Commission work session for March the 7th 2018. This
meeting has been duly
posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us
to order at 5.03. Our
first order of business will be to receive clarification of
agenda items.
So I will go through and does anybody have changes on the
minutes? Nope, everybody good?
Questions on the consent agenda? Okay, move us to items for
individual
consideration. Since I think this is going to be our work
session report, do
we want to skip that and come back and just do that at that
time and let us go
on through the work our public hearings? Is that okay with
everybody? Okay, so we will
return to individual consideration. Public hearing, call on
Sydney Jackson for
item A which is going to be the 1.719 acres. Good afternoon
. Okay, this is a
request to rezone one point, approximately 1.7119 acres
from
neighborhood residential to NR2 to employment center
commercial ECC
district. As you can see the site is located on the south
side of West
University Drive, approximately 820 feet from Thomas Egan
at the intersection of
University and Thomas Egan. This shows the current zoning
map and you can see
the subject site zone NR2 and this shows the proposed
zoning map and you can see
the subject site zone as ECC. With regards to the Denton
plan, the site is
zoned rural areas. Rural areas is for uses such as farms,
ranches and very low
density residential areas typically about five, one
dwelling unit per five acres.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Just this was kind of
puzzling to me. It says
now is this a future, is this what we're looking at future,
was this what was
considered for this area for the future or is that what's
... That's the future land
use map. Okay. And the site is designated for rural areas
and the site over here
is designated for business innovation and industrial
commerce. I'm curious how
we got from NR2 to rural areas. Well, NR2 doesn't quite
comply with that and
I'm sure they were going to fix that when we work on the...
We've got plans for
this area with regards to the zoning code. My suspicion is
one of the reasons
it was designated rural areas is because there's no
development out there per se
right now and university at that time was just a two-lane
road. University has
now been expanded to a six-lane divided arterial and when
you make... You
know, improve the access to a site then you'll have the
development come to the
site. So I expect we're going to... This is an area that
you may see some
transition going on in the future. Now there I ask is this
... Is this something we
can look at about going from NR2 to something more
practical now considering
the changes? Yes. Okay. Cindy, can I follow up on
Commissioner Beck's point? Sure. I
think he brings up a good point because I believe a lot of
the issues in the
future that may be addressed in our zoning map is a lot of
this area has a
tremendous amount of gas wells. Yes, you're anticipating
one of my slides. Am I? Well,
let me see your slide before I make any comments. Okay. I'm
already getting ahead of you. Sounds good. Okay, and I...
Is that the old just in case
slides for us? Yeah. As you can tell the proposed zoning
doesn't technically
conform to the rural areas future land use map. However,
when we have a
situation where the zoning code does not meet the future
land use designation we
do have criteria, additional criteria that the request must
conform to. The
criteria is pretty extensive and there's a full discussion
of how the site
complies with the criteria in your staff analysis and I'll
just go
through it briefly. First of all, due to the size, shape,
and location of the site
along West University as well as proximity to gas well
sites, this site is
unlikely to develop as a single family house. Now, there
are areas where perhaps
they could, single family could develop further south and
not be in full
proximity to the gas well plots. However, they're still
going to be have to deal
with the gas well plot and if they wouldn't have driveways
off of
University, which as I said is a six lane arterial, there
would be a street that
would connect the houses to West University. Commercial
uses are
appropriate along primary arterials. You can see that all
over the city. West
University will provide the access and visibility that
would be needed for
commercial use. The ECC districts are typically found near
employment centers
and incorporate office and business workplaces with
supporting secondary uses
such as, you know, retail commercial types of uses for go
out to lunch or
something like that. The development must comply with all E
SA, tree preservation,
buffer screening, tree canopy, and lighting requirements.
So you're going to
have to comply with every aspect of our zoning code and any
infrastructure
needs such as water and sewer and electric will be assessed
at the time of
plotting and site plan process. Access and mobility, well
we've got 1,234 linear
feet of fringe along West University US 380, which is going
to be a significant
retail corridor now that it has been constructed to its
full capacity, which
is as six lanes divided a primary arterial. Now here's the
gas well plat map.
This little star right here shows our the subject site and
as you can see
between the city limit line which is located here and Mosh
Branch Road this
site, this site, and this site, are the only ones that are
not encumbered
by a gas well plat. Residential and gas wells just just are
not compatible so my
point was to show that it's a highly unlikely that any of
this area is going
to be residential in the near future. We don't know how
long the gas wells will be
there. They could be through for over 20 years. So yes sir.
Commissioner Beck. Thank
you chair. Is this is any of this area where these gas well
plats are? Is that
being used for farming or anything? There are this area
right in here is
used for farming. You have growing a crop? Yeah wheat. Okay
. That we have that
property owner has expressed that they are not in favor of
this particular
request and it's in your packet. She actually says it's
being used for wheat.
But that's pretty much that's it. That's it right here.
Okay. Right here. Okay.
Thank you. There's other places down here that there are
single family
areas. There's single family areas adjacent in the ETJ and
there are
commercial areas all along here. So down here to the south
like I was saying I
could possibly see maybe some single family where they they
wouldn't have to
deal with the gas wells because you can see the gas wells
here and here and here
and here and here and here. They're all over the place. So.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you chair. I know for a fact there's single family
right where you
were pointing because I've sold houses there so those are
all single family.
Yeah there are single family in there. Okay. Public
notifications. We sent out two
notices due to the size of the property the holdings in
here. There were only
two property owners located within 200 feet of the subject
site as well as 500
feet of the subject site. We heard back from one of them
and it was this person
right here and her opposition represents 49% of the land
area within the 200 foot
buffer and because of that this kicks it into requiring a
supermajority vote of
the council to be approved. Staff recommends approval of
this request
because even though the request is technically inconsistent
with the
future land use designation in going through the additional
criteria
we've shown that it is consistent with the overall goals of
the Denton Plan 2030
and the proposal conforms to the criteria for approval as
outlined in
section 35 3 3 b3. That concludes my presentation and I'll
stand for any
questions. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Cindy did
staff consider a lesser
intense zoning discussion? We did not. Not at this time no.
Okay. Is there a reason?
Just because you felt ECC was okay? We thought that was
fine. The applicant
proposes to market it for office uses. Which ECC is not
required? I mean that's
not the only... Well that is the you can ask the applicant
why how he chose that
particular zoning designation but we didn't see a problem
with it given that
there's ECC located just 1,300 feet away to the east. I
have some concern about
the area as a whole right there and in particularly across
the street across
380. Across 380 and at that location is undeveloped. Oh I
know. So I'm just
I'm thinking of the future and this piece is ECC and is
that actually what
we want the area to become. There's no doubt that growth is
gonna happen there.
I'm a little concerned with the intense zoning designation
here is what I'm
having a problem with. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair.
You mentioned in our
backup material that there's a small area floodplain. Can
you show us on the
map where that's at? Small area floodplain with associated
ESAs. The floodplain and the ESA are just
located right here. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions on
this item? Discussion?
Okay. I think you have the next one too. Yes I do. The next
one will be Eric Schmidt
and the 8.87 acres at Colorado Boulevard and Cindy Jackson
will present that one
as well. Thank you. Okay Z170032 is a request to rezone
approximately 8.9
acres from NR6 neighborhood residential 6 to NRMU 12
neighborhood
residential mixed use 12. It's generally located on the
southwest side of
Colorado which you can see right here and approximately 350
feet 15 feet
northwest of San Jacinto which is right here. Here you can
see the current zoning
map with the site as it is currently zoned and here you can
see the proposed
zoning which would be an extension of the NRMU 12 that is
located across
Colorado. The site is designated as moderate residential on
the future land
use map. Moderate residential can accommodate single-family
residential
with a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre either
attached or on
small lots. This zone is typically used as a transition
between
established single-family neighborhoods which we've got
here on the west and
mixed use or commercial areas and I should state that San
Jacinto that is
adjacent to Golden Triangle Mall and the subject site
itself is adjacent to a
bowling alley along San Jacinto as well as some office uses
and there's a site
that was currently approved for a hotel.
Residential uses permitted in the NRMU 12 district are
generally consistent with
the future land use designation however staff does not feel
that the multifamily
and the commercial uses that are also permitted under the
NRMU 12 are
appropriate in this district and for this reason we will be
recommending
approval of an overlay which will restrict the uses to town
houses with a
maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. Now the
applicant has indicated he
only wants eight dwelling units per acre but he doesn't
have a site plan
formalized yet and this will give him some wiggle worm.
Cindy just a question. Yes sir. Is that different than what
was the original
recommendation in our backup? No. I may have misread it
then I'm gonna have it
confused with something else. Okay I may be on confused
with one another one. Yeah
the recommendation was for approval. I see it now. I've got
it here. Yeah the
mixed-use overlay limiting the uses to townhome. Thank you.
Moderate density residential neighborhoods are appropriate
along
secondary arterials which is what Colorado Boulevard is.
Colorado
Boulevard will provide adequate visibility and access to
the site. As I
mentioned earlier NRMU 12 is typically found in close
proximity to low density
residential. It serves as a buffer between the low density
residential and
more intense use. The NRMU 12 also limits the residential
density and
scale and we are proposing to limit the density even more
than what it currently
is permitted the 12 units. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you
chair. Cindy currently
under NR6 that's what it is now right? Is that six units
per acre? Is that what it is?
Okay. The development will have to comply with all
standards ESA tree preservation
buffers screening tree canopy lighting requirements and
design standards and
the infrastructure needs as always will be assessed during
the time of plotting
and site planning. The site has 904 linear feet of frontage
along Colorado
right here and Colorado is a secondary arterial road. It's
got its four four
lanes. It's parts of it are undivided and as you get closer
to the
intersection is divided. Here's a look at the surrounding
zoning districts. NR3
single-family is directly adjacent to the site to the west
and NR6 is
directly adjacent to the site to the the southwest. NRMU 12
is across Colorado
Boulevard and this request would be an extension of this NR
MU 12 and then
RCCD is located to the southwest which is where Gold Tri
angle Mall and the
associated pad sites and offices are located.
Notification we sent out 35 notices via certified mail and
116 notices sent out
by regular mail. We've received six responses in opposition
two in favor and
one one we called neutral because it was just it depends so
we put that as
neutral and I've handed out to you copies of all of the
notices that we
have received since the time of the report was written.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you chair and one of the one of the responses back it
were all a lot of
the responses back it's asking about traffic on Claremont
as the entrances is
have you seen that preliminary site plan did you say you
said he didn't have one?
No we don't have one. The applicant held a neighborhood
meeting at which he
produced a site plan and he wanted to get the neighbors
take on it and the
neighbors had a lot of issues with extending Claremont and
so the
applicant is working with the neighbors he is no longer
proposing to connect to
Claremont and he is working with staff to find other means
of access. Okay that
works thank you. Commissioner Roselle. One point of
clarification in one
question the percentages next to opposition in favor is
that linear feet
three percent of linear feet in opposition and three
percent of in favor?
No it's three percent in area three percent of the land
area located within
the 200 foot buffer. Okay thank you the other question is
that's I haven't
German back there in a while but isn't that in our sixth
neighborhood is there
a gate there? It's just open? Okay that's it. All right
Cindy I have a follow-up.
Yes. If there's not going to be a connection on the
extension of Claremont
to the east that subdivision just has one point of ingress
egress. Exactly. I
know it currently only has one but it has a future stub to
the east. Yes it does. We
know we are actually we're working on on an alternate plan
so that there would
not be access people would not be able to drive through
there. I just was
thinking about the fire code. Yes I'm we're working with
them. I'll let you
work on it just observation. Okay thank you. Commissioner
Sanchez. If Claremont in
that decision is that should that decision be made by the
city based on
what future land use or what the city wants or is it is it
allowed to be made
by the developer? It seems awfully. It's something that the
city is working with
the developer on so it's the city's going to say this is
what we require and
these we're giving you these alternatives to meet our
requirements
and then the developer will have to choose how he's going
to do it. I guess
because my question is I mean you've got a neighborhood
back here that would
probably be served if Claremont was extended right? That's
right. One of the
issues with extending Claremont that the the people
attending the
neighborhood meeting had was cut through traffic from
Colorado and the fact that
their streets it's their private streets they're extremely
narrow they can they
can't even accommodate sometimes the solid waste trucks
that go through or
fire apparatus so it's it's not a really a viable
alternative to push it all the
way through and give the general public access to that so
we are working with on
alternate ways to do that to take care of this. I don't
want to say what we're
working on yet because I don't know what will ultimately be
the product.
Commissioner Ellis do you have a question I couldn't tell
whether you were saying? I had a comment.
Okay. Yeah if I could. Thank you chair. Commissioner San
chez that community right
now it's a zero lot line garden community garden style home
community
very narrow streets they can't even park on the cul-de-sacs
where they are they
have to park in their driveway or garages and Claremont is
the only place
where visitors can park if somebody wants to park in the
street in that
community so their concerns are certainly valid because it
is difficult
to to to get around in there and as Cindy mentioned I don't
think we would
want just open access to that particular development to be
to allow people to cut
through there. Commissioner Sanchez. I drove by there and
yeah I looked at the
community so I was just curious why you wouldn't extend
that I mean it would
give access I mean you've got other roads that go on to
Colorado in that
neighborhood that the previous there's a couple other
streets there. Right. We're working on different
alternatives and we have to meet with the applicant.
Okay. To see which way he wants to go. Let's hold just a
second let's go through
and let you get your presentation I think we're getting
kind of off track and
let's see if we can answer some of this in your
presentation. I think that was
just about it yes. We're recommending approval with the
overlay which will
limit the use to townhome and will allow a maximum of 20 of
10 dwelling units per
acre. Okay. Commissioner Rosales you have a question. My
question is just I'm not
familiar with the area I'm unsure what they're cutting
through to if they were
to be did they talk about because it seems like they just
go are they trying
to bypass that one strip of San Jacinto? Is that what the
concern is? There is actually the light at the loop from
backs up all the way. I can't where's the arrow?
Thank you. There's a light at the loop and during heavy
traffic times it can
back up all the way. Past San Jacinto. So the concern is
during high traffic they
can't get to San Jacinto going south and so they cut across
. They will cut across
and then they will get on San Jacinto and then come go
through the mall. Okay
that's helpful. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. One of
the people in opposition
sent in a well-documented letter here and mentioned that
the streets the
Homeowner Association owns those streets. So what kind of
private yeah so wouldn't
the city run into some legal problems here if the notion to
run Claremont
through was pursued? I'll let you answer that question.
Well they're saying they own the
streets and because they own the streets you can't we can't
come in there. We can't
we can't attach to it. Is that correct? I'll call staff for
additional. Just to
clarify those streets were platted as private access ways.
Okay. So they were
not they were not platted as public streets. So when at
time of platting we
would look at you know whether or not there was some
arrangement with the with
the neighboring property owner. We haven't dived in to see
if there's any
anything on a title that gives rights to that neighboring
property. I mean we have
we haven't got that far into it. Okay well I was curious
you know we're gonna deal with that.
We proceed. Okay thanks. Commissioner Smith. Thank you
chair. One of the problems
they brought up one of things I was thinking about with
whenever you have
townhomes I know it's not technically multifamily we have
anything coming in
there is the possibility for it to go taller than two
stories risking sight
line of the backyard of single-family homes around it. Can
we can we include
into that overlay a limit on the height of the building? We
could. Something
closer to it in our six height. The applicant originally
was proposing three
stories and after meeting with the neighborhood he's
reduced that to two
stories and he's also agreed not to have them next to the
the fence between the
two properties but to move them back to try to restrict the
visibility into their
yards. I think words words are great but for I know for
already adding
conditionals and put an overlay and we might as well throw
in the height so all right
thank you. Any other questions on this item?
Thank you Cindy good job. Not at this time we will take
public comment we will
meet again at 630 in council chambers and that will be a
public meeting and
anybody is welcome to speak on these items at that time.
Thank you sir. That
will move us to item C that will be presented by Ron. So be
Z 18 - 0 0 0 3.
Thank you chair members of the Commission. This item is for
a rezoning as
well as an initial zoning. We have CMG proposed for the
entire site. Currently
the zoning the property is NR 2 on the southern portion and
then RD 5X which is
a designated zoning that's given after annexation therefore
is not actually
zoning therefore the request is also to initially add
zoning and that is again
CMG for the entire site. It's approximately 6.37 acres just
along
Teasley just south of Geyer High School. Future land use
designation for the site
and the area is community mixed use which is intended for
mixed uses as well
as commercial and other related complementary uses and the
proposed
zoning request is consistent with the future land use
designation. This is the
existing zoning map as I illustrated earlier the northern
portion of it is RD
5X again a holding or designated zoning district the
southern portion is NR 2
the applicant is requesting that it be rezoned to CMG. The
notch over here is
actually not owned by the applicant. I've asked the
applicant to see what
they can do. I don't have the answer they will probably be
able to answer why they
were not able to maybe work out and have that property zone
as well but for now
the request is what's shown outlined in black. Commissioner
back isn't that where
the gas well is? I believe this is a cell tower the gas
well is just north of this
property. Okay thanks.
A little bit better of the area area of the area as again
indicated Geyer High
School to the north you've got a mobile home park to the
east some residential
and gas well to the east southeast primarily commercial
slash industrial
uses to the south we've also have NRMU and CMG to the west
and then as it wraps
around again Geyer High School to the west and you can see
that that's the
notch over here which is the cell tower and then the gas
well is just north of
this site. Staff did a quick analysis of course the the big
one is it doesn't
meet the future land use element in the future land use
designation and it does
it meets all the goals and objectives of the Denim Plan
2030. It's a teasley
proposed to be a six lane divide roadway commercial
development along this
corridor is important it's also a gateway into our city so
we want to make
sure that we have the proper land uses and CMG will allow
that. NR2 and RD5
does not therefore rezoning and initially zoning this to CM
G is
appropriate for this area. Again mobility, teasley, six
lane divided,
TechStat has begun work on this widening project between
the city limits to the
east all the way north to Lillian Miller proposed six lane
divided roadway 135
feet completion date my understanding is January of 2020.
Guaranteed right? Not
guaranteed. Just kidding. Public notifications was sent out
to 14 to 30
to 200 foot property owners 500 courtesy notices were sent
to 13 of those and
then a sign was posted along Teasley Lane. As of this
afternoon staff has not
received any response either in opposition or in favor. We
I have received
actually phone calls basically questions on what's being
proposed and what I
understand what the applicant has stated in their narrative
primarily
commercial uses and restaurant I believe.
We'll skip that one. Recommendation for the proposed rez
oning and initial zoning
is approval as it again conforms with the DEM plan 2030 and
is consistent and
with in line with the section 35 3 3 b 3 which outlines
approval for rezoning
cases. With that I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner
Smith. Thank You
Chair. In regards to the notification we had this on a case
three four yeah three
or four months ago. Mm-hmm. Were notifications sent in the
ETJ? Do not
think so no. Okay. All right we'll bring that up in matrix
then. Okay.
Commissioner Beck.
Yes.
That's correct that's my understanding and in their
property it just barely
touches it but yet this area. That's correct yes it's in
this general area.
Right and it's it's not much of their property again it's
in the northeast
portion of it but certainly we looked in yes. Commissioner
Beck you've got your idea
and I'm sorry. I'm getting the lights flashing. Should I
say that over again?
Okay sorry. Anybody else? Thank you Ron. Thank you. That
will get through our
public hearing section and we will go back now and catch
both our individual
consideration items and also our work session report and
that will be Chad
Allen. Chad before you get started how long will your
presentation be? I'm
trying to decide whether we want to take a break now and
get food while you're
getting ready or okay great.
I think they may have practiced it. Good evening chair,
commissioners. I'm Chad
Allen. I'm deputy city engineer responsible for Capital
Project Delivery
and I and Preetam our traffic engineer are going to talk
about the drainage and
transportation design criteria manuals update and we're
going to try to keep it
short. We're just going to talk about try to talk about the
changes that have
happened since the last time we presented this to the
Commission which was on
January 24th. So we're just going to try to focus on the
changes. We're going to
ask you tonight to consider to make any more comments that
you might want to
make about the manuals and then later during the public
meeting hopefully to
recommend approval of the changes of the design criteria
manuals to City
Council and again we're talking about the drainage design
criteria manual and
the transportation design criteria manual. So this is where
we're at in
the process. We presented this to planning and zoning back
on January 24th.
At that time we were going through a 30-day official
comment public comment
period. We had put a public notice at City Hall. We'd
uploaded all the
documents to the website and we had distributed them to the
development
community. After the last planning and zoning meeting we
met with the
development community about the drainage design criteria
manual on February 6th
and specifically we met with the Denton Community
Development Alliance. On
February 13th we met with that same organization about the
transportation
design criteria manual and we received a lot of feedback
from them. Their
comments and our responses to their comments are in your
backup. We
incorporated we made a lot of changes based on those
comments and we revised
the drafts by March 1st and then on March 6th we started
another final seven
public comment day period. That's happening right now and
that lasts until
March 13th. Tonight we're bringing them back to planning
and zoning for
consideration and then hopefully for approval tonight and
then after the
public comment period is over on March 13th we expect to
have the final drafts
completed on the 15th. We're currently scheduled to go to
council on the 20th
for a public hearing. We'll give the entire presentation we
gave to planning
and zoning at that council public hearing along with the
all of the
changes. We'll discuss all the changes at that meeting and
then hopefully a
couple days after that we'll be able to publish the final
updates to the
manuals and upload them to the website and start
distributing them to the
development community. So these are the major changes that
happen to the
drainage manual after the public comment period and after
receiving your feedback
at the last planning and zoning meeting. We received 53
comments during the
public comment period mostly from the Denton Community
Development Alliance
and then we received some good feedback from planning and
zoning on January 24th.
One of the things we didn't do the very first thing we
wanted to do was define
I-swim in the manual and we realized tonight right before
this meeting that we
didn't do that. We've actually made that change. Our
consultant has that in his
lap over there so that definitely will be incorporated into
the final manual. I
apologize about that. We also clarified the fence policy.
These are the major
changes in the in the drainage manual. We clarified the
fence policy or we tried to.
We hope we did that to your satisfaction. Basically the
Denton development code
describes some of our fence requirements and the
development code now says that
there's no fences allowed in drainage easements or in flood
plains. That's been
added to the development code. It didn't previously used to
say flood plains. It
just focused on drainage easements so that change has been
made to the
development code. No new fences in drainage easements or
flood plains
except where an exception is provided in the design
criteria. So we did
provide one exception in the design criteria and it
basically says if there's
a drainage easement that has a fully sized 100-year
capacity underground
storm drain in the easement then you can put any non mason
ry fence across it. Go
ahead. Question on that. I appreciate you all taking the
comment and
trying to address it. The question that I have when I read
that it says further
down in the exception that you can do that provided that
there's not surface
flow there and I think typically where those come into
account is we're gonna
have what's called overland relief situations wherever you
have those pipe
systems through normally through residential yards. So even
though there's
an exception there because of the overland relief
requirement you're still
not gonna be able to put a fence there even if it's knock
out. That's how I... I
guess you could look at it that way and the reason we are
making that
requirement that there has to be a 100-year design pipe
underground is
because we don't want to put a fence across a ditch that is
required to
carry some of that flow. So that's the whole reason for not
wanting fences in
overland flow ditch sort of situations because they
obstruct the flow. They can
be washed downstream during large storms and they could be
debris that could
cause damage downstream so we don't want fences in those
locations but the intent
of this exception was that if there is that pipe under the
ground and if the
surface really isn't for carrying any of the 100-year storm
it's basically
carried in that pipe then you can put your fence across it.
So just a
clarification I appreciate the clarification is that if it
's a hundred
your storm can be carried in the pipe but you still have to
have the requirement
for if there's a problem with the pipe you know something
blocks up the curb
inlet and you have to provide for overland relief which you
have to do you
all are gonna allow fences to be in that application or not
? I think you're sort
of talking about a we cover that in this positive overflow
situation that we talk
about in the next bullet point but the intent generally is
to allow fences
across those drainage easements where there is an
underground pipe system that's
sized appropriately. Okay. I think I kind of understand
what you're saying those
pipe systems are going to be located in low points and
there's going to be some
overland flow but basically the intent is to allow fences
across there if that
pipe system exists. That's always a question that we I deal
with constantly
with clients. Yeah. We have a drainage pipe why can't I put
a fence over it?
Right. And so just trying to clarify I know Commissioner
Ellis asked the same
right it's a constant resident complaint concern and I
appreciate you all trying
to address it. We'll make sure it is allowed under those
circumstances. Yes
that's definitely the intent. Commissioner Beck. Thank you
chair. Are we
talking about privacy type fences or just fences? So these
are privacy fences
for homeowners is it? Okay okay so we're probably looking
at wood fences then
something that would because it seems like if we had chain
link or even you
know the metal fences that water can flow through. Right.
It didn't seem like it'd
be that big a deal but then I don't know. This allows any
kind of
fence across the drainage easement as long as that pipe
system with a hundred
year storm capacity is installed underground. Okay. And the
panels are
removable. Yes so we can get in there for maintenance
purposes. The next major
change was about the amount of water that's allowed to run
stormwater that's
allowed to discharge from a newly developed site and we've
added the
requirement that if the flow exceeds 3 CFS or if it's less
than 300 CFS that it
has to be put underground. That this is something that we
've been implementing
as part of the DRC process for a long long time. It just
hasn't been described
in our design criteria very well so we tried to implement
that now as part of
design criteria. In fact all of these policies the last
three policies are
things that we've been implementing for a long time but
they just weren't
described in the design criteria well. The next thing is
about positive overflow
areas. You may have sort of been talking about this. These
positive overflow
areas are low points in the road where there's an inlet at
a low point and if
that inlet were clogged water would pond and possibly flood
structures around
that inlet. So we require that an acceptable outfall area
be identified
for those areas and lately as part of the development
process we've been
asking and trying to implement and asking developers to
install concrete
flumes and easements behind these low point inlets that
drain to an
appropriate area to provide positive outflow in case the in
lets are clogged.
So that's what this is about. Again we've been implementing
this as part of DRC
for a long time. It just hasn't been described well in our
criteria. That may
be the clarification in the past they weren't concrete they
were grass areas.
So it seems like you can put a fence over it till you read
that part that if
it's... So this fences aren't allowed here because this is
for the this is overland
flow. This is identified for overland flow in those
situations where the
inlets are clogged and right that exception about the f
encing doesn't
apply for this situation. Right but if you're going to
require to be concrete
in all those situations and you can't put fences in them.
Correct. This is an
overland flow area. So we're trying we're trying to again
with our fence
policy we're trying to not allow obstructions to the flow
where overland
flow is is required where it is required but when there is
an underground
system where overland flow isn't required to carry any of
the stormwater
you can fence across it which hasn't really been the case
in the past. So we
are trying to make it more acceptable and flexible for
fences. Okay. I'm not sure if
we satisfied you. I still feel like you're unsatisfied.
Well I just I can
hear the comments coming in the future so okay anyway I
appreciate you trying
to I appreciate you taking the feedback and trying to do
what you can. I
understand public safety comes first. I totally agree with
that. Right. And it's
just I know it's just always been a sore issue for a lot of
people in the past
of can't put a fence in the yard and there's a 16-foot
strip I can't mow it I
mean I can't do anything with it but I got to mow it pay
taxes on it I can't
use it and you've heard it plenty of times too so just
asking while we're
talking about it. Okay. Thank you. And the next bullet
point is also something
we've been implementing for a long time as part of DRC it
hasn't been described
well in our design criteria and then it's about the FEMA
shaded zone X areas
on the firm panels these are shaded zone X areas that aren
't really the the 500
year areas that we don't really regulate in but these are
the ones that have a
small less than square mile drainage area and they're
identified as shaded
zone X areas on the flood map. As part of the DRC process
we treat them as flood
plain areas and we ask developers to process map to study
them and process
map revisions if required and go through the FEMA process
and so we just wanted
to clarify that in our design criteria something we've been
doing for a long
time through DRC but it's never been described well in our
design criteria.
Good evening everyone my name is Preetam Deshmukh I'm the
traffic engineer for
the city and I'll be talking about what happened with the
transportation
criteria manual we back when we came to this commission
before since then we met
with as Chad mentioned we met with the Dent Community
Development Alliance and
received approximately 37 comments during that period and
majority of the
comments were more of clarification or you know some more
information that was
missing in in the manual it wasn't clear enough and we've
responded to all the
comments there in the backup and the major changes related
to truck turning
radiuses on driveways and where they would be applicable
some of the
commercial driveways don't require them such as offices
some of them require so
we have that discussion there were also some clarification
regarding parking
spaces the criteria manual had slightly different
notifications compared to the
development code and we clarified that when that type of
dimensions were
allowed additionally we explained more on driveway spacings
there were some
information that was missing and I want to point out them
the most important
comment was pre-development meeting there was a lot of
questions about when
do we find out when the traffic studies needed when do we
find out what kind of
impacts I'm gonna have when do we find out how much am I
responsible for so
definitely we've laid in notes and try to make it as clear
as possible that
when you get together during pre-development meetings we
talk about
what kind of plans you have and come up with the scoping
for the traffic impact
analysis and there was some clarification about the round
about designs
these are our main comments and at this time we do
recommend good
commissioner Ellis thank you chair with regard to the
traffic impact analysis
and I did see your line in there about it being it should
be scheduled at the
same time as pre-development meeting which is great then
you added a point
that I have a question about just for its clarity it talks
about developments
that have are pending recently approved and it talks about
that located
adjacent to the site that we're gonna be talking about or
in close proximity do
we want to define that better than mentioning in close
proximity what does
that even mean so what happens is that proximity is defined
based on the type
of project the size of project say for example there is a
huge project coming
in large development four or five hundred homes the the
study area goes
beyond a certain level so we look at larger circulation
network we look at
larger scope we look at more intersections that will be
impacted and
based on that now we define that that would be our area and
then we'll pick
whatever is adjacent to the area so if we corner ourselves
saying within
quarter mile or half mile it's not fair for smaller
developments it's not fair
for larger to that it's kind of a and I guess I understand
where you're coming
from but it this is a criteria manual for a developer to
look at this doesn't
really say anything to them about what's expected about you
mean the way it reads
is okay development plus recently approved or pending
development which is
not yet but construction located adjacent to the site and
or in close
proximity it's just I mean you I guess it leaves you open
to say anything to them
so this is part of the comment that we tried to address
from from PNC I think
PNC was worried that we were approving all these different
plants and all these
different new land uses coming in play and what are we
doing as far as
something that's already proved that may or may not happen
but should be
considered if for the next developer to come in because
that traffic will be
added and no one's looking at that traffic so as part of
addressing that
particular issue is we came up with this requirement that
once the developer
comes in and discusses about the traffic study we as as a
city staff will look
at other development that I'll work with planning to get
other developments that
have been recently approved and add that traffic to the
system so we're talking
in terms of traffic to the system not necessarily the
development itself that
all the other developments we don't care but the traffic
that's going to be on
the network is considered as background traffic and then
the new project will
add more time yeah and I definitely understand the need for
it I just I
don't like the way that it's written okay we can clarify a
little bit more I
just yeah close proximity just doesn't do anything for me I
mean it is that a
quarter mile a mile say we can say within the approved
study area within the
decided study area yeah okay I'll read it a little bit more
okay thank you okay
change it any other questions so moving forward we
recommend approval of these
design criteria manuals both strong order design criteria
manual and
transportation design curriculum after final input from the
community and final
revisions
Commissioner Osello thank you chair just so I understand
the recommendation
process tonight there would be a motion for approval but
there's still two steps
to be done with public comment and final revisions so we
would be approving a
document that we would not see the final revisions to
before recommending
approval of you will be recommending approval to council
and council will be
hosting a public meeting that's a public meeting there
could be comments at that
point so it's that whole process where council is the final
authority approving
the final document but in this current form as it's
addressed you're
recommending approval I think understand that but when we
recommend approval it's
possible for council not to get the same copy that we have
since final revisions
could still be added correct okay
I'll have another question and kind of backtrack to
Commissioner Ellis on the
TIA and another city has got a requirement of a certain
traffic study
that they have to keep current if for some reason that's
not current and you
have a project coming on at what point is it the
responsibility of developers
to go and fill in those gaps I think it should be kind of
Commissioner else's
point is that there's a certain area that they should fill
in and if the maps
aren't current or there's information missing is there
anything in this
document that says if it's not current it's not the
developers responsibility
to bring it and make it current the city brings it current
and then they do their
certain area that makes sense yeah I think the city has its
own traffic model
that it's gonna keep up and current depending on whatever
planning approves
moving forward whatever types of plan uses are approved so
city will keep up
keep the background traffic information the developer is
only responsible for
his piece and the city will provide the background
information I know y'all are
catching up a lot of that we are and then don't get too far
behind the layers
of the onion but I know once it's caught up it shouldn't be
an issue but if for
some reason in the future it's not current there needs to
be something in
there that it's not the private developers responsibility
to get that
current if the city hasn't maintained it and kept it
current I think that should
be the city's responsibility to do that not the developers
like that but I I
believe that's always been the case that's really it's not
developers
responsibility look keep everything current I agree with
that and I'll just
leave my comment and we'll leave it there Commissioner Beck
actually this a lot
of this goes over my head but in relationship to
Commissioner Ellis's
and Chair strange these kind of details that are important
granted would these
not be the things you would discuss in the pre-development
meeting you know
when you want to narrow it down you're not going forward
until you have that
meeting and at that meeting that close proximity would be
defined then is that
correct correct okay that's exactly what it is for okay
thank you I guess I'd make
a comment back Commissioner Beck it's not so much as
defined it's who defines it
and I think it's if it's clearly written here it's a city
traffic engineer and
the city engineer both are responsible to define and
identify and the developer
would have no saying that no we will work with the
developers okay yeah it's
not that this document we were trying to become we've tried
to make it more
flexible okay depending on the type of development so
probably getting in on
ultimately traffic engineer and city engineer decide a
question that comes to
mind on the pre-development meetings I'm glad to hear that
some of the comments
and some of the requirements will be handled in that is the
pre-development
meeting are there any changes going into that and that may
be outside this purview
that there are written comments that come out of those are
those gonna be in
writing that you have a pre-development meeting all these
things are presented
and then there's a written response from the city that you
hand and say okay
here's all the items and you meet these criteria and you
walk out because that
necessarily hasn't been the case I think it's been more of
a conversation and
again I think this may be outside and getting a little bit
deeper of just the
transportation criteria manual but if it's going to be
comments that are
binding is there a procedure that those come in writing
they can and we can
include something like that and I could really add more to
that one of the
changes we're looking at doing is as part of a really
calling it a
pre-application meeting okay making sure though looking at
we don't want to we
don't want to blur the lines with respect to vesting but we
do want to
give what I was calling a determination of of review and
basically what that
would what that means is after that meeting you'll get a
letter basically
outlining all of the specific requirements you need to do a
TIA your
traffic shed is within a half mile plus you know whatever
that way when when an
applicant comes and submits their application they're not
shuffling
through a multitude of checklists that that determination
of review is really
your checklist so if that's if you've submitted everything
on that list your
application would be deemed complete and then start the
review process but these
are things that we're working on in the process okay I'll
say maybe we'll talk
later I have to say everybody's spare the Jim strange brain
damage so any
other comments for our questions for pre temp thank you
guys I appreciate you
okay I think that takes care of all the items that we have
on work session
anybody have anything else before close we'll close our
work session at six
o'clock and we will reconvene in council chambers at 630
for those that were
asking questions earlier about
good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and
zoning commission
meeting for March 7 2018 this meeting has been duly posted
and we do have a
quorum present and I'll call us to order at 635 our first
order of business will
be to stand and give the pledge the US and the Texas flag
honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one
state under God one
and indivisible
the next item on our agenda will be to consider the minutes
for February 21st
Commissioner Smith motion to approve Commissioner Ellis
second okay any
comments seeing none will call for a vote on the board
okay motion to approve carry six to zero will take us to
our consent agenda
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I move to approve our
item in the consent
agenda okay Commissioner Smith I second okay we have a
first and a second for
approval any discussion seeing none call for a vote on the
board
the motion carries six to zero we'll move us to item four
our items for
individual consideration I will call on Chad Allen for
presentation on PZ 18 -
049 good evening chair commissioners I'm Chad Allen deputy
city engineer in
charge of capital project delivery and tonight I and pre-t
am our traffic
engineer will discuss the drainage and transportation
design criteria manuals
update for a presentation tonight we're going to focus on
the changes that have
been made to the manuals because of public comment and PNC
feedback since the
last presentation to the planning and zoning Commission and
that happened on
January 24th so we're asking you to provide any comments or
accept comments
from the public and then hopefully to recommend approval of
the design
criteria manuals to City Council during this meeting and
the manuals we're
talking about are the drainage design criteria manual and
the transportation
design criteria manual so this is what's happened since the
last time we discussed
this with PNC we our last PNC meeting was on January 24th
at that time we were
going through a 30-day public comment period in early
February we also met
with a development community about both manuals we met with
them on February 6th
about the drainage design criteria manual and on February
13th about the
transportation design criteria manual and specifically when
we met with the
Denton Community Development Alliance during both of those
meetings and we
received a lot of feedback from them about the manuals
after that we've
incorporated a lot of their comments into the manuals and
or we revised the
drafts of the manuals by March 1st and then we started
another public comment
period a seven-day public comment period yesterday on March
6th tonight we're
presenting for your consideration and approval hopefully
and then after the
public comment period is over on March 13th we anticipate
to have the final
draft completed by March 15th and we're currently scheduled
to go to council
for a public hearing on March 20th to talk about the manual
s after that a
couple days later we hope to publish the final updates and
update and upload the
manuals to the website and then start to send them out to
the development
community for use we're just talking about the changes
since the last PNZ
meeting these are the major changes that happen a lot of
most of these are for
public comment and then we also received feedback from PNZ
on the 24th about the
drainage manual we received 53 comments mostly from the
Denton Community
Development Alliance and we provided responses to all of
those comments in
your backup some of the major changes we made were we tried
to clarify the fence
policy basically we are asking that no new fences are
placed in drainage
easements or in flood plains unless an exception is
provided in the design
criteria manual and basically that exception is if there's
a direct if
there's a drainage easement and in that drainage easement
there's a 100-year
storm designed full capacity underground storm drain system
located in that
easement then any non-Masonry fence would be allowed to
cross that easement
as long as it has knockout panels three other things we've
added are are
basically items that we've been implementing as part of the
development
process for a long time but they've just never been clearly
described in the
development code or the design criteria manual so we're
trying to get those in
right now as part of the update first one is a limit of the
discharge from
newly developed sites of stormwater of 3 CFS or less if it
's greater than 3 CFS
or less than 300 cubic feet per second then we're asking
for it to be placed in
an underground storm drain system again this is something
we currently implement
through DRC but it wasn't really described well in our
design criteria
manual the second one is about flumes and easements that
are associated with
positive overflow areas these are areas at inlets that are
located in low points
of streets and we have been asking as part of the DRC
process and we have been
implementing that developers provide a concrete flume and
an easement in these
overflow areas so that stormwater can if the inlet is clog
ged storm water can
flowing along a certain path to an acceptable outfall
location so again
we've been implementing this and now we're just trying to
get it into the
design criteria and then finally we're adding the fact that
FEMA shaded zone X
areas on firm panels are required to be possibly FEMA map
provisions are
required if developers want to reclaim those areas or
reclaim the floodplain
associated with the FEMA shaded zone X areas and there's a
couple different
shaded zone X areas on the firm panels there's those that
are associated with
the 500 year storm event and we don't regulate those and
then there are those
that are associated with minor watersheds that are less
than one square
mile and we treat those just as any other floodplain
developers are asked to
stay out of them or provide a study and provide BF identify
BF ease and then put
them in easements and perform map revisions if necessary so
again we've
been doing that for a long time in the DRC process and we
're trying to now put
it into the develop the design criteria free time is going
to come up and talk
about the drainage criteria manual changes now good evening
my name is free
time - look I'm the traffic engineer for the city of Denton
chair
commissioners a little bit of I wanted to clarify the what
Chad missed on the
last one and drainage criteria the definition for the I
swim will be
included in the drainage new criteria manual that was one
of the comments from
the commissioners I just wanted to make it on the record I
'll move on talk about
transportation criteria manual here we received about 37
comments and primarily
came from Denton Community Development Alliance and we've
responded or provided
a response to all of the comments in the backup majority of
comments needed
clarification more information was needed and footnotes and
stuff like that
the major ones that we focused on and they're listed here
are truck turning
radiuses that may or may not be required for commercial
driveways
clarification on parking spaces the part this dimension of
the parking spaces
were slightly different from the development code what's
included in the
current development code so that was clarified we added
more information
about driveway spacing that provided a clear understanding
of what was required
from from develop developers that came in and then last but
not least which is
the most important thing that we did is things were better
defined in the
pre-development meeting I don't think that was clarified in
the previous
version of the transportation criteria manual but there
will be a pre-development
meeting where the developers would find out what they're
required to do so those
are the things that were changed and based on that we at
this point recommend
the commissioners to or the Commission to approve and and
recommend approval
the two criteria manuals I just wanted to last note notify
that they were
currently the public comment period which means we will
still continue to
receive public comments and and then we have a public
meeting and I mentioned
earlier on March 20th with City Council thank you I have a
comment I'm gonna
tell you guys I think you've done a great job with your
presentation I know
you all have heard me number of times asked when we're
going to do ordinance
or criteria manual updates to get the stakeholders of
people that have to
comply with all these to sit down go over them try to work
out as many of
those things beforehand before we get an ordinance I think
you guys have done a
great job I think that's the way it should be and I want to
just as good as
I give and take give you guys congratulations because I do
think you
all have done a good job of going out in the community to
get input and listen to
it and then incorporate in there so thank you all for doing
that and I think
that's a good role for us to continue to look at and do in
the future so good
job anybody else thank you for your presentation thank you
so that's our presentation on our individual consideration
item floor will
be open for motion or discussion
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you guys for for
your presentation and
your hard work on this and in dealing with comment and
explanation I'm gonna
move that we approve this and move this forward to council
for a full
presentation there and hopefully approval Commissioner back
I think that
motion again with the understanding this is going to move
on to the City Council
and public hearing is still part of the process but yes I
second okay we have a
motion to approve in a second and I will add just a
clarification that the public
comment section is still open so people that do want to
make comments or
suggestions you're still able to do so and is there a final
cutoff date for
that that people need to be aware of
13th March 13th okay so get your comments in the next week
thank you all
with that is there any other discussion or comments okay
call for a vote on the
board
and motion carries six to zero that will move us to our
public hearings section
see me this time I'm going to open the public hearing for Z
17 - 0 0 2 9 and
Cindy Jackson will present that item thank you
Commission chair
I'm sorry I'm gonna have to find my presentation in here
somewhere
okay thank you for waiting okay this is Z 17 - 0 0 2 9 is a
request to rezone
approximately 1.7 acres from neighborhood residential and
our to to
just to employment center commercial ECC district the site
is located on the
south side of University approximately 820 feet west of the
intersection of
West University and Thomas J Egan here you can see the
zoning map as it is
currently on the top and this is what the zoning map will
look like should
this request be approved with regards to compliance with
the Denton plan the site
is designated as rural areas on the future land use plan
rural areas permit
such uses as farms ranches very low density residential
approximately on
approximately five acre lots and rural commercial uses the
request does not
conform to the this designation of rural areas we believe
that it was one of the
reasons it was designated as rural areas at the time that
the comprehensive plan
was written is because of the fact that it's fairly unde
veloped and agricultural
uses in this area and the University was still just a two-
lane road at that time
since the comp plan has been written the University has
been built to its full
capacity as a six lane divided arterial when a request does
not conform to the
future land use map the Denton Development Code gives
additional
criteria which we have to analyze the request with the
criteria are intended
to balance the competing interests of the public health
safety morals and
general welfare against the right to use to the use of the
property and include
things such as existing land use pattern the creation of an
isolated zoning
district adequate infrastructure environmental impacts in
the character of
the district a full discussion of these criteria are in
your backup but I will
give an abbreviated version to you due to the size shape
and location of the
site along West University as well as the proximity to gas
well sites this this
site is unlikely to develop as a single-family house
commercial uses are
more appropriate along primary primary arterials West
University will provide
adequate visibility and access for commercial use the ECC
districts are
typically found near employment centers and in corporate
office and business
workplaces with supporting secondary uses and development
will comply with all
ESA tree preservation buffer screening tree canopy lighting
requirements all
all standards of the DDC that are applicable the
infrastructure needs will
be accessed at the time of plotting and site plan this map
shows the location of
the gas well plots in relation to the subject site the
subject site is right
here designated by the star and as you can see from the
city limits all the way
to Mosh branch there are really just this site and two
others that are not
encumbered by a gas well plot and of course what goes along
with gas well
plots are gas wells and there is a preponderance of gas
wells in the area
which staff fields will prevent the area from the site from
developing as a
single-family residential site access and mobility the site
has 1,234 linear
feet of frontage along West University and is a significant
retail cord as
excuse me regional corridor it was recently as I mentioned
constructed to
its full capacity so it is now a primary arterial with six
lanes and divided
public notifications went out for this site for this site
on February 15th we
sent certified mail to two property owners and we sent
courtesy notices to
the same two property owners due to the the large size of
the land holdings in
this area that that covered the whole area we received one
response in
opposition and that that response comprises 49% of the land
area within the
200 foot buffer because of that this will have to be
approved by the City
Council with the super majority vote staff recommends
approval of this
request well the request is technically inconsistent with
the future land use
map it is consistent with the overall goals of the Denton
plan 2030 and it
conforms to the criteria for approval as outlined in the in
the DDC that
concludes my presentation I'll stand for any questions and
the applicant is
present as well if you have any questions for him any
questions for staff
Commissioner Beck I am curious Cindy and thanks for your
presentation how this
little slice got separated from anything else can you give
us any background well
I wasn't able to find out why okay the only the only thing
we can figure out
is that the former property owner of this site just did not
want to have to
be involved with with the gas wells okay so it was never a
part of the property
that surrounds it okay thank you
I see other questions thank you Cindy do you have one card
wishing to speak
Victor Ena at 1222 Golden Hoof Drive
please go ahead and give us your name and address and and
then your time will
start sir yes Victor Ena like you stated earlier that's my
address that's my
residence thank you councilman chairman councilman the last
time I was here was
during fracking debacle and this location in dispute
happens to be
approximately close to the same vicinity and I spoke to
this chamber and a little
altercation took place between the former mayor and myself
because I have
written I wrote him with my concerns and he never returned
my calls say I have
senators and congressmen wrote and called me back the fr
acking went on even
though I complained here they were allowed to do the fr
acking every day
non-stop the ordinance stated that they should stop fr
acking at 7 p.m. and not
no construction on Sundays but they were allowed my
complaints were disregarded
now we are talking about this zoning change I talked to a
friend of mine at
work who happens to be Caucasian now with this issue and he
told me that I'll I
better have my wife speak because I wasn't born here I've
been in this
country 35 years married 32 years have four kids two of
them have master's
degrees and two of them will get masters in two months from
now I didn't think my
wife needed to speak on my behalf I had a little degree
myself the word my
complaint earlier was was handled reminded me a little bit
about a country
I left 35 years ago where people people's opinions doesn't
count I know
this the issue was then put on ballot and then citizens
opposed it even though
they are congress in Austin over a rule here now with this
zoning change in
question I believe this will change my property value there
will be higher taxes
involved as well as crime and noise so in my humble opinion
I strongly
disapprove of this I live on a five-acre ranch it's good on
who Frank check I
have livestock as well so this will impact my residents a
great deal so hope
that the council will put this into consideration thank you
very much some
questions for you just a clarification yes are you the
applicant are you an
adjacent property owner adjacent adjacent yes and it's less
than 500 feet
about I miss understand I miss understood but I thought you
were the
applicant and I was puzzled with your comments so I click
clear clears up the
you're an adjacent property owner yes thank you appreciate
you coming out this
evening and do you have another question for you yes like
Commissioner Smith you
say you're you're just the east or the west of the property
on the side of you gotta gotta gotta so specifically you're
worried that this
zoning is going to increase fracking activity or what's the
noise level
okay
this is all my property right here okay yes go for the
questions thank you sure
thank you sir for coming out this evening this is a public
hearing anyone
else who would like to Commissioner back I'm sorry sir
Victor could you come back
down I'm sorry I didn't didn't get my name up quick enough
first off
appreciate you coming down and speaking and congratulations
on four kids getting
master's degree yes very good glad to have you here your
concern for noise
though now you sit back from where you pointed you sit back
pretty far off the
highway this is a small strip of land I'm not sure and
maybe hopefully we'll
get the applicant down here kind of give us an idea of what
's going on there but
what runs through your mind with this so much things what
do you think is going
to be there to create the problems you're concerned about
well the way I
see it it's like you give somebody an inch they want a fee
you give me a fee
they want a yard so this is approved who's to say that down
the road since
one commercial business is already approved who's to say
that the rest of
the property understood understood and I do understand that
but if you we look at
the Syrian is Cindy pointed out because of all the gas
wells there and trust me
I empathize with your concern over fracking but now that
they're there this
isn't going to be a logical place on this side of the
highway it's not going
to be appealing to developers for single-family residential
and it seems
right now to me at least that this would be a likely zone
change and perhaps all
along that way again understand the concern for noise
everything like that
but they've widened 380 now it's a six lane highway as
opposed to when you
probably first moved there when it was so I think that's
going to be an
inevitable faith of this area so I you know I don't get me
wrong I'm not
unsympathetic towards your concerns there but I think there
's ways that we
control that as each item comes through here we reevaluate
it before it goes in
and make sure it isn't going to be so disruptive to the
surrounding area so I
wanted at least you know share that with you now will I get
a guarantee that my
property tax will not go up not for me I'm not in that
position to do that but
what would make you think that it would increase property
taxes okay thank you
thank you for coming out this evening again this is a
public hearing anyone
who would like to speak on this item please come forward at
this time
seeing none will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion
or motion Commissioner Beck I would like the applicants
here if you come down I
kind of you have a question if you will give your name and
address force
please sir my name is dr. Leshacker I live at Lake Iowa
Texas which is in a
part of Gainesville Cook County thank you dr. Shacker yes
okay thank you for
coming down the one opposition letter we got was from the
property owner that
surrounds this piece a miss Nadra Mitchell and she said she
couldn't be
here tonight but she's concerned that this is an area that
's surrounded by
wheat fields can if she's watching or she can review this
video later what
could you convey to her that this is not going to be
disruptive to her wheat
fields I mean is there something to share with us that
would let us know that the
type of developments you're going to do is absolutely well
let me just give you a
little history what happened here many years ago I wanted
to build a clinic
here in Denton and it was very difficult to find adequate
medical space here in
that and I found this piece of property was going to put up
my medical clinic
when fortunately I found a nice building right on I-35 and
I was left with this
this piece of property and I've been trying to sell it and
then you had a
zone change in the early 2000s which made it in our two and
they came in with
all of these gas wells and of course nobody's going to
build a household near
an NR to zone that's clear because I've had it up for sale
for I don't know how
many over the last five years we've had a number of
requests for ECC now we just
have ECC all over the place just east of us and just as
another word of history
in United States I don't know why you can hear I'm from I'm
from the south
I'm from southern Staten Island New York but I've been here
40 years you see but
your accent doesn't change excuse me for my fiction but
anyway it turns out if
you really do a history all property in the United States
grows north and then
grows west why that happens nobody knows if there's a
boundary of course that
might offset that but if you look it up that's the history
now I'm not here to
cause chaos for anybody the Mitchell's included but it
turns out when people
put a gas well that diminishes my property my ability to
sell it in fact I
can't even sell it and under the ECC I'm not gonna feel
interfere with their
their wheat cutting that's not my intention if there's a
beautiful nice
building now the only salient value of this property is the
1234 feet linear
feet on a highway so people can come in and go out very
very easily so that had
to turn down a number of office so of course it's not in my
benefit it's not
an account he's benefit the city's benefit you're not going
to get any more
taxes it's just going to be useless land and as you know in
this country we want
land to be used and in fact a person can come literally sit
on your land if they
meet the criteria they can become an adverse possessor and
actually literally
take over theoretically steal your land legally in this
country so it's showing
you that the the fathers had very good thought we want land
to be used I want
the land to be used I don't want to disrupt the Mitchell's
in any which way
I'm not interfering with the gas wells I wasn't here to
protest their gas wells
I'm not here to protest their wheat cutting but I think it
's just a natural
progression of all cities and of course anything that would
come on that land I
can assure you it's gonna have to meet the zoning zoning
and Planning Commission
and this is my first time trying to change the zoning and I
I'm very
impressed with Cindy Jackson's just terrific her analysis I
couldn't
embellish that any any better so I would employ you to
consider have all
considerations I'm a team player whatever you decide I'll
go along with
that thank you looks like I have another question
Commissioner Smith thank you Dr. Seyar is that yeah sure so
the purpose of
rezoning it is purely just to be able to make a more market
able sell the land
correct okay they don't have a current developer who's one
to take the land
out from underneath you and use it no in fact I even
offered to sell the land at
a fraction of its value to the Mitchell's they said they
were not
interested and over a number of years I often them to
purchase that land so they
have that but right now it's just useless piece of property
does purely
reason with no no intent of what the usage is gonna be but
just to reason
for it's correct other than all if I just want to get
clarification no that's
exactly Cindy can ask you another question then thank you
Dr. Seyar if we
do rezone this and this does become commercial uses what
rules and
regulations do we have on setbacks for commercial uses on
this property at that
point in time because I'm just looking at it and measuring
it using you know a
lot it's a very narrow piece of land and at the very most
the widest part of land
you can tell me Dr. Seyar if you disagree with me the wid
est part of the land
south from 380 down to the back edge of that property is a
hundred and fifty
feet yes so what
we'll play some jeopardy music or something like that next
time
for the ECC district yes ma'am the there are no setbacks
okay the only time
there was a setback is if it was abutting a single-family
user district
okay so for this there would be 30 feet plus one foot for
each foot of building
height above 30 feet along the rear and and the west side
okay because the
remainder of it this part right here sure narrow that it
won't be able to be
used so basically that would have to become from a
commercial use standpoint
if someone wants to take by this land use and develop it
you would have to be
a driveway in basically is the or nothing or empty land to
the widest part
of the property and so at the very most you could fit
probably one piece of what
the guy was you could fit a everyone homes laughing at that
you could fit
basically one one commercial building on there that's
there's a median opening right here so the driveway
entrance would probably be
here so all of you would probably be drive okay and buffer
sure this is
zoning case I don't get too deep but I just the utility of
the land I just
wanted to ask more questions about that thank you very much
I appreciate it this
is a public hearing and anyone else that would like to
speak on this item please
come forward at this time seeing none and we'll close the
public hearing and
open the floor for discussion or emotion
Commissioner Smith a motion to approve Commissioner Roselle
first of all I
want to thank Victor for coming out and speaking his words
I don't think they go
unnoticed by any of the Commission and it and I appreciate
it but with that it
seems like the property owners has been kind of pigeonholed
by the the fracking
that's gone on in the area and so it seems the case that he
provided in terms
of the context of the land that I'm going to vote and for
this and second
this to see if there can be some development if any on that
property we
have a first and a second for approval Commissioner Ellis
thank you if you were
going to open it for discussion yes okay thank you very
much thank you
dr. Shasheer and mr. Victor for coming out I'm having a
rough time supporting
this I'm sorry that staff didn't discuss a lesser zoning
here the intensity of
the zoning concerns me I don't know that's where we want
this particular
area of the city to go maybe we do at this point I don't
know I am concerned
as Victor stated that once we rezone this ECC it opens the
door to properties
to the West properties to the north that do abut these
rural properties and we
can't discount the fact or I can't discount the fact that
that there are
rural property owners that still do exist in our area so I
can't support
this and just wanted to get that on the record commissioner
back thank you chair
and I agree to agree with Commissioner Ellis's concerns but
I guess the bigger
factor here is Victor lives on the north side and there's a
good distance back
that area as far as I can see is not threatened with the
zone change that
will come before us and I think it'll be a whole different
argument but the area
south of the highway right now is is is almost dead because
of the gas wells
there and unless you know we make some kind of move like
this it will remain
that way I really don't want to see residential expand I
would like to see
it you know we want density in the city and that means
going up and not out so
for that reason I would like to get this into more but
commercial area and not
encourage single-family developments out in that area so I
would be voting for
Commissioner Smith thank you chair bargie or Commissioner
Ellis to your to your
point I think I'd the point I was trying to make there was
that I think this the
sliver is so small and I could agree with you on a lesser
zoning as long as
it's still incorporated some sort of office or some sort of
you know no light
light industrial use but that piece of land is so small
that I don't think
we're gonna end up having development that's gonna be noisy
not to mention if
you want to talk about noise there is a whatever a four
lane highway six lane
highway where they're running right through the middle it's
pretty loud
enough that I just think that to honor but dr. say charts
trying to do is just
trying to get this land out from underneath them to
possibly what's gonna
end up being there is probably going to be a some sort of
office building or
some sort of medical practice or something like that just
because that
land is not going to support some large strip center or
some large industrial
development just because the size of it but I take your
points and I agree with
you
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you Commissioner
Smith and I appreciate
what you have to say there and and my comments are are not
just to single out
the doctor's property what it does is if we rezone this it
does open up the
ability to more easily rezone other things to ECC in that
immediate area and
across the street so that's my concern because we do have
to look at if we do
one what are the unintended consequences what do we open up
you know we talk
about isolated isolated zoning districts we're creating one
right now and when we
do that my concern is have we thought about it enough to
make sure that that's
what we want this to start becoming because we're at the
top of the heap
here with with this don't zoning designation so so that's
that's my
concern it's not to to to handcuff this owner it's to think
of the other
property owners in the future of that particular zone in
the city but I
appreciate your comments thank you Commissioner Sanchez my
biggest
consideration consideration is basically what the city says
it's a primary
arterial arterial road so over time I think in the next 10
15 20 years you're
gonna see more that was businesses that you see prior to
March those businesses
all that is going to expand so I think it's a it's a
reasonable recommendation
and I'm gonna vote for it I'm gonna echo Commissioner San
chez comments as I look
at the area further to the west over towards 51 there's a
pretty good sized
commercial use there and I think because of the text on
improvements to six lane
road that it ultimately this will become some type of a
commercial corridor for
our city for the matter of fact that because of all the gas
wells it will be
very difficult if not impossible to meet the setback
requirements because of the
gas wells and because of the infrastructure that's there
with the
six lane highway and commercial uses already up and down 3
80 to the west and
going on over to Decatur I think ultimately that's where we
're gonna go
and to your point I understand it is early but I think this
is going to be
the the direction that this whole area will ultimately move
in just because of
the features that are around it and the accessibility that
's out there and the
need for services so I'm going to support the zoning change
as well and
with that unless there any other comments or discussion I'm
going to call
for a vote on the board and the motion before us is a first
and a second to
approve with that I'll call for a vote on board
and motion is going to carry five to one that will move us
to item B in our
public hearings this evening at this time I'm going to open
Z 17 - zero zero
three two and call on Cindy Jackson for presentation
Z 17 - zero zero three two is a request to rezone
approximately eight point nine
acres of land from neighborhood residential six and our
sixth zoning
district to neighborhood residential mixed use 12 NRMU 12
zoning district the
site is generally located on the southwest side of Colorado
Boulevard
approximately 315 feet northwest of San Jacinto here at the
top you see our
current zoning map which shows the NR6 zoning and at the
bottom you'll you see
the proposed zoning map which shows the proposed zoning
district as you can see
this district is a continuation of the NR12 district that's
to the north future
land use map designation for this site is moderate density
single-family
residential which permits single-family residential on
small lots with a density
of between four to twelve dwelling units per acre this is
typically used as a
transition between the established single-family
neighborhoods and
commercial areas or mixed-use areas as you can see we've
got to the west low
density residential and then we've got to the southeast
regional mixed use which
is actually the site of the Golden Triangle Mall and
associated pad sites
and commercial uses excuse me residential uses permitted in
the NR 12
zoning district are consistent with the future land use
plan designation however
permitted multifamily and commercial uses would not be
conforming with this
site for that reason staff is recommending an overlay which
will
restrict the uses to single-family townhomes and a maximum
density of 10
dwelling units per acre moderate density residential
neighborhoods are appropriate
along secondary arterials which is what Colorado Boulevard
is it should provide
adequate visibility and access the NRMU 12 district is
typically in close
proximity to low density residential neighborhoods as I
mentioned as and it's
used as a transition or buffer to more intense commercial
uses the NRMU 12
district it limits the residential density and scale the
density is limited
per the district to 12 but we are requesting an overlay to
restrict that to
10 the development must comply with all standards including
the ESA tree
preservation buffer standards screening tree canopy and
light requirements and
the infrastructure needs will be assessed for the site at
the time of
plotting and site plan the site has 904 linear feet of
frontage on Colorado
Boulevard Colorado Boulevard is designated as a secondary
arterial part
of it is four lane divided excuse me four lane undivided
and as we get closer
to the intersection with Hatt San Jacinto it becomes a four
lane divided
during the work session there were questions about the stub
out of Claremont
and and why it was there this site was originally supposed
to be phase two of
the patio homes that are located here and for reasons that
I couldn't find it
it never developed that way and so this is what the new
proposal is compatibility
with the the zoning surrounded zoning there is NR three
single-family to the
west and our six to the southwest our CCD to the southeast
which is a intense
commercial area and NRMU 12 and multifamily out to the
north the area is
the request is very compatible with the surrounding zoning
we sent out
35 notices on February 2nd via certified mail and 116
courtesy notices went out
as well we've received six responses in opposition and two
in favor and one
neutral and and one of the responses is right up here it's
difficult to tell
because it kind of blends in with the boundary line of the
200 feet staff
recommends approval of this request with the condition that
mixed use overlay
district be applied to the site with the following
conditions that there shall be
no uses permitted other than single-family attached town
homes
including duplexes or single-family detached units it would
just be town
homes the overall density of the site shall not exceed 10
dwelling units per
acre and that concludes my presentation and the applicant
is here if you have
questions Cindy question another came up in work session
what is the height
maximum on in our six I think it's 65 but let me double
check
what is in our 12 though
just like this up here we had discrepancy there just to
clarify I think
we're having a little sidebar discussion and I get frowned
at right
quick here amongst us the height requirements or maximums
on would you
when you get to the code for mr. inner me 12 it's 40 feet
okay and in our six is
40 as well so they're the same height requirement in both
okay
Commissioner Smith nothing I withdraw my request I think I
stole your question
maybe okay any other questions for staff thank you Cindy
this is a public hearing
and the first card that I have is the applicant and I'll
call on Eric Schmidt
if you'll give your name and address for us I think you'll
have up to ten minutes
sir yes sir thank you good evening my name is Eric Schmidt
's property here in
Denton 207 West Hickory and there is basically this
property has been here
for a long time and as Cindy was saying never did really
develop I feel like the
proposed use of townhome is an excellent buffer between the
hard commercial mall
bowling alley and the apartments on the north side or the
opposite side of
Colorado and the garden homes that surround us we held a
meeting open public
meeting Monday February 12th and we had 42 people show up
and had mixed feedback
I would say 50/50 we took into consideration the main
concerns of the
of the folks in the area such as the buffer between the
existing residential
and the proposed development and considered that we would
be willing to
construct a fence you know upon the city's approval in
addition we were
going to landscape the buffer between those we talked about
the trees we're
willing to replace the hardwood species on a caliper plus
basis so that we would
line Colorado with an ash fence and or hardwood species
probably live oak or
red oak or something like this in addition we have in the
development of
proposed amenity center and dog park would have a pool and
clubhouse something
like that for the folks that live there walking trail and
we invited the folks
that were contiguous to have access to those facilities as
well as they were
like as they would like to some of the main concerns and it
was interesting the
folks that showed up lots of them were elderly retired
folks and just didn't
want to have a big disturbance and I assured them that our
proposal is fee
ownership these folks it's not apartment or a strip center
or something that
would probably be more likely for this particular property
these folks will own
their homes and part of the requirements for each of the
homes would be also
another hardwood tree minimum of one they have driveways as
well as garages
on site one of the concerns was off-street parking or on-st
reet parking
so we created an area in the proposed flat for guest
parking added an
additional 12 spaces for that the last discussions we had
and we're open to
feedback is the main entrance or the grand entrance which
would be Colorado
Boulevard a very nice landscaped entrance and they didn't
want this traffic to
flow through to behind the bank into the garden home
development as a through
street and so the engineers and I met and thought well
maybe we could make that
a they call it I guess a crash gate where the fire
department or the police
could get through if there was an emergency and for
whatever reason the
main gate was blocked off or inaccessible so we felt like
that would be a good
compromise and we're prepared to do that basically it's it
's a real tasteful
townhome type mix I think the market we're sorely lacking
for this price
point of home 275 to 350s they anticipated sale price of
these homes
and there's a bus route there and we've also figured out a
configuration with
the preliminary traffic study to have a turn lane in front
as a middle line to
Colorado Boulevard where we could reconfigure the median
and the
development group is prepared to do that to make that
happen there's it seems to
be a lot of land in the middle where Colorado gets narrowed
down there for for
some reason but there's plenty room for a turn lane there
and we could
reconfigure that at our expense to help with the traffic
flow so we addressed of
the eight points that the folks had at the meeting or
excuse me ten we came
back and have agreed or deferred to the the folks around us
on eight of them and
one of the two that are remainer they just don't want to
see any development
there so we're trying to get by the best we can I
appreciate your time and
consideration I'm open for questions okay commissioner back
thank you chair
and thank you mr. Smith for your presentation and I want to
commend you
on holding a neighborhood meeting that seems to be
something that developers
what's a crash gate it's a gate that they have it's a small
gate that could
be crashed through pretty easily but it's a control gate so
that the fire
department and this is my understanding the fire department
the police
department either has electronic access where they can open
it 24/7 or have a
key or a lock in every city is different but basically
there's nobody driving
back and forth through the property on a regular basis and
the way it's designed
in our proposed plan they wouldn't necessarily need to is
the main entrance
would would serve everybody to ingress and egress but per
the requirements and
I think the majority of the emphasis on that requirement
are for emergency access
and so we're trying to make a provision for that okay that
makes sense now did I
hear you right that you're willing to offer the amenities
you're going to be
putting in this to the garden home community to to
everybody that's
contiguous along there we offered them the right to come to
the dog parks or
the walk park so they can come through that crash gate area
yes sir okay we
would continue the sidewalk into the community and it's
pretty close to the
garden homes I had a couple of folks that are over in the
larger homes that
one guy wanted a gate another guy didn't didn't want a gate
and so I wouldn't
sure how that would work but if we do like a masonry wall
or a pretty
substantial wall that we're anticipating he'd probably have
to go around and come
up the back street right okay one last thing concern
mentioned by some of the
residents there is the height and I know you wanted to
build three store up to
three story I think the height is 40 feet is that right
thank you okay and
that that would allow a three-story but do you see yourself
accommodating the
residents in the garden homes where you could put the
second and third story
buildings closer to Colorado yes we're studying that right
now and the plan
that the builders that we're working with the three story
is about 32 feet so
we'll be under the 40 however they the houses that are the
lower density lowest
density if you will that are contiguous we're thinking that
we might could limit
those to a two-story which is no different than is already
in the
neighborhood in our suits and so far as they're contiguous
to that back fence
that abuts the development I think that we could probably
work with them on a
two-story configuration on those parcels just just for
everybody's if you missed
it up here in our six which is there now would allow the
same height somebody
want to build a two-story house back in the garden house
that could be done so just
want to make that point right and staff mentioned that it
would be at a limit of
ten dwelling units per acre but she mentioned something
about you wanting to
bring it down today we're yeah we're less than that
actually I think one plane we
had was like 74 and the other was 78 and so instead of 85
or 90 whatever that
equates to 8.9 to be 89 we're already dropping it down and
that's to make
provision for the green dog park and the walkways and
landscape buffer okay thank
you any other questions for the applicant
thank you sir yes quite a few cards you might want to stay
close if we need to
thank you the next card I have is Jennifer gear 1512 Greens
Point Circle
it's not marked as to whether it's opposition or support
please give us
your name and address certainly my name is Jennifer gear
and I'm on 1512 Greens
Point Circle and I appreciate the opportunity to talk thank
you very much
I had meant to put opposed I just turned in my card a bit
quickly so that was the
intent on it but but staffs input on the overlay actually
is a very key point to
me because one of my concerns is that I live on a cul-de-s
ac and I actually love
the area because it's a nice private cul-de-sac but there's
great easy access
to the major roads Colorado and such it's a really nice
location so my
concern was that the zoning could change somebody else
could buy out the project
and it could become apartments or something like this which
I really did
not want so townhomes if something is going to be built
there is more
amenable to me so then my my remaining concerns are really
traffic because
Colorado can be pretty busy I don't know if there's a way
of having it go out to
San Jacinto I'm not sure if that becomes an option or not
and then the privacy
how you know if there's a nice brick wall with sound abat
ement that sort of
thing in it and the aesthetics of it because I did not have
the the details
on the landscaping so a little bit was talked about but
there weren't any
visuals so I actually don't see and that's very important
to me because we
have a nice community very nice cul-de-sacs and I don't
want that to be
encumbered by a very high density look to it so I want a
nice marriage of the
two if that is going to be built I will say that I did not
I was at the that
meeting you referred to and I did not see a 50/50 I
definitely saw that the
community was not that interested in having a development
there but that
townhomes probably seem to be the lesser of possible evils
out there
certainly we'd rather have single-family detached rather
than single-family
attached but single-family attached is better than some of
the other options so
I guess in summary if the aesthetics of it the the greenery
the trees and such
are really nice nearby then I think that might be amenable
I guess one final note
is that a lot of the existing residents in the cul-de-sacs
area a lot of them
are elderly and most people said that they probably wouldn
't be using the
amenities even so so it's a nice offer but probably not to
be utilized so the
view the aesthetics the noise level the traffic I think
those are the bigger
issues of the actual residents thank you for the
opportunity to speak thank you
for coming this evening your comments next part I have is
Linda Dudley
1916 Cavender Circle in opposition to be followed by Gary
Glover hello our main
concern I live in the garden home can you give us your name
and address for
the record yes Linda Dudley 1916 Cavender thank you I live
in the garden
homes been there 13 years and we have enjoyed a quiet safe
neighborhood most
until recently it was all pretty much older people whose
children were grown
and gone and these are small homes up to like four feet
apart so we're in there
you know we're but we're all good friends and we we have
lived a safe
place you know we feel like we can go home at night and it
's quiet and we've
loved that but we own our streets our HOA we do not want
the traffic to come
through Claremont because our streets are narrow and how
this subdivision got
approved ever with these small streets we don't know but
there's no room for
any parking in the streets on on my street and the next
street over so any
overflow that can't get in the garage or the or the
driveway parks on Claremont
that's the only place because there's no room for fire
trucks or any emergency
vehicles to come in on those streets so that is our biggest
worry and concern
also of course noise crime high taxes just all that we
realize that there's
going to be development we can't control that and I guess
single-family would be
the most desirable but we 80 homes we can't even imagine
the traffic and the
noise that's going to be that's what we were told at the
meeting up to 80 homes
so our residences so we're just all concerned about how
that's going to
affect us our safety security noise just all of it and you
know we're just hoping
to keep it as quiet as possible and as you know low density
as possible and just
keep our neighbors from being just pretty much safe
question for you
Commissioner Smith thank you chair thank you ma'am come out
and speak tonight the
the applicant to talk about putting that crash gate up so
that emergency services
has access through Claremont just in the event it is hard
to just put up one
entrance in and out of a neighborhood and the fire code
that comes along with
that crash gate you think that's that's what's not it's not
open to the public
it's meant to be just purely for emergency personnel long
story short it's
basically it's a barrier that keeps it from public traffic
going through but if
like a fire truck needs to get through to this new
development they have the
ability to go through that gate we would prefer no at
minutes through our
neighborhood okay with trucks or whatever even the even in
the process of
an emergency well I guess if it was an emergency okay sure
I actually have a
question for the applicant now
yes sir projected value of the town homes you're building
in here 250 to 350
range great so anything okay I'm sorry one more size square
foot did you think
minimum of 1600 feet on up to like 2200 livable got thank
you I have a follow-up
question for miss Dudley one of the things the applicant
stated that they
were open to is restricting the height against the existing
neighborhood if
that's restricted to two stories with a maximum height on
it does that alleviate
some of the fears of the height backing right up to your
neighborhood that we
think it would in our neighborhood we have 36 homes they're
all one level
except for two and that is when you enter our subdivision
which is between
in wood bank building and then the strip center where Bur
lington Co. factory is
and that so there are two but the rest of it's just and so
that is is a concern
that there'll be tall buildings with people who can see
over you know into the
homes or the patios or whatever if we again if we added
that restriction is
there open to doing that two-story against the adjoining
with that help
allay some of the concerns I think it would but not as far
I mean you know I
still feel the same about coming through our neighborhood
sure yeah but the noise
and traffic and you know Colorado is not a huge street I
think it would really
jam up the traffic already if you go out of our
neighborhood and try to go on to
the loop from Colorado usually end up sitting through that
light maybe three
or four times right now just with the traffic that it's got
right now one
other observation I would just share with you on the
possibility of a second
point of egress that is gated it may be a benefit for your
neighborhood as well
if there was some type of an accident right there at in
wood bank and there's
emergency in your neighborhood there's no way to get into
it this development
with that emergency only gate within allow a second point
so there might be
another consideration for you all there for your future
well as long as it's a
crash gate as long as the all kinds of people can't crash
through there we're
gonna have to come up with a better term
emergency great one other question Commissioner Sanchez for
the applicant I
know I had the same question about what would be the square
footage as you said
about 1600 square foot that that's what we're anticipating
for the minimum size
living area up to 22 23 and they're gonna be more or less
for families yes
sir okay totally homeowners they own their property it's
nothing like an
apartment and they're not very micro small these are good-
sized homes okay
thank you I see no other questions thank you ma'am Gary Glo
ver to be followed by
Daniel Kettler and you sir are marked on your card in
opposition if you'll give
her name Gary Glover 1501 Greens Point one of my biggest
concerns is that my
house backs up directly to where this is going in it backs
up to the vacant lot
where I'm sitting sits up pretty high up on a hill even if
you build even as high
up as I am if you're building three-story units like is
talked about
that's still going to be looking down into my backyard
everyone else's
backyard that's my home basically two-story okay fine that
's going to be
about on an even par but three stories going to take away
just about every bit
of privacy that I have another issue has been has been
talked about the traffic
problems everything else miss gear I can testify to this
also that they're on
Greens Point one of the problems that we have on weekends
is that Colorado
courts or waters edge apartments now on weekends people go
over to see their
friends there's not enough guest parking over there they
park on the street all
the time now they're usually gone by Monday early Sunday
afternoon but
there's a lot of parkings we've had to have come and have
to have people just
parked their vehicles and left them there and we've had to
have them towed
eventually so I realized there will be additional parking
over here with the
with townhomes but that's still probably going to end up
being a problem one of
the questions that I had also was they said that these
would be comparable to
the three-story units the street three-story townhomes that
were at I
believe it's called 1450 Centerplace over behind Corinos
one of the thing one
of the questions I had is what about sanitation or is that
's going to be
individual pickup or they going to be dumpsters because the
ones over there on
Centerplace are dumpster usage another question that I have
again I sit up on a
hill is there's going to be an erosion problem there in
fact already is is this
going to be something that's going to be dealt with by the
city is this something
I'm gonna have to deal with or is this something that the
development is going
to have to deal with depending on where they were all the
property lines are at I
understand they're going to develop it I understood that
whenever I bought the
home there and again townhomes are well not the worst thing
but again single
family detached would be a lot better given the traffic it
's already going
down Colorado especially whenever you're trying to get to
the loop turning down
San Jacinto is an option at times but if you're not going
that way as it is right
now whenever I have to go to work it's easier for me to go
down San Jacinto go
up to Teasley and go back that way to get up on get up on
35 than it is to go
all the way down to to the loop and try and get on that
adding in more units
like that I think is just gonna make the problem worse
thank you sir
next card I have is Daniel Kettler to be followed by Jerry
Rowan
Daniel Kettler 1925 Canyon Court when this development was
proposed my first
question is why going from 6 to 12 when we have space
available in the city
that's already zoned to zone 12 I took the zoning map down
and I took a look at
a lot of the properties there's available property ready to
go why change
what we have so the existing six and our six properties are
fantastic why can't
they just be built around like it was intended which I didn
't even realize
until this meeting that that was apparently in the works
but it just fell
through if that were to happen I probably have a lot of my
arguments
melt away so the density is an issue as has been mentioned
traffic I would think
that we wouldn't want to be over stuffing the land we'd be
just getting
what the land is rated for now I live in Canyon Court so we
have the in our three
density and we're gonna be backing up to 10 to 12 that's
quite a jump that's three
to four times even the six is it's a reasonable jump so I
just think that
that's a little aggressive I think the six has originally
attended was probably
a better idea I would also like to echo that the amenities
that are being
offered to us are kind of a that's kind of a hollow benefit
we didn't we bought
our property without an HOA with a lot without a lot of
these amenities
because we didn't really want so why do I want to take a
long path to come around
my exit to come to a swimming pool I almost have to drive
to get there it's
not really a convenience there's really no way to put an
access from our
neighborhood into theirs because all the property is owned
by the area homeowners
we don't need the walking area we don't need a dog park
then has the finest dog
park I've ever been to there's an excellent walking path
that runs
against the dent and a train that I use all the time there
's plenty of walking
space these are things that we need we have a quiet
neighborhood we really do
like it that way I was also at that initial meeting and my
interpretation was
not 50/50 my my interpretation was 5 to 95 so regarding
this masonry wall that's
been proposed to explain this in my time it were four feet
below them at my fence
in six feet it rises four feet so when they begin
construction I'm already
looking at this this is going to be my view right here a
brick wall if you stand
six feet from my fence I can see below your knees now you
build three stories
that's a skyscraper even at two stories that's still a
considerable reduction in
view I don't get to see Colorado Parkway really but I do
get to see the sky so
it's really like building next to a roadway I kind of
disagree with the spot
rezoning of land to suit a seller that's trying to squeeze
something out of his
property or developer that's trying to squeeze more
property in it was zone 6
why not leave it six it would work great this area that's I
'm sorry we don't have
a map can't show you it's like 95% and our six and this
small sliver I'm sorry
and our three and a small sliver of six and now you want to
kind of package this
the shoe warn is 12 in there I just don't think it's right
for the area for
traffic for all that I really don't have a problem
thank you for your comments next speakers Jerry Rowan in
opposition to be
followed by Jeanette gear in opposition good afternoon my
name is Jerry Rowan
2316 Claremont Lane I was wasn't at the first meeting
because I didn't know
anything about the first meeting but anyway my big concern
is the traffic
flow and there's several issues that I have concerns about
him my neighbors
have concerns about and first of all the last I heard was
there was a plan to run
traffic all the way through and even with the what they
call in the crash gate
that's not an alternative if something was happened like
you said he had an
accident up on San Jacinto or whatever you know people used
to still couldn't
get through there to get out unless you're an emergency
vehicle so I think
that should be that should not be even considered and the
other thing is coming
off of San Jacinto that when you turn it back going back to
the east toward
Briarwick or Cavender that when you turn there it's it's a
blind spot I don't
know how much the engineers have been out there researching
looking at that
you know I'm sure they have but anyway that is it's
dangerous there you have to
because people coming coming back to the West and coming
going to work in the
mornings you better be careful because they don't stop
because there's not a
stop sign there so anyway it's it's it's a concern about
safety and the other
thing is that street is not wide enough like she was
talking earlier about you
know people have to park out there because a Cavender Briar
wick are not
wide enough to park on the street so that's out so that's a
big concern but
the safety issue of getting in and out I think it's bad
idea even considering
that so but everything else has already been talked about
that I had concerns
about so I won't waste y'all's time but I appreciate your
time and thank you
very much thank you sir for coming out this evening
next part I have is Janik gear in opposition
clearly my handwriting is much worse than I thought it's
Derek apologies Derek
gear I should put my glasses on sooner 1512 Greens Point
Drive I'm sorry
Greens Point Circle came to speak in opposition some of it
was allayed by the
description the staff of a I think it's 10 10 per acre
overlay requirement and
that that that allayed some of my concern I'm going to
repeat some concern
with the traffic as we come out of our cul-de-sac although
when you look at it
on the map here Colorado looks like a flat gentle curve but
in reality there's
a dip in a blind curve so you're coming out and you're like
going okay is there
someone coming because you can't see below that dip so
there's a little bit
more to it than just the just what it looks like on the
linear linear map let
me see if I gotta make sure I don't cover anything my wife
's already covered
can we get a crash gate okay no I think that's that pretty
much covers it but I
appreciate your time thank you for coming out this evening
I have some
additional cards that did not wish to speak and I'm just
going to read those
into the record have Collette Brandon 1921 Canyon in
opposition then have Nate
Brandon at 1921 Canyon in opposition and then I have Lisa K
ettler 1925 Canyon
in opposition and then as part of our backup we did have a
letter from the HOA
and so that's already is part of our record and so that is
part of our
neighborhood comments this is a public hearing so anyone
else who would like to
speak on this item please come forward at this time please
come up to the mic
so the folks that are at home and the recording can get
your comments can you
give us your name again so they'll know sorry Linda Dudley
1916 Cavender again
about our straight Claremont we own that street that is not
a city street and we
do not want that to be used for this new subdivision I just
want to make sure
that was a clear thing and I don't know about this crash
gate you know who could
come who could use it whatever but I just wanted to make
sure y'all understood
we do not approve of that okay make sure everybody is clear
on that for private
vehicles or public like trash trucks and anything you have
city trash trucks
coming there now correct when you're in your neighborhood
we do okay so the ones
that you're concerned about is fire trucks coming in there
or private
vehicles we just want to make sure that it is not used by
this subdivision
understand and we may have staff and I know there was a
couple people making
some comments and I couldn't tell up here from city staff
maybe I can give
some additional feedback about this crash gate emergency
gate let's get the
correct term so we're all using the right wording I've
actually heard it
both ways I've heard it as a crash gate and I've heard it
as an emergency gate
and these are it depends on the city they're locked and if
there if there's a
key access and there's something called Knox box that that
the fire only the
fire and EMS have access to are they it's electronic where
only fire and EMS
have have the way to get into it okay Mr. Lee does that
help clarify who would
have access yeah great and we can use either term and we're
in good races all
right either one emergency access emergency access well I'm
old and
getting short and I'll try to get a new term here again
this is a public hearing
anyone else who would like to speak please come forward at
this time and I
don't have any more cards but you you're welcome not to
turn one in because our
homeowner president was going to speak you're welcome to
speak just fill out a
card for us before you leave the city the blue card yes my
name is Martha
Henderson I live at 1917 Piney Creek Boulevard in Piney
Creek there was a
piney Creek I'm not understanding why about this crash gate
or whatever I'm
not understanding we don't need it to be a crash gate if
anyone in our
neighborhood needs an emergency they can come into our
neighborhood why do why
does this subdivision need a crash gate to come through our
neighborhood when
they have access to Colorado or to San Jacinto which was
what mr. Schmidt said
that he was going to look into instead of going through Cl
aremont he was going
to go through see if he could access San Jacinto through
the between the bowling
alley and the office the doctor's office building so that's
what I'm not
understanding why they are so adamant that they want to
come in through our
neighborhood emergency vehicle into their neighborhood when
they have will
have two interest in off of Colorado that's what I'm not
understanding let me
let me call on Cindy thank you for coming up and you might
ma'am if you
don't mind stay I've got a question for you I mean if we
can get up and answer
your question first well I'm not sure what the fire code
was when their
neighborhood was built but today the fire code requires two
points of access
into a subdivision and they will only have one driveway
along Colorado if that
driveway gets blocked by an accident or something there is
there would be no way
to get in there so the crash gate in a situation like that
the emergency access
gate would be used to get into that area and it goes both
ways it is a benefit to
these these people as well if their only entrance is
blocked then emergency
medical service and police can get through from Colorado
into their
subdivision and and it gives them aid does that help with
the reason why thank
you ma'am this is a public hearing Commissioner
Rossell you had a question it's actually for miss Jackson I
appreciate your
clarification the emergency access gate just to further
clarify our how did that
subdivision get built without a second point of access and
are they currently
out of code I wasn't here when they were built they they
have been there for
quite a while and my thought is is that the fire code just
didn't require the
second point of access and they did anticipate in the
future that they would
have a second point of access because the subject site was
supposed to be
phased to and connect to Colorado sure I appreciate that
and my brother is a
didn't firefighter and I know the importance of having two
access points to
make sure that there is an emergency or fire in the house
there's multiple ways
in exactly the other question I have is can this new
potential subdivision that
we're looking at on the rezone be built without acts having
access to Claremont
they would have to find some way to get a second access
somewhere right now they
can't get access to Santa Cinto the the vacant lot that's
adjacent to them is
actually the site of a future hotel the bowling alley we're
not sure they will
give them access because when the hotel asked the bowling
alley to connect the
bowling alley refused so we we don't anticipate that that
they'll let this
particular this site connect to them either okay that's
most helpful thank you
Cindy I've got a question for you yes sir at the mic what's
the difference in
the parking requirements for the NR six versus the NR MU I
know and there's a
18 by 18 pad that has to be with an NR six and I think
there's some revisions
coming on that what's the difference between NR six and NR
MU 12 it's bit
for parking it's based on use so if it's a residential use
they have to have
space for two two cars just like in our six so there's
correct so they have to
be the parking requirement for either zoning is the same
that's correct okay
thank you for a single-family attached and detached yeah
exactly so it doesn't
make a difference okay okay thank you for the clarification
sorry we're gonna
need to get you a chair sit right here beside I'm sorry I
've got a couple more
questions for you for heads up here Commissioner Sanchez so
I don't on
Colorado they can only have one exit they based on what I'm
seeing here
they've got a pretty large frontage right so they can only
have one they can
only have one access we've already met with the traffic
engineer about that and
they can have just one access because of the median that is
closer to the the
intersection of San Jacinto that prevents them from having
any exit there
which is where they had originally planned and they need to
have it further
to the west and they will need to provide right turn lane
and left turn
lane so that there's lots of access but not yeah there only
be permitted one
okay my other question was um no I've got one other
question maybe it'll come
back commissioner back thank you chair thanks Cindy
question that I think was
expressed by some of the people who live in that community
was that if we do
rezone this to NRMU 12 and mr. Smith's decides for some
reason he doesn't want
to build and takes off just hypothetically speaking then
the
concern would be that now they could come in and build
multi-family so if
we're gonna prove this with the overlay my question would
be in that event could
we keep the overlay oh the overlay runs with the land not
with the property
all right I know we've been over this before but I just
want to make sure that
wouldn't go away no okay the only way it would go away is
if somebody tried to
rezone it and take it away and we have to look at it all
over again yep okay
thank you another question for you Commissioner Sanchez I
finally
remembered we've had a lot of concern about you know
traffic can you address
that a little bit to for the public here so they understand
what what the
category of that road is and is there any future
considerations of widening it
or anything like that right now it's secondary arterial
arterial is our
second largest category of street it's four lanes and to
the best of my
knowledge that there's no plans to widen it at this time
okay I just want to make
sure sure and his San Jacinto is the same classification in
size I see no
other questions okay thank you yes sir if you have another
common well I'll I
use chair to we typically give one comment per resident but
I'll make an
exception for you please state your name and Jerry rolling
2316 Claremont Lake
my question was if you want access to Claremont or to Piney
Creek those roads
were never taken over by the city so they belong to the HOA
so if y'all are
assisting on access is the city gonna take these roads over
I'll let staff
address that one we again we're sort of premature in that
that discussion until
we get to platting we we really won't know to be quite
honest I can tell you
though we're not maybe Victor can chime in but but I don't
know if we've ever
forced traffic onto a private access way particularly when
it's plotted as a as a
private access way I think the only rights that the city
has when I looked
at the plat was for a murder you know for police fire
garbage otherwise it is
as you stated your your private street okay thank you okay
thank you sir this
is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak on
this item please
please come forward
Lisa Kettler 1925 Canyon Court and I have a few questions
on the masonry wall
I'd like to know what is the highest allowable wall per
city code and I would
also like to know at what what grade point the wall would
be built on because
we're about four feet lower than the field behind us so
would it be built on
that side or on the higher side and if it's built on the
higher side and we
keep our fence who is responsible for maintaining the land
about seven feet in
between and also if the wall falls into disrepair what is
the procedure for us to
go about getting that fixed I see Cindy digging in the book
over there so the
maximum permitted height of a wall or fence be it on an
interior lot line is a
feat and the responsibility for the maintenance would be on
the the property
owner for the seven foot strip that's correct it would the
developer property
owner of the townhouses and is there a through code
enforcement as far as the
maintenance of the fence is there a requirement on that or
that would fall
in code enforcement city didn't that that would be the
property maintenance
code that code enforcement enforces community improvement
okay if you have
an additional question if you'll please come to the
microphone so we can get you
on for those that are watching at home okay so if it falls
into district
disrepair who do I go to the I'm not sure who I'm sure I'm
sorry use terms
back and forth that we're familiar with the code
enforcement department within
the city didn't is who you would make a complaint to and
they would then contact
the property owner and give them a notice that the fence is
in disrepair
and they need to have it repaired okay thank you you bet
thank you for coming
out this evening again this is a public hearing I'll make
one more exception we
typically allow one one opportunity to speak but please
come forward this
evening I know this is a lot of people have come out and we
'll make sure that
we get all the comments on the record so short last time
Derek gear 1512
Greenspoint Circle just a question based on the
requirements for the fire code to
have two accesses whether this is rezoned or not once this
land is developed they
will need a second access and clarinet is the only one okay
just clarify if I
could just know that staff maybe you want to clarify my my
head non there
there are certain exact you know they if there are there's
if there's less than
30 30 homes or less I think they can have one access point
again I'm not I'm
not going to speak on behalf of the fire marshal but I know
there are exemptions
with respect to that in addition there's also the ability
to sprinkle if they put
fire sprinklers in so there are ways that that they could
mitigate again very
expensive to sprinkle those units but there are different
sort of mitigation
options that that could be done but again we're sort of
early early on on the
stage for that to decide right now Commissioner back thank
you chair if the
applicant would come back up a quick question for him one
of the residents
over in the garden homes ask how are you going to dispose
of your trash it's
gonna be individual pickup like they have or their dump
sters per the city
either way whichever is required of us okay meet that okay
and well I've got
you up here probably to respond to Lisa's concern would you
be available if
the walls in disrepair would you invite that they call you
first before the
usual we would in fact that information available to them
where they could do
that absolutely and in fact they're anticipating a small HO
A to build
reserves for the seasonal flowers as well as maintenance of
the grounds which
would include the wall entrances and that sort of thing
thank you I have an
additional question and in trying to listen to some of the
neighbor concerns
you stated you you all were open to doing two-story against
existing
neighborhoods yes sir we have in the options are given
before us here by city
staff an overlay and a number of requirements would that be
another
requirement that you all would be open to of us adding to
the overlay to
restrict those to a two-story height and looking at the lot
depth on in our six
in NREMU 12 which are the what you're currently to what you
're proposing
they're both 80 feet so if we made a requirement of two-
story on 80 feet of
budding adjacent properties would you all be open to that I
think if they're
there continuous to that we would yes yes and I think we
tried to convey that
to those neighbors as well but absolutely so you're okay
with us doing
that and try to ones that give them some protection to
their neighborhoods of yes
sir and be no different than a two-story house next door
correct okay thank you
for being willing to accept that additional requirement in
the overlay
another question Commissioner Rozelle this will probably be
for city sorry
Cindy
just one clarification under the current zoning of NR six
by right can a
developer go in and build a three-story house on all
properties I come into that
40 foot they don't surpass the 40 foot height they could
okay thank you I don't
know if that's you know yeah I don't know if that's
possible but they could
but if we decline the zoning recase the applicant or anyone
else could come in
under the inner six and put three stories along all I can
take you is my right it
would never come to us they could just go to it okay thank
you
again this is a public hearing anyone else who would like
to speak on this
item please come forward sure one final exception and I'll
come across the
public hearing after this I just don't think it was ever
clarified you'll give
us your name and Daniel Kettler 1925 Canyon Court I don't
think it was ever
clarified where this wall is going to go no one ever said
it's at the top of the
or the higher grade or the lower grade so if an eight-foot
wall which we've now
established is the largest is built at the lower grade it's
effectively a
four-foot fence not really much of a fence it's built up
there that makes a
difference so there's been no clarification also one of the
thing is
you meant something that you just mentioned that if if this
gentleman does
not choose to go ahead with this development and all of
this pushes
forward to the next developer everything that you know that
all this goodwill
these get goodwill items are they going to be set in stone
that somebody else
has to follow through with all these points the only things
that will be
following through and that's why I'm mentioning the
possibility of a two-story
requirement is what goes in this overlay okay if it's not
specifically
called out in this overlay on the zoning to your point it
is just good words and
that's it okay that's what I would like that that's why we
're trying to take
some of these concerns that are being expressed here and
possibly if the
Commission is so inclined to possibly include some
additional requirements and
protections for the existing neighborhood to have a higher
zoning
but that's only bumped up to an NRMU 12 next door to you
all okay thank you
thank you sir sir Commissioner Ellis thank you chair sir I
'm sorry I was gonna
address one of your comments to maybe help you understand a
little bit
further so yeah the overlay is chair explained will run
with the land so if
this development doesn't happen and the overlay is approved
for this rezoning it
it it runs with the land with regard to getting answers
about more specifics
about the fence and whatnot this right now is just the
zoning part of it the
site plan comes next after that of which we will come
before us and can be
looked at in a lot of things that that we're discussing
tonight are we don't
really have a site plan nothing's being presented with that
so nothing can can
go up there and show us and that we can tweak at this point
so right now it's
it's the zoning with the overlay that we're discussing and
then the site plan
would come after and then you'd have a better idea of what
that fence will look
like and where streets will go and how the townhomes will
be configured and
whatnot okay so where does the vote come in that you
recommend to the City
Council is it between overlay and site plan or is it let me
step in we're
having a little sidebar conversation is for clarification
this is going to be a
residential case it's not a commercial case so the correct
thing that will come
back before this board is going to be what's called a plat
a site plan is as
Commissioner Ellis is correct is with a commercial
application or a heavier
density but with this particular type of zoning it's going
to be residential so
it's going to be a plat and that would come before us as
Commissioner Ellis
says and at some point here in the future so a number of
the items and the
concerns that you're talking about in regards to fences and
those types of
things would be talked about at the platting stage and
there are going to be
limitations that what this board can and cannot enforce as
far as a plat is
concerned because so we're clear about that why I'm trying
to have some of the
conversation give the neighborhood as much leeway some of
you ought to speak
multiple times to get as much information from you all your
concerns
that we can incorporate it into the overlay if this
Commission chooses to
move forward with that to address as many of these concerns
as as possible
and have them included in the overlay because we are
limited in what we can do
during a platting phase okay as long as they technically
meet the requirements
of a plat that will move forward okay thank you so much for
coming out and
your patience and expressing all of your concerns again
this is a public hearing
final call for anyone else who would like to speak on this
item seeing none I
will close the public hearing and I will open the floor for
discussion and the
motion
Commissioner Beck thank you chair and I too would like to
thank every one of you
for coming out speaking tonight and it's it's it's tough I
realize I've been in
this situation to where I live and dealing with a change
that's going to
impact you but as you've all mentioned invariably this was
going to happen
sometime down the road and all we're trying to do here on
both sides I think
is try and minimize the negative impact that development is
going to happen here
my feeling is mr. Schmidt says we're backwards to
accommodate a lot of things
and I'm glad he is because you do have a nice little
community set back there and
I'd like to see you keep it as much as possible I think
with what's been
suggested here you will be able to maintain that now there
will be folks
like mr. Kepner and I think mr. Glover who but right up
against this new
property so they're gonna see things a little more
dramatically than everybody
else is so I understand that concern but we've got a look
kind of at the bigger
picture here the city is growing there's no doubt about
that we've got to provide
housing this is an opportunity for us to do that yes it is
an nr6 but again mr.
Schmidt's has indicated that he's willing to go below 10
residents an
acre hopefully a if I heard that right and that'd be nice
and that's not that
far off of an nr6 but this is an infill area that we need
to develop we've got
all these empty spots in the city and this is a good place
to do it the idea
of fire being a problem mentioned here I mean if you think
about that lot that
sits there when it's hot and dry that's a tender box and if
that field were to
ever catch fire that six-foot wood fence that y'all got
there that's pretty old
would pick up pretty quick and carry it so this would be
another good reason to
develop this area to prevent that kind of thing I think if
we keep it limited
to townhomes or single-family attached I think that's what
we were talking about
no more than that it stays in unison with what y'all got
there it's not that
distinctive it's not going to stick out that much
understand there's going to be
a little bit more traffic that's going to happen anyway
once this area gets
developed there's always going to be a little bit more
traffic and as a city
will deal with that as best we can as we as we move forward
but I think I mentioned
too that in our six if you leave it like it is by right it
was mentioned by one
of the commissioners they can come in and build a three-
story there too and
they don't have to come through PNC because they can do
that by right so
keep that in mind so anyway that's my position I just want
to share that with
you I were not unsympathetic to this new development coming
in but this is a good
opportunity this is a good offering I think that would have
sewage a lot of
the fears and concerns you have thank you
Commissioner Sanchez I would also like to thank thank you
all for showing up I
think all your all the information you've given us has
helped it helps us
make a better decision I know it's it's kind of agonizing
when you when new
buildings or new construction is developed adjacent to
areas that you're
used to being pretty open but like I'd like to say you know
there's at one time
we all figured the rules areas are going to have to be
developed and I think he
the developer has made a lot of concessions and I think
probably at the
end you'll find that what he what he does build probably
will be to your
liking it's close to the mall and and I think the the town
homes that they're
talking about 1600 square foot is pretty compatible to what
's around around in
the area Commissioner Rosa thank you chair I would like to
echo question back
and Christian Sanchez thanks for everyone coming out that's
really
helpful for us who may not be knowledgeable the area to
know that their
intimate cul-de-sacs and the environment of the 36 patio
homes that's super
helpful for me to kind of think through this process and as
I've heard everyone
speak as well as seen the presentation the things that lead
me to make a motion
are are threefold one it seemed like pervasive response
from the citizens was
traffic concerns specifically through traffic to Claremont
and then the
impact they'll have on Colorado and then from what I've
heard the emergency
access gate seems to be a an understanding response to
mitigate flow
through traffic from public vehicles not city but public
vehicles and then the
Colorado if there's right turn left turn right aways the
traffic that's gonna be
put on Colorado and then our six would put 53 homes and
this is gonna put 80
it's not gonna be a lot different than what's by right
already available for
NR6 in terms of traffic the other thing that was talked
about extensively
tonight was the density and I feel like yes there is gonna
be an increase of
density from NR6 to an NRIU 12 although I'm an emotion with
an overlay to
reduce that so there is a give on the density but I think
there is a get and
protecting building height I know everyone's concerned
about the adjacent
building heights but the applicant is actually restricting
the rights that
we're making it more restrictive than what can be built now
so I feel there's
a give and take for increased density but also protection
of those building
heights and the last thing it was brought up was the amen
ity centers and
the dog park and and whatnot and I I understand that that
might not get used
but I do take it as an olive branch from the developer but
there is a
consideration of trying to be good neighbor and so with all
that being said
I'm going to move to to approve this with the condition
staff outlaid meaning
defining it as limited to town homes with a maximum density
of 10 dwelling
units per acre as well as a limitation of a two-story
construction on
contiguous property to the residential homes Commissioner
Rozo would you
entertain adding the emergency access gate is requirement
to connect to
clear month yes the friendly minute so you'd have in
addition to the staff
overlay could you just your add-ons could you clearly stay
because I think
staff wants to make sure we get these as well yes so my
motion is to approve it
with the staff conditions of limited to town homes with the
maximum density of
12 dwelling units per acre as well as 10 yeah 10 thank you
let me try this one
more time I moved to approve this item with the staff
recommendations to limit
the use to town homes with maximum density of 10 dwelling
units per acre as
well as a restriction on two-story construction on cont
iguous property to
residential homes already constructed and the installment
of an emergency access
gate okay commissioner Smith thank you chair thank you for
coming out and as
Commissioner Roselle has already said I agree and echo a
lot of the same
sentiments so how will second this motion second thank you
just as a point
of order I want to clarify the motion that in staff
recommendation they have
both single-family and town homes and single-family
detached in your in your
motion you stated single-family residential you okay with
the town
homes and the single-family detached willing ends as well
as in the city
staff so the city staff I'm reading says the use of the
site is limited to town
homes
I have an older copy here staff recommendation that I have
for me here
says it's limited to the single-family attached Victor
there's still I got you
yes it's typed differently in two different places yes I'm
fine with the
city staff outlined in the recommendation of 1a and 1b
which says
this there shall be no uses permitted other than single-
family attached
including town homes or single-family detached dwelling
units great thank you
for clarifying that because I know the staff's trying to
make sure we get this
written down correctly as it moves from P and Z to City
Council we have a first
and a second with the staff recommended requirements for
the overlay in addition
to Commissioner Roselle's two additional points of a two-
story height requirement
for any contiguous property adjacent to this and also the
emergency access gate
required for connection to Claremont and I think legal has
just a mr. Smith
since you seconded are you okay with that clarification yes
I second is
clarification okay appreciate the opportunity to restate
the motion with
the additional requirements and the clarification on the
second and I will
call on Commissioner Ellis thank you chair just a couple of
comments thank you
everyone for coming to speak hopefully what will happen mr.
applicant is that
you'll make friends here and then as you move forward with
your development that
you can continue to hear concerns and whatnot but I think
with the the overlay
protection that is being put in place that that the
applicant is agreeing to
it really is a very good thing for this piece of property
and around you it does
offer protections that you don't have now so with that I
will support it
Commissioner back thank you chair and I guess I would ask
would Commissioner
Rosell consider another amendment that would assure that
the minimum height for
the fence it goes around it is eight foot I won't say what
material but I
think the eight foot requirement would make a lot of people
out there feel a
lot better too
isn't that what that's required by code that's the maximum
loud if I'm not
right yeah so it could be a six foot I would like to see an
eight foot fence
and give them that much more privacy I'm not opposed to it
but there's different
fences but there's gonna be an entry fence like a it's my
understanding
there'll be some sort of landscaped entry you're not
talking about no I'm
talking about where it will about say Jason properties
right okay the two
residential areas yeah I'm open to that okay thank you so
we need to rework that
then one more time I accept the friendly amendment okay
Commissioner Smith I
second that amendment so we've got that added as well all
right
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I will have to ask the
applicant if he's
okay with that added point of the overlay okay thank you
great okay we
have a first and a second and I think the motion's been
clarified and I think
we have that correct I'm going to support this as well I
know the
neighbors are concerned about it I see this as well as
Commissioner Ellis that
this is actually a better than what you could have built
against you with the
height requirement you can have three foot or three story
buildings against
you now the way it's currently zoned 40 feet tall I know
you would like to see it
as a open field but I think the reality is at some point it
's going to develop
and this is an opportunity for this board to place some
additional
requirements on the property owner and there's some
restrictions on it that
will give you some protections that you don't currently
have and I think also
in taking into account the emergency access gate helps you
with the
possibility of the future tie-ins and so with those
additional requirements I'm
going to support this motion as well I want to thank
everybody for coming out
it's we've had a good discussion and good give-and-take and
same thing with
the Commission I think we've worked to come up with
hopefully a good motion
here that will address a lot of concerns both the
neighborhood and then still
allow the applicant to develop the property within reason
so with that I
will call for a vote on the board this motion to approve
motion is going to
carry six to zero thank you all again for coming out this
evening I'll give
the room a minute to clear because we do have a lot of
people in here and then
you did great.
With that I'm going to go ahead and move forward to the
next item on our agenda
as folks head on out and go ahead and clear the chambers as
we move on to our
next item and I'm going to open the public hearing now for
Z 18 - 0 0 0 3
and I will call on Ron for presentation. Thank you chair
members of the Commission this
request is for a rezoning of a property as well as an
initial zoning of a
property to CMG commercial mixed use district as you can
see on this exhibit
the southern portion of the property is zone NR 2 the
northern portion is zone
RD 5 by designation as it was annexed recently the subject
site is approximately
six point three seven acres general location is along Teas
ley just south of
J J. H. Heis of Geyer High School. The future land use
designation has this area
designated as community mixed use which is intended to
promote mixed uses
primarily commercial uses with complementary existing uses
as well. This
exhibit here at a slide just basically illustrates what is
currently zone as
described earlier the proposed zoning would be CMG as you
see here similar to
what's zone for the Geyer High School. Surrounding uses
include a mobile home to
the east some residential and a gas well to the southeast
some commercial and
industrial uses to the south NRM I'm sorry NR 2 CMG
industrial uses to the
southwest and then Geyer High School to the north as well
as to the west. Staff
looked at this proposal and concluded that the CMG is the
consistent with the
future land use element it is appropriate as opposed to the
NR 2 and
the RD 5 which is which are not Teasley is a key growth
corridor as well as an
entry into the city and commercial uses is more an
appropriate use for this area.
Teasley is currently a two-lane divided roadway however
TechSat has begun
construction or the work to widen and construct this to a
six lane divided
roadway 135 feet total from the city limits to the east all
the way to the
north to Lillian Miller. Anticipated widening completion is
approximately
January 2020. Notifications were sent out 14 were sent out
to property owners
within 200 feet 13 courtesy notices were sent out to
residents within 500 feet
and a sign was posted by the applicant. As of this
afternoon there were no
responses returned no opposition no in favor. Staff
recommends approval of this
route zoning change request as an initial zoning request
that as it is
conformance with the criteria of approval for the DDC and
it is
consistent with the goals and objective of the DEM plan
2030. That concludes my
presentation I'll be happy to answer any questions the
applicant has prepared
presentation and is prepared to do that next. Commissioner
Beck. Thank You Chair
just quick question on I meant to ask this in the work
session you mentioned
in the back with your background material any future
development that
encroaches into the ESA habitat or ESA floodplain
designation AE would require
a field assessment what's AE? That's a type of floodplain
designation. What's AE stand for?
I apologize. Now if there was anything online. Alternative
of something right? I can't say.
All I know is a type of it's a level of floodplain
designation. Got you. Thanks.
See no other questions for staff. Thank you Ron. I do have
one card Patricia
Font in support.
Hi good evening chair and commissioners my name is Patricia
Font I am an
assistant planner at GNA consultants we are located at 111
Hillside Drive in
Louisville Texas. Alright okay so the name of our property
is Hillcrest North
and we are proposing to rezone our property from NR2 and RD
X 5X to CMG.
Okay so our land is a proper is approximately six acres
located on
Teasley Lane. To the north is Gair High School as you can
see and to the south
is some industrial uses and that's about 1,600 feet away
from FM 2499. As we get a
closer look you can see that Gair High School has added
some parking to the
west. This allows for great visibility coming down 2181.
There's the mobile home
park to the east and as I said before industrial uses to
the south. 2181 will
be is under construction and this will be a six lane
divided. Our client also
runs his business out of this building right here.
Okay I know we had a question or we talked about kind of
why this whole thing
is not rezoned. Our client currently owns all of these parc
els that are outlined
in red and the cell tower is at the north or northwest
portion which he does
not own. There are gas wells in the northwest portion of
the property that
will remain and they will have access through the subject
site.
The environmentally sensitive area map indicates that there
may be a
water habitat in the northwest corner at this time. We
intend to be preserving it
all. Adequate public utilities are present and they will
have to be extended
all the way to the east of this development. Okay the
future land use map
Denton 2030 as you can see there's moderate residential
there's industrial
and commerce to the south and in between there's community
mixed use. This X is a
great buffer and transition between residential and
industrial. Right now the
zoning is split and the north the north portion is RD 5X
and the southern
portion is NR 2. That's primarily residential. We are
proposing a zoning
change to CMG. We believe it makes logical sense for this
site to extend
CMG all the way down to Teasley Lane. We're trying to clean
up a little bit of
the split zoning and it's also very important to us that
our client remains
his business and continues it on this property. This is the
concept plan that
we took to our DRC meeting. They had some great comments
and we are working a few
modifications for their regulations but we are getting
ready to propose plotting.
Thank you. A couple questions for you Commissioner Smith.
Miss Fain. The
projected use do you guys have an idea? It looks like it's
obviously commercial use and it's obviously going to be
some sort of
development but is it offices, professional buildings, is
it going to be
strip mall? What is it going to be? Right now it's just
commercial uses. We're thinking
retail, restaurant, residential. I mean not residential,
retail, restaurant and
office. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Beb. Thank you Chair.
Did I just hear you say that the
business owner for outdoor living pool and patio, he's
gonna stay there and still
run his business? Yes sir. Same building not gonna shift it
or anything so gonna
work around it in other words right? Yeah it will be demol
ished and he'll work.
Okay so it is going but you're still gonna have the
business there at some
point. I got you. Yes. Thank you. Okay any other questions
for the applicant? Okay
thanks very much. Again this is a public hearing. Anyone
else who would like to
speak on this item please come forward at this time. Seeing
no one else I will
close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion
or a motion.
Commissioner Smith. Motion to approve this request. Okay.
Commissioner Bec. Second.
Okay we have a first and a second for approval. Any further
discussion? Seeing
none I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries six to zero. Congratulations and good luck
on your
project and the chair wants to apologize for making you
guys stay so long. I never
know all the cards and everybody hears who's to speak so
apologize for not
moving you all forward in the agenda. Good evening. That
will move us to our
final item this evening which will be our project matrix.
Commissioner Bec. Yes I wonder would it be possible to
bring up what we briefly
touched on in the work session how we've got an area out
there in 3-8 that's
NR2 that in my opinion clearly shouldn't be you know how
would we go about is
there something we can start here the process of looking at
changing that area
to something more amenable like the ECC. In the very near
future we are I mean
we're working on our internal sort of draft of the updated
zoning map based on
the new categories and I suspect in the next couple months
if not sooner maybe
two months that will be that will be rolled out so we are
we're really taking
a hard look at so you know sort of the first phase was
matching up if you
remember that the memo there was sort of the front two
districts now we're really
sort of honing in and saying does it really make sense that
this area be NR2
what was what was a long-term overall intent for that
looking at gas wells and
a couple other factors out there it the likelihood is
probably slim to none but
we are sort of that's where we are right now so okay it
will happen very soon
all right thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair.
Twice now we've had it
where the NRU 12 the permitted uses back in the backup has
said the wrong
building height. It will not happen again. Thank you I
appreciate it.
The kids yes makes us look like fools and also the Ronan
mentioned that
ETJ notifications on that last thing we put on did not go
out we had brought
that up in the past when we had it before where
notifications about the did
not go out to ETJ but people come and come you know say hey
my properties in
ETJ I wasn't notified did we ever have a solution for that
I know it wasn't an
issue in this case but just driving my memory saying that
we did it. I've got to go back and
look at I don't think it was ever really specified in the I
know in the 200
notice it's sort of explicit on it's the most recent
municipal tax roll
approved municipal tax roll and that goes into account for
the super
majority we sort of go above and beyond that at the 500
sure what I'll do is
I'll get clarification on that report back and report back.
Thank you. Anyone else?
Can I just add one AE AE is the prior to AE a the a flood
zones are high risk and
prior to AE being enacted there used to be an a 1 through
30 and the number would
correspond with the base flood elevation now it's just AE
and then there's a
number assigned to see AE 7 which would mean 7 feet above
base flood is your
finish floor so that's that's what AE it's not like it
means really anything
I it's just yeah rest assured. Thank you for the
clarification and with that at
850 to or excuse me 847 I will close our meeting this
evening thank you everyone
for coming out good job