[INAUDIBLE]
Anything?
No?
OK.
Item four, our one item for individual consideration,
that has been withdrawn.
And we don't have a date certain on that.
So that will just have to come back
at some point in the future.
[INAUDIBLE]
The one?
The Carmel?
Mm-hmm.
OK.
I didn't see it.
All right.
Well, it just happened here at the meeting.
So that will take us to public hearings.
And I will call on Haley for a presentation on item A,
Z18-0010.
All right.
Good evening.
This is case Z18-10 for a people's funeral home.
So the request before you is to hold this public hearing
and make a recommendation to council regarding a zoning
change from neighborhood residential four districts
to downtown commercial neighborhood.
The site is a total of 0.64 acres.
As you can see here on the map, it's
located on the south side of Mulberry,
north side of Sycamore.
The property is comprised of four lots.
One of those, as you can see here on the eastern side,
is developed with the existing funeral home.
The other three lots are currently vacant.
The owner of the funeral home is seeking
to expand the building to enlarge their chapel space
and to add a parking lot.
The funeral home has been in operation
at this current location since 1974.
But the business itself, People's Funeral Home,
and what was previously known as Citizens' Undertaking,
has been operational in Denton since the 1930s.
A mortuary, which is how our code would classify a funeral
home, is not permitted within the NR4 district or any
of our residential districts.
This use at this location is not considered
a legal nonconforming or a special exception,
because it hasn't been permitted under the zoning
of this property in its entire history.
Prior to the NR4 designation in 2002,
it has been zoned SF7 or single family seven since 1969.
The downtown commercial neighborhood district
is the least intensive zoning district that
would permit a funeral home use.
Just looking at what's proposed for the site,
this is the concept plan as we've seen it now.
So they have just over 3,200 square feet
in the current building.
They're looking to add approximately 2,500 square feet
for the chapel.
Currently, they only have two on-site parking spaces, which
are these two shown here along Mulberry.
So they're looking to add a parking lot
for a total of 25 spaces.
And they are proposing appropriate landscape buffers
along the Western property line, the eastern side here,
and along the south side of the building.
So in looking at this, staff has two criteria for approval
generally for rezoning conformity
to the future land use plan and then the facilitation
of infrastructure.
When an application does not meet the future land use
designation, we are given additional criteria.
And those are all outlined and gone through in-depth
in your staff analysis.
So I'll just kind of breeze through some of the highlights
of that discussion.
The future land use designation for the property
is low-density residential, as you're all familiar with,
that typically permits between one and four units per acre.
Churches and places of worship are permitted
within the residential districts.
And a funeral home, if you look at the land use
and the functionality of it, is similar to those uses.
But the use is not directly permitted
under the current zoning.
DCN is not consistent with this future land use designation
.
It does permit a wide variety of commercial uses
as well as multifamily.
But I did want to point out our comprehensive plan
does call for the preservation of the character
of existing neighborhoods.
Given the longstanding history that was outlined
in your staff report, based on our research,
we felt that this funeral home is probably an integral part
of this neighborhood character.
It's been in operation for over 40 years.
And just from stories we've heard from,
not just the owner, but people who have frequented
the funeral home, it is an integral part
of that Solomon Hills neighborhood.
- Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair.
So Haley, at this location, it's been operational since '74
.
Is that correct? - Yes.
Yes, as best we could tell.
- Commissioner Sanchez.
- Okay, but you go back to 1930.
It calls for a funeral home,
and I also called it a funeral parlor.
What's the difference?
I always heard growing up, we either called it
a funeral home or a funeral parlor,
back in the '60s.
So what's the difference between a mortuary
and a funeral home and a funeral parlor?
- Really, they're all describing the same thing.
Mortuary is the technical term our code uses for that use.
- So it really goes back to 1930.
- Not at this location.
Citizens Undertaking is the same business entity,
and that operated back on Hickory Street, I believe,
was its original location.
And then through the Quaker Town and the history
of the relocation to this area
for the Solomon Hills neighborhood
is when the funeral home was relocated
kind of as part of that transition.
- I must've missed that, 'cause I thought it was all part
within that Solomon--
- No, the original funeral home was located
on Hickory Street, I believe.
So just kind of continuing with our thought process
on this case, DCN is not compatible
with the surrounding zoning.
As you can see here, it would kind of be
this isolated pocket within the subdivision.
Some of our concerns with DCN are that it does permit
a wide variety of uses.
Densities allowed at up to 72 units per acre,
and buildings can go up to 100 feet in height.
So DCN alone could be--
- Jesus is trying to help.
- So a straight rezoning to DCN could really be a catalyst
for a lot of change in this neighborhood.
It could start chipping away at the fabric
of the neighborhood.
So for that reason, we felt overlay restrictions
would probably be very appropriate here
to restrict the uses back to mortuary
and to limit that building height.
As I mentioned, it would kind of be
an isolated pocket of DCN.
However, in looking at how the site would develop
under the concept plan they've shown,
they do have adequate space on the site
to provide for buffers and landscaping screening
for the parking lot,
which would kind of protect the surrounding homes.
And the expansion would also be serving
the public good, if you will,
because currently there is only two spaces on site.
They hold services pretty frequently,
and my understanding is that people are parking
for blocks around when that occurs.
So this would take some of that traffic off the streets
and enhance the safety of the area.
Again, just the funeral homes history on the site
is over 40 years, so we didn't see how the continuation
of the use and even the expansion with the buffers
that they're proposing would really be injuries
to the neighborhood.
We also wanted to point out that this has been
a known facility.
We don't have a permitting history for it,
but it has been known and operational in the city
for over 40 years, and there have been no actions
that we could find in our records where the city
has ever made an effort to shut down the use,
even though it was not legally permitted at the site.
Also, when the citywide rezoning occurred in 2002,
the use was known.
It was not addressed at the time,
so we continued the nonconformity
and the illegal nonconformity with that.
Just looking at the other criteria for approval
I mentioned in terms of access and infrastructure,
there is adequate access to the site.
As you saw, their driveway would punch through
from Mulberry to Sycamore, and then water
and sewer services are already provided to the site
and would still be available.
Notices were sent regarding the case.
We received one written response in opposition
that was included in your backup, as well as one in favor.
And the applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting
on June 9th.
They had, I believe, eight to nine people
attend the meeting, and there was no opposition
expressed at that time.
So to conclude, just given the uniqueness of the request
and the history that we've outlined here,
staff found that the rezoning to DCN
could be appropriate with strict overlay conditions.
And those conditions that we've proposed
would be permitted uses within DCN
would be restricted to only mortuaries
to keep multifamily or anything else
that could be injurious to the neighborhood
from going in there, and then also limiting
the building height to one story,
which is compatible with what the applicants proposed
in that concept plan that you saw.
And I'd be happy to answer any other questions.
- Commissioner Back.
- Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Haley.
As I indicated to you earlier, I thought you did
an excellent job putting this thing together
as far as pointing out how the city can't drop the ball
in this year's back and how you've left us an open
go with this, but I am, and I was trying to find it here,
scramble in the last minute, and I don't mean to put
Jerry on the spot or legal or anything like that,
but I'm curious why, because this obviously was a screw-up
on the part of the city back in time for whatever reason,
we can only speculate, but why we couldn't go forward
with either a variance through ZBA
or consider this special use.
I mean, what was the legal problem there for--
- Use variances are illegal in Texas,
and so you cannot authorize a particular use
at the ZBA with a variance.
You can only vary things like if there's a maximum height
for a building or a side yard setback
or something of that nature, ZBA can look
at changing the standards that are applicable
to the given zoning and the given use,
but they cannot authorize a use that's not
specifically authorized by the existing zoning.
- And our hands are tied as far as doing
a one-time special use of this.
And the reason I bring it up here is I don't have
a problem with this, I'm planning on approving this thing.
It has been there a while, it's part of the culture over
there,
but I'm concerned about the future,
making sure we don't make another egregious oversight
like this, so I was gonna, as you know,
I was gonna suggest an added amendment,
which probably isn't gonna be germane
to the way things run, so that's fine.
But you did suggest something, and I'll go ahead
and make that in the public hearing,
but I am concerned that somehow we protect this
neighborhood
from future instances that would allow commercial
non-residential development to encroach
in this neighborhood, so.
- Right, clearly it's not an ideal situation
that we would ordinarily base a rezoning case on,
but there's some rather unusual facts in here
because the citywide rezoning should have picked this up.
And there are a lot of uses that got adjusted
because of the citywide rezoning in 1969 and then in 2002.
And those were both based upon comp plans
that didn't pick this up, but as reflected
in the staff report, there are a number of considerations
and policies that were voiced in the 1999 comprehensive
plan
that do support the idea of recognizing this use,
and in considering the zoning, the future land use
is only one component of our comprehensive plan.
There are numerous features of our comprehensive plan,
and among those are the policies that underlie
how we establish zoning and defend
the comprehensive plan itself.
- Okay, thank you.
Is either Clifton Maxfield or Johnny Brownfield
gonna be here?
- I believe they both plan to attend the meeting tonight.
- Okay, good, thank you.
- If you don't mind, would you go back to the site plan
that has the actual parking lot and all the landscaping?
All the buffering, is that a function of the zoning
or the parking lot requirements?
- Yeah, so the landscaping you see here along Mulberry
would be to screen the parking lot,
similarly here on Sycamore.
The buffers on the east and west sides
and here along the south would be to satisfy
the requirement for compatibility buffers
between a commercial and a residential zoning.
- Is there any way we can lessen some of that,
or is that something that's beyond our purview?
- With a rezoning, I'm not sure that that would be
applicable.
The buffer provisions are actually something in the code
that staff is allowed to approve alternatives to.
So this is what they've presented as their best attempt
to just outright meet the code requirements.
But during site plan, if they do run into some tight spots
on the site, that is something that staff could look at
and possibly approve alternatives to
without them having to come back for an ADP.
- Well, that's kind of where I'm going,
is I'm sure they designed this to meet the code.
And I didn't know if there was any discussion
just in looking at there's quite a bit of landscaping there
if they were given the option or if there was any
discussion
based on kind of what the area looks like
of still doing some landscape, but maybe not that much.
And so that was just the kind of a point to throw out
or question to ask.
- Yeah, so far I haven't heard an indication from them
that they're opposed to providing all of the landscaping
as is required, but I'm sure that's something
that we could be open to if they do have a need
to reduce landscaping in some areas.
- Okay, all right.
Anybody else on this item?
Okay, Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
Real quick, Haley, so they're keeping the existing building
and just adding the addition?
- That's correct.
Now I have the, yeah, so this would be what they're
proposing.
So this would be the existing structure here
with just a very consistent addition to the side
to make it look like it was all designed together.
Just some minor updates to the front of the building
here with the awnings and things like that
that you see on the bottom picture.
- Any other questions for Haley on this one?
Okay, we have the next one as well.
So nobody else has any questions?
Let's move on to item B, and Haley has that item as well.
(papers rustling)
- So this request is for a PD amendment
to adopt a detail plan for the clean and green car wash.
So you can see the property outlined here in yellow.
As I mentioned, the request is for a detail plan
for a site that's within plan development 176,
otherwise known as Wheeler Ridge,
to depict an auto laundry facility, our 91 code,
rather than calling it a car wash,
called it an auto laundry, so hence the odd term there.
The property is just over two acres,
and as you can see, it's located along this new expansion
of FM 2499, just north of Hickory Creek Road.
The future land use for this area
is low density residential, which as we just talked about,
is intended for that one to four units per acre
of single family development.
So while this request is not directly conformed to that,
I wanted to point out that the,
since the concept plan for this PD was adopted in the '90s,
this site has been designated for commercial development.
They anticipated FM 2499 going through,
it just, the site hasn't been right for development
until that road was fully extended.
So as I mentioned, the current zoning,
this site is part of PD 176.
You can see this area of town has numerous PDs,
many of which kind of overlap,
and got adopted and pulled in together.
The PD process does require both a concept plan
and a detail plan be approved.
The concept plan for this site was adopted in 1999.
And at the time, the site was designated for commercial
and any use permitted in the 1991 code
for commercial zoning was going to be permitted there.
So auto laundry was among that list.
Looking at what they've proposed for their detail plan,
they have about 4,400 square feet of building area,
which is outlined in yellow.
They do have one driveway,
which I believe they intend to share
with whatever may develop on the northern part
of the site in the future.
They're proposing six staff and customer parking spaces
and a total of 20 vacuums here on the south side
that would be developed immediately.
And then they have an area called out
for five future vacuum stalls to be added in the future.
What they've proposed for building materials
is a combination of fiber cement panels, glass,
and an architectural grade aluminum panel.
The PD permits a variety of materials,
glass, stones, stucco, tile, concrete, wood,
or any similar material.
And the total building height,
in case you were wondering here on the tower,
is just over, I believe it's right at 30 feet tall.
- Commissioner Beck.
- What is the maximum allowable height on that?
- It permitted up to 100 feet.
- Is it?
Okay, thank you.
- So just a look at the other sides of the building here.
It's a common theme all the way around.
The landscaping, according to the PD,
was to follow the, whatever landscaping ordinance
was in place at the time, which was the 1998 landscape code
.
So this resulted in, based on the lot area,
the need for 27 trees and 33 shrubs to be added,
which is what they've proposed here.
Overall landscaping for the site would be 39%.
The key feature of the landscaping I wanted to point out
is a buffer area on the south side.
So there are numerous existing tall trees in this area.
They're proposing to keep as many of those as possible.
They're providing a six foot masonry wall,
which is called for in the PD here
on just the north side of that landscaping.
So the trees will face the residences.
And then they are adding eight additional trees
to further enhance that buffer.
So as I mentioned, in the '91 code,
it was one of the criteria for approval of the detail plan
was that it comply with the concept plan.
So here we can see the concept plan for this adopted in
1999.
The subject property is the southern half
of this tract outlined in red,
which was called for commercial.
So this being a commercial development,
it is in conformance with the concept plan.
The other criteria for detail plan approval
was that the plan provided a compatible arrangement
of buildings and land uses that wouldn't adversely affect
adjoining neighborhood or properties outside
the boundaries of the plan.
So this development is in line with what would typically
be seen along primary arterial, such as 2499.
They are maintaining that existing tree line, as I
mentioned,
and then adding the required wall,
as well as some new trees to help screen and buffer
between this and the adjoining residences to the south.
On the west side of the property,
there is a approximately 175 feet of separation
created by those power line easements.
And then they're furthering the separation of the building
by locating their detention pond,
as well as some landscaping behind the building.
Staff did have concerns in looking at this
with regards to lighting and signage.
Lighting is loosely addressed in the PD regulations
and signage not at all.
So we felt that there may be some room for concern there
with how the lights and glare from the site
could affect surrounding properties.
Another other criteria-- - Commissioner Sanchez.
- In considering the neighborhood as far as lighting
or the neighbors, another consideration I think
that should be given is the safety of people in there,
not keep it so dark if it is approved,
that people don't feel safe going in there.
So it should be balanced. - Certainly.
- Not just the neighbors, but also the safety
of the people utilizing the--
- Yes, and with the criteria that we've proposed,
as you'll see, we're proposing that they comply
with current lighting standards for the site,
which does allow for adequate safety
within the property, it just restricts how bright
it can be on the edges of the property.
So yeah, the other criteria, adequate and safe circulation
of vehicular traffic, as you saw, they have just
that one drive aisle that would provide kind of a one-way
loop around and through the property.
Then they are restricting the access off of 2499
by having that shared driveway.
We did find that the plan was in substantial conformance
with the city's regulations and the PD regulations.
Notices were sent regarding this request.
A couple of those were included in your backup,
and then before the meeting, I placed a few more
that had been received at each of your seats.
So in total, we had five opposition responses
that accounted for 2% of the land area
within this 200-foot buffer.
Actually, one of the responses was from a property
that's even off the map here.
It was well outside of the 500-foot area,
but I believe the HOA shared the notice
with everyone in the neighborhood.
And then we received one response in favor,
which was from the current property owner.
- Commissioner Beck.
- Help me with my math here.
We've got five opposed, and they amount to 2% of the total,
and I've got one in favor, and they're 23%.
- That calculation, under the local government code,
is based on the land area that those responses represent
within that 200-foot buffer.
- Okay, thanks.
- So with that, staff is recommending approval
with the request because it met our criteria for approval.
However, we did find that there were a couple of conditions
that we thought would help make this more compatible.
The first being restricting exterior lighting
on the building so that it does not face
single-family residents as adjoining,
or if it does, that it be screened from view of those homes
.
And then also with that, a photometric plan
should be provided with the building permit application
to demonstrate compliance
with our current site lighting standards.
And the second condition would be,
due to the proximity of this location
and the number of residences around there,
that the project comply with the current code of ordinances
sign criteria, which does impose setbacks
from residences on the sign.
And along with that, we would also propose
limiting the signs so that no illuminated wall signs
directly face a single-family residence.
So on that 30-foot tall tower,
there is possibility for a sign on each face,
some of which would directly face into some homes.
With that, I'd be happy to answer any other questions.
- Commissioner Bec.
- Thank you, Chair.
So this is not like a zoning change request.
It's a PD, they can build by right,
as long as they meet the criteria in the design, right?
- Correct, yeah, any use permitted
within the 1991 commercial district
was permitted by right here.
- Maybe a quick question for Scott on this.
We're looking in the future as we rewrite
the development code where a zoning change request
would require, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong,
a neighborhood meeting on a zoning change request, right?
Sorry, Richard, I didn't mean to diminish you.
- No, that's correct.
One of the items that we're looking at
as part of the DDC update is having a neighborhood meeting
be mandatory as opposed to optional.
- Would that fall in with a PD, though?
- It would be for any zoning change.
So yes, 'cause with a PD.
- Okay, okay.
Once we said-- - For a new PD,
I think what we'd have to look at is
for these already established PDs
and whether or not the detailed plan like this
would need to go to a neighborhood meeting.
I think that one we have to flesh out a little bit,
but it's a good point.
- Okay, I guess what bothers me is the fact
that there's a 100-foot height on that.
In other areas, it may not be a problem,
but if somebody comes in in that other two acres there
and wants to build something along that line,
I can see torches burning now coming across there.
So that just seemed odd to me.
Thank you.
- Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
So back to the neighborhood meeting concept,
I know we didn't have one.
Was it suggested?
- Yes, it was suggested the applicant declined
to host that meeting.
- Somehow, I'm not surprised.
But just because I think a neighborhood meeting
invites a lot more comment.
I'm struggling with a couple of things here.
Meeting all the criteria, which it must do,
how did you come to determination that it satisfies,
well, it was criteria B in the staff analysis,
so that's the adversely affecting surrounding property?
Because to me, you've got how many vacuums
that are lined up behind an entire street
of residential property.
That's where the vacuums are.
Not where there aren't residential property,
but their entire line is the full line of single property.
So to me, that adversely affects.
That's my interpretation of adversely affecting.
So I'm trying to come to staff's brain there
where, 'cause you didn't mention noise
or anything like that with vacuum,
you mentioned light and what else did you mention?
- The signage was the other criteria.
We did, I had discussions with the applicant on this
and the location of the vacuums.
Their statement was that the,
and I don't know the average noise level of their vacuums,
but they stated it shouldn't be audible necessarily,
especially with all of the buffering that's provided there.
And we did feel that the existing tree line
is fairly substantial in talking to our urban forester
about the site.
And then with the addition of the wall and the other trees,
it seemed likely that it would provide
adequate buffering there from the noise.
But that would certainly be something within the parameters
of an additional criteria on this, I would think.
- Wait, are they gonna be there tonight?
- Yes, my understanding is the applicant will be here.
- Yeah, 'cause I don't know how high up the vacuums are.
Number one, I don't know of any silent vacuums ever.
But the wall's six feet.
But the mechanism, I think, is gonna sit above that,
where the tubes of the vacuum go in.
- That's possible, I'm not sure what the structure
of them would be, but many of them are oriented that way.
And I did wanna correct to your question of building height
.
My brain was back on the previous case.
The PD restricts it to three stories in height.
No direct number, but a three story building height.
- Good.
Commissioner Bec.
- Thank you, Chair.
Picking back in on Commissioner Ellis's concerns there,
is this a 24/7 operation?
- That I'm not sure of.
- Okay, 'cause I can see it being a nuisance factor
later in the evening, sure, during the day, not so much.
Now, they're gonna add a wall on the south end
of their property right, which is six foot in height.
- Yes, the wall would be located just on the north side
of this tree line here.
- Okay, to the west, isn't there an existing
masonry wall there already?
And so what is the height on that?
Seems there is.
- I'm not aware of any wall on their property.
I know there is an existing fence line
here on the south side.
- Okay, there's not a masonry wall now.
- I'm not aware of a wall on this side.
- It's on 2499.
- Right, that's what I'm talking about.
Not on their property, but that shields
that housing development sound 24/7.
- Yes, there's a sound wall along that way.
- Do we know how high that is, at eight foot?
- Probably close to eight foot.
- Just from driving by, I would say at least eight feet.
I'm not sure of the height.
- So that's better than a six foot wall
that would address Commissioner Ellis's concern on noise,
and mine too, really, to be honest.
- Okay, thanks.
- Haley, on the vacuum cleaner on most of these buildings
that I've seen, aren't those units in the building itself
when they just have tubes that come out
and the vacuum actually runs, and when you pull it out,
it's already running?
- That I'm not sure of.
I know, when I mentioned the sound to the applicant,
he just said that their vacuums are generally very quiet.
He didn't think it would be an issue for offsite.
But I'm sure he could speak more directly
to how those operate and where the actual vacuum itself
is located.
- Well, I've been to their location that they have on,
I guess it's 2181, over there next to O'Reilly's,
and the vacuum runs essentially all the time,
and you pull the little wand out, it's already going.
So it'd be interesting to hear if it's individual,
kind of old style vacuum stations that you turn on
right there at the car, or if it's actually the equipment's
in the building and it's just the wand,
just kind of like your regular extension
of a regular household vacuum cleaner, top deal.
But you might just point for us to clarify
when we get in there with the applicant.
- Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
Haley, do we know anything about, right now,
where Longleaf and High Point have that curb,
there isn't a cutout to 2499.
It looks like it could possibly,
I mean, the wall is there now, but do we have any knowledge
of if that's gonna open up?
- Oh, we're referring to this kind of vacant lot here.
- I mean, it looks like it's crying for an out to 2499.
- I don't know of any plans.
One of the responses, or a joining property owner
had asked about this same thing here at Countess,
and when I inquired with engineering,
they said they weren't aware of any other plans
punched through to 2499.
But I know this little gravel road has been there,
pretty far back, when you look at the aerial.
So I'm not sure what that originally
was intended to connect to,
but I don't know of any plans for a street extension.
- Okay.
- I'll call on Jerry Drake, legal.
- Thank you.
To the staff, I'm just wondering,
the residential component of PD 176,
is that still considered under the PD?
And if so, with the proposed rezoning
and the assignment of new zoning classifications,
is it proposed to remain as a PD,
or to be assigned a close residential classification?
- I believe we're maintaining all existing PDs as PDs
under the proposed zoning.
- Well, and the reason why I ask,
and this could possibly provide some more insight,
is I know that in the 2002 citywide rezoning,
most of the PDs, if they were completely approved,
were rezoned, in my neighborhood, for example,
was originally a PD, and was rezoned
to a standard single family rezoning.
The idea being to get rid of PDs
to the extent that we could in 2002,
they're being distrusted them on both sides.
And they were continued in the code as special exceptions.
And I guess the question kind of remains in my mind
is whether it might be an option
to even put in some kind of a standard zoning
rather than a PD, either under the existing
or future proposed zoning designations.
And I think that if it were proposed
to rezone all of the existing residences
to a standard residential zoning,
as they did back in 2002,
that might be one possible way of handling it as well.
- Yeah, I think the current plan is all the PDs
and overlays that we currently have
would be rezoned as PD with the citywide rezoning.
And just speak to this particular property here,
that was one of the options that the applicant considered
was zoning out of the PD to a straight zoning.
We recently had NRMU approved across the street here
with some overlay restrictions,
but they thought that they could operate
within the parameters that the PD had outlined
for commercial development.
So chose to stay with that option.
- I guess just a follow-up question from your presentation.
Essentially, they by right can put that in,
as is their only requirement is that they must comply
with the development code as far as the lighting
and the signage.
- Yeah, the two criteria that we would recommend.
And then like I mentioned to Commissioner Ellis,
if there's anything else that you'll feel
would help prevent nuisances at this location,
I think that would be within your authority
to assign other conditions
that you thought might be appropriate.
But these two have been discussed with the applicant
and they're generally in agreement
with conforming with current light
and sign standards at the property.
- So I would, it's not the same,
but it's similar to almost like platting per se.
By right they can do it,
and as long as they meet the criteria that's in place,
that's kind of where we are on this.
- That's sort of helping you get it.
- Yeah. - Okay.
- Well, they're certainly entitled to a commercial use.
There was nothing in the concept plan
that entitled a car wash per se,
or the details beyond that.
PDs, at least as the city has applied them historically,
have been a multi-step zoning process
with the first step being the approval of a concept plan.
And then as a detailed plan comes forward,
as long as it's consistent with the concept plan,
it should be approvable.
But again, the whole idea of a detailed plan
is to provide the details necessary
to show that it would satisfy the purposes
of the concept plan as originally approved.
- All right, well, just to follow up and clarify,
I think you stated in your presentation
that car washes were permitted as part of the PD.
So whether it was in the,
I mean, that was included in the concept plans.
Now we're at the detailed plan,
and that's my question, and really where we are,
is as long as they meet the requirements
that we have in the code,
as far as how they build their site,
with their buffering, with their lighting,
with their signage, they by right can go build that
where they have asked to build it
because it was an approved use
or an approved commercial purpose
as a car wash in that area.
And now they're actually trying to now put it in detail
and meet the code.
So that's where I'm trying to go is what sort of leeway
do we have to say we like it, don't like it,
we'll change it, do something different
of what has been essentially vested since the '90s.
- Yeah, in that sense, the use is one of the listed
permitted uses for commercial development.
With respect to the remainder of the site,
I think, Jerry, you can certainly correct me
if I'm speaking out of turn here,
but I would just imagine anything that you feel
is necessary to satisfy those criteria for approval
and that it is compatible with the surrounding properties
and not causing nuisances, it would be similar
to how an SUP you can provide for criteria
on things like lighting and noise
that would make it more compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood.
- Well, and again, I'm not sure,
going back to the section that I was referring to earlier
in sub-chapter one of the 35.15,
I'm not sure that it's quite as constraining
as was pointed out because what the code did
in the citywide rezoning was to approve
the existing PDs as special exceptions.
The point of the special exception was to ensure
that any current legal use that was legal
prior to the adoption of the 2002 DDC
would be allowed to continue after adoption of the 2002 DDC
.
It did not, it was not stated as preserving
expectations associated prior to the adoption
of the 2002 DDC.
It was stated as allowing the existing uses
to continue as legal uses.
There was nothing stated about what might be done
as far as any kind of expected future uses
from an approved concept plan that didn't carry forward.
I think it almost seems kind of implicit in here
that there might have been an expectation
that there would be rezoning to standard zoning
classifications at some point if they did not continue
as PDs as originally intended.
Does that make sense?
I'm sorry.
- It does, I was trying to think through all of it.
- Yeah.
- 'Cause I guess our thought process was with this,
conforming with that concept plan,
it is continuing as the PD was originally proposed
and intended.
- Okay, any other questions on this item?
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
I wanted to go back to I guess some of your comments
and how I'm struggling here.
So I understand what you're saying that it's a allowed use,
but what it says in here is that the detailed plan
shall be approved if all of the criteria are met.
And the problem is I think the criteria depends
on how you interpret it.
And that criteria that says the plan provides
for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses
that would not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods
or properties outside of the plan is where
that interpretation can be varying.
So I don't look at it like just a Plaid approval.
I mean, I guess that's what I wanted to say.
That I'm struggling with,
does this development not adversely affect the properties
that are around it?
- Okay, well let me clarify my comment.
The point I was trying to make in summarizing my thoughts
about what's been presented is that all the requirements
that we have as far as site requirements,
as far as buffering, the photometric study,
the signage on the building,
all of those development requirements have to be met
with the site and they are being met with the site.
So they aren't just, to try to clarify,
they aren't just building it and saying
we don't have to meet those things because we're vested.
They're saying the use was vested from the '90s.
We're putting in what was approved to go here on this area
and we are now meeting what the current
Denton Development Code requires for a commercial building
to be built on that site as far as setbacks,
buffering, screening, lighting, signage,
all of the requirements that we have that if
this wasn't even a PD, it was already zoned
and it was a site plan, if they met the site plan,
just like in the other project that we just talked about
as far as the parking lot and the screening,
they've met all of our requirements.
And that was the point that I was trying to make
from the standpoint of platting that when it comes before
us,
they meet all of our requirements and it conforms
to what is required for it to be platted.
We essentially, I hate to say the word,
have to approve it because they've met all the requirements
.
I was just liking that it's a similar type of process
is that they are meeting all the requirements
that we currently have in our DDC
in the detail plan to build the site.
And so that was the only thing that I was speaking to
is to how much room do we have when they meet
the requirements that we have in the DDC to say,
I don't like it, I don't want it next to neighborhood,
I wish they would do this or that
when they're actually being in compliance
with the development code.
And that was the only point that I was making
and asking the question of how much leeway do we have
to ask them to do additional things, locate vacuum,
whatever the question is when they're in compliance
with the DDC.
It was more of a clarification and statement
of what can we do if we're gonna start talking
about additional conditions
if they're meeting the development code.
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
Okay, then it may be I'm not interpreting this correctly,
then I don't feel like this is trying
to meet the development code,
I feel like this is trying to meet the PD requirements
that these are allowed uses,
now do we want this as part of the PD?
That's how I'm, that is how I read
the way this analysis was done.
So if that's my lack of interpretation,
then I guess I would love clarity on that.
- Mr. Richard, you look like you wanna say something
or you wanna take time then.
(laughing)
Or were you just thinking--
- I seem like I always answer it, kind of both.
(laughing)
I think part of the issue is while the PD
does describe certain requirements,
i.e. height is three stories, it is silent on others.
And so with those, we defer to the DDC,
if that makes any sense,
because there really were no standards
to go off of within that PD,
unless it's explicit and it says it shall defer to
the current regulations.
But then it goes back to what were the current regulations,
what was it zoned prior to the PD,
and then it gets into a whole mess
and a whole slew of other issues.
- Yeah, like landscaping, for example,
the PD explicitly says it shall follow the landscaping code
in effect at the time of the adoption of the PD,
which then we deferred back to the 1998 landscape code
rather than the current code.
And then things like the masonry wall
were specifically called for in the PD,
but lighting, it just had one general clause
saying it shouldn't shine onto other properties.
So we felt it was appropriate to specifically say
that we think it appropriate for them
to follow the current lighting standards,
as opposed to just that general statement in the PD.
And then signage wasn't addressed at all,
so that's where we drew from the current code of ordinances
to provide some guidelines for them to operate within.
- Commissioner Reynolds?
Any other questions on this item?
Okay, thank you, Hayden.
That will move us to our item C in public hearings.
Cindy Jackson.
(council member laughing)
- Thank you, Chair, commissioners.
This is a request to rezone a one acre site.
It's not actually rezoned,
it's to assign an initial zoning designation
to an area, a one acre land use site of land
that was actually annexed in 2010.
This site, as you can see,
is located on the north side of Miller Road,
east of Marsh Branch.
The current zoning is RD5X,
which is the holding zoning giving two properties
when they are initially annexed into the city.
And the proposed initial zoning is NR2, which you can see
here.
The site is actually a designated business innovation
on the future land use map.
The intent of the business innovation district
is to create large tracts of lands that are appropriate
for well-planned, larger scale office and employment parks,
our research and development type uses,
developed in a campus-like setting,
with accessory type uses,
which would support the businesses such as hotels,
retail, and restaurants.
The types and uses of scale and development permitted
in the NR2 district,
which are primarily large lot residential,
do not conform to the goals
of the business innovation designation.
The NR2 district permits large lot residential uses
and is inconsistent with the future land use element.
The RD5 district is designated to the property
after annexation and is also inconsistent
with the future land use element.
The site is part of a large lot single family neighborhood.
This was established in the late 70s.
The site was actually,
the subdivision was created by Meats and Bounds
from another plat,
I'm sorry, I just missed my place here,
from another plat,
the Brook side addition, Little Brook Estates.
It was subdivided by Meats and Bounds prior to annexation
in 1977 into 16 one acre lots.
Miller Road is actually an easement.
It is now considered prescribed right of way.
So when this site is plotted,
they will have to dedicate their portion of Miller Road.
The proposed NR2 zoning district is consistent
with the proposed and surrounding land uses.
The applicant is proposing a large lot,
one acre single family house.
This site is surrounded on Miller Road
with one acre large lot single family uses.
As well seeing, here you can see Miller Road,
and here you can see there are additional single family,
large lot single family here.
The site also has gas wells in proximity
to the north and south.
However, the site is between six and 800 feet away
from those gas wells and meets the required
reverse setback for gas wells.
The use is permitted in the NR2 district.
Are consistent with what is on the ground today.
As well as,
the site will take access from North Mosh Branch.
Mosh Branch right here is considered to be
a collector street north of Miller Road
and changes into a primary arterial south on the,
excuse me, north of Miller Road and south of Miller Road.
It is a collector, I'm sorry.
I just, and Miller Road itself on the east side
is a local street and on the west side of Mosh Branch
is a collector.
Water and sewer is available on the site,
excuse me, water is available on the site
as you can see here.
All of these properties were developed with septic systems
and this will also be developed with the septic system.
That's the one acre size for the site
as required for septic.
Notifications were sent out on July 6th.
We sent out 10 notifications via certified mail
within 200 feet and 15 notifications
within 500 feet of the site
and we have received no responses.
If you recall, this site was,
this request was first scheduled in May
to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the applicant requested withdrawal
to reconsider whether or not they wanted to follow through.
At that time we had somebody show up
who was in opposition to the site.
She did not send in a notice however.
I did call and talk to this person
and she's now in favor of the request.
She thought that they were rezoning for multifamily.
Staff recommends approval of this request
as the NR2 is consistent with the criteria for approval
in section 3533B3,
which is the criteria for when the site
is not consistent with the future land use designation
and the NR2 is compatible with the surrounding property
in terms of existing and permitted uses
and meets the requirement
for maintaining the character of the area.
That concludes my presentation.
- Commissioner Sanchez.
- Originally there was 16 lots developed
but we're only talking about the one lot.
- Exactly.
- So why would, I mean, what does that buy him?
The rest of them already put in,
I'm just trying to figure out,
why would you want just to rezone one lot out of the 16
when the other 16 have the designation RD5X?
- Because the others were actually developed
prior to being annexed into the city.
When this was annexed into the city,
it took on the requirement for the zoning designation
of RD5X as a holding zoning.
The whole area.
However, if you want to develop on the site,
you need to give it an initial zoning designation
because the RD5X is a holding zoning.
Technically the site has no zoning.
It's just a holding zoning.
- Right, right.
But I guess what I'm thinking is,
okay, the other people developed under the 5X.
- No, actually they developed.
- They just put in houses, 'cause there's houses.
- It was developed before it was annexed into the city.
There was no zoning.
So they were already there since the 70s,
some of them since the late 70s.
The site developed from the late 70s through today.
And just lot by lot they developed when it was in the
county.
- So what's their designation right now,
the rest of the lots?
- RD5X.
- Okay, so I guess I'm still going back to,
if you're gonna do it, develop the whole 16 lots
rather than just one lot, that's gonna be like an oddball
for the rest of them unless the rest of them come out.
- Well, not really because the other lots are developed.
- Right, right, right.
- So they don't need to come in and rezone
because they're already developed.
This is a site that will be included
in the city-wide rezoning.
And they will ultimately all have
the same zoning designation.
- Okay, okay.
- Commissioner Beck.
- Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Cindy, for your presentation.
Where is this, where's US 380 related?
North or south of this?
- University is to the south.
- How far away?
Half a mile, quarter mile?
- Well, I can see if I can pull up the map.
- 'Cause I'm kind of curious why we got,
if it's pretty good distance from 380,
we're talking about a better half mile.
I'm wondering for what it's worth,
I'm wondering why we got business innovation
going so deep into the area
off of the primary arterial
and actually into an area where we have established
residential neighborhoods.
- I think, Commissioner Beck, my recollection
on a lot of stuff out west of Denton,
the reason that a lot of it is not gonna be residential
is 'cause of the gas wells,
the setbacks that are required.
I think there was some discussion,
it's been a number of meetings ago
about looking at future land use out west of Denton,
about making some of it more commercial
because you're not gonna be able to meet
some of the setback requirements
and things on the residential.
- That makes sense, that's what I was saying.
(mumbles)
- Okay, here's University right here
and here's the site.
The site is right on the edge of the city limit.
This is our ETJ right here
and University right here.
- Well, considering now what Chairman Strangis said
about how unlikely it is
that we'd wanna build residential out there
around gas wells, yet here we are,
fixing to looking at approving this one.
- Well, the site is between six and 800 feet
away from the two gas wells.
- I understand that, but nonetheless,
there's still a lot of concern by other people
that just gas wells, even outside the allowed limits
pose a health and safety risk.
But the fact that we're looking at this
as a business innovative area,
I'm wondering why we're even considering this.
If we really wanna push for that,
and I don't have a problem with that,
pushing for a business innovative area,
it seems like we've got a set of rules here
that allows this to happen,
yet it's gonna create some conflict down the road.
- Well, the business, I don't think that
when the site was designated business innovation,
the intent was not to negate any
existing residential neighborhoods.
- No, not existing, but new development.
- And because of, well, see, all this he is doing
is trying to go into an existing residential neighborhood.
He's not creating a new one.
This has been here since the '70s, the late '70s.
- There's been a residence on that particular,
oh, okay, he just now wants to zone it in.
- That's right.
He just found this little place that he likes,
and it's his version of paradise,
and this is where he wants to settle down.
- Okay, all right, thank you.
- Yeah, just to add a little more background,
I think part of the issue is,
they were annexed into the city.
They came in to get a building permit to build their house,
and then learned that they had to replat,
or I shouldn't say replat,
but really plat the property for the first time.
But in order to plat the property,
they have to have the zoning in place.
And so that's where they are.
- If they were still out in the county,
they would have to plat,
but they wouldn't have to zone
because there's no zoning in the county.
However, they were annexed in 2010, so.
- So that's where I'm gonna have a question
on these little small parcels like this.
We've had over the years a number of these.
Is there some way administratively
to handle these little small odds and ends projects
versus we treat a one acre single lot
like we do a 500 lot subdivision?
You gotta zone it, plat it, the expense,
the time to go build a single family residence
on a small piece of property.
And it's just a question while we're doing updates with DDC
s
if there's a simple way to do that
or do the people have to go through the process.
- As far as I know,
there's no way to zone administratively.
- No, there's not.
The state law is very specific
and consistent with a state zoning enabling act
that is pretty much the law of the land
in just about all the states
that prescribes pretty much the same zoning process
that involves a two-stage process.
- If there were, believe me, we would have utilized it.
- Well then that prompts a follow-up question.
When the city annexes property
and assigns a zoning category,
is there a possibility for the city
to assign a zoning category
that's more appropriate to the existing land use?
- Well, the city doesn't assign a zoning category
upon annexation.
When property is annexed,
we are required by state law
to allow all existing legal uses of property
and not interfere with the continuation
of any legal use of property on any annexed land.
That doesn't mean that somebody will necessarily
have their dreams or expectations carried out
when it is initially zoned.
So we do have the process that's in place here.
I guess I'm a little bit unclear as to why it's NR2
instead of NR1 if it's a one-acre lot,
but there's no entitlement as such
to any particular use.
And we have, in some cases,
where there was a desired zone for an area,
worked to combine the zoning and the annexation
to where they're in rapid succession,
but those are kind of the exception rather than the rule.
- Sure, if I can just add to the conversation
on a future land use discussion.
We did, back in 2015, sign this area, business innovation,
and again, the idea, again,
more of these type of development in this part of the city,
trying to identify locations for future development,
really high level in understanding
that we do have gas wells in this location.
However, that being said,
we also have an established neighborhood,
and the next step after we do
a future land use designation update,
such as what we did in 2015,
is to start to look at the rezoning or zoning code update.
And that is where we are today,
and when we bring forward a code update,
we will be also looking at some rezonings
or city-wide rezonings.
This area right here,
I counted 12 of the 16 being developed.
To me, that's almost an established neighborhood.
So this may be under the zoning request today,
because they submitted an application,
they may be looking at developing sooner
than the update of the code.
However, when we, again, bring forward a code update
with the zoning map,
we will certainly look at this location
and zone it correctly, thinking that it is established.
Now, that's difficult to say for the other locations.
However, I think 12 out of 16
potentially 13 out of 16 is an established neighborhood.
- Okay, I'm gonna allow a question,
and I know we're getting short on time,
so Commissioner Back. - Quickly.
So if they're gonna develop those other areas,
they need to, what, have a primary plan in place
before the DDC changes?
- No, they don't.
- Just an application? - Just an application.
Right, right. - Okay.
So any future development, this site,
if the zoning is right, then they're fine.
They would just need, obviously, to come in and apply
whenever they're proposing to develop.
- Any other questions on this item?
Thank you, Ron.
Okay, thank you, Cindy.
Let's call a recess here at 6.08.
Let's get food, and then we'll pick back up with Dee,
and then get on back to our work session
with the project matrix.
- And welcome back to call us back in the session
at 6.15 for continuation of our work session.
We're in our public hearing section of item D.
We'll call on Julie White for presentation.
- Good afternoon.
I am presenting Z189, Mayhill Edwards.
The request before you is to hold a public hearing
and consider an initial zoning for a 15-acre track
to Regional Center Residential One, RCR One District.
The subject property is outlined here in yellow.
It is located on the north side of Edwards Road.
It's situated in the southeast part of town.
We're probably all familiar with it.
It's where Colorado and Mayhill and Edwards
all kind of converge.
So it's near that area.
So we'll look at the current zoning.
Right now it has a place holding zoning of RD5X.
I know we had a pretty extensive discussion
about that a few minutes ago,
and there's gonna be a lot of parallels to this.
So just a little bit of background on the property.
It is the 15-acre track that we're talking about today
is actually part of a larger parent tract.
It is part of a 19-acre property
where the western four acres of the tract
were annexed in the early '80s.
And during the 2002 citywide rezoning,
it received a zoning designation of RCR One.
The subject property was annexed in 2010
as part of the municipal annexation,
and it received that place holding designation
until it could be zoned.
At this point, the applicant is proposing
is coming to you for the initial zoning,
and they're proposing to extend that RCR One
that's currently on the property to this 15 acres.
So when we analyze a request,
our first analysis point is to look at the Comprehensive
Plan.
And this area has a designation
in the future land use of business innovation.
And as we talked about before,
this is intended for large-scale employment parks,
but also with supporting uses such as retail hotels
and residential for employees.
RCR district in this instance
fits this future land use designation
because it does permit, or for two reasons rather.
First, it permits those residential uses,
the some small-scale commercial and retail office uses
in order to compliment nearby employment centers.
However, it does permit these uses
at a kind of a lower scale and intensity
so that it would develop in a way
that would be sensitive to nearby neighborhoods.
So it's got those two parameters within RCR One district.
We'll take a look at the mobility.
There's a few mobility options in the area.
First of all, the property here in yellow
is located on Edwards, as I said,
and it has the entire 19-acre tract,
has approximately 1,000 linear feet
of frontage along Edwards Road, which is a collector.
But it's also near the DCTA rail trail,
and that's that purple.
It's within a quarter mile of that,
and also within half a mile of the Med Park Center.
So there's quite a bit of mobility options in the area.
And I wanna take a little deeper dive
in a nearby roadway, May Hill.
We're all aware that May Hill's under construction,
and it is close to this property,
so we just kinda wanted to go through that.
Now, I will caution you that this little leg of May Hill
near this property, the alignment is not fully designed.
So while we're talking about some conceptual issues here,
the final design may not look like this.
So let's go over the schematic really quickly.
I know we're running out of time.
So if you could see down here at the bottom
is Colorado, right here.
And then Edwards is right in this location.
So this is the current development.
Here's that DCTA, and if you've driven this,
you know that you can drive down Colorado,
and then you go over the railroad tracks,
and then you take a right to get on Edwards,
or you kinda curve and stay straight to go up South May
Hill.
The future plans, or what they're conceptually considering
to be the future plans, are May Hill's gonna stay
in the same location right here.
So it's gonna punch through across Colorado.
It will actually go over the railroad tracks in this area.
So this will be a bridge, and then it will tie in
to the May Hill construction on the north side.
Edwards Road, currently this connection here will go away.
And at grade crossing it, the railroad will go away
on Edwards Road.
Instead, Edwards Road, if you're traveling on it
from the east, it's gonna veer north
and tie into what is currently the South May Hill Road,
and it will then continue on.
Now here's where some phasing comes in.
First of all, phase one, this Edwards Road will come in,
and it will go north on the existing alignment,
and then it will tie in to the future May Hill
in this location, going both north and south.
That's phase one.
Phase two, and the ultimate conditions,
are you'll be going north on Edwards to here,
and then it will tie in at this location,
and you can go either south or north.
So that's generally what the mobility is gonna be doing
with May Hill in this location.
Any questions?
- We're south of the key.
- Yes sir, yes sir.
Yes sir, and one thing I failed to mention,
May Hill will either maybe track this direction,
or track in this direction.
They don't quite know which alignment
it will ultimately take.
As part of our review, we also looked at the compatibility,
not only of the zoning, but also of the surrounding uses.
So here's our subject property again in yellow,
I'm sorry, outlined in yellow.
We have the RCR one to the north,
as well as on the adjacent tract and on the same tract.
NRMU 12 is just to the east,
and that's developed with the multifamily use.
Further to the east, you have single family neighborhoods,
and they have a mixture of zoning districts,
RD5X, NR6, as well as planned development.
To the west is a little bit of a different story,
you've got some employment uses.
You have a lot of development on the highway
that has medical, you've got the hospital there,
you've got a lot of doctor's offices.
You also have flowers, food, a bakery,
just on the south side of Edwards.
So you've got a lot of employment uses in this area,
and in transitioning to residential.
Our property's kind of in the middle of that.
And so the property we're considering tonight.
So in that respect, RCR one would permit some uses
that can be in transition,
and we'll talk about that in just a minute.
So our analysis points included RCR one is consistent
with that existing zoning pattern that we just talked about
.
It really is an extension of that RCR one
to the north and to the west.
So it's consistent with the existing zoning pattern
on the same parcel, as well as the extension
of that existing zoning pattern.
If approved, RCR one would consolidate the zoning
on the property so that development could go forward
under a uniform set of regulations, including use and scale
.
As we talked about on that map,
this kind of is a transition area
between those large-scale, high-intensity employment
centers
to the west and then those residential neighborhoods.
And RCR one fits in this area
because it does permit some higher-density housing
with an SUP, but also limited office service,
retail and commercial uses,
things that would support those employment centers,
but would also be more compatible in use
with the residential areas.
RCR one also has a development scale, building envelope,
lot coverage, building height that is similar to,
or actually more restrictive than the surrounding zoning.
If approved, if the zoning's approved,
development must comply with all development regulations,
including any tree preservation, ESA,
buffer screening, lighting.
A water service is available along Edwards.
There is sewer in the area.
They may have to do some extension when they develop.
Public notification was sent out.
We haven't received any responses.
And so based upon the criteria for approval
in the Denton Development Code,
as well as the conformance with the Denton Plan 2030
and the compatibility of the surrounding property,
staff does recommend approval of the request,
and I'll stand for any questions.
Commissioner Becker.
- I'll make it quick.
Probably Amy, this is Richard,
'cause I was quizzing Julia a while ago,
and she was perplexed about,
we've got that trailer park sitting in there,
just north of there,
and is that considered manufactured housing,
or is that the old pre-1976 trailer park classification?
Well, again, because I'm on this DDC rewrite,
we're looking at non-conforming conditions.
- It wouldn't fall under the new definition of,
it wouldn't, it's really a non-conforming
manufactured home park.
I think part of the issue is--
- HUD approved?
- It's prior to, I think those are the older homes.
- Okay, so once it's gone, it's gone.
- It's gone.
- I don't know whether to get you to go forward or backward
,
but I thought I saw where you had RCR,
okay, right there, RCR 1, manufactured housing.
- Yes, that is just a,
manufactured housing is what it's developed with,
just to let you know what the surrounding uses are.
So it's not saying that that's an approved--
- That's not allowed, RCR 1 is allowed?
- Right, it's just that's what it's developed with.
- Okay, all right, good enough.
- Any other questions for Julie on this item?
All right, thanks.
- Thank you, Julie.
That'll take us to our final item on our work session,
which is gonna be our matrix.
- I'll be brief, what I attempted to do here
is really pull off all of the items
that have been lingering, I think some of them since 2016,
where we talked about scheduling work session items
for further discussion.
And so what I did here is really just assign those dates
sort of moving forward.
I did fail to include the discussion on zoning changes
for single family residential.
I guess this RD5X one tonight,
I think that the Little Brook Estates
is probably a good example of that.
I will include as part of the September 12th,
so I'll add that.
I do have two dates for the tree code.
The first one is really to give an update,
we're going back to the Committee on the Environment,
August 6th, and then I think we'll be going
to City Council shortly thereafter.
And so that was really just to provide an update
as far as where we are on things
and where things are progressing,
and then sort of bringing it back a few weeks later
once we start revising based on input.
Another item I wanted to include,
we will be losing our chair.
We'll be having a new chair,
so that will be on most likely on next meeting's agenda.
There was a new appointee, I got word last night.
And so kind of going back to the matrix,
wanting to start the meetings early,
so I wanted to make sure if we started at four o'clock,
maybe 4.30 depending on the topic,
just wanted to make sure that was okay with everybody.
- The next B and Z?
- Yeah, moving forward with all of these items, correct.
One, making sure we had enough time
for the agenda items as well as discussion,
but also for next week to have a little reception for Jim.
- Absolutely. - Have a cupcake,
that's tradition. (laughing)
- When's your official cutoff date?
- Today. - What, seriously?
- Seriously.
- I thought not August or September, huh?
- I think next meeting I'll have a replacement.
So we'll get to have cake and say thank yous and goodbyes
and business continues.
- Happily, he says.
- For everybody. - Gonna miss your expertise.
Gonna miss your expertise.
- Thank you.
- The only other item I wanted to add,
given that we have four tonight,
and we had the issue previously on the tie vote
and sort of what that does,
Scott, maybe Scott can give a,
I know he had provided some guidance on this matter.
I think it was also brought up at the city council level.
So I'll let Scott answer or update.
(laughing)
- Ultimately, we know how the tie vote resulted
and what we're gonna do is look at changing.
We've got a couple of different avenues that we're pursuing
.
One is changing the development code.
One is changing the municipal code.
Well, there are three options really,
or whether council opts to eliminate the tie vote provision
.
The bottom line is council has a desire
to correct that deficiency
because based on the learning example that we had,
that it would just end up in a circular fashion
that could never be resolved
because we couldn't ultimately have a full board
or full commission.
So with that being said,
we'll most likely be bringing something back
through the commission to amend the development code
and or we will take it directly to council,
which they will be amending the council rules of procedure,
which address this particular commission.
So going forward, just certainly,
we're gonna make the change necessary
so that this commission does not find itself
in a precarious position that it can't ultimately act.
The bottom line that is,
is that a tie vote will result in a denial.
And then again, we're trying to address the denial
in such a fashion that it may not require
a super majority at council.
So that way council can hear it as a denial
just by the mere fact that it was a tie vote
and then they can vote and it would be a simple majority.
So it'll be up to council really to determine
whether it's a simple majority
or require a three quarter majority, super majority.
Jerry, to capture that accurately or close enough.
- I'm not sure that that's going to work under the statute,
but we can sure take a look at it.
I think a denial is going to create a super majority.
- Yeah, and that's what council has to ultimately decide
as to which route they're gonna pursue.
- No, I think the statute says
that the denial proves super majority.
But we can sure look into that.
- Yeah, that's Aaron, thank you.
- Anything else on matrix and law session?
Okay.
Great, well at 6.32, we're gonna close our work session
and reconvene as quickly as we can.
- Good evening everyone and welcome to the
city of Denton planning and zoning commission meeting
for July 25th, 2018.
This meeting has been duly posted
and we do have a quorum present
and I will call us to order at 6.45.
Our first order of business will be to stand
and give the pledge to the US and the Texas flag.
(audience applauding)
- I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
- I honor the Texas flag.
- I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas,
one nation, under God, one indivisible.
- The next item on our agenda will be
consider approval of the planning and zoning commission
minutes for July the 11th.
Commissioner Beck.
- Thank you, I move we approve the minutes.
- Okay, Commissioner Ellis.
- Second.
- Okay, we have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion's gonna carry four to zero.
That will take us to our consent agenda.
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair, I move approval of consent agenda.
Commissioner Beck.
- Second.
- Okay, we have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
I'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion's gonna carry four to zero.
That moves us to our item four on our agenda,
which is individual consideration items.
This particular item has been withdrawn
and it will have to come back at a future date
and it is not a date certain.
That will move us to our public hearings section
this evening and at this time I'm gonna open
the public hearing for Z18-0010
and I will call on Haley for presentation.
- Good evening, this is case Z18-10
for the People's Funeral Home.
The request before you is to hold a public hearing
and consider making a recommendation to the city council
regarding a request for a zoning change
from neighborhood residential four district
to downtown commercial neighborhood district.
The subject property is outlined in black on the maps there
so you can see the current zoning on the top
and the proposed zoning on the bottom.
The total site is a 0.64 acres
and as you can see it's situated in between Mulberry
and Sycamore streets.
The property is comprised of four lots.
You see the eastern most lot on the map is developed
with the existing people's funeral home.
The other three lots are vacant at this time.
The owner is seeking to expand the existing building
to enlarge their chapel space
and as well as to add a parking lot.
The funeral home has been in operation at this location
since at least 1974.
However, the business itself, People's Funeral Home
was previously citizens undertaking
and the use has been in multiple locations.
I believe it started on Hickory Street back in the 1930s
from what we could find.
The funeral home use is classified as a mortuary
in the Denton Development Code
and mortuaries are not permitted in NR4
or in any of our residential zoning districts.
The use is not considered to be legally nonconforming
or a special exception in this case
because the use has never been permitted
under the zoning for this property.
Prior to the 2002 rezoning to NR4,
the property had been designated SF7 since 1969.
DCN is the least intensive zoning district
that would permit the use on this property.
So to give you a few more details about what is proposed,
they currently have just over 3,200 square feet of building
on that one lot.
They're proposing to add about 2,500 square feet,
as I said, primarily to add more chapel space
to the building.
There's currently only two on-site parking spaces
located along Mulberry.
So they're proposing to add parking here
on the two Western lots for a total of 25 spaces.
And they are also proposing landscaping buffers
on the Western, Eastern and Southern portions
of the property to buffer between this commercial use
and the surrounding single-family properties.
Staff looked at multiple criteria for approval
with this request.
Our two basic criteria are conformity
to the future land use element of our Denton plan
as well as the facilitation of infrastructure provision.
When a request does not conform to the future land use map,
the code gives us several other criteria to look at
that you can see outlined here,
described in full detail in your agenda backup.
So I'll just kind of breeze through some of these.
The first criteria, as I mentioned,
being the future land use element of the Denton plan,
this property as well as the surrounding area
is designated for low density residential.
That designation typically applies to areas
with development between one and four dwelling units
per acre.
Other uses that are permitted
in low density residential areas are churches
and places of worship.
Wanted to point out that functionally,
a funeral home is very similar to a church
or a place of worship in terms of how much traffic
visits the site and the frequency of it.
So DCN is not consistent
with this future land use designation
because it does allow in addition to the funeral home,
many other commercial uses as well as multifamily.
Another element of the comprehensive plan
that I thought was important for this case is
that one of its criteria is the preservation
of the character of existing neighborhoods.
Due to the longevity of this use and its history,
it seems very reasonable to assume that this funeral home
is an integral part of the character
of the Solomon Hills neighborhood.
So as I mentioned, the request to DCN district
is not compatible with the future land use.
It's also not directly compatible
with the surrounding zoning of NR4.
DCN would permit, as I mentioned, commercial uses
as well as multifamily at up to a density
of 72 units per acre.
It also permits a building height of 100 feet.
Combined, everything permitted in DCN could be a catalyst
for change in this neighborhood
where other properties around it
could also apply for rezonings.
So to allow some protection on that,
staff looked at this as a situation
where an overlay would be very applicable
'cause it would allow us to restrict the uses
as well as the scale of development
to make this more compatible
with the surrounding zoning and neighborhood.
The rezoning would create kind of an isolated pocket of DCN
.
However, it wanted to point out
that based on the concept plan they provided,
they are still able to provide all of the required elements
for buffering and screening this use
that would be required by the code.
So that will help make this more compatible
with the surrounding area.
The expansion would also be kind of serving
the public good of the neighborhood, if you will,
because it would take a lot of the parking
that's currently provided on street onto the property
itself,
which would make the neighborhood more safe
for emergency services to access the site if they needed to
.
Just a little more background, as I mentioned,
the funeral home has been there for 40 years.
We looked through all of our files
and found no complaints about the property,
no instances where CIS had to go out there
for anything beyond parking
on one of the unimproved lots next door.
So we found that the continuation of this use
would be very unlikely to cause any injury
to the surrounding neighborhood
since it's been there for so long without ill effect.
Also wanted to point out the fact that the city and staff
have known about this use.
It's been there since '74, as I said,
we have had a couple of cases of parking
on the adjoining properties where CIS has gone out,
but the city's taken no enforcement actions
to try to shut down this use,
despite it not being legal on the property.
It's also worth noting that with the 2002 rezoning,
as well as our two comprehensive plans in '99
and then in 2015, again, the use was known
and the city did not make the use legal at that time
with the zoning district that could have been applied,
or even through addressing that
in the comprehensive plan somehow.
And looking at our other main criteria,
which was the provision of access and infrastructure,
there's ample access to the site already,
as you saw with their site plan,
they're proposing a drive that would connect the site
from Mulberry to Sycamore to allow through traffic,
and water and service utilities
are currently serving the site,
and of course would be available for the expansion.
Public notices were sent regarding the request.
Before this meeting, I received one in opposition,
which is shown in red on the map,
and then one in favor, which that person happened
to own two properties adjoining the site.
You see those outlined in green on the map.
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 9th.
There were eight to nine people at that meeting,
and at the time, no opposition or concerns were voiced.
So given the uniqueness of this request,
staff has found that the DCN zoning could be appropriate
and compatible with the site
if overlay restrictions are applied.
We propose that those restrictions would be
to limit the permitted uses within the DCN district
to only the mortuary use that is desired for the property,
and to limit the building height to one story,
rather than the 100 feet that would be permitted by ride.
And I'd be happy to stand for any questions.
- No questions?
Okay, you did a good job on the work session.
- Thank you.
- And the applicant is here as well,
if there are any questions.
- This is a public hearing,
so I'll call on the applicant at this time.
(coughing)
- If you'll give us your name and address,
we'd appreciate it.
- My name is Johnny Brumfield,
and I'm a member of local church,
Flesk Grove Baptist Church,
which is kind of a category for the funeral home.
And as the owner's representative,
we have a expansion that has been expressed,
and a couple of good things it's gonna do
for the neighborhood,
it's gonna also help the funeral home to meet its needs,
its current needs,
because there is no available parking,
as you see, only two parking spaces.
So we're gonna drastically improve that.
And we also want to add some beautification,
so we're gonna be doing some buffering
that's going to help to also beautify the area.
So I thank you all that this is gonna meet
the current needs of the funeral home,
and it's also going to help alleviate the parking problem
on those streets.
- Okay, see if I have any questions.
- Are there any questions?
- Commissioner Backer.
- Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Brumfield, for your presentation.
Just wanna bring something up that came up in the work
session
regarding landscaping and everything.
I believe this is required for when you've got
a different development,
butting up against residential.
Are you okay with the amount of landscaping
that this requires?
- We definitely are okay with that,
but we wanted to leave that as an option,
just so we could kinda have some flexibility there.
- Sure, sure.
Okay, thank you.
- Any other questions for the applicant?
Okay, thank you, sir.
- Thank you.
- Have a whole bunch of cards,
and I think we ran out of cards,
so I don't know exactly who would like to speak
and who just wanted to,
some of them are marked, no speaking.
Do not wish to speak.
Let me read through the cards,
and I'm just gonna kinda go through these,
and let me get through the cards that I have
that don't wish to speak,
and then we'll get to the cards in here
that do request to speak.
I think it says Lori,
and it looks like Mingo Road 2601, I think.
No speaking in support.
Cynthia Cochran, you do wanna speak?
Okay, if you'll let me come on the bottom.
Then I've got Mabel,
I can't make out the name, 111 South Crawford.
Dura Vette, 111 South Crawford,
in support, does not wish to speak.
Okay.
Got Ethe McQueen, 1418 Noble Street,
in support, not wishing to speak.
Does wish to speak.
Okay, will not speak.
And I've got Gene Robertson, 2308 Mercedes Road,
in support, does not wish to speak.
I have Roland Lucas, 206 South Wood Street,
in support, not wishing to speak.
Does wish to speak, does wish to speak.
Then I have Curtis Himes, 1213 Haggard,
in support, does not wish to speak.
I have Doris Parks, 3500 East McKinney Street,
in support, does not wish to speak.
And I have Reginald Logan, 705 Park Lane.
He is in support as well, and it says,
"Do not wish to speak," on the card,
but it does have a note, "Speak, please."
So if you do want to speak, I'll put you, okay,
let me put you to the back here with these.
And I have Ivy Four, 5409 Galant Lane,
does not wish to speak, in support, correct?
Okay.
Do wish to speak.
And I think I already called on Ms. Cochran,
who said she did want to speak.
Do you want to speak, okay?
Let me call on you first.
Ms. Cynthia Cochran, 2420 McKinney.
Please, for the record, if you'll give us your name
and address when you get to the microphone.
(speaking faintly)
And I was born and raised in Denton, Texas.
I just want to say, on behalf of Southeast Denton,
we have really appreciated what Mr. Maxfield,
Mr. Clifton has done as for us having
a greater, better funeral home,
and we have never had anything that looks so beautiful
and gorgeous in our Southeast Denton town.
And it also lifts up, it's no bother to none of us,
we don't get to smell nothing coming out.
It's so beautiful, neatly and everything.
So I just want to say, on behalf of Southeast Denton,
we are so excited if we can have the people home expansion
to give us a lot of space, you know,
parking spaces and everything,
because we find a way to park,
but we parking like in people's yard.
So with this expansion and with the beautiful work
that he has done and has brought to our city,
and it's just gorgeous, and we are so proud
that we can have something nice and beautiful
in our town or either in Southeast Denton.
And I also would like to say,
we really want to thank Mr. Clifton
for what all he has done for us.
And I just hope that we get this done
and y'all can approve it for us
because we want to look pretty like everyone else.
And we are really looking pretty.
We really looking pretty in Southeast Denton.
So I want to thank each and every one of you all.
And we hope we can get what we came for tonight.
God bless each and every one of y'all
and thank our people for being here.
Thank you.
- Thank you for coming out to speak tonight.
Kim McKibbin, 1306 West Hickory,
does wish to speak and in opposition.
- My name is Kim McKibbin, 1306 West Hickory Street.
Hi guys.
I've been going for a while and I had to say
that I'm pretty excited to see this many people
in this chamber tonight.
I think that's amazing.
I was in opposition of this,
but I think that staff has given a solution to my concerns.
I was concerned about the zoning that was being requested
because it would allow high density apartment buildings
at a hundred feet.
I went out and looked at the area out there.
It is a nice looking funeral home.
But if the staff's recommendations for some sort of overlay
or special use permit or whatever it is
that needs to be there,
I think that's an excellent solution.
It's a very established funeral home in an area
that is obviously very proud of that.
I am concerned about this neighborhood.
It is a neighborhood at risk as the future land use
for the downtown city development moves that direction.
I think that this council is going to get
more and more request for zoning creep,
as I would call it.
The downtown zoning will take over quite a few houses
in that area and change that neighborhood
if we are not very careful about what we're doing
and how we're impacting people
and give those folks a voice
to stand up for their neighborhood.
So once again, I started out in opposition
because I was opposed to the zoning
and what it would allow if the property was ever sold again
.
But if the city is, if you guys are willing
to put that special overlay on it,
I withdraw my opposition and I would be in favor of that.
The one thing that does concern me just a tiny bit
is the exiting driveway is going to go right out
in front of the new splash pad,
the splash pad park that's there.
And you might want to look at making that the entrance
and the exit, the entrance on Sycamore
and the exit on Mulberry
so that the cars are not literally coming out
in a great big line where children might be playing
in the splash park.
So that's the only real safety concern I saw about that
and that would be easy enough to remedy
if someone would go out and look at how that traffic
is going to be moving in and out through there.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
So I'll change your card from opposition then
to in support, is that what you like?
- With the reservation that you follow
the staff's recommendation.
- Gotcha, we've got that.
Okay, in support with conditions, how about that?
- That works, thank you.
- You're welcome.
Commissioner Beck, did you have a question for Mrs. McKib
bin?
- Not a question so much, it's just a statement.
Thank her for her presentation.
I always enjoy listening to Kim.
She's so articulate and informed
and I agree that support for this neighborhood
is important and going forward,
I'm hoping there's something we can do legally
and binding that ensures that this neighborhood
doesn't get overrun by commercial interests.
So thanks again, Kim.
- Okay.
- Next card I have is Shelly Johnson, 1109 East Hickory.
In support, you do wish to speak or do not?
Okay, we'll record as in support
and do not wish to speak.
Thank you, ma'am.
Ruby Sachs, 110 or 1109 East Hickory.
In support, wishing to speak?
Nope, no speak, but in support?
Okay, thank you, ma'am.
Okay, next card I have is Marcella Franklin,
317 Mill Street.
In support, wishing to speak?
No speak?
Okay, in support, we'll record that.
Okay, next card I have is Vanessa Reed,
617 Boardwalk.
In support, wishing to speak?
Okay.
You guys are gonna make it easy on us tonight up here.
All right, Patrice Tobias, 618 East Prairie.
Support, wishing to speak?
No, okay.
And last card I have is Reginald Logan,
705 Park Lane.
In support?
And he says, do not wish to speak
and we're gonna change that to do want to speak.
How about that?
- Speaking briefly, yes sir.
My name is Reginald Logan,
live on 705 Park Lane here in the city of Denton.
Thank you for hearing us tonight
and coming in support of this expansion
of People's Funeral Home.
You know, it's great when you have an opportunity
to come for a commercial establishment
that's placed in your neighborhood
and I understand the concerns that the lady had,
but at least this time we can control the creeping.
We got something to say about
what's gonna creep in our neighborhood.
Something that's gonna enhance our neighborhood.
Something that's gonna build support for our neighborhood.
Something that we're gonna support a man
that's come into our city
and supporting the people that live in the city.
They didn't, Mr. Maxwell has really been someone
that has really come and said,
"Hey, I wanna be part of you guys
"and be part of the city and come and be of support
"and do all I can to help."
And that's what he's done.
So I hope tonight that you'll come
and give us support of this planning zone.
Your planning is good.
Now you can plan for something
for a commercial establishment
that is actually part of the neighborhood.
Like a church, like a hospital.
This place somewhere and it's really gonna be a help.
And the big word that I know the planning zoning looks for
an asset, an asset to the community.
Not only for Southeast Denton, guess what?
He just doesn't bury people in Southeast Denton.
He's burying people all over the place.
And you may even be his next customer.
(audience laughing)
And wouldn't you want, and I'm gonna close with this,
and wouldn't you not want for your people to come
and have a place to park?
And I hope after I speak tonight
that he'll have a designated parking for preachers.
(audience laughing)
No, no question sir, you did a good job.
Okay, those are all the cards I have,
but this is a public hearing.
So anyone else that would like to come speak
for or against this project,
please come forward at this time.
Anyone else?
It's a public hearing, it's wide open.
Anybody else that would like to come speak?
Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing
and I will open the floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Beck.
- Thank you, Chair.
And thank each and every one of y'all for coming down.
And like Chairman Trane said,
you really made it easy for us.
And I just will go quickly if no one's speaking,
but I would have loved to hear what some of you had to say,
but that being said,
I wanna thank Haley Zagurski
that put this presentation together
because I thought she did a good job of discreetly,
is probably the word, explaining how the city blundered.
But let's be honest here,
the predominantly white city fathers let y'all down
years ago and that's a disappointment to all of us.
I thought I was glad also to see that she presented a case
where we could allow this zone change
without any difficulty.
She opened the door there and I was glad to see that
because people's funeral home historically
is always needed to provide mortuary services
for people of color during a time
when the predominantly white culture didn't in the 1930s
and later most likely would have forbade
such interracial accommodations.
I suspect that as a matter of convenience,
the predominant white culture of the 1960s and 70s,
which I was a part of and for me was,
allowed the continuous of this mortuary
a non-residential usage because Denton,
like other Texas communities,
was still not ready to sanction interracial contact
even at this level at the end of life.
So I plan on supporting this zone change request
with the two stated restrictions
for the simple reason that people's funeral home has
and will continue to be a part of
Solomon Hills Three Edition, Southeast Denton.
Part of a city that now has,
despite its unfortunate origins as it was forced to move
out of what was known as Quaker Town Park,
is now one that has a rich ethnic culture in it.
So as I mentioned earlier, I hope to,
I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to approve this
and would like to speak to some kind of means that
Legal and I discussed how we can ensure
that this neighborhood doesn't become encroached upon
any further than they have.
So do I make the, I can make the motion now
to approve this and we do that and then address that.
I think what Jerry suggested was that
there were things we couldn't do,
but that, let me find it here.
The best option would be to recommend that staff
or the city council to investigate a comp plan amendment
or small area plan amendment to accomplish the concern
to protect this neighborhood from any further commercial,
non-residential encroachment.
So I'm making the motion that we approve this
that we also as advised by legal proceed
with making some kind of comp plan.
- Well, I think just to clarify,
we'll have a motion on the item
and then once we get a motion before us,
I think it'd be appropriate if you'd like to address that
as just in the discussion, your concern
or asking city council to take that into consideration
at whatever point in the future
and just further clarification, your motion to approve,
does it have the two conditions on it?
- It does.
- So it has a condition as far as the overlay on the height
.
- And that it be limited to be in the mortuary.
- As in our backup, okay.
- Yeah, and just wanna make a matter of record
that we do proceed going forward
to try and protect this neighborhood.
- Okay. - Okay.
- Thank you for your motion.
Commissioner Sanchez.
- Good evening.
I just like to say I live in East Denton
and it's a very unique community,
unlike other parts of Denton.
To me, it's like a small community.
We have our own barbershop, we have our parks,
we have a Martin Luther King Recreation Center,
all within walking distance
and we even have a funeral home.
So I'm gonna vote to approve it
because I do believe it is part of that community
and I think anything different would be in opposition
to make it a better community.
- Commissioner Sanchez, would you like to second the motion
?
- Yes. - Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval
with the two conditions that are listed in our backup.
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to say a couple of words.
Thank you everybody for coming out
to speak your support of this.
It is with great pleasure that I will support this
and help this part of your community.
I think it's wonderful.
On paper, it didn't make sense.
Haley, as far as the zoning,
Haley did a beautiful job putting it all together,
describing the history.
I drove the neighborhood a couple of different times
and then your wonderful words of support.
It's just great that you all came out.
- Okay.
A couple of comments myself.
Kinda key on what I think Commissioner Beck's
gonna bring up here in just a minute
as far as the neighbors in general.
The best voice that you all have,
not only on this case, but any other cases
that may come in the future
where there may be zoning changes
proposed for your neighborhood is to show up.
So when you show up and use your voice to support
or against is the best thing that you can do
when you come before any commission or board
or council in our city.
And as citizens of our city, I encourage you to do so.
And I appreciate everybody coming out tonight.
And I do wanna let you know I'm supporting this as well,
but this is just one step in a two step process.
So this will come before planning and zoning tonight,
which we will get you ready to vote on it now.
And then it will come before city council
on August the seventh at 630.
And city council will take up the final determination
from our recommendation as to whether
to do the rezoning or not.
So I encourage you all just like you have this evening
to show up to show up on August the seventh at 630
and city council and speak for or against at city council.
And they will be the ones that will take the final vote
and the decision on changing the zoning on this item.
So again, thank you all for coming out this evening.
And with that, I will recognize Commissioner Beck.
I think he had a statement he wanted to make in discussion
about asking city council to consider
a small area plan or something to that effect.
- Exactly, what steps do we need to take
in that regard, Chair?
- Call on legal to clarify that.
- See, Scott is motioning over to Richard here
to address this, I'll defer to him in a moment.
- I was actually gonna mention as part of that,
as part of adding it to the matrix,
what I'd like to do is bring that item back
as a work session and just discuss the various two options
and how to move forward.
If that's--
- Something that we could submit to city council.
Okay, good enough, thanks.
- Okay, with that--
- One other thing.
- Commissioner Beck.
- We wanna make this public too,
so if anybody does wanna come to that work session
to hear how we're gonna proceed, please stay tuned
and be alert to that and Kim and Kim
would be a good source, she'll probably let everybody know.
But we'd like to have your input on that work session too.
- Okay, we have a motion on the floor to approve
with the two conditions and see no one else wishing to
speak
and so at this time I'll call for a vote on board.
Motion's gonna carry four to zero.
Congratulations and good luck on your project.
(audience applauding)
We're going to move on to item B.
At this time I'm gonna open the public hearing
for PDA 18-0004 and I will call on Haley for presentation.
, okay. (mumbles)
(audience chattering)
- I'm gonna give a couple minutes here,
I think we've got a few more folks wanting to get out
and clear the room and then we'll go ahead
and start on the next item, good suggestion.
(audience chattering)
(mumbles)
- Thank you.
- I think most everybody's cleared the room,
so go ahead Haley, thank you.
- All right, all right, so this is item PDA 18-4
for the cleaning green car wash.
The request before you is to hold a public hearing
and consider making a recommendation to council
regarding a detailed plan for a property
that's located within plan development 176,
which is known as Wheeler Ridge.
And the plan is to depict an auto laundry facility
or a car wash on a site that's about 2.13 acres
located on the west side of FM 2499,
about 750 feet north of Hickory Creek Road.
The future land use for this property
is low residential as we saw in the previous case.
So the proposal for a car washer commercial development
doesn't necessarily conform
to the future land use designation,
but it's important to note that this subject property
has been designated for commercial development
since the PD was adopted in 1999.
At that time they knew FM 2499 was intended to come through
,
but until that road actually was put in place,
the property probably wasn't ripe
for commercial development.
So as I mentioned, this property is part of PD 176.
Plan developments within the city of Denton,
we don't currently have them in our current code,
but in the 91 code they were permitted
and it outlined a process that required a concept plan
and a detailed plan be approved
before a site could be developed.
The concept plan for this property
was approved in October of 1999.
The PD allowed for on this property,
any use that was permitted
within the commercial zoning district in the 1991 code.
So an auto laundry or a car wash
was one of those permitted uses.
Looking in detail at the plan they've proposed,
you can see outlined in yellow the building footprint.
It's just over 4,400 square feet.
There is one driveway proposed
on the north side of the property
that could serve as a shared drive
for when the northern portion develops.
And then you will see six parking spaces
for customers and employees outlined in red.
And then there's a total of 25 vacuum stalls
shown on the plan.
Five of those may not be immediately developed,
but are planned for future expansion.
You can see on the top part of the screen here,
a colored elevation of what the building would look like.
The proposed materials are fiber cement panel, glass,
and then an architectural grade aluminum panel.
The PD permits a wide variety of materials,
glass, stones, stucco, tile, concrete, wood,
and then it has a clause for other similar materials.
Because building materials are consistently changing,
so it wanted to allow for those other options.
The total building height is approximately 30 feet
at that tower that you see there
on the left side of the screen.
So just looking at this from the other sides
of the building, you see kind of a similar modern theme
throughout the architecture on the building.
The other piece to this is their landscaping plan.
The PD, as I mentioned, was first created in '99,
and at that time, it stated in the regulations for the PD
that landscaping of this site would follow the code
that was in place at the time of PD adoption,
which was a 1998 landscape code.
Landscaping under that code was based just roughly
on the size of the property being developed.
So based on a number of square footage,
you had to have so many trees and shrubs.
The result was that the site required 27 new trees
to be planted and 33 shrubs.
So those are all shown here on the plan.
Overall, their site design allows
for 39% landscaping on the site.
They are preserving in the area shown in dark green
an existing line of trees that's there along the fence line
that's shared with those residential properties to the
south.
The PD requires a six-foot masonry wall be provided
on that side of the property.
The wall in this case is proposed
just north of those trees.
They didn't wanna have to remove any trees
to put in the wall, so they scooted it further into the
site.
And then in the light green color,
you can see where they're proposing
new plantings on the site.
So a few of those would be added
to that buffer area to enhance the screening.
So per the 1991 development code,
there were a few criteria to be examined
when a detail plan is proposed.
The first of those is that it complies
with the general concept plan
and approved development standards for the property.
Here on the screen, you can see that concept plan
that was adopted in 1999.
This property is part of this red track
that was labeled for commercial development.
So the use and the plan that we see here is in conformance
with this being a commercial development.
Some of the other criteria were that the plan provide
for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic.
As you can see, they're limiting the driveways there
to just the one on 2499,
so one way in and out of the property.
And then, you know, just kind of that one way
of circular pattern around the site
to control how traffic flows through there.
One of the other criteria was that the plan
be in substantial compliance with landscaping,
sign, subdivision, and other regulations of the city,
or that it offers some corresponding benefit
for things if it proposes a deviation.
This detail plan is in substantial conformance
with the regulations of the PD
and the city's current requirements.
Notifications were sent about this request.
As of this meeting, we had received five in opposition,
four of those you see outlined here on the map
that fell within that 200-foot notification ring.
One of those was received from a property owner
that's just off the scale of this map here
further to the west.
And then we received one response in favor,
which was from a representative
of the property's current ownership.
And staff is recommending approval of this request.
We found that it complied with those criteria for approval.
With the following conditions to allow for some things
that weren't specified in the PD regulations.
Our first criteria would be that no exterior lighting
face the single-family residential uses surrounding this,
or if such lighting is proposed that it be screened
from the view of those adjoining residences.
Along with that, a photometric plan
shall be provided at the time of building permit
application
to demonstrate compliance with the Denton Development Code
site lighting requirements in section 3513.12 of the code.
Our second recommendation or criteria is that
due to the proximity of the location
to single-family residences
and the fact that the majority of this PD is residential,
there is a lack of signage requirements in the PD.
So we feel it appropriate that the project comply
with the current code of ordinances sign requirements
for non-residential zoning districts,
as well as comply with the following limitation
that no illuminated wall signs directly face
any adjoining single-family use.
And with that, I'd be happy to stand for any questions.
- Commissioner Bec.
- Thank you, Chair.
Haley, bring your site plan back up, would you?
Now the means of--
- Oh, this one or the other?
- That one.
The means of ingress and egress is just that one area,
right?
Is there any recessed area off 2499
as it approaches that entrance, or is the traffic,
'cause that's three lanes in that,
the traffic that's gonna pull in there
is gonna pull out of that far right-hand lane,
is that right?
There's no recessed area?
- I don't believe so, not at this time.
- Okay.
Okay, if the applicant's here,
I can talk to him about that.
Okay, thank you. - Yeah, the applicant is here.
I can address maybe more specifically that question.
- Talk to him about it.
Thank you.
- Okay, another question.
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
Haley, what are the sign requirements
for non-residential districts that you mentioned?
What does that mean?
- There are several specifics outlined
in the Code of Ordinances.
It provides for setbacks between one and 200 feet
from residential properties,
depending on the type of sign that's proposed.
There are some height restrictions.
I can't quote them off the top of my head.
I'd be happy to look them up,
but there are height limitations
for the different types of signs,
but in general, it would be a monument or a pole sign
would be allowed on the property.
And I believe based on its length of frontage,
it would be permitted to have one of those signs.
- Mm-hmm.
Any other questions for Haley?
Thank you, Haley.
Call on the assumed owner and applicant,
Joshua Borsche, 12-821 Saratoga Downs.
I don't know if I got that close or not.
You're coming, so I'd close them out.
- Yes.
All right, good evening, everyone.
I'm Joshua Borsche.
I'm the current landowner.
I also own the Clean and Green Car Wash
that already exists in the PD 176.
It's on the opposite corner.
We've been there five years.
We're proud to say that we try and run
a clean and tidy business.
We've been very respectful of all of our neighbors
and try and support the local community as much as we can.
On that front, that was a first business.
This would be a second business,
solely owned by my wife and two children.
So this is our family's business.
Obviously happy to answer any questions.
Wanted to address just a couple things
and maybe some of your traffic as well.
Since 2499 is a text dot road,
we do have approval from them.
We do have an existing permit to add a left turn lane
at Pine Hills Lane there.
So there will be additional traffic easement
well with the turn lane that will be added inside of 2499.
From a right-hand turn perspective, there is not.
One of the other concerns we probably heard about
was possibly noise.
And specifically since we do have vacuums
on the south side of our property there,
one thing hopefully that can ease quite a bit
of those concerns in that we actually house
our vacuum producers, those big electric motors
with a big fan on them that make the vacuum.
We house them inside the building in an insulated room
and they're actually vented into the tunnel.
And you can actually go to our existing facility.
It's virtually quiet 24/7.
So the noise isn't an issue.
And any additional details are needed,
don't have any problems supplying those as well.
I think one of the things we're proud of too,
like Haley mentioned, we're preserving those,
I don't know what you would call them, heritage legacy,
those oak and elm trees.
I mean, they're 50 to 80 foot tall.
They're huge.
I'm sure the neighbors love them.
So we're keeping every one of them.
And then with the screening wall,
it should really move the car wash out of sight.
The screening wall that's required by the PD,
we've got on our plans.
One of the other pieces that actually adds to it
is actually the grading.
If you look at the open property,
and my engineers here as well this evening,
that property lies two to three feet higher
than the residents that neighbor it.
So when we do put up the screening wall,
it'll, the six foot screening wall,
it'll actually have an eight to nine foot working height.
Up to six foot it actually is when it's viewed
from the residential area.
Plans, we'll employ five to 10 local residents.
We'll, we're not gonna be open 24 hours
like our other facility.
This one will be open 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
seven days a week.
So in general, that's the scope of the plan again.
Thank you, Haley.
You did a great job.
I appreciate working with you over the last few weeks here.
I think those are my opening comments.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to respond.
- I have one question.
We had some discussion, work session or right thereabouts
about the noise and I appreciate you bringing that up.
Would you be open to on the,
guess what would be on your property side,
raising that six foot screening wall to eight foot
on that side and then whatever side height
that would be maybe 10 or 11 on the other side.
Would that be something you would consider?
- I would be open to that, yes.
- You'd be open to that?
- Yep, as needed. - Okay.
Thank you for addressing some of those concerns that way.
Commissioner Beck.
- Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Boshie for your presentation.
And I agree you have done quite a lot here to make this
work
in an area where it backs up against residential housing.
So I appreciate what you've done here.
To be clear, going back to means of ingress and egress
on the, I guess it'd be the southbound part of 2499.
Did you consider making a little inlet part to come off
that?
And I don't wanna burden you with any more expense,
but is that something that y'all considered
and decided it wasn't worth it?
- Yep, have not, with text dot and they're building the
road.
- Okay, so they're preventing you from doing anything?
- Absolutely, and then there also is
existing retaining wall there that they installed.
So we'd have to have a significant engineering project
to change that retaining wall.
We'll say for lack of it, you'd have to move it.
There is, I wanna say it's about four or five feet tall.
You can see over it, but it's significant.
'Cause the property is higher than that.
- If you have the engineer here,
if you'd like to come up and help.
- Sure.
- Sure, we'd be happy to entertain that as well.
If you'll give us name and address.
- Mickey Thomas, I'm Jay Thomas, engineering,
3973 West Pickery Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas.
As far as the deceleration lane is what you were looking
to describe right there, the site does not currently
meet those warrants under the current text guidelines
therefore it was not required under that.
- But now the northbound part of 2499,
there's a median in the middle right.
There's no means of getting to your location from that.
Is there gonna be a left turn lane there?
There is, okay, that's what I thought I heard you say.
- There's a continuous left.
It's a left-hand turn lane at that intersection, yes sir.
- Very good, thank you.
- Any further questions?
- Any other questions for either the owner
or the engineer while we have them here?
Okay, thank you sir.
This is a public hearing, I've got a number of cards.
And I'm gonna kinda do the same thing on some of these
that I have at least that are marked, not wishing to speak.
So I'll go through these first and then I'll get to the
cards
that I've kinda got some of them a mix wishing and not to
and we'll try to get our way through those as well.
So the first card I have is Otto Hanneman,
65, Corrid Lane, and he's in opposition
and did not wish to speak.
- I reserve that, I wanna hear what my neighbors say.
If they say what I wanna say, I'm not gonna bug you,
but I'll see what they say.
- No more.
(audience laughing)
- How about I move you to the back of the card
and we'll kinda go there.
Then I have Rose Brandt.
You do wish to speak?
Okay, please come forward, give us your name and address
and I have your card marked as in opposition.
- Thank you, my name is Rose Brandt,
I live at 6600 Haling Way in Denton.
My backyard, my sanctuary is gonna overlook
that 30 foot tower that's elevated higher than my houses.
You may not have lights in it,
but I don't pay taxes to look into a car wash.
That's number one.
What are you gonna do for the drainage?
What are you gonna do for the rats and the bugs
that develop from that area?
This is a residential area.
Most of us bought properties in that area
with the false assumption that it was a dead end.
Your turn lane is going to go right into,
what is that, Nolan, what's the name of that street
you live on? - Pine Hills.
- Pine Hills, it's gonna be right on Pine Hills
and there's a swimming pool for the community
about a block and a half, two blocks down.
Right now that is a speed zone.
We've asked for speed bumps and have been denied.
So you and the planning commission,
what are you gonna do for the residents
of this neighborhood?
We have seen a slow and steady decline since 2000.
It's gonna be opened from seven to nine p.m.
There are children sleeping in this neighborhood.
You're gonna tell me that there's no noise level?
That wonderful sound barrier that TechStalk put up
is an echo chamber.
I have to go out and buy other equipment
to deaden the noise that comes off of that highway.
There's a fan running in my house 24/7 now.
Am I gonna have more noise because of that?
Put office buildings, do something else
besides put that in there.
That is not fair to the community
and to the people that pay higher taxes this year
than they did last year.
I thank you for your consideration.
- Thank you for coming out this evening.
The next.
- I had a question for him.
- I'm sorry.
- Commissioner Sanchez.
- Rose, I have a question for you.
- Yes.
- You want.
- If you'll come please back up to the mic.
- You said the neighborhood was in decline.
What do you mean?
You said the neighborhood was in decline?
- Yes it is.
- Based on what?
- They put that road up.
There are people zooming in and out
of Pine Hills continuously.
It is a drag strip going from 35 through there.
People take that as a shortcut.
There are children that I watch them out of my kitchen
window
and I wanna run out there and grab them
to get them off the street.
There are more houses being for rent than for sale.
It's just declined.
- Okay, thank you.
(murmuring)
- The next card I have is Shannon Garza
at 6545 Pine Hills Lane in opposition, not wishing to speak
.
- Would you like to speak?
Okay, please come forward and give us your name and address
.
- So Shannon Garza at 6545 Pine Hills Lane.
And so I live three houses in from 2499 on Pine Hills.
And so my house is a drag strip now.
So not only do I have a highway behind my house
where they tore down every tree in the 30 foot easement
that they were supposed to keep,
that they told me they were gonna do when I bought the
house.
And I have small children.
There are small children on Hailing Way.
My kids' friends can't come down to my house
because they can't cross the street
from Hailing Way to my house
because people park on the street.
And so you can't see around
to make sure no car is coming either way,
which is not your problem.
But when people turn right or left off of 2499 onto my
street,
they're going so fast
because there's no speed limit signs on 2499 yet.
They're going anywhere between 45 and 55 miles an hour.
And they turn down Pine Hills,
still going 45, 55 miles an hour.
And they have no way to stop.
And so now we're gonna have the proposed driveway
coming in and out of the car wash with additional traffic.
Already you have accidents at the Kroger Hickory Creek
in 2499 and you guys have blocked off,
or not you, but they blocked off the right turn lane
because people can't see.
So now you're gonna be turning left or right
out of the car wash with cars coming at you.
And so, and I don't wanna walk out of my house
and look to my right where used to be pretty trees
and grass and see a building.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
- I have a question for you.
- Yes, sir.
- Commissioner Beck.
- Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Garza for speaking.
We appreciate everybody coming in and speaking on this.
Let me ask you this.
I noticed that there wasn't a,
that the applicant didn't have a neighborhood meeting,
which is disappointing.
We always like to encourage that
when a business comes in in close proximity.
Are you hearing some things tonight
that you haven't heard before
that eases your mind a little bit about this development?
The fact that they're putting these buffers up?
- But those buffers, I think,
are gonna be on the opposite side.
My side is the Oakmont side and not Wheeler Ridge.
And so, the in and out are gonna be in front of my house.
And so, I mean, I see the left turn lane,
but that's only helping people turn into the car wash.
So, it's gonna increase traffic there,
and I'm gonna have to look at it.
I don't wanna look at a 30-foot building.
When I bought the house,
I was told they were gonna keep some of the trees.
So, can't fix that problem, but.
- I guess what I was trying to express,
and anybody else that comes down and speak,
if you can address that,
that had there been a neighborhood meeting
where you could have confronted the applicant on this
and addressed your concerns,
do you feel like this would have helped you in some way,
in some respect, and better understand?
- I don't, I may be wrong.
I don't know that we had an HOA or neighborhood meeting.
I think-- - No, no, you didn't.
That's what I'm saying. - Right.
- Had there been one scheduled,
you would have gotten, you should have gotten
notification from the NPU. - Probably.
I don't think our new HOA board people,
I won't say any more about that. - Pursued that too much?
Okay, okay. - Yes, sir.
- All right, thank you. - Yes, sir.
- One more question. - Yes, sir.
- Commissioner Sanchez.
- Yes, when you bought the house,
were you aware that there was a commercial piece
of property there?
- No, I wasn't aware of that.
When I was there, it was all green space.
My realtor told me, yes, they're gonna put 2499 back there,
but where your house is, 'cause we're kinda at the curb,
you'll have 30 feet before there's the road,
and that should still be left green the way that it was.
And of course it didn't. - And who told you this?
- My realtor.
So it's not your fault.
Yeah, my realtor told me that.
- Okay, and I'm just saying this.
- Right. - Part of it is
when there's open space like that.
- Yes. - It's open to you,
especially if it's commercial.
- Well, it wasn't open then.
It was trees. - Yeah, well.
- So I couldn't even see that.
It looked like nice forest to me,
and there were birds and all kinds of stuff.
But I will agree with my neighbor
that there are more houses for rent or lease
than you can count.
And so, especially one-story houses,
real estate people are buying them and renting them out
because of what's going on right now.
- Thank you. - Yes, sir.
- Well, we'll see no other questions.
Thank you for coming out this evening.
- Yes, sir, thank you.
- The next card I have is Jonathan Acker,
6325 Thorough Red Trail.
In opposition, do not wish to speak.
Okay.
Next card I have is Gina Lomlin, I believe,
6020 English Manor Road.
In opposition, do not wish to speak.
Correct, okay.
And then these are cards that are currently shown
wishing to speak.
First card I have is Stephen Shannon, in support,
wishing to speak.
- Stephen Shannon, 319 West Oak, here in Denton.
We are the property owner immediately
to the north of the car wash,
and we are in support of what Josh is doing.
It conforms with the PD.
Seems to me that he's made every attempt
to make it a compatible use.
It's already compatible use by right and by law,
but just to be compatible with the neighborhood
and the request of the neighborhood.
The PD's been around since '99.
It's been in effect for a long time.
The rules of what could happen with that property
have been established at that point,
at the beginning of Wheelridge development.
So we're in support of it.
We feel that it's a good use.
One thing I know you'd mentioned about the D-cell lane
and the turn lane, in order to get our TxDOT permit,
we're part of that as well.
The city commented and TxDOT commented
before we could get our permit.
So it was per all of the requirements
from the city and TxDOT.
Anyway, we're in support of it.
We think it's good use.
We think it's compatible with what goes there
and compliance with the PD.
- Okay, I don't see any questions.
Thank you, sir, for coming out this evening.
Next card I have is David Furr in opposition.
Wishing to speak.
To be followed by Kim Hurst.
- David Furr, 6500 Longleaf Lane in Denton.
I'll start off by saying one of the things
that did put my mind at ease.
No, we did not have a community meeting.
We got the notice like a week ago that this was planned.
So this just was like out of the blue.
We had no clue.
My house faces where they're proposing to build this thing
and I don't like the idea of walking out
to a 30 foot building,
even with a six foot easement all the way around it.
One of the things, like I said,
that did put my mind at ease was that he did say
that this was not gonna be a 24 hour operation,
which that was another big concern of mine
because I've been by the one over by 7-Eleven.
The lights are on all the time.
When there are people there,
and there's usually a lot of people there,
he does very good business,
but when there are people there, it is very loud.
And not just because of the vacuums,
but because people like to listen to the radios
when they run their vacuums and you gotta turn it up.
And so you've got about 10 or 15 cars
blaring about 15 different stations.
The noise pollution is awful just driving through there.
The traffic is a big concern of mine.
24.99 just got finished.
Everybody's enjoying it.
Yes, there are speed problems on there,
but now they're talking about building this building
and creating easements.
And now you're gonna close a lane down
because you have to put the entrance in there.
You're gonna close it all off for God only knows how long.
Teasley's already torn up.
So you can't just say, oh, well, go down Teasley.
Well, no, Teasley's being torn up and fixed right now,
which is great, but it's not done yet.
I don't like the idea of, again,
looking at a 30-foot building
when I'm sitting upstairs in my game room
and I don't see my trees out there.
I completely agree with some of these people
to where it's like I enjoy my trees and my sanctuary
and it's nice to look at nature.
I moved into a neighborhood to live in a neighborhood,
not to live in a neighborhood with a commercial district
right next door to me
to where I had to look at stores and businesses.
But that's all I've got.
- Thank you, sir, for coming out this evening.
I do have a question.
Commissioner Sanchez.
- Yes, 2499 is pretty much, okay, it's very busy road.
So along these roads, normally they put commercial
businesses.
- Yes, but this is a commercial business within,
you've got a neighborhood on either side of this road.
And yeah, this is a road
that's running through a neighborhood,
but you've got one spot,
well, two spots of land right there
that you're gonna open for a commercial business.
So I mean, it's almost like what sense does that make?
You got a neighborhood here, a neighborhood here,
but right in the middle of everything,
we've got two businesses.
- Do you have any recommendations
to what to do with those lots?
I mean, those commercial properties?
- Commercial properties?
- Yeah, I mean, they already exist
and they've been there since PD was created.
So what would be your recommendation?
- My recommendation would be
let the city buy it back and build a park there.
Put a park there.
But I mean, I don't know.
Something that's not gonna obstruct the view
and you sit here and say it's a 30-foot building,
but then he just said, too,
oh, well, it goes up three feet or six feet above
the neighbors behind them.
And yeah, that's all well and good,
but that just raises the height of the building up even
more.
That's just something else we have to look at.
(indistinct chatter)
- Any other questions?
Thank you, sir, for coming out this evening.
As chair, I just wanna clarify something
that was, I think, stated by Haley
that that property by right
can have a 100-foot tall building on it.
- She was thinking of a different,
it was the max height, it didn't get into feet.
It's three, for commercial, three stories,
residential, two and a half stories.
- Okay, so I'm incorrect.
We don't have a maximum height,
then we have a stories, three stories.
Okay, my mistake.
Next speaker we have is Kim Hurst,
wishing to speak in opposition.
- Good evening, my name is Kimberly Hurst
at 3301 High Point Drive.
I apologize in advance 'cause you're about to drink
from a fire hose so I can get this all out in time.
My first issue is gonna be the decrease in property values.
Having this commercial property right behind my home
is gonna decrease the value of my home.
We bought our home to be in a residential area
because we have children.
The noise that is gonna come from this,
you've already heard somebody mention the echo chamber
we already have from 2499.
Now we're gonna have another one.
So we are gonna be boxed or held in from two walls
just sending these echo chambers down,
which defeats the purpose of being in a residential area
that's supposed to be nice and calm and quiet.
This is going to increase issues in crime
and having neighborhood safety.
Because we are a residential area,
our children are out on the weekends all weekend,
which is the busiest time for a business like this.
Our kids go through the green belt.
They go through the utility easement that's there.
There is harm that could happen to them from being there.
You're also gonna have people that go to these businesses
and it can take up to two hours
to get the full service of these.
What do they do when they get bored?
They start walking.
They're either gonna be walking in our neighborhood
or on the other side of 2499 in that neighborhood,
but most likely they're gonna be walking
through our utility easement to get to the shops
on Teasley and Hickory Creek Road,
which is right behind my property.
That is gonna increase the trash that people leave
back there, that is gonna increase the traffic
that we have back there.
It could increase the crime that we have
because they are gonna spot things
that we have in our neighborhoods
that could then turn around and start having more break-ins
.
With this being strictly residential,
there are other options that could be there.
Right now we have multiple car washes
within a five mile radius.
We have two full service ones already.
We have one at 288 in Colorado.
We have another one at Swisher and Jorall
that are full service.
Then we have the drive-through 24-hour versions
at Robinson and Teasley as well as State School Road 35.
How many car washes do we need in that small radius?
There are other options.
Yes, it's commercial.
There could be other things, whether it be a rec center,
whether it be a dog grooming company.
I could care less versus something
that's gonna be 30 foot tall, adding to the noise level,
adding to the traffic levels.
Ever since 2499 opened up,
people use our housing division as a cut-through
to avoid the construction on Teasley.
We have no lights on 2499,
so people are rushing through there at night.
You cannot see anything.
Now we're gonna add another reason to have more traffic
there
when we haven't even been able to address
and fix the issues that we have there.
We don't have speed limit signs.
We do not have lights.
We've got more traffic in our residential area.
We bought these homes for ourselves, for our families.
And my home will turn into a rental property
if something like this goes through
because I won't have a 30 foot tower in my backyard.
Adding another wall, that just means more echo.
We're already getting it from 2499.
Now you're just gonna give it a double tunnel.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I have a question.
- Yeah.
You said you're gonna get more traffic.
- Mr. Sanchez.
- That you're gonna have more traffic,
but won't the existing people utilizing that car wash,
won't they be people from that neighborhood?
- No.
If you saw the amount of traffic that goes through 2499,
it is what people use to cut from Argyle to 35
without having to go straight down 377.
They all use these.
They take Hickory Creek Road, Country Club Road,
and then come straight through into our neighborhoods.
They're also, because of the construction
where they're widening Teasley at this moment,
nobody wants to sit with the construction out there
with the postman saying which way you can go one lane.
So they're using our housing division
and literally the street that I live on,
'cause I'm on a corner lot,
is the main road that they're using to cut through
our housing division already to get to the other side
to avoid traffic.
Because 2499 does not have any stop signs
going four ways at Hickory Creek Road,
there are three accidents there,
a minimum a week since it's opened.
They keep trying to put up cones
to block the right-hand lane to try and prevent that.
It slows it down.
It doesn't prevent the accidents.
So now we're gonna have people that are coming off of 2499
to go to another car wash
to cut through our housing division
to avoid the construction on Teasley.
It's just adding more traffic
and we have a huge neighborhood.
And the number of families with children is quite high.
We just had our HOA do something great
of giving us a new park for our children.
Why are we gonna even take our children to that park
if we can't even know that they're gonna be safe
because of the additional traffic
that we're already getting through?
- One more question for you, Commissioner Beck.
- Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Hurst, for your presentation.
Is it Hurst or Hurst?
- Hurst, like city. - Hurst, okay.
Right, okay.
You mentioned that you were concerned about people
that would leave their car there for a couple hours
and then walk into your neighborhood.
Which street do you live on?
- I live on the corner of High Point and Saddleback.
So they would literally walk through the easement
behind our home.
And I went and spent seven and a half hours
since we've gotten this at both the Heritage Car Wash
at Colorado and 288 and the one that's right there
off of Giralt and Swisher to watch what traffic did,
to make sure that my complaint was valid
versus just a thought.
And I have watched these people leave their vehicles
while they're being done,
walking off to go to the shops that are near
and then coming back.
Well, there's no reason to think if it's happening
at both of these that it's not gonna happen
in our neighborhood as well.
- Okay, is there not, and I'm sorry, I'm asking,
I really don't know, but I thought there was a wall,
six or eight foot wall that's already there
that backed up to your property, no?
- No. - Oh.
- There is no wall there right now.
It is an open utility easement
and then this commercial property that is filled with trees
and things of the like. - Okay, okay.
Then I understand, thank you.
- Don't have any other questions.
Thank you very much for coming out this evening.
Next card I have is Tom Brandt,
wishing to speak in opposition.
- Hi, my name's Tom Brandt.
I reside at 6600 Haling Way in Denton, Texas.
Our property is on the southeast corner of Pine Hills
and intersects at 2499.
Everyone's discussing noise and how to prevent it.
We were provided when they built 2499
that the realtor forgot to tell us back in '02
that it's been planned since 1980.
So our wooded area in cul-de-sac is now 2499
and the intersection road on to 2499, being Pine Hills.
What happens is that sound wall stops.
It's got a hole in it.
Right next to my property is the intersection.
I can hear at all traffic, all the time,
a quarter mile in each direction from that road right now.
I can hear it coming down the road back and forth.
I can hear it coming down our street
because it's getting more traffic too,
which was a residential street with a community pool on it.
The community I'm referring to,
we actually live in, it's called Windstone
and it's part of Oakmont West
or West Oakmont area, kind of called there.
But that's the biggest thing.
And what happens, that particular, where the wall stops,
that sound resonates down from the road
all the way through our complete subdivision,
just about literally.
Several dozen homes are affected
by just basic street noise right now.
So that's not gonna diminish.
The company in question wants to propose,
already induces more noise
on top of attracting more noise as customers,
which is part of his business.
His business shouldn't be located
surrounded by a residential area.
It's surrounded on all two to three sides at least.
And it's not a place for that type of business
that induces more noise than you already got.
Traffic wise, danger wise from intersections
that corner of where you wanna propose,
I believe it's pretty close to it,
propose to go directly across from Pine Hills
is a limited vision, limited distance turn right now.
And cars are driving, I'm gonna call it a highway.
It's not a Texas community road.
It's a highway.
They're doing 50, 60 miles an hour on that road
in this area right now.
I don't know what it's like a mile down the road.
Maybe that wall helps.
Right now it's an elaborate privacy fence
as far as I'm concerned.
I like it, doesn't work, but I like it.
But it's an effort on the part of the tech side
to do their thing.
But in that particular environment
where this is being proposed,
it doesn't work, we don't want it.
You can put a professional buildings in,
you can build a park there.
That'd be a good idea.
But anything that doesn't induce,
we don't need a 7-Eleven.
We don't need, I can tell you what we don't need.
If you just put in some professional buildings
like you have in a probably neighborhoods,
there's several car washes on our neighborhood currently.
People from our neighborhood go to those car washes.
We don't want one across the street.
I don't think you would either.
So that's the main thing is mostly noise,
traffic and inconvenience to our residents
that bought property here.
We've been there since '02.
And this is what it's turned into.
So we're just trying to preserve what we've got left.
- I don't see any questions.
Thank you, sir, for coming out this evening.
Thank you.
Hector Lumelin, 6020 English Manor.
And opposition does wish to speak.
- Yes.
So I live along Teasley.
I back up to it.
And I've been living in Wheeler Ridge since 2008.
And I'm not too far down from his other car wash
that like David was talking about
with the noise from people just using their stereos
whenever they're using the car wash.
We're getting to see the nice neon lights
that are on at night.
We already have to deal with that with a doctor
that likes to send people to the ER
all the way over at the little hospital,
whatever quick hospital thing they have right there.
And I can't imagine the noise
that they're gonna have to deal with with that thing
shoehorned right in behind their neighborhood.
Sure, you guys can put up a three story building,
but that doesn't mean you should.
Just because it's been in the plans
doesn't mean it can't be changed.
This is something that literally is just shoehorned
in Wheeler Ridge.
It's not like, oh, it's a long sight.
It is crammed in there.
If this was Wheeler Ridge, this is the car wash.
I could understand if you were to put that
on the other side of 2499
when the plan was originally made
and then maybe not putting so many houses on Oakmont
so that way the curvature goes around it.
But in this case, it's really just kind of in there.
And I was under the impression
that maybe this was taken during the eminent domain grab
that they took from Wheeler Ridge years ago.
But I'm guessing you guys were saying,
Haley was saying that it was just recently
or not recently was put in place in the early 90s
or maybe back in the 80s even.
But I'm in favor of doing office buildings,
putting a rec center, putting a daycare,
putting any other item that isn't going to be
a seven to nine noise inducing facility,
a 30 foot tower that's going to be
another three feet higher than that.
Maybe just set it lower.
Is that part of the engineering aspect
of having water flow so that way the water
can have adequate pressure?
Otherwise, can it just be lower?
Do we need a 30 foot tower since people are gonna be
staring straight at it as they're driving 50 miles an hour
down 24.99?
I'm trying to understand the logic.
I understand the tax revenue that's involved with this.
But I can also see the option of possibly selling it back
to Wheeler Ridge HOA and having them develop it further.
You're talking about the walls.
The walls, they're not gonna do much.
This is literally, what?
It's gonna be like 20 feet from her fence line?
Do you want a car wash 20 feet from your house?
I imagine you wouldn't.
I don't think any of you would.
Sure, she should have probably bothered the city
to get more information on her plans.
And granted, we're starting to look a little bit
like Lewisville along Main Street where they like to shove
in
every little business that they can
right next to the neighborhoods.
But is that really what we're going for?
Is there not enough space that we could put another car
wash
just a little bit further down?
I know there's areas that are developing
next to a large pond that's further down 24.9
that they could put something that isn't going to be
smashed right into a neighborhood.
But right here, it's just going to, like she said,
we've got traffic problems through there already.
We've addressed it with the city.
City won't put in speed bumps.
We had to, the HOA had to install
our own little speedometer signs.
So what are you guys doing to maintain our property values?
Because that's a good chunk of tax revenue
that you're getting.
Sure, we could just go ahead and rent it.
You guys will still get your tax revenue.
But now the neighborhood's gonna decrease in quality.
And it's just going to be, we've got Kroger.
We've got the other car wash.
We've got a storage facility.
We've got that minor emergency.
We've got a church.
We've got a mechanic.
All this, Teasley and 24.99,
weren't already sandwiched in, surrounded by commercial.
So I'd like to see just a little bit less commercial
crammed into every corner around my neighborhood
so that we maybe we could enjoy it a little bit more.
Because as it is, I already got sirens
and everything else going down my street
four or five times a day
just because that doctor can't handle people that come in.
Any questions?
Yeah.
- Thank you.
The next card we have is Otto Hanneman,
6500 Coral or Coeur d'Alene.
In opposition, says the debt, do not wish to speak.
- I'll stop when I speak.
- Okay.
- The name is Otto Hanneman and it's 6500 Coral Lane.
- Coral.
- In fact, the other day they sent the mail in
from somewhere else, sent it back.
So it's a long story.
My neighbors have made some good points about the traffic,
the decrease in home value.
I think there's too many things going on,
squeezing our neighborhood in.
There's about 700 homes or so in that neighborhood.
And I think a lot of the neighborhood,
a little history was built,
my house was built in 2008,
right when the economy was crashing.
And so a lot of the original owners went into foreclosure,
investors bought it and turned it into rental homes.
I think we're finally getting residents to buy the homes
and to stay there and to enhance the homes
in the neighborhood.
And I think this, I wish Joshua the best.
I just wish it somewhere else.
Let's move him somewhere else,
have him make a lot of money and pay a lot of taxes
so our taxes can be decreased,
but not in our neighborhood.
That's the thing.
I'm trying to look for a win-win here.
I think you're gonna pick him or you're gonna pick us.
And I would like to have a win-win,
but I don't know how to do that.
So on that note, I'll go ahead and stop.
Thank you.
- Thank you for coming.
I do have a question for you.
- I do have a question.
- Commissioner Sanchez.
- Yes, sir.
- Several people have raised the issue
about a lot of renters,
and you just kind of clarified stuff for us,
is that when the crash came,
a lot of people ended up losing their home
and investors bought it.
So it's not the result of having this commercial property
there or anything.
It was caused by the economy.
We have to look at issues in your neighborhood
based on what happened and not try to blame somebody else.
That's kind of what it kind of turning into blaming
this individual trying to build here
for having a lot of rental property there.
But that had to do with the economy.
So I just wanted to make that a statement.
- May I make a comment?
- Yeah, sure.
- That may be true, but by having this car wash there,
it's gonna decrease home values in certain ways.
I don't know about my other neighbors,
but I've been going around with the HOA about certain
things
that they're making decisions about letting renters
really destroy properties,
which decreases the value of everybody's home
in our neighborhood.
I think the addition of this car wash
in the present location will do the same thing,
especially for the people that live right around it.
I don't live near it,
but I'm gonna be seeing the lights from that thing
from my house.
I can sit out at night
and look around a lot of the neighborhood from it,
and I'm gonna be able to see the lights from that
at night.
I'll probably be able to hear the noise from it
during the day.
And they say only seven to nine.
That's a long time during the day.
Kids are trying to take naps during the day
and in the afternoon for that.
And I think it's, you know, like I said,
I wish him the best somewhere else.
I don't think it should be in our neighborhood,
right next to our neighborhood like it is.
I'd like to see it turn into a green park or something.
If it has to go commercial, have it something
that's not an activity like that,
that generates a lot of noise, of trash,
potential people that come in there
to increase the crime in our neighborhood.
I hadn't even thought about that
till the lady mentioned it.
That we'll have more people going through the neighborhood,
more vandalism and theft also.
So again, I wish Joshua the best.
I wish we could find a win-win here.
If you could say, let's move them over here,
this will be a great location,
I'd say let's do that.
But I think it's gonna decrease the values of the homes
right next to it in some form or fashion.
Thank you for listening.
- Thank you for coming out this evening, sir.
Next card I have is Greg Johnson in support.
I wish to speak.
- Thank you, Greg Johnson, 319 West Oak,
here in Denton.
Thank you all for your service.
So I get it.
I've never been to any one of these
where people didn't want something built behind them.
There's about to be self storage built behind my house.
Am I excited about it?
No, but it's not my property.
And so I think it's important, so I get it.
I get the concerns of everybody here
and you guys hear this a lot
when commercial property is being developed
because a residence has been able to enjoy a free view
of somebody's beautiful, treed field for a long time.
And so I get it and I don't make anybody wrong
for coming in voicing their concerns
or not wanting it there because let's face it,
if it was your house, you wouldn't want it either.
The question really is, do they have a right to say
whether it should be there or not?
And so I just wanted to kind of say,
I think it's important to kind of hit the reset button
and remember what is before you tonight
and why you're here, right?
So it's in a PD, it's allowed to be built there
by writing the PD.
There's already a car wash owned by the same gentleman
in the same PD.
And so the process of course is to approve the detailed
plan,
which is everything at Teasley and Robinson Road,
the 7-Eleven, his car wash, O'Reilly Auto Parts, all those,
all went through this process.
None with a neighborhood meeting
and none with cards sent out
because it's a procedural process.
Larry, I think you bring up a good point,
which is maybe we should have neighborhood meeting
requirements for certain things.
But I think the question really is,
do you guys wanna be sending out
a neighborhood meeting requirement
every time something's getting built?
There's no zoning request change, there's no SUP,
so that's one of those things.
So what's before you is to approve the detailed plan.
And so long as the site plan conforms
and it meets the code requirements for the PD
and if the PD is silent to it,
then you point to the current code,
like the trees and so on.
Some of the things I've heard tonight
were, has my realtor told me this or that?
Well, that's not on this gentleman,
that's on the realtor that might have lied
to somebody to make a fee.
And you should report him to the real estate commission.
Pine Hills on the east side is a drag strip.
That's on the east side, this is on the west side,
people are gonna turn into this car wash from 2499
and get back out on 2499.
(audience member speaking)
I don't wanna look at it, again, I get it.
I don't wanna look at the storage
that's getting built behind my house,
but the gentleman has a right to build it there.
It's gonna increase traffic.
Well, it's 2499, I mean, it's a six lane
major text dot thoroughfare,
and things are gonna get built there.
I don't want commercial in my neighborhood.
Well, it's not in the neighborhood, it's on 2499.
We don't want commercial in that area.
Well, if you go down to Flyer Mound
and drive through Flyer Mound,
look how Flyer Mound developed along 2499.
All the residential was built first,
that's how it goes, right?
Residential happens first, then the services
for the residential happen second.
You've got commercial uses all the way down 2499
in Flyer Mound, backing up to neighborhoods
separated by masonry screen walls.
I think this gentleman has, he's actually offered
to do more than what the PD requires.
He's gonna build the screen wall
on the other side of the trees,
so the trees are preserved, and he didn't have to do that.
It actually creates more yard for those folks behind him.
And he's, in my opinion, offered to do things
to mitigate the noise.
He builds his vacuums inside the building,
whereas some of these other car washes,
they're in an outbuilding.
I use his car wash on Teasley all the time.
It's not loud when you're standing outside,
you can't hear the vacuums.
And so while you've heard people
that don't want the car wash there, I get it,
but it meets all the requirements of the PD and the code.
The staff has recommended approval,
and I would ask you to do the same.
Thank you.
- Any questions?
- Thank you for coming out and speaking this evening.
- If I could say something real quick.
- Just a second.
That's all the cards that we have.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone who hasn't spoken yet is welcome to come down
at this time and give your comments
or any of your feedback that you'd like to.
It is a public hearing.
Anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
Okay, Commissioner Begg.
- Thank you, Chair.
I believe the gentleman, Hector,
had a question he didn't get a chance to ask,
and I'd like to ask him to come down and ask that now.
- Please come forward.
Do you have a question for him, Commissioner Begg?
- No, I believe he had a question
that he didn't get solved last time.
- Regarding the not having the meeting
for whenever the car wash was built previously,
we did have a meeting,
'cause again, I've been living there for a while.
It was actually the storage group
that came and met with the HOA
and had the community come out and voice their concerns.
There was a road that goes right to it,
and they were wanting to go ahead
and open up that road into the storage community
to try to promote, let's see, it's Lost Pony Drive.
They were trying to promote accessibility
from the neighborhood into the storage area,
but we were all very much in the neighborhood against that
because it would, again, increase traffic,
and I'm not too concerned about traffic on 2499.
People are gonna get in wrecks because of the planning,
but that's gonna be how it is,
but my concern is the traffic of,
and I think, Rose, her concern about traffic
is the traffic that goes through our neighborhoods
of people trying to cut through.
I was just looking at the Denton crime map,
and one of the houses that backs up
right over towards the storage area in the car wash
has a theft marker on it.
There's a theft marker right there at 7-Eleven,
so it's gonna increase crime.
Those are just from 2018.
I didn't feel like trying to dig around
and see how much further we can go,
but there's the concerns about the noise,
the concerns about the traffic.
Those are still very much valid concerns,
and I believe Haley was saying that the map,
the building of the noise barriers and all that
was going to be the adjacent properties,
but not so much addressing the ones
across the street from it, right?
So if they're living on pine hills,
they're just gonna get a great view of this new car wash.
Go ahead.
- The only wall will be on the south side of the building,
just north of that existing tree line.
There is no wall proposed on 2499
or on the backside of the property.
- Okay, so Ray, you're gonna get a great earful
living on that north side over there by Thoroughbred.
That's what, like a couple hundred yards away, maybe?
200 feet?
So 175 feet away.
I'm sure the noise will stop before then, though.
Right.
- Do you have a question for you?
Commissioner Beck.
- Hector, I understand your concerns.
I really do.
I'm empathetic.
Everybody's concerned that this thing
is gonna be more negative than positive.
I understand that, but you made a couple of comments
about crime being increased and indicating
that this is directly gonna impact that.
What tends to impact crime from what I've seen
is when population growth occurs,
and you have to accommodate that population growth.
Crime's gonna happen.
It's gonna happen less where there's fewer people.
It's gonna happen more often when there's more people.
That's gonna be a part of that.
It's kind of unfair to go after this particular vendor
and assess that your crime situation is gonna increase
I don't know how many fold because of that.
- Great, crime is gonna increase because of an increase.
- Crime can also be controlled
with neighborhood watch programs and everything.
That's something that if you're concerned about,
that should be a consideration.
- Right, but the city has-- - And the city of Denton
has programs, city of Man, please,
city of Denton has programs
that help neighborhoods form these.
And I would strongly recommend
that you get involved with that, too.
But again, I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns here.
I'm just saying, you're putting this owner
in a position that seems a little unfair
and weighs a little bit too heavily on him,
even though it may not seem like it.
So the other thing-- - Well, alternate businesses
would generate a more regular group of people
that were to come versus a car wash generates
more random, sporadic individuals.
And like you said, increasing population,
increasing crime, your increasing population
into this area that's gonna be elevated enough
to where people, I'm not sure if they'll be able
to see over the wall in other funds,
but they'll certainly be able to see over the wall.
- So you want us to shove it to another area
where they have to deal with it?
It's gonna happen.
- Well, there's places, right?
I mean, I don't know if I can use this.
- Well, and I don't wanna get--
- Pull up a map and show you.
- Hector, I don't wanna get any spitting match with you.
I'm just saying that there's certain circumstances
that a developer can't control, PNZ can't control.
- Well, it can't be controlled if we change the business
that's gonna be put in there.
- But we don't have that authority here.
I think there's the understanding,
there's a feeling that PNZ can make that kind of change,
and we don't have that authority.
This is a plan development.
This went before the city.
This thing's law.
As long as they build it, they have the right to build
as long as they meet certain specifications.
What I've seen, they've done that, and then some too.
And I realize that it's still unnerving to you,
but our hands are gonna be tied too,
as much as we'd like to help you.
We can't just say, we can't just turn it off.
- All right. - Okay?
Thank you, sir.
- This is a public hearing,
and I don't have any more cards.
Anyone else who hasn't already spoken
that would like to speak, please come forward at this time.
And if any commissioner has a question
for a particular person who has spoken,
you're free to address the chair,
and I'll be happy to recognize them.
Commissioner Sanchez, do you have a question?
- Several of the people have mentioned
about the 30-foot tower.
Would you consider anything about the,
is that part of the design,
and you'd have to go with that design,
or would you be willing to do some about that tower,
and bring it down a little bit in order to,
meet with the neighborhood, and talk to them about that
tower,
'cause it seems several people have brought that up.
Other than that, I don't know what else could be done.
- Yeah, absolutely, and we would rather not consider that,
you know, 30-foot is well within the three-story limit,
and we do use both stories inside of there,
for functionality of equipment
to keep the footprint smaller.
- That's all I wanted.
If it can't be done, it can't be done.
- Have another question, Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair, it's actually for Josh as well.
Somebody who spoke mentioned earlier,
talking like a full-service car wash.
Is yours a full-service car wash
where people drop off their cars?
- No, it's not, no, thanks for bringing that point up.
This is what, in the car wash industry,
we consider an express exterior car wash.
So, in the big picture, our services are as long as it
takes
to go through the tunnel, which is about two and a half
minutes, you know, so the car wash is two and a half
minutes,
and then we're gonna have those row of vacuums
we've been discussing, 20 free vacuums.
It is then up to the customer
how long they choose to stay there.
You know, so if they wanna detail their own car there,
yes, that could be a possibility.
The majority, you can go to Google,
even at our current facility, 20 minutes is typically
the maximum time anyone spends on the property.
- Follow-up, please.
- Thank you, and then just one more thing.
- No problem.
- Why it's important to have a neighborhood meeting,
so a lot of this stuff could have been maybe talked about
and maybe discussed and maybe understood better
for exactly what your development was
and what we have the parameters to do.
One of the gentlemen mentioned it, a win-win.
That is what we really have to produce here, in my opinion.
Something that works for you, we can't stop you.
I wish you were bringing me something else
and it wasn't a car wash, honestly.
But knowing the car wash is allowed in the PD by right,
what we have to do is figure out how to mitigate
the nuisances that a car wash causes here.
The PD, when it was put in place in the '90s,
allowed for your use to happen.
So now what we need to do is how do we allow
your use to happen by sticking you
in the middle of all these homes.
- Right, right.
- And certainly that's where their concerns are,
that's where some of our concerns lie as well.
- Absolutely.
- Commissioner Beck, do you have a follow-up question?
Okay, I understand.
Sure.
- I did have a couple of things to address
some couple of the questions that were brought up.
I have one item down here regarding the drainage.
We are building a detention pond at the back of the site
to mitigate the increase in drainage runoff from the site.
So we've taken that into account,
designed that according to city ordinances,
and obviously we'll follow along
with any additional comments city staff
may have associated with that.
As far as the lane closure up there on the front
that was concerned on 2499,
that'd be for a short duration just for the construction
of it, so it really shouldn't have
any long-term impacts on that.
And then as far as the height going up three feet
on the site with the building,
one of the intents we were trying to do
is there's a row of trees back there
to preserve that existing buffer that's there,
the trees for the help to mitigate sound, site,
other stuff with some fully mature trees there.
That's one of the things that the client came to us with
is hey, let's try and save those
because that will kind of shade that away
from some of the close residences there.
So we did pull that back there.
Plus the building we're actually cutting down
inside of the hill, so we're not building up
at elevations that are closer to the existing conditions.
With some of those concerns we have dropped it down,
but there is a little bit of a burn,
but it does go up much higher than where we're at right now
.
I think we're benching into the site roughly
about three or four feet right now.
- Do you have a couple follow-up questions?
Commissioner Back.
- Thank you, Chair.
Actually this is for Mr. Boshy if you don't mind.
The neighborhood meeting concept is important.
Now right now it isn't required.
It is suggested for zone changes
and anytime there's gonna be a commercial development
come in next to, in the future for the citizens
that will be a mandated thing
that when there's a zone change.
But our obligation here is to respect your rights there,
but we've also got an obligation to the citizens
that you're gonna be neighbors with too.
So let me ask you this.
Would you be opposed to a motion
to postpone this for two weeks
and give you an opportunity to sit down with your neighbors
?
'Cause they've asked a lot of questions that we can't
answer.
They've made a lot of statements that
there's a little bit of hyperbole in there
and there's a little misinformation in there
and you're really the only one that can answer that.
Would you be opposed to a motion to postpone this
until for two weeks, the next PNZ meeting,
establish a meeting with your neighbors,
give them a location and sit down and talk with them?
I know it's kind of a frightening prospect
what you'll face, but you are gonna be their neighbor.
You need to be a good neighbor.
They need to be a good neighbor too.
- Absolutely. - And this will give you
an opportunity to get a chance to know each other,
fill each other out.
So in response to my question.
- I would prefer not.
- You would prefer not, okay, understand.
All right, thank you.
- Well, Commissioner Beck, just to kind of piggyback on
that,
this is gonna go on to city council.
So we will not be the final say on this.
This is a recommendation to city council.
So I would encourage all the residents
that this is with whatever action that we take this evening
,
this is not the final action on this item.
It will move on to city council
and you are more than welcome to come back out.
You'll be able to fill out cards.
You'll be able to have your three or four minutes
time to speak and voice your concerns to city council.
And they will be the ultimate decision makers
on this particular project.
So I do want to let all of you know
that you do have an opportunity to continue
to be involved in the process
and to speak again on this item.
So I do want to make that clarification
that there is additional opportunity
to continue to be involved.
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
So maybe for you, Josh, maybe engineering.
I don't know.
One of my concerns, staff talked about a light pollution,
talked about signage,
but they didn't talk about was noise.
Given their concerns with the vacuum created
from the masonry wall and that,
is there another route to go that would be better than that
?
Is, you know, I don't have that expertise.
- I guess I can allude to some options on the table.
We were discussing that in the back of the room slightly,
but a big picture, I guess,
I'd really encourage everyone to do some research
and get close to a car wash.
Find out what, you know,
we all assume there's noise pollution.
Being a car wash owner,
there is not a lot of noise involved.
Is there the errant car that blares the stereo too loud?
Yeah, but you know what?
My neighbor blares the stereo too loud too.
You know, so at some point,
we have to control that ourselves.
But, you know, we're putting up a masonry wall.
You know, is there a landscape alternative?
You know, would a row of bushes be better
than a row of concrete?
You know, so I mean,
that's the kind of stuff I'm thinking about
'cause we absolutely do want to honor
as many of these comments as we can.
- Do you have any, if I may?
- Sure, continue. - Thank you.
Do you have any parameters in your business model
that keeps people from blasting their radios
while they're detailing their cars for a couple of hours?
- There isn't.
I think it would probably be up to me and my staff members
to just ask them to be respectful.
You know, and that would be different at this car wash
versus my existing car wash on Teasley.
The existing car wash on Teasley is open 24 hours
and it is an unstaffed model.
This one, you know, like I said,
we will employ five to 10 employees,
but two to four will be on staff at any given time.
So that is something that we could police at this site
in opposition to the other site.
- I'd love to encourage you to do that.
- Yes. - Because the row
where people will be doing the detailing,
you know, 'cause the houses are right there.
Then I guess my final question would be
for the folks across 2499,
that obviously you're going to affect visually.
- Visually, correct.
- Is there anything,
I don't have the plant pulled up in front of me,
what do you have proposed fronting?
- We have a green belt,
we'll call it for lack of better terms there,
that does fall into 2499 easement right away,
that kind of thing.
So as far as us putting anything there,
it's gonna be grass,
because it falls in under those easements and right away.
So we're restricted there.
(man mumbling)
Yeah, yeah, so we actually worked with staff
and our original landscape plan did call
for some landscaping there that we were asked to remove,
due to the easement and right away.
- One more question, Commissioner Beck.
- Thank you, Chair.
I remembered what it was that I couldn't let go.
Several people had mentioned
that there's multiple car washes around there,
you actually own one of them.
Is this good business practice to put another car wash
in close proximity to where the ones are?
What's the rationale behind?
- The rationale, it goes back to one of your comments too,
it comes down to population density, right?
And if we look at that area
and we look at the number of rooftops,
the number of people, the number of cars in that area,
it's astronomical.
My existing car wash does do very well,
it is very busy based on the traffic, right?
Now we have 2499, Teasley's getting expanded to six lanes.
This is a very popular area of the city.
There are more subdivisions getting built all the time.
The demand is there.
- So you're just trying to stay ahead of the loop?
- Absolutely, and in general, car washes have a,
you pull from a one to two mile area around your car wash.
It is largely local residents that use it.
- So any other questions?
Thank you, sir.
Again, do not have any other cards.
Anyone else who hasn't spoke
that would like to speak on this item,
please come forward at this time.
Have you, I'm gonna allow one exception
and I'll give you an opportunity to make a final point
and then we're gonna move on with the business tonight.
- Tom Brandt, what is the process of changing the ordinance
?
What can we do as citizens to tell you we wanna change?
Do we make a motion?
How do we get the process changed to change that ordinance,
at least in that area of our residential area?
He's talking about populated, his other car wash is 24/7.
They're not surrounded by our neighborhoods,
several hundreds of houses, neighborhoods.
I see his point, business is business.
We don't want that business in our neighborhood.
That's all.
If we don't want that, legal or not,
that it's a set aside 1990, how can we change that this
year?
Can we change that?
- No.
- Or make a motion to change it?
- No.
- Okay.
- I think it's been said as deftly as we can say it.
- Is it something to go through the state?
I mean, what is the process?
- You buy the property yourself
and then you can do what you like with it.
- Hey.
(audience laughing)
- And unfortunately--
- I wanna pool.
- Well, that's an option too.
- I'm just watering.
- The problem that we really have
and everyone here on this commission
is sympathetic to the plight of all the residents.
- I accept that.
- The unfortunate situation that we have
is we have a property owner who's bought a piece of
property
that is already been designated back in the '90s
that it's a permitted use,
that they can put that kind of business there.
And then the requirement that we have
and that we spend a lot of time in work session
and again here this evening is to make sure
that if that business goes in there
that it meets all of the requirements
that our city has citywide for any business,
his business or anyone else's business
that it meets our requirements for lighting,
that the lighting doesn't bleed into your neighborhood,
setbacks that it has to have
and how far it has to be away from the neighborhood,
what time of buffers, landscaping, ingress, egress does it
have?
And those are the things that this commission
has the ability to have a say in.
And our hands beyond that are really tied
because it is a piece of property
that was designated many years ago
with multiple types of uses that can go there
and that is one of the uses that's there.
So it's kind of like us saying,
well you can't have a house in your neighborhood.
And you go, well everybody has a house here,
they was determined to have houses.
Well what color can it be and what color,
what kind of brick can you put on it?
Those are the types of things
that we're put in a position of here
is that it's permitted to go there
and then there are only certain things
that we have the ability to have a say on
and we're trying as hard as we can in work session.
And here to put is make sure
that all of those conditions are met
and if there are a few other things
that we can ask them to do,
like will they make the wall taller
to try to mitigate the noise even more
above what they're required to do
and out of the goodness of their heart,
will they do that?
We have tried to do the best we can as this commission
to have them be compliant
and if there's a few other things
that we can have them agree to,
to do that, to do all that we can on the commission.
And other than that,
we're very sympathetic to the issues of the neighbors
and understand that they don't want it there,
but the problem is is it's permitted to go there.
To your point, if it wasn't permitted to go there,
this commission has a very different say in it.
But when it is permitted to go there,
legally, we don't have a lot of ability
to tell somebody that you can't put something
on a piece of property that legally
the city has said in the 90s, you can.
And that's really where our hands are tied
and it's unfortunate and I know people don't like it.
People aren't happy with us as commissioners
serving here as volunteers trying to enforce
the rules and the regulation of the city
and respect people's property rights,
taxpayers that live here and pay taxes now,
people who are going to be taxpayers
and try to find, as someone said, a win-win.
And I wish we could have a win-win
that he could go down the street
and y'all could have a park behind your houses.
And I think that opportunity for that
was probably about 30 years ago.
And that's not the hand that we have here this evening.
And so I appreciate all of the residents
who come out tonight to share their thoughts.
And I hope that the residents understand
we have a limited ability in what we as a commission can do
.
And one of those things for sure is to tell them
that they can't, we don't have the ability
to do that on this particular incident.
I'm sorry that we don't, but we don't.
And so it's not that we're not sympathetic,
it is there's limits that we have
and that's where we are on this issue tonight.
And so I hope you appreciate,
trying to give you an opportunity to come back
and speak a second time, that's not a protocol.
We've tried to get as much information
from the owner and the engineer to provide
as much information to the neighbors and the residents.
And like I said earlier, we are not gonna be
the final decision maker on this.
We will make a recommendation to city council
and city council will be the final decision maker
on this item.
And so I invite everyone who's come out this evening,
keep an eye on this.
I'm sure your neighborhood is going to be
very involved with it.
Come back out and come speak at city council.
You'll have another opportunity to make any
and all of the points that you would like on this item.
So thank you all for coming.
- Thank you for your info.
- Yes, sir, thank you.
With that, I have no other cards and no one else to speak
and I'll call on Haley before I close a public hearing.
- Just wanted to clarify from some comments
I heard behind me.
This will be going on the August 21st council agenda
rather than August 7th.
- And that meeting starts at what time?
- 630.
- 630 on the 21st.
- Yes, sir.
- Okay, great.
I hope you all come back out for that.
You're welcome to reach out to your city council people
if you have concerns about that and voice your concerns
and your opinions to them as well.
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
So you had mentioned a little bit ago
about the wall height again.
So engineering point of view or,
if we raise it two feet,
is that?
- That's not a problem.
I think my engineer here spoke to that general area
is we'll just call it the high point in the neighborhood.
Right, you know, my property as well as the property
in the north to me that are both undeveloped.
That's the high part in the neighborhood.
We are through engineering and grading,
lowering our property about three feet.
But in comparison to the residents,
that is still above the residential neighborhood above us.
So I was talking about the three feet up from the residents
.
He was talking that we're actually lowering it
from the existing grade.
So it'll actually be lower than the land is currently.
We are setting the wall on top of the curb,
on top of the fire lane that goes around us.
So we do have a nice green belt around that,
those existing legacy trees that are there.
Because our property is higher
and we'll have a wall on top of our curb.
We're gonna have the working height of 89 feet
when you're viewing it from those residents backyard.
If you'd make the recommendation to add additional feet
to that wall, that is something I would absolutely consider
.
- I think I had asked you earlier
if you would add two feet to it on your side
and make it eight foot.
Are you agreeable to that?
If we make that as a condition?
- I would just, the only concern from an engineer,
I stand, sorry, the only concern
from an engineering standpoint, landscape,
the wall height will create the limbing up of the trees.
So the trees will actually, the wall will go up.
So your trees will actually be impacted
with the wall height on that.
- Thank you for letting us know that as well.
Again, I'm going to, thank you Jerry.
I have no more cards and I've asked for additional speakers
a couple of times and at this time
I'm going to close the public hearing
and I'm gonna open this item for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Beck.
- Let me make a comment first and then I'll make a motion.
Again, I'm gonna repeat myself here and explain that.
We're in a position where we have to honor the rights
of the property owner that has bought property
that he can legally build what he's building.
Our job here is not to pick and choose what gets there,
but what does go there has to meet certain requirements
and I honestly feel Mr. Boshie has done a lot more
than he has to to try and accommodate noise, traffic,
and the things he can do.
You bought your property feeling like it was gonna be
that way for a lot longer than it turned out to
and that's unfortunate, I understand that feeling.
But again, population growth is gonna affect change
in negative ways for some people
and positive ways in others.
So I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion
that we approve this with the understanding
that we really don't have any other choice.
By right he can build that there
and as Chairman Strange pointed out,
this will move on to the City Council
where you can voice your concerns there.
So I motion that we approve PDA 18-04.
- Commissioner Becker, I'm gonna second
and ask for a friendly amendment
to extend the wall two feet higher
from a six foot height to an eight foot height
and I believe you said you were agreeable to that.
And then do we have any other conditions staff wise on this
that we need to make sure to get in this motion
in our backup?
- Certainly, let me pull those up here.
And I did also wanna point out,
I received one more email opposition letter
while we were sitting here that someone asked to share.
Vincent Colano from 3210 Friesian Court
is concerned about noise
and keeping his neighborhood peaceful.
- Thank you for bringing that into the record as well.
Thank you.
- Yes, so the recommended conditions
were the one related to sight lighting
and then the second condition about signage.
- Okay, so I'd like to include those
as well as a friendly amendment
to additional conditions of what we have in backup
as well as the wall height from six to eight feet.
- Agreed.
- Okay, we have a first and a second for approval
with conditions in the staff report
and then the wall height increasing from six to eight feet
and I'll open the floor for discussion.
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to address everyone who came out to speak
and thank you for doing so.
In understanding probably more than you did
when you got in here as far as what really
we had the power to do,
hopefully you'll participate in city council
and maybe think about are there other conditions
that maybe can be placed that they could consider
because again, it is something that is allowed
in the plan development by right
and it's just a matter of making it work in its space.
I know there are a lot of concerns about 2499
and that's unfortunately text out and they own it
and that's their fault and not this property owner's fault
but I absolutely sympathize with everything
that you said about it.
So thanks for coming out and continue to participate.
I hope you do.
- Commissioner Sanchez.
- Also I'd like to thank you all for showing up.
I think when you all show up,
it kind of helps us understand the neighborhoods,
what they want and it also has helped us understand
to talk to the business owners is go out
and talk to your neighbors
because that's how things are resolved before they get here
and so I would just like to thank you all for showing up.
- Thank you.
We have a motion for approval with conditions
and I will call for a vote on the board at this time.
The motion is going to carry four to zero
and again, this is an announcement for you all here
and those that are watching this item
will then come before city council on August the 21st
at 630 and you're welcome to continue to participate.
Thank you all for coming out this evening.
(people chattering)
Given the room a few minutes to clear
and we're gonna move on to our next item
and at this time I'm gonna open the public hearing
on item C, Z18-0007B.
We'll call on Cindy Jackson for presentation.
- Thank you chairman, commissioners.
Z18-0007 is a request to hold a public hearing
and consider making a recommendation to the city council
regarding a request for assignment
of initial zoning designation
of neighborhood residential two NR2 district
to a one acre site that is located east of Mosh Branch
on the north side of Miller Road
or you can see located right here.
Current zoning is already 5X.
The site is part of lot seven of Little Brook Estates.
Lot seven was subdivided by Meats and Bounds in 1977
into one acre lots.
Miller Road was created by Easeman at the same time.
This one acre lot is subject site
was annexed into the city along with the surrounding area
that you can see here in 2010.
It is currently zoned already 5X
which is a holding distance district
which is assigned to newly annexed property.
Here you can see the zoning map
if the site is approved with the NR2 zoning.
Subject site has a future land use designation
of business innovation which is for large tracts of land
that are appropriate for well planned larger scale office
and employment parks developed in a campus light setting
along with their supporting uses.
The types of uses and the scale of the development
permitted
in the NR2 district do not conform to the goals
of the business innovation designation.
Section 3533B3 actually has criteria to consider
when looking to add a request for rezoning in an area
in which the proposed zoning does not correspond
with the future yet land use underlying designation.
The NR2 district permits lodge residential uses
and this is inconsistent with future land use element.
The RD5 district which was assigned to the property
after annexation in 2010 is also inconsistent
with this land use district.
The site is part of a large lot single family neighborhood
which was established beginning in the late 70s
as discussed in the previous slide.
The single family uses are inconsistent
with the future land use designation.
The proposed NR2 zoning designation is consistent
with both the proposed and the surrounding land uses
and it does contribute to the preservation
of the character of the existing neighborhood.
In the backup you received I did go into great detail
on how this site complies with the criteria for approval.
I'm going to just kind of go over them right now,
not in as much detail however.
The requested NR2 zoning district is consistent
with both the proposed use of the subject site
and the uses that are currently in place.
This zoning would be consistent
with the character of the area today.
The site takes access from North Mosh Branch
which is a collector street located south of Miller Road
and it is a primary arterial north of Miller Road.
Water is available for the site through an eight inch line
which is along Miller Road and all of the lots
in this subdivision are on septic as sewer is not available
.
The impacts of one single family residential lot
would be minimal on the transportation infrastructure
in the area.
Public notifications were sent out July 6th.
Within 200 feet 10 certified notices were sent out
and 15 courtesy notices were sent out within 500 feet
of the site and we did not receive any response.
Staff recommends approval of this request.
The NR2 is consistent with the criteria for approval
in section 35, 33B3 and the NR2 district is compatible
with the surrounding property in terms of existing
and permitted uses.
That concludes my presentation and the applicant is present
.
- Thank you Cindy, I don't see any questions.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item
please come forward at this time.
- Good evening commissioners.
My name is Bill Coleman and I am representing the owners
of this property in this matter.
We're here to ask that you go ahead and grant our request
and that we're trying to do what is compatible
with the neighborhood and not what the use would suggest
and build a warehouse or something like that
in the middle of the neighborhoods.
Thank you very much.
If you have any questions.
- Okay, don't see any questions.
Thank you Bill.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item
please come forward at this time.
Seeing none I will close the public hearing
and open the floor for discussion
in the motion, Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you Chair.
I move to approve Z187B.
- Commissioner Beck. - Second.
- Okay, we have a first and a second for approval.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion's gonna carry four to zero.
We'll move us to item D.
We're going to open the public hearing for Z18-0009
and I will call on Julie Wyatt for a presentation.
- Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt,
senior planner at the City of Denton
and I'm presenting Z189 Mayhill Edwards.
The request is to hold a public hearing
and consider making a recommendation to city council
regarding an initial zoning
of regional center residential one, RCR one,
on approximately 15 acres.
The subject property is shown here outlined in yellow.
It is north of Edwards Road.
It's situated in the southeast part of town.
It's near the Mayhill new alignment and existing road
and also near Colorado.
Just a little bit of background on the property.
Like the previous case,
this does have a place holding zoning designation of RD5X.
This 15 acres that we're considering tonight
is actually part of a larger tract.
It's part of a 19 acre tract where a portion of it,
four acres of it was annexed in the early '80s
and during the citywide 2002 rezoning,
it received a zoning designation of RCR one.
Tonight, what we're considering is the initial zoning.
The applicant has asked for the initial zoning of RCR one
for the remainder, which was annexed in 2010.
And so you'll see here the proposal is to just extend
that existing RCR one.
When we analyze the project,
the first thing we do is look at the comprehensive plan.
This is in a business innovation,
future land use designation.
This is intended for large scale employment uses,
but also with supporting uses such as retail hotels
and residential.
RCR one in this instance fits
within the future land use designation
for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it permits the residential uses
and some of those commercial uses that are needed
to compliment the employment areas nearby.
Second of all, it does restrict the development
for these uses to a smaller scale
so that they would be more compatible
with the residential areas nearby.
The mobility of the area contains quite a few options
for the residents in this and businesses in this area.
The subject property is in yellow
and it is located on Edwards Road, as I said.
The entire 19 acre tract has about a thousand linear feet
along Edwards Road and that is a collector.
It is also near the rail trail, which is in purple,
and that's about a quarter mile away
as well as the Med Park Transit Center,
that's about a half a mile away.
And then there is some mobility changes in the area
having to do with the construction of Mayhill Road
and some new alignment.
So that is gonna be a regional road
within the city of Denton
and that is it will get near this property.
This area near the property isn't quite finalized
in terms of final design for Mayhill,
but we do know that some elements to it
that will probably move forward in the final design.
So here's a schematic of what is proposed right now.
Just to orient you, here's Colorado Boulevard
on the south end as well as here's that Edwards Road
adjacent to the DCTA rail.
In the future, as construction moves forward,
Mayhill will actually go north in this direction
and it will go over the railroad tracks
with a bridge.
I will then connect to parts north
to the construction that's going forward north.
The final alignment in this area has not been set.
It could either track to the west or to the east.
Edwards Road, this intersection here outlined in red
will actually go away.
And Edwards Road will veer north
and connect with the existing South Mayhill Road
in this area, which will then move forward
in order to connect to that new Mayhill alignment.
That connection will happen in two phases.
The first phase is that you would travel on Edwards Road
then connect to that old South Mayhill alignment
and then connect to the new construction,
the new road up here.
That's phase one.
Phase two will actually come in a little south of there
and will then hit this intersection.
So anyone traveling on Edwards could then go south or north
.
As part of the request, we also looked at the compatibility
of not only the zoning, but the existing development.
The subject property is once again outlined in yellow.
To the north and to the west of the property,
we have RCR1.
So we have already that RCR1 in place in the area.
And that to the north is developed
with a manufactured housing development.
To the east is multifamily and that's NRMU 12.
Further east is single family neighborhoods
and they have a variety of zoning districts.
To the west and southwest, you've got RCCD,
our regional zoning districts,
and those are developed with employment uses,
including medical, hospital, and then also Flowers Food,
which is an industrial bakery operation.
So RCR1, based upon our analysis,
is consistent with that existing zoning pattern
on the same parcel as well as an extension
of that existing zoning pattern
from the properties to the north and to the west.
If approved, RCR1 would consolidate zoning on the property
so it would facilitate development
under a uniform set of regulations,
including both use and development scale.
As we looked at in the previous slide,
this area is situated between some employment uses
and then some residential uses,
so it really is a transitional area.
And in that respect, RCR1 is appropriate,
given that it permits some higher density housing
with approval of an SUP,
also limited office service retail, those commercial uses
that could serve both the employment
as well as the residential.
Also, RCR1 has lot coverage
and building envelope standards
that are similar to the nearby residential areas
so that any development would be consistent
with those visual, with kind of the development pattern
in the area.
If the zoning is approved, any development
would have to meet all of our development standards.
And water and sewer are either available
or would be extended as part of the development.
Public notification was sent out.
We haven't received any responses.
So based upon the criteria of approval
in the Denton Development Code,
it's consistency with the comprehensive plan
as well as the compatibility with the surrounding property.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
I'll stand for any questions, and the applicant is here.
- Don't have any questions, thank you, Julie.
This is a public hearing.
I do not have any cards on front,
but anyone who would like to speak on this item,
please come forward if you'd like to.
You're not required to, but you're welcome to if you'd like
.
No, okay.
Commissioner Batt.
- Thank you, Chair.
I would like to ask the applicant, if he doesn't mind,
if he does mind, I understand that too,
share with us what, if he can,
what his plans are for this.
Do you have any concrete plans right now?
- No, sir, I don't.
We don't have any plans. - Nothing, sir?
Would you give us your name and address please?
- Randy Thompson, Stonewood, 4116 West Spring Creek Parkway
.
- Thank you very much.
- To answer your question, no, at this time,
we don't have any plans in the works
for a development project.
Without the zoning, there's not much we can plan for,
so we have to get the zoning first,
and then we can go from that point on.
- Okay, not a vision out there though.
Okay, all right. - I don't have the point.
- All right, thank you.
- Thank you, sir.
We don't have any other questions.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone else who'd like to speak?
Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing
and open the floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Sanchez.
- I make a motion to adopt Z18-009.
- Okay, Commissioner Beck.
- Second. - Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any further discussion?
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
Just real quick to thank Julie for your detailed
presentation.
I appreciate it.
You put a lot together there,
and it was very informative and helpful, so thank you.
- Okay. - Hear, hear, hear.
- Yeah, okay.
Any other questions or discussion?
Okay.
I'm gonna call for a vote on the board then.
Motion's gonna carry four to zero.
Good luck with your project.
That will move us to our final item
on our agenda this evening,
our matrix and concluding items.
I hit the microphone with a piece of paper.
My fault.
Sorry.
I'll wake everybody up.
Commissioner Beck.
- Thank you, Chair.
Is this the point where I, again,
bring up the issue of recommending to staff or council
to investigate the comp plan amendment
or a smaller amendment for the...
I'm sorry.
- For our workstation project matrix?
- Yes.
- Okay.
- To get on the matrix is--
- Yes. - Okay.
- What we'll do is, I know we went over
some of the work session dates
for the variety of the topics.
I know one we're probably gonna have to adjust already
on the gas well.
So what I may do is try to move,
I'll rework this and get this out
by the end of the week, by Friday.
That way we have an idea.
But we will be adding to that
the discussion on the zoning changes
and then as well as the item
that you had brought up with the comp plan.
- Okay, very good. - I may even try to lump
bring all of those together
'cause there might be other discussions as part of that.
Or separate. - Okay.
- It's-- - Okay.
Thank you.
- With that, I will close our public hearing this evening
at 9.05.
- Thank you, everyone.