and lodges.
So by putting an overlay district there and allowing things
like a laundromat or doctor's
offices, things like that, I think would give some
assurance to the people there that what's
going to be built there is going to be amenable to the area
they live in.
And I know you were comparing Teasley to, or 2499 to Teas
ley, but I believe Teasley
was there long before anything was.
So they zoned accordingly around Teasley where these things
, this area was already zoned
and we're building a road through it, so just to make a
point.
But again, the overlay thing, would you be totally opposed
to that?
No.
Again, if somebody wants to propose something and say, "
Would this cause you any heartburn?"
I certainly can respond to that.
But I will correct your comment about Teasley was already
built and all that stuff was there
when the neighborhoods were built.
It actually didn't happen that way.
So you have office buildings on Teasley and properties on
Teasley's own CMG and NRMU after
all the residential was there.
I remember driving down, biking down Teasley in the 70s
when there was nothing but open
fields.
So...
I don't know, the road was there, but I'm really talking
about when the commercial...
The zoning that came in, commercial, whatever CMG accommod
ated that.
But now we've got something that's already zoned and we
built a road through it.
So I'm just saying it's not a fair comparison, but it's not
our...
Yeah, I think, well, with all due respect, I think what we
're trying to talk about here
is can you... does it make sense to put NRMU zoning on a
road frontage when there's houses
behind it?
I think that's really the question.
And all I'm trying to respectfully say is that is what
happened on Teasley.
So if we...
So...
I guess here's the question.
But if there's a question about a certain overlay, again,
no one's asked us.
We're open.
I mean, if you're worried about a hotel, done.
Nightclub, done.
Or not done.
Because it's not...
Meaning, if you want to put that in overlay, we're fine.
So if we approve this with that condition, you'd be okay
with that?
With no hotel and no...
With the overlay that would specify what could and couldn't
be built there.
Well, I just want you to tell me what that is before I say
I agree.
Well, really, I only see a couple of things on here that
would probably upset citizens.
We would have no problem if you said we want an overlay
that says no nightclubs, no bars,
no hotels.
Well, they're not allowed anyway.
And I don't see them being allowed in here permitted.
Oh, I thought that's what I heard you say.
I'm sorry.
Well, there was this semi-public halls, clubs, and lodges
which could be perceived as that.
And it may be, I don't know.
But as far as just a rank bar or something like that, I don
't think they'd be allowed.
But anyway, what we're looking at is what's allowed in here
that's not intense, low key,
you know, and amenable to the neighborhood.
Sure.
Yeah.
And what we're looking for is to be treated just like
everybody else is, on a similar
tract, on a similar road, with similar neighborhood behind
it.
The city built a very large public library with houses
right behind it.
We just saying, you know, we just want to be treated the
same.
And this property is pretty unique in that it has a huge
floodplain area in the back and
an additional buffer behind that.
So quite a bit of distance between the houses and where you
can build a building.
And I guess I was educated and I had some staff correct me
if I'm wrong.
But the fact that it's a floodplain and it can't be built
in, aren't there ways you can
work around that?
How are we working through any floodplain?
Don't you, like an alternate ESA, isn't there something you
can to work through these floodplains?
I don't know if this is for me, but I know that you can do
reclamation, which is very
expensive.
Right.
Okay.
So you can't build there, but if you did, it'd be pretty
expensive.
That's probably something you don't see happening.
The answer is you can't build in floodplains.
So you just can't.
Okay.
That's what I was saying.
Reclamation is just...
You would build it up so that it's no longer in the flood
plain.
Okay.
But not actually in the floodplain.
Right.
Okay.
All right.
Great.
Thanks.
Floodway versus floodplain would be the difference.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Thank you, Chair.
My concerns would be, as you've already addressed, on the
east side, you've got the floodplain.
You've got plenty of easement between the homes that were
there before you bought your
property.
And so that's okay.
To the west, you've got $24.99.
So that's what's going in.
The biggest concern, though, is on the south side, we've
got those homes that have been
there for a while, and I think there's a community pool at
the end of that circle.
And so I guess my concern is what kind of an easement is
going to be between those lines
of homes and access to the pool area that is going to get
it far enough away from them
that it's not going to intrude on what they've been living
with for the past five or six
or ten years or whatever.
Sure.
And so just like any similar property where you have a
commercial use next to a neighborhood,
which is very typical with office uses, et cetera, the city
has a guideline in place
for that.
So you've got a true setback, and then you've got a
building setback, and you've got landscape
requirements and buffer requirements and either a
separation fence or an alternative landscape
buffer where you can do more landscaping in lieu of the
fence.
And so when it comes time for somebody to build on this,
whether it's a doctor or a
dentist or whoever, they're going to have to follow all
those criteria and meet the
city's requirement for the separation.
And so that's why NRMU probably does make sense, which is
its neighborhood residential
makes use.
It's the purpose of the zoning is to have it up against
neighborhoods, and then so they've
got all those requirements in there in terms of the per
vious area, landscape requirements,
et cetera.
But when you held your public meeting, it was based on the
other zoning and not this
zoning.
It was based on CMG, which allows a lot of the same uses,
but also allows a lot more
intense uses.
Exactly.
And that's what I'm saying.
And I'm just wondering if you were to go back to the
neighborhood and say, "Okay, here's
what we've revised, going to a different NRMU zoning, and
here's what the possibilities
are."
I just wonder, would that alleviate some of their concerns?
I mean, obviously I don't know, and you don't know, but I'm
just wondering if that is a
possibility of going back and rather than having -- because
actually I count eight,
I think, negative responses and not what we have here.
But so it seems like there are a lot of -- there are no
positives at all and negatives with
the old zoning.
So I'm just wondering, would that -- would you be opposed
to having a public meeting,
another meeting, with the new zoning and talk to them about
what the possibilities are?
Sure.
So when we re-noticed everyone with NRMU, I did receive
some phone calls from some of
the folks.
My information was provided.
Anyone that wanted to call me could call me, answer any
questions that they may have.
We talked in the public meeting about, here's what likely
goes here.
I mean, in the neighborhood meeting, sorry.
Here's what likely goes here.
I mean, I'm in the business, been in business a long time.
I sell property like this.
There's just certain uses that won't go because of the
nature of where it sits and the access
and so on.
So I mean, do I want to delay this even longer?
We've been at it a while.
Do I want to delay it longer and do another public meeting?
Frankly, I don't know that you get a different result
because I'm not so sure that all these
people are opposed to a doctor's office or whatever, you
know, the logical use that will
go here.
I get it.
They don't want anything to be built behind them.
It's a great view.
It's free.
I mean, I think if you were to say a doctor, I mean, heck,
most of them might be patients,
but you know, I'm not sure how quick that area is going to
be built out because 2499
is still waiting to open up.
But the point is, once it is built out, then you're going
to have limited access to and
from, you know, say the neighborhoods behind you, when they
come out under Robinson and
come over and turn, they're not going to be able to go
south and turn in.
They have to go on further down somewhere, make a U-turn
and come in.
So that's not going to be convenient.
So I'm just wondering how much in and out traffic is, you
know, what kind of a business
would want that limited traffic?
Right.
And that's the point I'm making is what uses would go there
, retail won't go there.
The access is bad for retail.
The visibility, it's not on the corner.
There's not a traffic signal.
And so what we think logically ends up going here is some
sort of an office use.
And that's pretty much, if you look at the map I showed, if
you just drive up and down
Teasley, what goes on these kind of sites, office buildings
?
So you know, we don't really have a whole lot of options on
access.
The wall that TexDOT built because of the drainage system
they put right through the
middle of our property, there's going to be a place for a
curb cut somewhere right down
here and that's going to be it.
Because you can't, you know, it wouldn't make sense for
anybody to build a bridge across
flood plain to have a curb cut over here.
So you know, most logically you have to have the, meet the
distance requirement from Pine
Hills and have a right in, right out because there's a
median that runs from Pine Hills
all the way up here.
There's no separation.
So who would go on a one way right in, right out access?
Not retail, not car servicing, not you know, those things
in CMG.
It's likely going to be an office use.
Thank you.
See any other questions?
Thank you.
This is a public hearing and I do have three cards.
Kay O'Keefe?
Do you not want to speak?
Okay.
You're correct.
I'm sorry, I see a yellow card.
I got a lot up here.
You're in opposition.
I'll just read this into the record.
Kay O'Keefe, 3711.
Palmetto Court, in opposition.
I have another card.
Renee Iserman does not wish to speak.
Okay.
You're welcome to change your mind.
Please come forward and state your name and address.
My name is Renee Iserman.
Renee Iserman, 3901 Luck Hole Drive, Dent, Texas.
We discussed Pinnatrell and I understand that there is,
they're not going to be building
on that.
The biggest concern is that Palmetto Court.
If you look at that, there are houses that are backed up to
that yellow line.
And it's the land that we're looking at is a known flood
zone.
And where you see the pool right off of Palmetto, right
next to that is a large strip of land
that's deep.
It's never flooded.
However, in the small area that they're proposing to build
on this lot, it backs right up to
the houses.
And it's going to be closer to the houses than not.
Is there going to be an engineering study for flooding
before they even start to build?
Is that a requirement of the city?
They'll have to go through a full civil process on this.
That's not before us tonight.
We're just looking at the zoning.
But that's, see, that's a big, that's a concern.
I don't think people mind there being something there.
We don't know what's going to be there.
And we don't know what effect it's going to have on these
houses at Palmetto Court.
Okay.
Well, that will all be addressed when this comes back
before us for, before it could
be final platted.
Okay.
They would have to have a full set of engineering and civil
study and city staff would have
to review all of that.
Okay.
And make sure that it meets all the city requirements for
development.
So tonight you could possibly approve it.
However, what's the next step before we see that it's gone
through the engineering study?
Is that after city council or?
So we're just looking at zoning tonight.
And then the next step for a developer, if they find a user
, is to do what's called a
preliminary plat or a site plan.
Okay.
And then bring that back before us and then a final plat
and those go through all types
of reviews with city staff before they come forward.
Yeah, I think there needs to be some assurances to the
neighbors because we've been here for
over 15 years.
Sure.
And never had a problem.
And anytime something new comes in, I know that 2499 has
done their studies.
However, their studies didn't include a change in zoning
either.
Sure.
So that's our concern.
Okay.
Well, thank you for bringing those to our attention.
Question?
Commissioner Beck.
Ms. Isherman.
Yes, sir.
I have a question for you, please.
First off, thanks for coming down and speaking.
We always appreciate public input.
Thank you.
So thank you for taking the time.
Were you listening a while ago when I was talking to Greg
Johnson about approving this
zoning change but with an overlay district that would allow
us to control to a certain
degree the things that go in there, things that would be
amenable to backing up to your
house like a doctor's office, something that runs 8 to 5,
maybe Monday through Friday.
Right.
And to be real honest with you, I did understand that I did
hear the overlay but I just didn't
understand what that meant.
Okay.
So you didn't understand that it would be with controls?
Right.
There are certain things that are permitted within the NRMU
.
Some of them may not be to your liking, like a hotel,
especially a big one, but a laundry
mat would, you know, if it worked within certain hours,
that wouldn't be disrupted.
That's kind of a quiet thing.
Okay.
And the other thing is what kind of a buffer other than the
trees would be there against
-- you know, that's another thing that we need to work on
as far as that goes because
there needs to be a buffer there.
I'll let staff answer that.
I think though that there will be -- there will probably be
some kind of wall.
I call on Julie to answer your question.
She can give you some specific information.
Single family development adjacent to commercial requires a
type C buffer, which is a 15 foot
buffer.
Planted with six evergreen and deciduous trees and 25 shr
ubs per 100 linear feet.
We don't require fencing in the city of Denver.
Okay.
So it would be landscaping, not a wall or anything.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Easterman.
I have one more card.
Chris Mulkey does not wish to speak.
He's on 6200 Pinien Trail and he is in opposition.
I don't know that I have -- I have some other -- I think
these are duplicates.
I have one other -- just a letter in response to the notice
sent out from Joyce George at
6509 Alder Brook Drive as opposed to the request.
It would be Jacob Piot, 3715 Palmetto Court as opposed.
A's, can't make out the handwriting on the last name, and
Roger at 6404 Pinien Trail
as opposed.
P, Baria, I think Maeve already sent in.
6212 Pinien Trail as opposed.
Those are all the comment cards or responses that we
receive.
This is a public hearing.
If there's someone else who'd like to speak, please come
forward and give us your name
and address and then we've got your card.
Awesome.
Steven Shannon, 319 West Oak here in Denton, Texas.
I'm also one of the owners of the property.
On those oppositions, I noticed you read the CMG ones as
well.
The only thing that's before you is the NRMU.
So I think it's -- while we want to be transparent, there's
only five neighbors that are in opposition.
Well, it doesn't say this was just -- It should say it at
the top.
It says REX -- REX, RNMU, and then CMG as well.
Let me double check that they're all that way, NRMU, NRMU,
NRMU.
So these are current.
Okay, good.
I received a package from the CMG.
They were brought to us right before a meeting, so that's
the last count that we have.
Great.
Much like Greg has already told you, we feel like the -- we
came in and asked based on
first staff recommendation for CMG zoning and after our
neighborhood meeting and meeting
with neighbors, reduced that density down to NRMU to help
alleviate some of their concerns.
One of the great things about our city is that we have
straight zoning.
And so that each thing that we have zoned, it's got a set
of rules that we've got to
follow.
And so there are setback requirements.
All the things that Julie just mentioned govern what we can
do.
I understand that there's concerns, as I've heard you talk
about, what are we going to
do from an engineering standpoint?
What are we going to do from a floodplain standpoint?
I mean, all of those things are contemplated as we go to
development.
And I've been through that process with the city, and it's
an exhaustive process, which
is great.
And so we feel comfortable with what the city's asked us to
do to build here.
And we know that will govern this property, regardless of
how it gets zoned, those rules
are still in place.
We feel that NRMU is appropriate for what's in the area.
You look at Teasley, you've got NRMU and even more dense CM
G backing up to residential neighborhoods.
So to kind of say this property wouldn't qualify is a
little bit beyond me when you're allowing
that use in numerous other places right next to us.
The buffer, somebody asked earlier, it's over 200 feet from
that back fence outside of the
floodplain going from east to west.
So that's a very wide swath of trees and green space.
We do want to be, we live here as well, we want to be
neighborly.
And so we understand the concerns.
We want to build things that last beyond us and that we can
be proud of in our community.
So we do want to be sensitive to the neighborhoods, but we
also want to utilize the property to
its best use.
So thank you.
>> Thank you.
Do you have a question for me?
Commissioner Beck?
>> Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Shannon, for your presentation.
And it's become clear from what you said and what Greg
Johnson has said that really there's
not a lot you can build on this thing.
And it seems the bulk of the concern for the citizens, and
I know there's only five, but
they are the five that back up to this property and
naturally they would be more concerned,
but is what is going to be built there.
So again, I would submit to you, would you have a problem
if we approved this with conditions
and the condition being an overlay that would control to
some degree what you're going to
build there.
I don't think you're going to build a hotel there.
There's no room for it.
And there's maybe one or two other items on here that might
be a concern to neighbors
on there that you probably wouldn't build.
But an office complex for a doctor or a small laundromat's
allowed, I don't know if that
would be built.
But something quiet and not too intense, would you be
opposed to that?
>> As long as I don't have to arm Russell and Greg, I'm
good.
No, we get it.
As long as you tell us what you're asking for us from the
overlay and we understand
what you're asking.
>> Right, and we would want you to be able to build
something to be successful too.
At the same time, we have to weigh this between you and me.
>> I don't think anything that I think we're pretty
reasonable folks.
As long as you're being reasonable, then I don't think we
have a problem at all.
>> Reasonable is the way we want to go.
All right.
Thank you, sir.
>> Commissioner Back, do you have some things that you'd
like to propose to give the applicant
a chance to consider those while we work through this list?
>> Again, the only thing that I can see that would be
permitted under NMRU that anybody
would be opposed to is the hotel.
They won't even allow motels.
And the semi-public halls, clubs and lodges, adult and
child care and daycare, kindergarten,
they're all allowed.
I don't know that citizens would be opposed to those kind
of things.
I don't know that you've got the room to build it though.
>> I don't think that use would comply with it.
>> Bars and restaurants are allowed, so that overlay would
prevent those kind of things
from being put in.
>> So you'd prevent a restaurant from going there?
>> Well, are you going to have the room?
What do you got there?
>> Well, I think that's pretty -- I mean, part of it I'll
look at and I'll say we do
have straight zoning for a reason.
I want to be reasonable about it, but if you just go
through and take everything out of
it, then we just chuck --
>> I don't want to do that either.
I don't want to convey that sense to you.
I think we can look at that.
>> I think what you did ask originally and you've been
saying consistently is hotels
and the lodges.
>> Yeah, bars and --
>> Bars and lodges.
>> Yeah.
>> We're good with an overlay restricting those uses.
>> Okay.
>> Is that reasonable?
>> That sounds good to me unless any of the citizens that
are here that oppose this see
anything else.
If they have a problem with that, I'd appreciate they'd
come back and speak or I could ask
them to come back up.
>> Okay.
Pardon me?
Yeah, I don't -- yeah, quick vehicle service, which is --
>> It's restricted by an SEP anyway.
>> Right, right.
Okay.
That's all I have then.
Thank you, sir.
>> Okay.
>> Yep.
>> Did I get that?
>> Yep.
I just want to get them updated to get some -- what you
actually were considering, some
facts.
Commissioner Sanchez.
I just wanted to mention that I think what you've talked
about and I think what you've
been very reasonable on this piece of property and what you
want to build and what you've
said.
And as I was looking at some of these -- what do you call
it?
Opposition.
And I think sometimes we look at them and say you have five
oppositions or ten oppositions,
but then you read them and it says we don't want -- you're
taking our trees.
We need to be reasonable on when we talk about what kind of
opposition you're getting on
these notices.
Because I think you've done a diligent work that you've met
with the people.
You've changed the zoning to be more reasonable.
And so I think we also have to be reasonable.
And when we look at this, you know, so you're going to cut
some trees.
You know, we may not like it, but you know, you have a
business and just cutting trees
is not really affecting anybody.
I guess I just don't want to impose so many restrictions on
you that pretty soon people
want to stop building.
We have to be reasonable.
And as people -- we have to understand that people are
trying to make a living or building,
making -- you know, making -- trying to develop their
properties.
And based on what the city restrictions, there's a lot of
restrictions.
It's not just, you know, if you're used to looking at
people in a vacant lot and that's
what you want to continue doing.
It's hard -- we can't continue putting restrictions on you
just because somebody wants to keep
looking at trees.
And I don't know if I'm coming from the right place, but
that's the way I look at it.
Okay.
This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item?
Please come forward and give us your name, address at this
time.
My name is Chris Mulkey.
I live at 6200 Panina.
It's the northmost property touching the top right corner
of the triangle there.
My primary concern is not the use.
I don't really have a problem with what could be built
there with this zoning.
My primary concern is how it will affect the floodplain.
I know he's not going -- they are not going to build in the
floodplain.
However, if they do pave a large portion of that parking or
for just a structure, the
more that's covered, there's less saturation there and more
runoff and that could affect
myself and everyone else that backs up this property.
That is my primary concern.
Thank you for sharing your concern with us.
This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item?
Please come forward at this time.
Please give us your name and address.
Hi, my name is Linda Torres and I live at 6512 Pine Hills.
Thank you.
I am concerned about the trees.
We've lived there over 10 years and it's a green belt.
And not only the pool, but there's also a children's
playground right beside the pool.
And I just -- all my neighbors were against it.
I know that on the map it looks like that water area is a
lake, but really it's kind
of small and narrow.
And that water gets really high because I live right next
to the bridge and it gets
very high.
And like the last gentleman said, something else is put in
there and it could just make
it worse.
I don't know what else to say.
We don't really want any more concrete.
And there are so many doctor's offices in Unicorn Lake
right now that's going up.
I don't think we need any more.
But anyway, I've never done this before, but I'm kind of
doing it for my neighbors.
Thank you.
Thank you for coming tonight and sharing your comments.
This is a public hearing.
It's still open.
Anyone else who would like to come before us and speak,
please do so.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Beck.
I move that we approve subject to conditions with an
overlay that will allow us to control
what is built there within reason.
Define the overlay.
Okay, help me here.
Define the overlay.
Well, I think you listed to help, there were three things
that you asked the applicant
to restrict the property from.
Right.
Bars, semi-public halls, clubs, lodges, and hotels.
Okay.
Everything else that I see on here, I don't see as
disruptive.
I live in an area where I'm right next to an NRMU itself
and we've got a grocery store
and a laundry.
So I don't think with those kind of commercial enterprises,
it will be that disruptive.
I think as staff has pointed out, because we've got this
major thoroughfare going through
there, you're not going to get anything else built there.
It's just not the suitable for more single family
residential.
I think legal clarification, just to make sure we get it
clear on the record.
Okay.
Yeah.
And of course, you meant no conditions.
We're not doing conditional zoning.
We are putting a mixed use overlay.
Yes.
We're switching it to NRMU with a mixed use overlay.
And in the overlay, you're removing certain uses from the
zoning classification.
Right.
And those uses are?
Hotels.
Semi-public halls, clubs, lodges, and bars.
Okay.
You want to remove hotels, but do you want to remove bed
and breakfasts?
Nope.
Okay.
And what about quick vehicle servicing?
You had mentioned that.
You had mentioned quick vehicle servicing.
Yes.
I would include that.
Okay.
So hotel.
Well, this would prohibit you from even going forward on an
SUP.
Quick service, you're right.
It is an SUP.
So yeah, disregard that then.
Okay.
We just remove it from the ability for you to get an SUP.
Yeah.
Now, subtract the quick service.
There's an SUP, and we can deal with that as it comes up.
So hotels, semi-public halls, clubs, and lodges, and bars.
And bars.
Is that good?
That's it.
Okay.
We'll restate it and make sure that you guys have an
opportunity to respond to that.
So just so the Chair understands, were there three items?
Yes.
Hotels?
Well, there's -- Bars?
One is a combination of three, semi-public halls, clubs,
lodges.
So you could say there's five, I guess, all told.
Give staff to submit to make sure we get this correct.
Okay.
From our list, under the commercial land use, we've got
hotels.
That's permitted, that would be in the overlay as a no.
I'm sorry, say it again, Richard.
Hotels?
Right.
Going through the -- under the commercial land use category
.
Right.
Hotels would go from P to N?
Right.
Rest -- I'm sorry.
Bar would go from L11 --
To N.
Right.
It's an L11, is that an SUP?
And what L11 does is it's a restriction of 100 seats and 4,
000 square feet of restaurant
area.
So there's already a limitation.
Well, yeah, not restaurant, just bar.
Just bar.
Right.
And then the other was --
Under institutional land uses on the next page.
Institutional --
You forgot the private club.
About five down, semi-public halls.
Okay, private club.
Clubs and lodges.
And then under institutional -- okay.
Okay.
That's it.
So there's four.
Okay.
Just a minute.
So we have five items in?
Yes.
Four.
Four?
Okay.
Four items.
No.
Wait, we've got the three and then the bar and the hotel,
that's five.
Bar, hotel, semi --
We've got semi-public --
Private clubs and private clubs.
We count that as one.
Okay.
Then we have three.
It's different, yeah.
We've got that, hotels and bars.
And private club.
They're separate.
There's a club and there's a private club.
One's under commercial.
I didn't mention that.
Private club.
Do you have a definition for what you meant?
Pardon me?
It's in our DIT and development code.
Right.
We've got permitted access here.
These are things under NMRU that are permitted that we want
to not permit.
Okay.
I don't have any other items I want to add.
Are the ones okay?
Are you saying there's some --
Okay.
Call on the applicant just to respond to the conditions and
make sure they have -- if they
have any concerns about those, we'll try to get this
resolved.
Sure.
It feels kind of like we're creating a new zoning district
here at the dais.
I would like to have clarification.
For example, my understanding from talking to Julie on semi
-public halls and gatherings
are nonprofit.
It would be specific to nonprofit, meaning it couldn't be a
for-profit gathering place.
Also in the head, I think about we're pretty charitable
people, the Children's Advocacy
Center, they do counseling for families.
That's nonprofit.
All I'm trying to say here is we have straight zoning for a
reason, and I can appreciate
trying to eliminate everything that might upset somebody.
My fear is that here, trying not to get delayed any further
in this process, that we agree
to something that I'm a little bit confused still about
what's being asked, trying to
get it done and then have an unintended consequence like we
can't build a facility for counseling
for families or children or gathering space or the Knights
of Columbus or -- there's a
million good organizations that sometimes need a building
or a place to go.
I'm a little nervous about these -- I heard hotels and bars
.
Well, I'm fine.
No one will go there.
We're not into bars.
We wouldn't put one there.
It wouldn't go there anyway.
But now we're adding things.
And so it just seemed like we kept adding to the list, and
I don't want an unintended
consequence.
We want to be neighborly and we want to be helpful and amen
able, but it feels like we're
kind of designing on the fly and that -- I just don't want
an unintended consequence.
So --
Greg, I think you've got a commissioner that will be
reasonable with you.
If it comes back in, we're looking at that, and it looks
like it's going to be a routing
organization.
I'd probably say no, but if you're talking about VA,
veteran four or something like that
on a low-key level, I don't think there's going to be any
objection on that.
Larry, what I think you're asking as far as to eliminate
that as a possible use, which
means they couldn't come back.
That's true.
Right?
And so there's a lot of limitations in here.
If you look at the zoning ordinance, a lot of the things
you mentioned, there's limitations
that they have to point to.
Let me suggest --
And some of the things have SUPs.
So they'd have to -- before something got built in, they'd
have to come back.
Well, let me suggest it then, right.
I don't want to eliminate it completely, so what if we made
that particular one with an
SUP?
Let's just keep it simple, and let's try to -- if you don't
mind, have a friendly amendment.
Let's take the hotels and the bars.
Okay.
And was there -- I think there was one other one that was a
major concern for you, and
there were three.
Hotel, bar, is there anything else?
No, it was the semi-public halls, clubs, and lodges.
That was --
It's a semi-public, the one that's a charitable?
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
And I agree with Greg.
There's probably -- we shouldn't shut that out completely,
so I would suggest --
Just do the two then?
Hotel and bar?
We can't make an SUP with the --
Come on, Larry.
Come on.
Why?
We can't.
Why?
I'm sorry, for the record, are you amenable to that
friendly amendment?
Just doing the hotels and the bars?
Yes, I am.
Okay.
Do we have a motion?
We have a motion on the floor to approve with the overlay
restricting it from hotels and
bars.
I'm sorry, can I have -- do I have anything to speak?
I'll just get the motion on the floor, and then we can
certainly call if we're going
to do some additional discussion.
Commissioner Roselle.
The chair is closed.
Yeah.
I just, I guess, want to be clear.
The motion is to approve the rezoning with a mixed-use
overlay changing hotels to not
permitted and bars to not permitted.
Is that what's on the table right now?
Seems to be.
And is the applicant okay with those two conditions?
I appreciate the clarification.
Okay.
Do we have a first and a second for approval with the two
conditions of an overlay?
I never spoke the second.
Huh?
I never spoke the second.
Well, I missed you as a seconder.
I had Commissioner Roselle on there, so I apologize.
Do we have a --
I second.
It's laid.
It's laid, and we're going around the tree here.
So we have a first and a second clarification.
Is there going to be some other discussion or comments?
And I think there was a question.
I'd be happy to entertain your question, ma'am.
Thank you.
The question is, what do you constitute as a bar?
If you have a restaurant that has a bar in it, does that
mean that they can't -- that
that's not allowed?
Is that part of the overlay or --
Well, a bar, I think our definition requires a certain
percentage of receipts to come from
alcohol.
But under the L11, it includes that.
L11 states limited to sit down -- again, this is the
restriction on bar as well, L11, limited
to sit down only and no drive-up service permitted, limited
to no more than 100 seats and no more
than 4,000 square feet of restaurant area.
So it would be pretty small.
Yeah, well, yeah, right.
It would be, yeah.
And the other question, I think that what we were
discussing with the overlay was possibly
business being doctor's office or whatever, like from 9 to
5, whereas a restaurant would
go into like 12, 1 o'clock, whatever.
That's something to look at.
That's my concern.
Okay.
I think -- does the restaurant have to come back before us
for SUP or not?
It does not.
It's limited to 4,000 square feet.
Okay.
Matter of right.
Okay.
A drive-through, if it were to be a fast food with a drive-
through, that would come to you
as an SUP.
Okay.
We're trying to find hopefully a good balance here between
all parties.
So thank you for your comments.
We have a first and a second.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board.
A vote yes is for approval.
The motion is going to carry 7 to 0.
Thank you and good luck with your project.
We'll move us to item D. We'll open the public hearing for
PDA 17-0006 and call on Julie
Wyatt for presentation.
Sorry.
I was thinking.
This might get interesting.
I should quit touching it.
That's generally the best course of action.
All right.
Here we go.
All right.
This is PDA 7-6, CARMACS.
The request before you is to consider approval of a detail
plan for Plan Development 12 to
depict a newer used car sales lot on approximately seven
acres out of a 34-acre tract.
And just on this first slide, I want to point out a
discussion we had in work session where
this property, the 34-acre tract is this entire yellow
outlined area.
However, the development is only contemplated for an area,
and this might even be a little
large.
It's just for this area right here.
So at this point, development is not contemplated for this
portion of the property or this portion
of the property.
It's just this site.
So I wanted to make that clear.
So the property is adjacent to I-35 and it is southeast of
State School Road.
For the Denton Plan 2030, it is in a regional mixed use
area.
These are areas that are destinations, commercial
destinations, and they're often found along
our I-35 corridors.
The proposed use does meet the future land use designation.
All right.
Just a little bit of background.
I'll go quick.
This isn't a plan development.
We currently in our Denton Development Code do not have
plan developments as a possible
use, but we do have some left over from our 1991 code, and
this is one of them.
Our plan developments in the City of Denton were two-step
processes.
First, the concept plan, which outlined the uses and the
project boundaries and where
those uses would go and design standards.
And then detail plans were intended to get more information
on where the buildings would
go, where the parking areas would go, almost a site plan
approval for these commercial
developments.
And that's what we're here for today.
The use is permitted under the plan development.
That was set out in the concept plan approved in 1987.
The use under 1991 code was newer use car sales lot in open
.
So it is permitted.
So the use really isn't in discussion.
It's just how it's put together on the lot.
The 1991 code outlines the criteria for approval, and what
it does, it wants to make sure that
the request conforms to the concept plan, that the
arrangement of the buildings would
not adversely affect the adjoining properties outside of
the PD, that there would be adequate
circulation for traffic, and that would be in substantial
compliance with the city regulations.
And staff has reviewed their proposal and has determined
that it does meet these requirements.
So just to go over those briefly, so first we looked at the
concept plan, is the use
permitted?
And this is a map that was pulled from that PD.
This is approximately the location of the subject property.
There's not dimensions on this.
So but this is the approximate location.
And this was in commercial shopping.
That was what the CS stood for.
And that did permit this use.
And then we looked at their site plan that they proposed
along with their narrative.
So they're proposing a 7,400 square foot building
constructed with masonry, one driveway
connection to I-35, the frontage road.
The sales staging area would be located behind a 6 foot m
asonry wall.
The display for cars would be in this location.
And then the customer employee parking would be in this
location.
They would have to meet all requirements regarding lighting
and glare.
And then they also talked in their narrative that they want
to, that they would cite the
public address speakers in such a way to minimize impacts
to adjacent properties.
The landscape plan depicts trees along I-35 as well as a
hedgerow.
They also are proposing trees planted throughout the site,
particularly on the buffer or on
the perimeter areas.
Landscape islands to direct traffic appropriately and then
with trees located in those areas.
Public notification was sent out.
We've received three in opposition and then two in favor.
So based upon the request compatibility with the
surrounding property, we feel it's consistent
with the Denton Plan 2030 and it also meets criteria for
approval for a detailed plan.
And I'll stand for any questions.
>> Any questions for Julie?
Thank you, Julie.
This is a public hearing.
I do have a couple of cards wishing to speak.
I have the first card from John Thatcher.
If you'll give us your name and address and you'll have
four minutes unless you're the
applicant.
>> Yes.
John Thatcher, 800 East 18th, Denver, Colorado.
I am with CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, a development
consultant for CarMax representing
them here today.
>> Okay.
We've got 10 minutes now.
>> 10 minutes.
I'm not going to use it.
We do have a short presentation that I would like to run
through very quickly.
Uh-oh.
Or not.
Okay.
So we had a few slides about CarMax as a company.
I'll spare you those.
In short, they're a great company, do a lot of good charity
work and they're great to
the employees.
But onto their specific vision for this store, estimating $
10 million investment.
Their XF prototype is about 7,500 square feet.
As staff noted, that's on seven acres developed out of the
total 34, just the seven acres
closest to the I-35 frontage up there.
They'll have 225 vehicles available for inventory on the
site, a potential employment of 27
full-time associates with average pay of 45,000 plus
benefits.
My plan is what I really wanted you to see, and that's not
loading.
But she had it up during her presentation.
I don't want to rehash what's there.
We're trying to provide a nice landscaped lot, certain, you
know, trees along the frontage
and a majority of them in the customer employee lot.
Here we have building elevations, as you can see, CarMax
has, you know, a nice high quality
building with preliminary earth-toned split-face CMU block.
And we also have a few pictures of the store interior just
to give you some real-life examples
of the quality of the build that CarMax does.
They're really high-class operation and we think they'd be
a great addition to the community.
So I know it's getting late.
I'll keep it short.
We are here to answer any questions you might have.
I've got representatives from CarMax and our engineering
firm as well.
Do you have a question for you?
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
The 34.4 acres, you guys own that entire tract and you're
only developing the seven?
They're under contract to purchase the entire 34 acres.
They will purchase the 344.
No plans whatsoever to develop the other 27 acres?
Not at this time and I would imagine never, but I think if
we did, we would have to.
Yeah, there'd be a lot of crap to do too.
Okay, just wanted to check.
Any other questions?
Commissioner Sullivan.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Initially, I was glad to see you all coming because I hate
having to drive to Plano or
Grapevine to go to those CarMax places.
But then when I saw the map and I saw how close you were
getting to the houses to the
south and west, I was disappointed.
Then when I learned it was not the whole area but just that
small area, thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
You are running the business.
We plan to see you in the future.
Thank you.
Put in real will.
There it is on.
Anyway, welcome.
Thanks.
Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Do we have another card?
Rick Wick, you in support?
I'm Rick Wick, 4984 Classic Limited, DBA Classic Chrysler,
Deep Dodge, Amasta and Chair and
Commissioners.
Thank you for your time.
Steve, come see me.
You don't have to drive to Plano.
We'll keep the tax dollars here.
I'm not opposed but Julie, if you bring up the other slides
you have, I have a question
about property because it butts up against our property.
Does that help?
Yeah, that worked perfect.
Now this, I understand this property, I understand this,
what the building is and come on, CarMax,
I'll take the competition all day long.
But my question is all this property here, I know it's
floodplain.
I built the Toyota store there and we tried to buy this
property and it's floodplain and
you can't build on it.
But my question is the current property owner has not
maintained all this.
It's a hazard.
It's a fire hazard.
It's big growth.
I have to maintain all this frontage all the way down
through here, even come down through
this area here where my master building is.
I'm to maintain it.
My question is, and maybe this isn't the point, but what
happens to this property as far as
you're being maintained?
It's high grass.
It's overcome.
I can't cut it because previous property owner won't let me
into that property.
But that's what our question is.
What's getting done with all that waste area that's high
grass?
It goes all the way back off the property off of there.
If I could step in and call on staff, I think if we can
turn on the ESA area, because I'm
going to guess with it being floodplain, it's also going to
be ESA and then there's going
to be limitations as to what can be done to clean it up.
No, I'm just looking to maintain the area that can maintain
.
Not the area in the middle that's floodplain, but there's
areas alongside that has overgrown
grass that's accessible.
There's no person that helped plan it.
So, it looks like there is an ESA floodplain as well as a
riparian buffer.
So, Chapter 17 of the Denton Development Code outlines
requirements as to what you can do
in an environmentally sensitive area.
We don't allow any impacts in a riparian buffer.
So, I don't even think that includes mowing because it is
habitat.
So, I don't know.
This area right here is riparian buffer.
Yeah, it's just a small area.
It's probably 300 feet off the highway.
So, under current code, that could not be mowed.
It would have to stay in its natural state.
Highway Department just did it.
They cleaned all that area up in front.
So, I'm just curious.
Thank you.
That's all my comments.
But you're in support of the project?
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you, sir.
I'm sorry I'm so late.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to speak on this item?
Please come forward at this time.
I do have – I'm going to read all these in or just – pretty
good.
I have a number of – have James Jordan.
He's opposed the request.
He was concerned about the floodplain.
John McCoy is opposed to the request.
So, noise pollution and natural wildlife in there and flood
plain.
Curtis Fisher is opposed to the request.
It's floodplain.
Van Harris opposed to the request.
There's no comment.
Joyce Reed is opposed to request.
She's got eight different items listed here.
There's Rick Wick, already spoken.
There is Scott Fly is in favor of request.
Al McNatt in favor of request.
And Rob Tharp in favor of request.
Those are all the requests to speak comment cards and all
the responses that we got to
the notification.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item
at this time?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Smith.
I motion to accept.
Accept or approve?
Accept.
I accept to approve.
Okay.
Commissioner Sullivan.
I second the motion.
Okay.
So, we have a motion on the floor to approve and a second.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries seven to zero.
Congratulations and good luck with your project.
We'll move us to item E. I'm going to open the public
hearing for DCA 17-0009.
We'll call on Roman for presentation.
Thank you.
I'm Roman McAllen.
I'm the historic preservation officer for the City of Dent
on.
This is a request to hold a public hearing and consider
making a recommendation to city
council regarding repealing and replacing section 3576,
repealing sections 3577 and
3578, adding sections 35315, adding definitions to -- sorry
, adding definitions to section
35232 and making changes to section 3543 of the Denton
Development Code.
This process began in April of 2016, a little after I was
hired here.
By going to the -- I went to the landmark commission and
the city council and briefed
them on some conditions existing in our preservation ordin
ances.
And there was a recommendation to move forward with am
ending the ordinances.
In June of July of 2016, we held three public meetings in
the historic districts along with
an additional meeting here in this room where I presented
in general the changes that we
would be putting forth.
And then we -- there was a large gap there where we spent
some staff time and legal time
working on going through these disordinates and really in
the end, we're finding it much
better than I intended to in the beginning.
So that went to landmark commission and they recommended
approval 8-0.
The major changes are in general cleanup and efficiency
oriented.
The structure has changed.
And then there were multiple references to certificates of
appropriateness.
There were in fact four or five ways that was described.
Now there's one way that's described.
Definitions were scattered throughout the ordinance in
different sections.
They're all in one section which is going to be -- which is
part of the Denton Development
Code that has definitions.
The criteria and procedures for designation of historic
landmarks, historic districts
and conservation districts have been arranged sequentially
and revised for clarity and consistency.
And then all procedurally oriented subsections were
combined and sequenced into one section.
The substantive changes, those were more structural there,
were that we will recognize the Belle
Avenue Conservation District as an historic district.
And then this slide, it says a more efficient process was
introduced for local designation
of properties that have been recognized by the state or by
the National Park Service
like our square downtown is a National Registered District.
But really one step has been removed and that is since it
is a national district in that
case you wouldn't have to do the historical presentation.
It's presumed that that district could be designated as a
local district.
You still would have to have the public input present that
and then present an ordinance
to city council.
Language pertaining to certificates of appropriateness for
painting, landscaping and fencing was
amended per the input from the three different districts
and that input varied just a little
bit.
A maintenance clause was amended where previously the Land
mark Commission could take action
if a historic landmark appeared to be being neglected and
then they could take action
and ask for the city to take action to preserve that
building or to take action to prevent
any further demolition or neglect of it.
So the revision is that if there's a structure that could
be designated a landmark then the
Landmark Commission can make that recommendation.
There are structures that we just recently demolished a
structure here on West Oak where
we could have used that clause to take action a little
earlier and perhaps prevent the building
from being so deteriorated.
How that kind of looks graphically on your left here are
all the sections as they are
today and then as they would be proposed you notice that
you start out with the general
historic preservation description, its purpose, the
penalties and enforcement.
Then the procedural section is extracted and then that's
how you designate landmarks, how
you designate districts and how certificate of appropriaten
ess process works and these
other little categories.
And again the maintenance and emission repairs is the one I
was speaking of.
And then you have the three districts.
So it's a little easier to read.
Minor changes, those definitions again have been moved out
to this section 3523 to the
Landmark Commission just chairman to chair and a little
section about that the Landmark
Commission doesn't actually make the preservation plan.
The public input part of this, there were these three
meetings.
These are some boards that I presented to these districts
and then they voted by putting
dots on whether they wanted the Landmark Commission to have
to approve painting and what have
you.
The general there at the bottom concerns varied by district
but clarity and deference to administrative
approvals.
All of, everyone wanted more administrative approvals so we
could streamline the process
and only take the more substantive things to the Landmark
Commission.
I want to add along with the public input, I presented you
all in the work session some
results of the public notification.
There were four letters in favor, three favorable emails
and I have a letter that I was asked
to read and to read to you by one of our Landmark
Commissioners had to leave a little earlier
today.
It's not too long but it's signed by residents in the Belle
Avenue district.
It says to all members of the City of Denton Planning and Z
oning Commission and City Council
regarding the recent notice of Public Hearing Project
number DCA 17-9, the following signatures
of homeowners in the Belle Avenue Historic Conservation
District reflect a vote in favor
of the making of the required changes to Section 35-43 of
the Denton Development Code that
recommends our neighborhood becoming the Belle Avenue Hist
oric District.
After becoming the first historic conservation district in
our city and the third in the
state of Texas, we look forward to becoming the third
historic district in Denton and
further contributing to the city's neighborhood
preservation efforts.
This is signed by Stephen Amdoul of 2003-2007 North Belle,
by Jeannie Naylor at 1912 North
Belle, by Angie and Ernie Stripling at 1815 North Belle, by
David and Jessica Pierce at
1916 North Belle, and by Gary Hayden at 2106, 2019, and
2021 North Belle.
If we're here tonight, November the 8th, I would go forward
hopefully to the City Council
as soon as possible, possibly December the 12th, and we
would of course publish these
changes to our webpage and I'll answer any questions you
may have.
Any questions?
Do we have an exhibit for what the Belle Avenue Historic
District is going to be?
If you go to the backup material, there's a map on it.
So it's the same district that exists today and that page 6
, when you get into the general
section of page 6, be your first attachment I believe that
refers to proposed changes.
It says proposed general section code and then it's page 6
and you'll see a map there
of the Belle Avenue Conservation District.
So between Sherman and University.
That district has existed for a number of years and when it
was created as a conservation
district, I believe the reason it wasn't a historic
district is there was not enough
a percentage of homes that were older than 50 years at the
time it was created.
And now they're over that.
One other thing with respect to conservation districts, at
the time that one was created,
the way the ordinance was written, historic districts and
conservation districts were
in fact treated the same, exactly the same way.
So what we've done in the ordinance is said that now if you
have a conservation district,
only demolitions and new construction will go to the Land
mark Commission.
All other permits could be approved by the preservation
officer using our standard.
So that if somebody wanted to create a district, was a
little nervous about the whole Landmark
Commission and that thing, but they still feel like the
layout of their neighborhood
and the feel of that neighborhood is important to a group
of people, only your new construction
and your demolition would require more thought, you know,
more people's input.
Great.
Thank you for answering the question.
We've got one more.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Roman, I confess I haven't read all this in detail.
It's a lot, but I've known you since you've been here and I
have full faith and confidence
in your ability and I think you've done an excellent work
here, so thank you.
Jennifer helped me a lot with this, really tremendous.
She put a lot of time into it.
It's really as good as it is because of her talent.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions for Roman?
Thank you, sir.
We do have a couple of cards.
This is a public hearing.
I have Deb Conte.
She's left.
Okay.
And then I have Karen Devaney, does not wish to speak, is
in support.
Is there anyone else who would like to come before us and
speak on this item tonight?
This is the one I came for.
Okay.
Please give us your name and address.
My name is Katherine Linus and I live at 1120 North Locust
in Denton.
And I'm in favor of this.
I think it's a good deal to be able to clarify what all is
required and to bring it all into
consensus.
And yeah, it's a lot of material to read, but it's a lot
better reading now than it
used to be.
So I'm in support of it.
I do have one question, however, going through all of it.
This is on the proposed historic landmark commission
section as amended, because I do not recall
offhand what the old language was.
This is page one of that.
It says 35.4.3, the historic landmark commission A. This is
creating the commission and who
all should be it.
And they should include at least one representative from
each of the following organizations.
Number one is the county historical commission, and then if
you go down to C, number three,
these are the ex officio members, the chairperson of the
county historical commission.
I'm guessing that can't be the same person.
Is that correct?
That it cannot be the same person.
And then my other question would be, does the county
historical commission know that
it's supposed to have two representatives on the historic
landmark commission?
So that's it.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Thank you for your comments.
Sure.
Rome, if you'd like to respond to that and just clarify
that for us.
Well, as far as having the two people, I'd have to kind of
more carefully read this.
Now, we don't have members of the county commission on our
board.
We have somebody from the county, the director of the
county museum is Peggy Riddle, and
she's been the chair.
I think that- Director of office in history, Colton.
Yes, that's right.
So there's included.
And then you have a phrase.
So as far as there being, I really can't answer this a lot
of clear, but real careful detail
here, but it sounds to me like in addition, it says here,
in addition to the nine members,
these three shall sit as ex officio members.
So we may need to recruit somebody from the county
commission to serve on the commission.
Yes.
I just wanted to add that this is the existing code
language that this is one of the items
that we did keep.
So it's not like we added new folks.
So this is from when the board was established.
So you're not the follow-up now.
Okay.
Again, it's ex officio.
So it's not that they have a- They don't have a vote.
They don't have a vote, so it's whether they sent it or not
.
We can work on recruiting on it.
That's not a problem.
Okay.
Thank you for the clarification.
Any other questions on this item?
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I'm going to close the
public hearing and the floor
would entertain a motion or additional discussion.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I will move to approve DCA 17.9.
And Roman, thank you very much.
I think you gave a great presentation and it sounds like
you had a great community input
on that.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Second that motion.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Commissioner Roselle.
I was trying to motion or second this, but I was slow, so I
wasn't able to talk.
I just wanted to publicly thank Roman for all his work, too
.
And I see the photos of the dots and how they voted at all
these public meetings over the
past year and a half.
He continues to do stellar work.
I appreciate it, Roman.
And so I'm happy to support this.
Okay.
We have a first and a second.
Thank you again for all of your hard work.
And we'll call for a vote on the board for approval.
The motion carries 7-0.
That will move us to our concluding items in our project
matrix tonight.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Real quick.
I'm just bringing this one up again because it's a concern
of mine.
We're supposed to have a workshop discussing what we can
discuss in work session versus
public meeting, that kind of a thing.
I think I brought it up back in January.
So just wanted to make sure it's not getting lost because I
think it needs to -- the discussion
needs to happen.
The workshop discussion needs to happen.
Just for you to understand, got clarification?
I do.
One thing I was going to add, I know some of these items
have been lingering for some
time.
My intention is at the 1129 meeting is to have a memo sort
of summarizing all of these
items.
I think some may have been addressed and just kind of have
been left on.
But I know there's new members, so I would rather just
address all of them, provide sort
of just a general write-up, and then if we need additional
information, we can kind of
go from there.
But I just don't like to have things lingering.
Okay.
So you're going to essentially take all of them, clean them
all up, and if for some reason
someone's question isn't addressed, then it can be put back
on Project Matrix for additional
discussion?
Correct.
If that's okay with everyone.
I think that sounds like a good idea.
Okay.
Anybody else?
Chair.
Commissioner Sullivan.
What is our end of the year meeting schedule?
Is that going to come out to us?
I think the next meeting we have actually is pushed until
after Thanksgiving, I believe,
on the calendar.
So the 22nd or the 29th?
I think it's the 29th.
And the second, and I guess the fifth week in December, is
that right?
I think there's only one, I think we only have one meeting
in December, if I recall.
Okay.
Thank you.
Go over your 2018 schedule.
I was going to add.
The 13th.
Oh, okay.
The 13th of December.
The final meeting of the year?
We don't know.
No, we don't want to join on that.
The final meeting, but you'll get an account of the
November 29th meeting.
Okay.
Great.
All right.
Anybody else?
Okay.
With that, I'm just going to say it's 10 o'clock.
We'll close our meeting tonight.
Thank you, everyone.