meeting for December 13th. This will be our work session.
This meeting has been
duly posted and we do have a full quorum here and I will
call us to order at 5 0
6 and our first order of business will be to receive
clarification of agenda
items and does anybody have anything on the minutes? We'll
move on to the consent
agenda. Any questions on the first item A? Flat, Den Energy
Center. No questions?
On the flat. Item B. Any questions on item B? Nothing on
item B. How about item C?
Nothing? Okay. I've got a question. Okay. Julie, item C. D
irt Whisperer. It's the
Dirt Whisperer LLC Audra Heights edition preliminary class.
Yes sir. On phase one I
was curious, you know, is there kind of a tree requirement
as I drove down that
down this down the road on Bayfield Road. It doesn't seem
to be a lot of trees
there or it just seems like concrete all the way through
but when the rest of the
neighborhood, you know, you have real pretty lots, large
lots, but you hit that
that section right there where they built all those are
they duplexes or
townhouses? The phase one I believe is duplexes. So chapter
13 does have
requirements for street trees for single-family residential
. I don't know
specifically on that project how those street trees were
installed or where
they were installed so I'm not real sure on that phase one.
Okay I was just
curious do they go back because they doesn't seem to be a
whole lot it just
seems like a lot of concrete. You have the rest of
neighborhood that's really
nice and you drive back down into that Bayfield Street and
it just hits you
like this doesn't belong here. I know that phase two they
will be required to
comply with all sub chapter 13 requirements in terms of I
believe
there's a street tree required for every certain number of
feet or for every lot
in a single-family residential area and and then they'd
also have to comply with
all tree preservation requirements too. Okay and also if
you look at phase one
it's got like a lot 18 a and b but on phase two you have
just numbers. Is that
I guess I was are they each building is going to just have
one lot is that the
way normally? Yes sir phase two is actually a townhome
product that's what
they're intending and so on a townhome each each individual
townhome is on its
own lot and then they would and then you know the the
building they can have eight
attached so each individual townhome will be on its own lot
and that's also
why they're actually doing an alley for this phase as well
so there won't be any
any front-end parking it will be alleys.
Is that the stage question? Yeah I would just I guess how
it's my concern was okay so
phase one and I guess I'm just trying to compare both
phases you know and see
what how much difference is gonna be and one of the things
I want to make sure is
as far as trees and cover that kind of vegetation I would
like to see a lot
make make sure that that is implemented because that other
site look I would I
was it just it's just an eyesore. Sure and I think phase
two will actually look
different from phase one because of that alley because it
won't have those
driveways in the front so I think it'll probably look a
little different from
this cheap street than phase one does. Okay and one more
thing what about the
the the I've noticed in that phase one there's a lot of
parking on the on the
along the road on the inside of the street so is there I
know that there's a
requirement how do you determine I guess I'm just trying to
it seems like that
maybe there's not enough parking because from what I
understand and I was talking
to a couple of residents a lot of that is for student house
it's considered
there's a lot of students living there and they're not
being sold it's just
they're just being rented to students so you have a lot of
parking on the street
is there any way of compared I'm just trying to figure out
it doesn't look
really well and it's hard for people when you're driving
you have to kind of
pull over to the side because all this street is just
covered with cars. I'm
looking at Richard because I know this isn't we're actually
working on that
looking at addressing that now through a multitude of
issues associated with that
part part of that although this is an NR6 you have NR6 has
reduced setback of 10
feet which really pushes out the house so it's with a one
car garage so it's
kind of hard to get really more than two maybe three spots
to begin with
coupled with narrow right away so once you start cramming
all that in and you
have a family with or even students with three four or five
cars it fills up
quick but we are looking at that item and how to address
that right right now
and you'll see that I think it was in the next couple
months as part of the
DDC update. Anybody else on item C? Item D is going to move
down to items for
individual consideration so we'll go on to four which is
going to be the planning
and zoning Commission calendar we had a couple changes I
think we talked about
at last meeting and we're going to come back. And what
changed for February and
March instead of second and fourth it's first and third.
February and March.
Anybody else have a question or a conflict on the calendar?
Okay item B.
B. Haley.
All right this item is a site plan for two multi-tenant
buildings in Razor
Ranch. So the request is for approval of a site plan like I
said for two
multi-tenant buildings to be located on lot 6R and 7R of
block A of the town
center. You see on the map here the property is outlined in
yellow it's a
little over three acres located at the southwest corner of
University and
Heritage Trail so that would be in front of the Wynko Foods
if you're familiar
with the area. This particular parcel is a zoned South RR2
district so that's
that primarily retail commercial restaurant type uses that
we've seen
over the past few months. If you remember site plans for
Razor Ranch are all
required to comply with the architectural and landscape
standards
outlined in the overlay district and with their site plan
they're required to
submit not not just the site plan itself but also a
landscape plan and building
elevations for consideration. The overlay also outlines
criteria for approval so
the P&Z shall approve a site plan if it substantially compl
ies with the concept
and schematic plan, if it provides a compatible arrangement
of buildings and
uses and doesn't adversely affect any neighboring
properties, if it provides
for safe and adequate circulation of traffic and if it
complies with all
sections of the overlay. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair
. How are we supposed to
know if it provides a compatible arrangement of buildings
and land use that would not
adversely affect the joint neighborhoods if we don't know
specifically what's
going to be going in there all we know is they're gonna
make this? The intent I
believe in the overlays referring to areas outside of Razor
Ranch so would
this particular piece of Razor affect anything outside of
the overlay? In this
case it's not really touching anything outside the overlay.
So regardless of
what's going to go in these buildings? I think the
assumption is everything commercial within
Razor would kind of be compatible by nature. So looking at
their site plan
into here as I mentioned it's two separate lots so on lot 6
R we have about
8800 square feet of building and then lot 7R has about 8700
square feet and
these will just be a mixture of commercial uses I would
imagine retail
restaurant things of that nature. It requires a minimum of
108 parking spaces
they're providing 132 if you remember there's no parking
maximum at Razor so
they can provide those extra spaces and then access to the
site rather than
being directly from University or Heritage Trail will be
from these
internal streets. Looking at their landscaping they're
proposing a total
29% landscaping overall 37.5% tree canopy for the site. I
've kind of done
two different colors here so the lighter green color is
actually existing
landscaping that was installed prior to this development so
all of that will be
maintained in place to provide screening and street trees
along University and
Heritage Trail and then what is in the darker green is the
new internal
landscaping for the site in the parking lot. And then in
blue here there is a
plaza area being provided just over 2,000 square feet will
have trees and
some shaded seating by means of tables and benches. Looking
at the buildings
proposed lot 6R these are the elevations so mixture of
materials the typical
stone and ephas materials with the neutral color palette.
Lot 7R very
similar elevation and materials being proposed there. Staff
is recommending
approval of the site plan we found it to be compliant with
all of the
regulations within the overlay and found that it met those
criteria for approval
that we discussed. So I can stand for any questions.
Commissioner Smith. On the
entrances you had on, do you want to go back to that slide
real quick?
On the site plan, yeah. So they're entering either off of
those two side
roads off of University, am I correct? Yes sir. Either of
those, do we know either of those, are those
going to be, are those going to have access to the west
bound turn? Does that make sense? If you're on the
north side of Razor Ranch or sometimes there's areas where
you get inlet you can
only go westbound you can't cross away. Let me see if that
shows up. I mean you can kind of see on the
aerial here there will be east-west connectivity here on
the south side of the
lots. People trying to get back on University is my big
question. Yeah so there would there would be there's a
signal here currently.
Let's go all the way down there. Yeah so that road will
connect there and then there is an intent for a
signal at Heritage Trail. Thank you.
Anybody else? Thank you Haley. Thank you. And item 4C is an
item that I have a
conflict of interest in. I have a partnership interest in
that so I'm going
to need to recuse myself both here at work session and in
the public meeting.
So I'm going to turn it over to the vice chair. Thank you
chair. Let him leave.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Thank you vice chair. What I
think he said 4C I don't see a 4C on my
agenda. Did we move something? Yeah there's an agenda
change from the consent
agenda item 3D. Okay we pulled 3D. Okay. Yeah. Did not
realize that. Thank you very
much.
Julie the floor is yours. All right so this is one you
might be familiar with. The
preliminary plat for Evers Way was approved in September of
this year. This
is now coming back with the final plat. There are some
conditions that stack
requests that we put on the approval and that's why it's
being pulled for
individual consideration. So I know those are in your
backup but I'll just talk
talk through them briefly. First that the civil engineering
construction plan for
West Hercules Lane and all public infrastructure necessary
to serve the
proposed development must be approved before this plat is
filed. If any utility
easement locations need to be modified as a result of these
construction plans
that the DRC that it could be approved at the staff level
prior to filing. So
that that's the first condition. The second is that they
have to obtain a
text dot permit to allow access in and improvements to
North Locust Street
prior to plat filing and that a traffic the traffic impact
analysis that's been
submitted must be approved before the plat is filed. So
those would be the three
conditions that staff is requesting on this approval and I
'll stand for any
questions. So any questions? Commissioner Smith. Thank you
Vice Chair. What are the
reasonings behind the conditions you just briefly give
especially on like
that sounds like the permit for the for a text dot sounds
like a pretty pretty
expensive condition to put on the developer. It would be
required
regardless. They are whenever someone ties into a text dot
road they have to
obtain that that permit so instead of holding up the final
plat the approval
of that final plat we've gone ahead that and requested that
that be a condition
of filing so that they can move forward with the approval
and then get those
those expensive permits and those expensive engineering
plans completed
between that gap between the approval and the filing of the
plat. Okay. Just
wondering I just don't why why I ended up on the consent
agenda instead of rather
ending up on the items for an individual consideration
before then but just if
that's normal why wasn't on there the first place. Well it
should have been on
the individual consideration from the beginning so because
there are
conditions associated with it it would have to be
considered independently.
Julie I have one question just for a procedural standpoint
we approve the
plat so they can proceed but nothing is filed with the city
for actual
construction so these conditions are met. Yes sir. And who
verifies these
conditions are met before it gets filed what's the
procedure there? Staff would
verify so they already have they already have two two
permits in one or
two projects in one being the civil engineering plans that
are being reviewed
and that's in association with the West Hercules Lane as
well as the utility
improvements and improvements associated with this plat.
They've already they will
begin working on that text dot permit shortly and then they
've already
submitted for that traffic impact analysis and they're
working through the
review of that now so so those projects would have to be
complete and that would
be monitored by staff both planning and engineering. And
traditionally are these
done after a plat is approved or is this just a time and
issue like can they talk
to text not before P&Z approves a plat? Certainly yes that
typically what
happened before is all of this stuff was was was required
to be done prior to
bringing it for approval and so what we're trying to do is
help expedite it
in a way and so rather than requiring all of this and
having the plat even
though it meets all the all the material requirements of
the code sort of sit in
limbo we're trying to get it through at least through the
approval phase to
assist with trying to secure any financing and then address
some of these
permit related issues as a condition since there's that two
-year gap.
Any other questions? Thank you Vice Chair. Then I guess
just for clarification as
we're voting on this we'll approve it the plat with staff's
conditions do we
need to restate them? I mean I know they're written on the
plat so. Okay very
good thank you. Thank you Julie and we will call the chair
back in.
We'll move us to our public hearing section. We have one
change on item A the
date certain on that's been moved from the 10th to the 24th
so we'll do look
for a motion on that we'll open it look for a motion to
continue to date certain
leave open B C and D have all been withdrawn so we will not
even open
those items tonight and that will move us to item C excuse
me E and we'll call
on Julie Wyatt for that presentation.
All right so this public hearing item is for some lots in
our downtown area it is
a replat of several lots within a block area and this is
for redevelopment on a
site and I will stand for any questions. Commissioner Beck.
Thank You Chair. I'm
assuming that lots four five and six are is that the old
Denrick Chronicle
building? Yes sir. Okay so I'm assuming that'll be torn
down and then these lots
will accommodate? It is my understanding yes that there's
gonna be some sort of
redevelopment on those sites. Any other questions on this
item? Okay.
Let's see F? Julie are you gonna do F and G kind of
concurrent like we did? I am. That's a lucky guess.
All right so we are taking two items concurrently the Z 17
12 and S 176
because they are a part of one project the Mingo Road Apart
ments. So first Z 1712
is a request to rezone the subject property from
neighborhood residential
three to neighborhood residential 12 mixed use 12 NRMU 12
and that's that Z
1712 the second request is a specific use permit to allow a
multifamily
residential use. To orient you the subject property is
located north of
Mingo Road it is just just west of Boyd on southwest of Boy
d and it's near the
TWU campus. TWU campus is off to the west here. Under
current zoning the subject
property has an is NR3 district and they are proposing to
extend the existing
adjacent NRMU 12 so to look like this. The criteria for
approval and rezoning
cases are in subchapter 3 of the Denton Development Code.
First does it conform
to the future land use element of the Denton Plan 2030 and
then second does
the proposed rezoning facilitate the provision of adequate
infrastructure.
First we'll look at the future land use element. This is in
a neighborhood
university compatibility area. The intent of this area is
to provide compatible
housing and services to serve not only the universities but
also the nearby
neighborhoods. The code the Denton Plan 2030 talks about
how current
enrollment as well as future enrollment is going to require
going to need
additional housing within these areas and services and so
these these areas
surrounding these neighborhood neighborhood I mean these
areas
surrounding the campuses are intended to provide that
housing and the necessary
services for the student population as well as the nearby
neighborhoods. Staff
has determined that the proposed NRMU 12 does meet the
future land use
designation. NRMU 12 has moderate density housing as well
as some small scale
commercial uses that really fit the bill for the
neighborhood university
compatibility area because it does provide additional
housing as well as
some of those services but at that smaller scale where it
can be
compatible with residential. When we look at the public
facilities first water and
sewer there is water and sewer nearby on Mingo there
probably will be extensions
required of those at Platting and that will be something
that will be
determined by our engineering department at Platting.
Impact fees would be
assessed at building permit as well. Mingo Road is
currently developed as a
two-lane undivided road. On the mobility plan it is
classified as a secondary
arterial. Typically secondary arterials are a four lane
divided road with five
foot sidewalks and it's currently not developed according
to those secondary
arterial standards. At Platting some additional dedications
and improvements
such as sidewalks would be required. We look at the
compatibility of the area
with the surrounding development and zoning pattern. We see
that the location
of the site as well as the adjacent development pattern
suggests that it's
unlikely to develop with single-family residential uses. So
if we just look take
a look at the site first of all it is it is accessed on M
ingo Road so it's only
access is on a secondary arterial and those adjacent
neighborhoods are
developed in such a way that there's no vehicular access to
this site so it's
really cut off from those neighborhoods. So it wouldn't
this is unlikely to
develop develop with its own just single-family
neighborhood in this
location. When we look at what the proposed zoning is as I
said before it's
intended to be compatible with residential areas. It's
supposed to be
placed near there so it can provide those day-to-day
services and those
different housing types those moderate density housing
types. So it has the
the limitations on the scale and development that that
would make it
compatible. Any development on this site because of the way
it's situated would
require buffers if it wasn't a single-family use. An NRMU
12 is a
logical extension of the existing NRMU 12 to the west and
also this this lot is
an infill lot and our Dent Plan 2030 talks about infill
development it talks
about how we want these these sites to be developed and to
provide additional
housing for for the city. So this this meets that criteria
within the Dent Plan
2030. So based upon this criteria staff recommends approval
of the zoning case
because it's consistent with the with Dent Plan 2030 as
well as it does
encourage that infill development but at a scale that's
compatible with the
surrounding zoning and development pattern. Do y'all have
any questions on the zoning?
Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. On
the availability given an overlay if we want to I can't
remember and we've had
in a couple things in the past we're doing rezoning or
during the zoning
process I can't remember if our NRMU 12 were allowed to say
we want to put an overlay on this
saying you can't use this certain usage and requirement for
foliage and
everything else on there. Can we do that NRMU 12? I do
believe the residential
mixed-use protection overlay does apply to the NRMU 12
zoning district because
this is in let me get my code just to verify. I seem to
always be wrong when I
try to quote it from memory so it's best just to check.
Yes that would that residential the mixed-use residential
protection overlay
would be applicable in this instance. Yes sir. Do we have a
timeline on they're
saying it's a primary that said you said primary or
secondary arterial? Secondary.
Is there a timeline on four-lane expansion? I talked to
engineering and I
don't believe any any improvements for that entire segment
of the road is are
imminent but with the development they would be required to
at least do things
like put in sidewalks. The so the question I was gonna have
next was then
that next door location is I think it's Primrose it's a
senior center community
you they if you you can't see it on that picture if you
zoom in on that in their
entrance right next to which obviously that's a multifamily
development that
entrance there has the I don't know what you call them and
I'm not the engineer
they have the breakaway where you can turn in right so you
can you can if
they're turning into the development they can divert away
from the through
traffic to turn into the development. Is there a way or
anything we can do to be
able to make sure that gets done during this process if it
's something like
we're not gonna expand mingo yet we have no plans for it.
Is there a way for us as
a planning is under commission be able to make that a
requirement you feel like
it's necessary? That is typically something that's looked
at at the
platting phase and that is determined on on the
infrastructure available and the
trips generation generated by the use. I'm not sure. I just
want and you can see
on the neighborhood ride-ins that there's a lot of folks
are worried about
traffic and she will say that you know we're there's gonna
be the ability for
us to say you have to have that diversion off of the 33
traffic so the
people going into the apartment complex get out of the way
everyone is just
trying to drive down mingo makes easier for us but that
works thank you.
You know the only question I have is we have a number of
cards in opposition but
on the notification map there's nothing on our backup. Will
we be able to get
those posted before meeting or during meeting presentation?
I have I have them
map on on the presentation so I'll that will hopefully
illustrate where that
opposition is. So we'll look at the specific use permit
next and what
they're proposing so they're proposing 48 two-bedroom units
with outdoor
recreation space. Two-story buildings is the maximum they
're proposing. They're
also they're also site plan reflects that the that the
buildings are set back
from the residential so you could see in this location here
and in this location
here those buildings are set back from those residential
areas. They will also
have to meet all landscape buffer requirements and street
tree
requirements along bingo and their buildings are proposed
to have masonry
and stone accents and here are the conceptual elevations of
their of their
proposed multi-family this this would face mingo and then
and then there would
be stairs and entry from the rear. The criteria for
approval for a specific use
permit is essentially a compatibility analysis to to ensure
that the proposed
use conforms to and is is fits in within the area and the
character of the area
that it is proposed to go. We look at whether the use would
impede the orderly
development of the surrounding property. We look at the
parking the generation of
traffic and access. We look at nuisance prevention whether
there's adequate
landscaping and screening and whether the the buildings are
architecturally
compatible with the surrounding area. So we looked at what
they're proposing
staff. Staff determined that they are consistent with the
Denton plan 2030.
First of all it's consistent with the future land use
element because it does
provide that that housing to accommodate the the increase
in student population
as well as the population within the city of Denton and it
also meets the
goal to develop our infill sites to to to grow our in
interior of our city as
well as is our our areas outside and on the fringe of our
city. It provides in
the needed housing near the TWU campus. There would not be
any direct vehicular
access to adjacent neighborhoods so the traffic impacts
within those adjacent
neighborhoods would be minimal as a result of this request.
It is on a DCTA
connect route. Commissioner Beck. Concerned thank you chair
concerning that one
issue now will DCA DCTA be obligated to create some kind of
offset when they
stop their bus are they gonna do we know if they're gonna
put a bus stop right
there well if you will be the bus stop is actually it's it
's on the adjacent
property but so the DCTA stop is okay it's about in this
location so when when
the sidewalks are are constructed it will connect this and
then it will allow
residents to win the sidewalk so the developer be doing the
sidewalks in
front of their development but we won't have it do we have
sidewalk down from
the Primrose area do we okay okay so there will be sidewalk
then all the way
that was yes I'm good thank you
they're proposing only two-story buildings with increased
side side setbacks
to ensure compatibility with the nearby residential
properties and they must
also meet all dent development code requirements for things
like screening
parking lot screening lighting street trees and tree canopy
so all of those
requirements would have to be met public notification was
sent out and we
we sent 26 200 foot notices and 73 500 foot notices we've
received four in
opposition within the 200 foot boundary so we've received
opposition from these
property owners and then one in favor the opposition we've
received is 6% we
did the calculation earlier today staff does propose
conditions on the approval
that it must that a full site plan must be submitted to the
city and reviewed
for compliance with dent development code requirements and
we recommend the
approval of the request because it's consistent with the
dent development I'm
sorry the dent and plan 2030 not only in terms of the
future land use but also in
terms of infill development and then it would provide
moderate density housing
designed to minimize impacts on the nearby single-family
homes and I will
stand for any questions Commissioner Roselle on a slide
previously you said
that they're proposing two-story buildings are it doesn't
sound like
there's a condition to be held to these elevations could
they after we approve
an SUP build within the MRM MRMU 12 height they're not
being held to these
today no it is a condition that could be placed on it but
no they're not they
would have to meet the NRMU 12 this is just speculation or
hypothetical this
two-story building option okay
Commissioner Sullivan the same ones but drainage was an
issue I'm assuming that
this is all going to drain away from the existing
homeowners is that just to make
sure that they're covered they will have to meet all
requirements for drainage
and that that includes not impacting your adjacent
properties so I'm currently
they're proposing to actually provide detention in this
area to to increase
the separation between the multifamily use and the single-
family residential
development Commissioner Sanchez just out of curiosity it's
a neighborhood
university compatibility so you're looking that probably
students will
probably use that quite a bit the population will probably
primarily be
students is there any way the distance of discussing and I
don't know if that
would even be possible a bike trail or something to help
students get to the
university because I a lot of students when they when they
're that close they're
gonna ride their bikes and and mingle is a very dangerous
especially if you're
gonna have students riding bikes up and down mingle as
narrow as it is I mean is
there something that can be done for something like that I
'm it's certainly
certainly something we could look at and we could look at
that bike look at the
bike plan and see what what what future infrastructure is
proposed for mingle
road that was something that staff looked at because there
are some some
gaps in the pedestrian facilities in this area and I
measured it and it is
about a mile walk from this property to the university when
you kind of one or
weave through the street so it's about a mile walk that's
why the DCT a bus stop
factored so much into our analysis because we wanted to see
where that went
and if that would provide an alternative transportation for
those for those
students so so yes it right now I don't think there are any
additional
improvements contemplated for the the length of mingle row
but I know it's
something that is in our bike plan to to more fully
complete our bike paths and
then and then but to provide that DCTA will at least
provide an alternate mode
of transportation for those students commissioner Smith
thank you chair
was the athlete could be present tonight do you know he is
here good perfect and
then the can you expound upon the landscape buffer
requirements you
mentioned a second ago what are those you said they they
have to you know they
have to abide by it but what are they exactly so the
landscape buffer is a
is a type B buffer which is a 10-foot buffer requiring five
evergreen and
deciduous trees and 30 shrubs per 100 linear feet so that's
a typical
10 feet high 10 feet away from building 10 feet from the
property line back
toward the buildings the proposed buildings and it would
have to be
maintained by the property no height no higher requirement
like that just
commissioner Sullivan so the DCTA is is really servicing
the say that was a
senior citizen area yes to the south I guess or west or
wherever no plans for
DCTA to have student services I mean if that's gonna be for
student housing see
I mean I don't know how far a walk that is from that
location down to the other
location but I'm just wondering I don't know what their
separation is for their
stops I don't know if they have a metric that they use to
separate for their
stops but if you look at the route that route four takes it
actually goes to the
TWU area so it really it really includes that entire
section of town and then and
then it goes toward that deep TWU area okay thank you
Commissioner Sanchez you have a lot of old oak trees there
probably what I could
see from the road there was I could see five or six really
old but I would call
old old growth and it looks like they're gonna maintain
them is that is that
correct what I can see there are some existing trees now if
they cut any of
those what I call old growth what what do they have to do
to replace that or
what's the mitigation for that they would have to meet all
tree preservation
requirements so on any given site there is a certain
percentage that they have
to that they have to maintain and then any anything that
they cut down that is
anything that they cut down between what they have to
maintain and and what
they're proposing they would then have to mitigate for
either by planting on
site or by paying I believe it's a hundred and twenty a
hundred and twenty
five dollars per caliber inch that they cut down so they
would either have to
pay into the tree fund or they would have to plant on site
I believe they are
citing their building to maintain some of those existing
trees because they
are nice beautiful trees on the site beautiful post-office
yeah
Commissioner Beck thank you chair some of my questions I'm
gonna direct at the
developer when he comes in but just maybe one you can
answer this open space
view up near the north side you've got open space in the
two corners there is
that a fixed condition or is it subject to some development
in the future well
forty eight so it's four acres and they are proposing NRMU
12 which is a maximum
density of 12 dwelling units per acre so the maximum number
of apartments that
they can put on the side are 48 so they've maxed out what
they can this plan
maxes out their density so any additional density or
anything would have to pursue
a rezoning okay okay we've mentioned how this is gonna
appeal to the students so
I'm gonna assume that these are not necessary family-
friendly apartments
that this are we talking about possible SROs here which I
don't have a problem
this is a good place for you know we always talked about
where you got to put
those there but this is a good place for it but just just
out of curiosity and I
could probably ask the developer this later would it be
better for okay one
last thing again on your site plan here where it talks
about proposed attention
on the backside of the East units so that's going to gather
water pretty much
for the most of the area or just on that side drainage will
drainage from that detention pond I'm assuming will go
towards Mingo they'll
have to make sure that they drain it in accordance with our
our requirements and
that will this is conceptual at this point they'll they'll
have to ensure
that all those calculations and all their drainage is not
negatively impacting
those adjacent property okay good just some comments in
relation to what you
know some of the other commissioners stated to on the road
that is an issue
and just for the record wanted to throw out some
suggestions that part of Mingo
there is on a curvature or if you're coming from northeast
heading southwest
yeah you're not going to see as much ahead of you at this
point with those
apartments or the means of ingress and as you would if you
were coming from
the square so we need to do some cautionary things there
and I'm thinking
maybe without a lot of expense a flashing yellow light and
some warning signs that
you're coming up on an intersection that could be a
possible problem which they
definitely go the other thing would be when coming out of
the apartments the
problem if somebody's barreling down Mingo 50 miles an hour
heading towards
the square and then someone just casually pulls out of the
apartments it seems
like and I don't know if this had fallen a developer of the
city when they when
they do their streets but if we could have a merging line
as they pull out
where it wouldn't be a part of Mingo until about maybe 100
200 feet up the
road just again just a thought to throw out there for the
city and in the
developer because this is going to be an issue that if we
're dealing with
students especially and I've seen people come down Mingo
you know help scalpers
so just something to throw out there for consideration
thank you
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair okay on that same note
you talk about the
developers required to do street improvement so you've
mentioned sidewalks
is there anything else required so I know Commissioner
Smith mentioned the
deaccelerator deacceleration lane obviously that's not a
required thing
it could be a plating it could be a plating it hasn't
gotten that far in
the in the assessment of the infrastructure needs of the
area in
relationship to the use so as it moves forward our traffic
engineers our
engineering department will review this and and and look at
the information that
the applicant provides and determine what what
infrastructure requirements
would be required on Mingo Road if additional improvements
would be
required something like turn lanes or or right turn lanes
so okay so that's an
engineering discussion and decision I'm sorry that's an
engineering discussion
and decision typically there yes okay thanks any other
questions on the SUP
thank you Julie we'll wrap up our work session so at 550 I
'll close our work
session and we'll reconvene in council chambers at 630
thank you good evening
and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning
Commission meeting
for December the 13th 2017 this meeting has been duly
posted and we do have a
quorum present and I will call us to order at 630 and our
first order of
business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and
the Texas flag
I will take us to our agenda item number two and chair
would entertain a motion
for our minutes Commissioner Smith okay Commissioner Ellis
second okay we have a
first and a second for approval any comments or questions
seeing none I'll
call for a vote on board
motion is going to carry five to zero with two abstain that
will take us to
our consent agenda we do have one item item D which is FP
17 - 0 0 3 1 that's
going to move down to our items for individual
consideration and it will
become item 4 C so our consent agenda will be items a B and
C
Commissioner Rizel I move to approve the consent agenda
okay Commissioner Smith
I second that motion okay we have a first and a second for
approval any
discussion or questions seeing none I'll call for a vote on
board
motion is going to carry seven to zero we'll move us to our
items for individual
consideration item a will be our calendar 2018 I assume we
don't have any
presentation on this no no what I'll just give just for
just to put on the
record and for those watching we typically meet second and
fourth Tuesday
I'm sorry Wednesday of each month for the for the months of
February and March
they'll be the first and third Wednesday this is a to it to
address the conflict
with with spring break making sure we have a quorum okay
great thank you for
the clarification on the calendar Commissioner Ellis thank
you chair I
will move to approve the 2018 planning and zoning
Commission calendar great
Commissioner Sullivan second that motion okay we have a
first and a second for
approval any discussion seeing none we'll call for a vote
on board that
motion carries seven zero that will move us to item B
should be SP 17 - 0053
and call on Haley for presentation
good evening this is a site plan for two multi-tenant
retail buildings and the
razor ranch development so the request is for approval of a
site plan for two
multi-tenant buildings that would be constructed and within
the South RR to
district on lot 6r and 7r the properties outlined on the
map in yellow it's
approximately three acres comprised of two lots located at
the southwest corner
of a University Drive and Heritage Trail intersection as I
mentioned before it is
within the South RR to district of the razor ranch overlay
site plans for
properties within this district are subject to the
architecture and landscape
standards that are outlined in exhibit C 1 and D 1 of the
overlay district each
site plan is required to include the following items the
site plan the
landscape plan and the building elevations the razor ranch
overlay
outlines the criteria for approval so a P&Z the P&Z will
approve the site plan
if it substantially complies with the concept and schematic
plan that was
approved by council for the overlay if it provides for a
compatible arrangement
of buildings and uses it wouldn't adversely affect any
properties outside
the overlay if it provides for safe and adequate
circulation of vehicular traffic
and if it complies with all the standards outlined in the
overlay to look
at this in a little more detail you see here it is two
separate lots as I
indicated lot 6r is building with total about 8800 square
feet and then lot 7r
about 8700 square feet so just over 17,000 square feet
total both buildings
would be for mixed retail and commercial uses approximately
three tenants per
building a total of 108 parking spaces is required for
these because there's
no parking maximum within razor ranch they're proposing 132
spaces and access
to the site would come from an internal north-south and an
internal east-west
drive no direct access off of University or Heritage Trail
for these buildings
looking at the landscape plan a total of 29% landscaping 37
% tree canopy on the
site the area in light green is existing landscaping that's
already installed
along University and Heritage Trail that will all be
maintained to provide the
parking lot screening and consistency of street trees and
site design across the
frontage of the property the darker green color is all the
new landscaping
that would be provided internal to the parking lot and
around the buildings the
area in blue is the plaza area so just over 2,000 square
feet of common area
for pedestrians that will include some trees and some
shaded seating look at the
building elevations for lot 6r mixture of materials stone
if is with neutral
color palette as called for by the overlay lot 7r very
similar in style to
6r staff is recommending approval of the site plan we found
it to be compliant
with all the regulations within the razor-grab wrench
overlay district and
the criteria for approval and I can stand for any questions
commissioner back
thank you chair Haley on the parking issue they it's a
hundred and eight
minimum they requested 24 more which we're always concerned
about all the
parking that's created and then never used can you go back
to the site plan
and were these 24 extra parking spaces going in a specific
area are they
evenly dispersed throughout no that would just be dispersed
across both lots
and there is a landscaping requirement for internal parking
lot islands the
equivalent of every 15 spaces so adequate landscaping to
shade and help
control stormwater in the parking lot okay thank you you
said it was mr.
Sanchez we have a 37% territory canopy you said yes what's
the maximum that
you can go if you can you go more than 37% or and what's a
maximum minimum is
there okay is that something that's set who sets that for
any building site well
within the overlay each each parcels required to have that
20% so overall
this site is providing a 17% extra tree canopy above what
is required okay that's
minimum okay any other questions for Haley thank you this
is a item for
individual consideration it's not a public hearing but
there if there is
anyone who would like to speak on this item or the
applicant please come forward
at this time seeing none the chair would entertain a motion
or open the floor for
discussion Commissioner Smith a motion to approve SP 17 - 0
0 5 3
Commissioner Sullivan second the motion we have a first and
a second for
approval any discussion seeing none call for a vote on
board that motion is going
to carry 7-0 we'll move us to item 4 C I have a conflict of
interest on this
property I have a partnership interest in this particular
project and so I'm
going to recuse myself and I'll turn it over to vice chair
Roselle thank you
chair
for item 4 C on FP 17 0 0 3 I'll call Julie Wyatt
presentation good evening
I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and
I am presenting a
final plot for consideration Evers way typically these are
seen on the consent
agenda however due to some condition conditions that staff
is recommending
this has been moved to the individual consideration it is a
final plot that
it's in conformance with the preliminary plot that was
approved in September of
this year there are three conditions that staff is
recommending first that
civil engine civil engineering construction plans for West
Hercules Lane
and all public infrastructure necessary to serve the
proposed development must
be approved prior to the prior approved before the plat is
filed if any utility
easement locations need to be modified as a result of the
final civil
engineering plans DRC approval shall be required so staff
level approval would
be required a text-up permit would be to allow access and
improvements to North
Locust Street must be obtained before prior to the plat
filing and also a
traffic impact analysis must be approved before the plat is
filed that traffic
impact analysis has been submitted to the city and is
currently under review
so I'll stand for any questions we do have one Commissioner
Smith thank you
vice chair Julia the applicant been agreeable to the
conditions proposed
they've been discussed with an agreeable to yes no other
questions so just for
clarification in your agenda this is item 3d it's been
moved to individual
consideration and now 4c it's FP 1700 31 it's not a public
hearing but you're
more than welcome to speak if anyone wants to speak on this
you can step
forward see none the vice chair will open this for a
discussion and or motion
looks like we have a motion by Commissioner Smith motion to
approve SP
FP 17 - 3 0 0 3 1 with the acceptance of city staffs
conditions Commissioner
Sullivan I second that motion seven a first and the second
vote on the board
motion passes six to zero with one recusal that's it for
the individual
consideration we'll call the chair back in for the public
hearing
that will move us on to our public hearing section this
evening I'm going
to open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 2 6 and I believe
this item is going to
be continued the chair would entertain a motion for a date
certain of January
24th Commissioner Roselle I move to postpone agenda items Z
17 00 26 to a
date certain of January 24th 2018 okay Commissioner Smith
second that motion
okay we have a first and a second to continue to a date
certain and we will
leave this item open so it will not have to be renoticed
any further discussion
on this item seeing none call for a vote on board
motion is going to carry seven to zero our item B has been
withdrawn our item
C has been withdrawn our item D has been withdrawn and that
will move us to our
item E and I'll call on Julie Wyatt and I will open the
public hearing for FR 17
- 0 0 2 0 B
this is a public hearing for a final replat of previously
platted property
the subject property is located in our downtown area on
south of East Hickory
Street is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of a
couple of the lots
on the property that the applicant is here if you have any
questions and I'll
stand for any questions as well
any questions for Julie thank you Julie thank you this is a
public hearing
anyone that would like to speak on this item please come
forward at this time I
do not have any cards requesting to speak
again this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on
this item seeing
none close the public hearing and open the floor for
discussion or emotion
Commissioner Beck moved to approve FR 17 0 0 2 0 B okay
Commissioner Smith
second that motion okay we have a first and a second for
approval any further
discussion seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board
motions going to carry seven zero we'll move us to item F
open the public
hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 1 2 we'll call on Julie white for
presentation
all right good evening
Julie before you get started are you going to present both
of these items at
this in the SCP and then we'll just do separate votes are
we open them yes sir
yes sir so this is there are two separate items we're gonna
go over but
we'll do one presentation just in interest of time and then
and then there
will have to be two separate votes it is because it's all
one project so that's
why we're gonna take it at the same time so right now we're
gonna go over Z 17
12 and s 17 6 the mingo road apartments so as you stated
there are two requests
first there is a rezoning the applicant is proposing to re
zone the property from
neighborhood residential 3 to neighborhood residential
mixed-use 12
they're also requesting a specific use permit to allow a
multifamily
residential use the subject property is an approximately a
four acre tract
located on the north side of mingo road about 150 feet
southwest of Boyd Street
this is within the vicinity of the TWU campus you can
probably see the TWU golf
courses in this location here so on the left here we've got
what the existing
zoning is at the subject property does have an NR 3 zoning
district they are
proposing to rezone to NRM U 12 which would extend that
existing NRM U 12 to
the west of this that's located west of the subject
property the criteria for
approval for rezoning or in is in subchapter 3 of the Dent
on Development
Code first is the use does the proposed zoning district
conform to the future
land use element of the Denton plan 2030 and then second
does it facilitate the
adequate provision of public infrastructure so we'll take
the future
land use element first per the Denton plan 2030 the future
land use designation
of the property is neighborhood university compatibility
the intent of
this area is to provide compatible housing and service and
services that
serve both the both of our universities as well as the
surrounding neighborhood
so if you look at the enrollment the current enrollment
plus the enrollment
projections of our of our universities within the city of
Denton there is how
their housing needs to accommodate that and and so this
neighborhood university
compatibility area is intended to accommodate that and try
to provide
compatible forms and uses not only to provide for that
additional housing but
also so that integrates well within those surrounding
neighborhoods staff
looked at the neighborhood university compatibility area
and determined that
NRMU 12 is appropriate for this future land use designation
because it does
both of those both of the housing and then also provides
some small-scale
commercial uses which could provide services for those
populations the code
also talks about the adequate provision of public
facilities for a rezoning so
when we we look at the area there is water in that sewer
along Mingo Road
however extensions of both of those may be required at plat
ting and that would
be something that would be determined during that that
stage of development it
is located on Mingo Road which is a secondary arterial
under current
conditions Mingo Road is a two-lane undivided road
secondary arterials per
the Denton Development Code are typically required to be
four lane
divided roads with five foot sidewalks on either side so it
's not currently built
to the ultimate secondary arterial standard it is my
understanding from
engineering currently there aren't any projects that are or
any capital
improvement projects that are intended to widen Mingo at
this time however with
the development they would be required to dedicate right-of
-way and do any
public infrastructure improvements associated with the
development we also
looked at the compatibility of the request with the
surrounding zoning
districts so when we look at at the existing development
pattern as well as
the location of the site on that primary arterial staff is
determined it's it's
really unlikely to develop with single-family residential
uses you know
access is only taken from that Mingo Road roadway as well
as those those
single-family neighborhoods plus the the the age-limited
multifamily development
to the West kind of isolate this this this piece of
property so that there's
not vehicular access to those adjacent neighborhoods it's
built out around them
neighborhood or NRM U12 is intended for these types of
areas it's intended to be
near to residential areas and to be compatible compatible
with residential
neighborhoods it provides some some different housing types
as well as some
commercial services some small-scale commercial development
so it's intended
to be near residential areas that will be required the way
that the site is
configured it backs up to adjacent properties so the buff
ers will be
required I believe we talked in the work session that would
be a 10-foot
landscape buffer require a certain number of trees and shr
ubs to be planted
between any use on this site and those single-family
residential neighborhoods
NRM U12 is a logical extension of that existing
neighborhood residential
neighborhood residential mixed-use 12 adjacent to the
subject property it's
also kind of a lot an appropriate transition from this dr2
and DCG which
is closer to TWU as you're transitioning toward that single
-family residential
neighborhood so it's a logical transition as well the
subject property
is also an infill development the the debt and plan 2030
calls for infill
development it calls for these types of parcels that are
within our city to
provide some different housing types and different services
so that we can
maintain compact growth so based upon the criteria for
approval staff
recommends approval of this request because it is
consistent with the with
the future land use element as well as the goals and
objectives of the dent and
plan 2030 and it also encourages infill development in a
way that is compatible
with the surrounding zoning and development pattern and
that concludes
the zoning portion of the presentation if anybody has any
questions otherwise
I'll just move forward with the specific use permit
commissioner back thank you
chair Julie we all I think most of commissioners mentioned
in the work
session we're concerned about mingo Road in the traffic
issue that may arise and
the fact that it is considered a second arterial could you
share with us for the
sake of the audience why this development was considered
okay to go
ahead with without the widening of mingo at this time well
we're gonna be adding
some traffic to it albeit not a lot but still within the
city of Denton how our
roads network typically develops is that as as development
on a roadway comes
forward right of way right of way dedication is is is
determined at
platting and then any additional roadway perimeter
improvements are determined at
platting mingo is kind of an interesting case because it's
an existing road so as
the city develops as there are future improvements to our
roadway network that
will be something that would be considered but right now
there aren't
any planned improvements for mingo Road now this
development would be required
to dedicate right of way for future any future widening
projects on mingo Road
they would also be required to to construct any sidewalks
so as as the as
the network as the roadway continues to to develop they
would that would be that
piece of pedestrian facilities that they would that they
would put in so it's
just one more piece that will continue creating those
connections so there's
nothing planned right now but this but this one would be
required to have some
improvements to the road okay but we're likely not to see
any widening of mingo
is a second arterial meeting the criteria of second arter
ial and we see a
lot more development along mingo unless there is some other
mechanism that that
creates that that such as like a capital improvement
project okay okay all right
thank you sure
Commissioner Smith thank you chair during discussion of
approval for the
zoning can we can we limit the height that the height in
our m12 is 12 at 65
feet are we able to to approve landing that height at all
the the height limit
of NRM u12 is 40 feet and yes you could put a condition on
either the SUP or the
zoning case that could limit the height so yes sir
when I already be 12 he's that's 40 feet in it 65 is what I
'll say maximum
building I had 65 feet no you're fine I just wanted to make
sure I didn't say
wrong no NRM u12 sport 40 feet it's 40 but you could you
could restrict that
is you could restrict that or does it is it says says right
here in our in our
backup it says maximum building height 65 feet then I
apologize I was incorrect
in the backup yes it is 40 feet further I apologize never
mind yes thank you thank
you for pointing that out all right so any other questions
no questions on this
part all right presentation all right so now we'll talk
about the specific use
permit and what they're proposing on the site so they are
proposing a specific
use permit for multifamily developments they are their
proposal is 48 two-bedroom
units with some outdoor recreation they are proposing two-
story buildings
buildings would be set back from the single-family
residential per their site
plan so if we could just take a look at their site plan
they are proposing some
detention areas on the east as well as the northern side so
they're pulling
those buildings back away from the single-family
residential areas they're
also they would be required to meet the landscape buffers
in the code and that
is depicted on this on this site plan as well as street
trees along mingo road
they're also proposing some masonry and stone accents and
you can see here the
conceptual elevations this is what would be presenting
toward mingo road it would
also have street trees along the frontage of it and then
here is the rear
elevation so the criteria for approval for specific use
permits are in sub
chapter 6 of the debt and development code and it is
essentially a
compatibility analysis between the surrounding property and
then the
proposed use what we look at is typically what would the
specific use
impede the normal or orderly development of the surrounding
vacant property with
the parking and generation of traffic and access how would
that work within
that the greater context of the site and the in the area
what what types of
nuisances with the proposed use create and what what
mechanisms could prevent
that nuisances is there adequate landscaping and screening
and is the
architecture compatible with the surrounding property when
we looked at
their proposal we determined it is compatible with this
with the adjacent
properties for the following reasons first it's consistent
with the dent plan
2030 future land use element and also the goal of the
future of the didn't plan
2030 to develop infill sites so the didn't plan 2030 once
that kind of
compact growth and these types of infill sites where you
could get some
different housing types meet that requirement it would also
provide
needed housing near a TWU campus and that that meets that
future land use
designation as well the way the site is is is set out
within the surrounding
development there's no direct vehicular access to adjacent
neighborhoods so it
would limit any traffic impacts within those those adjacent
neighborhoods it
is on a DCTA connect route so it would provide alternate
roads modes of
transportation for the the residents there are proposed two
-story buildings
with increased side setbacks and that increases the
compatibility with the
nearby residential development and additionally the use
must meet all dent
and development code requirements for screening parking
lighting street trees
and tree canopy public notification was sent out we've
received four four letters
in opposition within the 200 foot boundary and you can see
they're
depicted here and read and that is 6% we've received one in
favor and that is
this property right here staff proposes the condition on
the specific use
permit that it is required to ensure that they must submit
a full site plan
to ensure that it does comply with all dent and development
code requirements
for those those items such as site design landscaping
parking and building
design so based upon the criteria for approval and the
proposed condition
staff recommends approval of the request because it is
consistent with the dent
plan 2030 and it also provides moderate density housing
designed to minimize
impacts to nearby single-family homes to create a
compatible form within an
infill area and I will stand for any questions got several
questions
Commissioner Smith make sure deacceleration lanes along M
ingo the
owners of course we put on to the engineer the applicant to
construct
those is there anything that would treat as a trip
generation that would trigger
the city making that a requirement correct yes it would be
based upon their
based upon the road the the in their proposal the types of
trips that their
proposal would generate that may require additional turn
lanes either left turn
lanes right turn lanes some sort of system improvements
within that area so
that is something that they'll be determined at platting
once a little
more detailed information has been provided to the city
thank you sure
Commissioner Sullivan thank you Judy what is the the
screening that's going to be
going specifically on the north and east boundaries what is
the screening
requirements yes they would be required to put in that 10-
foot landscape buffer
which includes
five evergreen and deciduous trees and 30 shrubs per 100
linear feet okay so
there's no wall or anything just landscaping the didn't
develop a code
doesn't require a wall okay and it looks like on the map
that from the one set of
apartments proposed apartments on the east side that it's
70 feet from the
north boundary and then 40 35 feet from the east boundary
is that am I reading
that right yes it's set back fairly far now this is
conceptual at this exact
understand so but I think from the letters that that I saw
here the
concern was rain one ought runoff you know water runoff
that's not going into
their property traffic and which I'm assuming is more on m
ingo and just I'm
sure just looking in the backyard at an apartment but when
we're looking at
these distances and the landscaping requirements you know
am I right to
assume that that sort of mitigates some of those issues
that it's not going to
be an apartment right up to the on the boundary line that
they're going to be
able to somebody in the second floor look down on to them
it was part of a
staffs analysis that those increased setbacks did increase
the compatibility
with those adjacent residential properties because it minim
izes those
visual impacts of the of the proposed apartment buildings
okay thank you sure
Commissioner back thank you chair couple questions for
Julie
monkey back on Commissioner Sullivan's comments would it be
safe to assume that
the fact that we're coming in and developing or the
applicant is going to
develop this property that drainage would actually improve
as a result that
because now they've got to meet requirements that weren't
in place back
when the current owner was there that there were conditions
there that
contribute to poor drainage on owners property but now that
the developers
coming in they've got to ensure that we're not going to
increase that or
we're not going to add to that is that right they would
have to make sure
they're not negatively impact those adjacent properties
okay also you
pointed out that one of the conditions that have to be met
for an SUP is that
adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be
taken to prevent or
control offensive odors fumes dust noise and vibration so
my question is
who and how is this determined what source do you use to
measure this is
somebody going out checking routinely here in terms of the
those types of
nuisance those are typically nuisances we see with more
intense uses not
residential uses something like a an industrial use or
maybe a even a more
intense commercial use staff doesn't anticipate that that
dust or fumes or
noise or vibration that is inconsistent with what's what
what a residential use
would would produce is is going to be likely at this this
site so we're not
anticipating that a nuisance of that sort would be present
here but if a
resident nearby were to consider that such nuisance were
going on they could
call the city and y'all would respond to that certainly
okay okay thank you
Commissioner Sanchez when we're looking at the the old the
trees there's quite a
few older trees there and my concern is and you mentioned
it earlier you go by
caliper but is there a difference you consider trees a one
that's eight inch
DBH as opposed to one that would be like 30 inch DBH I mean
that would have a lot
more value even though it's there may they may will be oaks
but the older the
tree the more value it has because there's less of those
kind of trees so
is there anything in the in the plan that states okay the
older tree will get
three points well the same type of tree but at eight inch
only gets one do you
consider that at all the the way our tree code is written
it's in sub chapter
13 of the Denton Development Code and it does differentiate
between tree sizes
and also the some species of trees so there are there would
be preservation
requirements for protected trees versus let me
there are protected trees there are also secondary trees
and then there there are
quality tree and quality tree stands so the size of the
excuse me the size and
species of the tree would determine that classification and
there are different
preservation requirements for each type so so depending on
how those trees are
classified as they get to that platting stage then they'll
come up with their
tree preservation plan at that point they would have to
meet all of those
sub chapter 13 requirements and one more question we talked
about it's in the
neighborhood university compatibility and we were my
concern is you know if
we're gonna provide housing for students what about by a
lot of used bikes I know
there is will be a bus route through there but there's a
lot of students that
also ride bikes and that would be a concern for me is that
eventually we need
to provide some safety because that road is very narrow and
we don't want
students to get hit driving to school or riding to school
is there I know you
mentioned something a future plan for route bike rights
routes in that area
well the city of Denton does have a bike plan that they are
currently
implementing and so there are different routes that will
connect different bike
routes within the city in order to connect residential
areas with those
nodes of education and employment so as that bike plan
continues to be
constructed that that bike network will just fill out more
and provide more
connections in terms of when when mingo would either get a
bike lane or what is
proposed for that I don't have that information with me I
don't know when
that would come about but I know that the city is looking
at completing that
network
Commissioner Roselle thank you chair Julie was there any
neighborhood meeting
regarding this the applicant host a neighborhood meeting
they did have a
neighborhood meeting they had a neighborhood meeting over
the summer I
wasn't able to attend that was a City Council night but the
applicant is here
so they could probably give you more information about what
transpired at the
meeting okay perfect thank you sure Commissioner Ellis
thank you chair Julie
going back to road concerns traffic impact analysis is it
required it
wouldn't be required in this instance because it meet that
doesn't meet those
thresholds this the Denton Development Code has thresholds
when that traffic
impact analysis would be required and this
based upon the trip generation manuals
based upon the the eighth edition of the Institute of
Transportation engineers
trip generation manual the proposed use would generate 320
daily vehicle trips
and 33 evening peak hour trips the Denton Development Code
requires that
any use over a thousand vehicle trips per day or 100 peak
hour trips would
require a TI a because this one doesn't doesn't breach that
threshold then it
wouldn't be required in this instance so if engineering is
going to determine if
road improvements are necessary they just making that
decision amongst
themselves or they would look at those trips generation it
had generated and
how they're dispersed in the area so so it would it would
be based upon that not
necessarily a full TI a there may be I mean there could it
doesn't meet the
threshold of a TI a but if it did get to that point where
they thought they
needed it that is something that the applicant could
discuss with engineering
to ensure that the applicant or that the site is adequately
served okay thank you
sure any other questions for Julie thank you Julie this is
a public hearing I do
have one card wishing to speak Lawrence Hall Dorf speaking
in support
hello I'm Lawrence Holder 2415 North Elm Street Julie if
you could help me put
the slide on okay hold up
it's good news
you
[ Pause ]
>> I apologize for that.
[ Pause ]
Okay, as shown for the card that I turned in, I am Lawrence
Holdworth, the engineer on this project representing Flumer
-Rometti, the developer, and Amanda Austin, the owner of the
property.
We actually held two neighborhood meetings.
They were held on 6/20 and 8/03.
And both of those, we went for the first one to see what
the neighborhood concerns were, and then we came back in 8/
3 to kind of show them what we were at that time.
So we took a concept plan to them, and then we came back
showing them what we planned to do to address those
concerns.
The concerns that were addressed by the residents was the
increase in traffic on Mingo Road, the exasperation of the
existing drainage issues.
So the increase in traffic on Mingo Road, as discussed
earlier, Mingo Road is a secondary arterial, and it is
going to be addressed for future improvement.
And the exasperation of existing drainage issues, per the D
ENT development code, we have to, as discussed earlier, not
allow any additional negative impacts off-site.
So we do plan to take our drainage into detention.
We plan to take all that drainage down south, splitting it
to the current drainage pattern, east and west, because we
are actually on a divide right there.
So we do not plan to take any drainage to the east and very
limited drainage to the north, less flow than what is
currently going to those directions now.
The loss of privacy for residents back in the development,
our buildings, as shown, are pulled far away from the
property line, much further than what is actually required.
The site plan actually is 44 feet away from the east
property line, 35 feet being what is required per the
height building setback, a 10-foot buffer along the north
and the east is required as well.
So we are pulling those buildings a little bit further back
, providing a detention pond between the two so it's a nice
green area, and then providing additional green space along
the north side.
The preservation of existing trees, we, through our site
plan, we were able to pull the buildings in such a way that
we were able to preserve the majority of all the existing
trees on the site, way more than what is required.
The required tree preservation at this time is about 25%,
not about, it is 25% of quality trees.
We are preserving more than 50%, I'm hoping to zoom in on
that number here as soon as we get to that point.
The additional residents are concerns, so we received a few
letters, or at least one letter, that was requesting
additional concerns.
Noise and traffic congestion increased, the noise off of M
ingo Road, as my understanding on that.
Our buildings, the building, the landscaping, as well as
the open space, should be able to mitigate that noise and
that traffic volume noise from Mingo Street.
So we're not just open clearing and providing a parking lot
where noise would just be able to bounce and ricochet all
the way back to those residents.
Traffic congestion, again, it is a secondary arterial that
has not been developed to its maximum potential.
So as soon as it is developed at that time, we will be able
to, it will be able to handle the traffic.
Again, our site is only taking 320 trips, way under the
thousand trips, and it's almost compatible with the trips
that would be from single family residential that would be
installed in this location, or constructed in this location
as well.
We have a willingness to work with the city engineer and
with the traffic engineers.
If any improvements are required, turn lanes, acceleration
lanes, or anything of those natures are determined to be
required, we will be working with them during the plotting
process to provide those if required, and to determine if
they are required.
Property value decrease was another concern.
We did a quick analysis just by grabbing a random home
further north, and I can show you the slides as we get down
to that point, further north on budding a development, the
apartments that were built in 2005 or 2015, sorry.
And to show that the apartments, even though they were
built, the property values had decreased during the
recession and then have been slowly increasing since then.
And when that apartment complex was constructed, there was
no negative impacts that were foreseen.
Now we aren't a realty agent, so we can't determine whether
or not there actually will be a decrease.
However, it is our best judgment that property decrease is
not going to be an issue.
Request for turn lanes on Mingo, again that is being
addressed at the planning process.
We have more than a willingness to address deceleration
lanes and turn lanes during the planning process.
The request for walls are barriers between development and
adjacent residents.
There are currently fences out there now.
There are currently trees along the buffer line.
We are only removing the shrubbery that is not consistent
or conducive to the buffer to be able to provide the
required trees and shrubs for the development code.
So we are trying to preserve all the trees and desired
foliage in the buffer.
Walls and barriers, at this time we have been discussing
and we have been discussing with the city staff internally
with the developer as well to provide, potentially provide
a wall there.
But at this time it is not required per the DDC.
And we are hoping to look at the feasibility of that during
the site plan and planning process.
Again, this is actually a response.
I just went ahead and wrote it out.
I'll skip this because I already just said it.
Additional site enhancements.
Our buildings will have a very nice facade on them.
They will look, they will present well from the street as
well as from internally.
We are providing a lot of open space and a detention
between the building and the property owners as opposed to
trying to provide that detention internally.
We gave that as a buffer between the buildings and the
residents.
It is designed to be a pedestrian oriented development by
providing connectivity internally, sidewalks and
recreational areas as well as open space for pedestrian use
.
We are showing at this time and would like to present on
the site plan as well bicycle racks, the community bicycle
racks.
I'm not sure if a lot of people are going to post those,
but we are for the community bicycle racks at this time.
And as well as covered bicycle racks or providing a storage
facility for those.
So we understand that some of the residents may be coming
from the school and therefore will be riding their bike.
And so we want to provide a safe and secure location for
those bikes.
The outdoor recreational area such as like a dog park or a
ultimate frisbee area, something along those lines on the
inside internal of our site.
Our lot coverage currently is 38 percent.
The inverse of that is 62 percent landscape.
The maximum lot coverage is 60 percent or 40 percent
required landscape.
We are showing 62 percent landscape on our site.
We are almost doubling our landscape requirement.
So our site is in itself half the size that is required per
the coverage requirement.
So we are really trying to maximize that green space, that
open feeling, that outdoor kind of pedestrian oriented
development.
We are limiting our structures to the two stories, to under
the 40 feet, two story structures.
That way we aren't proposing to go four story, three story
thing along those lines where the abutting residents will
fear that somebody that high can actually peer down into
their backyards and into their home.
So with the setback, with the buffers, with the trees and
everything else along that comes with that, we will not be
able to easily peer into neighbors backyards.
The preservation of the majority of the existing on site
trees.
Again, I'm hoping to zoom to that.
I went ahead and pulled up or put on here the landscape
plan as well.
Preserving at least 50 percent of the trees.
I can't remember the exact number.
Just left my mind where I stepped up here.
Willingness to provide an eight foot sidewalk along Mingo
Street.
We have discussed this with the city staff and with the
residents that we would like to increase right now.
Secondary tier requires a five foot sidewalk.
We would like to increase that five foot to an eight foot.
By increasing that, it provides a wider area for
pedestrians as well as accessibility for a bicycle for
passing pedestrians.
So we would like to or we would like to work with the city
to provide an eight foot sidewalk if we are able to.
Again, the concept plan that was shown with Julie's
presentation and then the landscape number.
So I can zoom in and see if it's any clear.
And I can't get far enough in.
It's at least 50 percent.
If not more, again, 25 percent is required.
So here is the notification map that had the neighborhood
concerns.
And we took 1509 Creek Avenue, just randomly grabbed their
site and looked up on DCAD to see property values and
looking past back the past nine years.
Past the recession, there has been a steady increase in
property value, even though the development to the west was
constructed in 2002 and the apartment complexes, which
would be abutting their property, was built in 2015.
So we responsibly believe that a multifamily residential
will not negatively impact this area.
That is my presentation at this time.
If you have any questions.
Got a couple of questions.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
The proposed use is for student housing, correct?
It was suggested that it was student housing. I guess
really the question I have is that whenever you talk to a
developer, as I'm bringing in student housing, they're
envisioning creating apartment complexes that have a one to
one ratio of bathroom to bedroom.
You know, if it's a four bedroom, four bedroom apartment,
it's going to have four bathrooms or maybe two bathrooms.
But it's designed to where you can have individual units
inside the apartment unit itself.
Is the design of these apartment complexes proposed to be
designed to be marketable towards students or is it going
to be apartment complexes that will probably be students
because of proximity to the university, but not going to be
designed necessarily targeting them?
More of the latter.
We, of course, welcome the student population to rent from
these apartments or rent these apartments, but they are not
specifically designed to go directly after those students.
It is a two bedroom unit. I don't know the exact bathroom
to bedroom count. My understanding is that it is at this
time still being finalized.
It is going to be one bathroom for two bedrooms, but that
can vary depending on what floor or the ultimate layout.
But again, we are trying to welcome the students, but we're
not going specifically for them.
So it could be a mix of student and family use.
Absolutely, sir.
Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Holder for your presentation. And let me
compliment you on your development.
I like a lot of things that you're going to do that you're
planning on doing the preservation of trees.
Possibility of widening the sidewalk for both pedestrian
and bike. On that one particular thing, are you just
considering that eight foot width just in front of your
development or would you be willing to work with the city
to take it all the way down to Roodale?
Take the eight foot sidewalk or the existing sidewalk to
replace the existing sidewalk that's in front of the
development to the well or add to it.
That would be something that we would have to.
And I wasn't trying to get you. I was just curious whether
that was thought evidently it wasn't something you're just
looking at in front of your development.
Okay, good. That's her. And you did indicate these were two
stories. So we're not that's not going to change.
Okay, story is not going to change from the two story. We
are maximizing the unit count at this time.
So we do not have the additional units to go vertically or
horizontally. We cannot expand the buildings at this time
we may be able to make the square footage slightly bigger,
but we cannot make, unless we eliminate one building and
stack it on top of the other at this point which we, there
's no reason to do.
And we do not propose that at this time. And that's very
appealing because that that lower high takes that concern
away from the residents that should be able to look in,
considering you got a, I think a 44 foot distance between
the property and there's
the issue with offense and privacy fence mentioned those
apartments up on university, where it hasn't affected
property values there they do have a six foot high masonry
fence all the way around.
I realize that in homeowners there had some fences of their
own to now we're driving down boy and seminal and notice
there are some six foot would privacy fences in the
backyard, but that's an older development there's still a
lot of chain lead fence four foot high.
So, that aspect of the privacy is lost. Now, the areas that
are going to back up to these houses on both boy and sem
inal are going to be the open spaces and detention area so
not necessarily a lot of people out there but
would you be willing to work with the homeowners as far as
upgrading their fence a little bit to afford a little bit
more privacy is that a possibility. Yes, so at the time of
these neighborhood means one that concern was brought up
and we had expressed with
residents that we would work with them to improve their
existing fence, if it does not meet that requirement the
six foot height or privacy fence if they are accepting of
that we're not going to force that upon them.
We have discussed with staff and will be discussing with
staff, the buffer alternative to provide a fence as opposed
to the shrubs, which in my opinion, would be better for
this kind of a development but not as foliage in the
appealing.
Either or we will be adhering to the development code on
that so we don't plan to create additional buffer we feel
as though we have provided enough mitigation for that by
pulling our buildings away and providing the required
buffer, so we would just be
putting the buffer to a buffer that has a fence and then
would require think it's five trees or four trees every
hundred feet then at that point.
So, fence. It's okay. Well, and we'll discuss that moving
forward so we are looking at hopefully trying to provide a
fence we have been talking with the developer about that
providing a fence but at this time we have not finalized
that decision.
But we will be working with them we have expressed my agree
the tree buffer would be good it diminishes it but I think
the thing with most homeowners going to be the top side it
's out of mind so if there's that visuals still there.
If you do have a chain link fence and the tree barrier just
doesn't quite do the trick you would be willing to work
with them and erect a price for privacy. Yes sir. How would
they approach you, how would they go about approaching you.
That is a very good question. That was one of those things
where we believe that we would be able to approach that
person at that time saying, your fence appears to not be a
privacy fence would you like to for us to upgrade that.
And if that doesn't happen, then we know that they would be
more than if they are opposed to this they would be more
than apt to approaching us. Okay, so at that time we would,
oh okay you, you would like us to improve that.
So either or.
And both, I think is how we plan to do that we actually
didn't write anything down at this time is how to do that.
That's a very good logistic question that I'm not really
thought about.
Okay, I'm glad to raise it there. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Okay, Julie.
One of the questions is, they haven't met the threshold you
said as far as traffic.
What if later on once the bit, and that's going to be, I
guess that that analysis has been done prior to building
the apartments. What about, say, a few months later, and,
and the traffic gets pretty heavy.
And then the residents in that neighborhood then petition
the city to do a re analysis of the, of the traffic.
Make sure I understand your question so your question is
that if trap anticipated traffic is actually higher once
the, once the multifamily was built. Yes, what a new
analysis of that traffic impact.
People really feel that it's impact the traffic has
increased, and therefore it's impacting, you know, the area
, could they go back to the city and say, hey, now we, you
know, we really feel that it's a lot worse and what you had
told us.
And then the city re analysis, re analysis re analyze that
and then have the city do something. I'm not aware of a
mechanism by which a new analysis of the traffic could be
done in terms of this development.
However, the city or traffic engineer and our engineering
department as a whole is looking at all of the traffic
within the city and seeing what improvements can be made to
our infrastructure so it might be part of a larger
discussion about the greater network, but in terms of with
this project, I don't.
I don't know of a mechanism that there are a reevaluation
could happen. I was just curious you know sometimes people,
you know, we make analysis and they're not correct. And so
sometimes we have to go back and re look at it revisit it.
And that's all that was my question. If, if what the
analysis that has been done. It doesn't pan out, then what
do we do the residents have a way to go back to the city
engineers, or maybe even just as a group, they can go back
to the city.
The neighborhood can go back hate. Could you read evaluate
the traffic here. I would always encourage residents to
communicate with the city about what's going on in their
neighborhood so I think that's a good thing to do.
Go back to the city and see.
Let us know where the issue areas are so that as plans move
forward, those can be addressed. Yes, sir.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item is welcome to
come down at this time I don't have any cards.
If you do choose to come speak if you'll fill out a card
for us after you speak will be fine. So come on down and
give us your name and address and then just fill out a card
before you leave this evening.
My name is James Vicki I live at 1510 Seminole Avenue I'm
north and center of the property that's being proposed for
the change.
I must say that I was pleasantly surprised with the redo of
the design from the one that I saw in August, they did
manage to pull the property away they gave us homeowners, a
little bit more space to breathe.
I do have a few concerns, and one is, like, Mr. Beck said
here, most of us have four foot chain link fences so while
the trees are beautiful, I think the fence would would
offer us a little bit more privacy people from keep people
from walking on to our property easily jumping the fence
doing whatever you know just in case we want to keep honest
people honest I suppose. Another issue that I have is, I
don't know if you guys can see it now, but on the northern
end, they have set of dumpsters.
And I was concerned my wife and I are concerned that this
is a dumpster been for 48 apartments and it's 10 feet from
my house and I would like, if possible for the developer to
consider moving that maybe somewhere further on to their
property.
Instead of on mine and my neighbors, you know the
summertime I would be concerned about the smells.
Another issue that wasn't mentioned.
I think is of importance to is that even though there's
green space on the northern end of their property. I'm
wondering what the lighting situation would be like. Right
now we all enjoy very dark backyards which is which is nice
.
I'm wondering if they might be able to address or, or the
concern of lighting up the backyards a little bit too much.
If they do have lighting back there whatsoever.
A couple questions for you. Commissioner Alice. Thank you,
Chair. Thank you for bringing your concerns up I think my
question might be for staff I had the same thought you did
with regard to the dumpsters and their location and the
conceptual plan.
And I believe this is to be addressed at site pant plan
approval if I am correct.
Excellent so that is to be brought up then and will
hopefully be addressed because I agree I don't like the
location of it at all.
It's very close.
The question has been removed so that's.
Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair, Julie, could you come
up and kind of explain the city of the requirements about
lighting and something like this to allow changes concerns.
So chapter 13 outlines the requirements for lighting at the
property line light may may not measure more than one half
foot candle of illumination, unless it's a pedestrian area
in that back property, the northern property line wouldn't
be a pedestrian area so they couldn't measure more than one
half foot candle and it would also have to be shielded for
upward diffusion to minimize that as well.
Okay, thank you.
I guess I should say a photo metric plan is reviewed at
building permits to ensure that that is the requirements
met right we'll be looking at in greater detail later.
Thanks.
Commissioner result you have a question I don't know if it
'd be for staff or.
Yeah, it's for Julie thanks chair.
Can you help us with this process a little bit is there a
way to put in a request to have these dual dumpsters
already address a plot or is it going to be on us that when
a plaque comes back.
We bring it up and correct it at that time is there any way
to be proactive in that filing or or us just encourage the
applicant to make that change when bringing to plot what
can we do to, because that is a less than ideal location.
Certainly, so if the, if the SUP if the zoning and SUP are
approved by Council, then a plot would be approved by the
planning and zoning Commission, but the dumpster location
wouldn't be reflected on that plot so and then the site
plan and building permit would be staff level approved so
you wouldn't necessarily see that dumpster location so if
that is something that you wanted to add as a condition
that or, you know, bring that up as a condition it
certainly serves that purpose.
If that's a condition it's certainly something that you
could address at this time, but there wouldn't be a future
opportunity to discuss that that location, other than it
staff approved at staff level.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, chair.
So you said dumpsters in the location, but commercial
commercial properties and their dumpsters users, next to
that but a residential users own property.
Their DDC code for that or is there.
They would just have to meet buffer requirements. What's
the buffer requirements we know that that well if I believe
the commercial against single family residential is the 15
foot landscape buffer so it would be that landscape buffer
and then I think six trees and a certain number of shrubs
of 15 of landscape buffer so it's something that we could
as we go to vote on this EP. We could say it's a 15 we
think that it should be 30 or something like that.
You could certainly address that location and in some form.
Yes, more or less just want to know what it was now I want
to say let's do 15 and it's all it's already 15.
Right now it's 10 right now they have it at 10.
Okay.
Commissioner Alice.
Thank you at this point I think my questions for the
applicant.
Regarding this dumpster location. Is there another location
that it could be on the site plan for the applicant, you
address your question to the applicant.
Yeah, I'm assuming that perhaps it's here because that's
where it made sense to you as, is there another location it
could go.
So the dumpster can be located anywhere on site as long as
it has adequate access for waste management so a dumpster
that is believe it's 14 foot by 22 feet dual dumpster has
to have 50 feet of clearance behind it so the way that we
reason why we placed it where we did, which actually
is, is 10 feet off of the property line was because the
waste management would be able to work its way up through
grab that dumpster come back through and then loop back
back around I guess I can use the mouse as opposed to my
fingers.
So to come up, it would hit that dumpster come back and
then would come back out the site. So we could locate that
somewhere else as long as the 50 foot and the 50 foot would
be roughly see if that's so many foot it'd be roughly about
down to here.
So as we rotate that you have to keep in mind that that the
dumpster itself is not the only part that has to rotate you
have to have that access or else waste management will not
accept that.
So we could relocate it out into the middle of somewhere or
pull it off but I mean now you're talking additional
concrete additional pavement for something of just
providing the dumpster.
This dumpster here is in close proximity, close enough
proximity to the apartments that we felt that it was viable
to to locate it there.
We typically do not like to try to put dumpsters in the
front of the development as you have to screen that from
the right of way so as traffic drives along the road you do
not want to be able to look into as you're driving your car
look into a development see dumpster.
We understand that we do have to provide gates doors were
not to prevent those dumpster from being readily seeable
but being honest they're not always closed.
So, we do like to screen those.
We typically try to put them behind building or towards the
back of a development. So that is the reason for this, this
SCP putting it in the back of the development.
During the site plan phase we will be locking that down.
And I understand typically that is where you'd have it but
that is where we have our current residents of single
family property so it is less than ideal if it was
something that was this commissioners pleasure to want to
to change and make it conditional upon approval today would
that be something that you would entertain.
We would definitely entertain relocating the dumpster and
working with city staff to to do that.
We will have to look at possible locations for that again
we are trying to preserve the trees preserve the atmosphere
for that open space.
Playground kind of area in the middle between the buildings
.
So we don't want to locate it in the middle of the property
we're trying to avoid that so we could try to put it down
in the West property line or towards the West, hearing to
the fire lane radius on a 20 foot.
You're getting.
We've been willing to look into relocating it where we're
ultimately will go it looks as though we have to do some
geometric changing to the roads into the parking in order
to to fit that somewhere else.
But we are more than willing to to look in to that, for
sure.
The question on the trash bins that all gets reviewed by
the solid waste department at ultimately they're going to
be the ones that are going to say we can get trucks in.
And I don't know if the commission would be willing to to
give staff development review committee staff like we do a
lot of other things.
I think the concern has been raised by the residents I
think obviously commission responded to it it's a concern
that we could just say we had over to to DRC as it gets
through the moves through planning and site plan for that
to be addressed and taken care of and not try to put
something on arbitrarily that then solid waste doesn't work
.
So I think that's one of the things that it has to come
back possibly and just put it in your good hands that it's
a concern has been noted and we need to address it and and
handling staff level and all the places where that would
take place.
It can be handled at staff level or the S.U.P. Yes sir.
Okay.
So that the condition could be a certain number of feet
from existing residents, so that they could use that as a
guideline to say if it's 30 foot easement or, you know,
from existing residents that way.
They've got the latitude to put it anywhere along that arc.
You know where the truck would be going anyway to get in
and out of the apartment complex. So by giving a minimum
footage from existing residents within allow them more lee
way to put it someplace and at the same time, make it go
pathetic with waste management.
That's the solution. If the commission wanted to structure
some sort of condition in that way that that certainly
could be something you could a way to approach the issue.
Yes sir. Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez. Yeah, I just wanted to say, I agree
with Jim basically, I hate to tie their hands.
I think if we start putting all these, what do you call it,
just if we start tying your hands, then we don't really
know what's going on up there until you start taking
measurements and figuring out, let you all figure it out.
And I think that would be the best. That's the way I feel.
I don't want to tie anybody's hands and then we end up with
a bigger problem than we have right now.
As, because you also have to, like you said, consider the
tenants, how far they have to walk.
There's a big, a much bigger picture than just moving a
dumpster. There's a lot of other considerations which we
probably haven't even discussed here today.
As far as I'm concerned, I think that's just leave it up to
you all to figure it out.
Seeing questions at this time. Thank you, Julie.
This is a public hearing. Anyone who wants to speak on this
item, please come forward at this time.
We have some cards that were handed in. Make sure I get the
right item.
We had Bernie Carr, 1717 Boy Street was opposed, mostly in
regards to rainwater runoff.
We also had Nancy Jordan, 805 Windsor was opposed to the
request, no reason given.
We have James Adams, 1518 Seminole, opposed request.
Too many apartments were in it already, traffic.
We have Mary Richter, 1502 Pertain Street, in favor of
request.
That's all the cards that we have on this item.
This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on
this item, please come forward at this time.
Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or a motion in regards to, this will
be the, I believe, rezone only.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. I think this would apply to rezone only.
I like this development. I think it does a lot of positive
things that reduces the idea of apartments being near
residential settings.
What I want to just bring out as a matter of public record
is really for the staff, engineering on the road, the
concern about Mingo Road down the road.
I realize that a lot is not going to change real quick the
way we'd like it. We're not going to see a four-lane Mingo
Road anytime soon.
But as I mentioned in the work session, there is a
curvature along Mingo there that you've got a shorter
visual of the means of ingress and egress for the
apartments as you're heading southwest, I guess it is,
towards the square.
So something for the staff to consider, something cheap too
, would be a flashing yellow light with a sign warning that
they're approaching such an area and just serve as a
caution.
Another suggestion would be to provide a, I think some of
them call it an accelerator lane, I call it an emerging
lane where when people pull out of the apartments heading
again southwest towards the square, there would be a lane
juxtaposed next to the existing Mingo Road where they would
have time to gradually build up speed and fit in to offset
the possibility of somebody barreling down Mingo Road about
50, 60 mile an hour, which will happen some of the times.
And creating a problem. So it's an issue that as this thing
progresses and moves forward, I would like to hopefully,
you know, just, you know, for the record, point out that we
do have an issue with Mingo and hope that there are some
ideas and plans ahead to deal with this.
Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Make a motion.
Can I make a motion at this point, you certainly. Okay, I'd
like to make a motion to accept agenda item z 17 dash 0012
to approve to approve it. Yes.
You have any conditions for the conditions already.
They automatically are included right.
Any conditions.
There's no conditions with this approved zoning clean as is
.
Okay.
Commissioner Smith. I second.
We have a first and a second for approval. Any further
discussion.
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on board.
The motion is going to pass seven zero.
On to our next item. I'm going to open the public hearing
for item G s 17 dash 0006 and call on Julie assumed since
we've already done the presentation will just say that's
the presentation and move on to anyone who would like to
speak on this item.
I'm going to handle that.
I provided the presentation prior to so if there's any
other questions I'll be happy to answer them for the SUV.
Otherwise, thank you for clarifying.
This is a public hearing, anyone who would like to speak on
this item, please come forward at this time I did have some
cards on this as well.
Okay, so I have one coming forward.
I have the same speakers are same card submitters. Bernie
car 1717 Boyd was opposed.
Have
James Adams 1518 seminal opposed.
Mr. 15 or two pertains street in favor and same reasons
given on each is what was given the previous item.
And this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak
on this item please come forward this time.
Seeing none of close the public hearing.
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. So there's been some
discussion on our consensus about making an amendment for
the condition in regards to the dumpster.
So, my understanding there's some that are thinking certain
footage away from the single family property.
There are some, just to clarify I guess what legal and what
Jim has mentioned some saying, do we need to put a
condition in there stating, let the city staff discuss that
and then bring it back to us at plotting what is the was
the discussion on that and how
should we proceed there.
And that was gonna be my comment is, you wouldn't have to
place a condition for staff to address site plan issues, we
're going to see it anyways and have a discussion.
Correct.
Okay, make sure it just as a point of order in the staff
recommendation. There is a condition, and it talks about a
full site plan submittals will be required so that might be
something that would make the commission feel well that
staff has to review that.
So, thank you, Chair.
Commissioner back.
Thank you, Chair, I just want to thank everybody came down
tonight speak officially the residents in the area
appreciate your input. And I realized that there were more
pose and there were for it and the fact that we so far have
voted to approve the zone change I want you to take heart
in the
fact that we do so with the idea in mind that this, this
particular development is probably going to be the most
amenable to that area I think it's standpointed out that
track the land is not going to be so to developers going to
build single family home so these apartments,
the way they're designed with the preserving trees, the set
backs and everything, I think we're going to meet your needs
not going to devalue property, and we're going to watch it
closely as it moves forward to this thing does have to go
into city council be approved so this is
not the last step.
But if it gets passed into, then when it when they bring it
back to us for site plan. That's when we'll start scrutin
izing things like the dumpster and everything we have your
concerns in mind, and we'll move this thing forward with
those considerations
in mind. So, with that, somebody's already going to make a
motion to move.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve as as 17 dash six, accepting the
city staffs conditions.
Commissioner Roselle. Thank you, Chair. I am going to
second this but I also wanted to agree with Commissioner Be
cks points. It's, it's invaluable for citizens come down and
fill out cards and talk and be here late nights with us and
so I thank you for coming out.
We did receive a letter from Marie Butler I don't think she
's here tonight, but we did receive her letter, all of us
did and take that consideration as well and so hopefully
the commission has been entirely thoughtful on this I think
it is a good project.
It is like Commissioner Beck said the most amenable, and it
seems as though from from the presentations tonight that
the developer tried more than than others to reach out to
citizens with neighborhood meetings and actually take that
feedback and change their design which I think is is
unusual and appreciated
so with that I'm going to second this and hope the project
is a great fit for that neighborhood.
Okay. We have a first and a second for approval with the
staff condition attached to that approval.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Just just wanted to basically get our record to say I do
support this I think it makes sense for this particular
track of land.
I do appreciate the developer having the neighborhood
meetings the two that you've had already and my hope is
that as the project moves forward, that you continue the
discussion with the community I think that that is
invaluable to to us as a city to continue that so thank you
.
I'm like a comment, I'm going to support this as well and I
know there's some concerns about traffic and based on the
traffic criteria manual that we've talked about this
evening. I think we're less than a third of what is even
the trigger for TIA so certainly my opinion, I doubt there
'll be any improvements made out of me go because of that,
it doesn't even, even third of what even would be required
to even study the area so my assumption is that we vote on
this is the mingo will stay the way it is based on the size
of the complex because it's, although for you all as a
neighborhood is a large complex from what's been there in
comparison to 200 or 300 or greater size unit that may come
before us it is a fairly small compact multifamily site,
two story versus three or four even taller on some of the
other ones that do come before us so I know it is going to
be different than what you're accustomed to looking at, but
it is fairly small in size into comparison to a lot of the
units that are complexes that come before us so with that I
'm going to support the motion.
Commissioner Sanchez. Yeah, I would like to say, I'm also
going to support it, and I appreciate what the builders
doing the meetings he's had. I think that that goes a long
way with with the neighbors.
And so I just want to say that I'm going to support it.
Any other comments.
Okay, we have a first and a second for approval with staff
condition and call for a vote on the board.
Motion is going to carry seven to zero.
Thank you all for coming out this evening.
That will move us to our final item on our agenda tonight,
our project matrix.
Commissioner Roselle.
Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, I was not at last meeting
and my item here coordinate with rezoning committee to
align future land use to zoning map.
It says see memo dated November 29.
Is there a way I can get that memo is that in the agenda
from last time or.
Absolutely, we'll make sure it's email to you tomorrow.
Okay, perfect. The only other thing I had is, I had an item
, a long time ago and it's actually still here it's second
to the last but sidewalks.
And I kind of want to follow up on. There are some streets
in town that needs sidewalks. What is the per se I would
like to know what the procedure is I'm thinking
specifically of scripture.
There's a lot of traffic there from the apartment complex
and one about to go in and there's no sidewalk. It seems
like dangerous. I just didn't know the process of the city
looking proactively.
If there's not a capital improvement for that road, if
there is other opportunities to seek adding some safety
precautions to roadways, if there's a way I could get some
more information about that, I'd be really helpful.
What I'll do is for the for the next meeting. I'll prepare
a memo for you both on addressing scripture and then just
overall how sidewalks are required. That'd be great. Thank
you.
Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair.
Something that I brought up way back. I don't even think it
's on the matrix anymore but I think it got. It was a good
idea at the time and then it became taboo but any chance of
addressing eliminating the parking minimums for commercial
developments.
Plus is to that for both the developer and citizens and
didn't not sure why. All of a sudden, it took on the boogie
man row but leaving it up to the developer to determine how
many parking places they need instead of requiring a
minimum would open up a lot of space and some of these
larger developments where we could put some green spaces or
some smaller commercial interest a little kiosk stuff like
that.
Is there a chance of getting that put back on the matrix
for consideration.
As a matter of fact, yeah. I mean, yes, we're looking there
there was a commission request where we're currently
working on a memo with respect to all parking.
I think that's going to be the single again it's multifac
eted because they're so it's it's really I was called the
silent regulator because you can't really do anything
unless you have parking.
Right. And you almost hold people hostage with what they
can do even really better their property. And so we're
looking at that now and sort of everything related to that.
And then I think you'll see that as part of the as part of
the DDC update.
Is like the big development areas where you get the big box
stores and raise a ranch shows a bunch of this where you've
got all this parking and most of the time that you know
there's a large percentage is just not you may have a
Christmas and the special days but that's just a lot of
wasted space.
And that's a cost to the developer to that you know
surprisingly I'd be, you know, see eliminated I know most
of the time I'm tagging on calls for developers but this is
one that could be eliminated so good I'm glad it's back on
and look forward to hearing what you have to say about it.
Thank you. I'm going to tag on before I recognize
commissioners. Will that parking memo also address maximums
as well. It's bringing up that the whole discussion is to
whether whether or not part we should really still consider
parking maximums.
Or whether that should be you know most of the time you see
it for really a specific at least what I'm familiar with a
specific area. So whether or not we want to discourage
discourage car vehicular traffic and promote more of a
pedestrian environment around around the campus or within
downtown, then yes maybe it makes sense to put parking
maximums in, but to do it citywide, maybe not.
Commissioner Sanchez.
I also wanted to address the parking. You know there seems
like there's a lot of right around the downtown area there
seems to be a lot of new apartments in those streets, you
just already can get through.
I'm sorry.
Once it gets finalized I'll make sure that it's it's sent
to the board or the commission I'm sorry to look at
engineering is is in the process of updating their, their
transportation criteria manual.
And then also looking at just sort of differently looking
at context sensitive corridors is kind of a term that's
used where it may incorporate a lot of different things.
And so that that's sort of in the works now. But as it's
getting finalized I'll make sure that it's that everyone
here has a copy of that.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you chair. You just mentioned it. I think feel like
the last four or five commission meetings we've had
something bike related has come up anytime there's any type
of multifamily of budding any type of single family, or any
type of multifamily development at all, bikes are brought
up, we keep talking and hearing city staff talk about the
bike mobility plan is there any way we don't necessarily
have a presentation on it, but something just kind of
as an addendum a memo some of it we can we can add it to
the city plan.
Just as an addendum a memo some of it we can we can include
the next backup we keep on file so we can just see what the
city's bike mobility plan is for the future so we just have
it to reference for future projects.
I will I will make sure that it again that's included with.
I'll just, I'll do another it'll probably just be a simple
little cover memo but I'll make sure everybody everybody
has that prior to the next meeting just just so you have it
.
Yeah, thank you.
I just wanted to add one as well.
There's several months about traffic with projects. And I
think it'd probably be helpful for all of us as commission
ers maybe in work session to have some background from staff
about at what point is it a development's responsibility to
do improvements.
A lot of these questions were still going to have to deal
with a lot of that with the public but I think as a
commission it would help us all understand.
Well at this point, the developer has to do something
otherwise. This is city's responsibility and they are the
ones that take care of it it's not even a developer issue
that's even to be considered for our discussion time I
think it would probably save our commission
to have that background long term. Certainly I will, I will
get together with with with us this is the city engineer
and try to come up with that, come up with a sort of a
presentation, there's a, there's been a lot of things in a
lot of changes over the last couple
of weeks and one of them is really just that sort of
bringing all of this together. I mean we have a mobility
plan we have a bike plan and you know what are what are the
current capacities on the road and what's going to trigger
where it's going to affect the level of service
so we're really sort of looking at this more a little bit
more comprehensively so we're not up here guessing and
trying to figure out what what's best we we have we should
know and have the data to support it and so that's where we
're working now to sort of bring all that stuff together.
Anybody else.
At 810 I will close our meeting this evening. Thank you all
for coming out.