Good evening and welcome to the planning and zoning work
session for October 24th, 2018.
It is 513.
We'll open the work session meeting at this time.
The first item is to clarify any agenda items listed in the
agenda.
Richard, do you have anything to start before you hop into
the consent?
>> No.
>> Perfect.
So we'll go into the consent agenda, 3A is Haley.
Haley actually has 3A and B. So if you have any questions
for Haley.
Does anyone have any questions?
Perfect. Margie, Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I have a question, 3B really.
I'm just curious.
>> Does anyone have any questions for 3A real fast,
Commissioner Ellis?
>> I do.
>> 3A? Perfect.
Hey, can we just skip to 3B?
So my question is on one of the notes where it says that we
have to get permission
from downstream owners for the runoff.
Exactly how does that happen?
>> So, Audra has a lot going on as I'm sure you've noticed.
So there is, and I don't think it shows up on here exactly,
further down to the east,
closer to where we had the recent rezoning, there's an out
fall there.
And all of the developments, that one as well as this one
and the property to the north
of here that you may remember from last year, all are
required to improve the storm water
system to get their water to that point.
So all three of the developers are in the process of trying
to work together and figure
out how they can share the cost of that and how that will
happen.
But engineering requested that that note be added in case
all of that doesn't work out
or just as a heads up that you still have to come to this
agreement so that all three
of you can share this and convey your water across each
other's properties to get
to that ultimate point that they all have to reach.
So that's what that note is an advisement of.
And additionally, there is a small property here that you
see as, let me see if I can
get to it here.
It's a single family home that I believe also has a
business associated with it, this
lot one, block A of the Gary addition.
That property also has to be traversed with the storm water
line and they haven't yet
completed those negotiations with that property owner about
how they would get that storm
system across his property.
So four parcels that all have to work together here to get
this accomplished.
Right.
So is that something that's done in writing and then?
It would be ultimately.
They're still pretty early in that because this property is
kind of the first piece in
but we're also working on the preliminary plat for this
piece as well.
And then with that recent rezoning, I suspect we'll see
that plat for the further east property
as well.
But that's what that note is referencing is just that kind
of team spirit that we're trying
to get to to get this accomplished, to get Audra
consistently improved with storm as
well as street improvements as all three of these pieces
come in.
Okay.
And what's being and what is held up if that doesn't happen
?
The entire project?
Um, there, I guess the biggest potential holdup is all
three of the developers seeming very
inclined to work together and share this cost would be this
this kind of holdout lot here
that that's already developed.
So if that's the case, there is a potential that, you know,
improvements could be skipped
on that parcel if we're not able to to work with them.
But they are working together and working with our
engineering department to see what
we can do to get all of this accomplished at once.
So thanks.
Any other questions for Haley?
Thanks, Haley.
Three C is Julie Wyatt's item.
Any questions for that preliminary plot?
Awesome.
That is our consent agenda.
Moving to public hearing for a has been postponed to a date
certain of November 14.
So we'll skip that one for now.
Goes into the next one is for B, which is Cindy Jackson for
final reply.
So can you come up and present the final reply?
Cindy will be seeing a lot of you tonight.
I think I just need to pull a stool up to the podium.
Okay.
Fr 1810 is a request for approval of a final replat of 15A
R1 and 15A R2, block 17, a
residential replat of lot 15A, block 17 of Royal Acres.
The site is generally located at the southeast corner of
the intersection of Hercules and
Wellington Lane.
You can see it right here.
The plot actually was initially subdivided.
It was approved in 1972 and it's hard to see, but here it
is as two lots.
In 1976, the property owner at that time re-platted it to
create one lot.
And what we have tonight is a request to take it back to
two lots.
We sent out 21 public notices via certified mail and then
275 public notices to the entire
subdivision via certified mail, which is required by the
local government code when we have
a residential replat.
We sent out 500, excuse me, 49 courtesy noses within 500
feet of the site.
And as you can see, we got no one in opposition within 200
feet of the site.
No one in favor, one neutral.
And then we had four in opposition in the subdivision and
two in favor within the subdivision
and one that was neutral.
Cindy, apart from us knowing the subdivision's response,
the subdivision response outside
the 200 foot buffer does not play into supermajority voting
.
That's just for our own edification?
That's correct.
Okay.
You want to wait?
Okay.
Well, we recommend approval.
Krista Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay.
So currently there is a house built on the north side of
that.
That's correct.
Right.
And that's staying?
Yes, it is.
Okay.
In fact, I had the applicant provide me a survey of the
site so I could verify that
the house with the subdivision of the land will still
comply with all the requirements
with setbacks and open space and all.
And it does?
Yeah, because it does look like it's going to sit quite.
Yep.
It does.
At the south end of that boundary line.
It does.
I wanted to make sure of that before we move forward.
Okay.
Thanks.
Okay.
Oh, Commissioner Beck.
Thank you.
Chair, I'm not sure why the opposition, but I'm reading
this one here.
I guess they were concerned that something other than a
residence was going to be built
there, but that's not possible, is it?
Well, no, it's not.
It's 7NR4.
Okay.
Right.
Okay.
Thanks.
Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Is it my understanding that, okay, the house will fit on
one lot and the other lot will
have, it's big enough to build a house of same caliber, 3,
000 square foot, or that's
about what you have in that neighborhood?
Yes, it is.
The lot that is proposed is 12,000 square feet in area,
which is significantly above
the minimum requirement of 9,000 for NR4.
Okay.
Thank you, Cindy.
Appreciate that.
Sure.
Next is agenda item 4C, the final replat by Ron Magenta.
Thank you, Chair, members of the commission for my
presentation.
This is a final replat, a residential replat.
That's why we're here for a public hearing.
It's for a property located on Bernard.
711 is the address.
Family zone DR2.
The property is approximately .289 acres.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot.
It is currently platted, but subdividing the lot into two
lots, one lot in front and a
flag lot to the rear.
The dimensions and requirements per the DDC has all been
met.
They also meet the density requirements.
We sent out notices per state law within 200 feet and the
subdivision and have not received
any letters or responses of any opposition neutral or in
favor.
With that, staff recommends approval of this final replat,
residential replat of 711 Bernard.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
The name kind of throws you off the treehouse apartment.
Yes.
There's actually nothing there right now.
So it's going to build a duplex.
Can you go back to the site map that you showed?
Yeah.
Okay.
So how are the people in the back going to access and park?
There's a 21 access easement by this plat.
And so I believe there's an existing drive here now.
They're just going to extend that.
The treehouse apartment name came by way of them platting
this lot.
I think it was last year wanted to develop apartments, but
they were not able to meet
that either financially or with the size of the lot.
So they came back and wanted to replat it so that they can
build two duplexes on this.
So parking will occur on that little inlet street?
No, this is access.
So it's an easement.
So they won't be able to park there.
This is just the driveway easement.
Okay.
It will be required to park within the subject lot.
Is there garages then?
We haven't seen the site plan, but they will have to meet
all the development requirements
in order to develop.
Okay.
Great.
Thanks.
Any other questions for Ron?
Thank you very much.
Item four.
I do have one.
Commissioner Burnetta.
Kind of piggybacking on what Commissioner Beck just said.
So there's no parking on that.
That's just an entryway, right?
It's an access easement, yes.
And based on where that is around the university, there's
almost no street parking on there.
They will be required to have parking on the property.
Correct.
Per the development code, there are parking requirements on
site and they will have to
meet that in order to develop.
All right.
Excellent.
Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you, Ron.
Okay.
Next is 4D Cindy Jackson again for a rezone.
Okay.
I am going to combine the presentation for Z170004 and S17
008 into one since they both
are on the same lot.
This is a request to public hearings.
It's a request to provide an initial zoning designation of
NR6 on approximately 118.04
acres of land.
The second request is a SUP for manufactured housing
development.
You'll notice on the aerial map here, I've got a red dashed
line along here.
This demarcates that area that is being considered for
zoning.
It's to the north of this line and the SUP, it includes all
of the area inside the yellow
box.
The subject site is generally located north of McKinney
Street and west of South Trinity
Road, which is right here.
Current zoning on the site is RD5X because the site was
actually annexed into the city
last August.
The site has a placeholder zoning of RD5X.
They're requesting an initial zoning designation of NR6.
This will be an extension of the existing NR6 that you can
see located on the south
of the site.
This is the proposed concept plan.
The total land area when you include the area that is
already zoned along McKinney Street
is 126.1 gross acres and that includes the 118 proposed for
rezoning.
The ESA is 18.5 acres and you can see this here, the
applicant is proposing to preserve
100% of the ESA on the site.
The open space on the site equates to 15.4 acres and you
can see all the open space and
parks that are being proposed for this site.
There's pocket parks all over the site.
The modular and manufactured homes are located within the
yellow areas along here.
There's 497 stands proposed and then six single family one
acre lots are proposed along the
east side along Trinity.
The overall density of the site is four dwelling units per
acre.
When looking at rezoning a site, the criteria that we use
is in section 35.3.4b which says
that the proposed rezoning must conform to the future land
use element of the Denton
Plan 2030 and the proposed rezoning facilitates the
adequate provision of transportation,
water, sewer schools, parks and other public requirements
and public convenience.
When looking at the future land use, sorry I'm trying to
get caught up here.
Based on the Denton Plan 2030, the most appropriate zoning
for the site is the NR4 zoning district
with a future land use designation of low residential.
Pretty much the NR6 that is proposed meets the intent of
the future land use only when
you apply the conditions for approval that staff is
recommending which limits the density
to four dwelling units per gross acre as shown on the
concept plan.
The applicant is planning to provide let's see two left
turn lanes into the site from
McKinney Street.
The ultimate right of way for Post Oak Road which will be
along here will be dedicated
equating to 1100 linear feet parallel to the subject site
and it will be dedicated with
this project.
The four lane intersection of Post Oak and McKinney will be
constructed with this by
the developer with this application and that will include a
traffic signal as well.
There are two planned access points along Post Oak.
There is a full access located to the north and a right in
right out located closer to
the intersection.
The applicant is also proposing as I mentioned earlier to
preserve 100% of the ESA located
on the site.
Adjoinage analysis will be completed during the plotting
and civil engineering of the
site to ensure no negative impact to adjoining properties.
As noted previously the requested NR6 is a continuation of
the NR6 that is located along
McKinney Street.
The uses permitted in the NR6 district are consistent with
the uses that exist in the
area today however at a lower density.
The reason that the applicant requested the NR6 as opposed
to the NR4 is because the NR6
it permits a manufactured housing park upon approval of a
SUP.
But the applicant is trying to keep it to NR4 standards
with their density.
The uses surrounding the area we've got Ashley Oaks which
is a mobile home park that has
been --
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you Chair.
You're probably about to answer my question but if NR6 and
the mobile the manufactured
home park and everything else but Ashley Oaks is NR2?
Ashley Oaks is NR2 and I really don't know why.
Neither do I.
It was constructed in between 1985 and 86.
And it was zoned NR2 during the 2002 rezoning.
My thought is that it probably was just complying with the
underlying future land use designation
that it has which is low residential.
That's the only -- it doesn't comply.
It's a nonconforming use.
And the other mobile home park that's just south of the
property, the subject property,
that's all RD5X?
That has been annexed in.
It hasn't been zoned.
Okay.
Yeah.
So it's RD5X.
It's placeholder.
Okay.
And traditionally Cindy whenever we do have a manufactured
home park like that would this
be the best way for them to go?
It would be NR6 with an SCP for --
That's what we required.
That's what you would -- anybody comes in and says I want
to build a manufactured home
you can find NR6 and you need to apply for SCP.
That's right.
Understood.
We worked pretty extensively with the applicant.
We've been working with the applicant for over a year now.
Two years.
That's why it's got 17 on it.
Yeah, on this site.
The applicant has significantly reduced the density of this
site since it first came in.
And he's also -- they've also introduced the single family
home sites that are along Trinity
to bring down the density.
So the applicant has been very cooperative in working with
the city and trying to get
this to a place where it is approvable with conditions.
Okay.
I'll let you keep going.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Oh, dear Lord.
Sorry.
We'll come back to you.
Yeah.
We'll probably come back.
Well, let me ask something that I'm going to ask later
since I can't remember this one
right.
Can you go back to the concept plan?
Mm-hmm.
I'll go forward to it.
Okay.
Just north of where the six one-acre lots are, there's a
little strip of land there
that will back up to the phase three.
Right here?
No, go to the white area.
Yes, that area right there.
That's a real narrow strip.
And as we look at, you know, the design here, it doesn't
look like you could build much
on that.
And I know there's probably no answer for this, but that's
going to be probably left
vacant, or we have no idea.
Right now, I don't know.
And it's already --
It's not in the city yet.
Oh, it hasn't been --
No.
Okay.
I thought it was already --
Let me get back to the -- see, that's not the right way.
See, that's not -- oh, it is the city.
It is already.
Yes, it's already 5X.
Yeah.
It came into the city.
That's going to be interesting to see who --
The public's got a single-family house on it.
I did check that.
That's going to be interesting to see who requested zone
designation for that and what
it is.
Just out of curiosity, too, that little strip along McKin
ney there that was already in R6.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Was there -- there's nothing there, though.
No.
Okay.
It's odd why they would just do that little strip.
Well, that's what they did back when they did strip zoning.
Strip annexation, rather.
Yeah.
They annexed 1,000 feet and then they strip --
Okay.
-- zoned it.
Strip zoned it.
To what -- we're not sure why they recommended that in 2002
.
Okay.
Because we've got -- it's kind of like we've got a
transition going here.
NRMU.
Yeah.
Then NR6 and then NR2.
Okay.
And I did -- yeah.
I did recall what I was trying to say.
Now they'll be expected to meet the criteria for parking of
NR6, right?
Well, they're expected to meet the criteria for parking of
single-family homes, manufactured
homes, which is two parking spaces.
Okay.
That's different from regular NR6?
NR6 doesn't have parking regulations.
No.
It's for use.
Oh.
Okay.
Commissioner Sanchez?
You mentioned that you had worked extensively with them to
bring the numbers down.
Why were you working to bring those numbers down as far as
how -- the number of structures
when you were -- I know you're willing -- they want to --
NR6, but why were you working -- why
was that such an important thing to bring those numbers
down?
Because of opposition from the neighborhood that is located
to the north, significantly
to the north, Lakeview --
[ Inaudible ]
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yes.
They had significant concerns expressed that to get to and
from 380, people would come
out here and go along Trinity through their neighborhood to
get to 380.
So what the applicant did -- well, first he put those
single-family houses along here,
which is -- it serves as a transition between the higher-d
ensity park and uses to the east.
And then he pretty much directed all of the traffic.
As you can see, all the traffic is directed to the west.
The timing of the development of this, if it's approved,
McKinney Street is anticipated
to be widened in approximately two years.
It's under design right now.
And Mayhill Road is expected to be completed within two
years.
So once this is developed, there will be little impact on
the traffic because of those improvements.
Plus we've got post-doc that the applicant will be
constructing to give additional access
to the site off of McKinney away from Trinity.
Okay.
>> Because how many -- what would be the difference between
how many different structures with
an NR6 and an NR4?
Like you say, most people are going to be going out McKin
ney.
Very few people are going to go up to 380 unless they're
going to use 380 if they have
to -- they're going to take Trinity even if they have to go
on 380.
It doesn't make any difference.
Not that many people.
So I just didn't understand that.
Okay.
Well, that is just the feeling of those people in that
neighborhood.
Even at the meeting that we had Monday night, which I gave
you a synopsis, the applicant
explained how all the traffic's been diverted to the west.
And they were still saying that, you know, people are still
going to go up through their
neighborhood to get to 380.
But realistically, if you've got McKinney improved and May
hill is improved, it's much
easier and expeditious to go to McKinney and up Mayhill
than it is to go through a two-lane
road and over a one-lane bridge to -- and through
residential to try to get to 380.
All right.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
It was mentioned in our material that they're going to be
putting a masonry wall on the
south facing and the east facing.
But they didn't mention anything in that right of way or
where POSOK is going to come through
or they going to -- is that -- they're not going to be a m
asonry wall there?
I believe there is, yes.
Okay.
Thanks.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
So those six one-acre lots --
Yeah.
Are they within the gate of the gated manufacturer?
No.
They're not.
They're going to be outside of --
Yeah.
They'll be their own little subdivision there.
Okay.
But they're part of this SUP only because it's part of the
conditions of approval.
That they need to remain as six one-acre lots.
Understood.
Okay.
Let's see where it was.
Oh, okay.
When you compare the density of the two mobile home parks
that are here on either side,
actually the density of 5.99 dwelling units per acre and I
believe it's Denton Falls has
a density of 5.12 dwelling units per acre.
These are more of the trailer park homes that we're used to
and these types of homes won't
be in this park.
This park will only be manufactured and modular homes which
, by the way, the city considers
modular homes to be single family.
So they would be allowed on this site by right.
If they were put into a lot instead of on a stand in a park
.
Commissioner Begg.
Thank you, Chair.
And they're going to be put on foundations.
Yes.
Are those slab foundations?
Concrete reinforced foundations.
Okay.
Not pure and mean.
Okay.
Either way is fine.
Okay.
Notices.
We have about 16 notices via certified mail within 200 feet
of the site and 19 notices
via regular mail.
We've got two in opposition.
The two parks that are located on either side, they said
that it would be detrimental to
their business.
Those two parks, however, equate to 28% of the land area
within the 200 feet of the subject
site and triggered the requirement for a super majority
vote of the council in order to be
approved.
Three signs were also posted on this site.
And I gave you all of the responses that we got for this.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Just to be clear, they're in opposition because it's
competition.
That's what they stated on all of the notices.
Yeah, they did.
They did.
I hope everyone understood that.
I'm going to say that to the public.
I'm going to say to the public session that you're only
against it because it's competition
and you don't want competition next to you.
Okay.
Understood.
Thank you.
Okay.
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the
following conditions.
These conditions will bring the site into compliance with
the goals and objectives of
the Denton Plan 2030.
The proposed conditions for approval are an overlay be
placed on the site with the following
requirements.
The maximum permitted density on the site shall be no more
than four dwelling units
per gross acre and permitted land uses on the site.
Our modular and manufactured homes as shown on the concept
plan and six single family
detached housing lots, minimum one acre lots located along
South Trinity.
I originally had in here the number of stands that would be
required and all that.
However, I realized that for the zoning site that doesn't
include the whole site.
So that many stands on this part of the site would really
be a crunch.
It is on the requirements for the SUP though.
Okay.
Now we're going to move on to--
Cindy, can I stop you real fast?
On zoning requests, typically we see a slide that there's
two conditions that we look
at, future land use map and then capacity for
infrastructure.
I didn't see that slide.
Okay, there is the future land use map and there's the
zoning.
Perfect.
So on the future land use map, looks like individuals
before us on a previous P&Z thought
that this area should be rural and low residential and
everything that goes along with that impact
fees and stuff we've been talking about in terms of growth
projections have that as rural
and low.
So it seems with the two analysis, it does not meet this
one.
This is-- and NR6--
NR6 does not meet this one unless you apply those
conditions which restrict the density.
To four.
To four which would be consistent with the low density.
NR4 is considered low density.
Yes, it is.
Okay, perfect.
Thanks.
Commissioner Smith.
And right now, the concept plan that I saw in there has 500
something units, correct?
There's 503 units total but that includes the six single
family.
If you remove the six single family, then there's 497.
It's made of tomato.
So 500 units.
We're going to round up.
118 acres, NR6, I mean they're not building at an NR4 level
.
So if we suggested it, came back and suggested it as a
commission, whatever we are, we can
make it and suggest it as a commission, NR4 instead to them
.
We can't do that because it's a manufacturer and everything
else.
Well, if you suggest NR4--
And we're going to be suggesting NR4, I guess we're going
to be limiting, right?
Because we can't suggest NR4 because the NR4 doesn't allow
for the SEP for manufacturing
homes.
Right.
And that is why we've got the maximum permitted density on
the site shall be no more than
Fort Dwell and Uniper for a acre.
That's-- I was looking at something else we said earlier.
You're so smart, Cindy.
I'm an idiot.
I just have been practicing.
I'm going to go back to the other one.
I'm just going to be practicing.
And then we'll move on to the next request.
This is the second public hearing, S170008, a request for a
specific use permit for a
manufactured housing development and approximately 126.1
acres of land.
You'll notice that the red line is gone and this is for the
entire site.
The subject site again is generally located north of East
McKinney Street and west of
South Trinity Road which are located here and here.
Here's the proposed SUP concept plan again.
I'm not going to go through all those slides again.
I'll just remind you that it's 126.1 gross acres.
The ESA area, they've got 18.5 acres of ESA.
They're proposing to preserve 100% of the ESA on the site.
Open space on this is 15.4 acres.
Manufactured housing stands are 497 and then there are six
one-acre single family lots.
Overall density of the site is four dwelling units per acre
.
Okay.
Now when we're looking at an SUP, we look at section 3564
and we do a compatibility
analysis between the surrounding property and the requested
use including the specific
use will not impede the normal and orderly development of
the surrounding vacant property,
parking, generation of traffic and access, nuisance
prevention, landscaping and screening
and architectural compatibility.
This analysis is all in your backup so I'm not going to
read it word for word.
With the proposed density of four dwelling units per acre,
this development has a lower
density than the mobile home parks to the east and west as
I noted earlier.
The applicant has included six acres located on the west
side of South Trinity which is
to be developed with a one-acre single family home sites.
This will provide greater compatibility to the land to the
east.
The applicant in response to concerns expressed by
residents in the area has a limited access
to and from the site via Trinity Road except for a gated
emergency access that is only
accessible by emergency vehicles and the police.
Water is available from McKinney Street and improvements to
the lift station will be located
to-- the lift station located on Trinity may be needed to
facilitate this development.
The proposed development complies with element seven of the
Denton Plan 2030, specifically
element seven, encourage-- establishes a goal to encourage
housing type, cost and location
choices.
In order to achieve this goal, the plan addresses
affordable housing with a policy to quote,
expand the availability of affordable housing choices for
community members most in need
of housing including those with low incomes and special
needs.
The proposed manufactured housing development will provide
another affordable housing option
for Denton residents.
Notification, we sent out 17 notices within 200 feet of the
site via certified mail and
20 notices within 500 feet of the site via regular mail.
The responses to the legal notice, we received one in
opposition which is this large property
owner right here.
And again, that equates to 28% of the land area within 200
feet of the site and will
trigger a super majority vote of the council to approve
this SUP as well.
>> So any of the two businesses to the west and east were
silent on the SUP?
>> I believe they thought maybe if they opposed the zoning,
the SUP is a moot point.
I'm just conjecturing but that seems logical.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
And on that point, did this property owner oppose the
zoning change?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> They probably got-- >> Commissioner Beck.
>> Well, they got inundated with notices to be honest with
you because we did originally--
this was originally on your schedule in January, last
January and we pulled it to do all of
this additional work.
And so they got notices in January which I included in the
packet I gave out.
And we got notices this time as well.
So and they each got two notices for SUP and rezoning.
So it could very well be that they just got too many
notices and just decided to fill
out one.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I noticed in your information, you know, that they had a
neighborhood meeting nearly a year
ago.
>> Yes.
>> November 11, 2017.
It was recommended that they hold another one which I think
is a good idea but as yet,
we haven't set anything up.
>> Well, actually, it was Monday night and I gave you a syn
opsis of the meeting tonight.
>> Oh, okay.
That's what this is.
>> Okay.
So they have had a second meeting.
>> Yes, they did.
>> And we still have this opposition.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Got you.
Thanks.
>> Commissioner Sanchez.
>> You mentioned this affordable housing.
Had they talked to you about what kind of prices those
mobile homes are going to be?
We're looking at HOA, I assume, right?
>> Well, yeah.
>> I think it's going to be an HOA.
>> There will be an HOA and I know during the public
hearing, the applicant will be able
to address those questions about price points and the HOA
dues.
>> Okay.
I didn't know if that discussed that with you.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> I don't know.
>> Okay.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Okay.
>> Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the
conditions in Exhibit 7.
Now, I've got them right here, but I also -- I can read
them all if you'd like.
>> I don't know if that's necessary.
>> Okay.
Okay.
Because I'm prepared to read them all if you'd like.
>> No, I think we're okay.
>> You know --
>> Just kidding.
Cindy, I don't know if I missed this or if you could point
it out to me.
Do you have the total number of acres that will be
developed when you minus out the parks
and the ESA or do you have the average size lot that's
being used or leveraged?
>> Well, there -- if you -- on the exhibit that is in your
packet, it actually has all
of that broken down.
>> On their site plan?
>> Mm-hmm.
>> Yeah, in the corner down here?
>> Yep.
Thank you.
>> Well, that concludes my presentation.
>> Any other questions for Cindy?
Great job.
Did a lot of hard work.
>> Thank you.
>> Cindy, you have the next one.
>> I do.
Let me go get my file.
>> Okay.
Okay.
S180002 is a request by Budget Self Storage for a specific
use permit to allow quick vehicle servicing in suite 110
and 111 of Budget Self Storage.
The property is located at 2820 Virginia Circle.
Virginia Circle actually runs parallel to University.
Here's Virginia Circle and here's University and here's the
loop.
This is actually an ALTA survey showing you everything that
's on the site.
And the location of the two vehicle repair facilities are
located in this corner here.
And then the parking, they've got 12 parking spaces over
here.
The site was developed as a storage facility back in the 80
s.
And then this, according to DCAD, was constructed sometime
in the 90s.
I couldn't find any records on it.
A history of the site.
In 1985, the site was platted and the self-serve storage
facility was constructed.
In 2002, it was rezoned from C to NRMU in the citywide rez
oning.
In 2010, CO, a certificate of occupancy, was approved for
retail sales of automotive electronics in suite 110.
And also in 2010, a CO was denied for auto repair in suite
111.
The CO, the applicant then revised the CO to read office
and the CO was approved for "office only" in suite 111.
Now, this is actually the result of a code enforcement
action.
Last year, we received a complaint about an auto repair
facility operating without a CO.
That's when we, after a site visit and investigation, it
was discovered that parking issues existed on the site
and the two businesses were actually in violation of their
COs.
The applicant has three options to rectify the situation.
One was, what was originally proposed to him was to rezone
the entire site to CMG to rectify the situation.
However, staff conferred with legal on this and the
decision was that an SUP would be the more conservative way
to go.
If we rezone the site to CMG, we would create additional
nonconformities because a self-storage facility requires an
SUP in the CMG.
And it's already a nonconforming special exception site
right now and that would just flip it over into noncon
forming if we did that.
Here are some photos that were taken back last February and
you can see the concerns staff has regarding parking on the
site.
These are the two businesses and at the time they had 15
parallel parking spaces along here.
In the course of reviewing this application, I determined
that those 15 spaces were substandard,
didn't meet the requirements of our parking, parallel
parking dimensions,
and the applicant did go ahead and restripe them to meet
those requirements.
So now there are 12 spaces in front.
This, what you see here, they are also doing overflow
parking on the vacant lot adjacent to them.
So as you can see, parking is a real issue on this site.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a clarification of one of the documents we have here.
The Haney's Auto, I mean everything is all budget self-st
orage, budget self-storage.
Is Haney's Auto, is it one of the two businesses or both
businesses?
No, we've got two businesses, Haney's Auto and Melton's.
And they rent out from budget?
That's right, they're tenants.
And the property owner is the applicant, which is budget
self-storage.
Okay, all right.
So the property owner is basically representing two of his
tenants in this scenario.
That's correct.
However, the representative of the property owner let me
know that he couldn't be here tonight.
And he said that one of the tenants was going to be here,
but I'm not sure which one, to be honest with you.
I was going to go looking for him when we were done here.
Commissioner Sanchez.
When you say the overflow parking is, this is a vacant lot,
it doesn't belong to the owner, right?
No, it doesn't.
It's just, okay, it has nothing to do with existing
businesses.
Right, if you look on the aerial, you can see it on the
aerial too.
Mm-hmm, okay.
Commissioner Burnetta.
So it's currently still used for storage facility, correct?
Yes, yes.
This part of it is office warehouse, this one building.
And if the rest of these, all of the rest of these are self
-service storage.
And the current parking requirements, the 12 parking spaces
, those are meant to accommodate people who would be coming
in and out of the storage?
They're meant to accommodate this building right here.
Okay.
At the time this was developed, we didn't really have
parking requirements for self-storage.
Okay.
Thank you.
There is parking right here for the office.
Yeah, Mr. Linnatter, attorney.
I just wanted to clarify, the vacant lot to the west, that
's not included, correct, in this SGP request?
I just want to make sure I'm just clarifying.
The vacant lot where there's overflow parking, that's not
included in this request?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, chair.
I wouldn't think that's probably even owned by the same
person, correct?
Correct.
Right, yeah.
And there's over 20 cars parked on that piece of property.
Well, I know that we've talked to the owner of the adjacent
property through the pre-development meeting process, so
they are looking to develop the site.
You saw the floor.
Yeah, they have a for sale sign on that lot that is kind of
being shadowed over by the 20 some cars that are on it.
But there is a for sale sign.
Commissioner Beck.
There was the one notification sign out front.
Should there have been one to notify the residents that sit
behind them a little bit?
I know there's a pretty good buffer there, but...
We put them along the right of way.
The signs are required to be put along the right of way.
Okay, so...
And they've only got frontage along that one street.
Okay, so it's possible that the residences are within 200
feet.
Within 200 and 500 feet, the residents behind them got
either a certified notice or a postcard.
Okay.
Commissioner Sanchez.
As I was reading through this, you don't recommend that...
your recommendation is not to accept it, but you also... I
think you also state that if we do recommend it, that there
are certain things they have to do in order for them to
continue running a business.
Running a business there.
Exactly.
Okay.
Exactly.
Staff felt that we really couldn't recommend approval of
something we'd already recommended denial of.
We initially recommended denial of the CO in 2010 for
automotive repair based on the fact that it required an SUP
.
So now we have the SUP, but it's very clear that there are
parking issues on the site.
So we felt we still could not recommend approval of it.
The applicant has been extremely cooperative with staff and
has done everything staff has asked.
And so we've done what we've done is what we call a soft
denial, saying, well, we can't really approve it.
You guys have the ability to approve it.
If you do, these are the standards that should be placed on
it.
Commissioner Beck.
Do you want to follow up?
Okay.
So say if we did approve it, is there anything that we
could give like a say a SUP with conditions if we don't
meet our conditions within or if we find violations, we'll
pull that SUP?
Out of curiosity.
I don't know.
I have to defer to Jerry on that.
I guess my thinking is he seems to -- he said I've got
other locations to park my cars.
I'll only put two vehicles in here and blah, blah, blah.
So my question is if he did all that that he says he's
going to do and we monitor him and find out, hey, you didn
't -- SUP is being pulled just out of curiosity.
Well, I expect that they will be monitored after we go
through this process to make sure if it's approved to make
sure that everything is being complied with.
Okay.
Jerry's looking that up.
Commissioner Beck, do you want to --
Just as some of you know, I went out there and looked at it
today.
In my opinion, I think the applicant is going to be hard
pressed to meet parking requirements.
The other facility talked about only handled a couple of
cars.
There were at least two dozen cars on that adjacent lot at
least.
And then you saw there was a lot of traffic right in front
of it too.
So he's going to be hard pressed to meet the parking need.
And I hate the prospect of putting somebody out of business
, but the fact that he applied for a CO under nebulous, de
vious circumstances is troubling too.
So just the parking situation is going to be difficult for
him to meet.
That's why I'm going to have a hard time approving it.
And I agree with you.
I kind of went with that.
I drove by there and I saw that.
But it's like you say, you know, it's hard to put somebody
out of business.
If he's willing, give him a second chance.
That's what I'm thinking.
If he doesn't, that's why I was just curious if it could be
pulled if he did comply.
Sure.
No, I understand.
But what I'm saying is I don't see how he can.
I honestly don't see how he can.
Essentially what they'd have to do is they'd have to make
other arrangements for overnight parking of any vehicles.
Right.
They can pull some of them inside, but that's about that.
That would only, I guess, maybe I don't know, three or four
vehicles in there.
And they've got significantly more vehicles on the site, so
they would have to come up with other arrangements.
I worked with the applicant trying to find somewhere else
to put parking on this site.
And it's so tight, there's nowhere to put parking.
Krister Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
In a traditional sense, if there was to be an auto repair
shop elsewhere for the size of the units they have, do you
know how much parking would be normally required?
Well, under the standards we used to park by, we would
require one for 300 square feet.
And each of those units are 300 square foot units?
They're really small.
Yeah, they're tiny.
They're really small.
But today we're doing auto, see, we don't have a parking
requirement standard specifically for automotive repair.
So the most recent standard that we use is the standard
that they were parked by, which is office warehouse.
And it would be the same parking requirements that they
have now.
So it really, they have 15 space, they really don't have 15
, they say on the letter they have 15, they have 12 now.
They have, there are 12 spaces shared with the applicant.
But with everything else.
And that 12 cannot include the square footage on the rest
of the area, because the rest of the area is for self
storage.
It's not part of the SUP that's being requested.
And so it can only be, parking spaces that are allowed,
that they need, I guess, technically, are only the ones
that are, that need are allowed.
Well, they have, you know, we have the minimum maximum
requirement for parking.
And so the larger suite, which is 110 on the end, has four
parking spaces of that 15.
And then the 111 has three.
Okay.
Which is why I, in the recommendation, they can use two.
The max is one per 300 square feet?
No, one per, yeah, one per 300.
If we parked it per retail, personal services, and that
business.
But that'd be the max, would be one per 300.
Yeah.
So right now, just by looking at the drawing that they gave
us, 43 feet by 24 feet is about 1,000 square feet or so.
So that's like three spaces, is their max.
That's right.
If you park it per office, the office is one space.
And then the other one, the larger one, three spaces.
So that would be.
So they're really out of their parking.
Yeah.
Okay, thank you for the, just wanted to make sure the
gravity of the parking situation was realized.
Yeah.
And when they actually, you know, complied with the request
to restripe the parking spaces, so they comply with our
standards, they lost three spaces, too.
So, but I think if they just, you know, come up with other
means for handling the overflow parking, the offsite like
one of them has, I think that would be an acceptable
solution.
However, one of our conditions is that there's no overnight
parking outside parking vehicles, and that they can only
use during the day two of their parking spaces for vehicles
that are waiting to be repaired or waiting to be picked up.
So we need we need a parking space for the employee.
So I think we have an answer for Commissioner Sanchez, but
real fast, I know Commissioner Pernetta has been waiting.
So let's go Commissioner Pernetta, then we'll go legal.
Yeah, you mentioned that the vacant lot where they're
currently using their overflow parking had expressed that
they would be planning on developing that property.
Did they give any indication of what that use would be?
They did, but I'm sorry, I don't recall.
It's been a while since I've seen them, so my thinking is
that whoever we met with, they decided it wasn't feasible
for them.
Okay.
So we see if we have one of those pre-development meetings,
then we see turnaround usually within six months.
It's rare if we see it a year or two after.
It happens, but it's rare.
Thank you.
Jerry, do you have an answer about revocation of SUP?
I wasn't looking up revocation.
I was looking up the conditions that were being put on it.
The DDC does allow for conditions to be imposed.
It's not an exclusive or exhaustive list.
Adding parking spaces might be within bounds of this,
although it's not explicitly mentioned.
It talks about site development conditions that could be
put in there as well.
I guess my bigger concern on this, and maybe this is one
for the commission to give some thought to, if you
recommend approval of the SUP with conditions,
but the council declines to impose one or more of your
recommended conditions, it's still a recommendation to
approve.
And so I think the typical imposition of conditions would
be done more or less at the council level.
I don't know that it would be binding or trigger a super
majority if council decided to go another way on the imp
osition of those conditions, in other words.
I think the conditions would be for the council to decide.
Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. Sanchez was asking, I think, if we put conditions on it
and they're not met, the city does follow up with
conditions being met.
Is that for a period of time, or is that indefinite to the
property, or how does that work?
Well, to be honest with you, I'm not sure.
I can check with and find out.
The conditions would run with that as long as that use is
in existence.
Well, I thought you meant when we'd be checking up on if
they're still complying.
Partly that, and I don't want to speak for Mr. Sanchez, but
it seemed like he was expressing a concern that if they
were out of compliance, that we would have power to pull
their ability to operate.
Well, probably the first step in that would be to be given
a warning.
And they would be told that they have X number of days to
come into compliance with the SUP requirements.
And if they still don't within that time frame, then it's
possible we'll start citing them every day.
And it could eventually end up in court.
And that's not really the revocation provisions of the SUP
chapter.
It's really the general provisions in SUP chapter one where
there's a requirement to comply with the DDC generally and
with the conditions of permits imposed under the DDC.
So that would be the source of any revocation.
You'd have to follow the strictures of that in order to
make it happen.
But yeah, there's a possibility of it, but the devil's in
the details.
Chris Rebeck.
Thank you, Chair.
Let me change direction a little bit here and maybe for my
edification.
I don't mean to put staff between the rock and hard spot.
But obviously, when we issue a CEO, we don't go out and
confirm it.
Actually, we do.
We do now.
Yes, we did then.
So code enforcement went out and inspected the site to make
sure the parking was there.
Everything was there.
And if that it was an office and not a every everything was
checked.
The coat.
So that's how we did it then.
I don't know how they do it now.
I'm pretty sure they checked.
They went out and inspected it.
They hadn't set up their car repair for the purpose of that
inspection.
Probably they knew they were you know, they have to have to
schedule these inspections.
So they knew when they were coming.
Good.
You guys are on.
Thanks.
I know you keep moving on.
Thank you, Chair.
It's a code enforcement night where that we're getting
ready to set up with that.
I mean, I guess I'll just say that.
Okay.
Analysis.
The subject site is to office warehouse suites, suite 110
and suite 111, which are utilized
for quick vehicle service.
The suites are part of a larger self-service storage
facility, which includes one building
comprised of 10 office warehouse suites.
The site takes access from Virginia Circle, which is
classified as a local street.
Since the site was developed in 1985, it does not meet the
standards for parking, land use,
or lot coverage and is considered to be a special exception
.
With regards to the Denton Plan 2030, the site is
designated as community mixed use.
While the area in general is appropriate for the quick
vehicle repair, the office warehouse
building may not be optimal due to the limitations on
parking that we were just discussing.
The parking requirements for these two uses are based on
the uses that were applied for
and not the uses in place.
Now, since we've changed how we are parking the automotive
repair, they're actually,
the parking is the same as what it was parked at in the
office warehouse.
The existing land uses surrounding the site include vacant
or undeveloped land around
here.
To the south is a permanent open space area.
It's open space for the Ashley Oaks.
And then there's a vacant lot right here as well.
To the north is University and it's all pretty much
industrial and employment center type
uses in here.
The two automotive businesses have been in place for
several years since 2010 and no
new impacts to the infrastructure or the surrounding
properties are anticipated.
In fact, we anticipate a lesser impact to surrounding
properties if this is approved
because of the requirements, the conditions of approval
that staff is placing on it with
regards to parking.
We sent out 12 notices within 200 feet of the site and 53
notices via regular mail.
We did not receive any responses back and one sign was
posted on the site.
Staff recommends denial of this request.
However, should the Planning and Zoning Commission decide
to approve this request, staff recommends
the following conditions.
A new certificate of occupancy for the correct use must be
applied for and approved.
This specific use permit shall be limited to these two
particular business owners and
these two particular suites.
So for example, if the owners sell the business to somebody
else, they'll have to get a new
specific use permit for it or if the owners want to move
the business to another suite,
they would also have to get another specific use permit.
The specific use permit will be limited to the use
description and the floor plan that
are in Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 in your backup.
No overnight outdoor storage of automobiles is prohibited
and no more than two customer
vehicles per each business can be parked in the parking
spaces in front of the building
during business hours.
And that concludes my presentation.
Thank you, Cindy.
I don't see any questions this time.
Considering the time it is, what we'll do is we'll take a
quick break for food, put
Julie on pause for a couple minutes and then we'll come
back for Julie's presentation
and wrap up the work session.
It is 6.16, we'll pause for dinner.
It is 6.25, we'll continue the meeting with Julie
presenting her item.
Hi, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner and I am presenting DCA
18.5 and this is for a tie
vote procedure.
The request is to hold a public hearing and consider making
a recommendation to City Council
regarding a proposed revision to the Denton Development
Code specifically to address motions
that result in a tie vote.
So as some of you may remember, we had a case earlier this
year that did result in a tie
vote of 3 to 3.
In those instances, the City Council rules of procedure are
applied and it applies to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for tie votes and that
matters voted on by the City
Council which ended a tie vote shall automatically be
placed on each subsequent council meeting
agenda until a full council is present.
So this rule applies to the Planning and Zoning Commission
when it comes to tie votes.
In relationship to this case, however, there was a recusal
and so the total number of permanent
voting members of the Planning and Zoning Commission for
this case was always going
to be 6.
And so the Planning and Zoning Commission after a couple of
tries could not get to 4
votes in the affirmative or the negative for this case.
So it was essentially immobilized.
So based upon that, City Council tasked staff to look at
what we would do in these cases.
And so City Council looked at this at a September 11th work
session and they were presented
with four options of how to address this.
First, they could do no action.
Second, they could remove that tie vote provision for all
the boards and commissions including
City Council.
Third, they could remove the tie vote provision for boards
and commissions excluding City
Council.
And the fourth option which is the one they ultimately
directed staff to pursue was to
do a targeted amendment to the DDC to address only the
Planning and Zoning Commission and
to allow those cases that result in a tie vote to move
forward with a denial.
However, as you know that if this--if Plan Zoning
recommends denial, then a super majority
is required for City Council to approve that request.
And Council discussed pretty--had a pretty lengthy
discussion regarding that and felt
like that super majority provision was too punitive in this
--in this instance because
PNZ didn't have a majority voting in denial of the case.
So they directed staff to move forward with a DDC amendment
to provide for the tie votes
that it would go forward as a recommendation of denial but
not require that super majority
requirement.
Just a simple majority, yes, sir.
So the proposed language is any motion resulting in a tie
vote of the commission would automatically
be deemed as a denial recommendation to be forwarded to
City Council for a final decision.
Such tie vote is not subject to City Code Section 2-29,
that's that--that part we looked
at at the beginning of the presentation.
The denial shall not require three-fourths vote of all
members of the City Council qualified
to vote as stated in Section 35.3.4.c.4.b of the Denton
Development Code.
The language in that you said--I didn't see that earlier
but the language you had in there
earlier was that this would apply to only PNZ.
Other recommending councils and boards and commissions--
Would not--would not apply to them.
Do we not see that that might be important to have that
also spanned to them as well
as--as recommend--not--not all but the ones that are--that
are recommending bodies that
have that also available in case they have the exact same
situation that happens there?
And that may be something that City Council wants to
address in the future.
However, the Denton Development Code just addresses the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
So if that is something that Council wanted to move forward
with, they would--it would
be a different procedure for that.
Commissioner Perdena.
So based on what you just described, my simplification
would be that--and if I'm misunderstanding
it, let me know--that it's high rather than moving forward
as a denial would in effect
move forward as an approval?
No, it would move forward as a denial but it wouldn't
require the supermajority.
So--so hold that thought and we may--maybe I'll answer it
and if I don't, we'll keep
talking about it till I--till we can get it--get it
straight.
So--so when staff just looked at this and--and did their
analysis of this direction, we determined
that--that this amendment would prevent leaving those
projects in that indeterminate state,
that it would actually allow those projects to move forward
and that City Council would
either approve or deny.
So they would have their--be able to be heard by City
Council.
Although the recommendation would be a denial, it would not
be a recommendation of approval,
it does remove that supermajority requirement.
So it's not overly punitive that it wasn't a full denial by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
But as with all cases, the City Council is apprised of the
--of the PNZ meeting minutes
as well as a summary of the points of discussion and the
full vote so that they are fully informed
when they make their decision.
So although it would move forward as a tie vote
recommendation of denial, they would
be aware of some of those issues that would have been
brought up at the--at this meeting
in order so they can make a fully informed decision.
Commissioner Burnetta.
And I guess my clarification.
So currently we would--if we made a recommendation, it
would move forward to City Council and
then they would vote on it and they would require a
majority, right?
To approve.
To approve, right.
So--and I guess I just want to make sure I'm not
misunderstanding, you know, mistaking
nomenclature versus procedure.
So this one--in this case, it would move forward as a tie,
which is technically not a--technically
a denial, not an approval, but the vote process would still
be the same as if it had been
approved.
I think you said it very well.
Okay.
Yes.
All right.
Thank you.
Yes.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
So what I'm hearing you saying is this would be any tie
vote.
It's not correct.
It's changing a tie vote, not a perpetual tie vote, which
was really what the problem
was.
Yes.
It's not a tie vote that PNZ has.
Like someone's on vacation, let's say, someone's child's
sick, someone's sick.
I think this is a really bad idea.
We have policy in place right now, good policy in place
that says if we have a tie vote,
it goes to the next meeting to get that full commission.
What our problem was, our problem was we had a recusal.
So we were always going to have a six-member commission and
probably a perpetual tie.
We are rewriting good policy to address that one rare issue
.
And I have a real problem with that because something could
get underhanded.
I mean, I don't, there's bad people out there.
Okay.
Hey, why don't you be sick today at PNZ?
Oh, automatic tie perhaps and goes on to city council, does
not require a super majority.
I've just got issues with this.
We've got a policy in place that fixes a tie vote because
it goes to the next meeting automatically
and we vote again.
So I don't know.
Is anybody else understand?
I think I'm going to let city jump in real fast because we
saw a lot of hands pop up
at your point.
One option that could happen is if that is the case, it can
always be requested to table
the item to the following meeting.
Can you say that again?
An option could be that you could always table the item to
the next meeting rather than taking
a vote.
And we'll go with Commissioner Smith.
Just per Robert's rules of order, and you can correct me,
that there's a request to
table an item that supersedes any motion that's on the
floor.
So if there's a motion for an approval and it's going to
obviously go to a tie, there
can be some of us have said I motion to table the item.
Robert's rules of order allows for that to supersede any
motion that's on the floor.
Just my understanding.
Commissioner Burnetta.
I think he kind of covered that, but is it possible to -- I
mean, per Commissioner Ellis's
concern to make an amendment where this would only happen
in the event that there would
be a permanent tie, you know, it would be a recusal.
Or a secondary tie, like this is the second time it's been
tied, or back-to-back sessions
to both your point.
Because I -- real fast, I'd like to add, because
Commissioner Smith, if that was to happen,
there's six people on the board and someone tables it, it's
going to be hard to get that
vote if someone knows that a tie vote would get it through.
So I'm not sure if that table would -- that motion to table
would pass and not hypothetical.
I think it would be a stalemate going back to a tie to pass
it forward.
Commissioner Beck.
That's a good point.
Thank you, Chair.
And I understand -- I'm glad she brought that point up.
We never thought about the devious people actually
deliberately missing.
But my concern was what if we did have a tie vote and just
result somebody wasn't here?
And then I think somebody made the suggestion that if that
happened a second time, that
could be the way we could get around this.
If it happened a second time and the same person was gone,
then it would automatically
go forward.
But then I'm not opposed to just limiting it to the
situation that we had to deal with
that one time.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Can I ask why it wasn't written that way?
Why it's not being proposed that way?
So I believe that actually was discussed at City Council.
I think there was ultimately concern that that would be
hard to manage that, is what
if somebody was on a long-term illness and they would be
gone for months at a time.
So I think a very similar comment came up at the City
Council meeting as well, that
work session as part of the discussion.
Jerry, you want to hop in?
I think part of it is also if the purpose of the law is to
have the council consider
the P&Z's recommendation and the P&Z comes forward with a
tie vote, it's not a particularly
strong recommendation, so as to be compelling.
And I think that it's been published in the Texas Municipal
Zoning Guidebook that we regard
more or less as the Bible, that this may be a way to get
around that perpetual no-man's
land is to treat a tie vote as essentially a known
recommendation and let it go on further
to council.
So the purpose has been solved by this rule in allowing the
P&Z to make a recommendation.
It's just that strange case in which P&Z can't make a
strong recommendation.
Koshelos.
Thank you, Chair.
I'll just say one more point on it.
When we have policy written in place right now that handles
a tie vote, this is addressing
a very specific problem which has never occurred before in
the time that I have been here.
So it's a rare occurrence anyway, and we're rewriting this,
and I will be voting no on
this as it's written.
Great.
Commissioner Pernitta.
And to kind of second Commissioner Ellis's point, I do have
a concern that this would
specifically target cases where there is a recusal, so
there would be normally a conflict
of interest in these cases.
So to kind of draw back on those procedures in those cases,
it seems like it's inviting
issues.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Yes, I also wanted to state I agree with you.
It was a very unique situation.
I don't think we just run into that, you know, once every
-- I mean, how often --
Has that happened since they've been having meetings?
I think it's very unique because nobody even had ever seen
it.
So I agree.
I think we should look at it as a unique situation and not
make these general rules that apply
all of a sudden for everything as -- instead of looking at
specific what happened, how
can we improve it?
And I don't think -- So I think we made valid points.
I don't know who's all in council chambers waiting, but if
Julie wanted to continue,
we can certainly continue the dialogue as appropriate.
There is?
Great.
Let's not keep them waiting.
So notification was published regarding this.
Staff recommends approval of the language.
We want to make sure we get the language in the right spot
in the development code.
This was something that was requested of staff by city
council.
So this was a directive by city council, and so that is
also part of our recommendation
for approval.
And that -- our original assessment was to put it in subch
apter 4 of the DENT development
code, but we want to make sure that we have it in all the
right spots to make sure that
as applicants are trying to move forward with their cases
and the public to understand the
rules that will make -- if recommended and if approved by
city council, that we would
make sure it's in the DENT development code in the right
spots to make sure that everyone
knows all of the correct regulations.
Thanks, Julie.
Can I just ask for a point of clarification?
So the concern would be if this was narrowly pointed to --
if a P&Z member had to recuse
himself for a conflict, then this would be --
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, the part that's broken is if you have an even number
because of a recusal and you
always have the possibility of a tie, that's what's broken.
This completely changes how policy is written now, and I'm
absolutely not on board with
that.
Julie, did you cover that?
We may be putting it somewhere else in the code.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Julie, thank you so much.
We can continue the conversation in there.
We'll fast forward, dismiss.
Is everyone okay for an early attendance on November 28th?
We might have to call a meeting a little bit early.
It's the week after Thanksgiving.
Just want to make sure sometimes around holidays, travel.
Is everyone planning on being here on the 28th?
Well, I think normal time, but we just want to make sure we
're attendance.
Okay.
So with that, I will close the work session at 639.
We'll meet in Councilor's chambers at 645.
Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for October 24th, 2018.
The meeting will be started at 645.
Thank you all for being patient.
We had a longer work session than we were anticipating.
So appreciate you all being patient and hanging around.
The first item on the agenda is to stand and give a Pledge
of Allegiance to the U.S. and
Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to
the republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag.
Commissioner Smith? Motion for approval. Commissioner Pern
etta? We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing
none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0
. Next item is our consent agenda. Commissioner Ellis?
Thank you. Try and move approval of the consent agenda.
Commissioner Beck? Second. We have a first and a second.
Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'll call for a
vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0. That moves us to our public hearing
items for this evening. Item 4A, Z18-0021C has been
postponed. It will be brought back before the Commission on
November 14th and will be reposted and re-noticed at that
time.
Next item is item 4B, FR18-0010. I will call Cindy Jackson
for presentation and open this public hearing.
Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. FR18-0010 is a request
for approval of a final replat of lots 15A, R1 and 15A, R2,
block 17, being a residential replat of lot 15A, block 17
of Royal Acres section 5.
You can see the property right here. It's generally located
at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hercules
Lane and Wellington Drive.
The site was originally platted in 1972. Here you can see
it was actually two lots, a little difficult, but it's
there. In 1976, the then property owner replatted the two
lots into one lot.
Now today, we are here to replat the site back into two
lots. Since this is a residential replat, we had
notification requirements.
We sent out 21 notices via certified mail within 200 feet
of the property. We sent certified notices to the entire
subdivision, 275 via certified mail.
We sent 49 courtesy notices within 500 feet of the site. We
received no responses in opposition within 200 feet of the
site and one neutral.
We received nothing in favor of the request within 200 feet
of the site. Within the subdivision, we received four in
opposition, which you can see here.
We received two in favor, you can see outlined in green,
and we received one neutral.
This plat meets the requirements of the subdivision
ordinance and the zoning code, and staff recommends
approval of this request. That concludes my presentation.
Thank you, Cindy.
The applicant is present if you have any questions.
I do not see any questions at this time. This is a public
hearing. If anyone wishes to speak, they may do so.
Anyone wishing to speak? Do we have any questions of the
applicant from the commission before I close the public
hearing?
Okay. Oh, Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. I do have one question for the applicant,
if I may. Is the applicant here?
The applicant, yes.
If you could just state your name and address for the
record.
Gerald Jensen, Landmark Surveyors, 4238 I-35 North.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jensen, for coming out. Just real
quickly, I think some concern that was expressed, and I
just wanted to allay that if we could.
Splitting this lot, you don't have any intentions of doing
anything other than, if anything, building another single-
family home there, is that correct?
Okay. On the new lot, on the separate lot?
Yes.
Okay. That's all I need. Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
I have a question.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Did you meet with any of the neighbors in that area to find
out what their thoughts were? Because I know I've talked to
a few of them, and they were concerned about what was going
on in dividing that lot, so that was their concern.
So have you met with any of them to kind of?
I have taken several phone calls from concerned residents
and explained the situation, and I have one, actually, Mr.
Jackson mirrored exactly what I was going to present to you
, except I have one other exhibit that I'd like to show you
if it'll help.
Sure, absolutely.
If you want to put it just on that, the felts.
Okay.
Okay. This shows the existing conditions.
When the two lots were combined into a single lot, and for
the moment ignore this new lot line, it was done because
the size of the house was built and the original lot line
was across here somewhere, so it needed to be combined into
one lot.
As it turns out, they left plenty of leftover there's
approximately 12,000 square feet, or 7,000 is required for
it should be 50 it's more like 90 something and depth is
supposed to be 80 is more than 142 so it's way more than a
standard law for that in our four zoning would be.
But that's basically what's there now. This is the area
where the second house will be built.
Okay.
Question for that.
And I just kind of wanted to piggyback on what Commissioner
back so I know a lot of the objections that we got were
based on people not knowing what the area was going to be
used for.
We are just considering the division of the plot, in order
for any of the anything business like we'd have to rezone
it which we're not correct so right.
And if I may add the answer to your question the
conversations I had with the residents all had to do with
some misunderstanding think if there was some kind of a
zoning or the something commercial might go in.
So I was able to explain to them and think that there was
satisfaction, but all this was was just creating a rec
reating a lot that existed once in 1972.
The questions I had, they were afraid that the lot, the lot
that you were going to create was going to be too small and
you go in and create a smaller house than was in the rest
of the neighborhood.
There were, you know, most of those houses are about 3000
square feet, and you come in and maybe put in a 1200 square
that was that was a concern that was given to me is come in
and put a 12 1300 square foot, you have a small lot and a
small house rather than what is compatible in the rest of
the neighborhood.
Right, as it turns out it's actually larger law than the
rest of the thoughts in the neighborhood.
I don't see any other questions I appreciate it. Thank you.
This is a public hearing item if anyone wishes to speak,
you may do so.
Seeing none I will close the public hearing and open for
discussion or emotion, Mr Smith.
Motion for approval.
First, Rebecca second.
We have a first and a second. Is there any discussion.
Seeing none I call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries seven zero. As a point of order, we'd like
to make an amendment to the agenda. For the sake of some
timing, we'd like to move agenda G DC 18 DC a 18 dash 005
to the next item so item G is now going to become item C,
and I'll call Julie for presentation.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton.
And I am presenting a DCA 18 five tie vote procedure. Sorry
. The request before us to hold a public hearing and
consider making a recommendation to city council regarding
a proposed revision to the Denton Development Code,
specific specifically to address those situations
where there, there's a motion that results in a tie vote.
I'll give it a background to see how how we got here. This,
the planning and zoning Commission heard a rezoning case
earlier this year that resulted in a tie vote that brought
to the for what those, what the procedures are when a tie
vote is resulted from a motion, and those, those follow
the local rules of procedure there in the code of ordin
ances and particularly in section to dash 29 matters voted
on by the city council which in a tie vote shall
automatically be placed on each subsequent council meeting
agenda until a full council is present.
And so that rule applies to the planning and zoning
Commission.
So on that previous case, due to a recusal in the planning
and zoning Commission the number of voting members of the P
NC was permanently reduced to six. And that's where they got
the three three vote.
The, the, the case came before the planning and zoning
Commission twice, and four votes and either the affirmative
or the negative were not possible. So in a sense that case
was immobilized it couldn't go forward it couldn't, it
couldn't do anything.
And as a result of that city council, asked staff to
prepare work session and some options by which that they
could prevent this from happening again and so in September
, staff presenting four options to city council regarding
the tie vote issue.
First option is no action just keep things as they are. The
second option would be to remove the tie vote provision for
all boards and commissions, including the city council.
The third option would be to remove the tie vote provision
for all boards and commissions but excluding city council.
And then the fourth option was was the most targeted option
and that was to amend the debt and development code to
address only the planning and zoning Commission
and allow cases where there is a tie vote to move forward
as a denial. As, as you're aware, typically when the
planning and zoning Commission recommends denial in order
to approve that request city council would have to, there
would have to be a super majority of votes
which would be six out of seven, they felt like that might
have been a little too strenuous as a denial since the full
planning and zoning Commission did not recommend denial so
they they they asked that we move forward with a text
amendment to the debt and development code to move, move
tie votes forward to the city council, but then remove that
super majority provision for that denial.
So the language that was prepared in response to that was
any motion resulting in a tie vote of the Commission would
automatically be deemed as a denial recommendation to
before it did to the city council for a final decision.
The
The denial shall not require a three fourths vote of all
members of the city council qualified to vote as stated in
35 dot three dot four dot c dot or dot B.
So our original assessment was to was to place this
language in in the operational procedures of PNC and sub
chapter four. However, we wanted to make sure upon further
reflection we felt like it should be maybe in several
places in the development code so that so that applicants
and members of the public could be aware of what the
procedures would be.
So they wouldn't have to target in on that one section
there would be a couple of sections.
So the considerations that we looked at was first and an
amendment with this amendment as proposed would prevent
leaving projects in an indeterminate state it would allow
them to move forward and have an ultimate decision.
Although the recommendation would be a denial.
The super majority requirement has been removed since that
since that since the PNC would the full PNC didn't
recommend that denial. But there are issues that are that
are discussed in the planning zoning Commission regarding
all cases and in cases that result in a tie vote.
And so as with any case the City Council would be apprised
of the of the PNC meeting minutes as well as in their in
their backup material as summary of the points of
discussion including any issues that are that arise and the
final vote so that they're fully informed of everything
that transpired.
So based upon the direction from Council staff recommends
approval of the request with the caveat that this is the
language that the recommendation before not necessarily the
location and the development code and I'll stand for any
questions.
We do have one question back. Thank you, Chair. Thanks,
Julie.
Could you go back to the options we had.
And tell me what this number three until if we had a high
vote it would just simply go into City Council.
Is that what you're saying. Well, these were actually the
options that were presented to city council as as and and
numbers two and three would actually not even come before
they wouldn't follow the process that you're doing tonight,
because they would be amending the code of ordinances
in order to do that so that would be changing a different
set of regulations that the city and so three and four
would be the code of ordinances, or I'm sorry two and three
would be an amendment to the code of ordinances to change
that entire section to dash 29, which is more involved more
.
It would just be a broader, a broader decision and in in
Council's discussion discussions they really wanted a
targeted solution to the to the problem. Okay.
Okay, thanks.
Pressure for Neda.
So if we were to vote against this, I guess what would be
the process of coming back and changing some of the wording
, my, my concern is that this specifically deals with
instances where there would be a recusal, and as we know a
recusal in and of itself is a safeguard against the
influence
of special interests.
So, right now what's proposed is that we not only remove
that safeguard it moves on to city council, and then
removes the requirement for a supermajority which then in
and of itself removes to safeguards from the influence of
special interest.
Can we can we vote this down and basically address the idea
of a these this procedure applying specifically to recusals
and then be possibly moving you know if we were to move
have to move forward, have to move forward as a technical
denial, requiring a supermajority.
So, Mr. Pernette staff has said that we would have the
option to table the item and have it represented to us.
Any more questions I don't want to.
Are you good.
No.
You got.
Sure Alice.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay.
Table this item is that what you're talking about.
The option.
I mean, what I'm going to restate what I stated in work
session, the way it's written right now we rewritten a rule
that's already in place for a tie vote.
The way it's written now it certainly is not fair that I
would be absent I would be ill I would be on vacation, and
I don't get my voice heard and it ends up in a three three
tie and it's automatically a denial which were restating
the definition of because a denial requires a supermajority
.
And now we're calling it a denial, but rewriting what that
really means when it goes on to counsel.
I mean, but not in just a tie vote at planning and zoning
the way that this is written. I just can't, I can't support
that at all.
I mean, we're adding extra red tape and adding more
procedures to an already complicated process and I don't
agree with that either but if we just go back to the, to
the, the actual event that occurred at the time.
That was that the actual item that was for vote would be
put to an approval so that we can essentially get to a
council that would be full so there wouldn't be a tie vote
that have seven voting members because there was me
perpetual recusal at that level.
And that would allow us to not have a almost a hung jury
essentially we did down here, it was declare a mistrial
allow for the item to go forward.
I agree with you though that the, the one time if you know,
Tim is missing because Tim has to be out of the city for
work or whatever it is, and automatically an item that he
would want to vote on is now passed on to the city council
that completely misses maybe
point or opinions that that'd be important for a seven
person commission to see or a full voting commission be
able to see so I agree with you and I would I would support
a motion table, if that was to come to the floor.
Commissioner Alice.
Thank you, Jerry, just to respond to Commissioner Smith, we
're not really adding more red tape here we're rewriting
something that's really not broken.
You know we're not addressing really what is the broken
items, we're adding, we're adding, we're adding new new
rules and so yeah,
to have time to have a question for. Well, yeah, if we
table this, and this probably goes more to the director or
maybe even legal. So, what does that entail then we're
going to give city council opportunity reworded what
happens if we table.
Excuse me, if it's if it's tabled, based on the based on
the discussion we had today we would go back and revise and
then bring that bring a revised language in front of you to
consider.
Good. Thank you.
So, a couple couple things. This is a public hearing so I
know it sounds like a lot of family talk up here. But if
someone has input on how we vote for tie votes, we
certainly are needing to hear that feedback.
We need to make that known. We have any more questions of
staff.
We can handle that. Commissioner Smith I wanted you to talk
for close the public hearing if you have questions or
comments.
Yeah, I just I would, I'd like to make a comment. Yeah,
just the to what we discussed second ago, Commissioner
Allison that, you know, adding or changing perfectly good
standard procedures now.
It's we need to have something in there about perpetual rec
usals because we don't have something in there about petul
ant recusals, we're going to be whether it's next week, next
year, 10 years 15 years 20 years down the road this
planning and zoning commission
is a recommending body will run into another petulant recus
als at some point in time, there should be something, but I
believe, and I would like to direct city staff to create
something that makes this point adjust to perpetual recus
als or extended absences.
Yes, I also wanted to state that it was a to me it was a
very unique situation. I mean the fact that we didn't have
any kind of regulations directing it shows that it was a
very unique situation.
So we should look at it as a unique situation only happened
once. And, and so that we can go ahead and like like
Commissioner Ellis is, you know, let's just talk look at
that.
And if we don't agree on the first meeting, carry it on to
the second, there's possibilities that one of the other
commissioners might change their mind after thinking about
it, but to table it at that first meeting and send it to
the city council I think to me is kind of rapid.
So let's go ahead, send it, look at it again and if there's
in that particular situation. You know we had one one
commissioner that was not never going to come back on that
particular issue, then we still vote on it a second time
and then send it on to the city council.
So I don't see any other questions for Julie Thank you very
much. Again this is a public hearing, if anyone wishes to
speak, let me do so.
Commissioner Ellis I see that you have one take a motion
just for my staff clarification we're gonna leave the
public hearing, open, depending on what your motion is, if
it is a motion to continue. If you didn't have a continuous
for date certain at next meeting or something along those
lines.
If that is your motion I don't assume, but you have the
floor.
So, to table the item to the next planning and zoning
meeting to give staff a chance to address our concerns
brought up at work session and this meeting.
Sir, you have.
You can come down.
If you just say your name and address.
I'm a member of the council of the city council members on
7909 rodeo drive. Did I hear correctly that you that the
staff recommended that the whole council had to be present
at the future meeting.
That's what I thought I saw you read, and it. And if that
is the case that issue needs to be addressed, because in
the case where I believe you said something about a council
member being sick or out of commission for a long time.
That person, the whole council would not be present.
That's my point.
Christian.
I'm sure it's like the, yeah, the wording is just for a for
not to not to limit a super majority when it gets to
council.
And so it's I'm getting counseling commission. Yeah, yeah.
So we're the commission to city council.
Yeah, my point is is that I believe the language said that
that the issue would be moved to a future meeting here
until a entire commission was here.
And if you actually look right there, the city code section
to to 29. It does say that that is the current standing
city council code that issue needs to be addressed because
if someone can't be here.
Yep. And that's what we're that's what we're working on.
Appreciate you appreciate you input. Yeah, thank you.
So we have a motion on the floor and just to clarify, you
're wanting to continue to the next PNC meeting.
That's your motion. Correct. Okay, Mr. Smith, I second.
We have a first and a second to continue the item.
Okay.
Motion carries seven zero will revisit this at next meeting
.
Appreciate that consideration for us handling that briefly.
That'll move us on to our next item. The original item C.
Fr 18 dash zero zero nine on right.
Ron for presentation and I'll open the public hearing.
Okay.
Chair members of the commission.
This item for your consideration this evening is a request
for a final replat a residential replat.
The total area of the residential area is about a quarter
of the city of downtown downtown.
The total area of the residential area is DR two downtown
residential to is possibly point two eight nine acres.
And again, generally on the east side Bernard approximately
350 feet just north of Eagle Drive.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of
downtown.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open for
motion or discussion.
Commissioner Beck.
I move we approve FR18-009.
Commissioner Pernetta.
I second that.
We have a first and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
Next item on the agenda is the original item D, which is Z
17-004B,
as well as item E, S17-008B.
At this time, we're going to open both public hearings for
item D and E.
And we'll hear a presentation concerning both together.
We will public hear both together.
We'll close out each one and vote independently for the
zoning and then the SUP.
And I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and open the
public hearings.
Thank you, Chairman, members of the commission.
Let me pull up my presentation.
Okay.
This is, as you noted, I am going to be giving a
presentation for two public hearings,
Z17-0004, which is a request to provide the initial zoning
designation of neighborhood residential 6 district to
approximately 118.04 acres of land,
and S17-0008, a request for a specific use permit for a
manufactured housing development on approximately 126.1
acres of land.
The subject site is located on the north side of East McKin
ney Street and the west side of Trinity.
You'll note this dotted line here.
When we are discussing the zoning case, which we'll be
doing first, we will be discussing all the land that is
north of this dotted line.
When we are discussing the SUP, the dotted line goes away
and it's everything within the yellow shape.
The request is for an initial zoning of this 118-acre site.
It's currently zoned RD5X. That's the holding zoning
designation, which was given to it when it was annexed into
the city in August of last year.
That is a placeholder zoning.
The request for the NR6 zoning is actually an extension of
the existing NR6 that is located along McKinney Street.
This area, as you can see on this slide, was zoned NR6
during the 2002 citywide rezoning.
The applicant has prepared a concept plan for the site. The
total land area is 126.1 gross acres, of which 118.04 is
the subject of this zoning request.
The proposed development will be developed in three phases.
It will accommodate 497 stands for manufactured and modular
housing and six one-acre lots, which will be developed with
single-family homes.
The applicant is proposing to preserve all 18.5 acres of E
SA that is on the site. The applicant is proposing to
provide 15.4 acres of open space, as shown in the red.
The manufactured housing, 497 stands, you can see will be
in the yellow areas. The applicant is providing six one-
acre single-family lots along Trinity.
They will serve as a transition between the property to the
east and the manufactured housing park. The proposed
overall density of the site is four dwelling units per acre
.
When looking at a request to rezone, there are criteria
that we must consider in the Denton Development Code,
Section 35.34(b).
Specifically, the proposed rezoning must conform to the
future land use element of the site, and the proposed
zoning facilitates the adequate provision of transportation
, water, sewer, schools, parks, and other public
requirements and public convenience.
The site is designated low residential on the future land
use map, as you can see here.
The intent of low residential is to promote single-family
housing with lot sizes ranging from one acre or more in
rural areas with a density of four units per acre.
The proposed NR6 zoning district meets the intent of the
future land use designation only when coupled with the
conditions for approval, which limit the density to four
dwelling units per gross acre.
The proposed zoning is to be a continuation of the NR6
district located on the south side of the site. The uses
permitted in the NR6 district would be consistent with the
uses that exist today in the area, however at a lower
density.
Ashley Oaks is a mobile home park with 624 stands and a
density of 5.99 dwelling units per acre. Denton Falls, I
believe is what it's called down here, is a mobile home
park which has approximately 188 stands with a density of 5
.12 dwelling units per acre.
Well, this isn't a mobile home park, it is a modular and
manufactured home park which is providing amenities that
you would normally see in a single-family subdivision.
The density of the proposed park is also significantly
lower than the adjacent manufactured housing parks.
16 notices were sent out via certified mail within 200 feet
of the property and 19 notices were sent out, courtesy
notices within 500 feet of the property.
We received two responses in opposition which comprise 28%
of the land area located within the 200 foot buffer.
You can see these areas here and here.
Three signs were posted on the site as well.
Now because of the fact that the 28% of the land within the
200 foot buffer is in opposition, this will require a super
majority vote of the City Council when it moves forward.
Staff recommends approval of Z17-004 subject to conditions.
These conditions will bring the site into compliance with
the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030.
The proposed conditions for approval are that an overlay be
placed on the property with the following requirements.
Maximum permitted density on the site shall be no more than
four dwelling units per gross acre.
Permitted land uses on the site.
Modular and manufactured homes as shown on the concept plan
.
And six single family detached housing lots on a minimum
one acre lot located along South Trinity.
Okay. That concludes the first public hearing.
The second public hearing is S17-00808, request for
specific use permit for manufactured housing development on
126.1 acres of land.
You'll note the red dashed line is gone and we are
considering the entire site in the yellow shape.
The subject site is generally located north of East McKin
ney and west of South Trinity Road.
Here again is the proposed concept plan.
I'm just going to go over it really quickly.
126.1 gross acres.
They're proposing to preserve 18.5 acres of ESA.
They're proposing to provide 15.4 acres of open space.
497 stands within the park and six one acre lots along
Trinity for an overall density of four dwelling units per
acre.
The site will actually take access from McKinney Street.
We've got two entrances along McKinney Street.
One is a right in, right out and one is a full entrance.
The applicant will install two left turn lanes into the
site from McKinney Street.
The ultimate right of way for Post Oak equating 1,100
linear feet parallel to the subject site right along here
will be dedicated with this project.
The four lane intersection of Post Oak with McKinney Street
with a transition to two lanes will be constructed with
this project at the time of the McKinney Street
improvements.
There are two planned access points along Post Oak, a right
in and right out closest to the intersection and then a
full access entry right here.
Now you will note that there is an exit off of an entrance
off of Trinity that is a restricted access entrance that is
only to be used by emergency medical services and police
department.
When we look at an SUP and consider whether or not it
should be approved, we look at the criteria for approval in
section 35.6.4.
Compatibility analysis between the surrounding property and
the requested use including the following.
The specific use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding and vacant property, parking
generation of traffic and access, nuisance prevention,
landscaping and screening, and architectural compatibility.
With the proposed density of four dwelling units per acre,
this proposed development has a lower density than the
mobile home parks that are located on either side.
The applicant has included six acres located on the west
side of South Trinity which are to be developed as single
family homes.
These will provide greater compatibility towards the east.
The applicant in response to concerns expressed by
residents in the area has eliminated access to and from the
site via Trinity Road except for our gated emergency access
site.
Water will be available from McKinney Street and
improvements to the lift station located on Trinity may be
necessary with this development.
The proposed development also complies with element seven
of the Denton Plan 2030 with regards to encouraging
different housing types, different housing costs and
location choices.
And again, we did send out notices within 200 feet, we sent
17 notices via certified mail and within 500 feet we sent
20 notices via regular mail.
We received in response, one in response in opposition.
You can see it right here and this again comprises 28% of
the land area within the 200 feet of the property and will
require a super majority of the council.
The applicant also held two neighborhood meetings.
One was last November and one was actually last, just
Monday night.
Synopsis of the meeting on Monday night was handed out
during the work session.
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the
conditions in exhibit seven.
These are the requirements and I can read them out loud if
you'd like.
That concludes my presentation.
The applicant is present as well.
Thank you Cindy. We do have a question Commissioner Begg.
Thank you Chair. Thanks Cindy for your presentation.
I would like you to elaborate on a little bit because we've
seen some of the opposition to it and I hope to clear it up
.
If you could explain a few things.
Explain why there is a trailer park, a true trailer park in
an NR2 zone right now.
The Ashley Park or whatever it is to the west of this
development.
Well, Ashley Oaks was actually developed in 1985 and it was
rezoned to NR2 during the 2002 citywide rezoning.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure why it was rezoned to NR2
except perhaps to comply with the future land use
designation of the site because the actual use doesn't
comply with it.
This second park down here was recently annexed into the
city.
It was developed in the county and it has a holding zoning
of RD5X right now.
But it hasn't been designated as a city. No it hasn't.
What distinguishes a trailer park from what the developer
wants to do here?
Well, when you think of a trailer park, you think of the
trailer homes that were developed before 1976 that have
wheels and a metal skirt and are movable.
They're in parks, on stands, and the amenities, there aren
't very many amenities in these parks typically.
The proposed modular home and manufactured home park, they
will not permit these mobile homes in this park.
Modular homes are permitted and the city considers modular
homes to be a single family dwelling unit.
So they are permitted by right on this site if the site
were a typical subdivision with lots and blocks.
Manufactured homes are actually built after 1976. They are
built according to actual building codes, whereas the
trailer homes were not.
These homes are going to be on a permanent engineered
foundation and affixed to the foundation.
The applicant can give you more information about that.
Plus there's an amenity center, parks, open space ESA,
walking trails, a lot of amenities that are going to be
provided for the residents.
And I believe there's plenty of landscaping and there's a
six foot masonry wall around the whole development, correct
? Okay.
I've known several people who lived in mobile homes and
there's a distinct difference in style and structure and
everything between them and a modular home and a
manufactured home, a unapproved manufactured home.
So there is a difference. Now explain to us, you talked to
us in the work session about future road expansion, McKin
ney and so on.
And I know a lot of citizens are concerned about extra
traffic and the roads not being able to handle them. So all
ay some concerns here for us if you can.
Sure. Let me find that.
Sorry, it's in one of these.
The applicant essentially is going to be providing two left
turn lanes along McKinney to access the site.
They are going to be providing the full width of post oak
along that runs along this site here.
They're also going to develop two lanes of it.
They're going to develop the intersection of post oak and
McKinney and they are going to provide a traffic signal.
They are going to build a concrete path along McKinney to
Ryan High School so that children can walk to school and
not be in the right of way.
Didn't you say McKinney was going to be widened completely
all the way?
Well, yes, McKinney is going to be widened.
It's under designed right now. It's anticipated it will be
widened within two years.
That will coincide with the development of phase one.
Also, the improvements to Mayhill are anticipated to be
completed by that time as well.
It's expected that when this opens up, there will be little
impact to the actual traffic conditions because of the fact
that all the widening and road improvements will have taken
place.
Okay, and lastly, in your backup material concerning post
oak, it's going to come on the west side between this
development and the Ashley Park Trader Park.
You say the four lane intersection of post oak and McKinney
with a transition to two lanes will be constructed.
So is it going from four lanes on the south side of McKin
ney to two lanes at that point?
That's right and the applicant can probably speak more to
that.
Okay, okay, because it was my understanding post oak was
going to be four lanes.
Yes, it is.
Okay, all right.
I don't want to wait for that.
It is, but up to their property. They'll build their half.
Okay, okay, gotcha. Thanks.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
So if I could just do some quick math with you here.
Can you go back a couple slides?
There was, we were talking about open space and the ESA.
So 126 gross acres, 118 is being proposed for zoning, but
we'll just take the gross acres.
We take out the ESA and the open space acres that leaves us
with 92.1 acres left.
And so that's 92.1 acres that's being considered for the SU
P.
Yes.
If hypothetically that was to be fully developed and we
were actually to look at it and break it down to an actual,
how many units per acre of that 92?
Now I understand that in the actual calculations we include
ESAs, but for the sake of this conversation and looking at
just the facade and the feel of the actual development,
they're only going to be able to develop on 92.1 acres.
That's correct.
So with that, if there's 497 of these units, six of them
being single family being removed from the 503, so sort of
the 497, that puts us at 5.4 units per acre.
So it's closer to a feel of an NR6 designation, which is
what they're looking for, than it is whatever we're
requesting in staff.
Staff's recommendations are for a four unit.
I know we can't limit that because by the standards of
including the ESA, it's still at the four unit limit.
But the feel and the look is going to look closer to a six
unit per acre.
Well, it depends exactly because of the fact that this is
what we call like cluster development.
Yeah, cluster development. That's what the ESAs are.
Exactly. They're clustering the homes to preserve the ESA,
to give more open space.
There is a gas line that goes right through here.
So they have to avoid that as well.
I completely get it. I think it's just more or less making
it known that while yes, limiting it to four units per acre
, and we may sit here and say, well, we're actually putting
a limit on there to put a four units per acre.
The facade and the actual putting boots on the ground and
standing in the middle of that neighborhood is not going to
look like four units per acre.
It wouldn't, if you're right, in the middle of the subdiv
ision.
However, the city's definition of density is gross density.
It's net density.
I completely agree with you. I get the calculation.
We've had this conversation before where we've had other
people who've done the cluster and say, okay, we do realize
that what we're voting on is not a four unit per acre.
We're actually voting on something that's going to look
like 5.4 units per acre.
But that's the ability to do cluster developments.
It's completely legal and understood.
I'm not going to forget that.
Exactly. He could spread it out and do an alternate ESA
request and not preserve all of that.
Oh, yeah, of course. Totally good.
Yeah.
Understood. Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez.
When we're talking about modular homes, those are pretty
much built with the same standards as anybody, any house
built in Denton, right?
Yes, they are.
Can you put in, say, if somebody wanted, can they put a
modular home inside the city limits?
They can, right? Yes.
Okay. So it's allowed by right. It's allowed by right.
Okay. I just want to make sure. Yes.
Okay.
Commissioner Fernetta.
So I just wanted to verify a lot of the objections that I'm
seeing that came through were based on the idea that these
are mobile homes.
These are actually not mobile homes, correct? They are
fixed.
Modular homes. They're manufactured in modular homes.
Okay. And kind of, I guess, along the lines of what
Commissioner Smith brought up.
So rather than it being about, you know, four units per
acre, it's closer to five and a half.
What are the yard, are there yards with these things or?
With a stamp, it follows the requirements for our
manufactured housing development and the yard requirements
would be in that.
I just don't have my code with me right now, but there are
requirements as far as the minimum and maximum sizes and
side yards and things like that.
Okay.
I'm sorry, I don't have my code. I brought the wrong code
with me.
Okay. Well, thank you very much.
I think we can get clarification up here.
The there's some basic minimum requirements that are within
359, subchapter nine, basic minimum requirements area.
There's no minimum area which develop for manufacturer per
stand requirements.
No less than 40 feet in width, no less than 100 feet in
depth and a minimum area of 5000. So very similar to some
of our some of our zoning districts.
And then there are some open minimum front yard of 15 feet.
And then, you know, two off two off street parking.
Thank you.
Mr. Back. This is for Richard more. What was that 15 foot
was that a setback. And if so, was that front side front
yard front yard setback. Okay.
Correct. Yeah, front yard setback shopping 15 feet.
And then the minimum distance between the homes are 20 feet
.
So essentially defaults to a 10 foot side.
I do not see any more questions for Cindy. Thank you very
much.
This is a public hearing. We have several cards of
individuals wishing to speak and several cards of
individuals wishing not to speak.
But first for presentation would be the applicant. I have
four cards here. Is there four of you or just two. Okay.
So you're welcome to do you have a presentation.
Yes, if you just say your name and address for the record
and then just so you know, you'll have a total of 20
minutes.
20 y'all has up to 10. We'll go faster than that. I'm
Michael Halligan of the woodlands on Spring Creek and champ
enterprises 14114 Dallas North Parkway Suite 265 Dallas
Texas 75254.
For you commissioners that have never worked in
manufactured housing.
I'm sorry for the small turnout. I apologize. Normally it's
much, much greater than this. I blame it on the rain.
Okay. We've we do all types of housing throughout Texas and
Tennessee.
We were the developers originally of the villages of Carmel
and we also did force Meadows on single family developments
with a lot of VSA is included.
We are about to start breaking ground if it ever quits
raining on the villas of Carmel or doing 400 town homes
plus.
And next month we come in for a senior housing deal next to
Buckees for 200 units. So we do a lot of different things.
And one of the things we do is manufactured housing.
Tell the difference between manufactured modular versus a
site built home for 11 years. I was the host of the
television series. Your new house on the Discovery Channel.
I did home buying seminars around the country and I tell
people the way you can tell the difference when you're
inside is lean against the longest wall in the house. And
if the house if the walls wavy, it was built on site. If it
's straight, it was built in a factory.
And that's really the difference between manufactured and
modular. I was looking for a location for this property.
The reason we picked this one, as you can tell, the things
in Brown around us are either manufactured communities or
mobile home parks. And across the street is the utmost
storage.
So it seemed kind of like a place where there would not be
a lot of problems. It was in the ETJ. We were buying it at
the last minute came up with a development agreement that
had been signed with the city.
So we had to annex it in and bring it into the city. We've
been working on this for the past two years.
Main thing we wanted you to see when you drove up to this
community is not the homes. What we wanted you to see is
walls and trees. That's why it's called the woodlands. That
's why we're preserving the ESA's. We like trees.
We're saying let's build a three-foot berm in the front of
the property. Then let's put a masonry wall on top of that
berm. And then let's put tree arbors above that wall.
So what you see from the road is a masonry fence with trees
and a lot of grass. The whole community is gated and
actually has security at the gate.
If you could see through the gate, what do you see? For the
first hundred plus feet, all you see are trees. No homes
anywhere around any of the entryways on any of the roads
going into this community.
When you get into the community, there's different ways to
mount a manufactured home or modular home. We want pre-
engineered foundations just like you would on a site-built
home.
We want masonry on what people call the skirting, this area
below the home down to the ground. So you put up concrete
block. You put brick on front of that.
The homes themselves, the frames are welded down to that
pre-engineered foundation. Can they be moved? Yes, you can
go in there with the torch and you cut them off and move
them.
But most of the time, I think 92% of all the homes that are
placed somewhere, they never move again.
So a different look. Also, like our town home communities,
we take care of all the exterior. So the homeowner doesn't
cut the grass. They don't have to worry about the flower
beds.
If they have a deck or a porch, we take care of the st
aining and painting. So the whole community has a uniform
look.
At this point, I'm going to turn it over to our engineer,
Brent Murphy from Kimley-Horn.
Good evening. My name is Brent Murphy with Kimley-Horn, 57
50 Genesis Court in Frisco.
First, I'd like to say thank you to staff. We've been
working with this for over two years and it's been a very
interesting process and I greatly appreciate it.
We gave us a lot of input and we spent a lot of time. We
talked a lot about the land plan. We talked a lot about
traffic.
In our neighborhood meetings, we heard a lot of opinions
and we tried to react. We tried to give it time.
I've never worked on a project that we spent two years
zoning the project, but we listened to staff.
We worked with staff and we listened to the homeowners
around us to try to appease and address a lot of their
concerns.
I just want to say that Cindy's done a great job with us
and I just can't say thank you enough.
We're here tonight to present our case, but I can't thank
her and the staff for all the time they've given us.
Everybody's busy, but it's taken a lot of time. I just want
to extend thank you to the staff and let you know how hard
they work.
It's almost like they're in the private sector at times. I
am, so that's what I sign up for and that's some hours, but
I do appreciate that.
I want to extend that thank you.
There's been a lot of discussion about the open space and
what does the community feel like.
I want to look at the plan and talk through some of those
things because when you take 18 acres of ESA, you take 15
acres of open space, that's about a quarter of the overall
project.
I can promise you the client didn't pay for three quarters
of the property. They paid for the full thing.
There is a sense, we do a lot of planning across DFW and a
lot of different types of projects, master plan communities
.
I tell you what, when you have one little pocket park under
your entry, the feel changes. It changes the person's, they
're proud of where they live.
It's kind of amazing how just a little bit of green space
makes people proud. Trees, plant a lot of trees to do that.
It's not cheap to do that.
We're trying to pull off this look for the woodlands and
the vision we want to see. There's a lot of effort to go
into that.
If you're in the middle of the western pod, will it feel a
little more dense? Yes.
We've broken the project up by identifying these key areas
and tree lines and ESAs to create some nice open space.
Kids can get to open spaces, have some passive areas for
play. Our whole plan is to have trails that get them to
these locations.
It's one thing to have green belts. It's another thing to
actually design to use them and whether they're utilized.
A lot of times we're doing projects where the open spaces
are just one big park.
We're trying to space them out. We're trying to identify
corners of different blocks to soften it.
I just want to point those things out. We've talked a lot
about some of the points of the project.
We're building a 4,500 square foot of a mini center.
Sometimes used, sometimes not.
But that's not common and probably what people have seen in
the past.
We're trying to take these things, we're trying to put them
in a SUP overlay with all these additional restrictions,
self-imposed deed restrictions to make sure the quality
stays. Nobody asks us to do that.
We just work with staff and say we've got to earn people's
respect on what it is.
Let's self-impose those things. I'll get into the traffic a
little bit.
The traffic signal, those are $350,000. It's not warranted
in a TA.
Our traffic study does not justify having that signal at
Post Oak and McKinney.
But he volunteered to pay. If the city wants it, we're
paying for it.
Those are some things that are unique, not typical in most
projects.
The landscape buffers Michael was talking about when you
come in along McKinney, we're sensitive to what that feels
like, just like internal.
When you come along McKinney, it's a three foot berm and an
eight foot masonry fence, typically at six.
We want that point of capture so you're proud to come here.
You want to be here.
In those HOA meetings, I talked to several ladies who were.
I've got three kids. I'm sensitive to those things.
Her opinion was this provides another opportunity for her.
She works two or three jobs and has two kids.
Everybody's got different situations. I understand that.
But she was proud to have an opportunity to do something
different.
Part of our coordination, we've had some coordination with
the Denton Affordable Housing Corporation, and they sent a
letter of support for our case.
I think those were distributed to and so they feel too that
it provides another opportunity.
But we're trying to come in with something upgraded and
committed and not an empty promise.
We have to do these things. They're in the requirements. We
can't walk from those.
To me, that's a big separator from the people we work with.
If they make empty promises, that's one thing. But when
they're committing to these, they're bound to those.
So I won't labor the points. Everybody knows we started a
long time ago to get this project underway.
Ten-plus meetings with staff, traffic studies over the last
year and a half. I think we've done three iterations.
We've done counts at different times. We've done counts
when the schools are in session to make sure we understand.
Because when schools, the traffic acts different during the
school year.
So we've looked at those things to see how those impact the
study.
And at one time we had over 100, we had 100 more stands.
Staff recommended we take those out. We do the one acre
lots and we focus traffic away from Trinity.
There's some residents to our north that were adamant about
that to offload Trinity.
We heard, we heard there's a, we heard their concerns and
we reacted.
And again, we had another meeting just the other night and
discussed some of the same concerns.
So just, Cindy's kind of covered a lot of our intersection,
what our TA requires us to do.
We're spending a lot of money to improve roads and that's
what we should do if we, that's what's required.
So that's what we're doing. I think a key point I want to
make in this time scale is that by the time we can finish
entitlement,
do final plat, do construction plans, get them approved and
do the construction of the first phase, we're 18 months out
from now.
So really from December because it would take that to get
through council if we're successful. So for zoning.
So we're looking at August 2020. By that point we've worked
with staff and understanding what's happened on McKinney
Street.
Now McKinney's a two lane road today. Everybody, you know,
fills that traffic today on this existing two lane road.
It's going to be improved to a four lane divided road by
the time our first phase is ready to sell its, to have its
first leasable unit.
So not only is McKinney four lane divided, done at that
time, but Mayhill will obviously be done by that time.
So that diverts a lot of traffic back to the west and to
the north to take loading off of Trinity, but also how it
functions today, it improves that situation.
So one point I want to make is there's some concerns on the
internet and questions about people wanting to take Trinity
to go to 380 as a question.
So as you come out of the center to subdivision where you
see that first star, if you were to take, take McKinney,
head west and go up Mayhill, that's about 2.65 miles to get
to 380.
If you wanted to go down Trinity, it's about 3.3 miles to
get to 380. So people typically take the path of least
resistance.
When our project first phase is done, again, four lanes of
McKinney, four lanes of Mayhill, that's the path of least
resistance.
It's got the, it's going to, it's functioning, it's got
higher speed limits as well. That's to me, in our opinion,
that's where people go.
They don't go down Trinity and on a slower speeds. And I
know there's people who say they don't drive the speed
limits and I'm sure there are some that don't.
But the time you go down that two lane road and you cross,
it's, it's a, it's a much longer distance and a longer time
. I think time is probably the key.
So I just want to point that out that we're, you know, we
're really our traffic studies and all of our city staff,
their review.
We feel like, you know, McKinney, Mayhill's improvements is
a big part, part of this and it's going to divert traffic
away from Trinity.
So I'll try to close out here.
So 21 months at this process we appreciate all cities work
we're heavily committed to the road improvements for the
project and over committing, you know, giving additional
things to the, to the city, as far as traffic lights and
things that are normally done over 33 acres of green belts
densities
four units per acre.
One thing is that the trail that we're extending to the
high school I think that's been appointed contention for a
while, and we're proposing to do that that leaves our
property, we're obligating ourselves to extend it off our
property, but we don't.
We don't want to provide that connection, we're close
enough to the high school, some kids may walk, so we want
to provide that connection that's not fully there today.
One or last, the list station improvements. I had some
citizens of concern that live near it that said there were
some areas that were surcharging the cities indicated us
that we've got to fix those things.
The citizens said it's been 30 years since that list
station has had some improvement it needs some improvement
today with our project will be set to do it. You know that
's something we have to do for our project, and it hasn't
had the attention to date to get fixed but we will fix that
.
We appreciate all staffs and help in. We appreciate their
recommendation for approval. So I'd be happy to answer any
questions that that we have amongst the commission or from
citizens to. So thank you.
We definitely have some questions up here we'll start with
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair.
So, primarily my line of questioning, I'm asking you for
the city staff is trying to confirm and you can probably
just tell me off the bat.
Is there an intent to be for sale to be purchased by the
primary resident only not to be converted into rental
properties that are bought by an original owner who then
moves out and then then then rights afterwards, the intent
is not going to speak to that.
That's the stand. That's the intent and Michael can speak
more to that too I mean that's he's into that's fine. Well,
the other one I'm trying to get down to is, are these be
renters or these could be owners.
Now the way he stated is correct we don't. We're not going
to be selling the homes, they'll buy homes other places
will will lease them a place to put the hallways to put it
was the least for the stand going to be rough, rough price
for similar to our neighbors in the four and 500.
Then these manufactured homes are going to be somewhere
around the price of what prices nowadays you see is
anywhere from 40,000 to low 100s depending on the home.
What work have you guys done with didn't for housing
corporation so far when you say that and they have a letter
of support and so we're working with them. What exactly
does that mean there wasn't anything really in description
of what that meant.
Our team has been at it for a while so we reached out to
him to show him the project and talk about it in our
representatives work with Michael had met with them to show
them the project show them our vision, and they were
supportive of it so it was consistent
couple meetings, and they were one to support the project.
I guess we say support the project that they're just they
're putting forth their moral support. That's it.
The main thing they told us was you can't buy a new home
for less than a quarter of a million dollars and then right
now so they were looking for alternative options to where
someone could buy a home and not just rent an apartment.
Yeah, and, but the quarter million dollar home they're
buying is of course one that's completely 100% faceted to
the earth and can't be moved whereas this technically could
they're buying the manufactured home they don't own the
land underneath.
Well actually you can move any home. I mean if it's built
on a pre engineered foundation and welded to the foundation
, or it's just nailed to the foundation like a site built
home either way you can lift the home and fair enough, I
would say that the quarter million
dollar house or the houses that are surrounding this
neighborhood probably wouldn't be moved as regularly. Maybe
even as you know if the tenant was to leave, leave a
facility like yours.
Wouldn't would they naturally would they usually take that
home with them or would they, well the home surrounding
their home surrounding this subdivision, they would
actually move them like they would any other mobile home or
manufactured home.
If you notice in the brown on the west side of the project,
the brown on the north side of the project and the brown on
the southeast side of the project. That's all manufactured
or, or mobile homes.
Sure, I'm asking about your project though so in your
project, and the intent of your project and the way it's
built because I've been, I'm ignorant of this and so I'd
like to know the intent of this is different those are
mobile homes you guys are manufactured
homes within manufactured modular homes. The intent is that
if a person was to buy the home you they lease the land
from you they buy the home, it's placed there on that lot.
They then leave five years later they're able to go forward
quarter million dollar home somewhere else.
They would then sell the home to somebody else. Their
intent is to maybe they find a plot of land out in the
middle of nowhere and they buy some acreage and they move
that out there is I mean, are you guys seeing the thinking
that these types of developments
would have a lot of removing of the homes or that the homes
once they're bought and they're placed on that land that
they're there.
All of the above.
Like I said earlier about 92% of manufactured homes don't
move once or place somewhere, they stay. They do have the
option they could move it to some land. They do have the
option they could just sell the home where it is and that's
what occurs on most cases they just sell it
where it is. Correct. And also to clarify, Ashley Oaks and
Denton Falls. We're not saying that's a mobile home product
. There's manufactured homes in there as well.
They have both. But they're different than the development
you guys are doing. They're definitely very different. Ours
I see us managing it and it looking more like one of our
town home developments than I do our neighbors.
Understood. Okay. Okay. So you're still but you're still
looking at even with the you know they're leasing it from
you for $500 a month and then just on a basic mortgage am
ortization of a setting $5,000 home with $2,000 down payment
you're looking at $700 a month they're going to be paying
already for their home that they purchased from the
manufacturer and then other four to $500 to you for the le
asing of.
Yeah, I think that's similar to what they would be if they
're renting an apartment so anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400
to $1,500 somewhere in that range per month. Awesome. Great
.
So do you have a question or two for you. I asked staff a
question and follow up to the applicants presentation.
Sorry commissioners.
Whenever they're talking about McKinney, whenever the
expansion of the developers sand at the expansion of McKin
ney to four lane road there. The wording in our backup was a
little bit interesting just didn't catch it in work session
.
But it states that the four lane intersection the post of
McKinney, with a transition to two lanes will be
constructed. Well it says will be constructed twice that's
type of it will be constructed with this project at the
time McKinney street improvement so there will be four
lanes in front of the development, and it will go
essentially go from Mayhill all the way out to Camp Copa so
be it to lane for lane to lane. That's the way I'm reading
it but you tell me if I'm looking at it.
That will be transitioned to two lanes.
Then McKinney will be four lane all the way to mail. Yes.
Okay. Awesome. That's the big thing I want to know there.
Now, if the construction of McKinney itself will be done by
the city of them.
That's correct. Okay. Is there any restrictions we can put
on the any point later on after the rezoning and SCP if
that was the past. So any restrictions we can put further
down the line as a planning and zoning commission to make
sure that phase one is not occupied until for sure,
McKinney is completed because we all know that the city.
Yeah, there's delays, it rains stuff happens. You know, so
roads don't get done for a year or so.
Well, you could stay you could add a condition stating that
the timing of the release of phase one would should coinc
ide with the completion of the construction of McKinney.
Yeah, I would just really hate to say well the developer
got done, you know, the developer did their job and they
did a great job and built it and it got done.
For whatever reason the city of Denton is behind. We'd hate
to see not only construction happening on McKinney but
construction with however many units are within one 200
units I have no clue what phase one was, but those all the
open and then now we have 500 new people who are trying to
drive up and down.
I'm constructed road. Yeah, okay, you could do that. That
would be done in the in the SCP that would be done in the
SCP. Okay, got it.
Yeah, I really wish the for commissioner back. Thank you,
Chair.
Mr Murphy or Mr Holliman or both of you come on back up to
it please.
Thank you for your presentation.
I think you've got to find product considering that you're
building something in an area where we've got traditional
single family homes I think you've gone out of your way to
ease what you've got into that community so I appreciate
that.
And I'm glad, Commissioner Smith asked about pricing
because that was my concern too. One of the big issues we
have here in this far from enough low income housing we
needed desperately that contributes to a lot of the
homeless we have because people don't have places to live
so I'm for that at least.
Let me answer this though that's a concern, I'm sure for
the neighbors about lowering rent lowering property values.
You built these kind of developments elsewhere right. Yes,
sir. Okay, what's been your experience with these
developments and lowering nearby home values.
Can you address that.
No, not exactly I, you know, I've never tracked.
I've never tracked the fact that we have a lot of
structured and mobile homes around us, and the gas plant
across the street from us.
The siding is that already planning. Yeah, nowadays most
people use cementious siding like a hardy plank. Some do go
ahead and break the home all the way up you know you on the
skirting but some choose to have it taken all the way to
the roof on.
That's a good option is there is possible now again looking
at the samples that you showed here look like they're
elevated to but I understood these were going to be on
concrete slab.
So what we want is stairs going down to concrete patio or
paved stone patio. Okay, very good. That's really I want to
thank you for recognizing the hard work our city staff
today, they don't get it that often so appreciate you.
Thank you.
Because you're also so fast we have city clarification. I
just wanted to provide a clarification on that front set
back I know the code had 15 feet. One of the conditions is
that it will be set back 20 feet from back a curb.
First, the head into cars.
They're in the front, they're not on the side, and that's
the intent.
If I may, that does bring up some now. So, the parking will
be on the street you're not allowing for driveway.
There's a two car driveway.
Show us. Thank you, sir.
So just curious the rent that they're paying you for for
the foundation. Does that include what you mentioned with
lawn maintenance and full use of amenities and whatnot or
is there a separate HLA.
That's everything total is not a separate HLA. Perfect.
My other question is the 61 acre lots. What do you envision
that being because it is odd for six one acre residential
lots to be adjacent to a property such as this so I'm
curious as to your vision for those.
When we had several meetings with staff.
They were thinking of different ways to soften Trinity, you
know we had offered to do the same wall that we're doing on
McKinney Street. And I can't remember exactly who was a
staff but they came up with the idea of doing something
similar to the homes across the street,
which were larger lots. So we agreed that we would put in
six one acre lots and either build single family homes on
them or sell them to someone who wanted to build single
family homes.
Mr. Sanchez.
Maybe I misunderstood when I was reading this whole thing
but he talked about affordable housing.
So I was under the impression that they were going to buy a
lot and mobile home from you all. But now it's, it's almost
like living in a park they're going to buy, they either buy
the mobile home from you all, is that going to be a
mandatory that they buy the mobile or or the
mobile home from you all they can bring one themselves in
place in your property, they can bring it themselves. Yeah,
we're leasing the stand for the home and taking care of the
exterior, but they own the home itself.
So what they're going to be paying they'll be paying fires,
say for $500 just for for parking the modular home there,
and then whatever they pay for the mobile home they might I
mean for the modular home they may have payments of nine $1
,000 so we're looking at 15, maybe $1,500.
Right, depending on the home they are depending on the
house. Yeah, most of them probably around that because that
cheap either so we're looking at when we're talking about
affordable housing.
We're looking at possibly 12 to $1,500 a month, I'd say
anywhere from about 900 to 1500 a month depending on the
home they selected that they wanted there.
So similar to apartments.
As far as price total price for the month. Okay, because
apartments are pretty expensive now they're about $1,200.
Yes, I mean.
Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner pernetta. Yes, for the, for the six houses on
the on the acres, are those going to be manufactured homes
as well as side built homes somewhere to what's across the
street.
Thank you.
I appreciate you being here for questions, the commission
has no more, but I wouldn't go too far. Okay, thank you.
This is a public hearing. If you wish to speak if you could
please fill out one of these blue cards that are at the
door, would be happy to talk to you.
I do have several cards so we'll just get right to this.
The first card I have is Jason, and forgive me if I messed
up any names tonight, it is it is not personal believe me,
but looks like Jason Vinucci.
Do you just state your name and address for the record.
I live at 1901 Lakeview Boulevard. I'm in the Lakeview
Ranch subdivision.
I'm actually here on behalf of the Lakeview Ranch subdiv
ision.
You'll have several speakers coming up after me. If you don
't mind, I would just like to ask those community members to
stand up briefly and have a seat.
Sure.
Just to show you who's here.
These are Lakeview residents is that one. These are the
Lakeview residents. If you look at the map in the right
hand corner it says Lakeview Ranch, and they are very light
colored area.
So, you know, we are here because we actually are hoping
you will oppose this woodlands community.
Tonight basically we want to, we want to go directly into
discussing a few topics here.
And those topics that will go through will be discussed by
other community members that will come up.
I just want to give you a quick summary of what I, what you
can expect to hear and what what will take place.
One of these topics we would like to discuss our safety,
which is going to be due to the increased traffic, not only
on McKinney, but as well as Trinity, which is a shortcut up
to Lakeview and 380.
We would also like to talk about the speeding of people
cutting through the community to get to 380, as well as the
fact that there is no traffic light at that intersection at
Lakeview Boulevard and Highway 380.
We would also like to discuss the deterioration of the
current road condition and the future road condition.
Previous to that, we've actually asked the city and
requested several times for road humps speed limit signs
more speed limit signs, as well as stop signs that has been
denied.
Basically, the impact of the woodland, how it would have an
impact on our fire, our police, our ambulance service, as
well as our school services.
Are we prepared for that?
The impact of the current home values, I believe you
brought up and property tax.
We'd also like to discuss the zoning change from RD5, which
is designed to maintain this area as a five acre, one home
per five acres for a rural area, as well as the 2030 plan,
which also states that it should be maintained this way as
a one home per five acre.
We believe that with the research we've done that you will
deny the request to approve this.
We also would like you to reconsider adding additional
zoning change signs, given that it's a rural area and there
is one home per five acres assigned within 500 feet of this
property is not appropriate.
You may get a few cars going by one way or the other, but
you're not reaching everybody that will be directly
impacted.
So that's just something to consider in the future.
There's also a community that's located directly across the
street from the Ryan High School and forgive me, I don't
know the name of the subdivision.
They do not have a homeowner association, but they are
mostly not here tonight because they're not aware of this
because their entrance is further to the west.
Some of them that will use Lakeview Boulevard to cut
through perhaps might know, but the majority are so close
to the intersection of Mayhill and McKinney, they just go
that way.
But they're going to see an increase in traffic coming from
the west.
With that being said, I just want to thank you for your
time.
And hopefully we can we can come up here and go through our
options.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. We actually have some questions for
you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chair. Can you give me some history
of Lakeview Ranch? When was it built?
I've been there actually almost 12 years.
Okay. From what I know, Ashley Oaks was built in like '85,
'86.
Was that any worry?
And I guess we technically can't elicit reactions from the
crowd.
So I would I would ask I would ask if you would like to
answer this question for me later, if you have a blue card
or you don't have a blue card, blue cards right out there.
For myself, for myself, it was definitely a concern.
Yeah. So that was a concern when you bought it, but you
still bought a house there.
I built a house there, but I built it under the impression.
The if you're aware, Lakeview Ranch also has surrounding
property and it was supposed to be developed into larger
homes on larger home sites.
I went to high school at Ryan. I lived down next to the
Perry House. I used to drive through. I used to speak. I
got my first speed ticket in Lakeview Ranch.
So you're you're actually one of the people on my list.
I'm a product of learning what you boys are all about.
So you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Exactly.
To answer your question, yes. And the reason I did build a
home in that community was the fact that there was future
development planned.
Unfortunately, some of the partners had a misunderstanding
or there was a death and it just kind of broke apart.
So that's why I continue to go ahead and build.
How many how many folks would you if you're representing
the rest of the community and the first one to come up here
.
So you get the most amount of darts thrown at you.
How many how many in that community take Trinity to go
south to McKinney?
I couldn't answer that.
Would you person buy it? I can't even do that.
I could I could only guess. I don't know.
Do you ever take it to go south?
Very seldom.
OK.
The problem you have is there was a one lane bridge.
Sure. Very limited access.
So that's that's a huge problem.
Mills and Trinity and Lakeview.
I think I think the thing is is I get I see more people
coming from the opposite direction to get to 380 than I see
coming from 380 to get to.
So with that with that question in mind then you know
applicant put in put in restrictions to where this
development has no access to Trinity unless they drive all
the way down to McKinney and then all the way east to
Trinity and then all the way north back again.
The only way they had direct access to Trinity would be if
they're an emergency vehicle and they won't be.
So what is that you know in your in your opinion is that
enough to limit northbound northbound.
No not at all.
Even if even if post I know it's hard to imagine now but
the expansion of post oak is going to take it north and
then may hill will be completed.
It's hard it's hard to hard to conceive it now because you
're thinking right now today the woodlands is created where
they got to drive or drive Trinity.
Well there's a you know two lane very well managed post oak
and two and four lane very well managed may hill to get
access to 380.
I would assume that that and there's not access directly to
Trinity there is only access directly to post oak that
people would naturally inclined themselves to go to the
more well developed road but I could.
I appreciate that but I would actually disagree I would be
willing to bet most people are going to go Trinity to Lake
view for the pure purpose of no traffic lights no stop signs
it's just right through.
And if you try to go to the west you're going to run into
not only the school traffic the community traffic coming
out of the subdivision I described to you as well as if you
go further to the east.
I think that's vacation village perhaps or there's some
homes by Camp Compass vacation.
All of those people are going the same direction.
You're going to have a huge traffic problem at that
intersection so if it were me I would immediately take a
left and drive an extra half mile and go right through the
subdivision with no lights no stop signs but police
officers limited limited.
We have to fight for that sir.
We can pull the swing and pull the city of didn't police
department, we have to fight for that I paid for that area.
Just answer your question because you bring up signage is a
real area that already five X is just a placeholder.
That's really not the point the signage part is only on any
on any frontage and Cindy can even our library if she wants
to be that signage.
The only place we can put it is is where roads touch the
property in question.
We can't go up to 380 and post a sign zoning two miles
south of here if you want to come on down and check it out.
Yeah, no, but I would expect that you would put one at the
intersection.
I mean you've got I don't know how many homes I'm just
going to speculate there's two or 300 homes in that
community.
And I don't think a lot of them know about this.
Sure.
And I, they're good. I already talked to some of them and
they have to wait in a line just to turn out of their
community in the current state and if you're adding what
500 units approximately two cars per household.
There's 1000 cars possibly. That's, that's just my
observation.
Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. We saw more actually.
Commissioner pernetta. Yeah, you mentioned fire safety and
I'm guessing first responder response time and what
direction would fire department come from to your community
would they be coming up Trinity from McKinney or from
another direction,
they would probably be coming McKinney mills, you're right,
actually mills yes I go McKinney and Mills. Okay, so.
So right here. So basically up here so we wouldn't really.
So then in fact if there was a fire emergency, they wouldn
't be affected by by this.
Okay, I'm not in the present state I'm not aware of a fire
truck could even cross the one lane bridge I'm not sure of
the restrictions.
Okay, and that's, I just wanted to clarify that clarify
that because I know you raised that as a concern and I did
absolutely I didn't see where that would be an issue.
So, the, the question that commissioners.
Smith came up. Sorry, I'm like jumping all over, I've got
stuff all over.
I'm bought up as far as Trinity goes and the traffic, he
did mention that in order for this to work.
Someone would have to go an extra half mile plus out of
their way to go up Trinity.
You mentioned that that would still be preferable to a
developed post oak, or a widened McKinney to may hill.
What is the speed limit on Trinity that would make it that
advantageous standards speed trap.
I mean is it kind of it's kind of the auto bonds you know I
could just kind of blaze my bike up there and go through.
I wouldn't recommend that. But I mean, there's, I don't
know if there's a speed limit if there is, I don't know
that anybody does it there's, you know, people racing
through there, etc.
Okay, I'm just based on the way this is going to be laid
out and the fact that there is no access to Trinity except
for the emergency vehicle route.
I, I'm kind of failing to connect the dots on how traffic
would be impacted in that direction.
I guess those were the only well I think you know even the
gentleman with the woodlands when he was up here he said
people would take the path of least resistance.
They would take a path that didn't have stop signs or
traffic lights, even if it was a half a mile longer, and
fewer traffic lanes.
I mean there's no resistance, okay just shoot out right
where you need to go. So there are but there are no there
are no stop signs or anything like that along Trinity.
Okay. All right.
So one.
Okay, I believe the only stop sign is, is that the actual
one lane bridge.
Southbound courage. Okay.
I think that's all I've got.
Chris Rebecca. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Jason.
Anytime there's new development there's always worrying
concern, basically about traffic property value and stuff
like that so we hear that a lot and we're, we're empathetic
towards that.
But inevitably, you're going to have development there, not
be this time. But you had mentioned.
And I was curious where you got this that this area was
zone for one home per acre, I believe it was five acres.
Well, and after listening to Cindy I believe it might have
been a temporary zoning but it was five RDX or your future
land use map refers to this low density area, which would
include neighborhood residential one.
Neighborhood residential to an R3 and an R4.
Each one means one home per acre to okay. So, in our fours,
which this is trying to accommodate, you know, if you
stretch the numbers a little bit you might come up with
five but you're getting in that area so inevitably what's
developed there could could be in there to post
post oak, as it comes through I've seen the mobility map,
and it's it's going to skirt across your lake lands there.
I'm not sure exactly where it may even go right through it
because then Lakeland Boulevard, it'll probably run
parallel with it.
Yeah, so you're going to get that for learning traffic and
that will be for laying.
The problem there is, is, is my understanding post so hasn
't even been.
There was traffic is going to be an issue there's no
avoiding that. But I understand the concern, and I think,
from what I've seen the developers have been over backwards
to minimize the impacts that this type of development is
going to have.
That's more than some people do and I think if they weren't
doing as much. I'd have a hard time with it too, but I don
't want you to think we're not sympathetic towards your
concerns we are.
I would just like to caution you I think you're, you're,
you're setting a precedence going forward there's, there's
other developers in the area that would love to expand on
that property is a beautiful piece of property has amazing
trees.
Talking about Lakeland, the woodlands, we're proposing the
site is a great piece of property in the surrounding area
is too. But I think you're setting a precedence going
forward by allowing this type of community there, and
possibly asking other developers to walk away from
future expansion, and it could be much greater size homes
on much larger lots preserving more trees more land, less
traffic less congestion.
Well, we take each development individually so I'm not sure
it's going to be an automated but again, right, you have
right to that concern.
But the thing I mentioned earlier, and I know everybody's
concerned about this I don't want to say that you're not,
but didn't need affordable housing. And I wish this was a
lot cheaper than it is but it's, there's none out there.
We have a homeless situation. Part of what contributes that
is people don't have a place to live. And this will help
accommodate that that's why the housing authority housing
authority got involved. So, that's got to be a
consideration we have to take into account
so we don't want it to be a cheap neighborhood. The
inference that, you know, it's a trailer park. It's not,
but it's not, you know, the traditional standard
residential home setting either realize that.
So the fact that he's gone out of his way that I had the
landscape the burns, the eight foot masonry wall, I think
will help offset some of that release.
That's my opinion on that. So, thank you though for coming
up and speaking.
Thank you, I hope we can help more. Commissioner Sanchez.
Yeah, I just wanted to say that when you said, the current,
well it was currently.
The classification was already five X, which is a holding
position. So right now they want to move it to an NR six.
So NR six mean that you can have up to six houses per acre.
And so, it's not really. When you're talking about there'd
be only one house for five acres that's not that's only a
holding position.
Well, I realize that now that Cindy's okay, given her
presentation. All right. And I just wanted to say is, you
look at Trinity, and you look at everything above that
development. That's all open land.
One day somebody's going to come in and you know, I sympath
ize with you because we build we're building faster than
when we're actually building roads to accommodate the, you
know, amount of people were putting out there. And so my,
my concern is if we stop this then I'm going to stop
anything north of that developing until we have, you know,
the right roads are going to stop, you know, people go
through Trinity Road, I've taken it because I can't.
You mentioned Vacation Village. I have some property out
there. And so I learned about that cutoff and I just get on
380. To me it's a lot faster than going all the way down
McKinney and dealing with all the traffic there. I just go
through there quick even though it's a single, single road
bridge. I can get through there a lot faster than going all
the way down McKinney. So I do utilize that. I have used it
, utilized it several times.
My concern is, is that Trinity Road that goes all the way
to 380, I know it goes to that subdivision, but that's a
public road, right?
And so are we going to restrict public roads when they go
through our neighborhood? And that's my biggest concern.
Everybody wants, doesn't want nobody go through their
neighborhood, but they're willing to go through other
people's neighborhoods to get where they want. And I know
that that subdivision, that road right there, if ever
becomes developed, it's going to push a lot of traffic
through that Trinity Road. It's going to push a lot of
traffic onto 380 so you can get to 380.
So it's just a matter of time I think before that road gets
developed and pushes enough so you can have enough traffic.
So that's my concern is long term, how are we going to deal
with that whole area? It's going to get developed.
Well I think the way you deal with it is first by starting
with a lower density. A higher density won't solve your
traffic problem.
Well, the problem is the city is expanding and you can't
build one acre homes all the way outside to outside the
loop. At some point you have to start building higher
density homes because you can't put everybody on five acres
, otherwise we're going to be all the way to McKinney.
Agreed. Okay, so that's what they're doing is, you know, we
have to find areas at one time, it was within the loop. Now
that city is expanding and what used to be rural is no
longer rural. It's, it's at that point that you know we
have to develop those properties because people are coming
in.
My biggest concern is we're not building the roads to be
able to move the traffic that's being created. And I
sympathize with you because I take that all the time,
Trinity Road. And when you take Mills, Mills is not even a
road.
I would consider it more of a trail, you know, it's really
a bad road. So it's a whole lot easier just to go up
Trinity. So I just want to mention we have to consider long
term, where are we going to go in that area because it's
going to be developed. Once this gets, if this gets
developed, you're going to start seeing more development up
in that area.
I agree. Again, I just think that the density is not going
to solve a traffic issue though. I think we need to be more
cautious of that going forward. It's really in a corner. So
to put that many residents in one spot is, is tragic really
.
I mean, there's no answer. I just told you I use it. Yeah.
And I know it's going to get used. Well, you're just
helping prove my point. But eventually that's going to
become a major road and it's going to come right through
that through your, through your neighborhood. It's going to
go right through there because that's going to be one of
the few accesses to 380 quick, you know.
So actually I got on the board to get in line and then we
'll go to Commissioner Pernetta. First, thank you for being
here. Thank you for representing everyone. Looking forward
to hearing what I wanted to say.
I just wanted to probably lay out where my thought process
is and if this informs people how to respond, all the
better. But a couple things that are resonating in my mind
is when I look at this property and look at the surrounding
land uses as well as our mobility.
It does seem to be a fitting land use for that and I can go
into that for two reasons. One, our mobility plan,
regardless of the time of implementation, we know McKinney
will be done. We don't know. I shouldn't say that
confidently.
It's scheduled to be done in 2020 and that would be a four
lane divided road and then post oak which will run directly
in between the perspective land and Ashley Oaks.
That's a primary arterial. So that's a six lane divided
road. So that corner that they're proposing to put a street
light on will be identical to McKinney and loop 288 in terms
of the size.
And so when I think about McKinney and loop 288, it's hard
for me to imagine one acre homes going in there and finding
a market for larger single family homes at an intersection
that massive.
I know it concern about the viability of the project that
they're presenting considering how dense that will be. You
mean the intersection at Mayhill? No, McKinney and loop 288
. Although McKinney and Mayhill look the same. They're all
primary arterials.
You'll have Bonnie Bray, Carol, loop 288, Mayhill, post oak
. Those will all be the same capacity of roads across Denton
. Those are how the vertical struts of our city are planned.
So post oak is intended to relieve traffic from loop 288
and then Mayhill and then post oak.
That's going to run right next to the property. And so it's
designed to get people north from I-35 to 380. That's the
intent of it. It's going to be designed to get traffic that
way and they're going to dump right onto that property.
On the east side, Trinity and the mobility plan will be
renamed to Lakeview and that's a collector road. And so the
city has in our mobility plan that Lakeview Boulevard is
designed to connect McKinney to 380.
That's the design of the city is to connect those two
streets. And I'm not sure if you're aware of this. This
would be a larger concern if I was in the area. The
adjacent property of the southwest of Lakeview Ranch that's
undeveloped I think where that one lane bridge is.
The southwest? The southwest of that highlighted yellow
part.
So if we're looking at the map, it's to... Just above the
mobile home park? Yeah, well to the right.
That would be southeast.
Oh, okay. Okay. On either side of that, so it looks like
Trinity kind of turns right there. On either side of that
diagonal, if you think like a bow tie, that both those
zoning on either side of that road is mixed use residential
12, which is a highly intensive use.
10,000 square foot retail, 12 units per acre duplexes. That
's by right. If someone bought that property that could go
up tomorrow, it wouldn't even come to us. And so the... I
guess to not belabor the point, there's going to be density
on Lakeview.
Hopefully it gets... It sounds like it's a bad street to
begin with and hopefully there may be some speed mitigators
like speed bumps or something that could help you. But Lake
view is going to be built out.
We've tried that so many times. I understand. But when we
're looking at this property, considering how much traffic
is going to be forced there from a city onto that corner,
it's hard for me to fathom that once that's built that they
would go to the new Lakeview to go north.
But even if they do, that's the way the city has designed
that street. And unfortunately it goes through development.
But from looking at, from my perspective, how the city has
agreed from council and commissions before us of how that
land is going to be navigated, it does seem like a fitting
property, especially sandwiched in between two properties.
So that's where I'm coming from. I appreciate... I'm
wanting to hear all the feedback here. That's what I'm
going to be listening to to understand how it's not a good
fit. With that, I'll give it to Commissioner Pernetta.
Thank you. Actually, you said a lot of the things that I
was going to say, Chair Wiesel. Because one of the things
that, you know, I know everyone has a vested interest in
this. One of the things that we have to consider when we're
making our decision is does what is presented fit with what
is surrounding this right now?
Now, I know a lot of people are looking at zoning and going
, well, you know, there's the RDX-5 and there's, you know,
the NR-2, just off to the west of that. Having said that,
you know, in that NR-2, which I believe the pre-existing
property, which is a mobile home park, was grandfathered in
there.
So when you look at that one, Ashley Oaks and Denton Falls,
what they're proposing is actually completely conforms to
what immediately surrounds it. And in some ways, it appears
to be a nicer development. So based on the plan that they
've submitted to us.
So as of now, based on the fact that when we consider the
character of what's there and what we want, what is being
asked to be put there, I haven't seen compelling evidence
to vote against this.
You know, you mentioned something about holding out for
developers who will put in, you know, one-acre homes and
everything. Well, my understanding is that they already own
this property, so unless they're going to change, you know,
direction midstream and, you know, put mega homes on one
acre, and, you know, I don't think they are inclined to do
that. They seem to put some time into this already. I'm not
seeing that as being an option.
I wish I could elaborate more on that. The surrounding
property, unfortunately, as a result of the woodlands, is
my understanding went up for sale immediately.
Okay.
And on that one, I'm sure that will come before us at some
point in the future. My next thing is, Cindy, just out of
curiosity, because I know a lot of this is based on
hypotheticals in terms of traffic patterns. Do we know
approximately when Post Oak will be ready for the traffic
that we hope will?
Well, are you talking the entirety of Post Oak?
I guess the portion that would line up next to where we're
at, that would hopefully, in effect, divert anybody from
wanting to go a half a mile south.
The applicant can answer that.
We've worked a lot with staff and looking at Post Oak. Post
Oak at one time was planned to be on Trinity, and then they
moved. We worked with staff to, another thing we did about
three or four months in, is to move that thoroughfare from
Trinity to where we're proposing our west property line.
So what does that mean? That means when Post Oak is
extended in the future, instead of going on Trinity, it's
going on the west side of our property north versus going
right through the heart of the subdivision, through their
subdivision.
So, something that we did early on is to amend the thorough
fare plan, and it was, we had those discussions, Richard,
and that moves Post Oak and aligns it further west and
doesn't put it down Trinity.
Do we have an approximate time when Post Oak would be ready
to accept that traffic?
We've asked staff, they're not sure. So we're trying to
jumpstart it by the first 1,200 feet and dedicate all the
right of way. So we're trying to jumpstart that, establish
the intersection, which that gives more reason to get it
done sooner, but staff couldn't tell us exactly when.
But that section you're thinking about would be somewhere
around the time you're ready with Phase 1?
Our part will be done with our project further north of us,
I don't know. But what the big condition that changes is
McKinney goes to a two-lane road to a four-lane road, and
Mayhill, under construction today, goes to a four-lane
divided road.
So that substantially changes that area. And I know
construction traffic too can, it changes patterns and it's
frustrating. And I know Mayhill's under construction, but
ultimately by the time we sell our first unit, or at least
our first unit, those bigger things are done, which the
dynamic changes a lot.
So, do you have Post Oak, your section of Post Oak, is it
connected to a certain phase?
I think we have tied it to Phase 1, it's adjacent to our
Phase 1. We have no concerns, we'll put that in as soon as
the City wants it. But we were intending to do Phase 1.
Alright, thank you.
Assuming that would be a dead end then?
It would, until the City continued it.
That's all the questions we have for you. Appreciate your
time.
Next one we have is, I think it's Merritt Kirk.
Gotcha. Thank you for the correction.
I'm with you. If you could state your name and address for
the record, and I'm sorry, can you pull that mic back
towards you?
My name is Merritt Kirk, and I live at 1301 Lakeview Boule
vard with my lovely bride.
I've heard a lot about future roads and plans and so forth,
so I thought I might bring a little bit of the real world
in here, in terms of what happens on our street.
Now, we don't live behind a gate. Our street is right in
front of our house, and it's crumbling, and there's people
speeding up and down the road at all hours of the day.
But anyway, to try to quantify the safety issue, my wife
and I did a little survey door to door on how many mailbox
es have been demolished or badly damaged in the years that
we've lived there, which is about 13, 14 years.
There are 37 properties, including our clubhouse, on the
street, and it's roughly a mile from 380 down to where we
hook into Trinity.
And in the period that we've been there, we've had 51
incidents where the mailboxes were either crashed into or
badly damaged.
And in some cases, the individual properties have been hit
three times. Matter of fact, I have a neighbor two doors
down.
He just rebuilt his mailbox, and one week later, it was
crashed into again.
So now I just put up a temporary. These mailboxes are
substantial. I mean, most of them are brick with an encased
. If you hit one, you know it.
Anyway, I have if this thing will this we turn on. We get
the eye on this guy on. Show you here on the property 37
properties.
Step closer.
And you'll see that what I have there is that the X is
indicate the number of incidents.
And this is, as I say, over a period since we've lived
there, we moved in in December of '04. So 13 to 14 years.
And a number of them have had three times mailboxes knocked
down.
And so, you know, we have a neighborhood where we hopefully
we're kind of open in the open country where we can enjoy
the peace and quiet of having a yard around us, which, you
know, we try to maintain.
And so it's a little bit risky when you go out and somebody
little kids want to ride their bikes or we want to just
take a walk or go out and get our mailbox, our mail.
I have a neighbor who says that when he edges his yard, his
wife is standing there telling him, here comes another one.
No, get over. This is the real world we're living in here.
And the cars and many cases are doing well over the speed
limit, despite the fact that it's posted at 30 miles per
hour.
And despite the fact that there have been many calls to the
police, both the county and the city, to come out and
enforce. And when they come out, magically the speed goes
down.
And the minute they leave, almost the speed goes back up.
And so it's really a quite dangerous situation.
And I have personally, in going down the street, tried to
maintain me even three miles above 30, try to be nice and
cars will pass me.
You know, they could tailgate me and then pass me. And so
people have no fear whatsoever of being arrested unless
they just got a ticket.
So anyway, this is my data here. I'll show you. And that's
the second page.
We personally witnessed one day a car crashing into a tree,
an SUV, not very far from where we were walking.
So it's a very dangerous thing. And so when we hear about
the development of this nature, 500 homes, 1,000 or more
cars,
and I know the argument about they're not likely to go over
to Trinity and go up.
But if you're working, and this point's been made by some
other people in our group, that if you're working in Frisco
or east of Lakeview,
and you're coming down there and you're trying to decide
how I want to get home, you can wheel right down there.
Don't worry about the speed. Wheel right down there and go
down Trinity, take a right, and you're home.
Rather than go down, get in a line, getting off wherever
May Hill or however that's going to work or the loop or
whatever,
we have real concern about the added traffic and added -- I
'm done.
We actually have a question for you, so hopefully he gets
more time. Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair. Did you happen to have a source on the
perps, the people who caused the accidents?
Did you happen to know where they're from? Was it the kids
coming from the high school?
Well, it's all -- well, not really, but I'm only in Miami.
Did you ever hear anything from the assistance?
We had ours knocked down once. Our daughter and her family
had theirs knocked down once.
And that person was from our daughter's place. They said
they were on their way -- they actually jumped out of the
car and ran,
but they went airborne when they hit the driveway and went
airborne.
And the guy ran off and then he came back. But he said he
was going after somebody else to take to a party.
That was his answer. And he was not in the community.
The people that hit ours, do you remember how many? I don't
know, but we were fortunate because the person left
information
and the insurance company paid for the -- doing a mailbox,
which was about $600, $600, $800.
I'm not saying that this means that the development of this
Woodlands community wouldn't add to your problem,
but I would wonder how many of those speeders, how many of
those people who run the mailboxes,
come from those communities that are down there along
Trinity?
I don't know if it's high schoolers, whoever else it is, or
anything else.
Now, I would like to ask Cindy -- and I don't leave you, I
've got another question for you then.
Cindy, if you could come up and maybe you -- you may know,
you may not.
Is this -- Lakeview Ranch, clarification. I'm assuming it
is because the city police goes out there and monitors it.
City-owned street, correct? What is the process for a
neighborhood to request speed bumps?
Gee, you know, I would think they'd have to go to the
streets department and talk to them.
I'm not certain, but that's what I would do.
It was my understanding that because emergency vehicles
might need to use the roads, that we could have speed bumps
.
I don't know. I've never realized that.
That's probably very true.
Because that's all in one way in and one way out.
That's it. There's nothing. That's unfortunate.
Okay, I'm done.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Kirk.
Next up is Martha Lang.
If you could just state your name and address for the
record.
And I just want to re-mention, if you're wanting to speak,
you're more than welcome to do so.
We ask that you fill out a card, but if not, you can just
come in order once everyone's cleared out.
My name's Martha Lang. I live at 908 Lakeview Boulevard and
Lakeview Ranch.
I've lived there for over 15 years.
I'm one of the fortunate ones that's had a mailbox hit
three times in the last 10 months.
One of it completely destroyed from a young man coming from
Ashley Oaks, because he did stop and we did get his
information.
The other two, no one stopped.
We've had numerous cases of property damage with people
going off the road into the yards.
So the safety issue on Lakeview is a huge, huge problem.
I strongly disagree with the applicant saying that people
are going to take the path of least resistance,
because that is the path of least resistance, like Jason
was saying.
Everyone from the high school to any of these other
developments come through there.
I think that we all bought these properties there because
of the rural feel,
and we'd like to try to maintain that and changing the
zoning on this property would eliminate that,
but it would also set a really bad precedence for any
future properties around that.
I understand the cities need to have different types of
housing and levels of housing,
but the safety issue and thinking of four vehicles as far
as parking spaces for each one of these units,
you're talking then, you're talking not just 1,000 cars,
you know, possibility of more than that.
When they did their traffic study results, I'd like to hear
if any of that was based on Lakeview
or whether it was just the surrounding area that all the
notices have been sent to.
We did traffic counts at Trinity in 380, at Trinity McKin
ney.
We did traffic counts at McKinney in May Hill at the time
because we'd been there for a while,
and then McKinney in the loop.
So we did traffic counts.
We looked at work with the city, what the traffic
distribution,
what our anticipation of who's going to use those roads.
It's a very low percentage, and I think the timing delay,
if you're coming up to Trinity Eternal in 380, was a second
or two difference in our study.
Okay.
So my biggest concern is, of course, the changing of the
surrounding property.
Again, I think it's going to set a precedent for future
developments, and of course, the safety issue along there.
We have tried to remedy that with the city.
There's been nothing resolved with that.
There's always been some other excuse why we can't get the
speed bumps or whatever.
I do understand they're not the access on Trinity being
shut off.
That's a good thing, but there still will be that emergency
access, and I'm curious about that gate also.
If that gate becomes broken and it doesn't become fixed,
that will be an access point to go in and out of their own
Trinity also.
Christian?
No, I'm sorry.
I actually, in reference to something you said, but I want
to talk to the CSA.
Richard, what would it take, and how can we find out, to
the benefit of these citizens, about getting speed bumps
put in?
It was always my understanding that, like if you were a
homeowner association, that'd be something that the
residents themselves would have to pay for.
But is there really an objection by fire trucks, stuff like
that?
Typically, there are concerns, but there are other ways to
mitigate.
There are traffic circles.
I think the issue here is currently it's designated as a
collector on the mobility plan.
Oh, is it?
So as a result, you typically don't put speed bumps on a
designated collector.
I think the intent is, as we're redoing this mobility plan,
and given where post-Oak would now be,
I think that's an option where that then could be lifted
ultimately, and something like that could be looked at.
So it's typically discussed through traffic engineering,
and then there's a traffic safety committee that will
discuss the application of speed bumps or the like.
Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Pernitta.
Just to verify, because you had a question about the
emergency gate.
My understanding is the only access to the emergency gate
would be first responders who have --
A bump?
Yeah, a bump.
Is that right? And as far as it ever becoming damaged, that
would be a code issue, correct, where it would be required
to be correct?
Each away.
Yeah, they would have to maintain that as a gate at all
times.
Okay.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Richard, when it comes to not speed bumps, but those little
hard pieces of plastic that are not rubble strips,
basically they're speed inhibitors. You get them when you
're going into the airport at DFW.
Those don't prohibit emergency vehicles from having to --
[inaudible]
Not just the reflectors, the ones that make noise as you
drive over it.
Like the rumble strips?
Yeah, you do with bricks and everything else.
What are the costs? What is the cost for any type of road
improvement?
That I'm not sure.
I did, about five minutes ago, send an email to our traffic
engineer, so I don't know if I'll get an answer tonight.
Feel free to break in.
But I did at least let him know that these issues were
discussed at the meeting.
Could it be something that we asked the applicant to pay
for if that was part of the consideration?
He just gave a thumbs up.
Thumbs up is yes.
Okay.
What?
Well, there was confirmation that the applicant would be
willing to pay for speed mitigation on Lakeview Boulevard
if the city approved it.
My stop sign?
I can't have a discussion off mic and we have an order. I
don't know what it would be.
[inaudible]
Speed mitigation.
And then who was it?
At this point, we can't go into all the details. We have a
lot of people who filled out cards.
If you'd like to have a sidebar conversation with the city,
you definitely can do that.
Next up is Sheila Repka.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you. Sorry.
Is Lakeview Boulevard, is that four lane or two lane?
Two lane.
Striping that narrows the road at least gives that visual.
That's always been to some effect a tendency to slow down
traffic because they've got a narrow lane.
So that wouldn't be prohibited on a collector road, would
it?
I don't believe so, but again, I would defer to traffic
engineering.
Okay. Just wanted to bring that up. Thanks.
If you could just state your name and address for the
record.
Yes. I'm Sheila Repka. I know it doesn't look like Repka,
but it is, trust me.
I live at 1402 Lakeview Boulevard.
We built our house about four years ago.
I retired after 43 years of teaching, worked hard all of my
life, and we moved to this neighborhood because it was
beautiful.
And we loved the surroundings. We loved everything about it
.
We built our house. We put in a basement, which is unheard
of in Texas.
And we love the area.
Although there are serious issues. Traffic is one of them.
There are numerous speeders up and down Lakeview.
I even followed a young girl one day, and she turned off of
380, sped down Lakeview at a rate of 60 miles an hour,
turned up Mills, and turned into Ryan High School.
I got her tag number. I called the school.
The vice principal, I asked him to call her parents and let
them know what their daughter was doing.
And he thanked me immensely. But these are things that we
're faced with all the time.
It is a shortcut to Ryan, so we get lots of school traffic.
I cannot walk on Lakeview, walk my dogs, or use my three-
wheeled bike, which I purchased proudly a couple of years
ago because I needed some exercise.
I cannot use it on Lakeview. We have no sidewalks, no curbs
.
So we are at the mercy of traffic up and down that street.
Numerous times I have been run off the road.
One time when I was riding my bike, I literally had to swer
ve into the grass in someone's yard, upset my bike, and
injured myself.
These are things we face on a daily basis.
With the addition of at least a minimum of 1,000 additional
cars traveling up and down our street, I can't even imagine
the nightmare that that's going to be.
I disagree strongly with the gentleman when he maintains
that most of the residents there will use McKinney and May
hill.
I disagree. If they're traveling anywhere east, they will
use Lakeview, as they do now.
We get lots of traffic.
Another thing I wanted to mention is he pulled on your
heartstrings about telling the story of the woman with the
children and how she would be so proud to have her own home
.
I am proud of my home, as all of our residents are in Lake
view.
We do not want this to happen.
We do not want additional traffic.
We do not want our property values to be...
You know what I'm saying.
We're very, very strong in our opinions about this.
I taught at-risk students.
I'm sure many of the students that I would have had had I
continued teaching will live in that neighborhood.
I have nothing against the people that would be living
there.
I love those children dearly.
I still substitute at Fred Moore Alternative School.
It's not a matter of prejudice.
It's a matter of safety.
It's a matter of protecting my lifetime investment, and I
want to maintain my quality of life.
This was to be our forever home.
The thought of moving, selling our home makes me extremely
sad.
I hope to God we don't have to do that.
Another thing.
I'm a tree lover.
We've planted...
How many trees, Mel?
I don't know.
We probably have planted 40 trees in our yard since we
moved there.
These people are...
I find this ironic that they're calling this the woodlands,
but yet I hear that they're destroying 60% of the trees
that are currently there.
That's all I have.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Can I ask the applicant a question about the mobility on
the four-lane McKinney and what you notice?
Thank you very much for coming out.
I really appreciate it.
I think somebody else might have a question for you in a
second.
The question I'm going to ask is going to address some of
your traffic concerns,
but if I could ask Mr. Brett a question here for you real
quick behind you.
On the four-lane road that's there, is there any talk about
a median?
Traditionally, Richard or somebody else, please let me know
on four-lane roads.
Do they automatically include a median?
If so, is there a way to limit that to where...
I know there's supposed to be a stoplight,
but I guess there's not a way to build a median to where
there's only a right turn only out of the complex, correct?
There's not a way because they're going to be turning into
...
You can still build it to where you can turn into the
complex,
but you can't build a median and build the turn lanes to
where it limits right turn only out of the complex.
So you don't have people turning left to go down to Trinity
and then north.
Does that make sense?
Because they can't get across...
I can specifically think of Loop 288 right in front of LA
Fitness and that 7-Eleven right there
where you have to go down to the regulated stoplight to
then turn left.
So our concept has two roads that connect to McKinney.
The southern one, that's a right in, right out.
Okay.
The only other one is a full median opening so you could go
right in, right out.
That's that full movement.
And it has a left turn in.
It will. Yeah. Okay. God, thanks.
Commissioner Beck?
Thank you, Chair.
This is going to be for the developer too, but stick around
.
Stick around. That's okay.
Mr. Murphrey?
Yeah.
Mr. Holloway, maybe you can help me.
I just need...would like one of y'all to respond to Ms. Rep
ke's comment about tree removal in this development.
I understood that their comment was that they're
maintaining 40% of the trees there, which means they're
getting rid of 60%.
Okay. Let's see.
My math is correct.
Okay.
Cindy, let's make sure I've got this aerial here so I can
...I think Cindy, on your presentation, you can see that a
clean, crisp aerial.
Yeah. I'll pull out mine.
I like to toggle between the aerial and our concept,
because you can see where we have trees, existing trees,
and you see where we have green belts.
I think that helps make the point.
There's the aerial.
And there's the concept plan.
Okay. Let me go to the aerial and I'll have to bounce back
and forth.
I wonder if I can zoom in here.
You'll actually need to put it into presentation mode just
so individuals watching on TV can see the screen.
Okay.
So I don't know if the zoom's going to work there, but if
you...
Oh.
Yeah, you have to hit the button for presentation.
Oh. Okay.
Yeah. And then if you click through...
It may not zoom.
Yeah, I'm not sure either.
So if you'll notice, you can see the mouse or the arrow
here, this is a heavily ESA tree area here.
There's a little bit here back behind the existing home,
and then there's more up to the north.
So this heavy tree area here, we are preserving all that.
We're preserving all this.
Our actual percentage might be that we're preserving is
likely higher than 40%, but we're trying not to...
With grading and things like that, we're trying not to over
commit that.
We're trying to be careful and respectful of that and not
overpromise.
But as you can tell, those two main real heavily tree ESA
areas, we're preserving those.
At the same time, we're planting back a lot of mature trees
that we've obligated ourselves to in our standards.
Along McKinney Street, it's not a requirement, but we're
putting it in, and on every single leased space as well.
Have you all done a tree survey?
We've done some levels of it.
It's not required as part of the zoning process, but it is
part of what framed our plan.
So we started deciding how we're going to lay out streets
and do those things.
It was part of our design.
Okay.
So you wouldn't have a real good idea of what kind of trees
you're going to have to get rid of.
Hopefully not native trees or heritage trees, but...
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay.
That was the case that we came across a heritage tree that
fell in the middle of the park.
We'd preserve it and hold out that stand.
Okay.
A tree preservation plan will be required during the
planting process.
Right.
And they are required to preserve a certain percentage of
the high quality trees as well as a certain percentage of
the secondary trees.
Any trees that they remove that has to be mitigated on a
certain ratio, which is higher than what they removed.
Right.
Thanks for sharing that.
That kind of covers an area that a lot of us have a concern
about.
Does that help a little bit, Ms. Rethke?
It's still static.
I know.
And me too.
I hate to see any trees go, but whether they're native or
heritage or what, even old mesquite trees.
Thank you, Ms. Rethke.
I did not see any other questions.
Thank you.
As a point of order, the Chair would just like to ask if
the commissioners could try to ask questions to the
applicant.
If there's questions, I mean, the presenter, the speaker,
if there's questions to the applicant or the city, let's do
that at the end just for the sake of respecting everyone's
time.
We just have presenters come up and ask questions of them.
And then if there's questions they bring up that need to be
addressed, let's make note of them and make sure we do
address everyone's citizens' questions.
We can do that at the end.
Thank you for that consideration.
Next up is Ronald Basher.
If you could just state your name and address for the
record.
Thank you for the opportunity to come here.
I'm Ronald Basher.
I'm in 1108 Lakeview Boulevard.
And we've been there about 10 years now.
What I want to try to cover here is some additional things
that I see that needs to be brought out or expressed anyway
.
As you've seen and heard, my fellow members have taken the
time to come here and voice their grave concerns for the
ramifications of allowing this project to go forward before
the proper infrastructure in the place is in place to
handle the new subdivision.
And this is a subdivision that not -- this is not a car
wash or something being built.
This is a great 500-house subdivision being built here.
And the planning report tends to gloss over a lot of the
issues about this high-density 500 new home project.
Now, I understand it's really only the tip of the iceberg
as you brought up that there's going to be 1,000 or more
still coming that are going to be on Mills as well as
Trinity, which leaps over into our section.
The notification map and the pathetic notification of this
project, as far as I'm concerned, exposes the project to be
many -- to the many neighborhoods that are around here, in
some of our opinions, smacks of a deception on the part of
the planning commission to push the project through without
exposure to the public.
Thus, no notifications or opposition requests or whatever
were sent back to you because the area covered, which you
showed these little 500-foot limits on that, doesn't
represent what this project actually affects.
This development requires major street upgrades, storm
surge, surge capacity upgrades in a place before subdiv
ision of this magnitude are allowed to continue.
What I understand is that this project has been -- if it is
given a go-ahead, it will be ready in about a year and a
half or 20 months or whatever, and it will turn -- in turn
be dumping a lot of traffic onto very unsatisfactory
streets to handle it.
For my question is that if I got to take the exemption --
take exemption with the development of the traffic flow,
which can we have that map show where your traffic comes up
and goes either over to McKinney or McKinney to Mayhill or
it goes up through Lakeview?
Where is that map for?
Anyway, what -- where does the commission envision the 500
or so vehicles traveling in and out of this new subdivision
every day travel on?
Evidently, it is out on poor old McKinney Avenue.
Yes, thank you.
I guarantee you that after a day or two of fighting the
traffic with vehicles going out of Ryan High School and
dealing with the Mayhill-McKinney intersection trying to
get over to 288, there will not be turning right to go on
McKinney.
They will be turning left to go over to South Trinity Road.
So I would bet that one-third of the residents are going to
be seeking to go up Trinity towards 380 because a lot of
them are going to be working east on 380 out of the Denton
Township.
So after we head north on Trinity, dodging all the dumped
sofas, refrigerators, trash full of dirty diapers, dumped
on the road by an end of the stream leading to Lake Louis
ville, all this crap being dumped by the two existing mobile
home parks, residents that are adjacent to this project.
Then as they continue north, they will cross a one-lane
bridge onto Lakeview Boulevard.
Lakeview Avenue is the community's only access north and
south out of that subdivision.
I would estimate that there's already about 500 to 750
vehicles a day coming and going from 380.
Some of the traffic has included semi-rock haulers, which I
'm sure will increase with this project.
I'm curious as to how the construction in and out of all
the materials are going to be handled getting into this
project.
I'm not sure if the one-lane bridge is rated to handle that
weight.
Lakeview was not designated to handle this kind of traffic
and now will be asked to handle that much more traffic
being added to the new subdivision, being added by this new
subdivision.
Without the proposed new bridge, which if you were talking
about that little crook that takes off right there at the
creek, supposedly, and talking to the people who built that
temporary bridge,
they're going to be taking off to the left going up through
around to the west of our subdivision with a big new street
.
Now, you're going to build this bridge, but it's going to
be 20 years before you get the rest of the road built up to
380, is what I'm understanding.
That is unacceptable.
Without the proposed new bridge and a proposed three and
four lane street that is being planned to pass to the west
of the subdivision and on up to Highway 380 and not being
in place,
this commission is really selling the Lakeview Ranch
community down the river.
You will be dumping all the new subdivision traffic into
streets that were not designed for it.
So to close in reading the politically correct mission or
vision statement on page two of this planning proposal, it
seems that this proposal misses almost every key focus
mentioned.
This proposal seems that it is an economic development
project, but at whose expense? Evidently of the existing
and very thriving and heavily taxed community surrounding
it is who this expense is going to be based on.
It also doesn't seek to advance safety issues that would be
caused by the development as well as the livability of the
already neighboring family friendly community of Lakeview
Ranch HOA that is already there.
Building the subdivision before the infrastructure in place
is like putting the cart before the horse. Thank you for
your time.
Any questions?
I don't see any questions. Thank you. We'll make sure to
get an answer on your construction pathway question of how
trucks will be getting in.
Next person to speak is Doug Herzog.
All right.
As a reminder, we are allowing for six minutes to speak.
Typically it's three minutes, but since we have two public
hearing items open at the same time, we're just combining
time.
So you have six minutes.
I am a resident of Lakeview Ranch.
I would like to
I want to state that it's been danced around, but I want to
state this overtly instead of covertly. The reason we're
concerned about the traffic on Trinity and Lakeview is
because it takes less time to get from this area of the
proposed rezoning to
380 at Lakeview than it does to go the other way around
today. What it's going to be in the future, I don't know
because those roads aren't finished yet.
But today it is easier. The solution to our concerns, I
really liked your idea of narrowing the lanes with paint
with the caveat that you add turps, little turtles, so that
someone gets an audible warning before they hit all these
folks' mailboxes.
That would be a grand idea. And the solution is not speed
bumps. That just delays emergency response. And being a
survivor of a house fire that was a chimney fire that had
the train go by, if a train had been on the railroad tracks
, the fire department said my house would have burnt to the
ground.
So speed and time is of the essence. The solution to the
problem is stop signs.
I would like next to address the homeless situation and how
it corresponds to the proposed development.
I believe the city of Denton has a plethora of apartments.
And more coming. The reason homeless people are homeless is
one of the reasons is not because they can't buy a $250,000
home. They can't afford an apartment in this town.
The applicant has told us that his residences will cost
about the same as an apartment to the residents.
This is not a solution to the homeless situation.
I worked for a residential land developer in the Metroplex
for 18 years. My major responsibility for that developer
was running the three homeowners associations.
And at its maturity, I had over 4,000 homes under my pur
view. I am well versed in political correctness.
I am well versed in terminology. And I am well versed in
the use of it in deception by homeowners who want
architectural approvals.
And just overall general, you can imagine the homeowners
association issues that come up. And people trying to
present their issue in a more pleasant light than it
actually is.
And I am well versed in recognizing that. And I do have a
couple of concerns. The gentleman that works for the
engineering company, as he was doing his presentation,
listed a whole host of amenities that this proposed
development has or is going to --
some of the amenities he said they are going to have in a
different part of his presentation segment.
He listed a whole bunch of amenities and it was implied
that this development was going to have them. But he did
not actually say that this development is going to have
them.
I believe you, sir, had a whole lot of -- working for a
residential land developer, I am not in the camp of no more
-- no additional traffic on Trinity or Lake V Ranch.
I know more development is coming. And I know it is not
going to be one house on five acres. I know it is not going
to be one house on one acre. It is going to be more density
than that.
That kind of density is not where the residential
marketplace is. It just isn't. We developed a 3,000 unit
subdivision on 2,000 acres adjacent to another subdivision
that was building -- I don't remember what it was --
100 units on three to five acre lots. We built like 300 to
one. I don't remember what the ratio was. It is not going
to be that low of a density. It is going to be higher.
But your issue is how is that going to -- how is the
traffic going to flow and what is it going to take to get
all these houses, all these residents around on traffic?
And the answer is it is going to be infrastructure that the
city is going to have to build. But more than that is how
is that infrastructure going to be paid for?
And it is going to be paid for by the residents. And that
tax -- resident taxes. And that tax is not taxed on the
basis of density. It is based on property values.
And a $40,000 house is not going to support the additional
road -- all infrastructure that is going to be needed to
support the five point whatever units per acre.
And that is going to be the way it is going to be paid for.
And it is not going to work.
>> We actually have a question for you. Commissioner Smith.
>> We will ask the applicant a little bit about the
question she had about the amenities. We lost that lady
again.
>> I want to ask you about the land. I know there are a
couple of other folks who want to speak publicly. And that
is that everyone understands and knows that at some point
in time this land is going to be developed.
>> Sure.
>> At some point in time. So if it is not 500 units, is it
we are okay with 400 units or 300 units? I am not
suggesting we -- or zoning or telling the applicant, hey,
they are okay with 200 units. You can only do 200.
>> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units.
>> I apologize for the outburst a little earlier.
I was just a little frustrated with what I was hearing.
I am going to get down a couple of things here.
Some of the state laws that apply to manufactured housing,
construction, or modular home construction are two
different animals.
Manufactured homes are regulated by the United States
government HUD design codes.
Those came into effect after Hurricane Andrew wiped out
Florida and a bunch of housing down there.
The U.S. government thinking they are smart there, but he
came in and took it over.
Part of that deal is you have to have a crawl space
underneath any manufactured home to get access to any of
the piping or ducting underneath there.
That is a state law and federal law.
Minimum is 18 inches.
Preferably is 24.
Just FYI on that.
I applaud the gentleman.
They have a great business plan coming in, trying to put
some housing in here for folks, renting some lots out.
It is a really good plan.
It is going to return their investment in about three years
, which gives them positive cash flow forever.
I think it is good.
What kind of lacks for the city of Denton is the tax base,
which some of the other individuals have touched on here
just a little bit ago.
Little Elm over in that area, they had a bunch of trailer
homes, mobile homes over there for a long period of time.
They have gone through and weeded them out.
Because of that, their tax base has increased exponentially
.
Equality of homes has increased exponentially.
Equality of living has done the same thing.
Everything has gone up.
One of my neighbors touched on a little bit earlier, Brian
Flatley.
He talked about the mobile home park there, Ashley Oaks,
just to the west of the current proposed project.
Somebody had a good sense of command there after it was
built, the zone at NR2.
There is a reason for it.
If it is going to be sold, they want something other than
mobile homes or manufactured homes on that property,
because they want to increase the quality of life here in
the city of Denton.
They were smart.
That is the game plan, increase the quality of life we got
here in Denton.
This, I do not believe does it.
People want to be doing better than their parents did.
I want my kids to do better than I did.
I have succeeded in what my parents did, which is great.
We are not doing that here with this project.
So many individuals touched on the tax base.
Excuse me, how do you pronounce it again?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Singhani, he touched on it.
The tax base on the 1,500 homes he wants to put in there
with an average starting price of $275,000, the revenue it
would bring into this city is huge.
The average amount of taxes we pay within our subdivision
for 155 homes in there is about $9,000 a year.
I personally wrote a check for $17,000 last year.
Why happy about that?
Oh, no.
I even fought my taxes and I lost.
I can't sell it for what you all are taxing me for.
But the tax rolls are the tax rolls and that's what brings
money into this city.
A house, a manufactured home, when it's not sitting on
property that you do not own, is not considered real
property by a Denton County tax assessor.
It is considered personal property.
And as such, this tax at a lower rate than real property,
which you own a house, your house is sitting on a piece of
property, that's real property.
Personal property like a car, stuff like that, is what
these are based on and what they're taxed on.
So if you have a 17 by 76 square foot, 17 by 76 dimension,
single wide, 1,292 square foot, you're going to pay about $
1,500 a year in taxes on that manufactured home.
And whoever owns the land is going to pay the difference,
is going to pay the tax on the land.
Now, if you come in and put a three bedroom, two bath, 1,
500 square foot house at about $180,000 price mark, you're
going to be paying about $3,000 a year more.
So take that $3,000 and multiply it by 497, what do you get
?
You get about $1.5 million.
That's a big difference in chunk of changes coming into the
city of Denton.
We bitch and moan about our transportation being lacking
and quality of life being lacking because of our
transportation, right there's your problem.
That 1.5 million will pay for a whole lot of improvements
on our roadways.
And I bet you dog on dollar it will pay for three damn stop
signs at our subdivision that the city engineer will not
put in.
He said, no, we don't need that. We can't do it. It won't
affect the traffic.
I personally saw a Bronco 2 up on two wheels coming up over
that hill doing about 65 mile an hour.
That's coming from that one lane bridge down the bottom of
Trinity.
By the time he got to the top of the hill, he's on two
lanes, looked like he was working for Joey Chitwood.
Old folks know who that is. I apologize.
All right.
It's fast. We've had people diving off into ditches not get
hit.
Because the city of Denton won't come out and put out three
stop signs.
We don't we don't need them.
You don't need we're not going to put speed bumps in
because of traffic because of emergency vehicles.
It's stupid.
You're putting people's lives at stake.
That's the issue I got.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
I do not see any questions.
Thank you. Thank you.
Next we have Cody Hogan.
As he's coming up, this is the last card we have this
evening.
That's not to say that no one else can speak.
If you do want to speak, we're happy to hear you.
We'd ask you fill out a card.
But if not, after Mr. Hogan speaks, we can certainly have
you come back up.
I know that I already spoke.
Would you be able to come up for one more minute and ask
the applicant to address the question?
After Mr. Hogan speaks, we might be able to address your
question.
Cody Hogan, 589 South Trinity Road.
I know my time's quick.
So I'm going to go over a couple of things.
I truthfully think we should get a dumping pass for right
there by the bridge.
Maybe at least for me, because I at least dumped once a
month of everybody's stuff that's from Vacation Village.
I guarantee these people aren't dumping couches and dress
ers.
I'm the one that has to do that.
So second thing is police.
I have people that -- I don't do this very often, so I'm
probably turning pretty red.
But I live right there.
I live exactly right here to be exact.
And down by the bridge and exactly over here, it's a joke.
I call the police because there's three -- no offense --
Hispanic guys shooting behind the house, ARs to be exact.
It took 45 minutes for the police to get to my house.
While I'm sitting there with my wife -- girlfriend -- and
we're sitting there waiting and I put myself in a bad
position, I have cows on the property.
I get the fence cut all the time right here.
Corps of Engineers, complete opening for four-wheelers to
go through. Like, it's no joke.
I have to -- I will be completely honest with you.
I cut trees right here and I'll put fence here to stop the
four-wheelers coming.
Call the Corps of Engineer, they won't do nothing about it.
So that right there is just going to escalate over here.
It's going to happen.
The speeding, it is.
It's a joke.
Like, it's scary on South Trinity Road and it's because of
Vacation Village.
I see them every single day because I have to drive my
Ranger to check my cows around this property every single
day to make sure my fence don't get cut.
And it has.
And I've had cows out here where I have to hire three or
four guys to come out with drones with thermal to find my
cows and bring them back in.
That ain't cheap.
About two months ago, I had an ambulance cut my fence, come
in to pick up a crackhead with a family back here because
they overdosed.
I looked up.
They wouldn't tell me much, but I kind of followed the mom
out.
Guess where she went?
Vacation Village.
It's exact same houses.
I don't care if anyone says they are, but they are.
Next thing is, the neighborhood, this trailer park right
here, I will sit there for 30 minutes waiting on the bus to
pick up every kid.
Now we're doubling that, probably tripling that.
So that's just a joke itself, too.
I don't think we should have to sit there for 30 minutes
for a thousand kids to decide if they want to get on the
bus or not.
By the way, I didn't get anything in the mail either.
So tents, I have homeless people that live here and I have
homeless people that live right here beside that property.
Call the police.
It takes 45 minutes for them to come and deal with that.
I have to go down there myself with an AR and make sure
that I'm safe to get them out.
It is what it is.
I mean, they literally are 10 minutes from my house.
I really don't want anybody walking into my house.
I mean, I don't think -- do any of you guys live close to
Trinity at all?
Because if you guys would like to volunteer and pick up
stuff or deal with these kind of problems with me, please,
by all means, come do it with me.
I'm not trying to be rude.
This is the truth.
Let's see here.
Water drainage.
He brought up the water drainage, but I know I get a bill
in the mail every single month to pay for water drainage.
Exactly that.
I pay that every single month to Denton County to handle
the water drainage.
So I don't think that should be an excuse.
Let's see here.
Little Elm.
You know, look what Little Elm did.
Everybody's brought that up that they've cleaned out the
trailer parks.
Are we wanting -- I mean, look how big they're booming,
prosper, calling -- they're booming over there because they
're cleaning them out.
And we're doing the exact opposite.
Is that something that we want to kind of follow?
I mean, what about over on 288 where D.R. Horton's building
his houses?
Why don't we build trailer houses over there?
I guarantee we wouldn't do that because it's not hidden.
We're trying to hide stuff over here and make it look good
over there.
I don't think that's right.
These people spend a lot of money on their houses.
My house, it ain't close to theirs.
And we talk about low income.
I'm 28 years old.
Low income, I've not had any family funding or anything.
I've busted my butt every single day and got where I am
today.
I have a couple rental properties.
Low income, they need to get out there and bust their butt.
If they don't want to live in a trailer house, I mean, get
out there and work.
That's what I mean.
That's what I do.
I've done it all on my own.
So I just -- I can't believe that we're going to put
trailer houses there when we already know it's guaranteed
to become a disaster.
It really is.
I hate to say that.
I understand.
These people have a place to live.
But is it our city that we have to take care of them to do
that?
I mean, we have enough already.
Vacation Village, I hate to say this.
Have any of you guys been to Mexico?
Because that's what it feels like.
And it ain't no joke.
I guarantee some of these people won't even go through
there.
I have to go through there every single day to check my
fence.
I had to actually -- over here in this property, there's a
water that handles all the water for vaca -- oh, sorry.
Over here, that area right here, there's a guy that I guess
rents for the water and everything for that trailer place.
I had to personally spend my money and build a very good
metal gate to keep people from going back there and dumping
.
I have become the new Denton dump, to be exact.
If you guys told me, hey, you can bring all the dump for
the next two months, I guarantee I'd have over probably 25
loads of junk that I would have to haul off.
Tires is a joke, too.
So all I'm saying is I'm 28 years old, I bust my butt, and
I really feel like trailer houses is completely off the
charts for what we should be doing.
I mean, I'm going to live here for the rest of my life, and
I really want it to be a nice house, not vacation village.
We actually have a question for you, Mr. Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Cody, can you tell me where it is that you live?
Exactly where I live?
What's your address?
589 South Trinity Road, which is right here, to be exact.
So there's actually a trailer house right in front of my
house.
And to bring that up, I deal with them hollering every
single night because they want to be drunks.
What is your cross street? What's your closest cross street
off Trinity?
All right, so you know where the single bridge is? On the
first house on the left, where the white picket fence with
the -- so I will tell you, though, the guns and the AR
stuff, believe me, they got mad at me because I had to put
barbed wire fence up by the bridge.
Because -- and they were like, why -- that's -- you know,
that's -- our trails -- and I said, well, they're shooting
straight at my house, you know, and I have cows and
everything, like horses, everything.
I mean, would you guys want AR shooting in the back behind
your house?
No. And exactly where those people are, they were gang
members that lived in Vacation Village, by the way.
Because when the cops finally did get there, it was just a
mess. Ask the chief of police.
They had to get somebody out there with dogs to find the
gun the next day because the guys didn't want to tell them.
So, I mean, it's just -- it's escalated way too much.
Mr. -- we have one more question.
Yep.
Mr. Sanchez.
I just want to mention Vacation Village and what these guys
are trying to do are two totally different animals.
Yes, completely two different things.
Because Vacation Village is actually people own their lot.
Okay.
And then they -- originally it started as mobile homes, but
a lot of people have now, if you go back in there, are
building homes.
They're getting rid of their mobile homes and putting in
really nice houses.
But actually --
Okay.
If we cannot interject, please.
Sorry.
If we cannot interject for the audience, I appreciate it.
Go ahead, Mr. Ogey.
So this property right here with all these trailers, too,
that's going to be what exactly he's doing right beside it,
right?
To a certain extent.
All right.
These are trailer houses.
He's building -- I don't know exactly what you want to call
them.
But these are trailer houses.
So that being the exact -- all these people that live on
this whole side, they literally just drive their cars right
across the street right there
and park into their trailer house.
Is that okay?
No driveways or nothing.
They just pull right in right there and they think that's
okay.
Right here, you can see where the trailer people have
literally just done burnouts and think, let's just start
mudding and stuff like that.
I guess my point was --
So I know.
My point was you can't compare --
In five years, what's that place going to be?
You're telling me when he sells it to another investor, it
's going to have the same rules?
It's not going to.
I mean, come on.
And I feel like you guys have already kind of made your
decision on doing it.
Can I ask why?
What's the benefit of putting that trailer house instead of
building houses all the way through here?
What's the benefit of that?
Is it because you guys -- because Prosper and Little Elm is
doing so good selling these half-million-dollar homes that
you guys feel like you guys need to build these $150,000
homes to make people have a living?
Is that what the goal is for Denton?
I mean, I'm just asking the question.
What is your goal for it?
What I was just saying is you were comparing apples and
oranges when you're comparing Lakewood Village to --
I'm comparing this five years down the road.
It's going to be the exact same thing.
And I don't know if it will be, but based on that they're
going to have homeowners --
You wouldn't want it to be, though.
-- based on the fact that they're going to have a
homeowners association and they're going to have rules is a
lot different from what Lakewood Village is.
And Lakewood Village has come a long way from what it was
five, 10 years ago.
I've seen it.
So what about this side?
No, I don't know what's going on over there.
On that side, I haven't been over there.
Because I know there's a lot of four-wheelers and a lot of
stuff over there.
That's right beside it.
I mean, I don't want to waste your guys' time, but I don't
think -- can I ask you why you guys want to do that?
I just would like to understand that.
I've lived here my whole life.
I certainly appreciate that.
What's going to happen when we close the public hearing is
you will hear to the best of our ability us articulate the
reasons and our mindset for the vote that will take place.
So we certainly want to let you in on how that decision
will be made.
Okay.
For sure.
I didn't know what it was, but I think it's all going to
help us.
We don't mind.
Absolutely.
If you could just state your name and address for the
record.
My name is Sunny Emory.
I live at 8009 Stallion Street.
There was two things.
A lot of the neighbors did a great job bringing up things I
had written down.
But one of the things I had a question about was the walk
path they're going to put into Ryan High.
I don't have a problem with the kids walking.
In fact, it took forever for y'all to finally put a
sidewalk in McKinney Street for all those kids in the
apartments to walk all the way down.
And now you say you're going to put in a walking path, but
they got to get across the new post oak in like 20 years
when it gets here.
But I'm thinking that's going to be the same problem about
people getting hit when they're crossing over McKinney
Street and 288.
So it's kind of the same situation because you're going to
want to and they're too close to be bus.
So let's just be honest.
And you're not going to want to give him the city pass for
them to get on the bus because there is a city stop already
over at Denton Falls for them to turn around and get right
back off.
They rather walk it because it's too much of a pain.
They got to be on bus time for the city.
So that was a big concern.
Being a longtime resident, basically moved here when I was
an itty bitty kid, lived on North Side, lived on South Side
.
My question is, y'all keep saying, well, this is what else
is going to be built here around it?
What else are we going to build?
We've got a mobile home park here, a manufactured home here
and here.
OK, we'll look out at Hodge, not Hodge.
Well, Hodge, you got Silver Dome down the street from Hodge
.
You built that whole nice little neighborhood right there
around Hodge Elementary like 30 years ago.
Over there by Geyer, you got a mobile home park around the
curve.
You built Geyer. Look, all these other homes are popping up
.
Sorry, my legs are nervous.
But I'm just saying, you've got Hawk Elementary, not Hawk,
what's the one? Nelson.
Nelson's sitting right there on Teasley.
You came in, there's a mobile home park.
In fact, there was two.
You built all those homes all up and down to Teasley right
there.
No problem.
You've got Teasley trails, those big, high expensive ones
going in.
So why are you saying that you need to put this over here?
Because this is the only place you're going to want to
build.
This is the only place that we're going to put it because
nobody else is going to come in between these two mobile
home parks.
But my question is over here for the developer is out by Pe
can Creek.
They had one mobile home park.
But look, that neighborhood area is booming like nobody
else's business.
They can't even keep up with that school.
You're busing kids everywhere now in the school district to
get that neighborhood taken care of.
So the question comes down is if you have duplexes or townh
omes coming in out there,
why not consider that over here at Ryan over there by those
mobile home parks?
Why not put, especially if there's going to be eventually
post oak going in there and you're going to have that wall.
I mean, you've had mobile home parks back up to Lake, was
it Lakewood Estates over there on Teasley?
And now you have, sorry, my brain is rattling.
You have those Oakmont Two Homes.
All you did was put up a big giant wall there and it kind
of made both sides somewhat happy.
So I don't know why there can't be like some other median
ground.
I mean, to be honest, homes are being sold about as fast as
you can get them built and done right now.
There's only a few areas that can do zero financing to move
in.
Why not consider that and get some of these families into
something like that that they can have as a life investment
and not just like I've got this, but I can't do anything
else with it.
I'm sorry. I talk really fast. You're OK.
We can certainly record those questions and we I have a lit
any of questions.
Ask the applicants. They'll be up and hopefully get those
questions.
That's all I really say was I don't know why we can't
consider something else there.
If other areas of didn't we have a major need for housing
in our city.
I mean, we can't get people into homes.
Maybe we need to build some homes that are a little bit
lower value.
But to say that's the only thing that's going to go there
because everything else around it is kind of crummy.
That's my opinion. I appreciate that.
You're more welcome to come and speak.
If you just say your name and address for the record.
I'm going to be a little bit of a
flash B8209 of Creek Lane. Just a couple of things to
reiterate is the notifications going out.
I've been notified.
The other thing I want to bring up is when you bring in all
these extra people in this area, have you considered the
schools?
Really? Have you really considered what's going to happen?
I mean, everybody right now must be blunt.
Stinks because it's over in a low income area right now.
What are you going to do to Ryan?
You've added Guyer to where all the rich kids go.
All right. Think about the schools.
Third thing, telephone service.
In Lakeview right now, I can't tell you how many times we
get no service.
There's not enough towers.
You add all these extra people with wireless phones.
You got to have more towers.
Who's responsible for that?
My son-in-law passed out at my house, couldn't breathe.
If I wouldn't have had a landline, I never would have got
through.
Because there's no service, because there's too many people
touching the tower.
Sorry, you add that many more people.
What are you going to do?
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Certainly, we have one comment per person, but if you would
like to come ask your question, we can allow it.
Doug Herzog, 7909 Rodeo Drive.
If the first three rules of real estate investment is
location, location, location, and we've established in our
discussion that modular homes appreciate in value,
and manufactured homes depreciate in value, I'm thinking
why would a person build an appreciable asset in a
community with depreciating assets?
That sounds like a real estate investment nightmare.
Mr. Applicant, would you please address, in your other
communities like this, how many modular homes do you expect
to have built?
And if that number is low, City of Denton, is there
something we can do in the SUP to raise that number?
Thank you.
Appreciate that.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak can certainly do so.
So I have several cards that are in opposition not wishing
to speak.
I'm going to read the names into the record.
We'll see if anyone wants to speak before closing the
public hearing.
Bear with me as I try to pronounce all these names.
So the following names are those in opposition.
Larry Ashby, Gail Ashby.
Perfect.
We'll replace that one.
Ronald Zich.
Ron Basher.
He spoke though, did he not?
Janet McKentry.
Eric Scholl.
Alberta Kirk.
Alice Gill.
Scott Hinkes.
Jennifer Grillhest.
Alice Haddon.
Max Estes.
Dex Albright.
Chris Komen.
Bill McKentry.
And Patricia Bacioto.
Hopefully I didn't butcher any of those.
Those individuals are on record as opposed.
Is anyone else wanting to speak?
You may certainly do so.
Yes ma'am.
Can you state your name again and address?
Janet McKenstrie.
And my address is 8108 Oak Creek Lane.
The school bus was addressed but the schools themselves and
the classrooms going to be needed.
I understand we're going to build a brand new high school,
a brand new elementary school, and a brand new middle
school.
But when are those schools going to be built and are they
going to accommodate that area?
Are they going to accommodate North 288 where they're
building new homes?
That the tax structure is higher at?
Or are they going to overflow into our already overflowing
schools that that area now goes to?
Or this area now goes to?
Does anybody know the answer to that?
Mr. Beck.
If I may.
It's good questions.
But DISD is the one you want to talk to.
The city and DISD work together so those things are planned
, they're anticipated.
But that would be the better agency to talk to instead of
us.
Sorry.
But then again when you're addressing this new development.
Right.
And it's all interplayed there.
As the population grows, so this school.
But you're getting ready to dump a thousand kids or better
into the school system.
A thousand kids in 500 homes.
If you've got 497 homes, I guarantee you there's going to
be at least two children.
We're not necessarily going to have kids in every home.
But that's okay.
This isn't going to be a senior citizens development.
This is going to be a young family development.
So that's all I wanted to say.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you.
Anyone else wish to speak?
So at this time I'm going to close the public hearing.
The day we can discuss for a motion and discussion.
But before doing that, this commission has been sitting
here for just over five hours.
So I'm going to call a recess for five minutes for us to
stretch our legs.
We'll come back, finish our discussion and vote.
It is 1143.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for letting us take a break
.
It is 1153.
We'll call this meeting back into order.
We had just closed the public meeting.
So our discussion now turns to the dais.
So we'll call this meeting back into order.
We'll call this meeting back into order.
The city's standard ordinances,
if you're along an arterial roadway,
require thin wall screening, masonry screening.
It's six foot.
If you're along a city arterial,
you've got to build a six foot tall masonry wall.
Our obligation here is to do minimum six feet.
We said, "We'll bump it to eight.
It's more expensive, but we'll bump it to eight
and enhance it."
That's an enhancement, not trying to hide something.
It goes back to city code.
It's rare.
Most developments that we do, you probably see six.
Six is more typical because it's cheaper.
That's what I thought it was at first.
It's cheaper to do six.
That's what most people do.
Most builders do six foot.
Is all your landscape on the inside of that masonry fence?
Is there going to be any on the outside?
As we show it today, yes.
It's on the outside.
We're going to propose to put some on the inside too,
because if you do, it's not in here,
but I'm telling you that's what our plan is.
Okay, so just an ugly masonry wall.
There'll be some landscaping.
Yeah, we're obligated to do plantings that's stated in here
,
not just a promise.
It's stated in here that we'll have a three foot tall berm,
an eight foot fence, and then there's tree plantings
that are stated along there every 30 feet.
Okay, and I just want to bring that out
so everybody can hear that.
Thank you.
It was construction trucks.
I was concerned about construction trucks coming down South
Trinity.
Is that going to happen?
We've talked about that too.
Actually, we had that in our discussion Monday night
with some good question brought up by some citizens about,
but there's kind of two parts to that question.
We can control, when it's a development,
we can control where our contractors that we hire,
how they get to the site.
Talking about the stands, building the stands.
Building the water shorelines and the roads.
Okay, we pay those contractors.
Our client hire, selects who they are.
We can control how they get to the site
and how they access the site.
So that's something we can control.
On the other end of it, with this not being proposed
as a stick and brick development, what happens,
you can imagine how this comes together.
So they bring out the unit,
and then it's placed on the concrete pad.
So just think about the number of trips.
You've got somebody coming out to build a concrete pad,
and somebody bringing a unit.
It's two or three, four trips.
You may have a plumber to come hook stuff up, right?
So that's three or four trips.
Think of a traditional stick and brick home.
There's grading, there's rough plumbing, there's
foundations,
there's a framer, there's, I mean, just name it,
there's multiple stages that happen.
So then that's, they're coming from a lot of different
directions.
Okay, you're not going to, I guess part of where it's going
is
I don't see any of those prefab construction pieces coming
down,
trenching over that single-lane bridge.
That would be a bad thing.
Yes, sir, I don't believe any of them could fit.
Right.
I don't think it's possible.
I mean, that's not something y'all would control,
because that's the people who buy it, but I just--
And I think after tonight's meeting, I'm going to blow up
that bridge.
We're not going to worry about that anymore.
[laughter]
All right, you made them happy.
We're going to add a cul-de-sac.
[laughter]
One thing I would--you shared a couple of locations where
you've done this,
and I can get with you later on this,
but I would like to probably get these locations from you,
look at the older ones, and maybe do a site visit myself.
Yeah, we can give you a list.
Okay.
That's not a problem.
Okay.
And if you would just--and we touched on it--the concern
that property taxes
are going to be affected by your development,
it's really impact fees that pay for this development,
which doesn't affect current rateholders.
We were just talking about this today in a work session,
so I understand the concern there, but as property
taxpayers,
it's the impact fees that we charge the developers for
coming in,
and they're charged up front for this.
And it goes on--it's attached to the cost of the house,
so it's that buyer that pays for that.
It won't be passed on to the ratepayers.
And there's two sets of taxes.
There's the tax on the home, and there's the tax on the
land.
So the homeowner has a tax,
and then I have to pay a tax on the property as well, so--
Okay, somebody mentioned--
What's that?
Somebody mentioned that this--the kind of taxes y'all will
be responsible for
be personal--personal property taxes.
Probably the homeowner will have a real estate tax for
improved property
for putting in the utilities and the roads,
what the value is of that finished lot or stand.
Okay, so--
It will be taxed on the overall project,
whereas individual homeowners will be taxed on their home.
Okay.
Separate.
So you'll be taxed each year or just that one time?
We get taxed every year.
Okay, okay.
And then the homeowner, of course--
One other thing, when we're talking about taxes,
also we pay the city taxes,
but this is a gated community with private streets.
The city doesn't pay for the streets,
doesn't pay for improvements on the streets.
The subdivision north of us that needs work,
in our development, if it needs work, we have to fix it.
It's not a city responsibility.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Prunetta.
Yeah, just a couple of questions.
So one of the things that was bought up was you guys owning
the land
and charging a lease amount, right, on that one?
Correct.
What are the terms of the lease and how often do the
homeowners
lock in a rate on that for a certain period of time,
or is that for the length of their ownership?
It normally depends on your competition,
and our competition is the communities on each side of us,
which are owned by Yes Communities,
which is the largest owner of manufactured housing
developments
in the country, multi-billion dollar corporation.
So we'll have to base off whatever they're charging
and whatever type of leases they do.
So if they're-- last one I heard they were doing five-year
leases,
so I'll have to get up to date on what they're at now.
So based on your current model, would you say that a five-
year lease
would be what you guys would offer at the--
If our competition continues to do that, probably, yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, we-- it's hard to be successful
and be very far apart from your competition.
Okay.
The other thing, some of the property owners adjacent to
you,
we're showing pictures of runoff and basically drainage.
What measures have you guys taken,
what analysis have you guys done to ensure that--
I know we're not touching the ESA,
but in terms of what else you guys are building,
is there something that you guys have kind of looked into
to ensure that we're not flooding anybody else close by?
Environmentally sensitive area.
It's the wooded area that will remain untouched.
I messed up the labels, sorry.
Yes, that's the zoning process at this time.
The next step is platting.
We have to do-- with the platting,
we have to do detailed drainage studies for this whole
project.
What's coming from us from off-site,
where our drainage and where it leaves our project.
The city has a standard process that you have to do.
It's a downstream assessment.
We have to do $50,000 to $60,000 worth of engineering
just to determine where the drainage is going
and how is it adversely, if adversely,
impacting anybody downstream of us.
There's a threshold about how far you studied down the
creek.
As standard practice, it's an ordinance the city has
that we have to follow.
With our final plaque construction plans,
we have to determine that.
Most likely, in my opinion, we're going to be probably
having to tension on our property to ensure
we don't adversely impact downstream.
Probably on Monday night, I had spoken to a lady
that lives around this pond downstream of this draw.
We had the same conversation.
Just a minute ago, another gentleman who lives next to that
creek.
We have to do those things.
It's a standard process.
We can't go moving out to dirt until those drainage studies
are approved.
My gut tells me after doing this 25 years and knowing what
it's --
we're going to detain.
We're going to probably detain whether the report says we
should or shouldn't
because we're hearing what's going on.
It's better to detain and not take the risk.
-Okay.
-Mr. Sanchez.
-I want to talk a little bit about the value of these
modular homes.
What range are you going to be looking at as far as in
mobile homes?
I mean, there's a big difference in price, I think,
between a modular home and a mobile home.
Is that correct?
-Yeah.
There's been a lot of confusion tonight on what a home is.
A mobile home is what people are calling trailers
that were built before July 1976.
Then their federal standards came in on how to build a home
,
and it became a manufactured home,
and you had to meet these guidelines across the country.
So it totally changed the industry.
A manufactured home can be one section, two sections, three
sections
bolted together on a foundation.
A modular home is built in the same factory.
The difference is it's not set on a frame with wheels.
It's set on a truck, and it's brought out and it's lifted
with a crane.
On the manufactured homes, you're going to see prices from
the high 30s,
low 40s into $100,000.
On a modular home, you're going to see prices from $50,000
to multimillion-dollar homes,
just depending on where you are and what they're building.
Anything you can site-build, you can build with a modular
also.
So that's why the prices can get so high on those.
In this development, most of the homes you're going to see,
they're going to be from the 40s to 90 to 100, somewhere in
there.
You will see some above that, but most of them will be in
that range.
And since you deal somewhat with the mobile homes,
do you know what kind of interest rate on a new type of--
A lot is based on your credit, but you also have kind of
like a range?
The last I heard when I talked with Palm Harbor,
they were five to seven if you have good credit.
If you had bad credit, it was closer to 10.
But it's going to fluctuate with every other house interest
rate also.
And I think the VA or HUD also provides lens money for
mobile homes.
Is that correct?
Well, HUD would, but that's if it's tied to the property
and they own the property.
We're not doing that.
Christian Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
A couple quick questions.
Did you meet with DISD at all?
No, not that I'm aware of.
We did not have a meeting with DSD.
Also, do you have a percentage of your developments that
you sell?
Of all my developments?
Is there an average?
I assume you've sold some.
Yeah, in the past, it depends who we partnered with at
different times.
We were partners with Robert Bass for a while and then H
icks Muse.
Right now, we have an Asian group that we're partners with.
They're a little different.
The first two like to sell things.
These like to hold on to things.
So right now, we currently don't have any plans to sell any
developments.
It depends on your investor, it sounds like.
Exactly.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Safety concerns that were brought up earlier tonight and
some of the things.
I hate it when from the DISD you come up here and you start
saying,
"All right, applicant, you're ready for some more to heap
onto your load of crap you got to eat now?"
But there's some safety concerns that have been definitely
brought up.
You guys are completely willing to bend and help work on
those safety concerns?
Yeah, they brought up the traffic concerns.
I understand their development wasn't built right.
Most people don't know it.
They go in and they buy their dream house.
Then they start finding out there's problems like they're
on a collector street.
The street isn't wide enough and it didn't have curves and
it didn't have sidewalk.
If we can help, yeah, that'd be great.
We want to be good neighbors and I know it doesn't sound
like it because we have one desire and they have a
different one.
But if there's a way to work together that helps both, then
we're all for it.
It's all the way to the point where if we make it part of a
restriction within the SCP.
Yeah, that's part of the overall deal.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
You mentioned a while ago that you might, dealing with
drainage, you might have to put a detention pond in
somewhere.
Where would you put that?
If that's the turn we need it, it would be kind of on the
edge of the CSA.
We wouldn't get into that area.
But on the edge, it might cause us to have to lose some
units.
The zoning sets the maximum, but we might have to lose some
units there to do that.
Okay, so right now you don't know if you're going to have
to, but if you do, that would be?
No, and that's typical though at this stage at zoning
because we've done a lot over two years with different
studies and worked with Michael.
So you've got to get through zoning before you get too far
at the engineering.
But we have to give some of the indication and study it
initially to have a general idea of what we think it's
going to be.
But my gut tells me we do 60,000 articles of studies that's
going to say detain and we'll detain.
Okay.
Let me raise one concern that I just honestly discovered in
the public hearing, didn't it in the work session.
If I missed it in there, shame on me.
But these people aren't owning a lot of land.
Y'all will own that.
They'll just own the house on it.
And it seems to me that's kind of a rental arrangement
almost.
And it bothers me that, you know, it just seems like there
's that element there that would hold them there longer if
they own the land along with the home.
But not doing that, it does.
I can see the concern that, you know, they would not get
back the value that they put into their house or if they
wanted to move the house, you know, then you have that
issue.
So should I be concerned?
And if not, why?
It depends.
You know, we've had one commissioner and a couple of the
people in the audience talk about that they have lived in a
manufactured home or a mobile home in the past.
And they've moved up now into, quote, a real home or a
stick-built home, site-built home.
It is a way to move up.
I know a lot of people don't believe it.
But if you think about the situation, if you compare two
families and one is buying a manufactured home and renting
a lot, and one is renting an apartment, after 15 years, let
's say on the financing, that manufactured home is paid off.
Is it worth more or worth less?
Well, I don't know.
You don't know.
No one knows until they sell it.
But they get something.
You live in that apartment 15 years.
Are you lease a house for 15 years?
At the end of the 15 years, the landlord doesn't give you a
check.
They don't say thanks and here's some equity back.
You know, so yeah, do they own the whole thing?
No.
They own everything above the ground.
But the dirt itself, the pad site, the utilities in the
ground, we own that and we lease that.
Well, where I was going with that and what bothers me is it
does, you know, you can put a comparison there of multif
amily homes and renting.
In this situation here, again, there's that element that's
the loss of staying there longer, for lack of a better term
, where if you own the land plus the house, there's more of
an inclination to stay there and lock in there.
So I do understand the concern that this place could go
downhill as a result of that.
And that's one of the reasons why I asked for some of your
locations where I'd like to actually personally go see.
And everybody needs to understand here whatever decision we
make tonight.
It's not the final one.
If it's not the one you like, it goes to city council.
So just so you understand that.
So there's still time to pick at this.
I expect to see them and all their friends.
We'll give them warning.
All right. Thank you.
So we have no other questions.
The only one I had, I've been trying to jot down as much as
I can from everyone here.
And I have a lot of questions for Cindy.
But one that I haven't heard that I just want to get on the
record was an issue about stacking the parking.
Someone asked how long a car was.
Can you let me know or let everyone know the driveway is 20
feet?
Is there going to be garages, carports?
Can you tell us a little bit about how cars are going to
park on the property?
So there'll be a driveway that's 20 feet, that's 20 feet
deep for two cars in front of each unit.
As far as garages, I mean it's --
Garages or carports are up to the homebuyer.
They can be added to any of the houses there.
You want to address the street widths also and stuff?
So the street widths, they're public streets.
So the pavement's 31 foot back to back.
We've went ahead and made the wider -- City of Denton's
gone to 31 feet from 28.
So they're -- but we went ahead and made the wider streets
that the city's adopted, but they are private streets.
Perfect.
And the 20 feet, that is city code for two cars, correct?
That's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
We do a lot of other just traditional single-family in Dent
on is 20 feet and in our city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes
across the city.
And I think that's a good question.
I mean, when I first came on three years ago, there was a
big problem.
The signs are bigger.
The mailings are different.
They used to just go to the property owner.
So if that property owner leased it, that individual wouldn
't get the information.
The guy who owned it in some other county would.
And that raises the issue here.
And I know this isn't going to be what you want to hear.
But what we're looking at, most of you live in Lakeland
Village, is that it?
Lakeview Village.
Ranch, thank you, sorry.
Where's it been?
I've been through there.
I used to work for David Weekly Homes.
And one time we thought we were going to build in there,
and they didn't do it.
But anyway, you all are outside of the limit that when we
look at something,
we look at this area that's in the immediacy of it.
Now, we understand that it can still impact other areas.
And we look at that, we're concerned about the traffic,
about drainage and stuff like that.
That has to be addressed as we move along.
If we approve this thing tonight, it will come back and we
'll review the site plan.
And we'll make sure that drainage and roads and all those
things are addressed in a second.
So that's what we're looking at.
We're kind of confined by the area that this development is
going to directly impact.
And you all are sitting just outside of that, even though
you'll be affected to some degree on some levels.
If I can ask legal to interject here.
Yeah, I was just going to point out that the notifications
go out to the address that's shown on the most recently
approved municipal tax rules.
So that's not going to include ETJ property.
That's going to be the property within the city.
And it's going to be the most recent address.
It's on the most recently approved municipal tax rules.
So if it goes to a different address, it may be because the
tax office says it wrong.
Mr. Burnetta, what's your name?
Chair, may I bring Brian up to Mr. Fletcher?
You'll need to come to the mic.
Which one? Sure.
So anything that shades, we send notifications and the
register marker.
Well, actually, we sent notifications inside the blue line.
The blue line is 500 feet and the red line is 200.
The shading or those are the people who sent in responses.
OK, thank you.
Commissioner Burnetta.
So I just wanted to clarify. So the red is within 200 feet
of the area, right?
So that's roughly like 65 yards.
I don't know if anybody plays golf, but that's a chip shot
pretty much.
It's basically something that's across the street.
So that's the area that gets certified. Anything within the
blue got a postcard, correct?
Got a postcard sent to the property address.
Within the red, it was sent to the property owner.
So from the yellow line, which is the subject site, to the
blue line,
postcards were sent to property addresses.
So that there's an occupant in there that the site is being
leased or rented,
the occupant would get it.
Anyone within this red area, it was a certified letter that
went to the property owner.
And a postcard. And based on what I'm looking at here, I'd
say the majority of the residents here
are probably about three quarters of a mile from the
property that we're looking at.
So that would account for them not feeling like they were
notified.
I'm going to check into that tomorrow to verify.
But it kind of looks like some of them were outside of the
limit at this time.
Excellent. Thank you very much.
Yes, Mr. Bagg.
Real quick. Thanks, Chair.
The signs, are they within the 200 or the 500 foot?
The signs are on the property.
On the property itself, okay.
Right. They are signs were put here and here and here.
Okay. Thank you.
So you have a couple of questions that haven't been
addressed yet,
but I just want to make sure we cover.
The first thing, an individual brought up the lift station
and infrastructure.
Can you tell me about the process of looking at
infrastructure's capacity for a project like this?
I know that's part of the engineering and I'm sorry, I don
't know very much about it.
That's typically something that's covered by the
engineering department.
Sure.
However, it is something that is looked at at the time of
permitting.
Okay.
Actually, plotting is when the infrastructure is looked at.
And I know with this particular site,
the applicant has already said he expects to have to
improve the lift station.
Okay. Perfect.
The other question that was brought up a couple of times in
this one,
if you could provide some historicity to it, the zoning to
the west was NR2.
Can you tell me anything you know about why that was NR2 or
the process in which that became NR2?
That became NR2 in 2002 during the citywide rezoning. As to
why,
the only thing I can think of is that they matched it to
future land use designation and not what the use was on the
ground.
Is it considered a nonconforming use right now? Is it
exempted?
Yes, it is.
Maybe not.
There's a provision in the code that if a mobile home park
was legal,
which this one most likely would have been because it was
annexed in.
So if it was legal on the date of when this code was, the
2002 code was adopted,
it was automatically granted SUP status.
Special exception.
I'm sorry, special exception.
It's the initial adoption of the 2002 Dental Development
Code and the rezoning at that time.
If the initial adoption made any existing use illegal,
it would be granted special exception status for being a
legal use.
Perfect. Thank you for the explanation.
The last thing I have, and I think this might just tip off
the discussion towards a vote,
but it's the thought of speed mitigation.
It's been brought up about what can be done.
The overwhelming thing that I've taken away from this is it
's Lakeview Speedway and it's terrible.
And so I would like to entertain a discussion about what
can be done without overburdening a developer that's a mile
away.
So I don't know the options.
I know Mr. Smith has brought that up.
We had a thumbs up earlier from it.
I don't know what the city can do.
But as we look towards a vote with a litany of conditions,
I don't know, and this would be legal or what we can do in
terms of mitigating on a separate property.
With this particular project, the applicant has pretty much
steered all the traffic away from Trinity and Lakeview.
We can't -- If we could maintain order in the -- We can't
require the applicant to improve offsite.
However, what can be done is talking to the transportation
engineer and making him aware of the situation.
I know that he's in the process of amending the mobility
plan and looking to see where roads need to be improved.
And this may be one that he needs to look at as well.
Okay.
Commissioner Pernitta.
Yeah, I just wanted to circle back real quick on the
special exception.
Is that transferable or is that simply for whoever -- for
the current owner?
And would that exception expire if that property was sold?
The exception -- Wouldn't it expire if it were vacant for
six months like age?
Well, first of all, again, it's SUP, not a special
exception.
But the -- It's not an issue of -- It's an expiration if it
's not built.
That's the provision that's in the -- The property to the
west.
I'm sorry?
The property to the west that's NR2.
That's what Commissioner Pernitta's talking about.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, the NR2.
Could you restate the question?
Oh, the NR2.
The mobile home park that's right next to the high school,
which is in an NR2, but it has a special exception?
You're asking if the special exception expires?
It does not.
Okay.
Thank you.
No.
Commissioner Smith.
Hey, Chair.
Just two questions.
One, Commissioner Rossell mentioned the speed mitigation,
so you don't think that we can -- if I get clarification --
we don't think we can make that a requirement.
We'd only direct the Transportation Director to look at it.
That's my recommendation.
Improvements that are offsite are based on proportionality.
Of course.
And based on the TIA.
And the TIA is saying that most of the -- If I am correct,
the TIA is saying that the impact isn't going to be there?
Yeah.
That's in discussion --
You can come to the mic.
That's in discussion with our engineer and the city's
engineer.
So we actually all sit in the room four or five times to
talk about distribution of where traffic is going to go.
And that's what concluded in that year and a half's worth
of studies is that when we made the shift and pulled most
of -- almost all of our traffic away from Trinity,
and with the timing of McKinney and Mayhill, you know, that
is one silver lining that maybe, you know, this took two
years is somewhat maybe unfortunate.
Any requirements for offsite improvements would be based on
the traffic impact analysis and if the traffic impact
analysis says that there would be a negative effect.
So -- and then it would be based on proportionality.
I mean, TIA is not done until the true engineering phase,
not in the zoning phase.
The other question I had then would be are we ever allowed
to require a post-bill TIA to be able to show -- because
here's my issue, Cindy.
We sit here and we say that safety is probably the number
one thing that I think everyone in the room can agree on is
probably the biggest issue is going to come along with the
approval of this project.
Definitely.
So if we sit here and say, well, speed mitigation,
applicants ready to do it, we as a commission are ready to
do it, but we're sitting here saying we can't technically
legally require them to do it because they're not within
that.
We can only encourage the director of transportation who's
got a lot of other things going on in his life to have to
do something about it.
Is there any way we can tie something like a post-bill TIA
to say you need to go back and see is there an increase
usage of South Trinity after the bill?
If there is, then at least that would be more evidence to
go to the director of transportation and say, yep, before
it was 500 trips a day, now it's 1,500 trips a day.
Heading north and southbound on that, they're obviously not
going up to Mills and cutting over to Mayhill.
That would be dumb.
They're going through Lakeview.
So that would be a...
That doesn't let Richard address it.
Just one clarification.
If the applicant were to proffer improvements to reduce
speed, I think that would be something we could include as
part of their condition.
Let me just add that number one, this body is making a
recommendation to the city council, and ultimately the
conditions that attach to the SUP are going to be for the
city council to decide.
They're going to take into account the comments, the
specific motion that's made, and even if it's something
that's outside the scope of an SUP,
I'm sure that the city council, they're going to be
watching this video.
They're going to be reading the minutes.
They're going to be reading the staff report on that.
If that's an issue of concern, by all means, bring it up to
the city council.
After all, whether it could be part of this SUP or not,
bear in mind that the city council is the legislative body
of the city.
If they need to change the speed limit, they'll change the
speed limit, and they don't have to come to P&Z to ask
permission to do it.
They can do that.
If they need to change the laws, they can change the laws.
If they need to do something else to the street, they can
do something else to the street.
They are the legislative body, and it doesn't necessarily
have to be tied to a zoning case or an SUP in order to get
done.
- So within our recommendation as a commission, maybe we
don't have to get specific,
but we could possibly add an amendment to our SUP for
recommendation to city council, who is the final,
along with the super majority, because it's 20%, to say
that speed mitigation should be considered in the final
approval of this.
We don't have to leave it as a final product.
We can say speed mitigation efforts in some degree.
- Well, I think you can make the council aware that I'm not
sure that even making it part of this SUP recommendation is
necessary.
I think that your comments to the city council will be
reviewed, will be heeded.
They will know that this is going to be an issue.
And if it's best to put it, I don't think that it's going
to be best to tie it to this SUP approval.
I think it's going to be best to deal with it some other
way.
- Okay. The second thing that I was going to talk about was
the tying of the finishing of McKinney,
or the expansion of McKinney to the release of occupation
of phase one.
We can put that to the SCP, correct? We can tie those two
things together just purely back to the point I made
earlier,
that would it want to approve a project that then might
possibly have 200 residents, 300 residents, however many is
in the phase one,
moving into a location and McKinney is not completed due to
weather or city setback or something like that.
- So you're talking about a condition that ties the timing
down to it?
- I'm not sure that that's going to be something that the
city council is going to be able to do.
You can certainly bring it up.
- But the final plotting, something like that, that won't
be approved until a timeline is aligned with McKinney four
lane road being expanded?
- I don't know that they're going to be in a position to
hold up a development if something's not ready.
And I don't really know that I want to get into all of the
legalities about doing some additional research on it and
having an opportunity to advise them, you know, confident
ially.
- Good.
- Commissioner Beck.
- Thanks, Chair. Brent, can I get you to come up one more
time?
There appeared to be a little skepticism mentioned about
how you're directing traffic away from South Trinity.
So tell me, how would somebody in this development get to
South Trinity other than coming out on McKinney or the
exits you're going to have on the west side?
Is there any, because you're going to have the wall up all
the way around.
So they can't access that trailer park community to the
east there, correct?
Somebody thought they could cut across there, but I thought
not if you've got a wall up there.
- I think what the question was now, I probably need to
open the other PowerPoint that just closed.
If you're, I think that the Denton Falls community to our
south to east, they were talking about, I think they're...
- Cutting across there.
- Cutting across Grissom.
Was that the question?
- Right. Coming out of this community, this development you
're going to do, can they access that area?
- The Denton Falls, I'll try to answer it, the Denton Falls
, they can't, they have their own access to Trinity.
They can't access through us.
- And we can't access through them.
- We can't.
- They have to come out on McKinney, go down to Trinity
there.
- They come out to Grissom and then in Trinity.
- Okay.
Okay.
- They can't come through us.
We can't go through them.
- Okay.
- Ours is gated.
- So the public hearing is closed.
We can't take just random comments from the audience.
Commissioner Bec, do you have a question for a specific
individual that we can answer your question?
- Yeah, could... Does Cody have a question for us on this
regard?
- I just want to say that the speeding is a thing, but I'm
looking, all us young guys, this is going to be our town in
the future.
We have to look at that.
Is this something that we want to deal with in 10 to 15
years?
I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but this is, I'm
going to live here for the rest of my life.
- Okay, Cody, I need you to specifically address...
- Okay.
- Well, no, you're still welcome to.
Okay.
Brian, why don't you come up then?
Thanks, Cody. I appreciate it.
- So I think they've done a great job of impeding traffic
leaving the neighborhood.
You know what I mean?
If people want to leave and go down Trinity, they got to
make a left over a medium, right?
Or a three medium.
It's really coming home.
- Okay.
- When they come down 380, they can make a left straight
through Lakeview's Speedway, right, right into the
community,
versus dealing with all the stoplights and making one, two,
three lefts.
- Okay.
- It's not there.
- And I don't disagree with the fact that they've at least
tried to accommodate that one segment there.
You know, it speaks to the effort they're trying to make.
Yeah, they're not going to be able to control every facet
of the traffic that goes up and down there.
But...
Thanks.
Done.
- There is no one on the board to speak for discussion or
motion.
So...
Commissioner Ellis.
- Thank you, Chair.
I'll just start a discussion here.
First of all, thanks to all the citizens for coming out.
There have been so many issues, so many issues brought up.
Infrastructure being the big one.
And definitely I think we need to do what we can as a city
to get Lakeview off of being a collector's street.
I'm struggling here with this vote because so many of these
issues are not this applicant's problem.
The requested zoning, which is what we're dealing with, can
work for the area,
especially with the conditions placed on it with the
overlay.
I know a manufactured housing community comes with a stigma
, and it may not be an ideal for everyone,
but I think it's a housing option.
And I would have to think that there's some kind of a
demand, or I don't think that they would propose this
development.
That being said, I mean, I'm still struggling with a vote
here.
I don't like the fact that DISD wasn't consulted.
I think I would have liked their input.
I'm bringing this density in.
But certainly the citizens brought up real concerns, and I
'm hoping it leads to further conversation, regardless of
how this vote is.
Lakeview, specifically Lakeview Ranch, has definite
concerns.
So hopefully that will bring up further discussion with the
city.
I'll listen to my fellow commissioners here.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. Cindy, did you have something you wanted
to say?
Yes, I did want to address the issue of DISD.
When the site was annexed into the city, we have to contact
all the service providers in the city and let them know
that they are coming.
And DISD had to respond to us.
And so DISD is aware of the fact that this property was
brought into the city at the time it was annexed.
We knew what it was going to, what they were going to try
to do with it.
And DISD was made aware of that.
It's a common practice when we do annexations, is we
contact DISD and tell them, this is being annexed in, this
is what's proposed, this is how many houses.
And they know it's coming.
Did they give input?
They probably did. They do every time.
I can look it up and give it to you later.
I wasn't working on the annexation at that time, another co
-worker was, but I know the process.
And so they are made aware.
Okay, thanks. Yeah.
Okay. Let me try and jump into the fray here.
I, too, have some problems with this.
And I'm hearing almost, and there's a lot of passion out
there from the people that live up at Lakeview Ranch.
But we've heard some things that tend to get close to hyper
bole.
And I just want to touch on that, not to ridicule anybody,
but to kind of bring us back down to reality on some things
.
It was mentioned that Post Oak Road won't be ready for 20
or 30 years.
It's probably true that the complete construction of it won
't be done, but in increments, they've already started
working on it.
So if there's a need in one sector, like if this area
starts to develop a lot, they probably will start bringing
it in there sooner.
They're not going to start at one end and necessarily work
until they get to the other end.
So it may not be a complete 20 years as it affects this
area.
But I don't disagree that we don't know when it's going to
be done either.
But I just don't, you get that 20 and 30 years stuck in
your head and then that takes other things out of play here
.
They mentioned that there's going to be a thousand more
cars there and a thousand more kids, you know, and you're
just, you know, throwing numbers out there based on, there
's nearly 500 houses.
So there's got to be two cars at each place.
And I'm not saying that's an impossibility, but there's
probably not, too.
There's going to be people, one of the issues that I
believe it was Sonny Embry that brought up why we're just
now building a walkway on McKinney.
And it was mentioned that, see, it didn't even own that
part, that stretch.
That was Farnum Market Road, it is Farnum Market Road, 426.
That's a state road.
We bought it from them, essentially, if I can say that.
So now it's ours to do with and we're doing what we've
always wanted done in the first place.
So that's getting done.
So you're going to have any kids that are close to Ryan
High School and the elementary, there's going to be walking
distances there.
Hopefully in time, I ask Richard if there was public
transportation out that far yet.
He said no, but that's going to be a possibility.
There's going to be people in there, if they're buying
affordable housing, they may not have their own set of
wheels or they may only have one vehicle and they're going
to be relying on public transportation.
So don't automatically, I see you shaking your head, but
don't automatically lock in.
There's definitely going to be a thousand kids.
There's definitely going to be a thousand.
We don't know that yet.
Okay.
There's going to be more traffic no matter what we put
there.
There's going to be some kids there that weren't there
before.
It was also, and I don't disagree that as a factor of low
income housing, this isn't the solution.
It's just an element of it.
It will help to some degree.
How much?
Again, we can debate that.
Nobody really knows.
But to say that it isn't at all, you know, I'm not sure
where you get that unless you brought in some studies that
bear that out and I haven't heard that.
So the thing that bothered me, as I mentioned, coming into
this public hearing, I wasn't aware that they don't own the
property along with the house.
I think if anything unsettled me a little bit, it was that
fact because I feel empathy towards anybody that's around
that area that that could have a diminishing effect on that
neighborhood.
So I'm having that quandary right there.
I think reluctantly, to the dismay of many of you here, I'm
probably going to lean towards approving this.
But this thing has to go forward to the city council.
There's time to look at it.
I plan on getting with the developers going out and looking
at their oldest developments and seeing how they've come
about.
And if I see some deterioration there, I can come to city
council myself and point this out and add that information.
So we're not the final say here.
But there's a lot of factors to consider here.
I think the developers gone out of their way to accommodate
a lot of your concerns.
I think a lot of your concerns are legitimate and flawed,
but in reality, I'm not sure that that's something you can
just lock into and say it's going to happen, though.
I can understand you coming from that direction.
So anyway, right now, that's where I stand.
We'll wait and listen for any motions made, at least on my
part.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
First, I'd like to thank the applicant for coming out and
bearing with us and working hard at this.
I would like to make a quick remark to those who came in
attendance and gave their opinion.
Sometimes it's forgotten that we are a volunteer commission
.
We all have our own careers and jobs and whatnot.
I was up at 430 this morning taking care of my dog and
working out.
So sometimes we get in here and there's definitely some
public hearings that passion comes out and passion, right
fully so, should come out.
I hope that you guys as citizens know that no applicant,
city staffer or volunteer commissioner or city council
person would ever bring a project that has deception or
some sort of devious intent to it.
And that kind of saddened me tonight to hear that some
folks came to the mic and said that we as commissioners who
are just here to consider it and view what's in the best
interest of the city were accused of trying to facilitate
devious acts and hiding projects and hate to hear that.
So hopefully if you guys do want to bring that to city
council, I would make a recommendation you don't do that.
They got a little bit bigger egos than we do.
So that's a joke you can laugh at.
But my personal opinion has been that safety is a big issue
for me on this project.
And to hear that more and more and more this project by no
volition of their own action is going to cause some serious
safety issues or at least give one inkling of increasing a
safety problem that's already existing in your neighborhood
as well as well documented.
And that scares me I'd hate to be a be a guy who reads the
DRC every single morning, even as a 28 year old sits around
leads the DRC every single morning to see that a kid in
Lakeview got killed because of a driver and to think that I
as a commissioner maybe have added to that.
I'd hate to think that.
The same time, saying that you can't, we can't grow in
certain ways and to say that, you know, an applicant doesn
't have a project we like but they need to change it around
it's hard for me to justify Cindy, I have a question for
you.
Seeing that it's 20% more on opposition, and the abutting
properties. It goes to supermajority City Council, City
Council, then, let's say they get a five to vote rather
than a six one which is what would be needed.
We were asking Jerry I was asking Richard and it seems like
from what I can read lips from across the dice that
substantial change is a pretty, because that's what the
requirement is for those who don't know that there's a
denial the applicant has to wait 12 months until they can
bring back the application for reconsideration,
unless there is a substantial change in the circumstances
with the direct word of the code as states. Did you ever
seen with that substantial change could be what it might be
and could it be something like, I don't know the director
of transportation does something about some
like view and then that could predicate substantial change
in an application or because it's not inside of the area in
question that this doesn't even matter, they can make it
they could turn they could turn like view into I 35 for all
they wanted and it wouldn't matter doesn't change anything.
Well, substantial change typically has to do with the land
use, or the density, or how they're laying it out that that
Jerry can tell me if that if there's anything else but that
's pretty much what is considered substantial change.
Yeah, that I think those are basically the same factors I
outlined to you earlier that I don't know that there's a,
you know, an incredibly dark black line on that, but that's
that's typically the factors that are looked at.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez.
And this is one area. When I look at this green, the five x
area which is north of the unit we're talking about. There
's a substantial piece of area there that I say is going to
be developed.
And, and so, the way I look at it is, it's not, you're
going to have some. This is not going to affect what's
happening in the project area we're talking about is really
not going to affect your, your, the value of your homes
because you still have a big buffer
of development that's going to occur north of that project.
So, I think one individual we had came and said right
across he had a project like this develop across the street
, and if it affected the value of his home, we're not across
the street we're relatively
a good distance from, from the project area. And, and I
know we always it's always seems like any new development
we get into the whole idea of increased traffic.
And that's a big issue every, every two weeks when we meet
meet and we talk about new projects. And we can hold back
and say okay we're not going to do nothing until the
traffic situation gets gets resolved because nothing would
ever happen.
Like I said earlier, a lot of what infrastructure money
comes from is from development.
And so, as I look at this, you know I started when I went
and looked at this project, knowing that I traveled this
area down McKinney pretty often because I've got like I
said earlier, I do have property down at Vacation Village.
And I traveled that, I kind of thought well, I'm pretty
sure I'm on both award but then listen to everybody's
comments. I, you know, became pretty heavy as far as I was
concerned, I didn't know what to do but I really believe
that some of the issues of impacting the
community view area is not going to it's going to be
traffic but that's an issue you've all had have had in the
past, that has to be resolved, but I don't think that
burden should be laid on the new development.
It's something that has to be taken care of by that by that
by that subdivision, and I think, I think they've done
everything they can to to alleviate the issue, but there's
some responsibility of what do you all have to do up in
that area to control traffic and not blame them for it.
And it seems like there's a lot of, well this is going to
happen well it's been happening, and that should have been
resolved a long time ago.
So, if it's possible for him to self impose a requirement
to improve the safety on Trinity.
If there's a signal when it's warranted. If there's a
concern there on the on the public safety of Trinity, then
we can self impose if it's hard to for the yacht condition
us, we could condition ourselves to add it to there that
will help them try to find a solution,
we'll, we can meet with their HOA and the city engineer and
find that there's a solution if it's, I think a key part is
the city's going through an MTP update now. And that road
may come off a collector system, but we can put our heads
together and find logical ways to see if it stops signs or
what it is, you know, to help and assist with that so we've
been at it for two years we adjusted, we're here just to
say, we're willing to help and self impose.
We're willing to help and self impose that condition.
Appreciate that.
Commissioner Prunetta.
Yeah, I wanted to kind of, I guess, Senator, Commissioner
Sanchez said a few things that were along the lines of what
I was going to say.
So, one of the things that I guess is controversial earlier
tonight that I stated was I hadn't heard anything that
would substantially change my opinion in terms of the
zoning and I want to kind of explain a few things on that.
When I say that, when we're considering the zoning.
And, you know, what the use is going to be one of the
things that we're taking into consideration is that we are
considering an NR6 and we're also considering the special
use permit so that way, instead of it being technically as
dense as an NR6 it's closer to a four.
I know there's been a lot of concerns about property values
, as stated, you know, that example that was given somebody
complained about, you know, modular units being put across
the street.
We know that these aren't across the street these guys,
this is at least half a mile from you guys. And we know
that when we're kind of well I'm sorry yeah and I'll get to
you guys in a second.
For the majority and let me let me refer to Lakeview.
We're talking about that kind of thing. We're also, when we
're talking about property values and sales and things like
that you guys know that appraisers go out and what they
actually do is gather comps and those comps are related to
like properties, so they wouldn't be grabbing a comp on a
modular or manufactured home compared to yours.
So, as far as resale value you wouldn't normally see that
much of an impact.
The other thing that's really kind of hit home for me when
I've been considering this though is the safety issue.
And on that one, it seems like there's a safety issue
regardless of whether or not a property goes in here,
whether we rezone it or not.
That doesn't take back all your mailboxes. It doesn't take
back the number of times somebody has driven into one of
your yards.
So, on that one, as a citizen myself, I would encourage you
to take full advantage of your city council members. They
are online and they are receptive when you bug them.
And if you actually engage with them online, they generally
do move very quickly to get things out like stop signs or
speed bumps or replacements and things like that that
encourage safety. So, I'd say that that's one of the things
that I'd really encourage everyone to engage in.
I think one of the things that I find encouraging in this
is the fact that when we talk to the applicant throughout
the night, I don't think anyone can deny that the applicant
has not been more than willing to make accommodations to
try and make things better.
They've actually self-imposed conditions to help with the
safety in the area.
They've discussed the drainages that impose as it affects
people in the surrounding areas that they're more inclined
to go with detention rather than have that run off.
These are some of the things that we consider when we're
doing this.
Once again, we're making a vote on the zoning and whether
or not the proposed zoning kind of conforms to things in
the area.
No one can say that if we were to zone this for an NR2,
somebody would come on and sell houses for $100,000 and
bring your property values down.
You know what I mean?
Nobody could say that somebody could zone it for an NR6 and
people would sell units for half a million each.
When we're doing this, the idea of what the property value
may or may not be isn't sometimes as prevalent as whether
or not what they're doing conforms to what's in the area
right now.
But back to one of the main things I would like to say in
terms of safety and everything, I would encourage you to
engage your City Council people.
And going forward, whatever happens with this, this is
simply a recommendation to City Council.
There is an additional line of defense that you have to
discuss your concerns with them and make your voices heard
in those cases.
Thank you, commissioners.
It's worth noting that right now, although it is convoluted
, we have two items that we will need to motion and vote on.
So we'll do the zoning first when it comes time.
After that, we will engage the SUP.
So as of right now, we are still discussing both.
But when a motion is made, it needs to be made for the
zoning case first and independent.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Quick question for legal with regard to the self-imposed
Trinity improvements.
I mean, how would that look on paper?
I don't know.
And I think that at one o'clock in the morning, I'm not
that creative.
But I think that the fact that the offer has been made and
that the concerns have been expressed will no doubt
resonate with the City Council when they review the minutes
and the video and the staff comments.
And so I and in between now and then when they have an
opportunity to look at it, you know, perhaps I'll be fres
her in the morning and I'll come up with an idea.
But I really don't think that it's a situation as I'm kind
of shooting from the tractor seat that is appropriate for
us to tie in as a regulation.
I think that is the as the engineer pointed out that if it
has legs, it may best have legs as something that the
applicant brings forward.
Yeah, Richard.
Just wanted to add a little bit more to that.
This this if if it's well, regardless, if it gets moved
tonight, it does not go to City Council until December 4th.
And so we have we have some time that we can work between
the the bodies that be the flesh out.
The chair would entertain a motion at this point.
Mr. Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
And I honestly want to thank you sincerely.
Thank you.
One of you for speaking up coming out and putting voice to
your concerns, regardless of what you think.
We do listen to you.
We do care.
And I'm pretty sure this thing moves forward that your
concerns are going to be addressed.
That being said, I'm going to motion to approve the 1704 be
with the record of the proposed conditions for approval,
which includes an overlay place on the property that the
maximum permitted density on the site shall be no more than
four dwelling units per gross acre.
Permitted land uses on the site, 498 modular and
manufactured homes, 120.1 acres and six single family
detached housing on minimum acre.
And I think I'm going to try and add an amendment here that
deals with the self-imposed traffic mitigation concern here
that and I'm so and I may need some help from commissioners
.
Help me word this, but I think I want them to address this
with some concreteness again for lack of a better word.
By the time they do go before the City Council, where
citizens and the rest of us can hear what your plan is.
I would also just let me add for not finished here.
If you guys came out and force to the City Council meeting
on December 4th, when you guys came out tonight here and
start talking about top science and stuff like that, you're
going to get more done there that way.
You guys were overwhelming and because they are the
legislative body, they're the ones that can do that kind of
thing.
We can't we're dealing with a specific area here, but they
can deal with your issue that's disassociated with it
somewhat.
So let me just throw that out. So that being said, make a
motion to approve.
So we have a first, Commissioner Pereta.
Second.
We have a first and a second. Any discussion?
So a couple things to say before I call us to vote.
This has been a long night.
And so first, it's 1am. Thank you for being here.
There, there could have been.
Y'all watching this on TV. I hate to break it to you, but
the couch is way more comfortable.
Next time you can watch on TV.
So to raise that, I also I appreciate the applicant two
years of work is is no trivial amount of time and I don't
know the cost.
I actually don't want to know that be probably depressing.
What I do want to mention is along with Commissioner Becks
point.
You I've been serving five years now.
Three.
This is the most coordinated effort I've seen of a
community coming out and being vocal and it's impactful.
It's it's definitely worth the effort.
You all did to coordinate. However, you all did this.
It's it's it's helpful for for us as a commission to
understand what's going on, especially for me.
I don't live in the area. I've never even been on that road
.
Certainly not. I've been speeding on it.
And regardless of the vote tonight, it sounds like there's
there's a legitimate issue with the road that needs to be
addressed.
And voting to deny this doesn't fix what is already there.
Voting to approve this certainly might have an impact on it
.
Although if a thousand cars are on that road, it's going to
be bumper to bumper traffic.
No speeding. So maybe it pendulum swings the other way with
extra traffic.
That being said, I do echo Commissioner Smith's points to
that we try our best to listen.
We don't come in here with our mind made up.
We are not a deceptive commission.
And so hopefully you all are at City Council and you are
being vocal.
But the the laughing at some of our responses, the the
attempts to make us choose based on money being thrown
around of how much tax base.
I don't think that would be a helpful way of addressing
City Council if you were to go to the City Council and make
the same plea for what it's worth.
I certainly appreciate and again, I'm thankful for being
everyone being here.
Hopefully there's a mutual respect among citizens of trying
to make this the city the best we can.
I think that is my soapbox. So with that, we have a first
and a second.
I see one more discussion item, Christian Beck. Can we get
the wording down on that amendment or is that make that
clear enough to make sure that I think it makes it clear
enough?
OK, it ultimately may end up becoming part of the
regardless of what how it ultimately ends.
It might end up being part of the S.U.P. when it goes to to
council.
But I think it's fine with with OK, we got it. Great.
Thanks.
So we have a motion for approval with staffs
recommendations and Christian Beck's added condition.
We'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries seven zero.
That is the zoning request. The next motion that's needed
is for the S.U.P.
Commissioner Smith, just a clarification. The changes to
the amendment for the recommendation on the zoning should
have those been amendments to the S.U.P. Richard's going to
correct that.
The addition of looking at addressing the traffic
mitigation.
I think it's OK as part of the as part of the the overlay
conditions just for it's not necessarily imposing it. It's
just a matter of looking at addressing it.
Well, as I understood the the nature of the motion, you
were asking for the applicant to come forward with
something concrete before the matter comes forward to city
council. And so I think that, you know, how it's best
addressed may depend in part on how it's articulated.
And so it may be a good thing to integrate into both the S.
U.P. and the zoning vote.
Fisher Sanchez.
I just want to make a motion.
Or I guess the S.A. 17.
And are you doing that with the staff's recommended
criteria? Yes.
OK, yes. Commissioner Pernetta. I second that. Is there any
discussion?
I have one thing to add to this item is I was a no vote
about 10 minutes ago based on the safety issues that I
think every commissioner brought up.
And my notes here have so many things crossed out of trying
to listen and gather. I will applaud and recognize the
applicant.
It seems like everything that was asked within reason. You
're like, yeah, we'll do it. Yep, we'll do it.
And so the what I hope is a sincere offer to help with
Trinity Lake View, however you can, does proceed to council
and the for council reading these minutes.
I want it to be known that that is of top priority for my
vote. That gets done to it.
If it's possible to almost force all traffic west, I'm not
sure how that looks.
I'm hoping for an awesome, creative solution that's short
of blowing up a bridge.
But hopefully there's a solution out there.
Yeah, I'm hopeful there's a solution that you all can be
good neighbors, regardless of different perspectives on on
that area.
So we have a first and a second scene, no other discussion,
a call for a motion on the board. Commissioner Ellis. Thank
you, Joe.
Just real quick, just to echo what you said. I was the same
way.
And I do appreciate your willingness to listen, hear
concerns and take those concerns seriously.
And please, as chair mentioned, that is you heard everybody
's top concern, not only the citizens here, but that is a
concern to us.
And we realize that you don't have to do what you just
offered to do. So thank you.
Call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries seven zero.
The commission. We still have more to do tonight. But what
I can do is give a couple of minutes for the room to clear
so we can take a breather real fast.
Are you awake?
Your thoughts, concerns.
You have a great many of them. So thank you.
But as soon as as soon as the start farms rezoning was done
, they included that right away.
Thank you.
Their projection they have essentially for every thousand
homes, it's five.
Generation.
They usually last this.
I don't think this is the latest on that.
With the room being cleared, we have one more public
hearing item for the evening.
It is the original F, which has now been moved to G.
Item S eighteen dash zero zero two a Cindy, you are for
presentation.
Any coffee or anything.
This is a request to hold a public hearing and consider a
request for specific use permit to allow quick vehicle serv
icing in suites one ten and sweet one eleven of budget cell
storage.
The property is located at twenty eight twenty Virginia
circle and you can see here's the property right here.
The location of the vehicle repair facilities right now are
is in this corner right here highlighted in blue.
This is the site and also survey of the site.
That was originally developed as a storage facility.
And in nineteen eighty five and this building from what I
can tell on D had was added later in the nineties.
This building has twelve parking spaces located along the
front.
This is a little bit of history of the site as I know as I
noted it was plotted and developed in nineteen eighty five
in two thousand two.
It was rezoned from C commercial to N.R.M.U. in a city wide
rezoning in twenty ten.
The CEO was approved for retail sales of automotive
electronic equipment in sweet one ten and also in twenty
ten a CEO was denied for auto repair in sweet one eleven.
The applicant then the applicant for the CEO then revised
the CEO to be for office only and it was approved in twenty
seventeen.
A complaint was received about an auto repair facility
operating without a CEO.
At this point the applicant has three options to rectify
the situation.
One was to apply to rezone the entire site which legal
actually we confirmed with legal and they said that wasn't
the best idea.
The best idea to go would be to go for a specific use
permit.
That's a more conservative approach.
It would only affect the two suites in question rather than
the entire site.
Here are some site photos that I showed you earlier of the
site showing the parking along the front as well as on the
vacant lot adjacent to the west and just a few other
different views of the site.
When we look at a criteria determining whether or not to
recommend approval for a specific use permit there are
criteria that criteria we have to follow as noted in thirty
five six four consistency with zoning regulations conform
ity to goals of the Denton plan twenty thirty consistency
with surrounding development in terms of access nuisance
prevention and scale of development.
With regards to zoning the site is zone in our em you
excuse me the request is for quick vehicle repair which is
permitted in the N.R.M.U. by permission approval of a
special use permit.
I'm sorry I'm tired.
The subject site is surrounded by vacant lots on all sides
to the north and the west.
The site zoning is ECC and then there's some ECI just on
the other side of that vacant lot to the east is so N.R.M.U
. to the to the south is N.R.M.U. twelve with the townhouses
of Ashley Oaks and the area directly adjacent to the
subject site is a permanent open space.
When the site was developed in nineteen eighty five there
were not the standards that we have in place today were not
in place at that time and as a result the site does not
comply with parking requirements that we have in place
today.
The land use the site the subject site was owned commercial
at the time it was developed and this self storage was
permitted use when it was rezoned N.R.M.U. in the two
thousand and two citywide rezoning it became a special
exception as we just discussed in the previous case.
The lot coverage there were no standards for open space at
that time so pretty much it's all impervious surface except
for a seven foot strip of land along the front along
Virginia.
For community mixed use the dent plan twenty thirty it's
the sites designated community mixed use.
The site is a site that is not in place.
As I noted earlier that while the area is appropriate
appropriate location for an automobile automobile repair
facility.
The warehouse office warehouse may not be ideal for this
site because of the parking issues that have been noted.
The site is not in place however based on the way we now we
currently park repair facilities.
It ends up that being the same required parking.
The existing land uses surrounding the site are vacant or
undeveloped land and university drive in U.S. U.S. three
eighty.
The issue P. request is a result of a lack of space to
adequately park vehicles.
The request does not provide any additional parking to
address the original concern.
I was talking to one of the business owners tonight and he
may be able to to have a solution to some some parking
issues that we've been talking about and I'll let him come
up and address you.
We sent out notices within two hundred and five hundred
feet of the subject site and we received no responses in
return and one side was posted on the site along Virginia
circle.
Staff actually recommends denial of this request.
We find it difficult to approve something that we
previously denied.
I want to point out that the applicant who represents
budget self storage has been extremely cooperative with the
city and they've done everything that we have asked them to
do for that reason.
We are offering conditions so that if the planning and
zoning commission decides that they wish to recommend
approval we are offering up the following conditions that a
new certificate of occupancy for the correct use quick
vehicle servicing must be applied for and approved.
This specific use permit shall be limited to these two
particular business owners and these two particular site su
ites.
This permit will be limited to the use description and the
floor plan shown in exhibit eight and exhibit nine in your
backup overnight outdoor storage of automobiles is
prohibited.
And no more than two customer service vehicles per each
business can be parked in the parking spaces in front of
the building during business hours.
That concludes my presentation.
Yeah, on this.
I cannot endorse the second condition that's offered that
we limit the specific use permit to particular business
owners because this this really should be a land use issue
that deals with use of the land and should be agnostic as
to who the owner of the property is.
So for whatever it's worth and I apologize for calling it
audible because we would said he's talking about talking to
legal it wasn't me.
Yeah, but it may have been another attorney but it wasn't
did he any discussion that we had or I would have let you
know that earlier.
That's fine.
We can we can withdraw that recommendation.
Commissioner Smith to that point on that second one I guess
the question I was gonna have was making sure that if there
was an approval that that second condition would apply to
if the business was ever sold.
There was a new tenant that came in and use that that
facility that it wouldn't continue wouldn't be grandfather
ed it wouldn't be vested it'd be it'd be temporary it'd be
gone and wouldn't wouldn't carry over.
Is there a way legal for us to write that as a condition
because we've done that another thing.
Could we not just condition it to the property to the
business owner.
I know in the past with not here but in other cities with
specific use permits particularly for private clubs.
We have condition the specific use permit for alcoholic
beverage to that business and no other business and if that
business leaves so does the approval for alcohol beverage
that that I can see a number of different issues for one
thing you know there's an alcoholic beverage license that
is specific to a given establishment or given owner and
which is a different situation than what we have here.
Okay. And there's there's also issues of state preemption
and what have you and you know I'm sorry that we didn't get
a chance to discuss it before and I have no problem with
with tying it to to the two particular suites if that's if
that's appropriate.
It's it's tying it to the particular owners that I think is
an issue as far as you know being temporary upon sale.
I can't quite get there I think that's a condition to
replace on the CEO.
That's the case I mean the certificate of occupancy if the
if that business was just my own understanding of how CEOs
work if that business was ever to leave and then they go
vacant and then the owner decide to lease to a new tenant
that new tenant has to go and apply for a new CEO.
I've had to do that on leased buildings inside the city of
Denton.
So we could tie it to the CEO, and that would solve that
problem. I'm trying to specific business owner retired to
stick out to feel occupancy. So if that's a condition that
you'd endorse that.
Yeah.
And, you know, again I'm having to kind of shoot from a
tractor seat here. But, you know, if you're inclined to do
that that perhaps the way to address that would be to put
something in the SCP that says upon consideration of a
certificate of occupancy for the business
that the intention is to prevent this use from being
grandfathered in the future.
And tie it to the suite.
Commissioner pernetta.
Yeah, I just got a couple of questions on on that so the
primary issue right now that we're having is that there's a
lack of parking be that the CEO is not currently used for
what it was approved for right.
Okay, they're in violation of their CEO.
Because overall in terms of what the what the, what their
business does. If it were to be rezoned or something like
that to that effect I believe there's like a tire shop
across the street, or something like that.
As I said, this is not this is not a bad location for a
business on automotive repair business with the zoning and,
you know, the surrounding uses. It's just that the parking
is an issue. And the fact that, while they're in violation
of their CEO.
So, so, to the parking. I understand from the photos that,
you know, the overnight storage and everything was handled
in a vacant lot that was owned by someone else.
Pursuant to that, it has there been any plans expressed. If
we were to approve this, where they would actually park
those cars is there.
Would that be on this property or someplace else or.
That would be on this property.
The business owner that I talked about is here, and he does
not own the businesses putting the cars on that lot.
That that is the other business.
What this CEO, what this SUV would do was would make him
have to move those cars off of that lot and and make other
arrangements for the storage of those vehicles.
And then verify and validate that that that that whatever
the other location would be.
Yes, we would do that when he applies for a certificate of
occupancy for this quick vehicle service use.
That would be when we would be working on that.
Okay, thank you.
I suggest what thing I'm just wondering, you know, is is is
the applicant sure that he wants this decision made before
these details are nailed down?
Because if it's denied, you know, it could interfere with
bringing the issue back.
Is this something that's better nailed down, you know,
before it's brought forward to a vote here at the PNZ?
I'll say I'll go forward.
If you just state your name and address.
My name is Chris Haney.
Address is 17787 West FM 922 Forestburg, Texas.
I'm actually born and raised in Denton, been here 40 years
and just moved there recently.
I'm no then.
I'm here on behalf of Randy and maybe that feedbacks.
I'm here on behalf of Randy and then who is the property
manager for budget self storage.
I occupy unit 110.
I don't know if you remember from the slideshow unit 110
was originally for retail sales for car stereo equipment
that was allowed to be sold and installed on facility.
My business moved in a direction to where buddies, friends,
hey, can you change my brakes?
Hey, can you put a starter on my car?
Unknowing to zoning and neighborhood residential multi use.
I had no idea what any of this meant.
I thought my CEO was just permission for me to be there.
I've been in businesses where it's on the wall, their
certificate of occupancy will say North Texas car audio and
on the sign out on the building, it says auto sound.
I didn't know the difference between any of this until 2017
.
Unlike 111 who was denied a CEO for automotive repair and
then changed to storage and operated another repair shop.
I didn't that him him in what he has done in the cars that
are piled up around the place.
Look bad for me in one of the pictures with all the cars.
That's a totally separate piece of property that doesn't
have anything to do with the property that's highlighted in
the property that has the for the special use for sweet 110
and 111.
The property that was showed with a bunch of cars stored on
it is commercial property is rented from the owner.
And it doesn't have anything to do with budget self storage
property and especially use permit.
Although some of the cars are from him or whatever, that's
an entire separate piece of property.
I'm here because Randy, the manager had prior engagement
before this date was set.
And so I had to come in this place.
It's actually better that I'm here because I probably
answer more questions.
Another concern that you may have with two shops.
And more cars, I would like to address too, because from my
understanding, the other automotive shop owner will not be
there much longer.
He's behind on his rent, has no way to come up with it, and
he's probably not going to be there much longer.
So it's only going to be me.
My CEO that I got was from March of 2010.
That's why it says 2010 on there.
But I was in the building next door before that one for six
months.
So I've actually been there nine years with no complaints
and no problems.
I can fit eight vehicles inside the building.
So there should never be any time where I have vehicles
stored outside of the building.
All the vehicles that are stored out there right now, I
mean, we can -- I do have a few over there.
I'm not saying it's all him.
I do have a few over there, but a lot of it is him.
But all that can be taken care of if need be and then come
back and vote or whatever you -- however you were talking
about that.
Commissioner Gruner.
And that was going to be my question because right now the
recommendation is a denial.
So based on what you're saying, that there are some factors
in terms of the other parties involved that may change and
may make this a little bit easier to go through,
my understanding would be that probably if this would be
amenable,
would it be something that you'll be open to do to
basically kind of retract this right now,
and then maybe add some details in order that we've
discussed tonight that would make us more likely to vote
yes?
Because my understanding is that if we go through the
denial, that would create delays in terms of you getting an
approval in the future.
And I don't think anyone on here is particularly excited
about creating a situation which a local business owner
maybe put out
or just a sort of delight to get the details sorted out
would be beneficial for you.
I mean, me and the manager of the property have both spent
money and jumped through hoops and trying to do everything
possible to make this work.
And I don't know basically within a month if my neighbor is
still going to be there or not.
And he's the one that's causing a lot of problems for me
because I'm not a dirty guy.
I don't litter up the place. I don't park all the cars down
the road.
That road of parking that was in front of the building that
showed every parking spot taken, there's probably four cars
out there right now.
I would say there's at least eight parking spots available
right now.
And two of the cars belong to a guy that rents a storage
unit farther down that doesn't have anything to do with
either one of our businesses,
but he has two cars parked out there. You know what I mean?
So as far as me and my footprint over there, it's not going
to be noticed if he moves out because it's his problem.
You know what I mean? And I have two spots.
I actually have two spots in the back of the facility that
are rented parking spots.
And I have a 22 acre lot that I can put cars on if need be.
So just for clarification, that motion would leave the
public hearing open and we can continue to a date certain
of November 14th if the commission wanted to exercise that
option.
But it looks like we have some other questions or
discussions. Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Haney. Appreciate you
coming forward.
And I'm sorry the other guy isn't here now. Your is Haney's
garage.
Correct. Okay. And you're in suite 110. 110. So you're not
at the very end.
Okay. And what is it again that you do? You started out
wanting to do something and now you've gotten into
something bigger.
Okay. So I own a stereo shop in McKinney, Texas from 98 to
05.
In 05 I got broke into. I didn't have insurance. I lost
everything.
So then I moved my business back here and just started
doing mobile a little bit at a time because I didn't have
the money.
I got enough money to open another shop. The storage units
were available. A buddy of mine knew the guy that rented
them.
And so I opened a stereo shop and I was doing good for a
little while making money. And then it just died off.
So all my buddies in the business went to home audio, home
theater and all that stuff. I didn't go that route.
And next thing I know, hey, this buddy is asking me to put
brakes on his car. This guy's asking me to do a starter or
an alternator or.
So you were initially just servicing audio. Correct. We
were actually. They're in the shop. They bring the car in.
We put neon lights under the car. We do TV screens in the
headrest, stereo speakers, amplifiers.
Some of the jobs would take us six, eight hours to get them
all wired up and installed.
Okay. Were you at that time, were you able not able to do
the jobs that day so they leave the car overnight or were
you just doing some custom jobs?
Yes. Took two to three days. Okay. Where were you leaving
those cars? Inside the facility.
Inside. Okay. You say you can put up to eight vehicles in
there.
Between the two shops. Yes. Between the two shops means.
Correct. So between between both of our shops, we can fit
eight vehicles inside.
Okay. Well, if he's going to close down, then that'll just
leave you. How many can you get in? If he closes, then I
would take over.
Okay. So right now, how many can you get into suite 110? In
110? Yeah. I can squeeze five, but four comfortably.
Okay. There's normally four cars. Okay.
Well, I'm glad you explained yourself. I wanted to give you
an opportunity to explain, you know, how.
I just want to explain how it evolved into what it is. It
looked like it was a deliberately deceptive mood when you
got your CO, but I, you know, based on what you've said now
that.
It just evolved into what it is. And at the time, this is
my first time to ever be in any kind of meeting like this.
It's really been after what went ahead of me. It's whoa.
Yeah. Okay. So here's Mike. I was out there today and there
were cars out front.
Probably not as bad as on her videos, but that empty lot
had, you know, I've got pictures of it here, had at least
two dozen vehicles. How many of those were yours?
I mean, to be quite honest, I rent that lot from Billy
Stevens.
Oh, you do? Yes, sir. Okay. So there's an understanding.
There's an understanding there.
That you can put the majority of those vehicles were on
gravel with no grass. The rains that have come through. I
have a guy that comes through in most just to keep the city
office back.
But the rains that came through the grass has grown through
all the gravel and it looks like they're just parked on
grass. Now some of Mr. Melton's my neighbor.
Some of his cars are parked on the grass. I actually own
probably four to six of those cars that I'll be taking home
this week or within the next week.
There's probably only about three cars, maybe four cars
over there that are customers that need to be worked on and
the rest of them are mountains.
Okay, so explain to us how you're going to meet the
criteria if we approve this, the condition that you will
meet the minimum. A lot of what's on that lot right now is
not stuff that it's stuff that's been accumulated over time
that hasn't been dealt with because it didn't have to be
dealt with.
So how are we moving those out? How are we getting rid of
those? I actually have been no towing on retainer. I can
call them and have them tow anything for me at any time and
I pay the bill at the end of the week.
So some of them will be towed back to the owner's house.
Some of those vehicles were towed in and it's jobs that I
don't do or jobs that they can't afford to do.
And so I have just allowed them to sit there instead of
saying, hey, no, you have to pick up your car. It can't
stay here, you know, or I'm gonna have to charge stores or
vice versa. You know what I mean?
Sure. Some of those have been there for quite a while and
that lot's been cleaned off before. There was a time in the
past where a letter got sent in and Billy said, hey,
everything's got to come off the lot.
And the whole lot got cleaned and two customers didn't pick
up their cars and those cars got towed off. So he
essentially didn't care until somebody else complained.
Correct. He's okay with it.
But moving forward, I want to focus more on shocks, struts,
brakes, you know, just in and out jobs. You know, I don't
want any cars coming in that need major work that are going
to take, you know, days or a week to fix or anything like
that.
I've already had two transmission jobs lately that I sent
out that I just, I'm not, I want to get away from any major
engine or transmission repair and just stick with the
basics and get them in and out, in and out.
Because what I'm running into is I'm a small shop and I
have one helper. It's me. When I'm not there, I'm closed.
So what I'm running into on some of the other bigger jobs
that are coming in, it's taken too much time to complete
this job, where I've got three or four customers that have
showed up with little short jobs that we could have done in
that amount of time.
And the money on the big jobs is not an issue. I would
rather just have more customers in and out in and out, then
to be working on one big job all day.
Okay, here's my concern going forward. I was just off the
bat, ready to deny this thing. I'm glad you explained
yourself a little bit better. But going forward, I'm not
sure that we can, you know, hold to the notion that this
other guy is going to close up.
Because if he doesn't, then he keeps causing problems.
Well, I don't know how big a factor that is.
Well, the problem is parking. If he's not, if he's got a
lot of cars out there.
Right. I don't, I don't know how big a factor that is.
Because I mean there's, there's already an arrangement and
an agreement for me to take over it when winning if he
leaves and my understanding talking to him.
And what he's telling me he's moving to back to his house
to his shop. Okay. And shutting down his business before
Thanksgiving. Okay, that's my understanding, regardless of
whether he does or not, you're telling us that you can get
those cars off that lot.
And abide by the minimum parking by obviously putting up to
eight vehicles in two suites. Correct. And then you have
access to two parking spaces out front. Two parking spots
in the back that are rented.
Okay. Okay.
Well that to me, you know, the criteria and I guess we're
gonna go get rid of number two there. Is that what I'm
understanding going to attach it.
Okay.
Let's. Okay, great.
Thank you, sir.
So before we get to Commissioner Smith, I'm going to
question or Sanchez.
I guess, I think you already answered my question but.
So if you take over the other shop, it'll give you eight
eight locations, I mean eight eight spots. Yes. And then
outside you'll have what four or two.
Two per business. That's basically up to the CEO, because I
would have to reapply for a new CEO under the special use
permit.
Well based on the existing parking you had 12. And so I don
't know how many offices you have in that total.
Right now he has three parking spaces and Melton's has four
parking spaces. So if he moves, are you going to stay in
your current suite and then go into the other suite as well
?
I would rent it for additional parking and just additional.
So he would have.
I wouldn't have to front doors or two offices the office
would stay shut I would stay where I'm at now, and just use
the space.
He would have seven spaces seven spaces there.
Okay. And then you also have a location where you can take
vehicles to.
Correct. I'm 22 acres that I can park.
Okay. And that are not in the city of Denton or the county
of Denton.
Okay.
And you said you currently were renting the adjacent lot to
park.
Yeah, I, I have an agreement to keep the lawn and
everything in compliance for the city of Denton to be able
to park cars there.
I can park vehicles on the gravel there, as long as I keep
everything mode and keep it up to code. So there's no
problem.
And everything was up to code until the other repair shop
has cars parked all over the grass and not on the gravel.
But I can make all those disappear it's not a problem it's
just never been a problem until now and now this problem I
can make it disappear.
I don't have to have a lot. I just use it because it's
convenient.
Chris Smith.
I'd like to motion to table the vote on that's 18 dash 0002
a reason for that would be.
There's a lot sounds like a lot of a lot of promises a lot
of things that need to be done.
A lot of things that don't necessarily can't be put into a
condition for an approval.
You know, like, I wouldn't want to see it come back in
front of us until the guy who's about to leave is going to
be gone.
That's how big a factor is that because the pretty manager
the manager of the property seems to think that he didn't
even want me to mention that.
But I feel like I need to mention it because it's it's more
than likely going to happen.
And he's afraid that he was afraid he didn't want me to
mention that he might be leaving because he was afraid that
this would start the whole process over again.
No, no, no.
It's not. I'd say that the if you're saying that he's the
he's the main main reason why there's the parking issue,
which is the pretty much I'd say probably the biggest the
biggest issue as a council.
He has a question. Is that is that is that that's the
parking issue that I'd like to see the parking issue
resolved or at least a plan put together rather than
something we just kind of discuss here willy nilly before
we put up an approval.
And so I'd really like to see some some actual slip solid
ified that. Yep. He's he's out X date. These cars are going
to be moved off this lot and we have an agreement that that
lot will stay empty.
And if they're not, then the CEO has has the right to be
pulled. And those kinds of things are are I think Jerry's
probably going to yell at me.
No, they're looking at me. Okay. But just I don't know. I
don't feel like I don't feel like it's this is giving a
definite enough of an answer. And so I'd like to table it.
City staff and you work together and the owner work
together come back and give some more definite. These
things cannot happen. If that's it, then okay.
We'll vote on it then. That's my question. Mr. Smith. Are
you give the date certain of the 28th. Yes, sir.
And do you think number 28th is okay to come back. Yes.
Okay.
Everything is supposed to happen within that time. Perfect.
Yeah. So we can kick the can for a little bit then.
So we have a first with Commissioner Smith and Christian
Pernetta.
Yeah, as it stands, I don't think I could approve it. But
if he were to come back in a month with, you know, more
definite plans. Yes, I'd second to this.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Haney, thank you
for coming out and staying in this epic meeting that we're
in.
Yeah, I mean, the issue is certainly the 28 cars or
whatever is parked down there right now. I mean, that is
not okay.
Certainly does not help us try to get this approved. So,
you know, it's not that we're trying to put you out of
business.
You've just been operating a business that's not allowed.
Right. So trying to work with that, you're going to have to
work on that other end.
So by tabling this gives you some time. But those cars have
got to be gone because part of the everything in my control
will be gone because part of the condition of this.
But it's both suites. So whether he's gone or not, I mean,
if he if he leaves and cars are left behind, then I'll have
them towed off.
Yeah, the property owner or what have you. But I mean, it's
it's both of these suites.
One of the conditions is going to be you can't even park
cars overnight there outside anywhere, not even on the two
in front would be part of this condition overnight.
They're going to have to be indoors somewhere. So I think
all of us would probably need to see some effort going
forward to show that you could actually comply with that.
I generally don't leave cars out overnight. Right. Right.
Well, but there's 28 of them sitting there overnight.
I'm talking about the part of this condition that we're
talking about is from the business standpoint, moving
forward and how it would operate.
And so I wouldn't leave customer cars like I own a few of
those cars. I bought them from customers and just never did
anything with them.
But in the future, I wouldn't do that. You know what I mean
? I understand that that's part of your business.
That's just what happens in the mechanics world. But they
can't be parked on a vacant lot like they are.
Well, on a proof service, they were fine through code. But
I'm not arguing the fact I'll make that disappear if I can
stay.
You know what I mean? I think this helps. At the time, they
were parked on the approved service.
It doesn't give you a denial right now, which is I think
where this was probably going to head. And then that doesn
't help you.
So, thank you. Krischer Smith. Yeah, I'm totally okay with
having a motion for approval in November 28th.
After we table it and see some progress. It's just that if
we deny you now, you're kind of up a creek without a paddle
. If we approve you now, we have no definite that changes
are going to happen.
And if they don't happen, then it's going to become a code
enforcement issue.
And the last thing we want to have to do is have a local
business has to tussle with code enforcement.
And we just said, oh, yeah, we'll do it. Just go ahead and
get it done, whatever. Rather say, just table it, come back
, say, hey, we got all this stuff moved around. These things
have been done.
This guy's out of here. He's the one. He's the joker. He's
been jacked around my cars that I bought that have been
sitting out there. They're now on my 22 acre lot. Everyone
's on the same page.
Yeah, we'll give you we'll give you your approval to do
that. That's what I want. I want to get everything fixed
before.
Because if I had if he's gone and I have room to park eight
vehicles inside, I'm not going to be doing eight motor jobs
at the same time where I have no place to park a car and I
got to park cars out front.
You know what I mean? I'll have eight spaces that there may
be one car that I got to order brake pads for that it's
special brakes or special shocks and I got to keep it
overnight or two cars.
But there's never going to be more than eight vehicles at
one time.
You know what I mean?
So everything will be inside and everything will be
as requested
or as recommended
once everything is cleaned up. And if I may just as a point
of clarification, I'm assuming here that there's nothing
that this commission is saying is promising to abate any
enforcement if there's an ongoing violation.
You know that that's a completely separate issue. This
commission doesn't have authority to abate enforcement of a
code requirement. So I just for whatever's worth I think
with what the commission is saying is that if you force her
to a vote today is likely going to be denial.
But they'll give you an opportunity. But that doesn't mean
that there won't be people giving you tickets if you are
operating outside of the code requirements in the meantime.
Correct.
So we have a first and a second.
Seeing no other discussion I call for a vote on the board.
This is the table to date certain of November 28.
Motion carries seven zero. We'll see you next month. Thank
you.
Moves us to our matrix.
Anyone have anything else. Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry that
I do have something but it all has to do with this epic
meeting. Richard if there's anything you can do to get some
of these lake view issues.
Up to the forefront of some kind of discussion. I mean
clearly Lakeview Boulevard needs to be looked at. And so
please if you could get that in front of where it needs to
go sooner rather than later.
Already started. Thank you. And then the other thing is if
D.I.S.D. is consulted on a project could we please get some
of that in our in our backup material if there is some
input there.
I think that would be important to know especially for
these larger projects that come before us.
So if there is something to offer by them that that they
have been you know contacted certainly if they've given
input that would be great too. Thank you.
I got one thing that this meeting has brought to light for
me and that's is there any like training we can do for like
Robert's rule of order in terms of decorum stuff that was
going on tonight.
I felt wholly inadequate to know how to engage in some of
the one off banter or the laughing or the threats of that
we're deceiving people. I appreciate that.
But there is there's times where where an individual called
a commissioner out and it led to like the sidebar thing and
I think it's really I'd be really interested to know. And
this could be a sidebar just for me personally unless other
people want to know like some chair training.
I would just like to know like what's expected of me as a
chair and what my authority how far can it go because I was
about to call some cop I was about to get him. I didn't
thankfully but so any any information I get about like how
to that's because that's the first time I've engaged.
It's a lively group.
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. The before City
Council meetings that they play the video about the decorum
and the manner in which you talk to City Council and I
brought to Jerry and I actually mentioned to Jerry after
the accusation started.
And that's the reason why I gave the tongue-lashing that I
did was because we don't we don't sit up here and work as
as Matt just brought up we've been here for 10 hours by the
way I've been here nine and a half because I showed up.
Yeah, don't call it.
The, I guess my check would just be that much smaller.
But, but but but but video video just that they play for
City Council play it again for even planning and zoning
because we do have these heated exchanges happen between us
so that, hey, do not don't call out a commissioner and if
you, if you do that is grounds for removal from, from the
chambers that that's, I would I would feel, I would feel
better and as Larry applicant.
Yeah, or look, yeah, making making you can't you can't
address, you can't address anybody except for the council
and you can only address the council and hole you cannot
address anybody else in the crowd or the applicant or
anything like that.
And you know as Larry joked around but it's very true
because who knows the next time we have another heated
argument like this.
I wonder how many of those people are going to be outside
waiting for us by our cars but Larry said I said, well, you
know, I mean we never know we never know who might be not
be really really mad.
I put that on the matrix to make that done in the future.
Well, and the point I made in response to your suggestion
was that it was kind of difficult to change horses in the
middle of the street because we had already set the
standard of engaging directly with the people who came up
to the microphone.
And, you know, entertaining their questions on the spot to
staff to others, you know, asking the applicant to come up
and answer a question directly what have you.
There was maybe Andrew's training would be would be
definitely needed that's that we, as commissioners would
know then so we don't engage in that increase of sort of
precedence, and it definitely.
From my perspective, went a lot more smoothly to hold the
questions and and and sort of the directions to staff until
the end so that we can accumulate them all together and not
, you know, that seemed to kind of encourage that behavior
of asking questions directly to the commission
to staff directly to the applicant. You know when it was
initially invited by the commission got it. Understood. So
it's our fault sorry Jerry.
Thank you, Chair, just on your point about Roberts rules I
know that attorney Richard Hayes gave a great presentation
to city council on Roberts rules, I don't know if that
would be something that could be done for us but I think it
would benefit all of us.
I assume that Richard won't have any problem if we adapt it
to our needs it's about 60 slides long.
So I don't know if it would be possible to trim that a bit
but that would be my suggestion anyway.
Great.
So I got anything.
Yeah, just wanted to make one thing that I'm going to try
to do for each meeting.
We had talked earlier today about just notification when
there's the neighborhood meetings.
So, so as I started to think through listing to everything
what I'm going to try to do is at least might just be a
short memo with each packet. Since we do meet every two
weeks, I don't think anything will lag in between, but just
to give you an update on.
So here's all of the upcoming neighborhood meetings related
to projects that are that are moving forward. But then in
addition, just kind of letting everybody know what what was
the result of any items that were recommendation from the
commission to city council.
And then we'll just go through that and see if there's
anything that's changed or, or just just to make sure
everyone's in the loop. So I thought it would just be
easier that way rather than calling her individually. I'll
just include include that memo and certainly got questions.
Call or email. However, it's easier for you.
If that works.
Meeting at 1 57am October 25.