Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday, March 23rd, 2022.
This is our work session and with a quorum present, I will call us to order at 5 PM and say, it's lovely to be back in the work session room for work session.
Our 1st item on the agenda is citizen comments on the consent agenda. Is there anyone in the audience.
To comment there, and staff, do we have anyone on the phones?
I don't know if they can be piped in here.
Okay, hearing and seeing none, we will move on to clarification of agenda items for tonight's meeting.
The 1st will be the consent agenda. Is there any questions on anything on the consent agenda?
Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you. Just real briefly on item C, when I when I look at that, am I correct to understand that this layout is has to be in conformance with the PD that was done back in.
Whatever 1990 99, etc. And that's why the there's no connection to the perimeter road on the north side.
You're correct. Julie isn't here this evening, but the country lakes PD contained a development plan showing the layout, and they also had a preliminary plan approved back in 2013. I believe that dictates the overall layout. So they're developing in accordance with those prior approvals. Okay.
But if but under our current code, we would typically have an additional exit to that perimeter road on the north side. Correct. Okay. Thank you.
And on that same plan, I did email Julie about this, but I'll just go ahead and throw it out there. I did notice that we do not have asterisks on any of the lots here, and I know that we don't have a set rule for that.
But I just like to throw it out there that I love consistency, and I wish that we did because I think the asterisk should be out there for the lots that are within 1000 feet of the gas. Well, I just I think we should be consistent with that.
So if that's something that staff down the road could maybe at least encourage that that be done. I would certainly like to see that. Sure, we could probably add that recommendation to our checklist as a means of showing that particular plot does have it shown as a radius on there.
So the required information is there, but I certainly absolutely for consistent. Right. I saw that the required information is there. The note is there. Absolutely. I just I thought the addition of the asterisk that we've done, I thought, was was really helpful.
And so I would love to see that consistency down the road going forward. If there's a way to do that. Okay. Anything else on the consent agenda?
Okay, let's move to items for individual consideration on 3, a any questions on 3, a.
So, I did have 1 question on that 1. I don't know if Sean Sean going to come up for that.
Sorry, I realize you're just getting settled. Sorry. How are you doing? Well, no worries.
I don't have it to pull up yet, but what had happened there on 3, a was if I'm remembering correctly, that is weird. That is a plot that we're taking in 2 phases.
So initially it was brought forward as 1 total plot that I think we're talking about the right 1. No, I think that 1 is later on. Okay, so the 1 that so this is this is vintage village.
Vintage village. Yes. Oh, yeah. No, no, it is that 1. It is village. It's in 2 parts. Okay. Phase 1 and 1, a because somehow we move down to D for that. Yes. Understood. Yes. Okay.
So what happened was there initially they were bringing forward 1 plat and the challenge is that a letter of map revision is being done to remove part of those lots. This is my exact question. Okay. Yes.
And so the letter of map revision at which the city is actually, we're actually the ones bringing it forward because we're doing some work as part of the extension of the street there.
Once that is approved by FEMA, then all of the lots in the subdivision will be out of the floodplain. The challenge is that right now, when they're when they're going to plat it, many of those lots are still shown as in the floodplain.
And our code specifically says we do not approve lots that are undevelopable, which would be the case while they're shown in the floodplain.
So what we determined to be the best course of action with the developers to bring this in 2 phases, 1 of which the larger 1 F P 21 30 will exclude those lots that are within the floodplain.
So we can go ahead and approve those. No problem. And it will include all of the infrastructure needed for the subdivision as a whole will be done with that.
Once that letter of map revision is fully approved by FEMA, everything should move from the floodplain. That's what we're going we're going to be recommending for approval with conditions tonight.
That don't involve just those lots that are currently shown in the floodplain separate plat.
It'll be approved with the condition that that letter of map revision has to be approved and that plat will have to come back to you all so that we can say, yes, the condition was met.
You can now fully approve it. So you would be approving it with conditions, but it could not move forward until it came back to you with that condition met.
However, that does enable them to get the grading permit they need to be able to move some dirt there in partly in order to accomplish the goal of getting it out of the floodplain.
I realize that may have seemed a little convoluted. Yeah, so I guess that's my question of exactly what are we approving for 3A because it's odd that we're approving it while we're still waiting on a map revision.
Absolutely. And the primary challenge there is they need to be able to move dirt partly in order to align with how they're removing that land from the floodplain. And in order to do that, they have to have a plat that it is at least approved.
It can't be recorded because it's not fully approved, but because it's conditionally approved, they can get the permit they need to do grading and move dirt.
So we'll conditionally approve 3A is the recommendation and it will come before us once that map revision is yes, it will have to come back to you all. Yes.
Okay. Okay. That does answer my question. Anybody else?
Okay. All right. Thanks, John. Let's go ahead and move to 3B.
The recommendation on that is denial, I believe, because it's already had an extension. Correct. Any questions on that?
Okay, let's go to 3C then. And that one, we did have a late email come in today. So that is now recommended for approval. Any questions on that?
All right. And that takes us then to 3D, which kind of piggybacks on what we just talked about. Any questions on this?
Okay. Taking us to 3E, that is an extension requested to a date certain of April 13th. Any questions for staff on that one?
Okay. And then the same with item F, there's an extension request to a date certain of April 13th.
Okay. Let's go ahead and move to our public hearings for the evening on the agenda. So 4A, S20009. Ron is here to, I think, give just the highlights of that and answer any questions or concerns.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Ron Megiddo, principal planner with Development Services. I see we have the presentation visible here. So I'll go ahead and begin.
This is a request for a specific use permit to allow for a townhome use on a property that is zone R4, which is required per the development code.
As you can see from the aerial there, it is located just south of Prominence Parkway, west of Mayhill Road. They are proposing 41 townhomes and one large open space lot.
That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for any questions.
Commissioner McDade.
Yeah, I'm just curious. Are these townhomes, are they rental or are they for purchase, you know?
According to the property owner, they are for purchase, individual lots.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair. Just a question. I noticed on the site plan that they provided that the cul-de-sac turnaround on the bottom is there within this particular lot as opposed to sort of a temporary fire turnaround on the property adjacent if they wanted to try to arrange that.
Is that because a temporary turnaround is not possible due to the fact that non-emergency traffic would also need to turn around potentially or help me understand the difference there?
So the turnaround that you see there is for the fire requirements.
We did not show a connection to the south, primarily because the property to the south is zoned light industrial, and so trying to keep those type of uses separate from each other, this being a residential zoning district and to the property it being a light industrial zoning district.
But as far as the turnaround, and I'm trying to understand the question, are you saying that it's not supposed to be there or it's...
No, no, I understand why we need a turnaround, right, because larger vehicles probably or may not be able to navigate the alleys backward.
And I was just, yeah, just trying to understand why the more clear division between these two plots.
Primarily the zoning districts between the two.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Hey, Chair. Ron, what was the parking situation in there, because I can't really tell from the site plan when I was looking at it before, with the alleyways in the back, are they going to be doing...is it garage parking in the back end of it, is that kind of what they're discussing?
Yes, so garage parking, garage parking as well as the driveway parking will get them the four parking spaces per lot that they need.
Gotcha. Good. All right. Thanks.
Anything else for Ron on this one?
Okay, thanks, Ron.
Okay, that'll take us to our next public hearing item 4B, PD-20007.
Karina, I believe that is yours. Hi, Karina.
All right. Good evening.
Excuse me.
It's allergy season.
Oh, yes, it is.
It's a very heavy allergy week.
So the item today is PD-20-007. This is a plan development called Love First Community Village.
So we'll just do a brief presentation today.
So the request today is to rezone from an existing R7 district to a plan development with the base zoning of MN district.
As you can see, the site is located on the south side of East McKinney Street, east of May Hill Road, basically Caddy Corner to Ryan High School.
The purpose of this PD is to facilitate a new use for the PD only.
So the PD will define a transitional housing project with some non-residential uses such as daycare and office.
Per the Denton Plan 2030 and the newly approved Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan,
it is designated for community mixed use and was also designated for moderate density.
But the designation has remained the same and staff is recommending approval of this PD.
And I can answer questions that you have today.
Questions for Karina.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
I couldn't really tell on the backup information.
Is there provision for connection to a future trail corridor like there have been on previous developments within this corridor?
Yes, thank you for catching that.
And I'll go thoroughly in the presentation.
I am flagging in on a future slide.
So similar to Pebble Brook and Legacy Multifamily, staff was proposing that they have that future trail connection to the future Pecan Creek Trail.
So it's not actually shown on the site plan.
But the PD language does allow that flexibility for them to add it in the future.
So they're currently coordinating with the Parks Department to do that.
OK, thank you.
Other questions for Karina?
Karina, I guess so with regard to transitional housing and we're defining it just for this PD?
Yes, that's correct.
OK, and how are we managing that definition?
So because it is so unique and we're tying it to things and time and so.
Yeah, so within the PD, one of the requirements is that it have its own development standards.
So if approved, those development standards and the development plan would be tied to this property, whether it changes ownership moving forward.
So that PD document does have a specific definition included within it for transitional housing.
And I do have that definition on me so I can kind of read it for everyone,
which we've defined it as temporary housing and supportive services operated by a nonprofit organization.
I'll pause there because the intent is for the current nonprofit to operate that site.
If for some reason ownership changes, it could only be for another nonprofit.
So it keeps the intent of the development intact.
So moving on from that, operated by a nonprofit organization for at risk families who are experiencing financial burdens that have led to or may lead to homelessness.
Within the definition, it also indicates that it's intended to serve as temporary housing for those clients that are transitioning to permanent housing.
And it does make an indication that this is not a homeless shelter.
It is not group housing. It is specific for this type of community.
And what does the word temporary mean?
So that is not specifically defined in the PD.
That is something that we could possibly, I'm looking at Hillary, maybe define further if it's a point of contention.
There is the distinction between the homeless shelter, so that kind of gives the definition of, I think it's a 24 hour, I don't have that definition on me, but I can pull it up.
>> Yeah, and I'm okay with that, but I think we should have some kind of definition for the word temporary in its regard.
Otherwise, I don't understand how we would enforce the PD or what this really means if we don't have that defined.
But yeah, we'd love your input or anyone else's.
>> So I'm not, sorry, we were having a conversation, so I might have missed part of the question.
Scott and I were discussing that by definition of it being transitional housing, it implies that it would not be permanent.
So although there's not a time tied to the temporary component to it, it's not intended to be permanent housing.
It would be managed by the ownership of the non-profit entity or whoever's owning this to determine how long each individual family would reside within the development.
>> Right, so there's not a minimal either, it could be 24 hours?
>> No, it would not, because that would lead it towards the definition in the current DDC for homeless shelters.
So the definition itself does include the language that says that it excludes, or it's not intended to serve as a homeless shelter or group home as defined by the DDC.
So those two definitions within the DDC, as they're written now,
I believe the homeless shelter has a specific time reference to it, and I can pull that up in just a second.
But that would be kind of the catch to prevent that short term type of use.
And I believe the applicant will be here later so they can clarify what the intent is for temporary.
>> Okay, and I'm all okay, except when it comes to intent on certain things,
because I want certain things spelled out so we know exactly what we're using this property for.
And our very few code enforcement people that we have on staff know what it is that they're supposed to be enforcing.
If that were to be a thing that they would be called to do.
So yeah, if you could just maybe, yeah, have a few more definitions, I would appreciate that at the public meeting.
Anyone else? Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So what is even the purpose of why we have to put the transitional housing in there, is that we're trying to avoid the short term rental process.
And then, because that's essentially what this is, if there's not a transitional housing definition,
is that this becomes, at that point in time, treated the same way the city would then treat Airbnbs and those kinds of things.
Is it trying to get through, I mean, it almost seems like by putting its own definition in there in the PD and making it happen this way.
We, and I hope something like this goes through and it's there forever until the end of time.
But if it's not, and then it goes to the next person who has to buy it,
we basically lose that ability without doing a PD revision, an app can come back and do a PD revision.
For that property, then transfer over to a for profit, and then be able to be turned over instead of transitional housing being more affordable, low income housing or something like that.
So what is the purpose of why we have to have that in there?
That's the piece I still don't understand.
>> Yeah, so when this project came forward through the early development process, this was one of those that was hard to define.
It actually came in before the HML proposed uses.
So at its face, it does appear to be similar to the HML use.
The difference between the HML use and the transitional housing use, which is why it's specifically defined in this PD,
is that it's purposely intended for non-profit operation and specifically to address affordability issues for those at risk of homelessness.
So that's the key component in the definition and in how it's worded.
So in terms of ownership, if this were to change from the current owner of Grace Like Rain to another non-profit in Denton or even another non-profit anywhere else, it is restricted to a non-profit by definition.
>> So having it in there, we're trying to protect saying that this property can never go to a non-profit and can never go to that for-profit stature.
>> Yeah, it would prevent it from going to a for-profit type of owner that would then create sort of the HML use.
Everything within the PD is basically a restriction.
In order to change what's proposed within the PD, that's uses, any of the standards they're proposing,
it would be considered a major PD amendment, and they would have to go through the process all over again with public hearings and council approval.
>> Okay, I guess I'm more of just questioning why it's an issue, and maybe I'm the only one that is thinking this, and that's totally fine.
I would want it to only be a non-profit, but once it's built for the non-profit purpose,
if we have restrictive standards in there that make it to where, what if there's not another non-profit that wants to buy it?
And then that property is now sitting vacant with transitional housing that doesn't have a purpose at that point.
Without having to go through a lot of extra steps, somebody else can't come in and take what's already on the ground and convert it over to something else.
It seems like we're adding more restrictions to a property to save off something that actually might be needed in the future if something were to go awry.
And to sort of address that issue is if, for some reason, this development moves forward, let's say the PD's approved.
Let's say it moves forward, it's developed in let's say 20 years down the line, it no longer works.
There are options for a new developer to come in and possibly change it, it's an additional cost using what's on the ground.
They would have to rezone out of the PD, of course that's public hearings,
that it would be up to the community to decide whether that is appropriate for that area if it's context sensitive.
But there are avenues, if that's the will of PNZ and councils, to allow that flexibility.
There is still the opportunity to rezone a property to allow an HML use, assuming it's in the code at the time.
And because it's mixed use having that non-residential component, excuse me.
But the intent now would be for that non-profit operation.
But I suppose that might be a question for the developer during the regular session to answer.
And hopefully that answered your question now.
But was the definition or recommendation of staff or was that a recommendation or was that a request from the applicant?
That was actually a combined negotiation between staff and the developer specifically to meet those comprehensive plan goals towards affordability.
And meet that missing housing component for those at risk of homelessness.
It was more of a let's, if this is what we want to do in this area based on the comprehensive plan in the surrounding area,
which is mostly residential right now, we wanted to keep the integrity of the neighborhood intact.
So I'm not a predictor of what's going to happen in the future, maybe 20 years down the line.
But if those changes come, I believe there's avenues for us to be able to have that go through, if that's helpful.
>> Okay.
All right, thanks.
>> Haley, I have some, okay.
>> Yeah, I was just going to add, Scott was looking it up while we were talking.
There is a definition in the Code of Federal Regulations under HUD's codes for transitional housing that appears to define transitional housing as not more than 24 months.
So we can certainly talk with the applicant during the break before the regular meeting and clarify if that's how they're operating the facility or not.
>> And then to tack on to what Haley just said, when we define the definition or staff was proposing to help word the definition for this,
we did heavily look into HUD's definition of transitional housing.
And so that typically had the general timeframe of one, between one year and 24 months.
Of course, that was staff's assumption and not a specific requirement or specific indication by the applicant.
>> Okay, I'll look forward to that future discussion at the meeting, for sure.
Anybody else at the moment?
Okay, thanks, Graham.
>> I'll just stay here, though.
>> Because you have, let's see.
We are on, yes, 4C, Z210018.
>> I had a break for a while, and now I'm back with the last items.
>> We'll let you give your overview.
>> This one should be, I don't want to say fairly simple, but pretty straightforward.
So this request is Z21-0018, Home Depot.
So the request is related to the Razor Ranch Overlay District.
The request is to amend a landscape plan, which is Appendix D of Exhibit D,
for the Marketplace District located in the Razor Ranch Overlay District.
So just to give you a brief overview, Razor Ranch Overlay District has two main areas.
The North Campus, which is the marketplace for this area, is on the north side of US 380.
The south campus is what's south of US 380.
So this is in the marketplace north side, specifically 11.
And so I've highlighted that on the site plan.
The purpose of this zoning request is that through the Razor Ranch Overlay,
all development in the marketplace has to comply with any approved design guidelines
and approved plans.
So the marketplace area, if there are any deviations from those plans,
it does require that the applicant go through the zoning process to amend that.
So that's why it's coming as a zoning case.
So it's not really changing any zoning, but it has to go through that process
per the ordinance.
So staff is recommending approval of this request,
as they're amending a portion of an existing approved plan
rather than the entire plan.
And this is to facilitate their home improvement store development.
And with that, I can take any questions.
Any questions for Karina on this?
Just curious, are they closing and relocating the store that's
currently here in town?
I don't believe so.
The applicant is here.
They're actually here in work session, but I know
that they can address that during the regular session.
I believe it's a secondary location.
The plans for this area actually previously indicated
a Lowe's was to be located.
So the overlay does identify a home improvement store
as a specific square footage and everything.
They're not planning to change the land use or anything like that,
but it's intended to be a Home Depot instead.
Very good.
Well, I will ask them in the regular meeting.
I do not see any other questions.
Thanks, Karina.
Let's see, that will take us to our final public hearing
for DZ220001.
I'll let Lisa come up and give us a rundown of that item.
Let me see if I can pull it.
That's weird.
Oh, because this isn't the actual folder.
This is just from when y'all copied over.
Can I get to the regular--
[INAUDIBLE]
Yeah.
Let's see if it's this.
Is this right?
Where the heck is it?
Do we not have our own drive here,
or am I just not looking in the right place?
OK.
Well, in general, I can tell you about it
and figure it out before the meeting.
See, we're getting back into work session and the room
and how it works.
Yes, give us the overview.
That would be fantastic.
All right, this is going to be two acres that
is requested to be rezoned from RR to R1.
This is over on the east side of Mosh Branch Road,
just south of 1173.
The property was actually divided
from the overall parent tract that it
used to be a part of before it was annexed.
And at that time, it was given an RD5X zoning, now RR.
It's only two acres, and RR requires five acres
to develop.
And so they can't do anything with their property
at this zoning district, so they would
like to go to R1 so that they may
build a single-family home.
Great.
Commissioner Paul.
Thank you, Chair.
They're wanting to go R1 from RR.
In the flume, is this part of the light industrial?
Yes, it did just change from rural areas
to light industrial, because we've
had that influx of light industrial applications.
But this was filed under the 2030 comp plan, rather than
the 2040 that's approved.
So how does this jive with the flume?
Because this goes back to all these rural homes
on that part of town that we have just
fluned light industrial.
But here we are giving RR to R1.
In my mind, that doesn't make too much sense.
So why-- I mean, this is kind of the rub
that's going on over there.
You have someone going from R to R1.
You have, on the north side of 1173,
large R1 lots with large acre homes.
How does this go together with our flume?
It doesn't seem to.
And how can we reconcile that as a commission
when you guys are telling us to go light industrial,
but then you're acknowledging the RR R1 use here?
There's over 100 homes from 380 to 1173
that are large acre, large lot homes.
So how does this go with the flume to light industrial?
To when, eventually, you're going to go and plow them over.
The light industrial, eventually, you want that to win.
How does this come together in the overall plan?
It seems to me a big contradiction.
I don't know if-- I mean, how do we
reconcile that contradiction?
You're about to give somebody R1 when it's LI.
And on record, I've always been one to keep it RR R1.
But we're encouraging a different land use
from what the flume is.
I agree.
You make some very valid points.
And it was brought in before the 2040 was approved.
And so at the time that it came in,
we did not know for sure what was going to be approved.
It is the same kind of land use that is there currently.
We don't know when the industrial use
will come for those particular properties
right on Moss Branch.
It could be very soon.
It could be 20 years.
We feel as staff that that use would
be OK in that location right now,
as there's other uses that are the same.
And it meets the 2030 comp plan.
So it's OK for now, but in the future, maybe not.
So there is a big contradiction going on here.
And I just want you guys to realize
that of what's going on in this part of town.
There's the here and now, not the flume, not the whatever
is 20 years now, but what is there right now.
And there are so many properties,
like I said, from 380 all the way to 1173 or 1171,
that we're just going to let you have this now.
But in the future, it's going to be a lot industrial.
How do you reconcile that?
I'm sorry to be confrontational.
I don't mean to be.
But this is something that I've always had an opinion on
and have always been vocal about, because that's me.
You know, this is-- how do you reconcile that?
Commissioner Cole, thank you very much.
As Lisa had indicated, the current zoning on the property
is what we're working with, and the proposed zoning of what
they're asking to go to.
The future land use map is just that.
It is a potential future land use map.
All of those properties will have
to come before this body, as well as council, to rezone.
So if it is the will of the commission and the council
not to rezone to a light industrial,
then that will be the case.
And then, of course, our development code
does have standards in place where
it is that any of the buffering or what
may occur with adjacent properties,
those existing residences.
For this particular case, the property owner
has a piece of property that doesn't comply with RR.
They're looking for R1 and looking for this body
to take action on that particular case.
Fair enough.
Thank you, Scott.
I appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
I guess let me just ask a question in that same vein.
So in our backup, we've got a snippet
of the future land use map.
Has this map changed that I'm looking at?
The one that you're looking at?
Yes, likely.
OK, because this falls into rural area in our backup.
But now it's been consumed with--
so this has been taken up because we
had business innovation, which became light industrial.
And then this has been taken into that, too?
Yes, since this agenda was prepared before the 2040
comprehensive plan adoption, all of our maps
rely on the 2030 plan.
And all of our analysis is based upon that
because all these applications began
under that previous comp plan.
So all of them, yes, the maps in your backup
have possibly changed.
And we did our best to address that in the reports
to acknowledge the changes in the map cards.
OK.
Commissioner Anderson.
Thanks, Chair.
I do have a question to go along with what
Commissioner Cole was saying.
So I believe you said that in the future,
if somebody wants to turn their R1 or whatever
into light industrial, it'd have to come before the board.
So this is hypothetical.
Jason owns a lot of land right here next to mine.
And I want R1.
But Jason's like, I'm out of town.
I'm leaving.
I'm moving to Colorado.
I want to sell mine, and this light industrial comes in.
So now my rural house is going to have a light industrial
built right next to it.
That's what I don't understand.
And I'm on the same thing with Jason.
I don't like this because those are rural communities.
Those people lived there for many years.
So I like-- should somebody explain that one?
So I'll take my best stab at that.
So we've had similar cases before,
like the ones on Miller Road that you all
saw just a few months ago.
The pieces of property that we've
had these recent rezonings for are all one to two acres
at most.
Those are, in all reality, not likely to develop
as industrial.
You would have to be--
most industrial developments we see occur 20-plus acres of land,
most of the time 100-plus.
The likelihood in these residential areas
of some developer coming in and buying the entire neighborhood
to rezone and develop is very unlikely.
If someone did choose to do that,
that would have to come before the P&Z and council
to make that request.
And we would have to do that analysis
based on the context, based on the comprehensive plan,
based on our zoning standards, the reality of them
even being able to develop with the buffer standards
and everything else that's in the code.
So it's not just the future land use map.
As Scott mentioned, that's a potential.
That's an aspirational thing that someday
we see that area as a very sensible place for light
industrial, given what's occurring.
But that doesn't mean every parcel is
appropriate for light industrial.
And that's where we have to look at the context of each rezoning
application.
And I might piggyback on that, oftentimes
that it'll come before this body and council and be denied,
whether it's even remotely close to a residential
or an industrial.
So it will be a parcel by parcel piece.
And I think we're mixing two pieces to this,
is that we've got a property owner that's requesting
to go from RR to an R1.
And that's almost the focus we need to be on,
different from where it is the future land use
map has what it is, as Haley had stated, it's aspirational.
That may be the case.
It's an appropriate place if we are
going to have light industrial in the city of Denton.
Doesn't mean that it will be.
And in many instances, it will not be.
That really should be a clouded fuzzy.
It's not a hard line.
It's just we have to draw a boundary somewhere.
It is the current zoning map that really
specifies what it is we have in law,
rather than what it is we're looking at to say,
this is what we think may happen.
Then why put it out there then?
Because it's going to give other developers and businesses
the hope, hey, I want to buy this.
And like you said, if they want to buy 20 acres,
50 acres to build something, they
have the money to buy these people out.
And that's typically what happens
as far as just someone will come in and look,
and they'll do their due diligence to see
if, in fact, they can get the entitlements for the property.
If they can't, then they typically
have options on the property.
But these corporations and businesses,
they're looking at our maps to find out
where they can expand to, where they can go.
And they're going to see that on the map,
going, oh, this is their future land map.
I'm going to start buying up land out here.
And then you got Mr. Cole over here,
sold his lot to--
nothing against Home Depot.
I'm glad you are moving to a second location.
I'm very happy about that.
But what if Home Depot, when our loads,
their competition want to put a big old lot out there?
You know, now they're going to-- they
have the money to buy all that land out there and develop.
But we're giving them an idea, hey, this is where you can go.
And it's kind of wrong to the people that live out there.
That's, I think, what Mr. Coon, Mr. Cole, and what I'm thinking.
And we certainly can have some of those conversations.
And I think it's very appropriate,
as we look at what you're going to have for a work session
here today, is the area plans.
And as we talk about those area plans,
and part of that conversation when
we went before this group, as well as going before council,
is the idea and the concept of where
it is we may make amendments to the comprehensive plan
as a result of getting in and talking
about the detail of specific areas.
And the areas that you're going to see this evening
are going to be larger areas.
But we certainly can't take 4,000 or 7,000 acres
and create an area plan.
We're going to have to break those into smaller pieces.
We're looking to get priorities, what path we're going to go
down, and then we'll have those conversations.
So I'm just trying to focus and make sure
we're staying on topic with this item, which is truly
a property owner asking to rezone their property
from an RR to an R1.
And we absolutely will entertain any future conversations
regarding the future land use map, the comp plan,
and the area plans are going to do exactly
what it is this conversation is taking place with.
Thank you, Scott, and I think we've
veered close enough to being off posting
that if we can put a pin in this element there,
that would be good.
Thank you.
And I think staying on topic with this,
I think the request, they are surrounded
by single-family homes by and large.
There are some undeveloped land around them.
I think my only question, and we can
talk about this in the public hearing,
is does the applicant know that the future land use map
looks different than it did in what
this is being considered under?
So I don't know if you have an answer to that question,
but I'm going to ask that question in the public hearing.
Commissioner Brut.
Thank you, Chair.
And again, just to make sure we're focused on this,
I think if you can remind us in the public hearing specifically
what those buffering requirements are
between residential and industrial land uses
and whether they differ between RR and R1 zoning,
that would help.
Thank you.
Anybody else before we move along?
OK, thanks, Lisa.
OK, that's the end of our public hearing items on the agenda.
So that will take us to our work session report for today.
Trying to figure out if we need to break and get
food before our discussion.
So give me just a second, because I
don't know if it's here.
It is here?
I will-- let me get the commission's thoughts on this.
Do you want to break super quick to get food?
Bring it here, and then we can move along.
OK, let's adjourn for food at 543.
Grab it, and let's resume as soon as possible.
Thanks.
[AUDIO OUT]
Work session for Wednesday, March 23rd.
I will call us back to order at 555.
We will move to our work session report
of the evening, which is Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion,
Give Staff Direction Regarding Prioritizing Area Plans.
Hi, Ron.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Again, Ron, [INAUDIBLE]
Happy to be here presenting this item.
Obviously, as you all know, we did adopt or approve
the comprehensive plan, the DEN2040 comprehensive plan.
And one of the first actions that we're working on
is obviously the area plan.
So with that, I'm going to go ahead and start my presentation.
And before I begin, I just wanted
to share a few things on why we want to see area plans,
why it is necessary, why it is needed.
It is really to establish a refined and more specific
vision for an area.
I know that there was some discussion earlier
what this area should be, how this area should be developed.
I think through the area planning efforts,
that is something that we will accomplish.
Land preservation is also another reason
why area plans are important.
It identifies certain areas that should be preserved.
Development pressures and opportunities.
We see areas in our city today all over.
Someone asks, where are the development pressures
within the city?
Well, it's everywhere.
And when you see the map-- and I think
you have a copy of the map that we're proposing or recommending
rankings for area plans--
it's all over.
It's not just one location.
Maintain versus establishing a character, a new character
for that area.
That is something that an area plan can accomplish.
Infrastructure mobility challenges.
There is an area that we know that is struggling
with mobility right now.
And so we want to make sure that whatever that solution is,
resolution is, we will refine what that is
and figure out what can be done to address those challenges.
Community interest and partnership.
We have a lot of folks that are interested in finding out
what that next level is, what that vision is for that city.
So we know we have a group in town
that has already started that process,
and they've got a great interest in seeing an area plan.
We want to see them through that process.
And the last two is really the implementation
of the comprehensive plan, as well as
what we're referring to the focus area concept
map that is shown here.
You can see that there are centers.
There are areas shown in red that are more corridors.
And corridors are basically that you
can just imagine just an area that's
along a major corridor, such as University, Mayhill, Loop 288,
or whatever it may be.
And so that is really why we want to see area plans.
Two slides here, just really quickly,
to kind of identify where in our comprehensive plan
that specifically says area plans are needed,
why it's needed.
So in element two, which is our land use element,
it talks about action items that creating area plans
are for certain areas to create, again, what we already
discussed in the very first slide.
I won't read through all of this.
Prioritizing 281, it specifically
says prioritize and create area plans for centers, corridors,
and other areas within the focus area concept map.
So that is why we're here today, is really
to prioritize the area plan.
We're not here to talk specifically
about that area specifically, but just really
where we want those first area plans to be.
Ultimately, we will be sharing this information
with the city council.
They will then talk about if they
agree with the recommendation.
And then two, what number of area plans, excuse me,
that we want to accomplish?
Do we want to do one a year?
Do we want to do two a year?
Whatever it may be.
That is something that will be discussed at that level
with the city council.
Another element in the comprehensive plan
is element number four.
Element number four, again, action 4124 says the same thing.
Create a prioritization.
And that, again, is why we're here today,
is to prioritize these area plans.
Now, staff took the initiative and identified the areas
that we feel are important.
And we've actually ranked them from 1 to 10.
Our ranking from 1 to 5 is probably more needed.
The 6 through 10 is something that we know
that needs to be done.
But really, 1 through 5 is really our focus.
So here's that list.
1 through 10, you have a copy of this slide on your desk.
My hope is that at the end of this presentation,
the Planning Zoning Commission will share what they believe
is the ranking of the area plans.
This is the list that we developed.
There are other areas that you are obviously aware of that
may not be represented here.
And we'll certainly take that into consideration.
And we'll forward that message to the city council.
But again, this is staff's recommendation.
So take a look at this.
And as I go through the presentation
and you feel that 1 is important,
circle that or identify it.
So again, when we circle back with the commission
at the end of this presentation, we
want to hear from you all what your top three, your top four
is.
And then again, that will be what
we will be forwarding to city council on your behalf.
So we'll go ahead and get started.
Any questions so far before we get to the next slide?
Commissioner Smith.
Ron, I'll save most of my questions for the end.
But are there any areas that are not on there
that you guys talked about but didn't you
exclude it off of there?
There's one up there that I would recommend.
Honestly, we were focusing on, like I said earlier,
the top five.
We wanted to give you all additional areas as well.
So we built it up to 10.
But to answer your question, no.
I think the list that we have here
is what staffs believe should be represented.
OK.
Thanks.
OK.
Thanks, Ron.
OK, so the first one is the Northeast area, primarily
Loop 288 and Sherman, the area that you
see highlighted here in yellow.
And again, before we get further,
I just want to say that the boundaries
are general boundaries.
Don't focus on the boundary.
Just focus on the area.
As we start this process of area planning,
we will refine that boundary.
It could get smaller.
We hope it gets smaller.
This is a very big area.
But in other areas, it could get bigger.
But for the most part, this is the general area
that we have been looking at and have
been presented by the community that lives in this area
as a study area.
And so this is what we are beginning with.
It's approximately 7,000 acres of almost 700 parcels.
And you all know this area primarily
because of the development pressure
that we've seen lately.
There has been two planned developments in this area.
It's primarily rural.
The area has a lot of natural resources,
environmental-sensitive areas, and floodplains.
So land preservation is something
that we would like to focus on.
Infrastructure and mobility.
There was-- not too far from here,
or right within this boundary, there was a planned development.
And some of the concerns was traffic
and related to King's Way.
So infrastructure and mobility challenges
is something that we would like to focus our study on.
Again, I spoke about the community interests.
We already know that.
And then also, council has already
mentioned that this is an area of interest for an area plan.
Southeast area plan.
Also referred to the Southeast Den Neighborhood Alliance
area.
The boundary that you see here, again, is what we believe
represents the area that we would like to study.
The boundaries, again, will most likely change
as we get further into the analysis.
And I want to preface that there will
be some overlaps between the next few area plans.
But if you look at this boundary,
this is what we can believe the Southeast Denton Neighborhood
Alliance area represents.
One of the challenges that we know is happening there
is obviously there's an issue of maintaining its character.
We see development pressures from the downtown area
coming to this area.
We also want to make sure that we capitalize
on the assets that's there.
So what are those?
Well, we'll find out with the area plan.
Once we define those assets, we can then
build on and capitalize on those.
And then again, council has expressed interest for this area
as an area plan.
I can tell you back when I first started,
there was a draft area plan for this area.
It was never really fully approved.
It went through a number of public meetings,
but we never really approved it.
So I know that this is something that we desperately
need for this area.
We have seen-- the Planning Zoning Commission have seen
developments happen in this area and have
seen a lot of questions and issues related
to compatibility, traffic.
So again, an area that we definitely
need to develop an area plan.
Downtown Master Plan update.
The last time this plan was approved was back in 2000.
This area continues to grow.
And again, as you already know, it
abuts the southeast end neighborhood area.
One of the challenges that we will have
or one of the tasks that we will need to do
is make sure that we find that compatibility area,
create that transition area, and make sure
that both of these areas are represented
and any issues that are created are addressed.
So through that area planning, that is something
that we will do.
We see development pressure, again, in the downtown.
The character of the downtown we want to maintain.
We see infrastructure, mainly infrastructure.
We know that the drainage in the area is being worked on.
And again, there are approved developments happening today.
And we are continuing to see more development proposals
in this area, and it does affect other areas adjacent to them.
So how do we make sure that those areas are also protected?
Adjacent to this area.
Number four is the area northwest of town.
This is the area where Loop 288, I-35, 77,
and to a certain degree, all of the light industrial,
again, what we had discussed earlier, encompasses.
We know that light industrial is a future land use designation
to the west of I-35 and then to the east.
Continues to be business innovation.
That's a very high level designation.
What is the vision for this area?
And so again, the reasons for this area plan
is, again, to refine what that vision is,
to understand more specifically what that area or this area
should be.
It is a gateway into the city.
We need to make sure that we create that identity of what
we want visitors to see.
We have a lot of development pressures.
Not only non-residential, but also residential.
Infrastructure challenges.
There's not a whole lot happening in this area
as far as infrastructure.
So as development occurs, they're
required to provide or bring to the site
that infrastructure, water and wastewater specifically.
Dallas Drive.
Excuse me, Ron.
Mr. Cole.
Sorry, Ron.
Thank you, Chair.
There is a House bill that is about to be reborn
on de-annexation.
And you just said something.
This area has no infrastructure.
So let's say, for sake of arguments,
this House bill passes.
And I can't remember the number House bill,
but you know what I'm talking about.
So if a city cannot provide infrastructure,
that area will be able to basically de-annex.
How does that fit into your overall strategy and planning?
Because one of the hardest things we have as a city
is that we're under something that I would call hyper growth.
Five, maybe six municipalities in this country
have seen the growth-- I mean, we have to redo our numbers
every quarter, our growth numbers.
I mean, the only thing I've seen close to this
would be the Atlanta suburbs of Duluth, Georgia in the '90s.
I worked for a biotech company out of there.
Commissioner Cole.
Ma'am.
We could be getting off topic.
Oh, sorry.
No, if it's germane to this, that's great.
Otherwise, you may have something
to add to the matrix for a work session.
Sure.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for that, Commissioner Cole.
And we'll certainly make sure that we follow up
on that as we do the area plan for this area.
Dallas Drive, number five, I believe,
related to an area plan or a corridor plan.
I know that there is a difference between the two.
An area plan is obviously a larger area,
involves a lot of properties that may not necessarily
be on a major corridor.
This happens to be Dallas Drive.
And for those that are familiar--
I'm sure all of you are familiar with Dallas Drive--
it needs a little help.
And so not only on the private side,
but also on the public side.
And so not only will an area plan
look at the private side of things,
but we will also look at what can
be done to improve the public side of this corridor.
So again, something that we feel is necessary for a corridor
plan to occur for this particular Dallas Drive.
The next one is Fort Worth Drive, another entry
into the city, another gateway into the city,
similar to Dallas Drive.
Needs some work.
I know that there were some recent improvements
with TxDOT.
However, with that being said, there's
still room for improvement.
This is a very long corridor.
And as we were looking at this the other day,
it may be broken up into two sub-areas.
One probably south of the railroad, down this way.
And then maybe one north of that,
because they definitely are two different characteristics.
So this would be number six.
Number seven and eight are commercial nodes.
These are areas that we are also seeing
some development pressures.
But mainly, again, this is to really find out
what this area should be as far as what that vision should
be occurring in this area.
It's a gateway into the city from the east.
I'm sorry, 380, as you head west towards the city,
this is one of the first commercial areas that you see.
So how should this area be developed?
How should this area be designed?
How should this area look as you come into the city?
There are some areas that can certainly
serve as land preservation.
But again, our opportunity here is
to make sure that we have an area that's
developed with the vision that we would like for this area.
And the only way to do that more specifically and more refined
is through an area plan.
The same thing for this area, which is Loop 288, Mayhill,
and McKinney.
This area is a commercial area.
I know that the area north of McKinney has seen--
well, we haven't seen anything yet, but we will be.
And we want to make sure that whatever development goes
in there is representative of what we, the city,
would like this area to develop in.
Again, this is a commercial node between Loop 288, Mayhill,
and McKinney, which are major arterials.
The last two are, again, 9 and 10 further down our ranking.
But we wanted to include it to kind of give you
guys some ideas of other areas that potentially
could be area plans.
This is the Mayhill corridor.
Similarly, it has seen some improvements,
or you know it has improved.
It is currently a four lane divided with a potential
to go to six lane.
We see a lot of activities here, but we can certainly
see more guidance that we can provide
as development continues.
West of Mayhill can be more commercial.
East of Mayhill could see more residential
as it transitions further east to where there's
more residential development.
The last area plan that we have identified
is the Sherman Drive area.
And some of you may be looking at this and say, well,
why do we even want to do a corridor plan for this area?
It's primarily residential.
What I can tell you is Sherman Drive in this segment of town
is a wide street.
There's opportunities for some mobility additions.
And that could be a bike.
It could be side paths.
But really, just to bring this community a little bit more
in tune as to why, or as to some of the improvements related
to mobility.
We also know that there's some commercial nodes at both ends
of this corridor plan, and that's certainly
something that we can also focus on as we study this area.
And that's all of the top 10 ranking
that the city has, or the staff has identified.
What, again, we would like for you all is to give staff
direction, or give your ranking on which area plan should be
started first, second, third, and fourth.
I think that is what we need to do.
And I'll stand for any questions or listen to any comments.
Awesome, thank you, Ron.
It's exciting to see this in discussion.
So why don't we do this?
Why don't we ask questions first?
And then, why don't we then go one by one?
I'll call on everybody, and we can give maybe our top four,
and then kind of take discussion from there.
Does that make sense?
OK, Commissioner Smith, question?
Yeah, the only question then would be--
I think there's only one area that we didn't identify
that I think would be important.
And it would be the west section of 380 west of 35.
That being another major entryway into the city
coming from Decatur and from the west.
And so that wasn't an area that was on there.
I think certainly there are some big pieces of corridors
that weren't included, or that are included,
that certainly need to be looked at.
But that's probably the only blind spot
that I think that we have on that map right now,
is we don't have a--
we're not accessing that area.
So less of a question and more of a statement.
So I don't know if that was--
I don't think you guys considered that.
That's why I asked the question earlier.
I don't think you guys considered that area and said,
there's x, y, z reason why we shouldn't focus on that one.
No, again, we had our top area plans area selected.
I can tell you that this list is, again,
staff's recommendation.
We can certainly add to that if we need to.
And then ultimately, again, city council
will be presented that.
Yeah.
And I think just for a lot of the discussion and the ranking,
I think that we--
personally, I think that we should be focusing on areas
that have a lot of room for growth and development,
that we're facing a lot of development pressures.
It's not saying that the Sudna area or the downtown area
doesn't need to have a review.
But we don't see developers trying to buy up land
and get rezoning in the middle of southeast end right now.
We see some small spots zoning, but versus what
we're seeing northwest, what we're seeing up to 288
and Sherman, those areas are getting a lot of pressure.
And I think that should really be driving our prioritization
list of what we should be approaching first.
OK.
Wasn't so much a question.
Sorry, Margie.
That's OK.
Any questions?
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you, Chair.
And I promise I'll make them quick.
As far as prioritization and scheduling
with other activities going on, for instance, number 5, 7,
and 10, those corridors, specifically
their textile corridors that are potentially
on the turn back program and that sort of thing,
did staff consider the timing of those processes
to make sure that we are aligned and don't end up
doing something twice, if that makes sense?
And a similar question would be, I
think it would be most legitimate to the downtown area.
I know there's a master drainage study going on.
Basically, have we made sure that the schedules
of those activities align with when
we think the proposed priorities would line up with that?
So yeah, really briefly, we understand
that there are other plans.
There are other projects happening.
But we have to act now in some instances.
So to answer your first question,
yes, we did consider timing.
However, does it factor higher than other reasons?
Not as high as other factors.
I can tell you that one of the reasons
why you do these area plans is what you identify.
And maybe their schedule can be shifted earlier.
It could be later based on some of those discussions
that we have with the area planning.
Yeah, and if I could just interject,
I would think a lot of this kind of discussion
would happen when we were actually
in discussion to draw boundaries and whatnot if a small area
plan was going forward.
Obviously, those future plans with TxDOT and what have you
would certainly be obviously under discussion then
versus at this exact moment.
Thank you.
And then-- sorry.
I don't know what's in my throat here.
Allergies.
I don't know that it's been flagged out in the past.
But one area that could have a lot of development
in the future-- I think there have been previous applications--
is that Pecan Creek area kind of north of Shady Oaks
between Woodrow and loop 288.
And I recall Tina Fergan saying, if we don't plan our city,
the developers will plan it for us.
So have we thought about what makes sense for that area
and if that needs to be melded with this process?
Yes.
We've had any number of conversations.
And I'm just going to say a couple of pieces
and let Ron continue.
I'm concerned with the time.
So we're at 6, 24, 5.
I don't know if this clock is jive.
So there's five minutes.
We can ultimately--
We have 10.
It's 6, 20.
OK, good.
Then that clock's wrong.
I'm sitting here watching this, getting very nervous.
We can reconvene this after the meeting
if we wanted to do that.
And I don't know that everybody has
a level of comfort of being able to tally up their sheets
rather than going person by person.
We could take those sheets and then we could report back
if you wanted to do that.
I don't know how many more questions there
may be on this very topic.
Well, let's find out.
I want to echo just a couple more pieces of this.
Based on the feedback that we've received
between this commission and city council
is how we arrived at this list.
There are probably another 25 area plans
that we could do for varying reasons.
So from a big picture, these area plans are huge.
And there's a financial implication
to all of these plans.
And I will tell you that not one of these plans
will be produced for less than $100,000.
And it will take a considerable amount of time.
So I don't want to mislead that we have 10 items here.
And that this is going to be achieved
in a short period of time.
So we've got to get the funding.
We've got to go to council.
What our goal is is to try to expedite and truly get
one or two plans that we can get in front of council and say,
we're going to need a quarter of a million.
We're going to need $300,000 to initiate these two
and to begin the work.
We will not stop evaluating or discussing.
And we can continue and we can bring specific work sessions
to talk about specific areas and delve into this further.
But what we really need to achieve out of this
is what is the priority that we can take to council
and start getting to crunching the numbers to say,
we need some money, we need some resources,
and we need to be able to start working.
So the goal is, as great as I agree with the West Gateway,
I agree with the Shady Shores area,
I would add a couple of more in here personally.
If we can just try to narrow down some of these areas, what
we think are the top several, Ron mentioned the top five.
We won't touch the top five in the first year.
It's not possible.
We don't have the resources nor the money.
So if we can get to these top three, it would be ideal.
Ranking the top 10 is perfect so council has it.
If you need to tally these and then we can compile them later,
we're happy to do that.
Reconvene this meeting, whatever it might take.
And Madam Chair, however you want to do this.
I just wanted to kind of throw those pieces in there
so it was clear and concise.
Thank you.
Thanks, Scott.
OK, any specific questions with regard to what we're needing?
Do you feel comfortable giving your top?
I mean, honestly, I don't really think you need much more
than a top three at this point.
So you can go forward, staff can, with recommendation
to city council so we can garner some support.
Are you comfortable doing that now
or do we need to come back after the public meeting?
Yes, I mean--
Yeah, yeah, so I mean--
And ideally, I'd like the top 10.
So if you can rank them, rank them and we'll compile.
I'll do this.
I'll just start and then I'll call on you all, OK?
So I think the list is fantastic.
I even think the rank is great.
I would personally flip three and four.
We've had a lot of development pressure
up in that part of 35 and 77.
We had a development project that was denied and moved
to the other side of the freeway, as it should have.
But that area, I think, more than doing an update
to downtown, which is important, but downtown is kind of always
going to happen and kind of be.
And to me, that doesn't need to be number three for me.
Obviously, Northeast, number one,
it's been a need for years.
I love that as number one.
Southeast Denton deserves to have some kind of plan
and preservation plan.
They've been begging for it, absolutely.
Let's keep that a top priority, in my opinion.
I would flip three and four, and I'm probably
good with the rest of it.
Ranked, so there's my two cents.
Commissioner Prudit.
1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 7, 6, 8, 9, 10.
Say that one more time.
Do that again, just so that they can tally for you.
1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 7, 6, 8, 9, 10.
Commissioner Smith.
1-- I'm going to do it in the form of the Prudit format,
is what I'm going to call it.
1, 4, 2, 3, and then 5 through 10, stay in order.
And for me, yes, said none needs to be addressed.
We have, yes, Luke 288 Sherman has been the biggest--
has been the first place we had discussion
about small area plans.
The next one was whenever we saw the developments on '77
and saying we need a small area plan.
So it kind of seems a little bit apropos
for us to talk about small area plans,
then the two we've had the biggest discussions about
not be addressed.
So we need to have that.
Commissioner McDade.
OK, I have no problem with 1 through 4,
but I would like to see number 8 moved up to number 5,
because that intersection, both of those intersections,
are very dangerous.
And I'm kind of amiss that I still
see people trying to cross over.
You have all those apartments, that's a lot of pedestrians,
and I still see people trying to cross over.
And it's like this has been going on for years,
and I don't know why the city has done nothing about it.
I mean, Ryan High School has been there since '92,
and it took them 30 years to get a sidewalk.
[INAUDIBLE]
No, no, I mean, I can leave it as it is.
I will swap 5 and 8.
OK.
OK, 5 and 8.
Thank you.
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
I would flip 3 and 4 and keep the rest aside.
Flip 3 and 4.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Yeah, 2, 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 5, 6, 7, 10.
Commissioner Anderson.
1, 7, 4, 2, 5, 8, 6, 3, 9, 10.
OK.
Do I need to repeat?
I think you got that.
OK.
OK, so I don't know where that is for consensus,
but you're going to tally that up and let us know.
Yeah, real quickly, from my results,
it's 1 and 2, basically, that rise to the top.
The way that staff has it.
Right, and then 4 and 3.
Again, very close, but I think 4 and 3.
Do you have--
[INAUDIBLE]
So again, 1 and 2, and then there's
a little bit of difference in 3 and 4, but--
OK.
We can certainly see 4 being third.
And that gives you something to go forward with, counsel?
Yes, ma'am.
Right?
Yes, ma'am.
Awesome.
I appreciate it.
OK, thank you, everyone.
Good job.
I'm going to adjourn us at 6.28 PM,
and we will convene very shortly in council chambers.
OK.
Welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting for Wednesday, March 23, 2022.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.35 PM.
Our first item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance
to the US and Texas Flags.
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.
On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance
to the Texas, one state, under God, one nation, indivisible.
Thank you.
Our second item on the agenda is our Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve.
We have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Villarreal?
Second.
First and a second for approval of the Consent Agenda.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, we can vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 7-0.
That leads us to our items for individual consideration.
3A is FP21-0037.
I will call up Sean Jacobson for a presentation on this item.
Thank you.
Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission.
I'm going to go ahead and pull up our presentation here.
All right.
So tonight, I am presenting FP21-37A.
This is the Platt of Phase 1A of the Vintage Village Edition.
And staff is recommending approval with conditions,
with the following condition, which
is that all lots in Phase 1A must
be removed from the FEMA Zone AE floodplain
by a letter of map revision approved by FEMA
and provided to the city of Denton,
including confirmation that no valid objections to the LOMA
were received during the 90-day appeal period.
And when that condition is met, if you
choose to approve with that condition,
this Platt will have to return to this body for approval
fully without conditions.
So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
All right, thank you, Sean.
Any questions for Sean on this?
Commissioner Pruitt.
Move approval with the staff recommended
conditions.
Thank you, Commissioner Pruitt.
Commissioner Smith.
Second.
We've got a first and a second with staff conditions.
Any discussion?
OK, seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to 3B, FP22-0006.
And that is Karina's item.
Hi, Karina.
Good evening.
The Platt before you is FP22-0006.
This is a final Platt for a single lot
for multifamily development on the east side of Loop 288,
just south of East McKinney Street.
Staff is recommending denial of this request,
as there are still a few items that they
need to address that do not meet our criteria.
The applicant has already requested their 30-day
extension, so that is no longer available.
And with that, I can take any questions.
Thanks, Karina.
Any questions?
Commissioner Villareal.
I move denial of the request.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We've got a first and a second for denial of this item.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 7-0, leaving us to 3C, PP22-0004.
And Julie's not here, but Sean is.
All right.
So on behalf of Julie, staff is recommending denial
of this Platt, as it does not meet
the criteria for approval.
I think we had a change in that, did we not?
Oh, I'm sorry.
There was a last minute change to this Platt.
There was very late today.
My apologies.
Incorrect.
Yes, this Platt is now recommended for approval.
Yeah, this was the original in our backup,
but it was emailed the updated--
Correct, yes, just before the work session started.
Thanks, Sean.
Any questions on that?
OK, so staff's recommendation for this Platt is approval.
Correct.
OK.
Commissioner Villarreal?
I move approval of the request.
OK, Commissioner Cole?
Second.
All right, we've got a first and a second
for approval of this preliminary Platt.
Any questions?
OK, let's vote on the board, please.
Motion carries 7-0.
3D is next, FP21-0030.
Hello again, Sean.
Good to be back.
All right, so we'll just go to--
this is-- get to the right one here--
FP21-30, which is the Platt of Phase 1 of the Vintage Village
Edition, which is the larger portion of what we approved
with conditions earlier.
Staff is recommending full approval of this Platt
as it does meet all criteria for approval.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Any questions for Sean?
OK, I don't see any.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Anderson?
Second.
OK, we've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing no, let's vote on the board, please.
Motion carries 7-0.
We'll bring us to 3E, PP22-0002.
And I will invite Lisa up for this item.
Hi, Lisa.
Good evening, commissioners.
Lisa Peng, principal planner for the city of Denton.
The item before you is a preliminary Platt
for a multifamily development on Mayhill Road
and the future Rory Road.
Staff is recommending denial as it does not
meet the established criteria for approval,
but the applicant has requested a 30-day extension, which
staff has no problem with coming back on April 13 to P&Z.
Thank you.
Any questions for Lisa on this?
I don't see any.
Thank you, Commissioner Villarreal?
I move approval of the extension to the date certain of April
13, was it?
Correct.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
All right, we've got a first and a second
to approve the extension request to a date certain of April 13.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's vote, please.
Motion carries 7-0.
That takes us to 3F.
PP 22-0006.
Lisa, you're back.
I'm back.
All right.
So for this one, this is an item for a preliminary Platt
for self-storage development at Hickory Creek Road
and Teasley Lane.
Staff is recommending denial as it does not
meet all the criteria yet, but they
have-- words.
They have requested an extension so that they can have time
to take care of all the comments.
So I know we have no objection to the April 13 meeting.
Thank you.
Questions for Lisa?
Thanks, Lisa.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve the extension of date certain
of April 13, 2022.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
OK, we've got a first and a second
to grant the extension request to a date
certain of April 13 discussion.
OK, let's vote on the board, please.
The motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to our public hearings portion
of the meeting for tonight.
First one is 4A, S20-0009.
I will invite Ron up for presentation
and open the public hearing.
Hi, Ron.
Good evening.
I'm Madam Chair, members of the commission, Ron Nogito,
principal planner with Development Services,
presenting to you today a specific use permit request.
The request for you all today is a specific use
permit to allow a townhome use.
The area that is being proposed is shown here
on this slide in yellow.
It is generally located just west of Mayhill Road,
approximately 825 feet south of Providence Parkway.
The proposal is for 41 townhome lots
and one large open space lot.
The approximate acreage is approximately 8.382 acres.
Looking at the comprehensive plan
and the future land use map that is,
the area is shown both in moderate residential
as well as business innovation.
But I can tell you that the majority of it
is in moderate residential.
The map has a little flare with it regarding the buffering,
so it is more of a moderate residential.
What does allow for townhome lots, the density
that's prescribed for this area is 4 to 12 dwelling
units per acre.
And again, it does allow for low-rise multifamily dwellings
and townhomes.
The zoning of the property is zone R4,
which is residential 4.
Townhomes are permitted in the R4 zoning district
with an approved specific use permit,
as well as use specific standards.
Staff has reviewed the site plan,
which we'll see in a couple of seconds here,
and made sure that they meet the minimum lot dimensions.
Maximum height of their buildings
is 40 feet under the R4 zoning district.
50% building coverage.
And again, staff has looked at their landscaping
and their street tree requirements.
And again, I've got a slide that illustrates
their landscaping plan.
And again, they've met all of those requirements.
This is the site plan of the proposed townhome development.
As you can see, it's shown here on both sides of street A.
They haven't identified the street yet.
However, during the platting stages,
that's when it will be developed or it will be named.
Really quickly, again, we've already
talked about the R4, 41 townhome lots.
They've indicated it will be two stories.
The minimum lot area is 2,200.
Required minimum lot is 2,000, so they're above that.
They are also above the minimum lot width,
as well as the minimum lot depth.
The size of their open space is significant.
As you can see from this site plan,
it's primarily all of this lot here.
And it wraps around to the west and makes its way
up in this direction.
This area is primarily ESA, as well as some floodplain or floodway
area.
So therefore, they're prescribing this area
to be more of open space.
This is their landscape plan.
And again, just to show where those street trees are
going to be located, they are required
to plant one large shade tree per dwelling,
as well as street trees on an average
of 30 feet of linear feet on the street frontage.
They're also required to provide the 30% front yard landscaping
and 20% rear yard landscaping.
Now, they don't show their buildings, but their landscaping
requirements are that they provide that minimum landscape
area in the front, as well as in the rear.
And that will be reviewed during their building permit stage.
Staff has reviewed the application
against the criteria for approval, Section 245E,
as well as 252D, and has determined
that the plan does comply or is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
It, again, is moderate residential.
It complies with the development code, as we discussed earlier.
They meet the requirements.
They also comply with the utility service and improvement
standards.
Our engineering department has reviewed the utility capacity
for the area, and they do comply with that.
And again, one of the main corridors in this area
is Mayhill Road, and they are just west of Mayhill Road.
Notifications were sent out to the areas
that you see on this map.
As of this afternoon, staff has not
received any written responses.
Staff has received emails and phone calls,
but there were more questions about what's being proposed.
So nothing in terms of a response,
either in favor or in opposition.
The applicant has not held a neighborhood meeting.
Again, this is the notification that was prepared.
Staff is recommending approval as it meets the criteria
for approval, as indicated earlier in the presentation,
with a condition.
And the condition is as follows.
Any amendments to the site plan and landscape plan
related to the increasing of the number of lots,
the change of the lot layout, changes of the street layout,
or decrease of the area of open space
shall require a specific use permit amendment in accordance
with the DDC.
So again, we want to make sure what is being presented
is going to be built under their proposed site plan
and landscape plan.
And that concludes my presentation.
I'll stand for any questions.
- Thank you, Rome.
Any questions for Rome?
Commissioner Pruitt?
- Thank you, Chair.
Is there a particular concern that staff has,
which is why they want to,
or why the recommendation is to ensure
that nothing changes based on the site plan?
- No, I think the reason we do that
and specific use permits are really tied
to some conditions, you know.
We want to make sure that the development
that's being presented will not change.
I don't think we have any concerns.
I don't think there'll be any changes,
but we just want to make sure that we stipulate
that any changes will require a new specific use permit.
- Okay, thank you.
- Any other questions for Rome?
I don't see any right now, Rome.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any cards to speak on this item,
but anyone is able to speak
if they feel they would like to.
Yeah, if you'll come up and give us your name and address.
Please.
- I just, I apologize.
I was looking to see if the applicant was here
and maybe they wanted to speak, but they haven't.
- Okay.
- They didn't fill out a card, so I assume that they--
- No, I did not.
Yeah, I do not have any cards.
- Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the commission.
My name's Warren Corwin with Corwin Engineering.
Ron's done a great job of showing you what we're going to do.
I just want to know we're here to answer any questions.
So if you have any, we'd be happy to answer them,
but no reason to go through what he just went through.
- Thank you.
I think we do have a question, Commissioner Perutt.
You're still on the board now.
Okay, any questions for the applicant?
Okay, I don't see any.
Thank you.
- Hello.
- Good evening, board members.
My name is Paula Buckley,
and I live at 950 North May Hill Road,
which is directly across the street
from where this is going to be planned, okay?
My question is, is that, yes,
I know there's a floodplain there.
What is going to be done to that floodplain area
that they're going to leave open?
Because there are two creeks that run through that,
it runs all the way through the floodplain.
- Okay.
- Because there are two creeks that run through that,
it runs across, underneath the May Hill Road,
and then comes across to us on the east side, okay?
When North May Hill Road was rebuilt
over this past several years,
they raised it up for probably about three foot.
Now people's houses that live directly
on the other side of that get flooded
every time we have a main flood,
where they get water in their house.
So what I would like to know is, do you have a contingency
plan for this, or are we going to make sure
that not just the development of that community,
new community coming in and benefiting them,
but to make sure it's not a detriment
to those of us that have been there 50 plus years?
It's the same place, and that is all.
- Thank you, we will bring staff up to answer your question.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts
and concerns and questions, appreciate it.
- Yes, just to answer the drainage question concern.
As we all know, May Hill has been improved,
and some of that activity may have changed
some of the flow of drainage there.
But what I can tell you is that as this development
continues through the development review process,
there will be steps in terms of platting
of what will be required,
and typically during the platting stage,
we will then analyze the drainage situation.
We as a city have standards to not impact
additional adjacent properties,
so therefore any mitigation that needs to occur will happen.
They, the applicant has set aside a large number
or large area of drainage, so that is one of the areas
that could potentially be a detention pond.
So again, everything would be reviewed and addressed
in terms of drainage and other engineering requirements
through the platting stage of this project.
- Thank you, Ron.
Commissioner Anderson.
- Thanks, thanks Chair, but I do have a question.
She mentioned that there's already drainage issues,
not future drainage.
We understand that for future we're gonna take care of that,
but what are we gonna, I mean, how can we mitigate
what the issues they're having already presently?
- Right, and what I heard was as a result
of maybe the Mayhill widening project,
what I can do is I can get her number,
and we can follow up and see if there's anything
that we can do to address as far as what had resulted
from the Mayhill widening project.
- That'd be good, I appreciate it, thank you.
- Thank you, Ron. - Does that help you out, ma'am?
- Yes, it does. - All right.
- Thank you.
- Okay, this is a public hearing.
Again, I don't have any comment cards
in front of me to speak, but anyone here
is able to speak if they wish to on this item.
Staff, do we have anyone on the phone?
- We do not have anyone on the phone.
- Thank you very much.
Okay, seeing no further speakers,
I will go ahead and close the public hearing
and open the floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Smith.
- Make a motion to approve the staff recommendations.
- Commissioner Pruitt.
- I'll second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second
for approval of this request with the noted staff condition.
Any discussion?
Okay, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries seven, zero.
That will move us to 4B, PD 20007.
And I will invite Karina up for presentation
and open the public hearing.
Hi, Karina. - Hi.
Sorry, you have to give me a while to walk over here.
- No worries.
(mouse clicks)
All right, thank you, Chair, commissioners.
The item before you today is a public hearing,
PD 20-0007.
This is a love first community village.
The request today is to rezone approximately 15.9 acres
from the current R7 district to a planned development
with a base zoning of MN district.
Specifically for a transitional housing use.
This is a definition added specifically
for this plan development defined as temporary housing
and supportive services that are operated
by a nonprofit organization intended for at-risk families
who are experiencing financial burdens
that have led to or may lead to homelessness.
It's not intended to serve as a homeless shelter
or a group home, and it does allow
for accessory amenity center and recreational amenities.
Those are also defined within the PD.
I did wanna make a note based on work session
after speaking with the applicant
about the definition of temporary housing
that we will, we're intending to tweak the definition
in the PD if it pleases the commission.
Two language, and I can read that off the slight deviations,
which would just change the definition
to remove the section that states operated
as a nonprofit organization as well as indicate
that transitional housing is defined
as temporary housing for clients transitioning
to permanent housing for no less than 24 months
as defined by HUD.
So as defined by HUD allows the transitional housing use
to be between or no more than 24 months
or as extended or as needed.
So after speaking with the applicant,
it would be between two to five years,
but sticking to the HUD definition,
so that is the national definition of transitional housing.
The rest of the definition would remain the same,
and we can circulate that revised definition.
I had Scott help me during the break,
but we can circulate that momentarily.
So just to wanna flag that between work session and now.
So going back to the site,
the site is located on the south side
of East McKinney Street, East of Mayhill Road,
I've highlighted that in red for you.
The surrounding development for this property
is residential, you can see that in the yellow
shown on the screen, that is low residential
existing development on the north side
and on the east side of the property.
They're also adjacent to Ryan High School,
they're just right caddy corner to it,
there's an existing light at that corner.
Also adjacent to it on the south side
is government-owned facilities.
So the Texas DPS facility that was recently constructed
is at the hard corner of Mayhill and East McKinney.
Directly to the south is existing FEMA flood plain.
However, that is parks property
where a future trail is to be located.
Directly west of the property, if you can recall,
there was an approved specific use permit
for multifamily on that site.
It's still in the development review process,
but it is intended to start construction soon,
so that wasn't SUP approved for multifamily.
Also on the north side is religious assembly
that is existing as well as a few parcels
of undeveloped land within the residential two district.
For the future land use, as you know,
the Denton plan, the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan,
excuse me, was just adopted yesterday by council.
So on this slide, you'll actually see
the previous designation
as well as the current designation as of yesterday.
So under the Denton plan 2030,
the site was designated for moderate density residential
as well as community mixed use, excuse me,
that moderate density residential is intended
to serve compact single family neighborhoods
as well as low rise multifamily
with any certain density of four to 12 dwelling units
per acre.
It encourages a variety of housing styles
that are adjacent to retail parks and schools.
The community mixed use is intended
for that retail service component as well as offices
where residential is complimentary.
That did not change in the 2040 plan.
You can see that community mixed use
is still the designation.
So it's consistent with both plans.
In addition to the future land use designation,
this project does comply with goal HN1
in our housing element of both plans,
the previous and current future land use plan.
Goal HN1 is to develop and maintain a housing stock
that meets the needs of all residences
within a diverse array of choices
and type, cost, and location.
And so as you can see, the proposed development
or proposed PD does conform to both those comprehensive plans.
It's proposing a maximum density
of 3.5 dwelling units per acre,
so keeping it at a low residential mix.
It is community oriented with some mixed use.
It offers a residential component
as well as a non-residential component
of that daycare use and office use on the north side.
And it does provide that affordable housing product
for families experiencing financial difficulties,
those that are at risk of homelessness.
So just going over the plan just very briefly,
this is the development plan associated with the PD.
I've provided some conceptual elevations.
The applicant is here today
and they'll give a presentation after
with more specific details.
But this is a mixed use development
in which they're proposing 53 dwelling units.
That is a mixed density
that includes multifamily buildings.
Those would be eight units per building,
as well as a mix of duplex
and single family style residential.
And so on the screen, you can see those are the brown boxes
on the south side oriented around the amenity centers
and recreational amenities.
And those can be seen in blue.
Those amenity centers, or sorry, recreational amenities
would include things like a sports court,
a community garden, a playground for the residents,
event lawns, trails, pathways, and other gathering spaces.
Also that's unique to this PD
is the 60 foot setback that's proposed
with enhanced landscaping.
So off of East McKinney Street,
which was recently widened to include a 12 foot
multi-use path on the north side
and an eight foot sidewalk on the south side.
They are proposing that the buildings be set back
a minimum of 60 feet.
They're actually within like 70 and 80 on here,
as well as that increased or enhanced landscaping.
So that would include ornamental trees,
shrubs, street trees,
and some ornamental fencing at the right of way.
They're also having a buffer on the east and west side
between the residential use on the east
as well as that multifamily on the west side
that is coming in.
One really great component of this site
is the bicycle pedestrian connectivity within the site,
as well as how it connects to existing facilities
on East McKinney Street.
This development is working with the Parks Department
to have a future trail connection
to that future Pecan Creek Trail to the south.
This is consistent with the other multifamily developments
that have been coming in on the south side
of East McKinney Street.
So I do wanna flag that this does have one central
full access driveway into the development.
The development will be sprinkler
to meet our fire requirements.
It is signalized at that corner.
So there is that connectivity for residents
to, if they have children at Bryan High School,
be able to walk to the school or cross safely
to the north side to get to our bike ped facilities.
So with that, just briefly going over
the criteria for approval.
I won't go through all,
but there are general approval criteria
that this development would need to meet,
as well as PD criteria just in summary
and the rest is in the staff report.
The project is consistent with the future land use map,
as well as housing goals for a comprehensive plan.
The development does limit uses on the site
to those specific to the PD,
which is the amenity center, the daycare use,
the office and the residential component.
It does create a community oriented development pattern
with that residential character,
increased landscaping and open space.
It does minimize impacts
to surrounding residential development,
as it does serve as that transitional buffer
between the low residential on the north and east side,
between that and the moderate and high density,
residential and commercial that's developing
on the west side of it.
And then last, there is adequate infrastructure
and capacity to serve the development.
East McKinney street was just completed at that portion.
So it does have a four lanes,
as well as that multi-use path on the north side
and the sidewalk to the south.
We did have our notices sent out for this project.
As you can see, there was only one response.
It was in favor, but that was from the property owner.
So it will not be counted towards the calculation,
but we did not receive any other responses for the site.
The applicant did not hold any neighborhood meetings
for this, but they did indicate that they reached out
to individual property owners adjacent to them.
And with that staff is recommending approval
as it does meet the criteria within the DDC.
And then the next steps for this project are,
if approved today, it would go to city council on April 5th.
And with that, I can take any questions.
- Thank you, Karina.
Commissioner Perot.
- Thank you, Chair.
Two questions.
And the second one, if we want to just defer,
if the applicant would be better able to answer it,
that's fine.
First one, I'll kind of repeat
what I had on a different item.
What concern are we trying to guard against
by specifically defining the use in this property
such that if something happens in the future
and it needs to change a little bit
to something compatible with an R7 or something like that,
we would require a rezoning and a re everything.
- Yeah, I can definitely touch on that.
The reason why this PD is kind of the option moving forward
is that the way that our development code
or the uses within the development code now
don't specifically serve the type of development
that's being proposed.
So this is one of those creative solutions
where in order for the development to go in,
it would need its own definition.
So it's not your typical group home.
It's not a homeless shelter.
And it's not necessarily the HML use
that we've been seeing across the city.
It's intended for a certain population.
And so the mechanism to get to that route
was the plan development.
And so that's why that definition is going in.
- Yeah, sorry.
Sorry, just give me one more chance here.
I understand that that's the reason
why the definition needs to be added.
Why do we prefer to carve it out
so that that's the only allowable use of the property
instead of saying allowable uses are the by-right uses
for the current zoning plus this intended use?
- I think there's a couple things
that are kind of going on with that.
So with the base zoning of MN
to do what they're trying to do,
there's other uses that would be included on top of that.
So that's the reason for the restriction
to those certain uses on the site now.
And then the restriction to keep it as the,
intended for transitional housing.
It's really just how the process
of how it got negotiated into the PD.
There's certainly reasons if PNZ wanted,
we could kind of tweak the language and change the language.
Most of the way it's written now
is to make sure that it's enforceable.
So we wanna make sure that what they're intending to do
is still applicable in the future.
And I'm kind of starting to lose my train of thoughts.
Reel me back in if I'm going the wrong way.
- No, if I could interject.
I mean, a PD really is supposed to be specific, right?
For a specific use, not a specific use permit.
But I mean, it is supposed to be defined
as to what the plan development is.
Otherwise, it would just be the zoning that it is, right?
- Yeah, to Margie's point, this isn't a use
that would allow it to go within the DDC as it exists now.
And so using that PD mechanism,
in order for the PD to be enforceable,
it has to have that specific language.
So that's how it was kind of crafted now.
If there's an intent to redefine the use or add new uses,
which is not really the intent
of what they're doing right now,
they could go back through the PD process
and request a PD amendment.
It would become a major amendment,
which would then trigger additional public hearings
and an additional approval process.
But this is sort of where we landed at this point.
- Understood, thank you, that helps.
And then the second question,
which I'm happy to hold off for,
if the applicant would be better able to answer this.
But since you mentioned it in your presentation,
you said that these units would be sprinklered.
My understanding is that single and dual family,
if it's under IRC, for the most part,
doesn't have to be sprinklered
unless the wall-to-wall distances
are closer than a certain distance.
Is it that distance between the buildings on the site plan
that's driving that requirement?
- I'll have to, I'm gonna try and remember
this conversation very well between FIRE and the applicant.
There were initial discussions
about two points of access being required
because it is sort of like, just like the HML use,
it's a multifamily type use.
There isn't a specific definition listed for it.
So in speaking with FIRE and then doing that coordination,
it was determined that these are more
like single-family homes.
So the second point of access was not required.
But in order for that to happen,
the homes would need to be sprinklered.
So it was kind of a compromise in making sure
that it was sufficient to meet FIRE's requirements.
- Okay, so similar, I think we've had a couple of PDs
that had similar one and two unit homes
on a single-platted property.
The ones of those that only had a single point of access
also had that requirement?
- Yes. - Okay, thank you.
- And then just to throw in, Scott did share with you
the printed definition or the proposed revised definition
for the PD that we can include
if it satisfies the concerns of PNZ.
- Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
- Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for the striking of the non-profit piece, Karina,
that helps out quite a bit.
Just think for long-term outcomes
of something were to happen.
The only thing I'm looking at on the definition
now that's been passed out, it's highlighted,
within 24 months or longer period defined
by case management participation in the program.
I guess it's referencing a program
that's not really discussed anywhere else
in the definition, does that make sense?
So just feels like it kind of leaves you as like--
- Well, there's a partial reasoning for that
and it's that the way that the PD is written
is it has to be specific and it has to be enforceable.
The timeframe for transitional housing
is not something that the city can necessarily regulate.
It would be defined or managed by the organization.
So the non-profit, the operating now
or the future non-profit would define
the length of the temporary term based on their program.
So with the original language,
restricting it to the non-profit,
that's where the non-profit program would,
through their program restrict or maybe not restrict,
but identify the needs of the resident to determine--
- I guess, and as Scott's--
- Scott's letting me know the applicant's prepared
to speak on that question if you wanna hear
their presentation and let them know.
- I would, before that comes up here,
I would say something that says something
along the lines of defined by the operator,
something more general, but yeah, sorry.
- Yeah, I mean, let's not get into trying
to spell out anything I think right now,
but just either staff questions or we'll continue
and get the applicant's presentation.
- Okay, Commissioner Anderson.
- Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for the presentation.
First, I wanna, again, you said it's not homeless.
I'd like for it to be set on record,
this will not be a homeless shelter
because in your definition, it says,
experienced financial burdens that have led to
or may lead to homelessness.
- But it's not a homeless shelter.
So as defined by the DDC,
there's a specific definition on homeless shelters,
which talks about the daily stay that someone would be there.
So that statement is purposeful to indicate
that this is not intended to be that use.
It's not a homeless shelter.
It's for those who have some sort of financial difficulties
that might put them at risk for it.
So this is the way to kind of distinguish
the two types of uses.
And again, I think it might be best described
by the applicant.
- Okay, 'cause I mean, we do have some homeless shelters
and didn't already.
And one of them is next to a juvenile center
and we've had issues with the homeless bother
and the juveniles.
And this is directly across the street from a high school.
And I'd hate to see a homeless shelter
across the street from a high school
and interfering with the students.
The other thing is, this would be good for the applicant,
but yeah, that's okay, thanks.
- Yeah, and if I could just add to that just a little bit,
just for some food for thought.
We've defined this with like being this
maximum in the place, but we don't have a minimum.
And that probably is what maybe could answer
answer some of the questions about this becoming
a homeless shelter versus something else.
I'll just throw that out there.
Commissioner Anderson, you are through with your questions?
Yeah, okay.
Anyone else with questions for staff?
Otherwise, we'll go ahead and move on with presentation.
Haley.
- I just wanted to clarify,
because a homeless shelter is a specifically defined use
in the DDC and that use is not one of the uses
that's specifically allowed within this PD,
that transition from this specific use
to a homeless shelter could not occur
without changing the zoning to allow
for a homeless shelter on the property.
If that helps clarify the concern there.
- Okay.
Thank you, Karina.
I don't see any questions right now.
I also don't have any cards,
but I'm guessing the applicant has a presentation maybe.
Hi, Amy.
Okay, I will.
- Give me just a moment to plug it in.
- Of course. - Thank you.
- Thank you.
(papers rustling)
- Thank you, commissioners.
My name is Amy Bissett.
109 North Elm, Denton, Texas, 76201.
Going to open my presentation now.
I wanna start by trying to address a few of the questions
that have come up both during the work session
and tonight before I begin the formal presentation.
So first of all, the question was,
is this related to, or is this a homeless shelter?
How do you delineate this from being a homeless shelter?
This particular development is for transitional housing,
which means that the clients or the tenants
have to sign a lease when they move in.
And they believe that those leases will start
at a minimum of three months.
That has not been clearly defined yet,
but we're not talking about somebody who comes in
for one night overnight because it got cold
or they needed a place to stay.
This is a client who has been engaged
by the nonprofit organization to receive help
that is more long-term help
that they move themselves in, their children in,
that is a length of stay that requires them to commit
to certain obligations that would prevent it
from being just like an overnight homeless shelter.
Let me look here at my list of questions.
So I wanna say that there was a question related to
why is this a PD, what makes this a PD?
What I've seen in my role as a development consultant
in recent say six months is that there are a lot
of new land uses that are coming online
that we've never seen before.
And most of them have to do with housing, right?
Like they have to do with horizontal multifamily uses.
They have to do with trying to define a use
that a nonprofit organization is trying to create
that has never been done before
or is not defined by a specific land use.
And I've seen this with Grace Like Rain.
I've seen it with Denton County Friends of the Family.
I've seen it a number of times over the last say year.
And this may be the first one
that you've seen come to fruition, thankfully.
We're starting to see them actually be able to move forward.
But this is traditionally with a use like this,
you might put it in a classification
of a group home or a homeless shelter
and those don't really apply here.
This is a community.
This is a safe place that is intended to raise families
and help people move from a place that is at risk
to a place that is unstable.
And we just haven't seen that
in the history of land use before.
And so we have to define it as a new land use.
I get when you look at the definition
of transitional housing that you don't know if it's right
or not and I think we can work on that and fix that.
And specifically for this PD, it may be one thing
and for the next PD, it may be another thing.
That's the flexibility of a PD is that we can define it
as we need to.
So I think we're open to how we actually pin that definition
but I think it's important to recognize
that we're taking a different approach in society
to how we deal with this
and how we support our community
and provide services to our community.
And so I just want to start with that.
And before I get started on my actual presentation,
I want to acknowledge that I have with me tonight,
Michelle Connor, who's the founder
and a board member of Grace Like Rain
and Leanne Christen, who is the CEO of Grace Like Rain.
I also have with me Andrew Cousins,
who is with ValleyQuest Design.
He's been kind of the lead on this project
and happy to be a part of it and happy to be here.
This has been way more than a year in the making
that we've been involved.
Most of us on primarily a volunteer basis.
So with that, I'll go ahead and move into my presentation.
So with a PD, we have to start with a purpose statement
like why are we creating a PD
rather than just a general zoning case.
And the purpose of this PD is to facilitate
a primarily residential development
intended to create a sense of place and community
for at-risk families who reside
and receive support services onsite.
The development will provide transitional housing
and related services for clients
who may be residents residing at this development
or non-residents receiving services.
And this continuum of care graphic here
is provided by Grace like rain.
I'm not gonna go through it in detail,
but I do want you to know that they are here
to answer specific organizational questions
if you would like.
We are requesting a zoning change
just 'cause that's what we're actually here to talk about.
The current zoning is R7
and we are requesting a PD zoning
with a mixed use neighborhood base zoning.
Primarily the reason for the PD
is that we have to introduce new land uses.
There's no way to do that
except through a comp plan amendment.
But when you have a new evolving land use,
this is the best way to get it documented and get going.
We're introducing transitional housing,
which we will talk about the definition of in a little bit,
amenity center and recreational amenities
that are specific to the site.
So if we define transitional housing today
as a part of this PD, it is not defined in the DDC
in the future as transitional housing,
meaning when Denton County Friends of the Family comes in,
they may bring a new land use in as well
that is similar but might not be exactly the same.
So that's the benefit of a PD
is that we have that flexibility.
So with our PD standards,
which are required as a part of the plan development,
we are introducing increased setbacks.
In this specific zoning designation,
mixed use neighborhood,
you would expect buildings to be pulled up to the street.
You would want a streetscape
where buildings are right up next to the street
and you could walk and you could go from apartments
to restaurants to schools,
and they're all right there right off of the sidewalk.
But in this particular case, that's not appropriate.
We want to have residents feel safe and secure
and a little bit, not necessarily isolated
because they're a part of the community,
but to feel like they are protected in a little bit,
maybe just a little bit screened.
So we have increased setbacks,
but to accommodate that,
we're also introducing a streetscape,
which it pulls right up to the sidewalk
where you've got a fence that is not a screening fence,
but a wrought iron fence with masonry
and you've got trees and you've got landscaping
so that when you walk from the multifamily next door,
that is right up next to the sidewalk,
you keep walking and you see something
that's pulled right up to the sidewalk
and it feels very much the same in terms of a streetscape.
We've also spent a lot of time talking about orientation
of the buildings or the units so that they all
immediately face an amenity or walk out
onto a pedestrian sidewalk where they are,
we walk out and we are in our community,
we're in our neighborhood.
Think about walking out your front door
and you step out onto a sidewalk
and you've got your neighbors directly in front of you,
but it's all lawn, like it's not streets,
it's not fences, you've got lawn
and you've got landscaping and you've got picnic tables
and you've got gardens, community gardens
and it's all intended to be a place
where everybody can interact with each other
but feel a little bit protected from the rest of the world.
So just in terms of the site data,
we are introducing several unit types.
We have multi-family, a couple of multi-family buildings
that are two-story, small, multi-family buildings
and we have a handful of duplex units.
Most of what we're proposing on site
are single-family units.
We've got a mix of two-bedroom, three-bedroom
and four-bedroom units, mostly being three-bedroom.
I think what you could probably mostly imagine
in terms of this project is single moms
with multiple children, so you need some bedrooms
but you don't necessarily need a lot of parking
'cause you're not gonna have four or five cars,
you're gonna have maybe one car, maybe two cars.
We have 145 residential parking spaces,
that's one per bedroom, 46 commercial spaces
which means the DDC-based development code
and then we have childcare offices
and an amenity center on site.
We have a number of amenities proposed on site
and while I'm showing this amenity plan,
I'm gonna try to walk through it very briefly.
Number one, here with where my arrow is pointing,
we have a multi-use sport court,
basketball, volleyball, pickleball.
Number two, we have a playground for children.
Number three, we have a community garden
which has raised beds.
Number four, we have an event hall with an event lawn
which is nice for residents as well as
if Grey Sock Rain wants to host some community events
where they introduce the community
to the work that they're doing,
this is a good place for that.
Number five, we have a gazebo which is on a pedestrian path
that actually migrates through the floodplain in the area,
one of the few places that we can actually
potentially encroach the floodplain
which I'll talk about in a minute.
We have an enhanced entrance at the front
and a memorial plaza here
which has some pedestrian seating
and some other amenities for the residents.
As it relates to the landscape plan,
we have over, we've gone,
we've gone over and beyond what's required.
With tree canopy, what's required is 40%.
Currently, the plan is providing 60%.
Previous coverage required is 20%.
We're providing 41%.
Tree preservation required by code is 30%
and we're providing 53%.
And then we've, I spoke previously
about the streetscape elements just to bring the project
to the front of the development
without having to bring the housing
and the services to the front of the development.
We will be providing some elements there
that are not required by base code.
And we have been working with the Parks Department
to provide a trails connection through the floodplain
for residents and citizens alike
to be able to access that whole green trail.
Option.
As conceptual elevations, these are early on
but want you to see two bedroom,
three bedroom and four bedroom elevations.
We're trying here to provide some architectural relief,
some usable front porches
and some, just a nice variety of architecture here.
Here's an example of the non-residential building elevations.
And in terms of the phasing plan,
the idea in the first phase is to come in off of McKinney
and provide the first handful of residential homes
as well as the duplex homes, the multifamily homes,
the event space and the sports court
and the community garden.
And then in phase two, come back in
with the childcare facility
and the second multifamily piece
and the first part of the south end
of the single family piece.
Phase three would be the ministry offices
and the last part of the single family piece.
And that is all I have.
Happy to stay for questions
and certainly happy to bring out the operator
and nonprofit organization to answer specific questions
about their plans.
Thank you.
- Thanks.
- Commissioner Villarreal.
- Yeah, did you all look at other developments
in different cities to model this after
or was this kind of the first of its kind in the area?
- That's a great question.
So personally, I have looked at how to create this in Denton
and have not seen it in other cities before now
that doesn't mean that I didn't miss it,
but this is kind of a pioneering event
about how to treat organizational help like this.
So historically, a nonprofit organization
that was trying to provide housing
or protection for a mom with children
would do so in secrecy.
Like they wouldn't, you wouldn't know where it was.
It would be an undisclosed location.
The fact that this is being presented publicly right now,
to me presents a transition in how we treat it
as a community and a society.
It's where we as a community choose to protect it
and embrace it rather than hide it
so that nobody can find it.
Don't know that that directly answers your question, but.
- No, I love to see this kind of development.
So appreciate the answer.
- Absolutely.
- Commissioner McDade.
- Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want you to walk me through a couple of items
and I'm gonna use myself as an example.
Let's say I have two children and I come to you.
You talk about the affordable housing.
I'm trying to get some price range
of what you're actually charging for me and my two children.
- So I'm gonna let that question defer
to the actual nonprofit organization.
But do you have another one for me?
- No, I'm concerned 'cause I'm there with my children
and I have a minimum of three months.
But let's say in a year or so they determine
that I'm ready to move out into the world.
But I'm only paying, let's say $600.
And I go through all your classes and all that
and I actually have to go out into the real world.
I'm not gonna find anything.
But me and two children, I'm gonna pay $1,800 minimum,
but the two words that don't go together
are den and affordable housing.
And I just don't want them to have a sense of false hope
and they wanna push that into the world.
They can't take it and they end up right back
where they were, but they can't come back to you
because that place has already been rented.
So I'm concerned about the false sense of hope
that an individual may get when they actually go
through the process.
- I'm gonna ask Michelle Connor to come up here.
She's the founder of the organization.
She can answer that question way better than I can.
- So I hear your question and I very much respect
that question because that really honestly
is the heart behind this community.
And what we do is we don't want that to happen
'cause that's what we see right now
is affordable housing is not necessarily affordable.
And so what happens is that cycle.
They find stability, they're doing well,
they go out, they're succeeding on their own
and then something happens and so it pushes them right back.
So we do not want that.
So what our hope is is that the affordable
is 550 to 650 a month, which is low, we know that.
But while they're paying that 550 to 650 a month,
they're participating in the classes,
they're participating in case management,
they're participating in those things.
So we're working with them on saving along the way
and maybe doing a jobs training, a job skills class
or a college course depending on,
they can actually work on the goals
that they have in front of them without having to stress
over paying $1,200 a month for rent
or $1,800 a month for rent.
So the hope is that while they're doing that,
we're setting them, we're walking alongside them
and they're setting themselves up for when they do move,
they have a plan, they have a savings base,
they have a goal as to what that looks like.
- Okay, well, I guess another question.
You talked about, you're gonna help them save.
In today's society, they would have to save.
I mean, if I'm only there for 18 months,
I would have to save probably,
I would say eight to $10,000 just to be able
to move out into a, I'm not gonna say a respectful place,
but something that I'm gonna be able to afford
for my children and I for another six months.
And most of the people who are gonna be there,
I mean, sure, you're gonna have the job classes
and I don't know what kind of job you're gonna give them,
but most of them are unskilled labor,
which really doesn't pay that much today.
So you're looking at, I mean, I guess I'll go back.
My biggest concern is I don't wanna see them pushed out
too early, I mean, I love the concept,
but I don't wanna see anybody pushed out too early.
And when somebody comes there, you know,
you have no idea what type of situation,
I mean, everybody's gonna be different.
But I don't wanna see anybody pushed out
and I know, I guess you'll be the one
who makes the determination if they're ready.
I mean, I could come to you and tell you I'm ready
and I may not be, I mean, if y'all are gonna evaluate
and then let them know if they're ready
and then you're gonna push them out into the world.
And I hate to say, but this is a cruel world we live in.
And I just don't, I don't wanna see relapses
because once I'm gone from you
and I can't make it out in the world,
I have nowhere else to go.
And I'm pretty sure you're gonna have a waiting list
that may be years in the making.
So it may be another five, six years
or I may not even be able to get back to you.
I'm not concerned about while they're there,
I'm concerned about when they get out.
And I'm just really concerned about all the skills
and all the classes that you're gonna be able to afford them
so they'll be able to actually get out into the real world.
- Yes, and I hear that and I respect that.
Our hope with having that up to two years
or between two to five years, with that provision
is that we can give people that extended period of time.
And we are hoping to engage, Leanne came up,
but to engage in job skills courses.
We partner with NCTC, working with some different programs
that are in the community so that we are helping them
to get the skills that they need to make changes, so.
- And Michelle, just before Leanne comes up,
for the record, will you give your name and address,
please, and for those listening and watching, please?
- Yes, my name is Michelle Connor
and my address is 733 8th Street in Argyle, Texas.
- Thank you very much.
Hi, Leanne.
- Hello, thank you for having us.
We appreciate this opportunity.
My name is Leanne Christen.
I'm the CEO for Grace Like Rain.
I live at 1805 Wicked Court in Argyle, Texas.
And just to expand on what Michelle was saying,
this organization has been doing this work,
case managing them successfully for over five years now.
And we don't have that housing
for them to transition into right now.
So our program is effective, it's proven.
It has been proven to be effective
without this place for them to land.
And we've been utilizing current resources,
meaning current environment with the single units,
the multifamily units with current rates, fair market rates.
So we have been working with the families
that go from at risk of being homeless or are, in this case,
between the two organizations that are homeless.
And we have a number of success stories
that prove that this model works
and that with this intervention, if you will,
or this place for them to land,
that only provides them the extra resources
and supporting services to ensure
that they don't go backwards.
That's our entire mission is to break the cycle
of those being at risk of homelessness.
- Okay, I guess my last question
is I saw you had transportation and childcare.
Now, I don't know what type of childcare I mean,
but most jobs they have multiple shifts
and there may be a one in 10 chance
that I'll be able to get a daytime job.
Are you looking at a 24 hour daycare service?
- I'll let Michelle answer that.
- We haven't defined exactly what the building,
as far as the actual daycare service will be involved
or open, what we have used in the past as an organization
is creative means to help our family succeed.
So we have approved volunteers,
hopefully by having and peeing in a community,
we may have volunteers that can help monitor,
watch kids overnight.
So there will be options that we work with families
within their schedules,
but we wanna take it on an individual basis.
I don't wanna keep an entire center open for two children,
but we will work with that family
based upon their individual needs.
That's one of the biggest things of our program
is that individualized care that each family gets.
- Okay, and the last question,
what type of transportation are you?
I saw you had transportation.
- Transportation, so again, we get creative
based upon the individual family's needs.
We try to utilize bus routes if possible,
but with kids, we know that's really hard,
especially getting to childcare and work
in all those different places.
We utilize now the GoZone, we use that quite a bit.
We also have volunteer drivers that might help take someone
to a meeting or an appointment or something like that.
We have in the past been able to connect people
to donated vehicles.
There's different means that we can do,
and again, it's based on the individual care.
If we felt like it was a need
once the community is completely full,
I think we've talked about even group transportation
within the community if we felt like it was a need.
- Okay, I gotta say, I love the concept,
and I wish you all the best.
- Well, thank you. - Thank you.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- Thanks, Madam Chair.
First, I really like the concept.
I think it's a neat idea.
And I think your product has a place here.
I think it will fit the community.
But my question, I got a couple of questions,
is what did the neighboring homeowners say
when y'all said y'all had a little meeting,
y'all met, y'all didn't have a neighborhood meeting,
but y'all had a meeting with some of the neighbors?
I just kinda wondered what they thought.
- Amy handled that part.
So there's not a lot of actually neighbors immediate.
We had multiple conversations
with the affordable housing development
that's going in next door.
And we've mutually agreed to support each other.
We think that's a good symbiology.
Ryan High School has had no issue with it.
Beyond that, there's no directly immediate neighbors
that we're aware of, and everybody that was notified,
we didn't get any responses from.
- Okay, next question, you stated that the product pricing
is around 550 to 650 a month.
Is that one bedroom, or is that for a two bedroom,
three bedroom, or is that based off per room, or?
- How many units, sorry.
We will probably start at 550 for the two bedroom,
and then go up between 25 to $50 from there.
We're working on our pricing models
versus the sustainability
for the self-sustainability of the program.
As we speak, and we're at a place that with those rates,
we can sustain and get even more,
like be at that point sustained.
- Well, good, no, I wish you all best luck.
- Thank you.
- But you might think about this,
since there are people that are maybe without jobs
that need the help and stuff like this,
you might ask one of the wives to sit there
and volunteer to work up there,
and the childcare thing to take care of some kids
to help work off their rents or something like this.
Maybe that's an idea.
- That's a great idea.
Micro-enterprising is part of our,
is actually part of our plan
to provide employment on site for some of our families.
- Well, good, wish you all the best of luck.
- Thank you.
- That's a great word, micro-enterprising.
I love the word, that's great.
Quick question, do you have management staff
on site living on, I mean, you don't have this concept yet.
In your mind, is that the plan?
- So in our mind, yes.
Well, we'll have facilities management, of course.
We'll have staff management there during the day,
and we have talked about having
missional families or families that live on site
that their intentionality is to engage.
They may not be participating in the program,
but we'd have a few scattered throughout the community
that their purpose is to engage
in helping the other families on the neighborhood.
So take maybe a volunteer family
that would be living there.
- Understood. - So, okay.
- Thank you, Commissioner Pruitt.
- Thank you, Chair.
I guess this is, this may be somebody else,
but about, I heard a few things
about transportation and parking.
I just wanted to make sure I was understanding this.
So it sounds like many of your clients
may have fewer than multiple cars per family
because of the number of people in these families
is suggested to be several units of different size,
two, three, four bedrooms,
but we're still parking it at a ratio
of one parking space per bedroom, is that correct?
- Yes, I think, I mean, you could talk about it.
Most of our families do not have multiple vehicles.
- Right.
- Or one vehicle. - Okay.
- So when we first designed the site plan,
we tried to park it to code for multifamily
and the end result was one vehicle per bedroom.
So it's probably above what is actually necessary.
And we've actually talked about that with the city
about in other transitional housing scenarios,
that might be too high,
but it's defined specifically within this PD
so that it could be changed in other scenarios
where it might be less.
In this specifics instance, it just happens to work
where it can be parked that way.
So it is one per bedroom today on the residential side,
and then it's parked to code on the commercial side.
That's probably a little more than is necessary,
honestly, in my opinion,
but it's just how the math worked out
in terms of trying to figure out how to make this work
as it relates to the existing development code.
- Yeah, so I understand that everything is complicated.
I'm not trying to upset the apple cart.
I just, just from a fundamental perspective,
if ignoring the fact that the riparian areas, et cetera,
kind of make it so that you're not having to give up
as much land to provide the parking,
if you didn't have to construct as much parking,
would that reduce the cost
and therefore allow these organizations
to serve more families in general?
- Absolutely, I think, I mean,
you would reduce the parking,
but you would add number of units in the future
that would increase the cost overall.
But we were able to meet the goals of the nonprofit
in terms of the number of families they wanted to serve
based on the site demographics or the site characteristics
and make it work with that parking count.
- Sure, I just wanted to follow up on that item.
Excuse me, the way that the PD has written
is that the only change to the parking requirements
is related to adding the parking for transitional housing.
They're actually still complying with the DDC,
which would allow parking alternatives
to reduce that parking.
So there is some flexibility in the code
that would allow them to then reduce that parking
to have less on the site.
So just wanna make that clarification.
- Thanks, Greta.
- Commissioner Smith.
- Thank you, Chair.
On the definition piece, would it be, as the applicant,
would you guys be okay with us scratching out
defined by case management participation in the program
and putting down said traditional housing operator
or property owner or property operator?
Is that feasible?
- I would think so.
You're the property operator today.
- Wouldn't be necessarily the owner.
- So you would be able to determine
the amount of time defined.
And if it left your hands, it wouldn't matter
if it went to somebody else, what their timeframe was.
Are you good with that?
Yes.
- So defined by, within 24 months or a period longer,
defined by the property operator.
- Yes, we're fine with that.
- I'm not sure I like that better than case management.
Can I ask why you don't like case management?
'Cause this is a collective effort, obviously.
We're trying to, we're doing a lot for these people
who are transitioning.
There's a lot going on, so there's a lot.
- It references, it's referencing something
that seems extremely specific to whenever,
this definition should be a little more general
within the way that it's being done.
This definition should be a little more general within the way
that it's built and calling it by the case management
participation in the program.
It seems like it's pointing way too specific to something
that if it's just, it says the exact same thing
but in more general terms.
So it doesn't fall out a lot with the definition.
- So my only concern with it, and I'll certainly let
one of you speak to this, but my concern with that
would be there's probably multiple entities
of a case management team, I would think.
It's not going to be just you all
or whoever's operating the property
making a decision on someone's ability
to transition out of this type of housing.
So what if the property owner decides, yep, I want them out,
and there's several people in the case management
who are like, they're not ready to do that?
That would be my concern with it.
- That's why it's defined as the property operator,
not the owner.
That's why I said the operator,
the person who's actually running the property there.
- Yeah, Michelle, if you could come on.
I would just like your professional opinion
on my concern and trying to understand
why we want to do that.
- I think I can understand why you're saying
case management program 'cause that is specific
and everybody defines case management differently,
but I understand what you're saying too.
So give me a minute, wrapping my brain around it.
Well, you had case management in there to begin with, so.
- Can we just get clarification on the concern regarding,
so as I understand it, you're trying to make
a broader definition for future concerns beyond us.
- Sure, that, I mean.
- And so this definition is in place forever, right?
- Yeah, without a PD amendment, correct, yeah, forever.
- And so with that understanding, if we were all to move on,
and this is in place, we obviously can't guarantee
that it'll remain transitional housing, is that correct?
- Or it could be bought by one organization,
but then as RAN is basically operated by a nonprofit
that the organization owns the property,
not the nonprofit, but the nonprofit is in there
and operating within there so that there's some separation,
but then, okay, who's actually the one in charge
of this, the case management operation?
- Can you do and/or?
- Say it again.
- Can you do and/or?
- I mean, sure.
- Case management and--
- So, okay, if I could just interrupt,
I'm really, I'm struggling here with,
the reason for a PD is to highlight and be specific
of what the use of the property is going to be.
And I feel like if somebody else wanted to come in
and change the use of what this PD is,
we have a mechanism in the city to come and do that,
and that's by either a PD amendment
or rezoning of the property at that point.
So to me, you know, I hear what you're saying,
I don't agree with what you're saying
because I feel like it's rewriting the definition
that is before us in this request,
and I don't like trying to define something
that might happen in the future with the request
that's before us, I'm sorry, Hillary.
- If I could just pipe in from a drafting perspective,
I think, Commissioner, you're concerned with the inclusion
of what appears to be a defined term in the definition
that is not separately defined.
So perhaps we could express the same idea
by saying something like defined by the case management
or defined by the support services provider team,
rather than referencing a term of art that isn't defined.
- Yeah, that's exactly the point that I'm trying to make
is that it's, we're referencing something specific
that's not defined elsewhere in the definition,
and so, yeah, if it's case management,
case management, you said processor,
or the project management team.
We can give a recess if we want to, I guess, to.
- May I speak?
I think the issue with property operator
is that it could be a property owner
that is not associated with the program management
if they've leased it to the program.
So I agree with that delineation
that we need to maybe try to refine that definition
a little bit more so that we know 20 years from now,
whether it's somebody who's leasing the property
or somebody who's operating a nonprofit
who's leasing the property,
like who's in charge of that decision, so.
- Okay, this is still a public hearing.
I don't see any more questions at the moment.
Ladies, thank you.
Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak?
I don't have any cards at this moment in front of me,
but you are welcome to speak on this item.
Staff, do we have any callers on this item?
- We do not have any callers.
- Thank you.
With that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing,
and then open the floor at this time
for a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Anderson.
- I'd like to make a motion to approve this PD.
- Okay, approving the way staff has presented?
- Well, apparently there's new verbiage,
so I'll do a friendly. - I'll do a friendly.
- Dan, would you read the verbiage?
- I'll do a friendly.
- Okay.
Do you wanna hold off your motion?
What is your motion?
- I would like to hear what the verbiage says, then, first.
- So you're withdrawing your motion
on the floor at the moment?
- Sure.
- Okay.
Commissioner Smith.
- Make a motion to approve with the definition as stated
within 24 months or a longer period
defined by program participation and support services team.
And then a striking of the non-profit organization
as the only operator or owner of the property.
- Okay, can you read that one more time?
- Sure.
Make a motion to approve as presented with changes
to removing the verbiage operated
by a non-profit organization,
and then a change in the transitional housing definition,
changing the wording to within 24 months
or a longer period defined by program participation
and support services team.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- Second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second
for approval of the request with the amended verbiage
that was read by Commissioner Smith.
Discussion?
Commissioner Smith, do you have more or you're,
no, okay, Commissioner Perrett.
- Thank you, Chair.
Just briefly, I'd like to be clear
on some of the directions that I've done.
I'm glad to see this moving forward.
It's been too long since we've had this.
We had this need for a long time,
so thank you for all the care and design
that's gone into it.
With respect, I think I've heard many different opinions
and uses of PD amendments or PD zoning districts
over the years.
Sometimes it's a PD for a residential development
that is very much based on the base zoning
with some small tweaks and all the uses
that would go in that base zoning are allowed.
Other times it's something where for practicality reasons,
there is a narrowing of uses in order to ensure
that potential harms to nearby neighborhoods
would not occur in the future, and I understand that.
And in this case, it seems to be that the real need
for the PD, which I completely understand,
is to define this new use since it's not in the DDC.
My concern really is that if we get in the habit
of defining our PDs so narrowly
that any modification of use in the future
requires a dual public hearing and somebody
with enough bankroll to go through
the zoning change process, it strikes me
as something that could hamper the adaptability
of Denton in the future.
As we look to our south, to our larger neighbors,
there are cities that have hundreds if not thousands
of planned development districts,
and it's just pulling your hair out
to figure out what's going on and what is allowed where.
So I've said my piece, thank you,
and I'm very glad to see this coming forward.
- Well, and I might say maybe there's a future discussion
that you need to bring up at another part of the meeting.
Before we go to a vote, I just wanna say thank you
for being patient and answering our questions.
None of it was meant to not be excited
for all the work that you're doing
and the obvious need for a development such as this.
We're just here to ask questions
and make the best recommendation possible
that we can possibly make to further this onto Council.
So thank you for being patient
and answering the questions for us.
No further discussion?
Okay, let's call for a vote on the board, please.
It was Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Anderson
who were the motioners.
We're just, there we go, thank you.
That motion carries seven, zero.
Okay, with that, I will move us
to our next public hearing item for CZ210018.
We'll call up Karina for presentation
and open the public hearing.
All right.
All right, thank you, Chair and Commission.
The next request is for a rezoning CZ210018 Home Depot.
You'll have to excuse me,
my allergies are just nonstop coughing.
So the request today is to amend the landscape plan
within Appendix D of Exhibit D
of the, or for the Marketplace District.
This is located within the Razor Ranch Overlay District.
As mentioned in the work session,
just a reminder for everyone,
the Razor Ranch Overlay District has two major campuses.
North of West University Drive
is the Marketplace District, or North Campus,
and on the south side is the South Campus,
which has several sub-areas.
But we're focused on the Marketplace today.
So just a description of the subject site.
It's highlighted in red on this map,
but just to let you know,
within the Marketplace, there are a few sub-areas.
This particular site is located
in the RR3 sub-area of the Marketplace.
So as it relates to the amendment to the landscape plan,
this amendment is specific to Lot 11
of the Razor Ranch North Edition.
So this is the westernmost property within Marketplace.
So within the RR3 sub-area,
any development is required to follow the ordinances
tied to the Razor Ranch Overlay.
So any development on this property
would need to comply with Exhibit C,
architectural standards.
Exhibit D, which is the landscape standards,
as well as an approved landscape plan
that covers the entire Marketplace,
as well as Exhibit C, which is the sign standards
for this area.
So again, any new development on this property
would have to comply with those previously approved
design standards,
as well as that previously approved landscape plan.
So this is the current landscape plan,
as shown on the screen.
So we're not focused on the remaining area.
The amendment is specific to Lot 11,
which is highlighted in red.
So the request is to amend, again, that specific lot
to facilitate the development
of a home improvement store on this property.
So what is not happening today is there is no change
in the existing landscape design standards,
and there's no change to the approved use for the property.
And what is being proposed is an amendment to that lot
within the approved landscape plan.
So there are three key things to look at
within these changes.
First is that the amendment to the landscape plan
is to address parking changes,
reconfiguring parking aisles and spaces
to meet the proposed use.
So the square footage and all of that jazz has not changed,
but they are reconfiguring the aisles
and internal circulation.
And because of that, the approved plan would need to have,
or would not be in compliance with the landscape plantings
as shown, so they would need to reconfigure the site
to show revised locations of plantings
and revised plant materials.
So that is the first item, and that is shown in purple.
The second change is related to the proposed future plans
to subdivide the lot or create out parcels.
And so in order to facilitate that,
they have shown the future out parcels,
but removed the landscaping.
The reason for that is to allow those sites when developed
to follow the existing landscape standards
without being restricted to specific placements
and planting materials.
So that's the second change related to this plan.
The third is related to an increase
in the proposed Northern detention area.
So that's the area shown in orange.
So currently the site has two detention areas,
one on the North site and one on the West
where the future lot 11B is.
So they're proposing to remove that detention
for future development, and in order to do so,
would increase the Northern detention
to support the entire site.
So those are the three changes related to the site.
Overall, there's no change in the proposed canopy
for the area.
They would still need to comply
with the previously approved plan,
and the remaining lots would need
to make up any remaining canopy.
So again, that was a previously approved landscape plan
that had mitigation tied to it.
So they're still in conformance with that plan.
The razor range overlay district does not have a criteria
for approval for rezoning.
So staff has provided some considerations
with the request.
First, that the proposed amendments are consistent
with the permitted use of the home improvement store
and parking and landscape guidelines that exist today.
Second, the removal of plantings on the plan
for those future lots that are proposed
does provide the flexibility needed in design
so that the long-term site meets those,
in long-term, the site would still need to comply
with the landscape guidelines and exhibits.
Third, the total tree canopy, as mentioned,
required by the previous plan,
is still applicable to the entire lot.
So that responsibility is still shared on the property,
even if it were to subdivide or have other development.
Last, that the revised plan accounts
for the potential need for increased detention
for those future developments in parking.
So if it is determined to be infeasible
due to the I-35 widening,
or if the secondary detention is no longer required
or is still required, the approved site plan
would still be subject to the existing standards
in the razor range overlay.
One thing I will add as part of this
is that the approval of the amendment to the landscape plan
does not constitute approval of a site plan for the site.
They would still be required to go through
the zoning compliance plan process,
civil engineering plan process, and planning process.
So just wanna make that one clarification.
Public notices were issued for this site,
as it is a rezoning case.
We did not receive any responses
related to the request as of today.
The applicant did hold one virtual meeting on March 14th,
however, there were none in attendance.
So with that, staff recommends approval of the request.
If approved today, the next step would be city council
public hearing on April 13th.
And with that, I can take any questions.
- Thanks, Corina.
Any questions for Corina?
Thank you.
I don't have any cards with requests to speak,
but this is a public hearing
if anyone would like to speak on this item.
- Hello, commissioners.
My name is Alejandro Baca.
Do you need my address?
- Yes, please.
- Okay, I've been working from home the last two years,
so I'll give you my home address, that's okay.
7 Valley Road, Stanhope, New Jersey, 07-874.
- Thank you.
- Just wanted to say, Home Depot is really excited
to have a second location in Denton,
and we're looking forward to working with all of you.
And if you have any questions, I'm here.
- Okay, you said it was second location, yeah?
- Yes.
- Okay, so you are leaving the other one.
- That's right. - Awesome, thank you.
Any questions?
- Do you not see any?
Oh, Commissioner Cole.
- So does this mean I don't have to drive
to the loop anymore?
I'm off 380, so this is great.
(all laughing)
- Thank you.
Staff, is there anyone on the phone
wishing to speak on this item?
- No, there is no one on the phone.
- Thank you very much.
With that, I will close the public hearing
and entertain discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Pruitt.
- Thank you, Chair.
Just one question, perhaps, for the applicant
and maybe staff.
In the interest of being similar with other proposals
that come in next to TxDOT Roadways,
I would just, I'd like to understand what the schedule is
for the buildout and completion of this
compared to the TxDOT projects
that are ongoing on 35E in this area.
If we know that.
- We're still in the conversations.
It's still going back and forth,
but we believe that TxDOT is supposed to start next year
with some of the work.
And then there's also a ramp relocation
that's gonna happen the year after.
So by 2024, hopefully, or 2025,
that work will be completed.
Our story's supposed to open.
Right now, we have it in October 2023, next year.
- Thank you.
- Just to confirm,
we did have meetings on this earlier this morning.
So the schedule for the TxDOT widening,
TxDOT is currently in the appraisal process,
acquiring the right-of-way along that portion of I-35.
So there's still significant ways away.
The estimated timeframe is 2025.
So the development,
or this development would likely come in before,
but that's part of the development process
is to determine, through the development process,
how it's being impacted.
So just wanna briefly keep it on topic
is that this won't affect the actual amendment today.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- Thanks, Chair.
First, hopefully, we're gonna say thank you
and welcome the second office here,
and the second location here in Denton,
because it's gonna be much closer for me as well.
But basically, you're gonna be facing,
I mean, not facing 35,
but you're gonna be off of 35
once the highway's widened and stuff like this.
I guess there's gonna be a retention pond out there
at the entrance on the west side of the property,
is that correct?
No?
- No, the detention pond's gonna be moved
to the rear of the building.
- Okay, then I don't have a question.
(laughing)
- Just to clarify, one of the changes
as part of the landscape plan
is to actually remove that secondary detention off of 535
and increase the size of the northern detention
to offset it.
- Commissioner Pruitt, you're still on the board.
Did you have a question?
Okay.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- I move approval of the agenda item as written.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- I second the motion.
- Okay, we've got a first, a second for approval
of this item.
Any discussion?
Okay, let's vote on the board, please.
- Thank you.
- That motion carries seven, zero.
All right, that moves us to our final public hearing item
of the evening, 4D, which is Z22-0001.
I'll invite Lisa Hayne up for presentation
and open the public hearing.
(clearing throat)
- Okay, good evening.
Lisa Payne, principal planner for the city of Denton.
This is for a rezoning for a property on Mosh Branch Road.
And this property is two acres.
It's currently residential, rural, RR.
They would like to go to residential one, R1.
The subject property was originally part
of a 16-acre tract but was divided from the larger tract
prior to being annexed by the city.
The property is non-conforming with the RR zoning
since it does not meet the minimum lot size of five acres.
This property is generally located
on the east side of Mosh Branch,
which is a primary arterial,
and it's approximately 2,175 feet south of FM 1173.
It's currently vacant
and does not appear to ever be developed.
And it is also surrounded by RR
to the north, east, and south.
And to the west is the city of Crum and a subdivision.
As for criteria for approval,
which is found in sub-chapter two of our DDC,
there's two sections.
There's the criteria for all applications,
and then also there's zoning criteria.
I bolded and underlined some of the points
that I'm gonna talk on real fast.
For being consistent with the comprehensive plan,
the R1 zoning is not consistent
with the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan
as the subject property's future land use
has been changed to light industrial.
However, the application was filed prior
to the 2040 plan's adoption last night,
so it was reviewed in accordance
and is consistent with the 2030 plan,
which designated the property as rural areas.
To answer a couple of questions
that came from the work session,
the applicant was not previously aware
of the change in future land use to light industrial.
However, the zoning map,
which is mostly residential in the area,
drives the use of the property.
Any rezoning that's to be done
has to come through PNZ and council.
For your consideration, if it's gonna go to industrial.
And then I was asked about buffers
between industrial and single family.
When an industrial use develops adjacent to single family,
the industrial use is required
to provide a 30-foot landscape buffer
and achieve 50 landscape buffer points.
That can be achieved with a screening wall,
trees, shrubs, pretty much all of it.
50 points is a lot in our code,
so they have to do a lot.
In addition, if the property
is also zoned heavy industrial,
there is a minimum setback of 200 feet
from a residential property.
Moving on to point four, the compliance with the DDC.
They are going to have well water
and septic system to this property.
And that requires a lot size of two acres minimum,
according to the DDC.
Therefore, they cannot be subdivided further.
So two acres will be the minimum size that this will be
as the closest water and wastewater
are 1,000 feet and 8,000 feet respectively.
R1 zoning is more restrictive than RR zoning.
So rezoning this does not expect to create
any adverse impacts on the surrounding properties.
And moving on to the zoning criteria
for significant changes.
The subject property was annexed in 2010
with the placeholder zoning of RD5X,
which transitioned to RR with the adoption of the 2019 DDC.
The proposed R1 zoning will allow the property
to be platted and developed,
while the current RR zoning does not allow
for development of a lot that's smaller than five acres,
which deems this property unusable.
As for, excuse me, as for public outreach,
newspaper posting went out on March 6th,
website was March 4th, and the sign went out on March 12th.
The mail notices included public notices
that went to three addresses within 200 feet.
And then three addresses that were within 500 feet
where people actually have a utility address.
We did have two responses that were both in favor.
It was from the two properties
that are directly south of this property.
Neighborhood meeting was not held
due to the low number of neighbors,
but the applicant did contact his neighbors directly.
Staff recommends approval as the rezoning
complies with the criteria in the DDC,
and I'm available for questions.
- Thanks, Lisa.
Commissioner Cole.
- Thank you, Chair.
So let's say five years from now,
let's say the future under the 2040 plan.
Say I have 50 acres.
That is RR, but now it's LI.
And my two kids wanna live on that 50 acres.
So what do they gotta do?
I mean, I know I went through my diatribe
and work session on this,
but what's the procedure then?
Do they have to go and, you know,
their family land they've had for 70 years
that they wanna live on,
but now it's not RR anymore, R1, it's LI.
So what additional hurdles
are they gonna have to go through?
- So it does get a little confusing
because Light Industrial is one of our zoning districts,
but it's also the name of this future land use
for this property.
So all of these properties in the area
are still zoned RR or R1,
something like that around there,
but their future land use as of last night
has become Light Industrial.
So, but still that property that's zoned RR,
that it's gonna have to get a rezone
if an industrial use wants to come in.
The industrial user is gonna have to say,
come before y'all and ask permission
in order to be able to build industrial.
That use, that property can be used for residential
until that's rezoned.
- Okay, but once it is rezoned and they wanna get, I mean,
you know, there are people, you know,
they're growing hay there.
I mean, we're one of them.
I mean, and then you're coming in with this Light Industrial.
I'm just worried, you know,
well, I'm not gonna waste any more time on this,
but I made my feelings clear about this in work session.
I appreciate it. - I understand your feelings.
The property owners have the ability to, of course,
never sell to somebody for another use,
or if they choose to,
then they can sell to an industrial user
and move on and industrial use can go up.
- Well, if the zoning is changed.
- If you'll choose to approve the zoning, of course.
- Yeah.
- Okay, Commissioner Peruot.
- Thank you, Chair.
Just for clarification on the buffering requirements,
that's to the use independent of what zoning district it is
if it's a residential use that buffering applies, correct?
- It's to the residential,
if it's a residential district, so.
- Okay, of which RRR plus R01 and other R districts are.
- Yeah, so if an industrial use goes in next to,
if for a landscape buffer, I'm sorry,
let me restate that.
If a industrial use goes in next to a residential use,
then there is a 50-foot or a 50-point requirement
with a 30-foot buffer.
- As well as the 200-foot, if it's--
- Yes, if it's, and that's when it changes a little bit
from use to zoning.
If the property that goes in as industrial
is zoned to heavy industrial,
then if it is adjacent to a property that is also,
that is zoned residential,
then there is a 200-foot minimum buffer,
or minimum setback. - Again, for any of the districts
that are classified as residential?
- Yes. - Okay.
And are those setback requirements
to the property line or to the building?
- From the property line to the building.
So an industrial building has to be 200 feet
away from its own property line.
- Got it, thank you.
Yeah, I mean, I'm sensitive to the challenges
in our periphery.
You know, I almost feel like,
we've seen several of these, right?
And the ones that kinda come in
where it's already a one-acre, R1 kind of street,
makes sense.
This one is, all the surrounding properties are R, right?
At the same time, I understand that we,
we have a requirement of five acres or more
for RR for a very specific reason,
and that's to make sure that land zoned RR
doesn't get subdivided to small lots,
and all of a sudden we have this subdivision
that we weren't planning for.
So it feels to me,
and there's probably a good reason why this wouldn't work,
but it feels to me like perhaps the right resolution
to challenges like this are to allow single-family uses
in RR lots smaller than five acres with an SUP or something.
But I don't wanna tease it.
- Yeah, and if I could just interject,
a lot of these transition to RR,
which is why they don't really conform for development.
So it's not that they're being subdivided,
it's just they didn't have a zoning
because they were annexed
and they had that placeholder zoning,
and with the new code, they just transitioned to RR,
which didn't make sense, I'll agree,
but that's why we're here today
doing these types of things.
- No, I completely understand.
I just envision many more of these happening
in our periphery, especially in the range
of two to five acres,
because that's where you can start to use well and septic.
- Any other discussion?
Seeing none, floor is open for discussion, a motion.
No, it's not, because I didn't close the public hearing.
Let me do that.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this item?
Okay, and I do not have any cards.
Staff, anyone on the phone for this item?
- No, we don't have anyone on the phone.
- Thank you very much.
All right, with that, I will close the public hearing,
and now I will open the floor for further discussion
or motion, Commissioner Smith.
- Make a motion to approve.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- I second the motion.
- We've got a first and a second for approval of this item.
Any more discussion?
Okay, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries six, one.
That will move us to our Planning
and Zoning Commission Project Matrix.
I will go ahead and turn that over, I think, to Haley.
So just to give you all updates from City Council.
Of course, we did have three public hearings last night
for the Comp Plan, Mobility Plan,
and the ESA Trail Code Amendment,
all of which passed unanimously.
So that was a very successful evening for us last night.
With respect to the matrix,
I did want to give a couple of updates.
There are two items that have been hanging out on here
for a while, the Fiscal Analysis Tool
and the Opt-In Notification System.
And I wanted to let you all know
that we do have those scheduled for work sessions
with City Council in May,
so we'll be bringing those to you all in April
for work session discussions.
- Great.
Okay, Commissioner Cole.
Do you have something for the matrix?
- I did, and I just went blank.
(laughing)
Boy, it left me.
It was, oh yes, yes, yes.
So there's a House bill coming up,
and I can't remember the number,
but for the next legislative session,
and it has to do with de-annexation.
I'd like to know how that's gonna affect our future growth,
our development plan,
and what we can do to mitigate that.
So the verbiage of it is, if we're not supplying,
the city is not supplying infrastructure
to an area of town that is annexed,
they will be able to de-annex, basically.
So it seems to me that would cause,
kind of be a chaotic situation.
And I know it's a hypothetical for the past or not,
I just know it's coming up in this next session.
- So maybe some kind of brief on that,
is that what you mean?
- Sure, we actually already had an item on here
for discussing the history of annexations in the city,
so perhaps we can just roll that into one larger
annexation discussion in the future.
- Thank you.
Commissioner Prudt.
- Thank you, Chair.
I know we've been very busy in recent months
with various long-term plans,
and it's good to see that wrapped up.
I think, middle to the end of last year,
we were going through some boot camps,
and I'm not sure where we are in that process.
But given one of the comments tonight
about one of the public hearings,
it strikes me that two, I would say the two highest
common concerns we hear from residents
are traffic and drainage, right?
Traffic is complex, and you're never gonna convince anybody
that you know what you're talking about.
Drainage is complex, but maybe we can try to educate people,
as well as ourselves, about how drainage works,
at least to understand what the intention
of our processes are.
It just seems like when we have a public hearing
and the public comes forward and they say,
I'm worried about my backyard,
we are not technical professionals.
We don't understand how or why
that's not gonna be a problem.
They don't understand it because they get a minute and a half
and then they go away.
So I'm envisioning something like a boot camp
that would help us understand,
as well as, I think there was a council request recently
for some of that boot camp information
to be publicly distributed.
I think this would be an excellent candidate for that,
so that residents can not only learn about that
in their own time, but also understand
what their avenues for mitigation,
after the fact, if it seems like drainage issues
have been worsened by development.
'Cause that's just a loop that doesn't seem to get closed
and it always gets asked.
- Sure, we can definitely work with our neighbors
in the engineering department
and try to pull something together for you guys.
- Excellent, thank you.
Anything further for the matrix?
Any concluding items?
I'll just say congratulations again to staff
for the comp plan update and the mobility plans
going forward at council yesterday.
I know that was a whole lot of work by staff
and it was great discussion
and it was good to see it moving forward.
So with that, I will adjourn us at 8.29 p.m.
[BLANK_AUDIO]