for planning and zoning Commission it is 532 and we'll go
ahead and start this
the meeting has been duly posted we do have a quorum
tonight and so we can jump
right into the consent consent agenda does anyone have any
questions of Haley
for the one item on the consent agenda
perfect we'll have Haley come up thanks right chair on the
general notes of the
plan number two it talks about I think it's the end of the
first sentence is
that that a portion of this property is within the non
shaded zone X defined as
there is determined to be outside the 0.2% and it says a
portion of this
property is within the shaded zone can you show us what
they're talking about on
the illustration there yes on the plant you can see they
have called out the
FEMA zone X okay different shadings here right so there is
a floodplain floodplain
ESA and riparian buffer all within the property within this
easement right
that's reflected here that's all they're talking about yes
okay that's kind of
fun just want to make sure thank you any other questions
for Haley thank you
that'll move us to the individual considerations and I will
invite Cindy
Jackson to speak about items the 1804 be
thank you vice chair commissioners the Z 18 - 0 0 4 you
remember this from our May
9th meeting it's a request to rezone four parcels that you
can see right here
from the dr1 to the DCG district at the time of the meeting
on May 9th the
council excuse me the planning and zoning Commission
actually had a tie
vote for whether or not to deny this and then when there
was a motion made to
continue this there was a tie vote as well it was
determined the applicant did
have to come back and staff was instructed to investigate
the possibility
of an overlay district on the site and the applicant was
instructed to hold the
neighborhood meeting again just real quick zoning map here
recap of the the
meeting concerns expressed were the loss of affordable
housing should this
request be permitted the proposed exit on maple the maximum
100 foot building
height permitted in the DCG district the use is permitted
within the DCG
district and the lack of a neighborhood meeting with
surrounding property owners
the applicant has actually held two neighborhood meetings
with one was
lot one was yesterday afternoon and one was Wednesday night
Commissioner Beck
was at the one Wednesday we had small turnout however they
were they were the
people that spoke at the meeting actually on May 9th and
residents that
lived in the area or owned property adjacent to the proper
to this site and
the applicant did come up with acceptable alternate
proposals which she
will actually discuss later in the meeting in the in the
actual meeting
this tonight and staff had talked to the applicant
regarding the possibility of
an overlay which would restrict the height of the buildings
to two stories
and which would restrict the use to garden office no other
use would be
permitted in that zoning in that area so that is our
recommendation the staff
recommends approval of this request with the condition that
the zoning overlay be
placed on parcels with the following the building height
shall not exceed two
stories or 30 feet in height and the uses on the parcels
shall be restricted
to office use I do want to note that this will be only on
the four parcels
involved in this zoning it won't be on the entire access
bank site which is
already developed Commissioner Smith thank you vice chair
Cindy when it comes to or I guess not really not Cindy
Jerry when it comes to
a denial if we if we vote to deny what ends up happening to
the applicants
request then there's a we talked about the last time in
public but I want to be
able to flush it out and work session just so we know as a
commission what all
options are there because if we deny they can't come back
to this with the
with a change to this area for a year correct what's the
what's the I believe
I believe it's something along those lines but the the the
clearest issue is
if it goes forward to City Council it triggers a super
majority and then if it
fails there then what happens with the ag right and so but
you know there is a
provision in sub chapter 3 where it talks about how long
the the period is I
don't know if you know it's one year from the day of denial
unless they come
up with this is substantially different request
substantially different meaning
if they so I know last time we were here the applicant or
the representative for
the applicant had you know brought up the idea that there
was there's that
northern parcel that they're wanting to do which is where a
lot of the hot
spots are within the Commission and talking about removing
those it was the
southeastern part of the southern southern parcel there
that is a quick
change they needed to make so they can connect the thing
for like a drainage
whatever it was so if we do an overall denial on this on
this on this and it
goes to City Council requires a majority and it fails there
too they can't even
come back and work on just that one parcel correct well
that would be a
substantial it's to me Jerry would have to make the
determination that would be
a substantially different request because of the fact it's
just that one
parcel on the corner okay okay that's all and I would
rather not you know give a
legal opinion on a hypothetical condition you know I'd
rather reserve
judgment on it until we see the actual fair but generally
speaking I think
ms. Jackson's okay I don't want hypothetical scenarios here
by just just
to know that when we make it denial what it actually means
for the applicant
whenever we're voting for it and if there is some ways that
they can adjust
from there to at least get something done on the property
is better than sure
knowing that we're you know shooting their legs off from
underneath them for
a year so okay Christian are back thank you vice-chair when
you say it could go
forward to the City Council even if it's a 3-3 would it
still be a super
majority required it depends on what the motion was that it
went 3-3 3-3 is a
failed motion so if the motion is a motion to approve you
're just preserving
the status quo if you have a motion to deny it fails on a 3
-3 that preserves a
status quo if but if you have a motion to deny that passes
after an unsuccessful
motion to approve then then that goes forward creates a
super majority okay but
the thing is 3-3 one way it can go to super majority
another way not
necessarily not none on 3-3 no 3-3 the the the the
commission's failure to make
a recommendation as a body it just keeps things as they are
won't impact City
Council's the City Council cannot go forward in lesser
until they receive a
recommendation okay one way or the other from this body got
cha now other question
for you that one little plot in that southeast corner there
by itself is that
something that can be built on or was did we talk about
that being mainly a
detention area or something like that right now it is a
detention area it was
a detention area based on in pretty completing improvements
now that the
improvements have been made they would like to fill in the
detention pond and
build on it okay and we could build because that is DCG
they could build up
to 100 feet is that more parking which would means they
would have to come
before you for an ADP okay okay you don't think they would
consider putting
the building or maybe a building with parking underneath
they actually have a
real parking situation going on there and they really need
the new and that's
what I was thinking if they built like a three-story
structure the bottom level
is parking yeah that might accommodate it that's just
speculative anyway okay thank you
Mr. Sullivan so back to the question regarding 3-3 ties and
how that works
since it was a 3-3 tie with a motion to deny right we're
never gonna have a you
know it's always gonna be a 3-3 unless one of the three
changes the minds one
right the other so why are we here I mean didn't that 3-3
deny trigger either
to go to the City Council for supermajority or have to wait
a year or
whatever it's not because somebody was absent it was
because there was a
recusal right and so I see that's only gonna change when
either Commissioner
Strange or Ellis or myself or or not reappointed or he
comes off I think he's
term-limited or something that's still gonna be the make-up
right I understand
but it cannot go to City Council unless and until this body
makes a
recommendation whether there's a recommendation to approve
or a
recommendation to deny one of the two it has to pass and
then it goes forward to
City Council and then it's just an issue of whether or not
a super majority is
required to overturn the recommendation of the spot so
given the fact that it's
a three it's only gonna be six members voting mm-hmm then
there's always gonna
be the possibility of time one way or the other correct so
how is that
resolved within the make-up because it's again not because
of absence because of
recusal I understand and that was a that was a conversation
that I was having
with the city attorney by email earlier today and what a
lot of communities do
is that they create a special rule for situations like that
and there may be
situations where say a Planning and Zoning Commission just
is is confused or
cannot you know reach one side or the other and what at
least one authority
recommended is to have a rule in place that council could
establish by
ordinance to to resolve that that one way of doing it be if
if P&Z fails to
bring forward a recommendation one way or the other that it
's considered to be
a denial of the case I don't know there are any cases on
that but that is one
thing that I've seen yes Scott just to answer the first
part of your question
what why did it come back and we it was tabled as a date
certain so we're
coming back to to this date the applicant of course was
asked to do a
couple of things by the Commission which was that of having
the the public
meetings and and to bring back whatever material so then
the Commission could
ultimately then consider whether or not they wanted to
proceed forward and take
a vote so based on that and to Jerry's point if it is a 3-3
again it is a no
action so if it's if it's approved then it'll go forward if
it's if it's denied
it will go forward require a super majority and a 3-3 is
just going to keep
it in limbo I will say that staff is going to propose
language in the
development code that these types of situations won't
continue to the future
so if we get into this situation that ultimately I'll go to
council as a 3-3
and they'll know what the congestion conditions are and
council make the the
ultimate decision on this well couple of points on that if
I if I could
interject one is it's not in limbo because the property
under consideration
has a zoning classification that exists so it's not in lim
bo it's what was it
residential or dr1 is what it is and and so you know the 3-
3 the you know if
there's no recommendation for this body it would remain dr1
it's not really and
truly a limbo situation but I the way that the zoning
enabling act is written
in in chapter 211 of the local government code I I don't
think that we
could legally pass anything on to City Council without a
recommendation of this
body one way or the other it would the the the proposal for
a way around that
would be one in which a 3-3 vote would result in to dial we
got a lot
Christmas Sanchez yeah I know Christian Smith and they'll
get to the sauce
thank you sure just to thank you for the 3-3 Cindy and I
guess legal as well we
were to make a recommend can we as a as a commission make a
recommendation to
exclude the consideration for a rezone on the northern
parcel doesn't matter if
they bring that they bring the land to us we have to vote
on the land they
brought to us we can't come in and say we can't we can't
say hey we're gonna
deny the northern part but we're gonna be we will approve a
recommendation for
the southern part and then have the recommendations that
you put on to
there we can't make that split game I'm not sure I won't
defer to Jerry on that
well I'm making a split of zoning classification yeah
saying hey you're
that's two separate parcels so I'm look the northern parcel
we won't approve as
DCG we will approve the zoning of this of the lower parcel
of DCG and then
with stacks that's recommendations for the conditions that
there to our
attached you know I think that you could make a
recommendation there would be
essentially a partial recommendation in action on the other
or denial of the
other and and so I think that you as long as the
recommendation is more
restrictive than the proposal that was brought forward in
your public hearing
and considered it's your public hearing then it can it
probably could be done and
it's not so radically different that it's not even the same
case I don't want
to pull that pull that arrow out of the quiver yeah we've
confirmed that before
we get the problem here is that you know you can't reopen a
public hearing as
this is currently posted the public hearing was closed and
it's not posted
for public hearing sure so it cannot be reopened if if
there were a change to
this such that a new public hearing would be required if it
were that
radical then you'd have to re-notice it and have a new
hearing okay I don't
think it's that radical but okay understood thank you
Chris Ellis thank you thank you vice-chair okay so I'm
still confused on
I guess the discussion here no it's okay the issue is we
had a 3-3 tie last time
this was proposed both ways it was it because yes yes yes
yes didn't reflect
that there was a motion to approve there was not a motion I
apologize
motion to table yeah right I believe that's correct okay
because it seemed
like the recommendation from legal was to table it because
it was a 3-3 tie so
what you're saying now is if if it's a 3-3 denial and never
is a vote to approve
it's tabled again it's not table it's just stays in the
same zoning
classification oh okay so then it so the legal advice has
changed that's what I'm
trying well I'm sorry you're asking about legal advice I
what is what do you
ask me for legal advice on okay last meeting we had a
recess because we
weren't really quite sure where the item right was at that
time because it was a
3-3 tie there was a vote to table that was denied there was
a vote for denial
that also did not pass the item got tabled I'm confused
okay well the the
legal if I don't want to second-guess the legal advice you
got before it
because one of the reasons for that is that it's consistent
with a rule that
the council set up that applies in to City Council meetings
but those same
rules are also put upon the various boards of Commission by
by the same
rules it says the boards of Commission's must follow the
same rules of the City
Council the thing is that City Council rule is not a
particularly good rule in
this particular case because it says that if you get a 3-3
or a tie vote of
one kind or another is automatically put on the next
available agenda but the
assumption in that if you read the entirety of the rule the
assumption is
that it tied because of an absence and it says that that
brought back to some
time when you can have the entire council vote on it it
doesn't consider
the case of this the specific case of when a P&Z or some
other body reaches a
3-3 tie so you know I think that as written it did apply in
that situation
but it was probably not intended to apply in that situation
if that's I read
it in its entire multiple times so I understand how I
understand what its
intent is and yet the intent was not what we used it for in
my opinion but
what I'm trying to understand is where we are at this
moment so if we were in
that situation where it's a 3-3 tied to the 9 and it never
there's never a
motion to approve where where is the item it does it go
away forward to City
Council it cannot go forward to City Council I understand
that so it does so
you know the applicant can decide whether to go in a
different direction or to
to impose conditions or something of that nature something
is going may have
to change in order to break that impasse and that's going
to be up to there's
going to be the applicant involved in that there's going to
be staff involved
in that there's going to be feedback from the Commission
that's going to be
involved in that and between the three of them something's
got to have to
change in order to break that impasse or it's just not
going to go forward the
property is going to remain zoned as is. If I could
interject that is exactly
what happened the staff has a different recommendation now
the applicant
followed through on the instructions that the Commission
gave gave to her
when it was determined that it was going to be 3-3 no
matter what we did the
motion was going to fail and she's come back she's coming
back tonight and she
has agreed to the overlay conditions which is what is
different about this
request and she has had the neighborhood meetings and she
is going to talk about
the result of those neighborhood meetings when she makes
her presentation.
Thank you and I understand that and appreciate it and I
think where I'm just
confused and is that we were we were able we denied a table
and we were able
to table it and and so I hope that do you understand what I
'm saying? No I
understand what you're saying. And now what you're saying
is that that couldn't happen
today after your discussion. Well I'm not saying it couldn
't happen today I think
that the that the advice that you got was competent advice
that you you could
have have applied the rule in that fashion and and it
appeared from my
readings of the minutes that that there was some sort of
agreement whether it
was tacit or what have you to effectively table it till
tonight if I
misread the minutes then you know I wasn't there but that
was at least the
reaction that I got from it it was that there was some
consensus to bring it
back tonight. Okay and so just so I understand it and those
watching
understand if we had the same 3-3 tie to deny and we had
the same 3-3 tie not to
table where is legal's decision on that? What I'm telling
you is that it cannot
go forward to City Council there are a number of things
that can happen for a
you know for the staff and the applicant and the Commission
to get
together and decide to go after it another way. There is no
automatic rule
that is going to apply that rescues that situation. Okay I
appreciate that. You bet.
My hope is that this gets talked about further so this
doesn't happen again
this confusion does not happen again this is not good for
anybody.
Commissioner Smith. Thank you Vice Chair. Scott did you
have something you need to say?
If I could I think that what Jerry's trying to say is that
if it
goes to a tie-tie nothing happens it stays DR 1 so and
allows the applicant
to continue to work on their application making sure that
it's changed it comes
work works with city staff to then bring back new
amendments just like they did
this last time it wasn't necessarily that there was a tie-t
ie vote and then
legal came back and said all right well our motion to the
table even though it
failed is now approved because we say so what it was what
it was was that was
that because there's a tie-tie no action can be taken
therefore no action will be
done and so now the applicant has to come back with a brand
with brand new
recommendations for it to be a different that she could not
come back in today
with the exact same application she walked in with last
time if she did it
would there would be there would have been not non-action
and so if I'm right
she came you guys did have something there is a new
application with staff
recommendations that weren't here before us last time with
action that was taken
by the applicant that wasn't taken last time and then if
tonight if there's still
a tie-tie there's gonna have to be more action that's gonna
be taken by the
applicant there's got to be more changes that can be made
to the application
there's probably be new recommendations from the city staff
and so a tie-tie vote
means in action it means no zoning changes nothing happens
city council
doesn't see this and the applicant has to keep on trying so
we as gatekeepers
to the city as planning his own in Commission get to do our
job to make
sure you know what this is a Commission don't feel
comfortable with this right
yet right now so a tie-tie means you go and you keep on
trying and keep on
bringing us something back and until we as a Commission can
finally make a
recommendation to the City Council that we have in a
majority that we're
comfortable with then that is the only time we can do that
Scott just just one point I think of clarity to that that
and Jerry you can
correct me if I'm wrong the three three doesn't require
them to make changes the
three three you are a hundred percent action in action and
and then how it's
written by rule for us here in Denton is that it comes back
to the next full
Commission meeting so when I made the statement of in limbo
it's in limbo for
any period of time the property remains in its current use
and fashion the
application stays in limbo essentially until there is a
full board to vote on
it because there wouldn't be a tie so so in essence it is
that and it's the same
for and correct me if I'm wrong three up three down it is
the same it's the same
in action the applicant can choose to come back with
something to make it more
palatable one way or the other and and I just wanted to
draw that point of
clarity and if I may that I hate to do this because for the
most part I agree
with what you said there's only one little hair that I have
to split and
that is when you said that they come back with a new
application it cannot be
a new application because the public area was closed to
their current and if
it yeah if it were a new application we would have to we'd
have to re-notice it
because we would require a new public here semantics I
apologize that's okay
that's okay that's what I get paid for so I apologize to
you sure else thank
you vice-chair and just for clarity with with something
Commissioner Smith said
the applicant is not required to bring something back
different it was just a
tabled item could have been the exact same package and as
it was correct
here Sullivan my problem with all of this is that we gave
three suggestions
one was the meeting which they did four weeks later and
this week which I don't
understand what happened to the other the first three or
four weeks and they
also had an option of separating it out which is what
Commissioner Smith has been
saying so that we just deal with the set the southern part
they didn't do that
instead they came back with this overlay idea which we
spent I don't know maybe
an hour discussing a few months ago all the trials and trib
ulations and the bad
things about overlays going what's the problem here you
know if it's a 3-3
denial then come back with something substantially
different that you know is
not more of the same and that's that's where I'm frustrated
on this whole
process so you know I guess we'll see what happens but I'm
gonna chime in one
question just as my brains kind of percolating here what is
the actual vote
for supermajority and council only one can oppose so it's a
6-1 with a full okay
any other questions on this item we are you know the
presentation I know we
jumped in clarification sister six one sorry thank you best
chair six one if
there's not a full commission or not not a full council
they have to wait until
there is a full council for that be a supermajority or is
it a one recusal or
what one one no and it could be a five one or four one I've
seen it five one
before I don't know how low it can go here if you want to
know the way that the
the statutes written it's a three-quarter vote but it's it
's based
upon the number of council members in s which is a Latin
legal term that
basically means that unless they are disqualified from
being from serving as
city council members in that particular vote so if you had
a situation like
Commissioner strange if he were on City Council at the time
that it would change
that and then you'd recalculate based upon you know the
number of people who
are qualified to vote irrespective of how many are actually
present and that's
what would require it would be
thank you Cindy thank you the next item is for Ron it's
item 4b it's an ADP
thank you vice chair members of the Commission this request
is for a
property located on Bonnie Bray north Bonnie Bray the
general location is just
south of Emory approximately 200 feet properties
approximately four point sorry
point four seven one acres zone NRMU 12 the applicant is
requesting an
alternative element plan to develop and construct a medical
office building
however through their design they are not able to meet all
of the design
standards which is located in sub chapter 13 of the
development code
they're proposing to deviate from the following four
sections of the DDC
regarding buffer requirements parking requirements parking
lot landscaping and
screening as well as street tree requirements the first one
is the buffer
requirements per the DDC the applicant is required to
provide a type C buffer
because the use a medical office is adjacent to residential
which is to the
east that requirement is 10 trees with 43 shrubs the the
reason they are not
able to put all of the required buffer is because it's an
easement in the back
of the property however as part of their proposal they're
proposing to add three
I'm sorry five trees into the easement area shown here so
again they're
required ten with shrubs they're not able to because of the
easement they're
proposing five which these five trees are within the DME's
acceptable tree
list so that is what they're proposing and also their their
comment is also
that the structure of the building is proposed to be in a
residential scale I
believe it's 30 feet tall at its max and and they're
willing to consent to that
so there will not be any building greater than that built
here
Commissioner Smith Ron is that five trees and the 43 shrubs
or five five trees and
that's it my understanding is just the five threes trees
Commissioner Ellis thank you vice-chair Ron there's a
couple houses behind there
mm-hmm so is it just the residential fence and then these
trees is that the
only I believe there's a fence in an alley yeah I believe
so and then the
house so there's just a little bit more of an area between
the two uses thanks
Christian back thank you back sure I went over and looked
at it it's more like a
swell okay okay so it's separated and there are privacy
fences on those houses
on Stanley I'm just noticing something though that I don't
know I didn't catch
while I was looking over there's a house on this tract of
land correct correct
her yes yeah it's gonna be removed correct okay and then it
talks about
what you want to do the proposed parking situation is you
will put one row of
parking in front okay and that'll include the area where
the house is from
that from that in from I guess it'd be north to south and
one row of parking is
that right yes yes along by brain yes how many parking
spaces are we talking
about once he's along the front I think five five or six
and actually really
that's all one two three or five and then there's parking
on the side okay
that's gonna be added parking as part of this development
correct with me yes
and that's gonna butt right up against that parking lot
next next to it right
to the south yes yes apologize it's been would it be a
share yes there's parking
to decide would it be a shared thing or is there gonna be a
little curb or
something separating it too I'm not sure what the design
will be the
applicant is here and can answer that question during the
public okay okay
during the regular meeting okay very good thank you okay
Mr. Sullivan I'm curious how far does that easement go
because I'm looking at
here on Google Maps I'm seeing all kinds of trees on the
backside of all of those
my understanding it's the full length of this what's what's
preventing them from
putting more than five trees in that area first I mean they
put five they can
put eight that's well that's question you can ask the
applicant but that's
what they're proposing there's no there's no restriction
because it's an
easement crazy just a restriction that they don't want to
follow through with
is that my understanding is that it's an easement and DME
is accepting certain
trees they can certainly put ten if that's you know
something that so they
could meet the code correct and that's why they're doing
the ADP and that's
one of the items I'm just saying so they could it's just
that they choose not to
want to do it that way that's a fair assessment yes okay
that's fine and then
the parking to the south that's somebody else's property
correct correct yeah do
we know if they already have an agreement with those people
to use that
parking they have they have stated that they are working
towards an agreement
and yes and that's something that when they come for a
billing permit that's
something that they would have to provide the city and
record with the
county to make sure that that parking is always part of
this development got you
thank you
so the second is parking requirements the code basically
requires that there
be no parking in front of the building they are proposing
one row of parking
along the front and again I want to say one two three four
five is proposed and
then the remaining are on the side as well as with an
agreement to the south
of the property to mitigate that deviation they're
proposing a planting
of eight trees along the front which you see here three
within again another
easement that D me has and three between the property and
the road which is here
along Bonnie and Bray they are also proposing tall grasses
and shrubs shown
here in the yellow again to help screen some of that
parking that's going to be
along Bonnie bright Fisher Sullivan I noticed that the
property thank you for
us here the property to the south has parking in the front
correct and the
property to the north has parking in the front correct so
why does this require
why does this one lot require parking in the back those
properties were developed
prior to the development code back in 2002 which requires
parking to be in the
rear or side so there is a change in 2002 okay so thank you
those are good
questions next
next is the the screening requirements for where parking in
front is allowed
there's a slew of requirements that's required the 15 foot
separation or
landscape area a tree within every 40 feet so they're
proposing to as shown
again from the prior landscaping with tall trees I'm sorry
tall grasses trees
as well as shrubs along the front it does not meet the
doesn't meet all of
the requirements but meets some of it and that's why again
we're here with the
Plains Zoning Commission to consider this alternate
alternate development plan
so mr. Beck thank you by sure also on the front there's a
burn yes I'm sorry so
there'll be a berm as well to help raise that landscape
area no berm on the back
side no okay thank you the last thing is street
recall tree requirements they are actually required for and
the reason why
they are here today is because of the the location of the
easement in the
clearance zone along Bonnie Bray DME would not allow them
to put that in there
but they are proposing to do that with the acceptable trees
that's being
proposed or that's being accepted by DME so this one's a
little bit not as hard
as the other three but again wanted to include it as part
of the ADP to make
sure that we got this we got this right with that staff has
reviewed the
criteria for approval and is recommending approval of this
alternate
development plan as it conforms with those criteria's I'll
be happy to stand
for any questions Commissioner Smith thank you chair is
there anything I know
that I see this in full in their presentation maybe this
question won't
carry any weight but in comparison to the proposed DDC
update that's gonna be
coming how do these changes shape up against what would be
in that new code
the buffer requirement specifically I can speak a lot more
of that there will
be more options for development where they're being a he
still still may be
requested if we were a year in the future well there will
be no ADP's so
that's that's the proposal slept and drank beer since then
other than that
hopefully the new code is a little bit more I was a
flexible but allows for
more options so that development can occur in a proper
manner and I guess
what I'm trying to say is I don't want to have the same sit
here and say why
does that one what is that parking what does that stretch
have allowed parking
the front and this was on the side well we had a
development code change right
I'd hate to get something in here in the last minute that
if the development code
is gonna be different in the future that it's drastically
different or if it's
gonna be similar to what's gonna be required a year from
now then okay yeah
and again honestly we'll have to see right and of course
there's there's
gonna be some projects that may require more work is there
any way you could
give us a couple pieces information at public hearing about
what's currently
being proposed on the DDC and how this might look yeah
generally yeah I think
the buffer is one and as well as some of the parking
requirements the minor
modification that's something this would consider this
minor modification well
yeah well there there's criteria and we can I can discuss
that briefly okay that
would be fun appreciate it. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank
you. Ron, the applicant's gonna be here? Yes. In the
beginning I was concerned that they're trying to do too
much too much change too many changes and maybe this just
isn't the right lot kind of a situation but really it's
more of a matter that the zoning changes that have taken
place since the property to
the south and the property of the north was built it's kind
of got these guys
squeezed a little bit and I'm just wondering if we apply
the same rules that
we had back then to this lot you know wouldn't it be easier
you know to say you
know what just go ahead and make it like the rest of the
block where your parking
is to the front put the trees in the back and look like
everybody else in
that area yeah I know I kind of make it easier for
everybody and I think I think
too you know actually this is Bonnie Bray it's scheduled to
be a six lane
divide roadway so changing use is probably you know from a
residential to
something different is probably more likely to happen of
course we're dealing
with an existing site you know that has a home it's a
irregular shaped lot it's
it's long rectangular versus you know deep so prevents you
know parking in in
the rear there's easements so there's a lot of things going
on along this strip
of property that that we do you know we do see that this
would affect if those
properties did develop we have the same issues any other
questions for Ron thank
you very much that brings us to our single public hearing
item 5a which is
an HL 1801 Roman can come and present
thank you chair and can I interrupt right before you begin
I apologize do we
know how long is gonna take I want to be cognizant of
dinner should we break and
eat while you're pretty entertaining stuff it'd be like
movie tavern we need
to sit here and eat and there are 13 slides I can take them
in very quickly or
I can I mean I'm really it's enjoyable materials is great
we're in a landmark
house it's got to nice it's whatever you guys want to do I
can do it in ten
minutes maybe can we're going to take a quick break get
some food and then come
right back okay thanks thank you for that short break I'll
invite Roman back
up to present on this item thank you chair members of the
Commission I'm
excited to present a local landmark designation request the
request is the
is made by the homeowner and it's to make a historic
landmark designation for the
site of 607 East College Street and this is located between
Vine and frame street
just to the east of the Texas woman's University campus on
your right is the
house as you would see it today and again this is an owner
is initiated
requests on a property that they have rehabilitated
themselves its owner
occupied and it meets quite a few of the criteria for
designation on your left
here is the is an image of how it looked when they acquired
it which in your notes
it would talk about the cast the cast iron very decorative
floral pattern
columns that were put on but if we went back in time the
there were there were
wooden columns there now this is just going to be the
pictures speak for
themselves here the work that was done on this property now
here's the 1940 tax
image on it what's changed about the front is in the 50s we
believe on the
right-hand side that porch was extended all the way over
but it was built
sometime before 1926 and the deed records are in your
packet it's very
interesting history was either built by jh and Mary Pearl
Boyd or the previous
owner who was a Henry Stevens and the there's not a
mechanics lien on the
property but we can tell that there was a request that
insurance be maintained
on it when the boys took over a loan that was taken out so
we know alone was
taken out it involved being recorded against this site and
in that way we we
know that I just had to guess it was before 26 because of
other records we've
seen but we couldn't pinpoint it it was owned by the Boyd
family from 1921 to
1995 and this family was very involved in the community
here in Denton here's
a again the house today the west side of it there you can
see they've retained
the original siding and the original windows they did make
a change to the
lower portion that brick that you see there there was
really originally a
flared shake siding that went out on the sides on that and
let property but it
did still have the original knots either cedar posts or
whatever that I've came
from the other wood that we use here locally for the for
the floor post we
use Cyprus and there's another one that would come to me in
just a minute then
this is the front as they acquired it so you can see now
the house really adds a
lot more to that streetscape than it was when they acquired
it this shows the
level of effort and work they went into restoring the
property here this is the
east side there's an image of that front elevation there on
your right you can see
how the the flared siding it's shape cedar shake siding
there on it is the
rear elevation and again the level of the work that went
into that the work
didn't stop with the exterior the interior was fully redone
and this house
was really updated with thoroughly with insulation and
really all the modern
amenities this is just a note this is good that we're
landmarking a property
in here because this in our historic resource survey of
1996 it was
recommended that we maybe put even a historic district on
this area in this
area of town though there were some voids in there the
there at the bottom
here I'm just mentioning the significance of the we did a
little
research on the family and miss a lot of interesting things
mr. void there was a
home we landmarked on North Bell 2100 block up there right
where Sherman is
and that's a boy judge Boyd and the owners of this house
today and other
people thought that judge Boyd built this home for his two
daughters while
they attended college but it turned out there's no relation
between the two
boys mr. boy lived here jh and Mary Pearl lived there
themselves he declared
bankruptcy in 1930 there after the Great Depression struck
we know that and just
quickly through some stories mrs. Jane Boyd who was
teaching in Dallas and her
sister were visiting the house and so there are all these
mentions in our in
our newspaper about the family including this one where the
daughter Jane Boyd was
living at 5004 Worth Street in Dallas and it and as a
school teacher must been
pretty well this is the home that they she lived in this is
a Google Street
view of that home today which I think that's a an apartment
building by the
buildings in the back again many mentions of mr. Boyd on
the left here
with these different fraternal organizations on the on the
lower left
here and then there's just quite a lot of mentions what's
interesting is one of
the daughters began was a teacher at George Washington
University upper
right-hand side Eleanor Boyd and then later she was also
the Dean of women's
of women at Texas at West Texas State College in Canyon
before his passing it
was interesting the family would go up to New York and
visit the Reverend Frank
Boyd who's the brother of jh and Harry Boyd who was also in
New York taken all
together we have a house that's could meet any number of
criteria criteria in
this case I've offered up three the character of the this
area of the city
is retained in this embodied in this house and then the
location again
related to the neighborhood and that this particular area
doesn't there aren't
a significant number of original homes there as a result of
this listing there's
a neighbor actually immediately next door that has inquired
about
landmarking her house so this is really good that we're
picking up a few of
these resources and as a aspect of community pride there
were notices sent
out the only one I received back is this email which I've
blanked out the
responses but this is the person asking to landmark their
their house next door
so I think it's a good thing when there was not any
opposition and this is a
really nice and this will allow you know people do this for
pride of place and
then we do have a tax credit that this person can take
advantage of on their
property when you landmark a property you can go back to
the Landmark
Commission and if you spent more than ten thousand dollars
on it you can ask
for 50% off of your city of Denton property taxes for ten
years and so
that's that's something you don't see at the PNZ meeting
but that's one of the
reasons people pursue and also just to to protect the area
and protect their
home I take any questions you Commissioner Beck thank you
aren't there a couple of houses over in that that area
right there that are
already historically designated landmarks at least two
houses are there
you know I don't have the map but don't memorized yet there
aren't too many
things like I saw one when I was doing census or something
I forget what it was
but I remember it was you know they had the deal anchored
in front of their house
that's your so this wouldn't be the first house is what I'm
not the first
over there was one and I was surprised when I was started
to work here and I
haven't gone back to look at it that was in that area that
's gone TW you must
have acquired and and the building is the house is actually
missing and it was
designated in the 80s and it was in that area too okay the
only thing I want to
comment on so it's probably not true that the house was
built for two
daughters that actually lived there no they don't that's
right until they died
in the 80s well actually in the end it was left to a
daughter who did live
there until it went from that daughter to the current
family thank you any
other questions for Roman thank you very much with that
that concludes our work
session we'll close it at 630 and be in council chambers at
640 good evening and
welcome to the planet zone commission meeting for June 13th
is hot our first
order of business will be to stand and give a pledge of
allegiance
United States of America and to the Republic for which it
stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and
justice for all. I now pledge allegiance to the Texas one
state under God one indivisible. next we'll have
consideration for our planet
zoning minutes because of an absence we'll take these
separately so chair will
entertain a motion for the May 9th minutes
Commissioner Sanchez I make a motion to approve May 9th.
Commissioner Beck second
we have a first and a second any discussions seeing none we
'll call for a vote on the board
passes 6-0 chair will entertain a motion for the May 23rd
minutes
Commissioner Beck I move to approve minutes on May 22nd.
Commissioner Smith I second that motion. We have first and
second any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on
the board
motion carries 5-0 with one abstention next will be our
consent agenda chair will
entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith I motion to approve
consent agenda. Commissioner Ellis second we have a first
and second is there any discussion on the consent agenda?
Seeing nine I will vote call for vote on the board
motion carries 6-0 next we'll have item four which is our
individual items for individual consideration the first is
4A Z18004B
I'll call Cindy Jackson to present
thank you vice chair commissioners go ahead and pull this
up
Z18-0004 was before you on the during the May 9th meeting I
'm going to go ahead
and go over a few pertinent facts of the case just to
refresh your memory this is
a request for to rezone four parcels from the DR1 district
to the DCDG
district the four parcels comprise approximately 1.057
acres and you can
see their location here at the corner of Maple and Pacific
along Pacific on the
east excuse me west side of Myrtle and at the corner of Myr
tle and Eagle Street
current zoning as you can see is DR1 and the proposed
zoning is DCG when this came
to the PNC on May 9th there were several concerns that were
expressed by the
Commission at that time which included the loss of
affordable housing should
this be permitted the proposed exit onto Maple Street the
maximum 100 foot
building height permitted by the in the requested DCG
district they used as
permitted within the DCG district and the lack of a
neighborhood meeting with
the surrounding property owners well the applicant has
moved forward with a she's
held two separate neighborhood meetings one was on Monday
June 11th in the
evening and one was on Tuesday June 12 during the noon hour
the Commission also
suggested that staff investigate a possible overlay
district which would
restrict buildings on the site office buildings and with a
maximum height of
one story the applicant staff discusses with the applicant
and the applicant has
agreed to the conditions of the proposed overlay district
the at the time when
this came forward on May 9th the the Commission could not
come to a majority
vote on an motion to deny and the Commission could not come
forward with a
majority vote for a motion to table therefore the applicant
came back and
made some did what the Commission requested had the
neighborhood meetings
to which there was a low turnout but I think it was a
productive meeting and the
applicant will address that further and the staff came back
with the requested
overlay district so staff recommends approval of this
request with the
condition that a zoning overlay be placed on the parcels
with the following
conditions the building height shall not exceed two stories
or 30 feet in height
and uses on the parcels these four parcels are limited to
office use only
that concludes my presentation and I'll answer any
questions you may have any
questions for Cindy there are no questions this item was a
public hearing
at last meeting tonight it's an individual consideration
item that being
said we will so go forward and hear public comments so
tonight the applicant
can speak for ten minutes there's two wishing to speak each
would have ten
minutes and then anyone else who would like to speak will
be right at the four
minutes that you would have had in a public hearing tonight
as well so I have
three cards there if you do want to speak please fill out a
card and submit
that so with that I will call up the applicant Amy Bissett
and if you could
state your name and address for the record and you'll have
ten minutes my
name is Amy Bissett the address is my address is 212 South
Elm Denton Texas
76201 I appreciate the opportunity to be back in front of
you this evening if
you'll give me just a moment I will pull up my presentation
and we can begin I'd
like to start I did step in at the end of the work session
and hear some of the
concerns that were voiced by and several commissioners and
so I'd like to start
by addressing a couple of those upfront and specifically
there was concern about
the timing of the neighborhood meetings and that they
occurred just in the last
two days actually and we had two reasons that that happened
the first one is that
we wanted to give as much invitation notice as possible so
we mailed the
invitations out 12 days prior to the first public to the
first neighborhood
meeting and secondly there was some discussion back and
forth with city
staff after the last meeting about how we proceed whether
or not a 3-3 vote
would allow us to go directly to council and so it took us
some time probably ten
days to two weeks to kind of determine whether or not we
were going to be
coming back tonight or how we were going to proceed and
then of course internally
and I had to confer with the property owners and the
developer to determine
and how we would conduct the neighborhood meetings where
what format
and that sort of thing so it just it and we felt that it
was more important to
give enough lead time to on the invitations than it was to
have them a
week or two prior to this meeting and secondly there was
some concern about
whether we've made any substantial changes to our original
request and I
think you'll see through my presentation that we have but
specifically there was
a question posed why haven't we not withdrawn the
application for the
northern three properties like there was some discussion of
last month and when
we had that discussion last month and it was to eliminate
the concerns about
affordable housing and I actually proposed that option that
we might need
time to consider that option and if this zoning case wasn't
going to be supported
as it was but when we went back and actually looked at it
because we have an
alternative development plan on the site the constraints of
that alternative
development plan put us in a position that we can't do
anything with the
South tract unless we also are doing something with the
northern tracts and so
and there was no point in us splitting them up because it
caused complete
inability to get anything done on our part and so just
wanted to address those
two things real quickly I want to tell you what I'm going
to go through tonight
and we're just going to give you a few visual pictures that
will provide some
context and scale for the discussion and based on the
conversation that was had
last month I want to specifically discuss the concerns that
were raised at the
public hearing on May 9th and review the discussion
outcomes of the neighborhood
meeting access bank is no stranger to anybody in this room
it's a predominant
building that sits in a main gateway entry into Denton and
it was developed
roughly ten years ago under an alternative development plan
you can see
in the picture above and on your screen that it the
alternative development
plan facilitated some nice entryway features into the heart
of Denton
including the flagpoles and monument sign wrought iron f
encing landscaping
street trees and and it's the the same developer and
property owners that are
looking to construct this project so I wanted to provide
that context to you
also wanted to provide the the view at the corner of Eagle
and Carroll and three
out of the four corners at this intersection have major
development
major commercial developments on them today including large
-scale and Eagle at
this intersection is six lanes and this is Carroll looking
north you see it's
six lane this is a primary arterial and major thoroughfare
through through
Denton and into the heart of Denton where it's going to
draw commercial
interest and you can see on one corner the four-story
multifamily project when
you look west down down Eagle you do see that the one
corner that's not developed
commercially is the I double-of cemetery which preceded the
widening and
expansion of Carroll Boulevard into a primary arterial road
way just as this
single-family subdivision that we're contemplating tonight
was there prior to
and Carroll becoming a major thoroughfare just so that in
case this
part of the discussion comes up I wanted a visual of Wells
Fargo advisors which is
the building on the corner of Maple and Carroll and here is
the newly constructed
multifamily project that is directly across Myrtle Street
from the proposed
development as you can see and not only through these
pictures but also in the
above zoning map and three out of four sides of this
project are developed with
large-scale commercial projects many of them are three or
four stories in nature
what we are proposing is a single-story residential style
construction of garden
offices that we believe are provide a natural buffer
between the larger scale
commercial surrounding it and the existing neighborhood to
the north there
you can see the dr1 on the visual that shows several blocks
of existing housing
there and we believe that that's an important to preserve
and however we
think that there's an opportunity here to build as small
offices that provide a
good transition in density and scale from the larger and
development that's
occurring along Carroll and Eagle we are certainly open to
and ready to accept a
zoning overlay and the city staff have proposed 30 foot
restriction or two
stories we are willing to accept an overlay of single-story
and we have no
intention of building anything above single-story and again
it will be a
residential style construction that's compatible with the
single-family homes
there and can be a transition in density and scale in the
public hearing
discussion we did hear that you were concerned about the
allowable height of
a hundred feet that you were concerned about the removal of
affordable housing
and encroachment on a residential area the displacement of
current tenants
traffic on Maple Street the privacy of tenants in the
remaining homes drainage
onto neighboring properties concerns about crime and safety
and tree
preservation of some large significant trees that are part
of the property we
did conduct two neighborhood meetings as you're aware the
invitations were mailed
out on June 1st they were come-and-go format so we had four
hours open window
we mailed 32 invitations we had to have neighboring
property owners attend both
of those property owners are in attendance tonight and so I
'm going to
share with you what discussion we had with them and then
they can certainly
verify that or talk about any discrepancies between how I
interpreted it
and so the two were 416 Maple Street which is the owner
occupied house and
for and 325 Maple Street which is the one that is and has
two shared property
lines with this project so 329 Maple Street is I just want
you to have a
visual of what we're looking at here I'm 329 Maple Street
is one of the three
parcels that is impacted by this project there was some
discussion about five
houses being involved at the last meeting there are three
that are a part
of the zoning change the one at 329 Maple which is
currently occupied by an
employee of the property owner because it is in disrepair
and really can't be
rented to the general public I'm 711 Pacific which is
vacant as of yesterday
and in 712 Myrtle which has an occupant that is leasing but
intends to move when
the lease is up because they need to change school
districts the fourth
parcel is the one to the far south that one is not impacted
in terms of it has
a detention pond today and we would be tying into the city
's detention system
in the future and the two additional houses that were
discussed that are
highlighted in yellow here as you can see they're already a
part of the DCG
zoning district they were acquired platted and zoned ten
years ago when the
bank was originally developed and all of these properties
were acquired by the
same owner and developer with the ultimate intent of rede
veloping the
project just so you're aware I'm going to show you the
three houses in question
this is 329 Maple Street this is 711 Pacific and this is 7
12 Myrtle when you
look at our project as a whole and just square up the
boundaries this this blue
square is essentially what we are looking at and we did the
two property
owners that came to visit with us 416 Maple which I have
highlighted here I
want to talk to you a little bit about her concerns and we
discussed with her
one of her primary concerns was traffic on Myrtle Street or
I'm sorry on Maple
Street and how close the intersection of Pacific is to
Carroll she was concerned
about the height of the development she was concerned about
the crime in the
neighborhood and she was concerned there's a large tree on
the corner of
Pacific and Maple that I'll point out to you in a minute
that she would like for
us to preserve. Mr. Yuhas who is also here came in and he
we discussed his
concerns about drainage affecting his property and the
privacy of his tenants
and traffic on Maple Street building height and some sort
of buffer to be
provided since his property is the one that is most
impacted in terms of
adjacency. It became obvious immediately that Pacific
Avenue and that entry was
a big point of concern for both of those property owners
and we began to
brainstorm ways that we could resolve that knowing that we
're going to have to
provide adequate fire access to all the buildings and it's
unlikely that we would
be able to develop without having an access point off of
Maple entirely so we
discussed the possibility of asking the city to abandon
Pacific Street as a
street which we were going to do anyway and then we would
relocate our entryway
to the eastern border of our project on Maple Street. What
this does is it gives
more distance from Carroll Boulevard and it relocates the
entry away from in
front of Miss Rausch's house which is most impacted by the
traffic in terms of
people coming on and off of Pacific and an added benefit is
that it provides a
very clear demarcation for Mr. Yuhas on the western edge of
his property.
What you're looking at now is our proposed concept plan
along with I
just kind of drew in the neighboring property so we could
talk about a few
things so you see Pacific Street highlighted here on the
left of your
screen 416 Maple directly across from it that's not drawn
to scale it's an
approximate location and then 325 Maple on the eastern side
over here and these
are how the other lots are configured between our project
and Maple Street so
we would move Pacific East and then we would shift the
proposed building west
and then it would be essentially on the same side as what
the Wells Fargo
building that exists today and provide more distance
between the property owner
at Maple and in our first building. Additionally we're
required through
subchapter 13 of the didn't develop a code to provide a
type C landscape
buffer between our project and the adjoining properties
that do front Maple
Street you can see that highlighted in green here again not
to scale this is
just a visual representation of the discussions that we had
and the tree
that Miss Rausch is concerned about sits on the corner of
Pacific and Maple and
is in a much better position under this scenario to be
preserved and I will tell
you that moving forward with the alternative development
plan our intent
is to preserve as many of the trees as we can and you will
see if the zoning
case is approved at some point you will see that I'll see
and approve that
alternative development plan and we'll have an opportunity
to hold us to and
some of the discussions that we're having tonight. My
understanding is that
both of the property owners that we met with and were
satisfied with these
changes at that time and that it made it more palatable to
them and we committed
to both of them and that we would have additional
neighborhood meetings as we
worked through the site design process and created the
alternative development
plan to make sure that we could accommodate their
suggestions and
concerns and minimize any impact negative impact that the
project would
have. Mr. Yuhas also expressed concerns about drainage
impacting his property I
did put a contour map on here just so you have a visual of
how the drainage is
going to flow on the site the high point is on the
northwest circle that you see
there at 666 feet and the low point is at 638 feet towards
the southeast portion
so naturally the water is going to flow south and away from
the neighbors and
however Mr. Yuhas was concerned that if we regraded the
site and changed the
topography that it might result in some pooling of water in
his backyard so we
have committed to him that we would work with him as we
were doing the drainage
plans to make sure that his property was not negatively
impacted and as you all
know during the final platting process and we are required
to handle all of
our own drainage on site and not allow any of that to
migrate to any neighboring
properties but we did we did commit to him that we would
have conversations
with him as we were actually doing site design to address
that specifically for
his property with the alternative development plan and
final plat processes
and we're committed to holding more neighborhood meetings
to look at the
proposed site plan have neighbors have an opportunity to
provide feedback and
it would come back to you for approval and we'll work with
the neighbors on
drainage and we'll work we'll discuss safety and lighting
and tree preservation
with the neighbors during the site design process and we'll
work to minimize
the impact to their properties and work with the city of
Denton to re look to
abandon Pacific Street and really be able to relocate our
entrance to an area
that is will create less of a traffic issue and as you all
know and we'll have
to address and mitigate for any traffic and that this
development causes at the
time of final planning and that concludes my presentation
and I do have a
property owner representative here with me Virgil strange
who will speak on our
behalf as well and I'm happy to answer any questions we do
have some questions
Commissioner Smith thank you much chair miss visit 7-eleven
why was it vacated I
don't know the answer to that but mr. strange may be able
to answer that
question I think that just the lease ended we'll table we
'll table that the
is everything south of 712 those two homes that are already
already in the
correct zoning for what you guys are opposed for that are
already in the plat
to be developed are those what is the status of the
residents in those homes I
believe that and they they may both have tenants and I
allow Virgil to speak to
that more specifically however and I do want to clarify
that and all of the
tenants that are there today where were there are short-
term tenants they were
told upfront that the project would ultimately be redevelop
ed and they
haven't they're not expecting to stay for the long term and
my understanding is
that those who do have leases at this point have roughly a
year left on them
and so there's some time to plan for a change once once
there is an imminent
development which at this point there obviously is not so
we would not be
providing notice at this point okay I think it's fun
doors Virgil mr. strange guy ask you a question let's let's
pause this for a
second when I have questions answer that I think you'll
come up if we can deal
with that Christian Ellis thank you vice chair thank you
Amy for the presentation
um so just to clarify I understand that three of the homes
are part of the zoning
change because the other two already zoned but five of them
are being
removed with the development is that correct yes that is
correct the other two
are and already part of a part of the project to be removed
and made turned
into professional office spaces that's correct okay thanks
Mr. Sullivan thank you my share I'm curious if y'all are
designing or your
plans are designed a single story why not have an overlay
to restrict it to a
single story instead of two stories well what I'm saying is
that we're committed
to one story and if it if it is more palatable to the
Commission to have the
overlay be one story that way in the future if somebody
wanted to come back
and redevelop they couldn't put something that was two
story there and
then we if you wanted to make the overlay one story we
would be comfortable
with that I believe that city staff recommended two stories
because that's
what's compatible with the neighborhood today right now dr1
is a 40 foot high
restriction I believe so this would actually go from 40 to
30 and even at
two stories so I think they were just looking at the
surrounding area and that
two stories would still be compatible okay I wouldn't aware
of any other two
story houses in that area there is one on Maple Street and
that 416 actually is
two story but one of the reasons we're committed to single
story is we believe
it's more appropriate and scale to all the surrounding
single family okay thank
you I see no other questions thank you very much the next
speaker is the second
applicant JV strange if you just state your name and
address for the record
you also have ten minutes good evening ladies and gentlemen
my name is JV
strange 728 Seville Denton Texas I am one of the property
owners and the
applicant this has turned into a fairly complex issue for
us let me just give
you a little bit of a background beyond what I mean did
when we bought the
properties for the bank which commenced back in about 2007
and 8 I think we
bought something like a dozen pieces of property to put
together the site that
the bank is currently on there was one piece of property we
're not able to buy
at that time it was the piece at Myrtle and Eagle so we had
to proceed with our
development with that little out parcel down below we were
also required in our
development to put in a detention pond which is the only
one on Eagle Drive
even though there are larger projects than ours up and down
Eagle and the
intention with the city was at the point in time the
drainage improvements along
Eagle and over the Elm and Locust were improved that we
would be able to remove
our detention pond recent so that has been something that
has been hanging out
there for 10 years we were approached by the city about a
year ago to grant
easements across our property so that the drainage
improvements could be done
and if you go by there now you'll see that one house has
been demolished over
there not one of ours is across the street belong to
somebody else but the
city of themselves demolish that to be able to start the
drainage work the
reason that we have not done anything towards developing
anything to the north
end of our property is that we've been waiting to clear up
this detention pond
easement we have severe parking issues at the bank it's a
constant complaint
from the tenants and our idea it was to at the appropriate
time when the city
put the drainage improvements in part of their commitment
to us is they give us a
tap out of our detention pond into the new drainage system
at that point we can
fill in the detention pond and put additional parking for
the bank not a
lot maybe 12 spaces down there to be able to accommodate
the banks tenants
do that we have to modify our alternative development plan
and to do
that we need to rezone the little piece on the corner and
while we're at it to
make the landscape buffers and all the other things work
and the ADP revision
which you would see later on we need to rezone the
additional three pieces to
the top which we did not own at the time we started the
project we have owned
those properties our partnerships have owned those
properties for a number of
years so this whole thing is kind of evolves now around the
need for parking
at the bank reconstructed attention pond to parking and
redoing the entire
properties that we own into one consistent zoning and if
you look at
that one map Amy had we're kind of the only little box down
there that started
already in DCG so it was our opinion that this would be
something compatible
with the neighborhood we've been a good neighbor at the
bank we take good care
of our property anything that we construct there will be
constructed in
the fashion it would be compatible with the neighborhood
and we would continue
our efforts to be good neighbors to those people who are
left there I know
there's issues about the three little houses and taking
away housing stock I
think Amy mentioned one of the houses currently is occupied
by a employee of
one of my partners because he can't rent the house to
anybody else it's literally
falling down the second little house is empty the one on
Pacific and it too has
some structural issues and termite issues so two of those
houses are fairly
short-lived the one other one over on Myrtle is a very
small house and sets
directly across the street from the apartments and of
course we have two
houses over there that we we bought originally with the
bank property and
they are already zoned so we're not we're not here to zone
those we do not
anticipate that if we got the zoning tonight and the
council approval that the
bulldozers are drove in next month and we demolished all
the houses and the
people be sitting on the streets that's not the intent we
have a lot of work to
do we've got the detention pond to address we've got
planning issues to
address we got the alternative development plan to address
engineering
issues permitting issues so anything that happens there is
is on a longer
term other than the parking lot we'd like to get that done
as quickly as
possible but I can see that what we'd like to do would be
start primarily over
on the Pacific Street side of the properties and probably
construct one
building there see how that goes another one another
probably the two houses over
on Myrtle would be the last two that would be moved out so
having been at
this business for 40 years I'm naive enough to think I'm
gonna go build four
offices and have them leashed out in six months I see this
evolving out over a
number of years and so anybody that's in those houses will
have an adequate
amount of time to to find a relocation if in fact two of
the houses don't fall
out from under them in the meantime so I'm here to just
kind of clarify why
we're here the detention pond issue the parking issue why
this all needs to be
zoned at one time well we can't withdraw part of it do part
of it because it all
fits into how we have to work with the city on the ADP it's
all got to be
considered as one unit at least that's my understanding
from what we're gonna
have to do to be able to meet the parking requirements and
to meet the
landscape requirements setbacks etc so hopefully that will
help clarify a
little bit of what we're doing and to clarify again mr. so
we have no
intention to go it up two stories one story would be the
most I envision these
being somewhere around four thousand to five thousand
square foot buildings that's tends to
accommodate one or two tenants and again it just be single
story go up look
behind the chase bank up at University you have a similar
deal you got a big
building in the front on a major street right behind it are
four smaller office
buildings that back right up to residential housing so
there's a there's
a picture for what we're thinking about doing already on
the north side of town
so with that I'll be happy to answer any questions you all
I have we do have some
questions Mr. Smith thank you vice-chair mr. strange thank
you for presentation
actually I'm any questions for you you've answered
everything for me I do
have a question for city staff mr. Jackson if you come back
up please I
think I think I think mr. strange has 40 years of
development knowledge that
might make it hard to to make make make it make it sense to
me so what he's
saying is that they cannot do the parking lot they cannot
build a parking
lot and fill in the detention pond well they have to do
that through the process
of doing an ADP and they cannot do that unless they they re
zone all of these
parcels correct they can't do a partial rezone on the
southern part then fill
that in and then maybe come to the northern part another
time well I'm not
sure about the not being able to do that corner without
doing all of it I was not
part of the process they went through ten years ago I wasn
't with the city at
that time so I would have to look into that to see exactly
what the restraints
are okay so that but I can't happen that could the ADP that
currently exists
could have had it to where they are restrictions there are
restraints to
where they do have to rezone all of this if they want to
make a change to that
one possible I just have to take a look at the ADP well I
'll trust I think I'll
trust mr. strange that that's the way he wouldn't be up
here lying bold-faced to
us in a public hearing so okay a couple of the questions
the city to abandon
Pacific how the the process for an applicant to go through
and negotiate
that with the city what's the city opinion on abandoning
streets all that
kind of stuff they can make a they can petition to abandon
the street and do it
by separate instrument but typically that's done through a
plot Jerry might
be able to expound on that more there there is a process
for banks really I'm
not really up on it right now but there is a process for it
there has to be
negotiations with the council and real estate and
engineering we have to make
sure that there's no easements are on the industry there's
no utilities in the
street and so there's no guarantee even though there there
is discussion when
they rose we could abandon Pacific move the move everything
over so we're up to
fire code or that's all dependent upon future decisions and
there can there
that's correct legal is there a way for us to in an
improvement if there was an
approval vote put up to make this approval subject to the
abandoning a
Pacific Street is that even possible is that a restriction
that goes too far I
believe it is because you know it would be conditioning it
on something that may
or may not even happen and and it would be a discretionary
act with the City
Council it would essentially be constraining the City
Council it's a way
to take action on something that would otherwise it would
have discretion and
then on the drainage part that comes in ADP that comes in
the final plotting
plotting plotting they probably mentioned it said it a
couple times and
it could have been done different parts I want to make sure
it's gonna be when it
would be when we would see it just to make note well I don
't know if you
recall that the city had a lot of issues with drainage and
flooding in this area
back in the day and they are in the day like eight years
ago and they are
actually the city has been installing infrastructure
throughout that area to
handle the drainage and when they when they plot this this
this lot into the
entire area all the drainage will be considered okay thank
you Cindy
just a second if you can request to speak because your
house would be next
thank you guys I guess I'm still trying to get an answer to
what Commissioner
Smith did and I don't know if mr. strange maybe has that
answer about why
the why that Eagle parcel stands alone and can't be
developed so I'd love I
mean if Cindy can answer it I would love mr. strange to
address it please when we
came forward several months ago well I used to call a DRC
meeting I think it's
now called a pre-development meeting that dates me we
brought this whole issue
out about how we needed to what we needed to do to be able
to put parking
on the corner and to address the issues in the current ADP
the current ADP has a
limitation in it that we can only have X number of parking
places for our bank
and so to be able to put more parking down there where the
detention pond is
which that is part of the bank property we were trying to
work with the city to
bring in the smaller piece at the bottom down at the corner
of Myrtle and Eagle
and the three at the top and redo a rebalancing of the
whole property to
take some of the parking spaces it could be used up north
move them down south to
spread some of the landscaping requirements to the
properties to the
north as well so we were told at that time that what we
needed to do was to
rezone that corner property and read and revise our ADP and
that's when we put
all four of these properties together to be able to come
forward to get into ADP
and to provide the parking in the front of the bank so it's
some kind of ratio
with the parking and in the current ADP so you have to make
the footprint bigger
I mean that's almost what we're kind of read you to read j
uggling yeah we're
making a bigger footprint and we're taking some of the
parking that can be
attributed to the north and putting it down in front of the
bank because we
cannot put any more spaces at the bank under the current AD
P so if we didn't do
anything with a little corner lot just say we do nothing we
don't do anything
with zoning the corner we don't do anything at the top we
're stuck at the
bank about getting any more parking and or a filter we can
fill in the detention
bond but would serve no purpose we need to parking spaces
down there for the
tenants in that building we have a law firm investment firm
a bank and
insurance agents and they have constant traffic in and out
and we have constant
complaints about the parking and it's telling you there's
no way to do that
there's no way to develop that Eagle lot without trying to
pull in these other
northern parcels is that how I understand what you're
saying that's my
that's my current understanding where we are when we when
we bought that lot and
started working with the city about how we got electric
services and other things
to the rest of the building of the bank and to the
properties to the north
there's a big electrical easement that goes through part of
that little part on
Eagle and Myrtle now we just got to give them the city an
easement on another
part of it for the drainage so it gets so condensed down we
we are a spot on
the corner we can't get a curb cut into that off of either
Eagle or Myrtle but
they don't meet the setback requirements the city has so it
just becomes a dead
piece of property okay I mean that clears it up slightly I
appreciate it
thank you anybody else have a question we do
Chris are back thank you guys chair Virgil thanks for
coming down speaking
and I'm still a little muddy on it and I understand this
visit might be able to
add to it if she wants to come on down I'd be glad to hear
too but as she's
coming down let me answer this then what you're really
needing it sounds like is
parking spaces you don't necessarily need the offices you
need parking spaces
to meet a need for the existing clients of access bank is
that what I'm hearing
well we need the parking places but we bought we bought all
that property we
bought all with you maybe put that one exhibit back up baby
that shows the all
let me just see you one exhibit here yeah when we bought
the bank property
there were I'd have to guess a dozen properties that we
bought up and down
what was the old Carroll Boulevard remnants we bought
everything I'm
pointing you can't see oh you're pointing okay we bought
the area that is
encompassed in the bank we bought the two houses that were
up there that was
back in 2007 or eight we were not able to acquire the spot
down on Myrtle and
Eagle until maybe a year year and a half later and we had
already planted had
already got our ADP so we could not go back at that time
and revise it we were
already under construction at the bank we purchased the
property the first
property we purchased was the one immediately north of the
existing
property that we own that's 7-eleven which is on Pacific
Street we tried to
buy that initially when we bought the other property that
the owner would not
sell it to us we bought that years ago within bought the
little property over
on Myrtle and then the property up on Maple with the idea
in mind all the way
from the beginning that again we wanted to try to create a
corner a commercial
corner here on this entry into Denton so we did want to put
offices there that's
why we bought all that land the parking down here at the
bottom when we built
the building I didn't know the problem the city of you know
only requires a
certain number of parking spaces for the size of your
building so we were stuck
with that we were stuck with it the ADP the solution to it
came when we were
able to work with the city to put the easement through
there get the outflow
of that pond into the new drainage system fill that pond up
incorporate
that track now into the bank track and these other tracks
and then kind of
reapportion the parking in the landscaping environments on
the entire
property so that we can get parking down there and utilize
that little dead
corner parking is a real problem over there okay and again
for I let Amy say
anything let me I am sympathetic to the fact that you
bought this property with
the intent to develop it I totally am and I'm appreciative
of your development
here and how it wants to try and blend in and not you know
disturb the
neighborhood I'm still not convinced that this is not encro
ach it's gonna
affect this older neighborhood so that's still a concern of
mine but let me ask
this if again it seems like parking is the main concern
here now that you can
build on this tract of land down the southeast corner there
and this is just
a hypothetical isn't it possible to build an elevated
parking building that
would meet the needs of your tenants to provide the time
parking the number of
parking spaces you need two or three store you could go up
to 100 feet there
once if if it was a zone now if it was on DCG which it's
not right now I
understand that and that therein lies the dilemma but
saying I mean again just
speaking hypothetically this proposal doesn't go forward
down the road you're
able to come back and get that one corner lot on Myrtle and
Eagle zone DCG
would that address your parking problems then if you if you
built an elevated
parking building there that was what we were I'm originally
thinking when we had
the discussion a month ago at the public hearing but when
you look at that the
way that ADP is written today and the number of parking
spaces is locked in
for the bank the reason that we can get more parking spaces
if we developed the
professional offices is because you have a ratio of X
number of parking spaces
per square feet and so if we pick up 5,000 square feet to
the north then we
can take these parking spaces that are on the northern end
and use those to
park the office building not add parking to the north this
is an example and then
add parking spaces to the to the property on the south that
keeps the
number of parking spaces that are for the bank the same and
what we've
essentially done is allocated some of the existing parking
that's the banks
now but is close enough to the professional offices to park
them at
their required ratio so and we would be overall the bank
would not gain any
parking spaces those ones towards the parking requirements
for the the
professional offices and I don't have the exact
calculations to tell you what
square footage would be necessary to get 12 spaces and
which is roughly how many
we need on the south and we only need about 12 additional
spaces but the
alternative development plans one says you cannot add
parking spaces for the
bank and two it says the ADP does not speak to the parcels
to the north that
are intended to be developed in the future and so you'll
need an alternative
development plan when you're ready to do that and so and
when we did have our
pre-development meeting the conversation was there's no way
around an amended
ADP and you can't get those parking spaces on the south
without taking some
of the ones that are on the north and allocating them to
the office building
so that's why we feel like we're kind of in that spot where
there's there's no
way around there's no way to amend the ADP to get what we
need without adding
additional space for landscaping and building footage which
get freeze up some
parking okay but that still wouldn't prevent you again
provided that down the
road this one track to land on Eagle and Myrtle could be
zone DCG that you
couldn't build a parking garage there from the bank doesn't
have to be
associated with the bank but it could serve as a parking
facility for pretty
much anybody especially if it's paid parking I'm not sure
whether a parking
garage a standalone parking garage on a parcel would be an
allowable use or not
I don't know that off the top of my head we would have no
need to build the
parking garage because we only need 12 spaces okay to get
the 12 spaces and
you're saying you've got to build these garden offices
right in the ADP we have
to encompass the project as a whole as my as I understand
it today that was the
conversation that we've had with the city okay and to
Commissioner Ellis's
point that seems like a big footprint for 12 spaces but
again I understand that
when the property was bought it was in never never realized
you're gonna run
in this kind of confrontation here and just thought this
would go but here we
are and to consider anything less than this now is like an
obstacle there's no
there's no way we can make a smaller footprint again
without the office
space because again if it's just parking space as you want
I'm having a hard time
I'm not sure that I'm understanding your question I think
you said it's a big
footprint if you mean the southern tract it would remain
green space all the
northern tracks you're developing that for the sole purpose
of getting 12 more
at least 12 more parking spaces did I hear that right
at least 12 developing that is for development in its own
right to provide
office space downtown desirable office space to bring
employment density
downtown to support commercial and retail and in commerce
and it's just
that we can't my point is that we can't split them up into
where we only
address the parcel on the south my from my understanding
because we can't get
the amendment to the ADP we need it we can't we can't hold
the same parking
ratio and without adding office buildings okay you're in
between the rock and hard
spot I can see that okay thank you commissioner Sanchez I'm
not sure whose
questions directed to
we keep we keep addressing Pacific has a street but there's
a standard I would I
would think that the city has to define a street and when
you look when you drive
down that I call it an alleyway it's nothing but asphalt
over dirt there's no
standard it's falling apart so I mean it's hard for me to
call it a straight
it is a street it is public right away and that that would
be the definition of
a street is public right of way it's so old it was
developed before we have our
current street standards so it's not an improved street per
se no no curb and
gutter drainage storm drains or anything it's got big old p
otholes however it is
probably right away though that that has been around for
quite a while because
these these houses for example the house one of the houses
that is part of this
request it is over a hundred years old and that that it
hasn't been maintained
well and and so the streets been there at least that long
okay
Christopher Sullivan thank you for sure what is the the
number of parking spaces per
square foot in this for you know
okay this site was developed under 2002 code and that
requires one parking space
for every 300 square feet of gross floor area for a bank
office professional
office personal use service type of use okay and now for
the applicant what's
the square footage of the bank currently 30,000
the bank building is 30,898 square feet okay so that would
give you a hundred
hundred parking spaces correct one per 300 if it's 30,000 I
think my math is
right I don't know it's suspect it appears based on the
preliminary drawing
that we see here that you're going to have approximately 20
,000 square feet of
additional building space is that right correct but I'm
only counting 65 parking
spaces in your drawing which I know that's not accurate but
I'm only
counting 69 parking spaces from Google anyway which may or
may not be accurate
and so I'm just wondering why is it all that necessary to
build the buildings
just to get parking spaces well in other words in other
words why build another
20,000 square feet of building to get you know to double
the number of parking
spaces if that's your end goal is to get the parking spaces
well there's really
two two things here one is we bought the property to
develop it and build offices
so that that's one thing so we would be building the
buildings for their own
commercial value I will tell you in the last two years if
those had been built I
could have had two buildings full I've had two people who
wanted to be there
five thousand square foot users the bank continues to grow
the bank has taken one
of the least spaces that we had already and they're growing
the whole mix of
mr. Sullivan is that when you look at those box in the
yellow down there
but you excuse me in the blue there's no way we can use
that for any use at all
today because we cannot park on that the detention pond is
there electrical
easements there so we have we've got to somehow reconfigure
this whole track to
be able to get the parking spaces that those individual
losses will need and
let part of them bleed down to the south to that little
blue box so that we can
have parking for the bank but you know the intention is not
just to get parking
spaces the intention is also to take advantage of the
property that we bought
to build offices because there is a demand for office space
downtown debt
today okay let me ask you this this forget all the parking
spaces if this
were to be developed you're going to be adding another
equivalent size of the
bank that's there now that you're saying you need more
parking because of the
activity and that's fine however when you're coming out of
the bank you can
either go east or west on Eagle or you can go north on
Carroll and that's about
it when you move to the north and you look at Maple and Myr
tle those are going
to be the streets are going to carry the load for the
parking equivalent to what
you have now going on to a street that's half the size of
or a quarter of the
size of Carroll and in worse condition than Eagle and so my
concern is all
those people that live around there on the north side of
Maple you add the
apartment complexes that are on Myrtle all of a sudden you
're putting a whole
lot of cars coming in and out because once you come onto
Maple Street if you
turn out from your property onto Maple Street turn left you
can go right or
left I mean I guess you know what you can go right north on
Carroll and I
suppose that's a street going through this you can turn
left go south on the
Carroll with no stop lights I just see a problem that
people are going to
have that live there now that all of a sudden a whole lot
of cars will be
dumping onto those streets that weren't designed to hold
that many people. Well
that's one reason we wanted to go ahead and move Pacific
back and widen it so
that people can come out and go on to Maple go east or west
we also have
access going out over onto Myrtle Street and I would
anticipate that there would
be quite a few cars because of the way those buildings will
be oriented that
will come on down back behind the bank and exit out onto
Carroll on that
existing wide approach that we have which is not at the
intersection because
I avoid going across Myrtle you can't get across that cut
that's there so when
I'm there I drift back down and I come out either in front
of the building get
to go east or west on Eagle I just come out and get on
Carroll and go wherever
I'm going to go so and then again these are pretty much low
-impact offices the
traffic that will be there would be 8 in the morning and 5
in the afternoon and
they're closed they're not like the apartments and some of
the other uses
which are 24/7 these would be professional offices so
traffic could
pretty much be limited to early in the morning and 5 o'
clock in the afternoon
so and again as it phases in over the next five years I
would hope that it
would just be a gradual enough impact that it doesn't
really complicate what's
going on up there and we would do everything under our
control to make as
many other access points out as we could you're going to
have traffic with
whatever you do but I think that's that would be our plan
was to be provided as
many routes out wide and specific to a better route move it
away from the
intersection of Maple and Carroll to get a little more
stacking there and to
again keep these buildings below 5,000 square feet or at 5,
000 feet so that you
know you would have a minimum number of employees in there
I've got some other
5,000 square foot buildings you may have got six or eight
employees depending on
what's in there thank you I do not see any other questions
thank you thank you
I do have some cards of individuals wishing to speak yes
Cindy I've been
reading the ADP while you've been talking and I think what
they're talking
about is at the last paragraph of the ADP states the
approval of this
alternative development plan will require the applicant to
mean the same
number of approved parking spaces or fewer the same
landscape percentages and
the same canopy coverage so modifications to the approved
plans may
be made provided the landscape values do not decrease and
the number of parking
spaces and lot coverage do not increase so I think it
sounds like they're
because these sites were not part of this ADP that gives
them the opportunity
to increase landscape the lot coverage without actually
affecting the lot
that's included in the ADP that may be what they're talking
about it certainly
sounds like it thank you Cindy for that I do have a couple
individuals who wish
to speak the first one is Andy you Haas looks like he's
speaking in opposition
if you just save your name and your address for the record
and you'll have
four minutes to speak sure thank you for your time my name
is Andy you house one
zero one nine eight fireside lane 40 just wanted to clarify
one thing before
I start I did not buy this property as an investment I
bought this property
when my son was accepted to North Texas he lived there
while he was in university
and now my daughter has applied so this is not just an
investment property that
we're holding on to you can see that the house I'm sure you
've been by it
before I purchased it it was in very bad shape I put a lot
of money into that
house my neighbors unfortunately didn't do the same thing
they affect my
property value the quality of their tenants also affect my
tenants and that
seems to be an ongoing issue my biggest concerns with this
is privacy we put
this building right right adjacent to our property it abuts
it on two sides I
understand people for the most part will be during daylight
hours eight to five
that's not an issue but people looking in the backyards you
know affecting my
tenants there and my daughter who's going to be there soon
I thank the
developer for agreeing to the 30-foot one-story limitation
that does give me
some some confidence and the buffer zone that we talked
about that's in the
standard if they do move that road Pacific to adjacent to
our property line
what would that buffer look like you know would that be
sufficient to help
control the noise in the privacy of my tenants a lot of a
lot of my anxiety has
to do with my lack of confidence with the present owner you
can see he did not
maintain his property the tenants that he had in there were
not good tenants
there were not upstanding individuals of our society from
what went on stories my
son told me while he was living there people coming and
going all hours of the
night coming out to our property I don't need that with my
daughter there I think
that's I think that's about it just to summarize its
privacy talk with them I
understand you need to help the property I fully understand
that and I think it
would be better looking than what's there now but the
privacy then it's
ongoing construction Mr. Strange was talking about several
years of
construction that's a bit it's a big impact we can make
some you make some
requirements upon them I wouldn't see an issue with it but
again I don't have a
whole lot of confidence in the individual making that
agreement
we do have a couple questions customer back thank you vice-
chair thank you mr.
you all for coming out tonight speaking on this just to
answer your question
and Cindy or anybody in the city and correct me if I wrong
when they move
Pacific over next to your house that's it there's no buffer
that's that's the
street your house will be there there I don't think there'd
be any trees or
type is there any curb or sidewalk or anything it's that'd
be a good question
I know as we go forward we're trying to put sidewalks in as
we put new streets
in but I'm not sure that's gonna apply here with this as an
ADP so I couldn't
answer that for you tonight what I'm hearing from you
though and correct me
if I'm wrong you're satisfied with some of the things that
the developers doing
but overall you're opposed to this development is that
correct that's
correct okay all right thank you sir and I do have a
question but however I just
wanted to add Commissioner Beck noted if it was a redevelop
ment of a street
there would be the current requirements that could have
buffer trees or sidewalks
on a new street that's I'm sorry say it again then the new
entrance would not be a public street okay so it would just
be that like a
drive that's it there's nothing there's no landscape buffer
Cindy can clarify
okay right what we're moving here it won't be a street it
will be a driveway
okay and they will be required to put a type C buffer along
that driveway next
to this gentleman's property okay so it would have a type C
which is 15 foot
with trees and bushes that's right okay great thank you
Cindy so I stand
corrected mr. you guys let's go just a point of clarity and
again this is this
is a proposal in a suggestion of abandoning a public right
of way so
certainly that's not done and that's just an option in this
that that someone's
considering yes thank you for correcting that today I just
had one question for
you and actually another one popped up you mentioned that
there are some
benefits you see to the construction but I think you say
that you just wanted to
see the imposition or impose some requirements what
requirements do you
feel would be helpful that they haven't conceded to that
would would make you
feel more comfortable at the development I guess along that
along the decides
that it's about his property a privacy fence if they were
to put that up
especially during all this construction and it sounds like
years of construction
that would be an issue personally I would like to see that
road moved Pacific
moved to adjacent to my property so that I can put a
driveway in to get into the
back of my property that is helpful for me thank you there
's one more question
because there's a question here I think the years of
construction I think I
think might be confusion here years I think they're talking
about the years of
the other process in the process with they have to go
through with the ADP
change as well as the final plotting I don't think only the
construction will
take years I think it will take time so I don't think I'm
like years and the
applicant could definitely speak to that my understanding
from mr. strange is
they're gonna build one building and see how it slowly goes
then build another
one sure that's that's just common sense would you rather
have the current
existing dilapidated house and yard in tenants next to you
or would you rather
have a commercial property with commercial tenants that
come and go
between the hours eight and five I would like to see Denton
require these people
to maintain their property the way it should be maintained
for a hundred year
old house to allow that to look like that and have that
those type of not the
present tenants but the ones that he had before that that's
true so a perfect
world you'd like to see the residential tenants there now
but there was stricter
code enforcement to make those tenants yes leader and
concise I've had some
discussions with code enforcement how'd that go I don't
know very well I was not
impressed so with that in mind if you don't think code
enforcement's gonna do
anything what would you rather have I would like to see the
folks who are paid
to do their job do it okay it's fair enough I agree with
you I think folks
are paid the job should do their job but I think I just
want I want to
understand the reality of the situation we're in now so
thank you mr. Uos I
appreciate you welcome thank you thank you there's no other
questions no
other questions the next speaker is Wendy is it Rausch we
can we can I bump
you to the end we'll continue then Chris is not next just
one second we have
actually Kim McGibbon if you want to speak you to state
your name and your
address my name is Kim McKibbin it's 1306 West Hickory
Street I have several
concerns about this I was concerned about it when it first
came up and I
first saw it come across the thing I was concerned when the
signs weren't placed
properly I think that what you've got here is two separate
requests and for
expediency and whatever else reason they were they were
combined together I
disagree with miss Vessets analysis of the area in that
everything's already
there and it's all going to go commercial I know that they
would like
for it to go to commercial but it's going to be really
difficult to change
the graveyard park to a commercial investment on that
corner I do
appreciate the work that they've done there although I did
enjoy the houses
with the goats in it 34 years ago you know the bank looks
nice I agree with
that I am extremely concerned about giving up Pacific
Street any public
right-of-way at this particular point in time the
development of the city where
we are seeking out every square inch that we can get for
bicycle lanes and
sidewalks and those sorts of things to give up public right
-of-way anywhere in
the city concerns me I think that we're looking at multiple
things in small area
plans that the citizens want I do appreciate that they were
able to buy
this property with a sense of investment I am appalled that
they allowed the
property to deteriorate as landowners and the property
owners and it does you
know bring into question why would you just let it sit
there and rot why would
you allow that to happen in this neighborhood into these
people to these
neighborhoods I think that you guys have got a really
really tough choice on your
hands I understand that you've been tied up before I think
that there's a lot of
work and a lot more explanation that needs to happen on
this request that it
could be simplified it could be clarified you have parts of
it now where
if you want to move Pacific Street and surrender that I
think that you're
getting more and more into a big fat mess the more you wade
through it so you
know as a citizen who's involved in the future of Denton
and knowing what I don't
know exactly what is going to happen but this could be
could be handled
differently and more appropriately at this point in time so
I don't know if
that's for or against I would say in my if you want to ask
me right now am I
speaking for or against this particular thing as it stands
I would say I'm
standing against it okay that wasn't my question because I
was wondering what you
wrote in your cards that depends I just didn't know what
that's right we're going
and if in the planning and zoning meetings sometimes I don
't know if I'm
for or against until I hear the other people that that
contributing to it sure
so at this point Tom you can register my vote is against I
appreciate that thank
you I do not see any questions next will be Christopher and
I apologize in
advance club Bundy if you just state your name and address
for the record yes sir
my name is Christopher club Bundy my address is 418 maple
Street I live there
with my wife and my two twin eight month old girls and so I
have a more of like a
qualitative subjective input to give I've been a renter in
Denton for nine
years I've lived in several places that I would consider
affordable one was on
the corner of Hattie Street and McKinney that house has
been demolished I was
paying 775 a month two bedroom one bath that place has been
demolished and
actually office complexes were just built there I lived
over off of Robertson
Street across the street from Fred Moore High School for
about two years and then
after my wife and I got married we were lucky enough to
find this spot on maple
that we really like because we're able to have access to
surrounding food and
entertainment we take our babies in the stroller down Maple
Street at the at the
moment there's no sidewalks but the traffic is is
relatively light enough to
where that's not an issue we cruise down Maple Street and
take a left on
Pierce and we'll cruise down Highland the properties in
question are beautiful
and have tons of residential potential the property just
across the street from
us that I look into from our our front window our living
room window has a
giant pine tree and the whole the whole lot is just
absolutely majestic and I
can see a lot of potential there if the property were to
change ownership I am
speaking on behalf out of concern for neighboring
homeowners and tenants who
might experience an increase in rent due to a property tax
increase which
inevitably gets passed down to tenants like me and I also
just express concern
like I say about enjoyable and appropriate use of space I
think that
residential makes a lot of sense to me as of someone who's
young father
experiencing it firsthand and who who is really blessed to
be able to afford that
space so that's how I have to contribute thank you thank
you I do not see any
questions appreciate you speaking next will be Wendy Roush
if you could just
speak your full name and address them great my name is
Wendy Roush I live at
416 Maple Street sorry I'm short I did attend the meeting
feel like some of the
information they gave me was stretched but I'm limited in
time so I'm gonna
move through this I went door to door nobody knew the
meeting was going on or
said they saw the mailer they probably just threw it out or
something so no
one there was no neighborhood awareness of this meeting's
going on at all I
only had one day to do it from when the meeting was but I
talked about 30 people
small businesses and residents half of them really didn't
have an opinion
because they said they didn't have enough information at
that time the
other ten people I spoke with filled out the survey they
were a hundred percent
against it so I also found out some things that were pretty
upsetting about
the neighborhood I'm just gonna skip to the end so I make
sure I can say this
and then go back over some of my other points to her
question why didn't they
maintain the property as I was going around the
neighborhood the number one
complaint from the developer is as our neighborhood has
these torn up you know
these disrepair houses and it's full of convicted felons
but as I went to her
door I found all these felons and all the bad houses and
disrepair were owned
by one person John Kelso them they bought up these
residential properties
with intention to change the zone to put it DCG they packed
our neighborhood full
of felons and now they're going around telling us that our
neighborhood is
shitty and full of felons and we need them to save us by
tearing down the
houses that they caused the problem in so that was a little
upsetting that
there all these bad houses they're bringing up are their
own all these
felons are the people they ran into and now they're like we
got to get these
people out so I feel like that was manipulative but the
other thing is
there are people who've lived in those houses I spoke with
an old woman her
father built the house in 1945 and as far as the business
owners around there
go they're saying it's a tone deaf development it doesn't
really go this
if there's gonna be three colleges there and then it's part
of the square which
is entertainment and dining these office buildings aren't
going to offer any of
that to any of those people around there so it's kind of
just slightly
miscategorized and so they were all against it on that
trying to see them
but just really I feel that it is that I also realized that
a down Maple Street
up Myrtle and up Pierce on the other side most of those
houses have bought
been bought in large chunk by other developers that are
renting them as
residential now and once we flip this zone they're gonna
apply for their
change and it's gonna keep going so this will be an encro
achment on some
of these houses and that there are already people in play
buying up large
chunks so that they can apply after they get their zone
change so I feel like
that's a special part of the town a lot of the business
owners would like to see
people come back who went to UNT maintain those houses well
open up
businesses that serve the public who live here because when
people who live
in the area actually live there and own the property and
work in the businesses
there's more concern for the town as a whole as when people
in Houston or
outside people just buy it up for profit only and I'm sad
to say I feel like
that's the way Denton's going right now all the land has
been hoarding and bought
by investors and so I have said if they move the thing I
would be for it but
once I found out that they are the ones that packed the
neighborhood with felons
and let their houses fall to disrepair and then blamed it
on us I'm not for it
because I feel like that's a little underhanded but and
also everyone else's
points about traffic and everything is valid my time is up
thank you very much
I do not have any other cards but we do want to provide an
opportunity to anyone
who wants to speak and certainly do so with that we can
just continue on to any
sort of discussion amongst the commissioners and or a
motion Commissioner
Smith I think mrs. Rauch's points are valid and I really
appreciate you coming
out and doing that and more above all else I appreciate you
going door-to-door
especially especially especially if from the last time you
spoke you were afraid
of people who in your neighborhood for you to be brave
enough to go around and
do that with the with the sure hey I'm just I'm just comm
ending commending you
on your actions sure I appreciate I appreciate your
comments in it I'm gonna
make a motion for approval so we can try to get a vote on
this and here's my
reason why is not necessarily of an approval of the project
I think there's
been a lot of points made by the public that make this
really tough to try to
truly approve for in a true legal proceeding in a hung jury
situation when
there is in a court a criminal case there are six people
who are seeing as
guilty and six are seeing not as guilty a hung jury it's
declared as a mistrial
and Jerry don't kill me for trying to butchering any legal
comments here but
in a hung jury there's a mistrial is declared so that a new
jury can be
created to then come in and review the trial at that point
in time we as we've
talked about during work session but we as a commission are
we're hung last time
willing to see if we're gonna be hung this time or not if
we are hung then I
am I would like to have this go on because us as a
commissioner body do not
make make a break and approval of this we make a
recommendation to City Council
to then let them decide I would see it being prudent of us
as a commission to
pass this on with no supermajority type of procedures
attached to it to allow a
seven-person City Council to then decide with no
possibility for a tie to decide
what's gonna happen with this project I think that's pr
udent of us as a
commission and so therefore in that in mind I make my
motion to adopt an
approval with staff recommendations for conditions the
building height should not
exceed two stories or 30 feet in height as well as uses on
the parcel can be
restricted to office use only thank you for that motion
Commissioner Sanchez respond to the motion what I wanted to
do was speak on
the issue when I look at this city like Denton cities aren
't static they
constantly change and I think when we look at this area
right here if you look
at the two blocks that that though the one we're talking
about and the one east
which is where the what he called it where the apartments
have been built
that has all turned into commercial except there's two
houses except for the
corner lot that house has been torn down but everything
else within across the
street is commercial and when you look at the area we're
talking about again I
see us as planning for the future and I hear people talking
30 40 years ago we
had ducks walking around you know we're not living 30 40
years ago we're living
and we're trying to develop the city with future ideas this
whole area has
has really developed I've seen it in because I live in that
area but I mean I
guess I'm just saying is we have to look at what not just
say this is what it was
30 years ago but what's happening today you have Carol
Boulevard there you have
Eagle and then you've got Elm Street very heavy traffic a
lot of businesses
are going in that area so I would vote for it and that's
because I don't see I
don't see us going backwards I wanted to see the city go
forward and and like I
said the last time eventually every you know just because
we bought a house 30
years ago things change and and the community changes and
we have to be
acceptable to the fact that communities change and and
people are things are
changing in certain areas I that's all I want to say is the
cities are dynamic
and we have to look at that and plan for the future
Commissioner Beck thank you vice-chair I'm gonna oppose
this move mainly for
the reasons I stated and I'll say it again that this is an
encroachment on an
established neighborhood moving forward doesn't always mean
it has to be a
convert commercial development and I don't disagree that
office spaces
there's a demand for it doesn't have to be here down the
road this could be a
good development for this thing it could stop right there
we've done a lot of
people would like to believe that I think partially I do
too but we didn't
nobody knows the future for certain and what I want to send
a message here is
that we want to stop this potential encroachment before it
goes any further
because down the road again it can be used well we did this
year a little bit
more isn't gonna hurt and this is a fine old established
single-family
residential neighborhood I'd like to see the stay as it is
so for that reason
I'll be opposed in this motion and just for a point of
order before I call
Commissioner Sullivan I'm gonna go ahead and second the
motion and we can open
up for discussion Mr. Sullivan thank you I sure I like to
respectfully disagree
with Commissioner Sanchez change doesn't always have to
happen change doesn't
always have to go from one extreme to the other just
because the property is
there quote to be developed doesn't mean that it always has
to change from one
type of development to another type of development just in
the name of progress
I don't think that that's what we're here for you know is
this proposal in
keeping with the surrounding area I mean that's what we've
got to look at is does
this provide people around it comfort and knowing that they
're not going to be
slowly gobbled up by commercial buildings and I just you
know I think
that you know I just think that other things could be done
there could be
developed there mr. strange I know you've done a lot of
residential building and
and you know you've got expertise in that area I would like
to see something
we're to incorporate the old structures the old houses that
are there and and
somehow revitalize the area instead of changing it
completely from neighborhood
to business and so that's you know that's my concern that
we just
automatically defer to the developer rather than looking at
the greater good
so to speak and again this is no disparaging you know mr.
strange I've
known you a long time so it's not it's not you or it's just
this situation I
just don't I just feel like that at some point we've got to
say enough is enough
thank you mr. Ellis thank you vice-chair yeah you know I
can't get on board with
this either I appreciate the concessions of the overlay I
appreciate the
communications that you had with some of the neighbors and
I certainly appreciate
access bank and all that it does for the community I'm not
discounting that
however I can't get on board with the removal of five
residential homes that
are inhabited whether or not they're in disrepair perhaps
that's a code issue
that we need to be addressing we don't address a code issue
with a zoning
change in my opinion I understand the need for more parking
that's an issue
with many businesses but again I don't believe the way we
go forward here the
way a smart way is to grow is to displace people that's not
certainly what
I'm here to do if this was vacant land possibly I would
feel differently I'm
not sure but this encroachment gobbling up these five
houses whether or not two
of them are already zoned the way you are requesting this
encroachment will
collapse the rest of that neighborhood in very short order
and I just can't be
part of them so I'm gonna hop in here before I turn the mic
over to the
Commissioner Sanchez of first appreciate everyone coming
out twice now to be
vocal and to provide insight and context to what's
happening in that city block
and I've tried my best to take notes and understand all the
pros and cons and
kind of t-chart this out in terms of the development and so
with that here are my
thoughts I did second this I'm in support of it but but
here's my thoughts
is the city went back with the applicant and there's
neighborhood meetings and it
determined that five there's five general concerns about
the property so if
we go backwards if we're just look at them the lack of a
neighborhood meeting
with surrounding property owners the applicant did that the
use permitted
under DCG zoning district the applicant conceded to an
overlay that is more
restrictive than the dr1 that's currently there in terms of
height the
next one is the maximum height of 100 foot building was
concerned they addressed
that the proposed exit on Maple Street they try to think
creatively about what
to do with that and the first one listed was the loss of
affordable housing
shouldn't this request be permitted and that last one we
cannot protect with
this vote our vote in no way protects these five houses as
much as I understand
the position you want to protect them they could demolish
to as soon as the
least and legally they can and put up a office there or on
the other three
properties they could do duplexes home occupation they
could put a church lodge
club child care or adult daycare kindergarten or elementary
school they
can do that by right and so regardless of our vote tonight
in this first item
about loss of affordable housing I'm certainly not a prop
onent of getting
rid of hundred-year-old homes that are salvageable and we
can keep the history
alive but this this vote of not rezoning that is not a
protection of those five
homes so I just don't the the substantiation of that merit
is a little
bit lost on me in terms of us protecting that the other
things I heard was
traffic on Myrtle on the eastbound I haven't driven over
there but on the
eastbound there's a massive apartment complex that half of
the traffic is
displaced on Myrtle currently so maybe it's an issue with
engineering to look
at that street but I don't think the parking on the west
side from garden
offices is going to highly impact Myrtle more than the
apartment complex and
speaking of the apartment complex the three homes in
discussion that abut
Myrtle on the east side their front doors face a four-story
building right
now and so I don't know if we're protecting the
neighborhood good by
leaving three homes in the shadows of of dense residential
and so there's there's
a lot of things compounded in this decision and it's it's
not a fun
decision that I would I would say this is a joy like we
will have later tonight
and a vote but I think this is a necessary one it's one
that the
applicant has been working on for for ten years to try to
get to this point I
certainly understand the ADP requirement and the
conjunction of these two
properties is is what is required to allocate the parking
and so I think the
applicant has answered the call that the city has made and
the the citizens have
have put forth and done I think a stellar job of meeting
those things and
trying to provide concessions so with that again I second
that and then I'll
give it to you Commissioner Sanchez yes I just wanted to
mention that you know
we talked about affordable housing but how new housing is
being built here in
Denton all you just have to go to the north everywhere in
Denton you see new
housing being developed and as new housing gets developed
older
neighborhoods become more affordable and I think that's
what I believe in the
city being dynamic not everything is going to stay the same
so as the city
develops more housing is being created more affordable
housing is also being
created in other neighborhoods you know some neighborhoods
I used to live in
North Denton and and those areas 30 40 years ago those
houses were probably
prime people that own it own those homes you know we're of
had money today people
are buying those houses for four or five bedroom homes
because they were built
back in the 60s much cheaper and so what I'm saying is
things change and that's
what we have to look at long term Christian thank you vice
chair just a
couple of comments with regard to to your comments a no
vote on this does not
protect these homes as you said for forever but a yes vote
does most
definitely destroy them and that is what I am not willing
to do you know our city
the city doesn't just go forward with constant commercial
development
commercial development is obviously and utterly important
to our city's growth
but without citizens making it go doesn't work we have a
first and a second
I see no other request to speak so with that I will call
for a vote on the board
this is a motion to approve with the conditions set forth
from the city
the motion fails three three Commissioner Beck I move we
denied them
does the 1800 for me and do I have a second Christian Ellis
second
Commissioner Smith thank you vice chair can I ask the
applicant to come back to
the mic mr. strange please I just have a quick question for
you seeing as how
this happened last time and and and there was some ruffled
feathers when it
went to tie tie and it goes to tie tie and it looks like we
might have
ourselves another tie tie what is what do you as the
applicant plan to do if we
do become a three three tie again during this denial if we
if legal goes forward
and says just like the last time we'll have to wait and
have an inaction here
not necessarily a table but an inaction nothing can be can
be done on this there's
no motion on the floor what would what would you as
applicant do in the interim
well I don't think that's bad my priority seniors what I
think I'll do I
think your job is easy to approve it or deny it and I will
I'm a big I'm a big
guy been around a long time so I'll deal with what if your
decision is so if you
deny it I'll figure out a way but if we don't deny it if it
goes to a three three
tie again there's no way there's no action take his motion
was to deny of
course and if and if there's three commissioners who vote
yes to deny and
three commissioners who vote no to deny then there's not
going to be any motion
on this that's what it probably turns to a legal action and
then legal actions
gonna have we're gonna gonna say what they said last time
which is we don't
have a city code enforced and feel free to jump in here
whatever you want to
Jerry there is no there is no city code to enforce what
force there to be done
anything done until us as a commission are a hole to where
there's no longer a
tie available which we'll never get to because we have a
recusal in this case
well I see they're having a conference just wait a minute I
'm gonna ask city
it's a way in here for clarification okay just for clarity
what what has
happened is is that we had a motion to approve which which
was a three three
tie there is a motion on the floor which is a motion to
deny and if that motion
goes to a three three how the how the rules are written
today is that would
come back to this Commission when there is a full
Commission so it is somewhat
circular meaning that it would come back again and what
would happen is is again
because we have only six members that are going to be able
to vote on this
will be in the same position so the fact of the matter is
is that I think the the
options that exist is there's a motion on the floor if that
motion on the floor
does result in a tie then that's where it's at or another
motion to be made or
if the motion for denial passes then that would go before
City Council and
require a super majority vote for it to pass with Council
and I guess if I could
I'm sorry Mr. Strange my question is is that if last time
is indicative of what
might happen here in a minute we go to vote does the
applicant have any plans
in the interim if nothing is done and we're sitting here at
a time there's no
other motion that could be made tonight does the applicant
have any other plans
to do anything else to change their application to come
back before us
you know I think I think I can save us all a lot of heart
burn we burn up a lot
of time here we burn up a lot of people's energy I will
disagree with her
comment about nobody knowing about it the city had two mail
ings that went out
we sent out mailings on the meetings off of the city's list
so if nobody got three
letters I can't really help that I think to save the heart
burn why don't just
withdraw my motion I'll go home take a deep breath and
figure out what I'm gonna
do so appreciate your all's time we do have the right to
withdraw don't want
mr. Drake I'm sorry I asked to withdraw your application
yes yes I withdraw my
application and good night
so at this point city we do not need to take a vote if
there's been a withdrawal
well let me let me clarify what I just said moment the
application has been
brought forward you could certainly withdraw your
application that doesn't
necessarily mean that the city has to let go of the zoning
case as a result of
your withdrawal but the city could I mean the the the
Commission could go
ahead and decide not to proceed if that's what they chose
to do
motion on the floor is one to deny you could go ahead vote
on it we need a vote
before that we have Commissioner Smith so essentially what
you're saying legal
is that if it goes to a tie then the case is no longer no
one's bringing it
forward anymore after this tie the applicant could withdraw
their
application after this motion is right yeah it's a really
unusual case that if
the city wanted to continue on with zoning the the property
even if the
applicant doesn't want to that they theoretically they
could do that and I
think that's what mr. strange was asking I don't think that
that's likely to
happen okay I do have one more question mr. strange if if
we pass a denial if I
was to switch my vote you would go directly to City Council
and roll the
dice there is that of any interest to you to at least get
to council because
as it stands it's either we will and effectively withdraw
it for a period of
time or we can push you to council if you'd prefer that I'd
love your your
feedback on that I don't think that there would be much
future for me to go
to council for a supermajority okay I think I'd just be
right back where I am
here so I think I'll just whatever the next steps mr. Drake
are necessary to
withdraw either before or after the vote I don't want to
get stuck in a deal
where I can't move anywhere for one year so I guess I've
since this is confused
and I'm not a lawyer I would ask for your guidance if I do
was your do I have
to wait for a year before I come back well I think that
depends on what the
city decides to do I like I said I think that technically
the city could elect
proceed with the zoning case I don't see that happening
when we're got at a 3-3
impasse I'm not seeing a whole lot of desire for the city
to to take control
of this and to push for some kind of a decision on this at
the City Council I
think that effectively your withdrawal is going to withdraw
the case and it
will not stop you from reapplying okay yes Scott and Jerry
is it necessary to
vote on this or may the question be withdrawn or that
excuse me the motion
be withdrawn the motion could be withdrawn if that's the
desire of the
move at commissioner back would you like to proceed with
the motion or would you
like to withdraw the motion thank you just as a matter of
course you stay with
the motion and then if he still decides to withdraw it he
can at that time but
yeah I want to proceed with the motion okay we have a first
and second seeing
no discussion we'll call vote in the board this is a motion
to deny so a yes
is to deny a no is to reject the denial
that motion fails 3-3 at this time the Plans Oath of
Meeting Commission will take
no action on the item that will move us to agenda item 4b
which is ADP 18-0002
and Ron Magenta will present
thank you by share members of the Commission this request
is for property
located on Bonnie brain North Bar and Bray on property
approximately point four
seven one acres approximately 200 feet just south of Emory
Street the applicant
is requesting a an alternative development plan that is to
develop a
medical building unfortunately due to the site constraints
lot configuration as
well as easements the applicant is requesting to deviate
from four sections
of the development code those sections are listed here they
address buffer
requirements parking requirements landscaping and screening
requirements per
parking in front as well as tree tree requirements the
first deviation is
buffer requirements the code requires a type C for property
that is a non
residential use adjacent to a residential use and that
requirement is 10 trees and
43 shrubs the applicant is as part of their mitigation
award request is to
plant five trees that are acceptable under DME's acceptable
tree list the
second is parking in front per the development code parking
is not permitted
in the front rather it is only permitted in the rear or
side for certain
situations and in this case this falls under that situation
the applicant is
requesting to place one row parking an alternative or
mitigation to that is
planting eight three trees as well as a berm shrub and tall
grass along the front
as shown here on this exhibit screening standards as
relates to parking front
also the applicant is requesting an alternative requirement
is to propose
or to provide a 15-foot landscape area some large trees and
other requirements
the applicant is not able to meet all those requirements
they are proposing to
plant trees a shrub a berm and tall grasses as well to help
screen for the
parking your front and lastly the fourth deviation to the
code is the street
requirements the applicant is proposing to plant five trees
where DME has
allowed them to go ahead and propose those trees as long as
they meet the
trees that are acceptable by them this again is more or
less on the on the
fence but we want it included in the ADP just to make sure
that we have the
design correct with that staff did any criteria or analysis
of the criteria of
approval and is recommending approval based on those
criteria and I'll be
happy to stand for any questions the applicant is here as
well and would be
able to answer questions we do have one question
Commissioner Smith do you have a
chance to I did yes I looked at the the proposed proposed
development code there
is a provision that allows the director the ability to
prove an alternative
landscape plan which would address three of the four
parking is still going to be
required to be on the side or rear but other than that
everything else could be
addressed with if this development code that is being
proposed will pass there
is again that alternative landscape provision thank you
wrong I do not see
any other questions thank you the applicant is here mr. Lee
Allison do you
speak your name and your address for the record you will
have ten minutes to
speak from beginning there we go
good evening I'm Lee Allison with Allison engineering group
with me this
evening is Lance Hordorf our project manager Kent Key could
not be here at
the moment Ron has done an excellent job I'm certainly not
going to use ten
minutes I'd like to fill in a few gaps this slide helps
demonstrate the
restrictions that we're up against to the north and I'm
sorry to the top of
this page to the east there is a 15-foot alley as mr. Beck
noted in the session
it is more like a swale but it is legally a dedicated alley
does not carry
traffic it has wastewater in it and it has electric utility
electric
distribution line versus the electric transmission lines
that are in the front
the green at the top of the page is a 15-foot electric eas
ement is the green
at the bottom of page a little history as Bonnie Bray
electric system was put in
and the large transmission lines were put in at the time I
don't think there
was a realization that structures could not be built within
35 feet of the pole
line of transmissions or 17 and a half feet of the pole
line of distribution
lines so when you put a pole in an easement right next to
the easement line
you're taking part of that person's property as a result
the city went back
through there and purchased easements those green strips
primarily to help
preserve and make correct the taking of the property that
occurred by the
placement of poles along those lines in addition the
electric easement took up a
little bit of green space or that pink space the yellow
space is a common access
easement the colored space to the left is setbacks and the
crossed hatch strip
that almost goes completely across the middle that's the
area that's available
for constructing a building this was in set up by a plant
that was intended to
show the set the pattern for development from the south to
the north with the
easements already on it brought this plant just as an
example of that this
was actually a replant even though it says final plat you
can see one of the
lots is numbered one are symbolizing a replant replant
final plat for all
practical purposes is the same thing this is the site plan
that we developed
it has the building in the middle of that strip we have
some parking to the
right this site could not handle enough parking however
there is a shared
parking arrangement with the property owner to the south
the maximum use of
that property would be medical which would be one space for
200 square feet
that would require 25 spaces they have 39 that leaves I got
that right 17
leftover and we're gonna be using up to at least 15 left
over we're gonna use
up to to bring the dry ball through so we'll have 12 spaces
available to us
and we only need 10 to make up the parking on our space
additionally the
parking in front we're doing with pervious pavers to
enhance the landscape
characteristics of it if you look at our site let me see if
I can manage this
that's an existing residence it's on the northern part of
our site vacant land
in between that residents will go away body bray is really
not conducive to
have residences along it particularly with the drives that
back out we feel
like this is a reasonable and responsible transition it
wouldn't be
the better homes this is the alleyway that's between the
property behind us
and our site people have built homes have built fences on
either side but you
can see the alley coming through people have put a few
trees here and there and
then we've got Bonnie brave this can be widened in the
future an electric
substation we actually feel that our whole tight site in
its entirety is a
bit of a buffer between the backyards of the residential
areas and what's
happening the activity on Bonnie Bray Street itself these
are some pictures
that's the church that's the house to the north of the
church that is the
medical building immediately south of us they have a little
bit of a burn with
some landscaping a tree there we think what we're doing is
carrying forward
what has been done to the south but taking it up several
notches not just a
single notch the building residential side I'm not sure
that's the best
terminology I mean we're looking at a 4,000 4200 square
foot building that's a
big house it's 30 feet tall which could be equivalent to a
two-story house when
we say it's single-story we're not trying to imply the
height of the
building so much fact we think the height helps break a
buffer to the
substation and the tall transmission poles are in front but
rather the fact
that there's not going to be anybody on the second floor
there's not going to be
people up there that can look over the fences into the back
of the neighboring
property so we're going to avoid that we're trying to put
some architecture
front back and sides that meet the city requirements we
think the building
itself is an enhancement to the site as to other uses that
could be put there
regardless a deviation table I don't even though we list
the four things we're
getting a deviation from we're not trying to go tit-for-tat
we're not going
straight across and saying well to alleviate this we're
going to do these
things we're trying as the code says put up a quality site
so that site is a
combination of things including the plantings one of the
reasons we didn't
go with as many trees as we could in the back is we didn't
feel like they would
accomplish it that much with the architecture of the
building leaving
some tree spacing some room to get around the electric
lines we felt like
that provided an architectural pleasing vintage versus
trying to come in and just
pack the place with trees not be able to grow grass
underneath not doing shrubs
because there's already six foot privacy fence and those
wouldn't you wouldn't
see them from the back the people they're trying to buffer
we did act add
an extra tree in the front because that was an opportunity
felt like it would do
more and also because with the trees allowed in the
electric easement they're
smaller than normal so that helped alleviate part of that
condition as well
trying to go for a quality site overall to meet the intent
of the code this is
not the most extreme use allowed for that location
therefore we didn't we
think that it needed the most extreme extreme version of
buffers and
enhancements etc that could be there it's not like we're
coming in with a
large grocery store mechanical equipment we're coming in
with something a little
more residential in nature and appearance is compatible it
works a good
transition architecturally size wise scale wise appearance
wise between the
backyards of residences that have been established for
quite a while a 15-foot
alley a 15-foot easement with trees in it then a building
then going to parking in
the front we looked at putting parking in the back but a
parking lot with
parking spaces on both sides require 60 feet so that eats
way into our
development I'm not trying to read through the list but I
believe that we
have at least in for the most part met the city's desires
to have a quality
development as an alternative development plan and address
the intended
purposes and desires of the code in the context of the
neighborhood that we're
developing in I'll be like yes I got it here questions if
you have any I'll be
glad to try and answer we do have a couple commissioner
back thank you vice
chair thank you Lee for your great presentation as usual
very good
presentation couldn't help but notice you were kind of
moving slow coming down
those stairs tonight I just want to let you know I feel
your pain buddy so
signed me up for Camp gladiator within a week I had a
pulled muscle and I moved
to the top of the list most likely to be eaten by the lions
didn't notice I went over looked at the lot and I think
this this development's
gonna fit it right in the fact that you're doing a lot more
to buffer the
appearance of it and create that buffer for the parking
areas there was some
trees some very nice-looking trees they look like they were
on that very back
line back there but are they gonna have to come down they
were some nice
canopy trees they weren't some of our grace I believe I
thought they were
hickory trees I could be wrong but the fact that you're
sliding trees I thought
those things were right on the line could you put that
picture back up that
actually showed it from a sky view oh yeah yeah get on the
house there that
you're gonna take oh we were trying this one what happened
because the dumpster
regulations we couldn't be out in front so we had to push
it further back and I
think our dumpster got okay so it is gonna push against
where you're gonna
have to pull those trees down but still have to put trees
up okay all right just
thought I'd check on that thank you Commissioner Sullivan
thank you vice
chair when I initially saw this I thought to myself it's
kind of like the
people who go into a house buy a house take out all the
carpet all the wood
flooring redo the kitchen redo the living room do all the
study going why
did you buy the house if you're gonna be doing all these
changes and that's the
way I looked at this from the standpoint of well you didn't
want to do this code
you didn't want to do that code I'm thinking well maybe
this isn't the lot
for you you know kind of a thing but then when I heard the
history of it the
fact that zoning changed and that's why y'all have to have
back parking is to
the front parking like everybody else it made sense to me
and so and even your
explanation about because I think I made the comment about
why not the trees in
back if you know everybody else has trees but I understand
your point of
view so I think that looking at what you have to work with
and the fact that it
is sort of an oddball zoning situation that was changed
after the fact that it
looks like you've got a fairly good plan my only my biggest
concern is the the
parking to the south I mean what kind of an agreement y'all
have with those
people I mean at some point can they get mad and put a
fence up and say you can't
park over here anymore I have been told that there is a
written agreement and we
will need to provide that written agreement with our site
plan process to
confirm that but my understanding is a written agreement
and it travels with
the property and they whether there's a fence or not we can
always use that
common access easement that goes across the front of both
to get over there to
access those spaces okay thank you I did not see any other
questions thank you
very much thank you the vice chair will entertain any
motion or there is
opportunity to discuss coach Alice thank you vice chair I
move approval
Mr. Smith I second we have a first and a second seeing no
discussion call for a
vote on the board
vote passes 6-0 congratulations that will take us to our
public hearing first
item and only item is 5 a HL 18 - 0 0 1 I will open the
public hearing and Romans
already here thank you chair and members of the Commission
I have a request here
for a historic landmark designation of a house located at
607 East College Street
this is a map of the area this property is located just to
the east of Texas
women's University and these pictures really speak for
themselves you the
house as it is today is on the right hand side and as it
was acquired it was
on the left the owners have initiated this request and it
is fully rehabilitated
property and property and owner occupied and it does meet
the criteria several
the criteria for designation as you can see from these
photographs the owners
have put a lot of care into this property the restorative
restoration
work was done very very well for this home to be around for
a lot longer this
home was built prior to 1926 in the Prairie craftsman style
has been owned by
the Boyd family for 70 some odd years and we did a lot of
research trying to
pinpoint act who actually built it was either built by jh
and Mary Pearl Boyd or
by Henry Stevens there was a loan that was assumed by mr.
Boyd and with an
agreement that insurance be maintained on this site if if a
property was built
there so it happened around that time so as you can see
from these photos again
the east the west side of the house it's beautifully all
redone the addition that
you see in the very far back there was done in the in the
50s we believe and
the other alteration was at the front porch here as you see
it on the east on
the right hand side of your image that porch was extended
this is how appeared
when it was acquired so you can tell that has a lot greater
street presence
today this shows the level of work and care put in and the
siding was all me
all the siding except for the lower portion where the brick
is is original
and the windows are all original and they were all restored
as well it was an
extensive work on the porch and there's the rear elevation
here the interior was
also completely dead done redone and modernized this area
of town in the
1996 historic resource survey of Denton was mentioned as an
area that could be
considered for an historic district though there's a
mention that there is
some of the integrity of the neighborhood had been lost but
there are
still a few homes remaining in the area this is one of them
and that's one of
the reasons it qualifies for designation the other is that
the Boyd family was
very prominent in Houston and I'm sorry in Houston in Dent
on and there's a little
history you can in the newspaper back then we they write a
lot about a lot of
things including actually a bankruptcy of mr. Boyd here but
the main thing is
that they had two daughters who were who went off to
college and were
influential in the city one of them becoming a Dean I'll
show you in just a
bit the the other thing I just want to mention here this
house was thought to
have been built by judge Boyd who we landmarked a house on
North Bell near
Sherman very recently by judge Bill that the thought was
that he built this home
for his daughters but it was actually just completely
unrelated mr. Boyd this
is a home in Dallas that still exists that we know from the
news articles that
Eleanor Boyd lived in when she was in Dallas teaching on
the left here are a
couple of images to fraternal organizations that mr. Boyd
was active
in and on the right you see that Eleanor Boyd became a
member of George
Washington University's faculty and then later the Dean of
Women at Texas at West
Texas State College then a little later in September 55 we
see that mr. Boyd was
up in New York visiting a brother who was a reverend and
another brother in
Geneva New York as you see from the pictures the home meets
a number of
qualifications to be considered historic property the
really number 12 and 13 are
most clear here value as an aspect of community pride and a
building or
structure that due to its location has become a value to
the neighborhood
community or the city and we sent out notices to 200 feet
and 500 feet we
didn't receive any negatives back we did receive one
request of a neighbor who
wants to landmark their property so there's no opposition
to this designation
and we recommend that the planning and zoning Commission
recommend designation
to the City Council I'll take any questions
I don't see any questions it is a public hearing you can
come to the mic
but for those of my old roommate sisters house can you
state your name and your
address my name is Wendy Roush I live on 418 Maple Street I
feel like my old
roommate sister lived in this house did they perhaps rented
in the 90s and if it
is and it was it was built for someone nicer well-to-do man
's two daughters it
had beautiful work inside it and it was a lovely house and
that's like the
inside the windows were like is that the house I don't
think this house was ever
used as a rental property that might have been one because
this went from the Boyd family who had it for 70
years to the current owners who rehabilitated it but it was
in that 600
block of college it was further they'd build it for their
daughter so they'd
actually done a room so maybe it's another house near it
that was also
built very nicely so thanks for the comment Wendy just I
have to request
for you to fill out a card for the items that you've now
spoken if you could
jot that one thank thank you I do not see any questions for
Roman is there any
discussion where the vice chair will entertain a motion
Commissioner Ellis
thank you vice chair I will make a motion to approve and
thank you Roman
for a wonderful as always presentation Commissioner Smith I
'll make a second
only because of Wendy Roush's comments we do have a first
and a second I do not
see any requests for discussion Roman as always thanks for
the presentation of
these these are the easiest votes I feel on the Commission
besides one earlier
that one was the easiest this one's the second easiest of
the night but it is a
joy to approve this and we'll call for vote of the board
motion passes 6-0 that takes us to our planning zoning
Commission matrix and
you wouldn't have any I have one it seems as though it
would have been
extremely helpful just for the the purpose of understanding
a gen item 4a
this evening to have had access to the previous ADP it
seemed like we talked
for an hour only to find out that the ADP said that they
were capped at
parking so maybe if there is in the future pertinent
historical documents
relevant to the item that might be it would be helpful for
me to have have
access to that or a link to go get it so that's all I have
any other points of note for the matrix with that we will
close our public
hearing at 853