Good evening and thank you for holding a little bit.
We run a little behind but welcome to the plan and zoning work session meeting for November
14th.
We'll open the work session at 415 and work through the agenda.
First I'll ask if there's any clarification to the agenda from Richard that we need to
go over or highlight.
Perfect.
So first up we'll go to the consent agenda item.
There's four items, nope, three items there.
Is there any questions on any of those items that we need to bring up?
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I do have one quick question about the FP-1805.
Can I invite Haley up?
Looking at, and you don't need to bring anything up, looking at the Google map there, there's
a big old natural water tank.
Is that, is that gone away or is that still there and if it's still there are they working
around it?
Are you referring to the pond that's on the property?
Yes.
That, the existing pond is slightly off site from where this project is, but it is kind
of being worked around for this project and another one and will be modified as they develop
when they'll be providing onsite detention to kind of replace that existing pond.
Okay, okay, but they're going to be building around it.
Yes, that's correct.
Thanks.
Thanks, Haley.
Is there any other questions about the consent agenda?
I think we're good.
With that, we'll go to individual consideration, which is the calendar.
We can talk about it briefly.
Is there any dates or any concerns from anyone regarding the calendar?
Yes, Commissioner Ellis, sorry.
Thank you, Chair.
Just an observation.
We only have one meeting scheduled in July.
Typically we have two.
Is that, was that on purpose?
Is that okay?
It was just with the holidays lining it up and then adjusting every other, so it was
almost going to play out that it was going to happen at one month or we were going to
have almost back-to-back meetings as we, you know, and so we just kind of kept it at kind
of with the normal schedule.
Okay, because it looked like it worked okay before.
It's just, it must be on the back end then of the calendar.
If I recall correctly.
Okay.
Just curious.
Mr. Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm just curious why we went from the second and fourth Wednesday to the first and third
Wednesday, too.
Silence.
You know, when we first joined it was the first and third and then it switched to the
second and fourth and now it's, I think, back.
It's been a while, but is that what it's going to be now, first and third Wednesday?
Evidently.
Yeah, that's what we are.
Unless you want to.
Okay.
Looking at the council schedule.
It appears to be.
There wasn't any particular reason why we...
Okay.
I wonder if council changed something because we usually meet with council or the Wednesday
after council.
Okay.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you.
Actually, it looks like it jumps throughout, depending on the month.
Pardon me?
It looks like it jumps.
I mean, you got second and fourth, you know.
Because of the holidays.
Yeah.
You got to work around that.
Yeah.
I know spring break gets us in there.
Probably some holidays, so.
I was looking at May and I thought, okay, it's spring break, but then it continued on
after that.
Yeah.
January because it was the day after.
Yeah.
And I think that date had already been set.
And then it was essentially first and third with the exception of July.
I thought you guys were just trying to throw me off.
I've got to adjust to this now.
All right.
Thanks.
Perfect.
We'll consider the vote in public session, so if anything comes up between now and then,
we'll certainly make sure that I think Commissioner Smith will be here to weigh in if that needs
to be discussed further.
Moving on to public hearing, item A, that has been postponed once again.
So we hope to hear that later this month.
Same with B, that's been withdrawn completely.
And then that'll move us to items C and then subsequently D. But the first one would be
the zoning 180022 and Ron can take it away.
Great.
Thank you, Chair, members of the commission.
Hold this up real quick.
This is the rezoning requests for a property located just south of Mingo, west of Mockingbird,
as shown on this exhibit, this slide.
The request is to go from a zoning district of NRMU 12 to NRMU.
The proposed zoning change is to allow for more density.
Back earlier this year, there was a submittal for a specific use permit, which staff reviewed.
Looking at the site plan, it was determined that the density would not fit or would not
be allowed under the NRMU 12, therefore the applicant has requested a zoning change to
NRMU.
The site is approximately 9.91 acres, and again, the general location is just south
of Mingo and east, I'm sorry, west of Mockingbird.
Looking at the future land use designation of the area, you see that there is moderate
residential along this swath of area, south of the railroad tracks.
You've got community mixed use to the north, and to the south of the area is N residential,
low residential, right here.
The intent for moderate residential is for four to 12 dwelling units per acre, small detached
houses.
Small homes and multi-family are permitted, but at a lower density.
The idea here is to maintain the scale and orientation of the area.
It serves as a transition to zoning from low to moderate to a little bit more intense uses,
so that's the intent as far as the future land use designation is presented.
So this slide here illustrates the comparison between what is existing NRMU 12 and what
it will be if it was to be approved, which is NRMU, so just a mapping slide that shows
the difference.
As you all know, there are two criteria in which the Planning Zoning Commission uses
per the development code that the proposed rezoning conforms with the future land use
element of the Den Plan 2030.
There is an analysis in your backup that kind of covers the intent, again, of the future
land use element, specifically the moderate residential.
In addition, the zoning change request also should be reviewed against its ability or
the zoning ability to facilitate the adequate provision for infrastructure such as transportation,
water, sewer, schools, and other public requirements and convenience.
So we further, as the two criteria state, we looked at the future land use element and,
again, residential moderate.
We discussed earlier, four to 12 dwelling units, low-rise multifamilies are permitted,
and again, the idea there is to complement the surrounding area, primarily in planning
terms is a way of providing a transition or buffer to more intense uses.
In cases where the land use or the zoning does not fit the future land use designation
such as moderate residential, staff has the ability to look at a criteria of what do we
look at, and this is a list of what we look at.
In some instances, it was clear that it would not fit within the future land use designation
of moderate residential.
I'm not going to go through all of this, but this, again, is a list that we looked into
when we considered proposing a recommendation.
For the analysis, we also looked at off-street compatibility.
One of the things that we want to make sure is that this zoning district would be compatible
with the surrounding area and the uses that go with that zoning district.
So again, to orient you to the area, if you already know it, Mingo to the north, you've
got University to the further northeast, Loop 288 is to the east here, and then Audre is
the main street to the south, Mockingbird follows this line in this general area here.
We've got a number of residential subdivisions in the area, Bel Air North directly south,
Oak Ridge east of the property, further east is Audre Heights, further south is the East
Hampton Village subdivision.
Also to the west, we have the Shiloh Fields, and then Woodlands of Denton, which is a multifamily
development to the west, further west.
I concentrated this analysis or this review based just south of the railroad, just because
the railroad north is a little bit more intense, what we're trying to do is see how it's compatible
to the south.
And so that's why you see the names of these subdivisions just primarily to the south.
Understanding that the proposal is for multifamily and the rezoning is for NRMU, I pulled in
information for the Woodlands of Denton, this was a rezoning back in 2012.
It was approved from NR6 and NRMU 12 to NRMU, it's currently zoned NRMU.
Along with that was a specific use permit, which was approved with conditions following
that in February of 2013.
Again, the subdivision, or I'm sorry, the multifamily development, as you can see, is
two to three stories, it's approximately 19.87 acres, and their general density is around
15.9 dwelling units per acre.
Just to give you some context of what's in the area, again, that's the Woodlands of Denton
to the west.
Outside of that, all of the areas to the south and east are primarily single family, approximately
four, maybe four and a half dwelling units per acre.
Mobility-wise, the area is shown here, is bordered to the east with a collector, which
is Mockingbird, Lane to the north is Mingo, and then further north is Old North as it
turns, and then University shown here in red.
It's important to note that all of the streets that surround this property or abut this property
are not to its roadway classification, which is Mockingbird is a collector.
It doesn't qualify as a collector right now because of the condition, it's a two-lane
collector is a little bit more wider.
The secondary arterial, which is Mingo Road, as you all know, it's still a two-lane, two-divided
roadway.
It will probably be a modified arterial because of the railroad, but again, it's not built
to what it's currently classified as.
So we further took an analysis of the area.
Traffic infrastructure improvements, this is typically done through platting, but we
did some analysis, and there is adequate services in the area as far as water and sewer.
Transportation, we asked the applicant to prepare a TIA in order to provide answers
as to what impacts this proposed development would be, or this zoning would be, and the
traffic mitigations that were identified by our traffic engineers to meet the need for
the area and not to create more impacts as far as level of services have been met, and
they, being the applicants, have incorporated those mitigation measures as part of their
site plan, and you have a copy of their site plan and their landscape plan.
The other things that we looked at, of course, when you're going from an NRMU 12 to an NRMU
zoning district is the permitted uses, and of course, with NRMU, they're going to have,
if approved, more uses permitted, more intense uses, and these are just examples, bless you.
Bars, drive-through facilities, hotels, quick vehicle services, restaurants, bakeries, all
of which is not permitted currently in the NRMU 12.
Similarly, general regulations, the NRMU has a little bit more regulations that are not
as restrictive as the NRMU 12, as you can imagine, in terms of maximum density.
The density for NRMU 12 is 12, the density for NRMU is 30.
Maximum lot coverage, I believe it's 65, and its NRMU is 80.
Maximum height is 40, and NRMU is 65.
We kind of went over this briefly already.
It's staff's determination that the proposed zoning is not consistent or does not conform
with the future land use element in terms of dwelling use per acre.
They are proposing 26.7, where the moderate residential in our comp plan states 4 to 12,
thereby creating an outlet scale or character to the surrounding area.
There was a neighborhood meeting that the applicant held on October 30th.
There was not many people there.
There was one person there.
I attended the meeting.
You have a summary of the meeting notes that was provided by the applicant.
It's consistent.
We the consultants presented to this one member of the community and answered all their questions,
all his questions.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I saw that there was only one person there.
Did you talk to the one who was there and did -- what was the -- it was obviously sent
out.
It was over 500 feet.
Did he say when he got notification of it, why was it so poorly attended?
Could you get an idea?
Was there poor timing on the notification of it?
Was it not very clearly worded?
Did anybody say anything about that?
>> I didn't ask him directly, but I've received phone calls since this was published.
And the response that I received was that they received and they weren't prepared to
attend.
And so either it was poor timing and/or maybe they just weren't available.
I was obviously shocked when I walked in and there was just one person.
Actually I was there before that one person.
But you know, folks, you know, are busy.
But other than that, I believe they were notified in time.
I know that the applicant did try hard to set up the meeting and I don't think it was
poorly notified.
I think it was just -- people are just busy.
They were also maybe trick-or-treating.
>> Just one more, I'm sorry.
The notification, you know, it did go into, you know, the apartments across the way.
And you know, mainly we're -- I guess we're probably going to hear from citizens tonight
that are in the neighborhood that are just to the south of it.
But since it was only sent to property owners, I'm assuming that the residents of the tenants
of the apartments across the way didn't.
>> Which apartments were you talking about?
>> It's -- I think they're called Village East.
They're right there.
Right there.
You go right across the street.
>> Yes, they were also.
>> The property owners got the notification.
>> Not the residents.
Correct.
>> The property owner probably doesn't live there.
>> Sorry.
I was like, I don't remember typing Village East because it was to the north.
>> No, no, yeah.
Just to note that part.
>> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
>> Right there.
All right.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate it.
>> Commissioner Pernetta.
>> No.
My point was kind of what you're about to say.
I mean, I am noticing that this went out.
We had only one person attend.
This kind of butts up against several houses that I would assume have, you know, families
living in there and this seems to be timed exactly when everybody would be taking their
kids trick-or-treating.
>> Well, I think it was maybe in the notice or the meeting note, it said November -- October
31st, but it was actually the Tuesday, October 30th.
So it was not during Halloween.
I know that because I was trick-or-treating.
>> You personally?
>> Me personally.
>> Thank you for clarifying.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> On the back of that, where is the courtyard, Mary, located at?
Is that the one over on my ropes?
>> By Brinker and I-35.
>> Okay.
>> Which is about ten minutes away from here.
>> Okay.
Yeah, the location probably wasn't ideal either, but -- okay, thanks.
>> As part of the notification requirements for a public hearing, the newspaper notice
was published.
There were 24 notices sent to property owners within 200 feet, 86 to residents within 500
feet of the subject site.
As you can see, two posted signs were posted by the applicant.
As of this afternoon, we did receive a lot of comments, emails, phone calls, emails that
you have in front of you.
However, our GIS folks, what they did was review the actual addresses and determined
that only two were within the 200 foot, and that only represents 2%.
The map here shows some of the responses that we receive, and they are outside of that 200
foot, therefore, they're not counted under the 200 foot buffer.
So, again, helps illustrate the one house here is in opposition, Kent and then over
here, Brian Cooley, I believe, also is in opposition.
Staff recommends denial of the zoning change requests based on the three considerations,
and that is the density and scale, the more intense uses permitted or allowed under the
NRMU, and then the more, less restrictive general regulations that is afforded under
the NRMU zoning district.
That completes my presentation.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> Yeah, before I go to Commissioner Smith, just as a point of order, tonight, unlike
two weeks ago, what we'll be doing is taking the zoning and SUP as two separate, so citizens
will be able to hear the presentation for zoning, they'll speak on that zoning, and
then we'll vote, and then we'll have the SUP come up, and then they'll have the opportunity
to re-speak, so we'll bifurcate those two out, so Ron will provide one presentation
in part A and then part B, just as a way of knowing what's going to go on in the public
hearing.
Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I guess something to add on to that, just to, I guess, as commissioners, we know what happened,
you know, two weeks ago was a long meeting, I think that was a lot of interaction with
every single citizen who came and brought things, I guess, maybe just a point if I can
make a recommendation, a reminder that maybe just let everyone talk, and then we'll slowly,
I guess, do the same thing we did last time, we just collect questions for applicant, collect
questions for city staff, and then ask them all at the very end so we don't bog things
down with people coming back and forth, but the question I had for Ron was, as you guys
were working through with the applicant, and he's looking at this project and he's bringing
it to you guys, he's working with the planning department, I mean, you guys are making a
denial, and so I always like to ask whenever you guys do recommend a denial, because it
is rare, but you guys are obviously telling me at this point in time, like, you're going
to have a really hard time with this project, right, and you're giving the applicant.
Well, we had some hard time thinking about the recommendation, we take it very seriously,
and so it was really towards the end, you know, when we were considering our recommendations,
and we just could not get past the more than 12 units per acre, and as you can see, they
did a lot of work with regards to the traffic and a lot of the site planning, which we did
work on, but I think opening it up to 30 units per acre was just something that we felt we
need to recommend a denial.
Okay.
Yeah.
All right, thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Would I be right in assuming that if we don't pass the zone change, we don't need to vote
on an SUP?
We'd still vote on an SUP, because we have to provide a recommendation to Council.
I think that the vote of the SUP would be kind of a de facto vote, but it'd still be
opportunity to be heard, and we'll vote on it.
Okay.
Thanks.
Yeah.
Any other questions for the zoning portion of this?
Perfect.
We'll get into the SUP portion.
Okay.
So the SUP, same location, we haven't moved.
The purpose of the specific use permit is to allow for a multifamily dwelling use.
The applicant is proposing approximately 267 dwelling units on the 9.91 acres.
That will consist of 11 three-story buildings, a clubhouse, a pool, and 488 associated parking
spaces, again, complying with the parking requirements that we have in place.
This is a preliminary site plan of the multifamily.
You've got the clubhouse and pool north along the railroad tracks.
This is Mockingbird.
They'll have three accesses, one right in only on the northern portion, and then there'll
be one right in, right out, as well as a left turn, and then also a second or third access
further south.
As you can see, a lot of what's being proposed is improvements along Mockingbird to help
alleviate some of the traffic that this proposed multifamily will produce.
The 11 buildings you see here are shown throughout the site with the parking.
Commissioner Beck.
I'm sorry, Ron.
Thanks, Chair.
You said where was the third entrance?
So here's one entrance up here.
Right.
And then here's one here.
Right.
And then down here.
Further south.
Oh, okay.
What street is it?
Or is that just an entrance?
That's all along Mockingbird.
All three along Mockingbird.
Is that a streetcar, or is that just an entrance into the development?
That's just an entrance into the development.
Okay.
I didn't catch that on the plan.
And then just a budding that is the single-family residential.
Right.
Thanks.
In addition, it's really hard to see.
You have a copy of the landscape plan in front of you.
I apologize for the quality.
This is the landscape plan.
Again, they will meet the required landscape requirements, street canopy, and also buffering
requirements as shown here.
This is an elevation of what this development will look like from Mockingbird.
A portion of it.
Not all of it.
But you see the pool house or the clubhouse.
And then this is what will be seen again from Mockingbird.
Criteria for approval for a specific use permit is specified under subchapter six, which is
our specific use permit, as well as what is proposed, or I'm sorry, what is the purpose
and intent of the dam plan 2030.
Primarily the section 3564 criteria approval talks about conformance to all standards,
as well as compatible with the surrounding area.
We already talked about the surrounding area.
We don't need to go into that.
You can see that there's mainly single family to the south and southeast.
There is a multi-family to the west.
And we talked already about its density and its proposal or project.
Staff prepared a similar analysis.
That analysis is in your backup, but I just want to just highlight some of the high factors
in our decision of determining the recommendation.
We look at the future land use element, how it fits within the character of the area.
Does it provide adequate capacity for public infrastructure?
Again, the TIA, which in all instances with any rezoning that has a lot of traffic demand,
we always want to make sure we have a traffic impact analysis.
And then, of course, with the SGP, how can it be improved through the preliminary site
plan and landscape plan, all of which is reviewed with regards to the list that you see here.
Again, similarly, we noticed this or they held a meeting to not just talk about the
zoning, but to also talk about the specific use permit, and there was just one person
in attendance.
We noticed this together, similar results.
We only had two in opposition within the 200-foot buffer area.
Staff is recommending denial, again, based on the density and scale of the subject multifamily
proposed development.
And that concludes my presentation.
-Kris, you're back.
-Thank you, Chair.
Clear front again for me, what they're planning on doing for traffic mitigation, got that
right turn-only lane up near the railroad tracks.
Was there something about what they were going to do to Mockingbird?
Is there going to be a...
-Yeah.
Center left turn lane.
Yes, I apologize.
I did not mention that.
-Okay.
It's a lane.
It's not going to be...
-It's not going to be...
-Raised.
-Correct.
-Okay.
-It's going to be a center lane along Mockingbird.
And my understanding is that it's just going to start from here all the way to where their
property ends.
-Okay.
So it's not going to be a transition...
-Not back up there at Audra?
-No.
That is not the direction.
-Okay.
Thank you.
-Any other questions?
Thanks, Ron.
-Thank you.
-Chief, I just wanted to maybe clarify the point earlier.
If the zoning case, if it is a denial to city council, they could still vote to approve
it.
And if that's the case, they would still need the SGP recommendation.
So that's why we need to keep the vote.
-Thank you for that clarification.
-Next up is item E, S18-8C.
I'll invite Haley up to present.
-All right.
Good evening.
This is case S18-8, the Windsor Drive Apartments.
So the request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation
to city council regarding a specific use permit request to allow a multifamily use on a site
that is approximately 31 acres located at the intersection of Windsor Drive and the
I-35 service road.
Looking at the zoning on the property, it is our neighborhood residential mixed use
district.
Within this district, multifamily is permitted either with an, actually with an SUP and with
limitation four, both of those are concurrent in this district.
Limitation four requires, as you're probably familiar with, that you either have an SUP
or be part of some sort of prior approval or a mixed use development.
So in this case, the ultimate goal is for a mixed use development, but they aren't necessarily
meeting the timing requirement of that.
They want the multifamily to come first and then the commercial.
So the SUP is required regardless in this instance.
As Ron just mentioned for an SUP or criteria for approval is essentially a compatibility
analysis between the surrounding properties and the requested use.
So Recharge was looking at things such as would this impede development of surrounding
properties?
Would it, will it have adequate parking?
Will it generate any traffic issues?
Are there any nuisances that need to be prevented on the site?
And then is there adequate compatibility in terms of buffering and as well as architectural
compatibility?
With this site, one of those initial pieces that we needed to look at in terms of compatibility
are the fact that there are two gas wells on the eastern adjoining property.
I've indicated the two sites here, you can see there's one well at each site.
The light purple color on the map is the boundaries of an existing gas well plot.
So when these wells were originally drilled back in the early 2000s, the operator plotted
the property at that time for gas well development.
So when surface development seeks to occur within a gas well plot, we look at whether
the operator has provided their consent for a surface development plot to be within the
boundaries of their gas well plot.
And then we also look at things like buffering and setbacks that are required by the code.
And we'll get into those a little bit more closely when we look at the site plan.
So this is the proposed site plan for the multifamily part of the development.
You can see that multifamilies intended to cover just under 17 acres of the site out
of the total 31.
So as I mentioned, they do intend for commercial development at some point along the frontage
road.
They're just not quite there yet.
The site as it's proposed would have a total of 336 dwelling units, a mix of one, two and
three bedroom units.
That would put them at a density of approximately 20.5 units per acre.
NRMU permits up to 30, so they're well within that.
You can see on the site there's a total of 16 buildings shown.
Each of those are a maximum of three stories, and it's just over 300,000 square feet total.
They are providing adequate parking.
They're meeting the surface parking requirements.
Some of the parking is provided in garages on the site.
And you can see there would be two primary access points, one from the frontage road,
and then another access point down here on Windsor.
And I mentioned earlier the gas well setbacks.
So these red outlines that you see on the map are the proposed setbacks that the surface
developer and the gas well operator have agreed to.
Mr. Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
That one well, I guess it's number two, the reverse setback is 250 feet if development
comes in after the well's there, right?
Correct.
Your circle on that looks like it's covering some houses there.
What's going on there?
That's correct.
So the gas well was originally platted in 2003.
At that time there were not reverse setbacks.
So when these homes came in shortly after that in 2004, 2005, there were no reverse
setbacks that could be imposed on those houses at that time.
So they had to go up to 2003 requirements.
Correct.
Yeah.
All of this well predates our existing code that has the 250 foot reverse setback.
Okay.
Then I guess is it well number one?
When was that?
Both of these gas wells came in at the same time in 2003.
Okay.
Haley, I would have expected well one to also have a circular diameter.
Can you tell me why it just straightens out?
Correct.
So what you see, if the mouse would work, this is the existing pad site.
I mentioned that in your backup that the developer and the gas well operator have been through
extensive negotiations over the past year on this.
The operator hopes that someday they could maybe expand that site and add additional
wells to it.
So the developer in this case agreed to honor the boundaries of the maximum pad site that
they could ever put there if they get that approved.
So what you see here, this red line is, and it's kind of cut off here.
This would be their hoped for future boundary of that pad site.
So they drew their 250 foot reverse setback from that ultimate goal that the gas well
operator has.
So from the meantime, they're well over 300 feet away from the existing pad site, which
is just this little gravel area that you could see here.
I got you.
Thank you.
So moving on to look at their landscape plan, the plan as they have it drawn shows approximately
50% lot coverage, 50% landscaping on the site.
So they're well within the 80% lot coverage maximum for NRMU.
You can see here they are intending to provide adequate buffers on all sides.
In particular, there is a type D buffer requirement here where they adjoin the gas well sites.
So that's required to be 30 feet wide with eight trees and 20 shrubs per 100 linear feet.
Their plans do indicate that they intend to follow our code provision to seek an alternative
buffer from the director.
They would like to, instead of just that landscaping, install a fence and a combination of trees
in this area, so that's something that you all can certainly weigh in on, but it is something
that the code allows the director to approve when they go through the full site plan process.
As you can see here, they would have adequate internal landscaping providing the required
parking lot trees as well as street trees along their internal street system.
And they do also intend to provide open space amenities throughout this area.
They indicated that could be picnic areas, grills, and sports facilities.
These are some sample elevations that have been provided to you, kind of a neutral color
palette with a mixture of stucco and other masonry materials such as hardy board and
hardy plank.
Just another example of some of the elevations.
There were several more included in your backup that are very similar in style.
So the future land use for this area is business innovation.
Within that area, we look for a mixture of office and employment type uses as well as
supporting commercial and residential uses.
As you can see here, this area is kind of a transition between the larger business innovation
area west of 35 and the low density residential and moderate residential that we see existing
and intended on the eastern side of 35.
So this site is kind of in a transitional zone and NRMU would fit well within that, or NRMU
does fit well within that, and the multifamily use would kind of provide that transition
from perhaps more intensive industrial uses on one side of the highway to commercial along
the frontage road and then into those single family homes.
Some of the other analysis that we did for the site, we did note that it doesn't immediately
adjoin single family, so the buffers that they're providing are more intensive than
what would be required if this were to back up immediately to those single family uses
because of the gas wells there.
The multifamily use is unlikely to generate any nuisances in terms of odors, fumes, noise
or glare on the neighboring property.
They are providing adequate parking and access and then the scale of development is well
within what we would expect to see in NRMU and actually what they've proposed is less
intensive than the maximum that could be built on the site.
Notification was sent out in all of the required forms for this project.
I received no written opposition to date.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting back in September.
There were approximately 20 people at that meeting I attended and there was some general
discussion of the type of product that would be built there and the future plans for commercial
development on the site, but overall no significant concerns were expressed at that time.
So outlined here as well as in your backup are kind of the requirements of this SUP based
on that site plan as submitted.
We thought it important in working with legal that we memorialize the details of that site
plan in the SUP ordinance itself so that those are part of the text and the requirements
of the SUP moving forward.
So you can see here we called out things such as the maximum acreage of the site being 17
out of the 31 acres, 16 buildings being indicated with the building footprint of just over 100,000
square feet, the 336 dwelling units with the density approximately 20.48, the required
number of parking spaces should be no less than the 629, they do have 632 as I mentioned
but some of those are within garages so they don't count against that maximum under our
code.
The lot coverage of 49% landscape area, 51% as well as calling out the required type D
buffer for the gas wells.
And then the sample elevations, because those are just a sample and the applicant may deviate
somewhat from those or seek to, we wanted to leave them some flexibility there but generally
meet the color palette and materials that were presented.
So with that, staff's recommendation is for approval of this SUP with four conditions.
The first being that the council ultimately recognize that driveway access locations from
state highways have to be approved by TxDOT so as they go through this process they will
be seeking a TxDOT permit so we felt it important to call it here that any access locations
from the I-35 frontage road that must be altered in response to changing TxDOT requirements
during the permitting process could be administratively approved by staff providing that they still
comply with all components of the DDC and our criteria manuals and all remaining elements
of the site plan are satisfied.
The second condition being that landscaping on the attached plan does reflect an intent
to meet all of the DDC requirements for parking street trees as well as minimum landscaping
canopy areas and buffers with administrative approval sought for an alternative buffer.
We would request that minor alterations to those depicted locations of those individual
trees be allowed to be approved by staff provided that their final landscaping complies with
the attached site plan in terms of buffers and open space.
The third criteria is in reference to the Gaswell Agreement that I mentioned.
That agreement has been drawn up, assigned by both parties and reviewed by our legal
department so we request that the agreement entered into and executed by these two parties
that sets forth the setback shown on this plan must be filed in the records of Denton
County prior to the approval of the plat for the subject property which is typical when
we have a gas well plat and a surface plat that would be running concurrently at that
point in time.
And then finally, notwithstanding the limited approvals authorized in these conditions,
the city would reserve the rights to require that the SUP go back before council for any
larger modifications.
With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Haley, back one slide when you've got your staff recommendation for what's going to
be embedded in there.
In our backup, it mentions something about staff's ability to increase, decrease 5%.
I did not see that on your slide.
Correct.
Do you want to elaborate on that?
Yeah, I just noticed that as you mentioned it.
Yeah, that is correct.
In working with legal, we did try to work some flexibility into these requirements that
would allow a 5% increase or decrease from any of these numbers.
You may be familiar with in the past with SUPs, we've kind of been more flexible and
allowed them to generally comply with the site plan and kind of left it at that.
Like I said, in speaking with legal over the past couple of SUPs, we've been trying to
work in more specifics so that there's some guarantee for you all in council that what
you see is what you'll get when it's built.
But because this is kind of preliminary and they haven't gone through the full site engineering,
we thought that 5% buffer would be adequate to allow for some minor deviations as they
engineer and design the site fully.
So that is still something that's being written into it?
Correct.
And I noticed here that is actually mentioned here in the first sentence on this slide, but
it is in your backup as well.
I did not see that.
Okay.
There's a lot of text on the side.
Fisher back.
Thank you, Chair.
While we're on this page, and then I want to flip to the next one, one of the concerns
I had is, do we have something locked in place that assures us we're going to have a mixture
of apartments and commercial?
And it seems like number one saying that they can't build any more apartments beyond the
17 acres.
Is that correct?
Is that going to?
Correct.
So the remaining part of the 31 acres pretty much has to be commercial then, right?
Yeah, the NRMU district would permit a variety of commercial uses that would be typical along
the highways of hotels, restaurants, offices.
But with this, the multifamily would be limited to no more than 17 acres.
They couldn't change that on down the road if they want reconsideration?
They would have to apply for a new SUP or to amend this SUP.
Okay.
Now, and because this is all NRMU as part of the mixed youth, what kind of separation
or barriers are going to be between the commercial and the apartments?
It's not distinct like it's a residential neighborhood in commercial.
This is all NRMU.
Is there going to be some?
Correct.
So as you see on their site plan, their intent is to have this kind of access drive that
would be separating the two.
They do show some buffering in between there that would be typical between multifamily and
commercial.
Okay.
But it would be integrated in the sense that they would all kind of share these common access
points on the freeway in this kind of central courtyard element as they have it intended.
Okay.
Go back to your recommendation page.
This one?
Number one.
I was under the impression, and it sounds like this number one dispute set, that if
you had a residential development on a primary arterial and it also accessed like a collector
road that any ingress and egress would not be on the primary arterial.
It would have to be accessed through the collector yet.
This seems to indicate that there's going to be a means of ingress and egress off the
frontage road.
Yes.
So you are correct in that.
The code does require that if you have adequate access, you take it off of the lesser roadway.
But we also have the competing interest of the fire code needing two points of remote
access for developments of this size, and there's no way for them to reasonably attain
those two points of access off of Windsor.
So access off of the textile road is expected as well.
And just one last thing since you mentioned fire exit.
The road currently to the wells, is that an easy access for the fire department first
responders?
We had that blow up there back in 2015, I think.
Is there going to be a problem accessing those wells in the event we have another?
So currently the gas well access road runs, if you're on the frontage road, you go right
past Windsor and then have to make an immediate turn into the gas well side.
It's just north of Windsor, actually within what would be the future Windsor right of
way when this property plathes.
So that point of access has been renegotiated to be moved over here so that it will be provided
further down on Windsor, and it'll actually be a more direct shot for the fire department
trying to get to those wells in the future because currently they have a long gravel
road here kind of crosses a creek.
I've been out there, there's usually cows standing in the middle of it when you're trying
to drive down it.
So this will be a more direct means of access to those gas well sides.
And it'll what remain an impervious road?
It has to be all weather access.
So it can be gravel, but it does have to be an all weather surface that can accommodate
a fire truck.
Okay.
Isn't there another access up north of this development where they can come in that way
too?
Currently there is only one means of access to both pad sides.
So at the southern end there, it's right here just north of the yellow line, this winding
gravel road is the means of access to both well sides.
Okay.
And if you can, again, the concern for a more developed road, what are the plans for Windsor?
I know there was a problem with that one stretch of land where a property owner wasn't willing
at the time.
Has that conflict been resolved then is the expansion of Windsor?
It hasn't been fully resolved in conversations with the applicant and internal staff.
The intent is to get this entire stretch of Windsor constructed at one point in time.
So the city will be talking to that landowner as necessary to see what we can do there as
the surface developers also indicated that they will initiate some of those conversations
as well as being willing to drop those plans all at one time so that we have a complete
section for Windsor, at least from this point onward where it is existing divided roadway
to continue that to the frontage road.
But conceivably that could get tied up for a while.
Potentially.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions for Haley?
Christopher?
Yes.
So having a look at the preliminary site plan and everything, if we could go back to the
slide, I think a couple back.
The site plan slide?
Yes.
Okay.
So looking at I guess that's what well one over there where we have the flat line.
And knowing -- so we have reverse setback for like 250 feet, right, for Wells.
And I know we're not supposed to have any dwellings right in that.
Those apartment buildings look like they are almost exactly at 250 feet.
Is that -- are they pretty much right up against that?
Yes.
The apartments are intended -- they will have to be 250 feet between the closest exterior
point of the building and the pad site boundary.
So for the time being that will be well over 250 feet.
This 250 would still have to be met when and if this operator seeks to expand the site
to these ultimate boundaries that they would hope to attain.
Okay.
But this being the existing site, they are well over 250 feet.
Okay.
But the red line is where they were talking about they would ostensibly want to --
Correct.
Yes.
So at the time, assuming this gets built prior to the well site being expanded, they will
be held to that 250 foot boundary.
It is specifically called out in this agreement that they will be filing with the county as
well.
So both parties are aware that no matter what, 250 feet has to exist between the building
and the well site.
Okay.
And the understanding based on what you're saying is that that's most likely of when
as opposed to an if.
The operator said they intend to seek that.
They would have -- it would be a long process for them because of the existing setbacks
between here and these existing homes, they would have to seek waivers from all of these
adjoining property owners that are within the 500 foot setback from the site that currently
would have to be there under the current code as well as they would have to seek a watershed
protection permit which would require a specific use permit.
Okay.
It would be a multi-step process.
So it's a when, and if, I would say.
So and my question on this, Richard, I don't know if you would know this or who.
So I know the question of distance on setbacks has been something that's come up recently
in city council meetings.
As the parent of a child with asthma, you know, I'm always concerned about these things.
What obligations do the developers have to people who would possibly be renting these
properties that are butted right up against that order to basically let them know that
there may or may not be these kinds of issues that might affect health?
I can speak to that if you'd like.
The current code requires the setbacks be met.
In addition to that for residential plats, there are certain notices that have to be
put on the plat as well as filed with the county.
With this being a rental property, it's tricky to say that those residents would ever
see those notifications because they would be affecting people buying the property.
As you mentioned, council is interested in perhaps creating some sort of annual notification
that would go out to all residents, so it could be targeted towards renters as well.
But currently, there is no obligation that our code would require for them to notify
future residents.
For rental property.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
One last clarification, I'll probably address this on down the road, but correct me on this
if I'm wrong.
But according to ordinance 210-181, a protected use is any dwelling, church, hospital, pre-kinder.
Dwelling is, would an apartment be considered a dwelling?
Correct.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
So the applicant is a religious institution.
Do you happen to have any reason why the religious institution is seeking to build a multifamily
and then eventually commercial mixed use?
So the current owner of the property is a religious institution.
It's my understanding they are in the process of selling this to a group called dimension
companies that would be the ultimate developer of the site.
Okay.
So is the applicant themselves, is the religious institution, is the eventual developer also
going to be here tonight then, I'm assuming, to answer questions, or is that?
Correct.
So the owner is the glory of Zion group that's referenced in your backup.
Allison Engineering was actually the applicant, so they are here tonight as well as their
client who would be the developer.
Got it.
That's what I was.
Correct.
That's right.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Many players, but.
I do not see any other questions.
Thanks, Haley.
Next up and to conclude the public hearing is the discussion regarding the proposed revision
of the DDC, specifically updating the planning and zoning commission operational procedures
for voting, and Julie, you have updated language, I presume.
I do.
All right.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city, and I am presenting DCA 18.5 to you, which
is the procedure for tie votes.
We talked about this at the last meeting, but we'll just go over what we talked about
last time briefly, and then we'll talk about the revisions.
So the request is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to council
regarding a text amendment to the development code to update the planning and zoning procedures
as they relate to tie votes.
So just a little bit of background, as you're all aware, there was a recent rezoning case
that resulted in a tie vote of three to three, and in those instances, the city council rules
of procedure applied to all boards and commissions, and it would apply to the planning and zoning
commission, and that is in the code of ordinances that if there is a tie vote, that item would
automatically be placed upon the subsequent meeting until a majority decision is made,
and that happened in the planning and zoning commission where that item went to the next
meeting and several meetings.
However, due to a recusal, the planning and zoning commission could not come to a majority
decision.
So that case was essentially in limbo.
It couldn't move forward.
It couldn't move backward.
It was kind of stuck.
So based upon that, the council had a work session in September, and at that work session,
four options were presented to them about how they wanted to address this issue.
First was to take no action.
Second was to remove the tie vote provision for all boards and commissions, and that would
be to update or to amend the code of ordinances.
The third option would be to remove the tie vote for all boards and commissions excluding
the city council, and then the fourth one would be to just amend the planning and zoning
commission rules to address the tie vote, and that was the most limited option that
they had, and that was the decision they ultimately made, was to amend the DDC to address only
the planning and zoning commission and allow cases to move forward as a denial.
Now, as you're aware, when a recommendation of denial is made by the planning and zoning
commission, it typically then requires a supermajority to approve it at city council.
However, in this instance, council directed staff to remove that supermajority requirement
since there wasn't a majority opinion from the planning and zoning commission.
So council had a discussion about it at that work session and proposed that tie vote provision
would remove that supermajority requirement.
So then we got to October 24th when we presented this to planning and zoning commission, and
we brought forward that language that any motion resulting in a tie vote would be deemed
as a denial recommendation, would move forward to city council for a final decision, but
it would remove that supermajority requirement.
However, after our discussion with planning and zoning commission, y'all directed staff
that y'all felt like that that was too broad, that really it should be looking at only cases
with recusal or long-term absence, and that maybe that was maybe not targeted enough language.
So based upon that feedback, staff went back and we revised the language and we talked
to legal, and our first stab at it was to craft the language to kind of define what
is a long-term absence, and then also add in that recusal language.
And as we kind of went through the thought exercises and how that would play out in real
life, we realized that it was that long-term absence was so vague, it was really hard to
determine, and then what if a PNZ member was out for three meetings and then they came
back, but then another PNZ member was out, and it got where we were kind of back in the
same spot, and we couldn't really nail that down.
So we looked at a change that would apply to zoning cases, to specific use permits,
to special exceptions, alternative ESAs, zoning text amendments, and then criteria manual
amendments where they're needed a little more scrutiny that PNZ needed to weigh in on it.
The language we also looked at was not applicable, though, to final plots.
Those things that the PNZ decides.
So and our final language came up with the process where if there are six voting members,
so if somebody is-- we only have six members voting on any case, and there's a tie vote,
that would just be scheduled for the next meeting.
It would automatically go to the next meeting, regardless of why we have six voting members,
whether there's a recusal or somebody's out.
At that next meeting, if there's only six members and there's a tie vote, it would just
go to city council.
Now it could-- it would allow you all to still-- if you felt like you wanted to have another
stab at it, that you could table the item, you could vote to table the item so that it
could delay that vote further, but this kind of focused more on the process of the voting
and less as to why somebody would be out.
So regardless, if there is a tie vote, it would go to PNZ twice before it would go to
city council.
So the final language, and I know it's long, but we'll go over it and it's in your backup.
There was one change to that language after talking with legal today.
The original language in your backup referenced a qualified commissioner.
That was changed to voting commissioner.
So we thought that was a little more clear language.
So that-- the proposal is after closing the public hearing, should a majority of voting
commissioners fail to recommend either approval or denial of a proposed amendment or approval
of a modified amendment, staff is directed to place the matter for vote on the next available
planning and zoning commission meeting-- commission agenda as an item for individual consideration.
A second failure of a majority of voting commissioners to recommend either approval or denial of
a proposed amendment or approval of a modified amendment shall be deemed a recommendation
to deny approval of any amendment.
Such failure is not subject to the requirements for that super majority in city code section
2-29 and shall not require the 3/4 vote of all members of the city council qualified
to vote.
So we felt like that kind of tightened it up.
It still gave a little more opportunity for PNZ to fully weigh in on it.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I'll just finish your thought now.
>> No, that's all right.
No, go ahead.
>> Okay.
The-- first of all, it comes back as an individual consideration.
So while it was originally a public hearing, it comes back as an individual consideration.
And so why was that process is-- yeah, what was the thought process behind that?
Maybe I'll answer that question.
>> That is a great question.
>> I know.
Thank you, Julie.
>> Typically, once you have--
>> I'll get my cookie now.
>> Typically, once you have voted or not typically, always, once you-- when you vote, the public
hearing is closed.
So once the public hearing is closed, it can't be reopened for that item unless it is re-noticed.
>> Got it.
>> So that's why it would then come back as an individual consideration.
>> And public still has-- I guess it's up to the chair's discretion, but public still
has usually the ability to speak publicly on individual considerations, usually.
>> I think it would--
>> That's up to the chair, certainly, but there's no legal requirement to have a second
public hearing for this.
The legal requirement satisfied with the first public hearing, and at that point, once you've
closed the public hearing and taken a vote on it, it risks muddying the waters to reopen
at that point.
>> Sure.
No, of course.
Second question.
If you go back a couple slides to the applicable-- there you go, I guess, back up, I mean one.
The applicable versus non-applicable.
So in the event that of, you know, we're dealing with an ADP and there's a tie vote, this proposed
change would mean the non-applicable, so it reverts back to the original tie vote regulations,
which is that it's still catches us in limbo for forever then?
>> Yes.
And that was something we actually talked about today.
But yes, that would be--
>> I guess two things.
One, how do we get around that, but we'll come back to that one, but two, why do those
become not applicable?
I think you mentioned it, but just expand upon it for me.
>> I think this was due to-- it really was in response to that one case, and city council's
discussion on the item was based upon how do these cases that are stuck in limbo go
to the next level for a final decision?
So that was the idea behind that targeted fix for it, that these are items that would
go on into city council for final decision.
So legal may want to weigh in on how we would address those items that are a final decision
within P&Z, but this was really to target those items that the P&Z was a recommending
body and not the decision-making body, if that makes sense.
>> I think that's very well stated that in those situations where P&Z is the final decision
body, there's nothing council could do about it anyway.
>> Yeah.
>> So what would be the resolution then if it is a perpetual tie at that point?
>> That's up to P&Z to make through that resolution.
If P&Z is going to have to solve that issue.
>> That's a 0.1% of our already 0.1% problem, so we don't-- we'll wait and cross that bridge
when we get there.
We'll let the future P&Z come across it.
Hopefully, I think your P&Z is not us.
>> Oh, Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for working on this and re-wording this, you guys.
It's-- makes much more sense.
It's fixing the problem that's actually the problem and not rewriting something that we
already have code for.
So thanks for taking the time to re-look at it, I appreciate it.
>> Thank you.
Based upon that and also our discussion at the last meeting, we just-- some of the considerations
we looked at in crafting this language is we wanted to maintain the integrity of the
public hearing process and I think we heard that from this group and that's something
that's really important with any public hearing item.
This revised language does allow this body to-- an additional opportunity to reach a
decision.
But then finally, we want to make sure that there is a clear path for not only applicants
but for residents who would have a concern or stakeholder, that they would be able to
make plans and know when a final decision would be made.
You know, if a case is in limbo, you know, if you-- that they would have to keep coming
to P&Z possibly for several meetings and then who knows to city council.
So this just allows some real certainty within the process.
And then as we still discussed last time, the intent of this is to prevent projects
from being left in an indeterminate state.
That we still left that item in there to remove that super majority requirement since it wasn't
a majority decision by P&Z.
But as always, we make sure that council is informed of the matters that are discussed
during planning and zoning so that they can consider that as they make their decisions.
So based upon the considerations, staff recommends approval of this request and it was placed
in the newspaper for that notification.
So I'll stand for any questions.
I do not see any.
Thanks, Julie, for working on that.
Thank you.
Sure.
That's the end of our agenda.
So we have some work session reports and I think we were flipping the order to have--
Preet Sim have plenty of time for his presentation, so we're actually going to invite Preet Sim
up first.
Sorry for the short notice on that one.
But if you'd lead us, then we'll, as time permits, get an update on the DDC code update.
He's-- yeah, if time permits, we'll get to the DDC update.
Yeah, sorry.
Good evening.
My name is Preet Sim Deshmukh, traffic engineer for the city.
Let me pull up my presentation, it's somewhere on the desktop.
All right, so initially it was a short and sweet presentation until I had to talk to
Richard and he said, "No, that's not what they want to hear."
So let's start with something familiar.
This is criteria manual update.
I was here a few months ago about the traffic and transportation criteria manual update.
I'm starting at this point because I wanted to show what we've already done as far as
addressing some of the issues related to traffic.
We've already tightened up our guidelines, making sure that we have a set of rules that
they follow if you're-- for example, if you're generating anywhere between 100 and 500 trips,
you look at five years after the opening year, not just what's happening tomorrow if I put
the units down on the ground.
So that was first thing to look at 0.5 to a mile radius and look at a bigger picture.
If you're more than 500 trips, which some of these developments are, then you look at
20 years in the future, not just when things are coming in.
So these are the things that we already put in place that we're looking at and one of
the things here also is when they're going for zoning cases, they bring up and they look
at traffic impact analysis.
That's something that staff has started asking for, implementing, making sure that you have
a better picture of what's happening to make that decision is the zoning right or wrong
or what kind of intensity does-- what kind of traffic demand does this intensity create.
So that's the first step.
Our long-term is develop different master plans, starting with the master thoroughfare
plan, bicycle, pedestrian, and the overall mobility plan.
Right now, the plan we have, the land use information that went in the background.
So typically what happens is the land use is hand-in-hand with transportation circulation
network and one has to feed off of the other.
If the land use is not right, then the amount of capacity or the demand that's generated
is pretty low and the network doesn't come out right for the transportation system.
So what we found out, the original-- the previous mobility plan, some of the assumptions that
went back in the land use especially the green field area which is pretty much on the fringes
north and then southern side too, that was not really updated, that was not thought through.
It was the, oh yeah, these green fields are going to remain green fields for the next
5, 10, 15, 20 years.
So we'll come back whenever they get developed.
So moving forward and we've been working close with-- engineering has been working close
with planning to understand, OK, this is really happening right now.
There are parcels and there are different areas that are developing at a much faster
place, pace.
So what we do-- what do we want to do and we have started to form an interim step in
between, these master plans most likely will be ready by the end of next year.
So what do we do from now until the end of next year?
We've focused on a couple of areas that seem to be started gaining a lot of attention,
a lot of new development coming in that area.
So if you look at this area, this is FM 428 Sherman, that comes into the city.
This is that loop 288 interchange at the bottom.
We've seen a lot of development in this particular area, south of loop as well as just north.
There are big parcels that are coming off of 428.
So what we did is in interim, let's start studying this.
Look at the demand, look at the land uses, get some better assumptions at the background
land uses.
What is-- what are we looking at when these PDM-- parcels coming for PDM or any discussion
about oh, we want to develop this type of land use, so we set out on planning, got the
basic assumptions done, so updated land uses, developed the transportation network and currently
we're awaiting the report which is due this week.
So we'll get a report that identifies what our needs transportation-wise and then it
also incorporates some of the densities that are already coming in.
People are coming-- developers are coming in with some densities and that's the background
assumption that went in there.
The other area is-- this is a pretty large area but this is something between hops and--
this is 1830 Country Club and then FM 2181.
This is one of the other booming areas in the cities outside with a lot of construction
associated with it.
Teasley's under construction, there are other roads that are under construction in this
area but it's developing pretty fast.
Some of these subdivisions are already in place.
So we're having to do a lot of catch up in this particular area but we're studying this.
This is next on our list.
The boundary of this area would be hops and Hickory Creek to the south and then Country
Club and 2181.
So what we're going to do is go through the same exercise, understand what is already
been built, what's coming in and how does this traffic impact.
In line with this since this area is already half sort of, I would say about 30%, 40% developed
a lot of developments are coming in at a much faster pace.
We've already started looking at can we trigger some of the design components for Ryan Road.
So we've already engaged a firm to start the design of Ryan Road as a four-lane divided.
So we're trying to get ahead of the curve and trying to address some of these needs.
So these are two-- these are the interim steps that we're taking.
So this is the main thing that Richard wanted me to talk about is roadway impact fees.
What are we doing with it?
The purpose is to partially or fully fund some of these transportation projects.
And just wanted to give you more of a 30,000 foot level view, not getting into details
how exactly every number is calculated, but just an idea.
So when this fee was proposed, city was divided into about five blocks, you can see ABCD.
And over 150 transportation projects were identified.
I can get to the next slide.
You can see these are different areas starting here with area A. You can see all this red
is all those are transportation projects that were identified.
Some of them require widening, some of them are brand new streets.
So it's more of what kind of arterial network do we need.
And once these were identified, the total cost for construction was identified.
And then based on that cost, it was tied down to how much development we have, what kind
of land use we have in this whole area.
And then every area has a maximum accessible fee associated with it.
Just based on the size of the area, the amount of infrastructure needed in the area, and
then the amount of development that's coming in the area.
So just to give you a quick overview.
And then how are these fees calculated?
This is a sample.
I have one for residential and one for commercial.
I don't want to go through all the details, but quickly the maximum accessible for area
A is $2,200 for a single family dwelling unit.
And then this is a vehicle mile per -- this is a constant that was developed by the consultant.
So all you do is multiply the number of units times that number times this vehicle mile.
There you have a maximum accessible impact fee per household.
Another calculation for commercial or say for home improvement stores, same thing.
There's a number here.
For service area, maximum accessible is $1,945.
And then say $125,000 square foot of home improvement store is going in.
So that's their fee.
So that's a very simplified version of how the calculation is based.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Excuse me.
So does each service area have its own calculation, its own equation?
>> Each service area has its own maximum accessible fee.
So the way it was defined, if I have 10 projects in one area and it's going to cost me $100,000,
and there are 50,000 homes remaining in that area, that's how it was split.
For each area, there's a unique -- there's a transportation requirement or need.
And then how much is remaining that development will support.
So that's the calculation.
That's the background information that went in.
>> Right.
So is that number always changing then?
>> It's different for each area.
So each area has its unique number.
>> Right.
And it's constant though.
>> It's constant.
>> In the service area.
>> Okay.
>> Correct.
>> And how often is that fee updated per service area?
>> It hasn't been since 2015.
And we are looking at this whole equation and looking at the whole impact fee based on the
new master thoroughfare plan.
So some of the elements would change.
It was based on the original master thoroughfare plan or mobility plan.
So yes, we'll go back and reassess once we get there.
>> Gotcha.
Commissioner Smith.
>> Traditionally, do we see it being -- is that the impact fee a significant amount towards
the project and towards the development of the roads in that area?
Is it a lion's share of the subsidy or is it only a small piece of what's needed to
-- what are we traditionally seeing as a city?
10,780 per unit making that big of an impact or is it a --
>> So as I understand it, and I don't quote me on this, but I think the calculation had
come up to $4,000 to $5,000 a dwelling unit when it was first presented that that was
the requirement for fixing all the infrastructure in the area.
When it was presented to council, I think they settled down with the 2,200 number.
So we're already half ways there, so 50%.
And then given the inflation and construction costs, I would peg the inflation as about
a percent a month in the DFW Metroplex.
So it's about 12% a year inflating.
So from 2015, it's about three years now.
>> And that's a compounding effect too.
>> Exactly.
So right now, we're really holding --
>> So really that impact fees will subsidize maybe roughly 20, 25% of the cost right now.
>> Right.
Around that number.
>> How do we compare to other cities of our size?
>> I think the number is fairly close, but cities of the -- other cities are also finding
sources like us.
We're really hunting down for funding through cog.
Most of our bigger projects is partially bond money, but Bonnie Brahe has a lot of cog funding.
Most of our large projects we're pretty much trying to get external funding.
>> Okay.
>> Commissioner Beck?
>> Thank you, Chair.
Of the 150 transportation projects, are they prioritized?
>> They are not prioritized in the area.
So typically what happens is so these are the projects, and they're just numbered and
a value is assigned, okay, this much is going to take to build it.
They are not prioritized, but the way it prioritizes, depending on, for example, Ryan Road, depending
on the amount of development that's happening and taking access off of that particular street,
that has risen in priority as compared to Hobson or any other parallel streets in that
particular zone.
>> Well, surely we don't have construction crews working simultaneously on 150 projects
right now, do we?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> No, no.
This is just a list.
This is --
>> Okay.
So what do we roughly have?
Six or seven crews working on some of these projects around the city?
>> So that's getting into the CIP projects.
I don't know exactly how many number of crews we have, but we are currently most likely every
two to three months spilling out about $30 million worth of projects, CIP projects.
And that could range not just transportation, but drainage and water and sewer and combined,
but --
>> Throughout the city.
>> Okay.
>> And there are a lot of street bond funded projects still going in.
So I did presenting yesterday at the mobility committee and you could see that map, maybe
I have that map, but that shows how many projects are going on in the city.
Let me see if I can find it.
>> This kind of information is online on our website, right, the city's website?
>> Similar to that.
>> Okay.
>> But let me --
>> How difficult would it be to find?
What kind of maze would I have to go through to get there?
>> No, we are trying to make it much more simpler.
That's what we presented the mobility committee is we're trying to put that map online.
There are several different software systems that track it for streets and other departments.
We have to just combine them and bring under one platform.
That's what we're trying to work with.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Do you have one more slide left?
Did we catch the short or --
>> Yeah, I think that was just questions.
>> Okay.
>> Any questions?
>> Jumped you.
>> So on that last -- you had the A, B, C. So what are the hot areas right now?
Is it --
>> It's --
>> D and B, right?
>> It's area D and B, correct.
>> Okay.
So that's going to be right now.
>> Absolutely.
Those are our focus areas currently.
>> The cruiser is going to be --
>> Correct.
>> The construction is going to be.
>> Okay.
>> So we are working on -- particularly focusing on this Sherman and this area and then particularly
focusing in this area between Hobson and Hickory Creek.
So those are two.
Ryan, I know it's under -- yeah, we've already started design on the home.
>> Any other questions for Preetam?
Christopher Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
While we've got you here, you mentioned that the TIA is being done.
Okay.
So tell me, who is doing these studies?
>> A consultant.
>> Is it --
>> Developers hire.
>> Right.
Do they hire whoever they want?
>> Typically, yes.
There are just a handful of firms out there for traffic engineering.
>> That does it.
Okay.
And is everybody using the same criteria?
>> Yes.
It's the transportation criteria manual.
>> Okay.
>> So they're following the manual.
Everything lays it out.
This is what we want to see.
This is what we're looking for.
And if you don't provide it, we're going to have comments and reject it at some point.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Fantastic.
So at this time, before Ron presents, then we're going to break and get some food.
So we'll pause the work session at 535, and reconvene at 545.
Thank you, and welcome back to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session.
It is 550.
I'll invite Ron for presentation.
>> Thank you, Chair, members of the commission.
Matt's presentation is just to give you all an update of where we are on the Denton Development
Code update.
I know it's been some time since we first met.
Earlier this year, the staff and the DCRC Development Code Review Committee has been
meeting almost weekly to go over this document.
It's obviously an important document.
Just to remind the commission and those that are viewing, three members of the Planning
and Zoning Commission serve on that DCRC.
Margie, Andrew, and Larry serve on that commission.
>> Kind of.
Sort of.
>> It's like two and a half members.
>> So the agenda, real quickly, is to just -- why are we doing this?
Where we are?
What has the DCRC been discussing?
Going to go over the subchapters that we're proposing and then notification in the draft
zoning map, which is a big component of the DCRC update, and then what our next steps
are.
So the purpose really is to be consistent with the Dent Plan 2030, have responsible
and quality development.
There are common themes throughout the update, and that is be more customer-friendly, build
a stronger foundation, and be consistent with Texas Local Government Code, but also to look
at our neighborhoods and make sure that we protect them as well.
So the status is we started this effort back in June through November 2017.
We started meeting with the DCRC earlier this year, March, to be exact, and continue to
meet with them.
We've held public open houses when we first published our public draft.
During that, we've held numerous stakeholder meetings with the Development Committee, neighborhood
meetings, Sedna, Deena, and some other neighborhoods, continued to meet with other stakeholders,
and attended a lot of the community market over the summer just to get, again, the word
out on the DDC update.
So a lot of stuff going on.
The DCRC, as you can imagine, has been busy looking at the code and focusing on the following
here, and I won't go through all of this, but from allowed land uses all the way down
to the zoning map, and I think we're getting to a point where they're getting comfortable
with what they're seeing.
We have a meeting again this Friday.
We hope that we get more comments.
What we'll do is then take those comments and provide it to our consultants, who will
then redraft a new version of the updated draft.
So a lot of what is being reviewed is, again, listed here, and there's a lot between the
two that I mentioned.
The big part of the update is really looking at how we can make our Dunn Development Code
more user-friendly, and one of the efforts there is to reduce the number of subchapters
where there are similar ideas or purposes, and we're combining them into one or two
subchapters.
Our current Denton Development Code has 24 subchapters.
We're looking at narrowing that down to eight, and the eight that you see here represent
those eight.
From general provisions, which is your administrative and general understanding of the code, non-conforming
is under that chapter.
Next one is administration procedures.
Zoning district is where we lay out the new zoning districts.
That again is associated with the zoning map.
Overlay districts and historic districts.
That is primarily a carryover from what is currently subchapter seven.
It will be part of this number four.
Use regulations, identify the land uses, the allowed land uses, where they're permitted,
and if they're required, a specific use permit or other design standards.
Development standards.
That's probably the biggest one, because that includes most of what we have now as separate
subchapters are going to be funneled into one development standard chapter.
And then subchapter seven, as shown here, is our subdivision, which deals with platting
and other dedication and other requirements for public improvements.
And then lastly, there's the subchapter eight, which is our definition.
So that is also an important subchapter, because it houses all of our definitions.
And when we look at what does this mean, we go to that subchapter.
I wanted to share this slide just to show you where we are.
The one here on your left is the future land use designation.
As you heard earlier, one of them is residential moderate, four to 12 dwelling units.
So what does that mean?
And just going across the column here, that's roughly between NR4 and NR6, and that's what
should be in that general vicinity or general area.
What we're proposing is we're continuing those zoning districts you see here and just renaming
them where they are currently in R1.
It would simply be R1 and so on and so forth.
But there are examples where we're going to be consolidating a number of zoning districts
that you see here under the downtown compatibility area.
Your DR1, DR2, RCR1, and RCR2, we are proposing that it be R7 rather than have all these other
zoning districts.
And you see that under the DCN and DCG, also with the RCCN and RCCD.
So the number of zoning district we have currently about 28 plus.
We are proposing close to about 14 or 15 zoning districts.
A big part of the update is the opportunity for the development community to consider
or the city that is PDs.
Now those that aren't familiar back in prior to 2002, we used to offer PDs.
Since then we have not.
That's something coming back.
And I think that is a key tool that we will see as we see development come in.
Specifically, say in the rezoning, if they can't meet the zoning requirements and rather
than rezone the property, maybe an opportunity there is to do a PD where you can get a little
bit more specific and get the development standards that really is needed.
For both the city's perspective as well as the development's perspective.
So we talked about the zoning map.
Again, this is going to be one of those big efforts that we will be pushing along with
the DDC code.
We have reached out to over 30,000 people with postcards, and we are going to be doing
that again in the next coming months, and then when we get to the public hearing, we
are going to be noticing same property owners, but through a mailing letter so that they
are notified in advance of a public hearing or of the public hearing.
All this information that I have discussed in draft form is available through our website,
which is dencode2030.com.
In addition to mailing postcards, we have done all we can through social media, press
releases, newspaper, and again, there is going to be another big push as we get closer to
the final draft.
We have the website, again, I mentioned earlier, has all the drafts as well as the zoning map
link.
So someone that wants to know what their current zoning is and what their proposed zoning is,
they can find that out and find out what has changed or will change if and when this code
gets updated and this map gets updated.
So we are doing that as well.
Hopefully they are able to review it, and if they have any comments, we welcome and
we encourage that they submit a comment card, either hard copy, which we have available,
or through the website.
So what is coming up next?
The consolidated draft, which is all of the stuff that we have heard to date from citizens,
from certain departments, but the DCRC and from you all as well, we are going to combine
all of that, present this to our consultants, they are going to take all of that comment,
those comments, and draft a consolidated draft.
On December 12th is the publish date of when we will publish that online.
In addition, we will also publish a new zoning map that reflects some of the changes that
were provided to us as direction.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
At December 12th, the date is certain, because it seemed like at our last meeting, we came
to conclusion, hey, we may have some more work to do here.
Correct.
The original, this is change, this has been updated, Larry, we had proposed late November.
We know that the DCRC still has some comments and questions, so we've pushed that back to
December 12th.
So that's the date to date.
Okay.
It's not locked in.
It's not, but we want to get this going and get it to the public hearing.
I hope it is, too, to be honest with you, but I just wanted to check on that.
Thank you.
So once that's published, we are going to also follow that up with a work session with
City Council on December 18th, that's obviously a Tuesday.
The consultants will be here in town, and we would like to have a work session with
the Planning Zoning Commission, the whole Planning Zoning Commission.
So the 19th is what we are proposing, it is a Wednesday, and we're looking for your input.
We can do it now, or we can continue with the presentation, but December 19th, if we
can have a work session, a special called work session with the Planning Zoning Commission,
we would like that to share with you what we have as far as a consolidated draft, and
again, our consultants will be here so that they can provide their input or their expertise
as well.
And we'll come back to that at the end of this presentation so we can figure what time
or if that's even a possibility.
Stakeholder meetings we talked about, public open houses will be coming forward, and then
we hope by late February, early March, we will be at public hearings with the Planning
Zoning Commission and City Council.
I'm going to go through these slides.
This is just to show you that we've been meeting with a number of different stakeholders.
As you can see, the DCRC has been meeting at minimum weekly.
We're currently here on November 14th.
We've got some public outreach efforts following that, but December 19th is when we would like
to have a special called meeting with the Planning Zoning Commission.
So I think that concludes my presentation.
Any discussion or comments?
- Chris, you're back.
- Go back to the slide that showed the difference between the old zoning districts and the new.
- Sure.
- I had one question.
We got a zone in there that, where'd it go?
- Which one?
- No, go.
There was one where it was various.
- There it is.
- It's right in the middle.
- Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
We didn't really, I don't remember us touching too much on that in our subcommittee meeting,
and you've got various down there in Neighborhood University.
Can you elaborate on that a little bit more?
- Yeah, because those have so many different zoning districts currently in the, say, the
neighborhood compatibility year around the university.
It's got DCG, it's got some NR4s, that sort of thing.
We have to look at the map in various means that it could be an MN, it could be an R7,
it could be any of the zoning districts that fits that area.
- So we're not locked into a new...
- No, no, this is just a first step into trying to get to a zoning map that's workable.
- And these would probably be areas that right now aren't necessarily zoned on the way or
the other, or no?
- They will, I mean, every parcel in the city will have a zoning district.
- Okay.
- Yeah.
- Okay.
- There's, if I clarify, there's not a zoning called variant.
- No, no, it's just, it could be a number of different zoning districts.
- Do you have any examples of these kind of areas now?
- NR6, for example, could be within that neighborhood university compatibility, it's just not a
clean alignment.
- Okay.
- Not as clean as, say, on the south side of town.
- Okay.
- So that's a quick update.
We're working towards a consolidated draft.
You guys will see that hopefully on November, I'm sorry, December 19th.
- To that point, Ron, is there any initial, if anyone has a calendar, is there any initial
issue of getting a quorum for the 19th?
Time to be determined?
- That is up to y'all.
Our consultants are here Tuesday and Wednesday, and so any time during Wednesday, share.
- Too early, too early, Commissioner.
- Morning's preferable.
I know I can do that.
It's not easy.
- Yeah, rub it in.
- Yeah.
No, no, no, no, no.
But I mean, just for my...
- When's convenient for you, Commissioner Beck, we'll work around here.
- I would prefer mornings, 'cause I started lagging about one, two hours.
No, I just...
- We can work out a time later.
I just want to make sure that if there's any travel or...
- Yes, and...
- It's my dad's birthday, and it's mine or something, okay?
- Okay.
- We can, through Kathy, we can reach out and get it, if there's actually something
that wasn't provided earlier, and if we had known, we would've said something, but we'll
follow up.
Again, keep December 19th sort of open, and we'll reach out and find a time, preferably
two hours, hour and a half to two hours.
- Okay.
- Commissioner Smith?
- We do have a planning and zoning on the 12th, correct?
- Yeah.
- We have scheduled it on the 12th.
- Correct.
- And then we don't have anything else again until the...
- The next...
- Nine, basically.
- Right.
- Yeah.
- So...
- Okay.
- All right.
- Cool.
- Okay.
- Thank you.
- That brings us to the conclusion of our work session.
We'll close work session at 6.05, and we'll reconvene at 6.30 in the work session room
for the public hearing.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for November 14th.
We'll open the public meeting at 6.34.
The first order of business is stand and give the Pledge of Allegiance to the US 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.
On our Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible.
- Next item on the agenda is consider approval of the planning and zoning minutes for October
24th.
Commissioner Ellis.
- I move approval of those minutes.
- Thank you.
We have a first.
Commissioner Pernetta.
- I second.
- We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote by show of hands.
All in favor?
All opposed?
Motion carries 6-0.
Next agenda item is the Consent Agenda.
The Chair will entertain discussion for a motion.
Commissioner Beck.
- I move we approve Consent Agenda.
- Commissioner Smith.
- I second that motion.
- We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none.
Any discussion?
Seeing none.
I'll call for a vote by show of hands.
All in favor?
All opposed?
Motion carries 6-0.
Next item is our one item for individual consideration.
It's the consideration of the 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Calendar.
We had talked about this in work session.
Commissioner Smith, do you have an opportunity to see if there's any conflicts?
- There are none.
- Okay.
Any discussion on the calendar for 2019?
- The Chair will consider a motion.
Commissioner Ellis.
- I move approval of 2019 P&Z Calendar.
- Perfect.
Commissioner Burnett.
- I second the motion to approve.
- We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote by show of hands.
All in favor?
All opposed?
Motion carries 6-0.
As a point of order, the public hearing item 5A has been moved to the November 28th meeting.
It will not be heard tonight.
As well as item 5B, that has been withdrawn from the agenda.
So that brings us to item 5C, Z18-0022.
I'll open the public hearing and call Ron for a presentation.
- Thank you, Chair, members of the commission, members of staff.
This item for you for consideration this evening is for a zoning change request from NRMU-12
to NRMU Zoning District.
The purpose of the zoning change is to allow for more density.
Prior to the zoning request application, there was a specific use permit application.
Through the review of the site plan as part of that specific use permit, it was determined
that the proposed number of dwelling units would not comply with the NRMU-12 maximum
density.
Therefore, the applicant submitted this rezoning request, again, going from NRMU-12, which
is 12 units per acre, to NRMU, which allows up to 30 units per acre.
The property is approximately 9.91 acres, generally located west of Mockingbird and
south of Mingo Road, as shown on this slide.
The future land use designation for this property is designated as moderate density, which is
described as four to 12 dwelling units per acre, where you would see single-family detached
housing, low-rise multi-family dwellings, and town homes.
The idea is to maintain the scale and orientation of the building, similarly with the surrounding
area.
It also serves as a transitional zoning district, where you see low density to the south, and
you get a little higher as far as intensity as you get past the moderate density into
the community mixed-use designation.
This slide here illustrates what is being proposed, starting off with the existing.
Again, the zoning is NRMU-12.
The applicant is requesting a NRMU zoning district, and that's shown here.
Part of the staff's analysis is looking at the criteria for approval.
There are two main criteria, and that is that the proposed rezoning conforms with the future
land use element of the Den Plan, as well as that the proposed rezoning facilitates
the adequate public infrastructure in terms of transportation, water, wastewater, school
parks, and other public requirements.
Further, the staff looked at the future land use element, and again, the future land use
designation for this area is residential moderate, which again, is described 4 to 12 dwelling
units per acre.
Said it earlier, low-rise multi-family is permitted with 10 town homes.
Again, the intent is that this area is developed in scale and style with the surrounding area.
In cases where the proposed zoning does not fit or match the future land use, staff has
the ability to review a number of criteria for approval.
The list that you see here are some of what we look at, and based on our analysis, we
have determined that, based on the density, it does not meet this criteria.
Therefore, it is still being considered not conforming with the future land use designation.
For our purposes, we also looked at what was in the surrounding area, again, to address
the compatibility matter.
The site shown here in red is where we are.
For your orientation, Mingo is just to the north, University is further northeast, Loop
288 is to the east, and Audra to the south, Nottingham is to the west.
We looked at what's currently on the ground.
We've got a number of single-family residential, the Bel Air North addition directly south,
the Oak Ridge Estates immediately to the east, Audra Heights as well.
We've got East Hampton village further south, Shiloh Fields directly west, and Woodlands
of Denton, an apartment complex, a newer apartment complex that was constructed after 2013.
Just to give the commission and the audience some information on the Woodlands, again,
it is a multi-family dwelling unit development, approximately 19.87 is dedicated for the multi-family
dwelling.
You can see based on this photo that it's two to three stories tall in certain areas,
there's three stories.
The density calculated for this area as proposed is 15.9 dwelling units per acre.
Back in 2012, there was a rezoning to zone this property from NR6 and NRMU 12 to NRMU.
Apologize, they're all-- also associated with that was a specific use permit approved
in 2013 with conditions that was to allow for the multi-family use.
Staff also looked at the mobility of the area.
We have the site here to the east is Mockingbird, it is classified as a collector, to the north
is Mingo, it is classified as a arterial, secondary arterial.
As of today, both roads are not built to the roadway classification as proposed.
They are both two-lane, two-way roadways and not, again, built to the roadway classification.
Staff also looked at other things, again, associated with the criteria, public infrastructure.
We looked at some of the requirements staff did and they will meet the transportation.
There are water and wastewater services in the area, so they will meet those public requirements.
A TIA was done for this particular site and the traffic mitigation measures that was identified
and reviewed and approved by staff has been incorporated by the applicants as part of
their proposal.
One of the things that staff also looked at is the permitted uses.
Under the NRMU, there are more intense uses that are being-- that will be, if approved,
permitted.
Drive-through facilities, hotels, quick vehicle services, restaurant and so on would be permitted
in the NRMU, but are not currently permitted in the NRMU-12.
Also general regulations, the NRMU would allow more than the NRMU-12 in terms of building
height, where in the NRMU, it's 40.
The NRMU will allow up to 65 feet.
Again, going over, just making sure we address the future land use element, it does not conform.
Staff determination is that it does not conform with the future land use element in terms
of dwelling units.
The proposed project is proposing 26.7 dwelling units per acre, which is out of scale and
not in character with the surrounding area.
There was a neighborhood meeting held on October 30th at the Courtyard Marriott, where the
property owners within-- property owners and residents within 500 feet were notified of
this neighborhood meeting, and one person was in attendance.
Two notices were published-- I'm sorry, two signs were posted by the applicant.
Newspaper notices was also published in the dinner record chronicle on October 28th.
24 notices were sent to property owners, and 86 courtesy notices were sent to property
residents within 500 feet.
As of this afternoon-- and I know that we've received more comments or more notices.
We've received, again, only as of this afternoon, two in opposition, and that you see here in
this map or this illustration, the two that we have are from-- I can't read the address,
but it looks like it's Brian Coakley, and then another property first named Kent.
So that represents 2% of the property within 200 feet of the buffer of the site.
With the analysis and with the review of staff is recommending denial under the following
consideration that the density is not in conformance with the Den Plan 2030, that the NRMU will
allow for more intense uses, and that the general regulations under the NRMU is less
restrictive than compared to the NRMU-12.
That concludes my presentation on the zoning.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Smith was first, and we'll get to the rest.
Thank you, Chair.
Can you go back to the Woodlands slide, the wood bridge, whatever it was called?
What was the conditions that are on the SUP?
Do you have to remember?
What was SUP?
SUP.
I think you said, "What's up?"
What's up, Brian, how are you?
There were one, two, three, nine, plus four ESA conditions, let me correct that, six.
So over 13 conditions, 12 conditions.
And it was mainly protecting ESA and some of those problems, removing permitted uses,
those kinds of things, and limiting height at some point.
So if the commission would like, I can go over those conditions?
No.
I just wanted a general idea of what type of...
There was a project that was in the area that was approved, but it had conditions on it.
If for some reason we did want to approve it, we'd like to know what those conditions
were, I guess.
Sure.
See if we can make it somewhat...
Right.
So there's nine SUP conditions and then there were also six conditions related to ESA.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Fernetta, I believe you were next.
And relative to this slide, so if I'm not mistaken, this complex is actually right on
like, what, Audra, where it turns into Nottingham, right?
Correct.
Okay.
So comparing the impact that this proposal would have versus that one, my understanding
is like the Audra and Nottingham section over there is what, four lanes?
There's additional lanes and Mockingbird's only two, is that correct?
I believe so.
I mean, I drove there earlier this week.
I don't remember the number of lanes, but it was a little wider than, say, Mockingbird.
Okay.
So technically, they're similar properties, the impact on traffic in the area would probably
be significantly higher on the new one in Mockingbird than that one would have been,
correct?
Right.
And I just want to just state that there was a TIA done and the mitigation measures that
were requested have been provided by the applicant.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
To get to the 20% of people opposed to this, I've got 14 letters of opposition.
Would that put them over the 20% that would require a supermajority?
It would only be from property owners that are within the 200 foot buffer, correct?
Okay.
And we've kind of shown it here where some of the responses that we receive may have
come from folks within 500 or did come from property owners within 500 feet, but they
would not be counted towards that 20%.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yes or no?
Can you just maybe give a little clarification for the audience?
They may not understand the 200 feet and 20% and what that means.
Sure.
The notices that were sent out to property owners within 200 feet, they are given the
opportunity to provide their response in favor, in neutral, or in opposition.
If there are 20% of the land area within this 200 foot buffer, the City Council will have
to vote, need a supermajority, a six vote in order to pass or approve this zoning request.
Thank you, Ron.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't think it looked, I don't know if you've done the calculation, but just the homes along
the southern edge there, that probably doesn't equate to 20%, I'm assuming, just from the
way the property is designed, I don't think it--
Yeah, I haven't looked at it, but it could be close.
Just those who didn't write in, but we do have folks who come up and they say they were
in opposition when we start getting the calculation and everything else.
Those properties there, just make sure that we don't ever hit it.
People who didn't write it in but brought in blue cards or brought in yellow cards and
is there in opposition, but it'll make sure we're calculating and have to make sure if
we hit it.
Right.
And then when we get to City Council, we'll be able to calculate all of those comments
that we've received tonight.
Any other questions?
We'll have an opportunity for the public to speak if you have a card, you can certainly
complete that.
Is there any other questions for Ron?
No.
Perfect.
The applicant is here and they have a presentation as well.
Perfect.
That's the next one up.
This is a public hearing for anyone, individuals who want to speak or ask questions.
You may do so by filling out a card and we'll go through them one by one, but the first
individual I'd like to call is Alena Tuley.
Way off.
I apologize.
Okay.
Certainly you have the floor.
As the applicant, you're given 10 minutes.
Okay.
So like Ron explained, well, I guess my name is Alena Tuley.
I'm the applicant on this request.
My address for the record is 4821 Merlot Avenue, Grapevine, Texas.
As Ron explained to you earlier, we are requesting to rezone approximately 10 acres from NMRU
12 to NMRU.
The main difference between those two districts are the density that it allows.
Current zoning is 12 units to the acre.
The zoning we are requesting is 30 units to the acre.
With the site plan that has been provided to you this evening, we are currently showing
27 units to the acre.
Given staff's recommendation, we would like to table the request this evening.
But we have come before you this evening because we'd like to have an open dialogue, kind of
figure out what is that halfway point.
We don't need 30 units to the acre, but also to make this project financially feasible,
we do need more than 12.
So we would like to discuss where that middle ground might be and also some additional site
enhancements that we can provide on the property to make this a more acceptable product for
staff and the commission.
So when we first submitted this zoning request, one of the things we evaluated is we looked
at the zoning in this area comprehensively, including the area to the north of Mingo Road.
As you could tell, you have your more intense non-residential land uses to the north, and
then it goes down to single family, which is just south of us.
When we first considered this zoning request, we thought that it would be a compatible zoning
district because it would provide an additional buffer to the single family houses to the
south, and it would provide an additional buffer from the railroad to the single family
houses to the south, and we thought it would be an appropriate transition from the commercial
north of Mingo down to the low density residential.
As you can tell, this is what it would look like if the zoning was accepted.
We have an understanding that staff is a little bit concerned with the density that we have
now, which is 27 units of the acre.
So one of the alternative options that we want to propose this evening is maybe considering
an overlay.
With that overlay, we could limit that density to whatever the commission finds is more appropriate
for this area.
With that overlay, we could also exclude those non-residential land uses that are allowed
by NMRU that are not desirable.
And then as well, if there are any additional site enhancements that you would see would
improve the quality of this product, we are also willing to consider those.
So Mikesh Parna is the developer on this project, and he's going to step up in just a little
bit and kind of tell you why we need that extra density and kind of go through some
of the factors that we are taking consideration that require that extra multifamily density.
But before I do so, it's easy to kind of disregard some of the site enhancements that we have
now on the site.
So in the blue line, that is a six-foot screening wall.
And then in the blue, those are landscape buffers.
So to the north and the south, you have a 10-foot landscape buffer.
On the west, you have a 15-foot landscape buffer.
In those buffers, you have bushes.
In addition to that, we were very careful in picking the plant materials.
We did choose to provide eastern red cedars.
For those of you who are not familiar with those, there's a picture of them right there.
They grow to be taller than six feet, sometimes up to 12, really more than that.
But they have a lot of foliage, and they provide a really great screening and buffering.
So that's going to be provided every 30 feet along the perimeter of the property.
This is an example of an eastern red cedar that we've done for another project here in
the DFW area.
This is six feet.
What we are proposing is eight feet, so it's going to be even taller than that.
So I wanted to just take the opportunity to just point those two items out, because I
think those really do help further screen and buffer and mitigate the impacts of the
multi-family land uses or multi-family from the surrounding land uses.
And also just one more item, I don't know if you had noticed this on the site plan,
we also have a 40-foot building setback on the south of us from the single family.
So it's going to provide a little bit of distance there from the single family.
And our building height is being restricted to 40 feet, which is currently what is required
by NMRU 12.
So at this time, I'm going to let Mikesh kind of walk through some of the points of why we
are requesting that higher density.
Before you leave, if we can ask questions now, it might be helpful than going back and
forth.
Okay.
And I would encourage the commission at this point to try to gain facts, but not open any
negotiations.
I think it's prudent to listen to public feedback and help us inform any discussion that we
might have with the applicant.
So if this is fact-finding, I think it's a good time, but if we're opening negotiations,
let's hold off on that right now.
With that said, Commissioner Smith.
Thank you.
I'm not sure if you, as the engineer, the one who was in charge of the notification
to the residents, was that you or was that?
Yes.
That was us.
Okay.
When was that?
When were those sent?
Those were sent and were postmarked on the 22nd.
22nd.
Okay.
So that was it.
Okay.
Great.
And then you said at the very, very beginning of this, you said you were seeking a table.
You're not seeking approval tonight.
You're seeking a table.
Yes.
Okay.
If they were to be given a table, would it be come back as an item of consideration or
would it come out as a public hearing?
It would be re-noticed.
Re-noticed.
Yeah.
My understanding is that the staff would be re-noticing it, in which case, you know, you
would have a public hearing at that time.
Now, certainly, there are a number of people came out to be heard tonight and they could
be heard, but you could really do both if you wanted to.
You could leave the public hearing open and re-notice it.
There's certainly nothing wrong with that either.
I just wanted to make clarification.
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Pernetta?
Yeah, and I just wanted to clarify because, as the Chair mentioned, this wouldn't really
normally be an appropriate setting for negotiations.
I just wanted to ask, knowing that the initial recommendation was a denial and knowing that
you're trying to find middle ground, I was wondering if you had already engaged with
the city staff in terms of what they deemed maybe a sweet spot number for an overlay.
Yeah.
I think I'll let Mikesh kind of speak to that a little bit more, but since we have submitted
this application, we've worked extensively with staff on the TIA, revising the site as
necessary to bring it up to the city standards and satisfy all of staff's comments.
Staff's recommendation, we found out about it as the staff report was issued.
I think there's a lot of things that they take into consideration as well before they
formulate that recommendation, so since the time we submitted until now, we've just been
working very hard to try to address all those comments and mitigate all those impacts as
much as possible.
Okay.
Thank you.
I don't see other questions at this time, so we can have your engineer.
Okay.
Did you just state your name and address for the record?
Sure.
Hello, commission.
My name is Mikesh Parna.
My address is 5811 Carey Drive, Frisco, Texas, and I'm here to, again, as our Ileana staff
from engineering has mentioned, we would like to table the case today.
The real intent behind coming here today is to just understand the situation and want
to make sure that we are all in a happy mode.
I don't want to go and do any extreme on any side for anything or any property that we
have.
So, addressing back to your question, Matt, since the time we got the denial, that was
Friday evening, I believe, when we got the report, that was when we realized that it
is a denial.
On Monday, we had a conversation, and the city staff has been excellent and very helpful
in understanding all aspects of the project.
This is our first project we are doing in Denton.
We are done in other cities, Frisco, Mckinney, Carrollton, all over, but it has been very,
very good ride in the last six months we have been working with them.
So we have submitted another proposal where we have reduced the density, but obviously
this was within a day.
So Monday we had the discussion, Tuesday we submitted it.
So not enough time for them to review and submit feedback today.
That is where we are on that thing.
So just to step back over here, I would like to just mention where we came from.
When we came to Denton, what was our thought process, and when we saw this property.
We saw this property back in December 2017, it's almost a year now.
And we looked at the zoning, we looked at the surroundings of the property, and we saw
very clearly, if I can go back, the existing zoning around it.
So I don't have that.
But when we drove around the property, and we drove around the entire neighborhood, we
saw homes, we saw commercial, we saw the, I think there is a roof master on the west
side of the property.
There is a railroad, and then there is the apartments on the north side of the property,
and then there is a big tech commercial on the east side of the property.
And when we looked at this property, the reason why we selected this property was because
it was a, we thought, at least it was a very good transition.
And this property has three sides.
One side is the railroad, and then the other side is the commercial, the roof master.
And then on the south, you have the drainage cement, which is a big buffer between any
of the south properties, the residential.
And we thought, when we look at it, and when you look at the transition of the zoning,
it has low density, moderate, and you have high.
And when we looked at the future land use back in spring of this year, we thought it
was going to be NRMU, I know it's draft, there are a lot of discussions around it.
And that was the reason why we thought, this is perfect, this is the best use of the land
we can get over there.
We are not disturbing the homes in the south, and we are not asking for very high density
NRMU.
But then we realized, the zoning is NRMU 12, and there is nothing in between from 12.
The next zoning up is 30.
We don't need 30.
We are looking for, because of the construction cost, and we are adding a significant amount
of mockingbird road, expansion, turn lanes, widening path, diesel lanes, three driveways
to enter into the property to mitigate the traffic.
So looking at all those costs and for the project feasibility, we thought this is the
number of units that you will need to be above.
That was the part of the reason why we requested 20, 27 per acre.
That is the average between both the lots over there.
So we thought, okay, if we are going to increase the density, it's going to hurt someone,
right?
Either the traffic or the residents on some, so we said, let's do a TIA report, right?
Let's do a complete traffic analysis report of the location.
And that was done.
It was submitted.
It was reviewed.
We got the feedback.
There were a couple of suggestions to make the north driveway either close it or keep
it one way, which is only turn only so people don't have to see left.
We said, okay, that's fine.
We have three driveways.
We can make the other two as in and out, and the top one only as turn in.
So a lot of changes were made, good feedback from the city traffic engineer.
All those changes were made.
And then we thought, okay, let's listen to the neighborhood, right?
Let's go and have a neighborhood meeting.
Let's listen to what they have, what we can do in advance.
We had, I think one, we had one person show up and he was in favor of the project at that
point of time.
So we said, okay, let's go to the PNZ.
And that's when we said, okay, we are ready to go to the PNZ.
We think, we thought we had done our homework.
And then we got this on Friday and we thought, okay, let's step back here, right?
So that's the reason why we came today, to really get everyone's feedback here.
And I would like to table the case, as Ileana mentioned.
Just get the feedback on where we need to be in terms of the project, in terms of making
the best use of the land, and in terms of doing the best thing for the neighborhood
over here.
That's our intent.
That's all I have to say.
In regards to what Ileana mentioned, what we would like to propose from since Friday,
that we have had the discussions, we would like to go back and is it, do you have the
site plan here?
Yeah.
So we are proposing to remove, yeah, so we are proposing to remove this building over
here and also this building over here.
So this one building, this one space will be open space, this one space will be open
space.
And I think we are potentially looking at another building, maybe also we could remove
one of these.
If you could talk into the mic.
We are broadcasting.
Oh, sorry.
Yeah.
It's okay.
So what we are proposing is to remove this building over here on the entrance side and
also this building over here on the entrance side.
And potentially one more building, which we don't know which one.
So we are going to remove three buildings from here.
So that reduces, that brings down the lot coverage to less than 50 percentage, I believe
roughly less than 50 percentage, which is well within our NRMU 12 limits.
It also, we are going to restrict with the overlay suggestion that we received from the
city, which I believe that is exactly what I was looking for, right?
We don't want 30.
So why am I asking for 30, right?
I think the overlay and the PD gives us that restriction to put on ourselves to say we
don't need to go about it.
So I think that covers the building height, 40, I think we are currently at 40, we plan
to stay at 40.
We don't have any intention to go above beyond, we are right now at less than 50 percentage
for lot coverage.
So then the only other reason left on the denial is the density, right?
So we are bringing that density down to close to around less than 20 units per acre.
Yeah, it will be somewhere between it into 20 acres.
So that's all I have to say right now.
Thank you very much, do we have any questions?
I'm sorry, so that was about 18 to 20, is what you said you were tabling right now,
but hoping to come back in the future for?
Correct, yeah.
Thank you.
I don't see any other questions, I appreciate you being here for the presentation.
Thank you, Commissioner.
This is a public hearing and so anyone who is wanting to speak on this item can certainly
do so.
Just for clarification, the applicant has requested the commission to consider tabling
this item.
If that was to be approved, then they would come back to planning and zoning and we would
have the same process again, probably in a different room, but it would be able to be
providing you another opportunity to speak.
So tonight is a public hearing, it is open, happy to have any and all speak tonight.
If a table request is approved for the negotiations to continue, this process will happen again
either on November 28th or December 12th, I imagine if we're going to do it this year.
With that said, I only have one card to speak, I have several other cards to read in the
record of an opposition, but I only have one person to speak and that's Nancy Carson, is
she here?
Are you still wishing to speak?
Yes.
Would you certainly come to the podium?
And when you get to the microphone, you can just state your name and address for the record
and you'll be provided three minutes to speak.
Is there any way I can put up pictures on the screen?
I do not believe so in this room.
Okay, I brought some, I thought we could do that.
Unfortunately, we don't have that option tonight.
If you would like to pass them around, we'd be happy to take a look at them if that would
be helpful.
Okay.
Well, I'll just start off with showing what we've sort of looked at already.
And I want to point out that all of these buildings are three stories.
Personally, I'm not interested in compromising with this situation.
I think we should stick to our guns.
Honestly, I think 12 units per acre is too many and if we're going to negotiate, we should
negotiate down.
There's a number of reasons for that.
I'm going to show you some apartments and how we are really overloaded in apartments.
This is Audra, this is Mockingbird, this is McKinney and this is Mingo.
And all of those roads in red are two lanes.
We don't have any place to put traffic out there.
These are two lanes and I don't expect that the city is going to come out and make them
larger.
But in this one approximately square mile, these are the apartments that we have and
I've numbered them up to 13 and there are a total of 2068 units in a square mile and
that doesn't count some that are already approved that aren't built.
So we are overpopulated already in apartments.
Here I'm showing you a map that we've looked at, but this is their 10 acres they're talking
about.
Okay, I duplicated that and put it here on Bel Air North where I live.
And Bel Air North is pretty much like the other neighborhoods around.
And so I'm estimating as close as I can that here in Bel Air North we have 25 acres.
You know how many houses we have on those 25 acres?
127.
Do you know what it's going to look like when they put this 10 acres here of 267?
Picture that.
These are apartments that are going up now.
These are three stories over on McKinney and you look at all the different units.
These are townhouses.
They just opened up the first of October.
These are building built.
Just slews and slews.
If you go down to McKinney, you'll see tons of apartments.
These are duplexes over in our area.
Can you see how unattractive they are?
Here is what renters do a lot of times.
And so to overload us with that, and here's another picture of what some renters did,
to overload us with that degrades our neighborhoods.
Did that mean that my time is up?
Okay.
I just want to say one thing about schools and families and children.
The school that these children in that area would go to is 1.3 miles from the area.
And there are no buses.
The middle school is 3 miles, .4.
I don't know if they have a bus.
The high school is over 2 miles and they do have a bus.
But there are a lot of things.
I could talk to you for 30 minutes, but I'll wait until my next turn.
Well, I certainly appreciate you being here in your presentation.
Commissioner Beck has a question for you.
Hey, Ms. Carson.
Thank you for your presentation.
And I think a lot of us empathize with you and everybody else here about a higher density
development there.
But just for the record, by right, as it stands zone now as NRMU 12, the 40-foot height is
loud.
And that's what they're suggesting, which would give you still three stories if they
stayed with the NRMU 12.
There was one other point I wanted to make.
Well, yeah, 12 units.
I guess the other point I wanted to make, and it's kind of a little empathetic towards
the owner of the property.
This area isn't going to be developed with a housing development, not that close to the
railroad track.
It more than likely has been taken off many people's lists.
So a development that would allow up to 12 units per acre would be still a good transition.
But to the point that there's an NRMU across the street, I think doesn't necessarily beg
the question that it should allow one on the other side of it because mingle and the railroad
track serve as a good buffer and distinguishing point, and it shouldn't be brought across anymore.
But just for the record, by right, they wouldn't even have to come to us.
They could go ahead and build apartments 12 units per acre.
I'm not really objecting to that.
My comment was because they want to negotiate down to 27.
What a joke.
Also here I wanted to show you this.
This is between their property and the houses on Stockton.
This is a 42, I measured it yesterday, a 42 foot concrete drainage ditch.
That closes them in completely.
And here is where the water goes under Mockingbird there.
There's a lot more things that we have time to talk about that are really against that
property doing more density than it's already zoned for.
>> Okay.
>> Commissioner Granada, do you have a question?
>> No, I just wanted to make the distinction, I believe the last thing that we heard was
that it wasn't 27 units per acre, it's more like 18, which should knock off about 80 units
altogether.
>> I think we should stick with 12.
That's what our people here want, and why do we have to give up something we already
have?
>> I'm not saying you have to, I just wanted to clarify that point for the record.
Thank you.
>> This is a public hearing.
I don't have any other requests to speak.
Is there anyone in the room for an overflow, I'm not sure who is in the building.
If I wish to speak, you're more than welcome to do so.
All righty, can you just walk up to the podium, sir?
And if you could state your name and address for the record.
>> Stephen Johnson at 1412 Briarwood.
I had one question earlier when you were showing the 200 foot notification area.
For Stockton street, does it reach the city right away on the south side or the south
boundary?
Or does it touch any of those properties?
And what requirement is there, if it barely touches the property, do they have standing
within the 200 foot notification or does it have to have a certain percentage of the property
within that?
>> If the 200 foot boundary hits the property, they would be notified, but their opposition
would be measured by the square footage of their property within the 200.
So if they get noticed that the entire property doesn't count towards that supermajority,
it would just be the sliver or portion that falls within.
>> And then are there, I assume that in the planning that's gone on prior to the meeting
here, is any detention required or necessary for the storm water drainage on this property?
>> It wasn't covered in the work session as this is just the zoning case.
When we look at detention, it would be through the engineering process later down kind of
the trail of progress.
Any construction of the property would have to meet any of those drainage requirements
that the city would have by code.
>> And then I heard mention that the improvements to Mockingbird, I assume the developer would
be required to make those in conformance with the future collector needs of that street,
but what is the projected improvements for Mockingbird further south?
How long?
Because there's still a lot of cars coming north to get to Mingor University and if you
got just this one section of Mockingbird that's improved with this development, it may not
be enough.
>> Timeline or resource to provide?
>> On the full length of Mockingbird at this time, no.
Only because it's still unsure whether or not the zoning would be approved.
As Ron had mentioned, there was a TIA that was complete.
I don't recall that it called for full improvement along Mockingbird other than the perimeter
of their property, but right now, there's nothing planned in the near future.
>> Traffic volume would still be there with just a small section of Mockingbird improved.
And those are some of the questions I had, and I guess I'm within the 500 foot notification
area and I am in opposition to the increased density, but I would hope that some of those
issues could be addressed.
>> Absolutely.
We appreciate you being here.
And for what it's worth, for you and the rest of the audience, regardless of what happens
at the commission, we are a recommending body to city council, so there will be another
opportunity to speak for or against this when or if it gets to the city council, so you'll
have hopefully multiple opportunities to express your concerns and find remedies to those,
hopefully.
>> Thank you.
>> Can I speak?
>> Absolutely.
>> If you get us, when he gets the mic, say your name and address.
>> Good evening.
My name is Linda Godoy, and I live at 3001 Oakshire Street, which is at the corner at
Mockingbird.
I am a homeowner within the 500 square foot radius.
I'm also a parent of two children who attend Alexander Elementary School, which is not
walking distance.
You cannot imagine the car line in the morning for us trying to get our kids dropped off.
Alexander Elementary School is a title one school.
It is already very taxed.
I'm worried about the additional strain on our schools, not to mention the rest of the
infrastructure.
Mockingbird does flood when we have rain, despite that improvement on Cooper Creek.
Part of that parcel of land at the proposed project is zoned floodplain, even though it
is close to Cooper Creek.
So I am also worried about that.
My subdivision has one entrance and one exit, and that's in front of my house.
If traffic backs up on Mockingbird, we wouldn't be able to evacuate.
So let's say something happens at Feral Glass, let's say something happens on the railroad
tracks.
What if a train derails?
Or how about when?
Not if, when?
You know, I worry about those things.
So I am in opposition of having any higher density than what is currently zoned for those
reasons.
I can tell you that people park on the street.
Our streets are narrow.
I've seen times when I didn't think a fire truck or an ambulance was going to make it
down my street to respond to an emergency because cars were parked on either side of
the street.
I just cannot see our community building up any more than it already has.
I feel like our quality of life in Denton has diminished because of the building that
we're doing.
I would love to see that parcel be a park.
You know, my kids have no shared space to play in.
We don't have a sense of community.
We have a bedroom community.
We have homes that we commute to.
We don't have a place to come together and be neighbors.
We don't have a way to beautify Denton in that neighborhood.
I literally feel like I'm on the wrong side of the tracks.
So thank you for hearing me out.
Of course.
Thanks for being here.
Thank you.
Any questions?
Thank you very much.
So I have several cards that I'm going to read into the record.
These are individuals.
The following individuals have selected an opposition position for the item wishing not
to speak.
It's unclear.
There's some that are marked for this agenda item and some for the next.
So I'm going to read them all for this agenda item, because they're tied.
There are a couple that are specific to the SUP, which is a different item.
So I'll do my best to partition these out, I think.
Kathy Smith is an opposition.
Hudson and Sandra Williams, opposition.
Sharon Stewart, opposition.
Ellen Reichl, thank you, opposition.
Brian Hurt, opposition.
Michelle Hurt, opposition.
Linda just spoke.
And Judy DeLay, opposition.
Steven Johnson, opposition.
With the cards and oppositions, we also submitted a petition of neighbors that have come out
in opposition for this.
Rather than reading this into the record, I want to note that there's 38 signatures
on the petition and opposition.
This will be forwarded to city council for their records to review.
Also these addresses will be looked at and looking at the 20%.
City will go through every address on here and map them out.
Okay, additionally, we have seven response forms in opposition and nine total emails
in opposition, all of which will go into the record as such, the ones that I've stated
and the ones submitted in writing plus the petition.
Again, this is a public hearing.
If there's anyone wishing to speak, you're more than welcome to do so.
We'd love to hear from you if you want to.
Okay.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and we will turn this over to discussion questions
and motion on the dice.
>> Thank you, chair.
I just want to thank everybody for being here tonight and speaking up.
If we decide to table this, we may see you back here and discuss this again.
My personal view at this time is that anything above NRMU 12 is really too much.
I understand the property owner's concern that for it to pay off well, you may need
something a little bit more dense, but I'm not sure that an NRMU is the good transition
that you say it is because mainly of the traffic issue, if nothing else, we've got two roads
here that simply won't handle much more than they already do.
I just live across the way off Old North Road, so I'm up and down that area plenty and I
can see that it's tough to handle and this would add to it.
So for what it's worth down the road, you know, if you're looking for a sweet spot
between NRMU 12 and the NRMU, I'm going to have a hard time with that personally myself.
Just to share that with you now, unless I think even, you know, if somebody does come
forward with say a multifamily unit for this, it still requires an SUP and I'd probably
even want to put a few limitations on that, just considering the nature of the roads right
now and the fact that it does back up to this area.
I think the idea of a park is a good idea.
I wish we could get the city involved in that, but that's always easier said than done, but
I think that would probably be a good place to have something like that, an open green
space for the people that live in that neighborhood.
I just wanted to say that for her.
Yeah, Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I'll just say a few comments too.
I mean, clearly infrastructure is a problem in this area, namely the roads.
I mean, this is an intensely populated area of our city with some future approved projects
already in the area.
The roads are terribly inferior.
It would be very difficult for me to get on board to support any kind of zoning change
that would intensify the density there.
So I'll weigh in on my opinion on this matter.
It seems before us we either have the approval or denial or table.
I am of the mindset to provide the applicant an opportunity to be creative.
Maybe should they come back at 13 and it's all two stories and looks like garden homes
and it is above the 12.
I'm not sure what potentially could happen from this.
I think by tabling it, it gives the conversation some room.
They've had an opportunity to listen to the citizen feedback.
The overwhelming opposition hopefully is communicating a message to them.
But maybe they come back and say, you know what, we'll just do the SUP.
We don't need to rezone.
We just need the SUP and we can have that conversation then, but I generally historically
on this commission have been in favor of applicants asking for a table just to give them the
opportunity to see what can be created.
I certainly understand the perspective of the citizens as well as fellow commissioners
on density and infrastructure and everything else.
My inclination would be to see a motion and support a motion to table this item.
>> Thank you, chair.
And I would support a motion to table as well.
I was giving my opinion so when the applicant does come back, which I will gladly listen
and look at another presentation, but I definitely wanted my feedback heard there.
But I would support a table.
>> If I have not done so already, the public hearing is closed.
I think I did.
Oh, Commissioner Fernanda.
I'm sorry.
>> And I'll second that motion to table.
>> Clarification.
Commissioner Ellis, did you make the motion?
>> I did not at this time.
>> I'm sorry.
>> That's okay.
>> Do you want to make a motion or?
>> I will make a motion to table.
>> Okay.
To table it, we have to a date uncertain or to a date certain.
I'll turn to the city about timeline if the 28th is possible or the 12th is more realistic
or should we do uncertain?
>> Perhaps uncertain.
It probably at this point would be more prudent to advertise to make sure that folks are aware
of when that's back.
Also give us some time to look at it because obviously whatever's reduced, you know, there's
always a cause and effect with the SGP, so I suspect if it is tabled, that SGP would
sort of automatically tie on to that, so you'll be looking at a different request as well
as associated with that.
>> Commissioner Pernanda, are you okay with tabling this to a date uncertain?
>> Yes, to a date uncertain.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> And I'll second that motion.
I would like to add to that between now and the time that we meet again on this that another
neighborhood meeting be held at a time that's convenient for everybody and perhaps a venue
that's a little bit closer, if that's possible, where all these concerns can be heard and
help you make a decision that might make us think otherwise, okay?
So I second that motion.
>> We have a first and a second.
Do we have any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote by show of hands for the motion to table this to a
date uncertain.
All in favor?
All against?
Motion carries 6-0.
So now we're in this odd spot of hearing a presentation for an SUP tied to a zoning case
that's been postponed or tabled.
I guess I'll turn it over to Ron for presentation, and then we will go through this.
>> Yeah, I might want to just have an abbreviated.
>> Ron, could you provide us a brief of your presentation?
>> Yes, will do.
Got the message.
This SUP- >> I just want to make sure I open the public
hearing for this agenda item.
>> Okay.
>> Sorry.
>> This SUP request is the same site that we just heard.
It's to allow for a multi-family use, approximately 267 dwellings per acre on the subject site.
Here is the proposed site plan, as we heard earlier, it will most likely change, as well
as the landscape plan, elevations as proposed.
Staff went through the approval criteria as shown here, conformance with all standards
and compatible with surrounding area.
We've already discussed compatibility.
We did a full analysis of the specific use permit, covered all of these that you see
up here, neighborhood meeting was held, notices were presented as required.
Staff recommends denial of the subject SUP, primarily due to the density of the proposed
development.
Any questions for Ron?
Thank you, Ron, for the presentation.
This is a public hearing.
I have cards of individuals not wishing to speak.
Again, this is a public hearing, so we welcome anyone wishing to speak.
Perfect.
You're more than welcome to go to the podium.
You're up.
Again, if you could speak your name and address for the record.
Steven Johnson, 1412 Briarwood.
In terms of negotiations upcoming and any sort of neighborhood meeting that the developer
may want to have, and I'm not sure if I missed the last one or the first one, rather, when
we received the notice, it was in an unmarked envelope, if I remember correctly, and just
looked like a piece of junk mail.
So I don't know if there was a return address on the envelope that you sent to property
owners, and if that could be, maybe even referring to Mockingbird multifamily, which would draw
attention, and I don't know if at that meeting, if you had any site elevation plans of what
type of architecture you were proposing, that would be helpful.
Things like that, and I guess that was the main suggestions I had for upcoming meetings.
Absolutely.
And as much as the applicant's willing, I would encourage a sidebar conversation to
make sure they have your contact information and make sure you all can align to have that
discussion.
All right.
Thank you.
Anyone else wishing to speak?
Yes, ma'am.
I still have more.
You're more than welcome to come down.
I'll give you another three minutes.
I want to talk about a safety issue, and that's there on Mockingbird where it comes into-
Hey, Senator, if you could just say your name and address for the record.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yeah, it's fine.
Nancy Cores.
Senate 2908, Oakshire.
Thank you.
I'd like to talk about a safety issue that we have with this situation, and it's not
really to do with consideration of what goes on the property, although it would make a
difference because of the additional traffic.
And that is where Mockingbird comes down and Mingo goes across here and Old North goes
down here.
Have any of y'all ever made that intersection?
It's very complicated.
And I made my little pink rectangles about the size of cars, so what I think they would
be, so I'm trying to show a situation here.
In fact, when I have someone come into my house that's never came before, I never let
them go that way.
I always direct them a different way.
I said, "There's a quicker way, but you don't want to go there."
Now I've just got 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 little cars here.
I was crossing the railroad tracks there in front of the wood lawns, wood lakes, apartments.
And I was the 11th car waiting on the train to get past.
And before the train passed, there were about 16 cars, best I could count.
Okay, and that's a four-lane road there.
So there was two lanes with 16 cars and I'm waiting on the train to get by.
I couldn't see how many cars on the other side because you can't see the other side
of the train, but I think we'll have a real problem here when we don't have this situation
with 8 cars, but we've got all of this mess here and a lot more cars.
A couple years ago, before they -- when we were discussing the woodlands, I did a study
on the trains there.
I stayed up 24 hours so I could count every train that came through.
And there is approximately -- because they're not consistent, the same number every day
-- 25 to 30 trains a day.
They are extremely loud.
And I'm about a half a mile from the tracks myself.
I don't think I could stand to live right next to them.
So I'll just stop there.
Thank you again for your thoughtful presentation.
We do have cards that's noted this agenda item or both, so I want to read these into
the record in opposition.
Forgive me if I've mispronounced anything.
Linda Godoy, who spoke on the previous item, Brian Hurtz, Michelle Hurtz, Judy Delay,
Stephen Johnson, and Ellen Reifel.
This is a public hearing.
If there's anyone who wishes to speak, we're welcome to do so.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn it to the dais for discussion, motion,
or questions.
I'll make a motion to table, but before I complete that, I'd say that I felt my comments
were probably best waited until here.
Make a recommendation to the applicant that we find some way that this doesn't need a
zoning change, but just an SCP.
I think I've always been in support, and my voting record will reflect that the city of
Denton and Denton County in general is growing, and there's nothing we can do about it other
than accommodate.
It doesn't mean we have to necessarily go overboard, but multi-family developments are
going to have to happen.
We're going to be growing in the city, that's just what happens.
Multi-family development is going to have to happen somewhere, this is already zoned
for it.
I think that it possibly could be a good spot for it.
There definitely are some huge concerns about the traffic, and especially, I guess it's
called Alexander now, when I grew up in Denton ISD, it was called Lee, but someone said Alexander
Elementary, so what happened to Lee, but I know what happened to Lee.
That being a Title I school as it is, adding a big 267 unit development would be extremely
detrimental to the teachers and the facility down that way, as well as those who live in
the neighborhood.
I do want to see a motion to table, make a motion to table, and extremely encourage the
applicant to find some way to make this profitable for you, but to play within the parameters
of 12 units an acre.
That would be my recommendation.
If I see anything more than that, I might be flexible two or three units above it, but
even an 18 to 20 unit an acre, I'm probably going to vote to deny.
We have a first.
Commissioner Cole?
I second.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain.
Perfect, thank you.
And you're okay with that motion?
I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain.
Perfect, thank you.
And you're okay with that motion?
I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain.
Perfect, thank you.
And you're okay with that motion?
I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain.
Perfect, thank you.
And you're okay with that motion?
I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain.
Perfect, thank you.
And you're okay with that motion?
I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain.
Perfect, thank you.
And you're okay with that motion?
I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain.
Perfect, thank you.
And you're okay with that motion?
I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain.
Perfect, thank you.
And you're okay with that motion to table for date on certain.
All right, good evening.
This is case S 18 eight for the Windsor drive apartments.
The request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation
to city council regarding a request for a specific use permit to allow a multifamily
use on a parcel that you can see outlined in yellow on the map, which is approximately
31 acres in total located on the north side of Windsor drive along the I 35 frontage road.
This particular property is zoned in our MU that's neighborhood residential mixed use
within this district multifamily is permitted with an SUV required as well as with the stipulations
of limitation for limitation for says that multifamily is only permitted either with
a specific use permit as part of a mixed use development or as part of a preexisting approval
such as for a master plan community or a small area plan.
In this particular instance, although they do intend to ultimately have a mixed use development,
they are seeking to develop the multifamily portion first.
So the SUP is really the only of those criteria that would fit in this situation.
With a specific use permit, there are multiple criteria for approval that are outlined in
your backup and in full, but the generality there is that you're looking for compatibility
between the proposed use and surrounding property.
There's multiple means of compatibility such as the SUP or the use that's proposed not impeding
orderly development on surrounding property that it have adequate parking and access and
not generate any traffic issues that there is adequate nuisance prevention in place and
that adequate landscaping, screening, buffering, as well as general compatibility in terms
of scale and architecture.
One of the key features of this site that affects that compatibility is the fact that
there are two gas wells present on the adjacent property.
You can see those indicated here on the map.
We have the pain number two and pain number one wells.
You'll notice the light purple color and that is the boundaries of an existing gas well
plat.
So one of the features that comes into play on this site is that with this gas well plat
covering the property, for this property to be plotted and developed concurrently with
that gas well plat, they did have to negotiate with the operator and work with them to get
kind of their consent, if you will, to let the property be plotted and developed concurrent
with that existing gas well plat.
So as indicated in your backup, there have been extensive negotiations with the surface
developer and that gas well operator over the past year and the site plan that you'll
see tonight reflects the terms that they've come to agree upon.
So looking at that site plan, you can see, as I mentioned here, the multifamily use is
only on about 17 out of those 31 acres.
This plan reflects 336 units, a mixture of one, two and three bedroom apartments.
There is a density with this plan of about 20.5 dwelling units per acre.
NRMU would allow up to 30, so they're well within that parameter.
The plan that you see here has a total of 16 buildings.
The maximum height on those would be three stories and that is a total of just over 300,000
square feet of buildings shown on the plan.
They are proposing a total of 632 parking spaces, which meets and exceeds our requirement.
The spaces that are in excess of the required 629 are within garages, so those are allowed
per our parking code.
This plan reflects two points of access, one from the I-35 frontage road, one from Windsor
Drive, you can see here on the south, and then as I mentioned, this plan also reflects
the terms of that negotiation that they have with the gas well operator.
So our code requires a 250 foot reverse setback from the boundary of the pad site to a protected
use structure, which in this case would be the multi-family buildings.
Here with the southern well site, you can see that full 250 foot radius, and part of
their agreement was that the operator, due to their limited space on that southern site,
didn't want anything within that 250 feet, so you'll notice there's no parking or any
development planned within that radius.
For the northern site, this smaller outline you see here is roughly the existing pad site
boundaries.
Normally, the 250 foot reverse setback would be measured from there, but the operator indicated
that they would like to someday be able to expand that site, so you'll see here kind
of the boundaries of what would ultimately be their expanded site if they're able to
get through the numerous hurdles that would be in place for them to do so.
And part of the agreement was that the reverse setback be measured from that proposed pad
site boundary rather than the existing boundary.
So for today, we would have well over 250 feet between the building and the pad site,
but if and when the operator is able to expand, they would still be able to meet that reverse
setback requirement.
We wait until the end of the presentation for questions.
All right.
Looking at the landscape plan, what you see here for this site is roughly 50/50, lot coverage
being well below the 80% maximum landscape area while exceeding the 20% minimum.
One of the key features is the type D buffer that is required between the multifamily use
and the gas well use, which is considered industrial per our code.
So this by code would be a 30 foot wide area with eight trees and 20 shrubs per 100 linear
feet.
The applicant is seeking an alternative buffer, which is allowed by our code to be approved
by the director if it meets or exceeds the requirements.
And what they would propose is at least a six foot high opaque fence with trees along
that.
So that is something that unless you all choose to weigh in and provide some specific guidelines
there, the director could look at approving that with their full site plan submittal.
Internal to the site, you'll see numerous trees reflected on the plan.
They have expressed an intent to meet all of the requirements for parking lot landscaping
and street trees even along their internal streets.
And then they've also indicated that intent to provide open space per our code that could
include things such as picnic areas, grills, or sports facilities in a dog park.
These are some sample building elevations.
There were numerous provided that were included in your backup, so I just picked a couple
of those examples.
But you can see generally a neutral color palette, earth tones and gray tones with masonry
materials that would include hardy board and stucco.
Again just another example.
So part of our additional analysis here was looking at our future land use map.
So this area is designated for business innovation.
And you can see on the map here that the business innovation area is primarily located on the
west side of I-35, but it does kind of transition over the highway.
And then you very quickly get into low intensity residential development there.
So this site is kind of located in that transitional zone where we would look to see perhaps not
the employment center districts that would fit well within there, but some of the transitional
districts such as our regional and neighborhood mixed use districts.
So NRMU fits comfortably in there and provides that transition where we could have offices
or higher density residential that would transition from industrial uses and office complexes
into single family.
So this proposal would fit well within that.
Some additional analysis, we did consider that this site doesn't directly join single
family, so there would be not only their required landscape buffer, but also still this vacant
property left in between them in the nearest single family homes, but the applicant is
proposing to meet our buffering requirements there.
The multi-family use would be unlikely to generate any substantial nuisances in terms
of odor, fumes, noise and glare, and they are proposing to provide adequate parking
and access to the site to alleviate any traffic concerns there.
And the scale of development is also well within the parameters of NRMU.
Notification was published regarding this request as well as sent to adjoining property
owners.
I've received no written opposition to date.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting in September and had approximately 20 people
in attendance at that time, and that full list of attendees was provided in your backup.
So as part of the ordinance for this SUP, staff is choosing to memorialize what was
reflected on the site plan.
So staff is enumerating the details of the site plan and also indicating with that that
we would request the ability to approve increases or decreases to any of these numbers of less
than or equal to 5%.
So those numbers and details would include that the multi-family be limited to a maximum
of 17 out of the total 31 acres on site, that it would be limited to the 16 buildings as
indicated with a footprint at around 112 square feet, or 112,000 square feet, my apologies,
that their 336 parking spaces be provided as specified, or I'm sorry, 336 dwelling units,
density of 20.5 dwelling units per acre.
With that 629 parking spaces, which would meet our code's requirement, they do specify
632, as I mentioned.
The difference there are not provided impervious as you'd be used to seeing because they're
within garage spaces.
The site plan also reflects 49% lot coverage, 51% landscape area that we would memorialize
here, that does include the required type D buffer to the industrial use adjoining the
site.
And as I indicated, we would request that the director be able to consider and approve
alternative buffers that meet the code requirements.
And then finally, because those building elevations were kind of conceptual and just ideas of what
they might like to do on site, rather than holding them specifically to that, we request
that they be allowed to just meet the general facades that were provided there in terms
of color palette being earth and gray tone, and then the materials being similar to what's
provided with the stucco and hardy board materials.
So with that, along with those requirements, staff does have four recommended conditions
with our approval.
The first being that the City Council recognize that driveway access locations from state
highways must be approved by TxDOT, that alternative location or that alterations in
the configuration of I-35 are currently under planning as they look at expanding the highway.
So any driveway access locations from northbound I-35 frontage road which must be altered in
response to those changing TxDOT requirements throughout the permitting process could be
approved administratively by staff, provided that the alterations comply with the DDC,
our criteria manuals, and that the site plan elements be satisfied.
Second condition would be that landscaping in the attached plan reflects an intent to
comply with all DDC requirements for parking street trees, minimum landscape areas, and
compatibility buffers, with allowing for the administrative approval of that alternative
type D buffer.
Minor alterations to the locations of the individual planting shown on that plan could
be approved by staff, provided that final landscaping complies with the site plan in
terms of all of the buffer and open space locations.
Third is in reference to the gas well agreement that I mentioned earlier.
So that agreement that was entered into and executed by both parties that sets forth these
250 foot reverse setbacks as shown must be filed in the records of Denton County prior
to approval of a plat for the subject property, and a note on the plat shall reference this
agreement and the setbacks as shown.
And then finally, notwithstanding the limited administrative approval we requested in these
conditions that the city would reserve the right to require approval by ordinance of
any amendments to the SUP or the plans.
And with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions.
Commissioner back.
Thank you, Chair, just if you know, and if not, maybe the developer tell me what is the
current setback distance now for that northern most well number one I think it is from the
proposed protected use building that will come into play.
I don't have the exact number handy, I believe, Mr. Allison would have that I want to say
it's in the ballpark of 300 to 350 feet, okay, okay, all right, get him to confirm that.
Yeah, certainly.
Thanks.
Commissioner Burnetto.
Yeah, so with regard to hang number two, you know, I see the 250 foot, you know, radius
and, you know, per code, we have no habitable structures there.
I guess the question is, I see the note in there that there's no parking improvements
or other flat work that were allowed in that per the well owner, is that correct?
Correct.
For the southern site, because the operator is very constrained there with the existing
single family homes on one side, they negotiated with the developer to allow them more space
if and when they may need to get in there and do workovers, so they requested that nothing
be within that 250 foot buffer on the southern well.
And that would be to accommodate future construction work, blah, blah, blah.
To my knowledge, they have no plans of ever expanding that site, it'd be very unlikely
that they'd ever be able to, so that would just be for workovers or something similar
on the existing well.
All right, thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
That will continue on whenever they come back for the commercial uses, whatever that is,
a couple years, that 250 buffer will dip down on there, and so the exact same thing will
be there.
Then they won't be able to use commercial uses in that same section as well, Haley?
I don't believe their agreement at this time speaks to the future commercial development.
It would depend on the use, rather, or the city code would require that 250 foot reverse
setback.
That's typically only to things such as residential uses, schools, public parks.
So the commercial can go all the way into the 250.
Our code would allow it.
Now, I'm not sure if there may be some future negotiation with the operator to allow that
continued empty space around their well site.
When you say nothing, does that mean it's also going to block off access to that area?
If it's a green space, do citizens still have the ability to go there if they're staying
there, residents?
It's my understanding that they wanted no additional landscaping in that area, no fencing
or anything of that nature that would restrict them being able to move equipment in and out
in that area.
So it wouldn't restrict anybody from going in, but also wouldn't restrict anybody from
going out there.
Correct.
Yeah, it would just be kind of a vacant green space.
Be there.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Mr. Beck?
Thank you, Chair.
I think you answered that.
So that tight D buffer won't come down into that little stretch right there, is that correct?
And I'll let Lee verify.
I don't believe it will.
This plan reflects that, but I think the agreement was that there be no trees or additional landscaping
in there.
Okay.
Thanks.
Any other questions?
Yep.
Commissioner Smith?
Thank you, Chair.
The tight D buffer, it's just shrubs, it's not walls, nothing else like that?
What they've proposed is a six-foot opaque fence of some sort as well as trees.
What does that mean by, like a brick?
It could be wood masonry or something like that.
I'm slow.
It's in late.
Haley, I do not see any other questions for you.
Thank you for your presentation.
This is a public hearing.
I believe I opened it.
So anyone who wishes to speak on this item may certainly do so, but at this time, I'll
invite Lee Allison for presentation.
And Lee, you have another speaker here, so are you wanting your 20 minutes?
I hope not, but let's don't negotiate that one tonight.
The floor is yours.
I'll try and go quickly.
Good evening.
I'm Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group, 2415 North Elm Street, Denton, Texas, with
me this evening is a developer, Tom Neary.
I'll go through some of this quickly.
The purpose of a specific use permit is to demonstrate that the DDC is being observed,
and that's where we developed this concept plan, was under those kind of conditions and
that thought.
And it's to coordinate with neighbors regarding concerns or issues so the possibility of maybe
adding some restrictions based upon what they came up with and our interest in working with
them and negotiating.
We developed it under that intention.
When we first submitted this, it was supposed to come to P&Z in September, however, I did
not get the signs out on time, so we had to continue it for a little while.
That's all my fault.
Then we came back, and the eve before, we had been working on this agreement with the
Gaswell operator, and then it was determined instead of being a plat on plat issue, it
was going to be a plat on zoning issue, and we had to have that agreement signed before
we could go forward with the zoning, even though we were negotiating it at the time,
instead of bringing forward platting, which we normally would do.
So it got continued again, this time to a time uncertain, and that allowed for a re-notification,
which was fine.
And then last Wednesday we found out, instead of just simply demonstrating that the DDC is
being observed, there was going to be limitations put upon us based upon the site plan.
If we had known that, we had done the site plan a little bit different, but we did work
that with the neighbors, we presented it to the neighborhood meeting in this way, and
we are going to propose an applicant recommendation.
The staff had presented six items to be added to it as far as limitations.
We are going to ask instead of a maximum of 16 buildings as we have shown with a 5% plus
or minus, we have a maximum of 20 buildings.
We are also going to ask that we have a maximum density of 24 units per acre.
We're showing around 20, the code allows 30.
We certainly realize there needs to be some limitation on what we do here based on our
meetings with the neighbors.
We're also asking that the parking shall meet the code, garage spacious will count toward
about provided as normally required.
The maximum block coverage of 65%, we're at 50%, 49, 50% right now, the code allows 80.
We'd like to just set it at 65, give us some flexibility as we work through all the design
issues and possibilities.
A minimum landscape area of 35% inclusive of landscape recreational amenities.
A basketball court may be concrete, but instead of being grass, we want that to count towards
the landscaping requirement, not towards a paving requirement.
Building elevation shall reasonably conform to the examples and shall comply with the
DDC, essentially the same thing as what staff had recommended there, and that no change
to the recommended conditions, there were four or five conditions that were put on this
as well as the staff limitations on density and other things.
As far as the neighbors, adjacent residential developments are there, they're a little bit
away from us, there's some separation, there's some vacant property around us, Interstate
35, gas well site, platted gas well.
Neighborhood concerns, completion of Windsor Drive, that was discussed during the workshop.
Basically we have responsibilities for that portion of Windsor Drive adjacent to our site.
I do not anticipate that area not being constructed by us and doing roadway impact fees, but there's
a little piece right next to us that needs to be filled in and there's another section
over the way.
We have expressed with the neighborhood, we would present that to the city, we'll work
with the city staff, if we can design it as we go along and of course get it built at
the same time in cooperation with the city, we would be more glad to do that.
There's some drainage behind the lots on the west end of the West Glen addition.
Of course we'll be looking at that all over again, that drainage was done by subdivision
to the south and extended through there.
Here's the Windsor Drive concerns.
The red is what we're going to build, the yellow is in front of the gas well access,
we think it would be good to go ahead and fill that in, at least connect this all the
way through, and if it could be worked out to connect that so you would have the divided
four lanes all the way from Bonnie Bray to 35.
We're in favor of it, but that's not all under our control.
Oops, anyway, I already said that.
Gas well operator concerns, reverse setbacks.
Future well development, the gas well operator would like to revise the wells on number two,
number one, gas well number one, they might abandon it in the future, but it's still there
for the time being.
We get reverse setbacks, pain number one is to the north.
It's existing 333 feet to the property line.
Our building's another 100 feet behind that, so we're 433 feet today from the current pain
number one to the buildings.
That was the question I believe you asked earlier.
There it is, 433 feet to the habitable structure.
Pain number two to the south, it's existing 110 feet to the property line.
We propose 250 feet to the multifamily property, 300 feet to habitable structures, and also
within that pain number two as mentioned, we're agreeing to do absolutely nothing.
It does apply to the commercial property as well as the multifamily.
There's no way, according to that agreement, that any improvements can be done.
We are hoping that someday they'll abandon that well.
Another reason for that is not just for their equipment to get in for working or whatever,
it's for emergency vehicles.
Many of you may be aware of the fire that was there in the past.
You want to be able to get in there and get around the well and work on it or do whatever
is needed with emergency vehicles.
Future well development, again, pain number one to the north.
We've agreed not to oppose a 250 foot reverse setback, so when they come in for an application
to revise their gas well plat, we're not going to oppose it.
We're not pre-approving anything.
P&Z is not pre-improving anything.
City Council is not pre-approving.
They have to go through the process.
They have an existing gas well plat that has very specific gas well locations on it, and
they're going to have to come back to P&Z and City Council to get those adjusted if
they want to revise their pads as they've indicated to us they wanted to.
Pain number two to the south, no improvements within the 250 feet area needed for possible
emergency vehicles.
On this slide, as was pointed out earlier, you can see the existing pad site.
There's their future pad site.
There's the 250 from the future, and there's their pain number two and the 250 from it.
That's where the property line is that we're 333 feet away from the existing well.
That's the existing pad site line.
There's the 333.
There's the proposed reverse setback lines.
There's the 433 feet.
There's the future pad site line, and there's the 250 feet that we've agreed to be from,
assuming they are awarded the future pad site line.
We don't know they're going to get it.
And there's the existing pad site, and there's the 250 feet.
100 feet there.
Then landscape considerations, type B buffers required next to an industrial site.
However, we're not the offending party, but as the offended party, we get the burden of
giving our land and building the landscape buffer.
So that's why we're asking for some director alternative buffer approval in there.
Putting in an opaque fence with a type D does not require.
So why do we want to put shrubs on our side of the fence to protect us from the view from
the gas well?
Anyway, we just need a little relief there.
The gas well is the intense use.
Buffers should be optional for the less intense use.
Landscape proposal required.
Type D, we want to modify it, as mentioned earlier.
We want one tree per 40 linear feet.
We're proposing one per 40.
20 shrubs, no shrubs.
We're putting up an opaque fence, so why do we need to put shrubs there?
As far as the requirement, doesn't mean we won't put any, but we don't want to be required
to.
A 30-foot buffer, we're giving a 30-foot buffer, but on the south end it narrows down
some just because of some encroachment restraints.
No fence.
We're putting up a wooden fence with metal post.
Continued requires 40% canopy.
We're asking that 100% of the canopy in that buffer be counted towards our site canopy.
Since we're putting up a buffer, we're having to put one up to protect ourselves from somebody
who should be putting up a buffer to protect us.
So buffer, we go back to the site plan.
We got our 30-foot buffer, then we still got that 70 feet of parking lot with parking lot
trees and street trees before we get to the buildings.
We've already got a bunch of buffer there in addition to the 30-foot that's being provided.
Not only that, we feel like we are a buffer to the neighbors from the higher intensity
that could go on the commercial property.
Another one of the anomalies of the current code is here we are asking for an SUP for
apartments in the zoning district that allows us to put hotels up by right.
We don't have to come here for hotels.
That normally doesn't come into play, but with this location and the changes to 35,
we're already getting inquiries from hotel companies that want to put up in there.
Additional buffer street trees, administrative, we're asking for the director's approval.
You can kind of see here, there's the opaque fence, multi-use open space, 25% plus landscape
area, 340 total trees shown.
We actually tried to show the number of trees, if we do 3-inch diameter trees, we're going
to have to plant on this site.
We're actually concerned if we can grow grass under them.
226 large trees, 116 medium trees, and 105 buffer trees that only counted 40% of our
canopy cover.
IPD buffers due to the gas well industrial use, we're having to protect ourselves from
them instead of them providing a buffer for us.
We are asking for that alternate landscape buffer, but only on the side between us and
the wells, not in the other areas.
Gas wells, the offender, parking lot trees, et cetera, provide additional buffer and requires
director's approval.
This is the entry road.
The black line is the road from the frontage road over to the wells.
We're looking at getting rid of this piece, hopefully get all that built, and then their
entry would be at this point, so that would -- right now, their existing gas well enters
right in the middle of where that future part of Windsor needs to go.
This is what I presented earlier in summary of what our recommendations are, and I'm available
for questions.
Sorry for the length of time, but appreciate your indulgence.
>> Super helpful.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Can you go back, Lee, to your recommendations for a second?
So staff recommendation was 16.
You want a max of 16 buildings.
You want a max of 20.
I'm just restating it just for the record to make sure everyone is clear.
Staff recommendation was 20.488 units per acre.
You're requesting 24 units per acre.
Question about the garages was that I could not tell from staff -- or I guess -- you want
-- you want the garage spaces to count towards the total amount maximum, is what you're asking
correct?
>> They already do anyway.
>> Yeah, that's what I thought.
>> But because there was a comment like that on the staff recommendation, we put a counter
comment.
>> I just want to make sure you're clear.
Staff right now is saying that they want max lot coverage of 49%, max landscape 51%.
You're wanting 65% lot coverage, 35% landscape, and you want -- they want all recreational
amenities and landscape amenities to count towards that 35%.
>> Yes.
>> As right now they do.
So -- and then keep that.
So your last statement is the no change, the recommended conditions.
There is -- there is change.
That's what the -- I guess that's -- >> You'd have to go -- I don't have the staff
report in front of me.
>> Sure.
>> But there's one section.
Actually on their slides -- >> I'm talking about the second section of
the text dot.
>> Yeah, there's conditions and recommendations.
>> Okay.
Gotcha.
That works.
Yeah.
>> The staff presentation slides said site plan requirements.
>> You're changing the conditions -- >> The site plan requirements.
>> Okay.
Understood.
>> Yeah.
>> These are a lot of -- a lot of big changes to what the staff recommended.
Could you -- you said it quickly early in the very beginning.
Could you remind me or maybe flush it out a little bit more why the big changes from
what staff recommendations were, why that's needed for this project?
>> Because staff had not made such recommendations until a week ago today.
>> Okay.
>> They were under the understanding that for an SUP, we just needed to demonstrate
that we meet the zoning restrictions for that zoning category and that we've worked well
with the neighbors to address their concerns, et cetera.
So we had a concept plan and we showed that, hey, if we're going to meet it at 50%, you
know, we'd easily meet the 80.
And now we don't have any flexibility.
We could probably use something a little tighter than these, but I just haven't -- if I had
to come to P&Z with a concept plan before, I'd have probably pushed these limits knowing
that, hey, we could easily come under them instead of bringing in a concept plan that
showed closely what this current apartment builder intends to do.
And we've done limitations like this on SUPs in the past in the city, so I don't think
it's unusual or unprecedented.
>> Just wanted to hear the thought process behind it.
Last thing.
>> And I didn't have time to -- I couldn't continue again because of negotiations and
contracts.
>> It's only a couple of times you've continued.
Two or three months in that big of a deal, right?
>> No, no.
>> The site plan that has been shown to us in the staff presentation, to your presentation,
that is at 16 buildings, that's at 20.48 units, so that site plan, the conceptual plan, I
shouldn't say site plan, the conceptual plan is not conforming to your own personal recommendations
as of right now.
>> No.
>> What staff did is we came up with a concept plan to show how we'd meet it in this current
apartment developer, Wolf Corporation.
That was the plan they came up with.
And I think that with a plus or minus 5% they can probably live with, but this has been
gone on so long, they're not obligated under contract anymore, and we needed a little flexibility
to work with others if we needed to.
And what staff did was took a concept plan we prepared and put limitations based on it
instead of coming to us and asking us what kind of flexibility do we need to put limitations
on this site.
And I mean we're, again, we're looking, the code says nothing about the number of buildings,
we're working at the 20.
The code says 30 units break or 24 is what we're suggesting.
The code says 80% coverage, we're suggesting a max of 65.
We expect to have some give and take here, and we're trying to give some, but not so
tightly that we can't wiggle.
Can I ask Haley a question?
Are these type of recommendations, is this asking a lot for the project?
I won't put you on the spot, but I mean these recommendations, if we were to take the applicant's
recommendations and improve it, would that be giving too much leeway to the project without
really giving some parameters for someone to make sure they don't go too crazy with,
someone else, some other developer in there that takes it and runs it in a direction that
could be dangerous?
Certainly.
I would say it's not unreasonable.
I mean everything he's requested is within the zoning limitation.
The intent with kind of memorializing all of the concept plan details in the ordinance
was originally purely for legibility purposes.
I don't know if you've looked at any of our ordinances, but by the time you take a 24
36 and shrink it and then duplicate it for 20 years, no one can tell what's on it.
So the intent was to memorialize those details, but allow a limited amount of flexibility
based on what council has been comfortable with in the past in allowing variations on
a site plan, because the code does require a plan be attached to the SUP.
So the intent was just to memorialize the details as presented, but then allow a little
bit of wiggle room.
So I wouldn't say that this is too far beyond the scope of what we could be comfortable
with.
There's just not a plan that supports these details at this time.
And that brings up one thing, and I'm sorry, commissioners for dominating the conversation
here, but I guess the only thing that's missing then from your recommendations applicant would
be the facade requirements.
That's one thing that I know that you wanted to memorialize was the earth tones, gray tone
color palette, all those kinds of things with those.
Our last bullet here, the building elevations is intended to say essentially the same thing
as that.
So building elevations and the facade, okay, gotcha, all right, gotcha.
That's it.
I'm really just a four.
Christopher Beck.
Okay.
Thank you, chair.
Lee, you're up.
Okay.
Thanks, Haley.
You know, I agree with you that you're putting a hard spot here because of the gas wells,
if I had my way and HB40 had never been passed, we would never be dealing with this, would
we?
But we are.
You mentioned the type D buffer that you wanted to modify.
Can you explain what's going to be taken away there if you get this change?
This is the required type D buffer.
We're wanting to modify it.
We're keeping the 40 trees, one tree for 40 feet.
Okay.
But instead of shrubs, we're saying no shrubs.
We're still staying a 30 foot buffer, but on the very south end, it does get narrower.
We don't keep the full 30 feet, but we got parking lot and other things in between there.
With no shrubs, there's no fences required, but we're recommending a wooden fence.
That provides the visibility barrier that you would have otherwise.
Okay.
No opaque fence.
Right now, in a buffer, only 40% of the trees count towards canopy, and we're talking about
the type D buffer on the east side only, we're asking that 100% of the trees count towards
the canopy.
There's a lot of trees going on this site, and this is a buffer that we don't feel like
we should, I don't.
To me, it's an equity issue.
Why is the offender the one required to put up a buffer against somebody that's offending
them?
Voluntarily, you should, but why are we being required to?
We're just asking for 100%.
One of the reasons is, well, I'll go to it in a minute.
This is not part of the buffer, but I wanted to stress that we have a parking lot in between
us and the buildings, and that parking lot has parking lot trees as well, so there'll
be additional trees in there acting as a buffer.
And the street trees along the street in front of the building, so between the buildings
and the gas well, there's going to be a type D buffer modified.
There's going to be a parking lot with parking lot trees and a private street with street
trees.
The private street being?
Being the street that -- the access all the way around the buildings, not --
Okay.
Yeah.
And in order to do this, my understanding is you can't really approve it tonight, so
to speak, but the director can, and one of the conditions that's on here is the director
can approve this with the understanding he can't go anything less than what we proposed.
We can't come back later and do a bait and switch here.
Within 5%, was that what I heard?
I don't think on the landscape, but I think the other things were 5%, but I don't think
this was.
It was just on kind of those --
Conditions.
Right.
Okay.
So really all you're essentially changing on that type D buffer that I can see is that
you're just removing the shrubs.
And you're adding a fence.
Yeah.
Okay.
Gotcha.
And this gray line, dark gray, that's the private street that's going to have to have
street trees along it as well.
Gotcha.
All right.
One last question here.
Sure.
You mentioned -- and that's the gray area for us here.
It's something I got to contend with, and I'm going to address later, too.
Just the gas well issue is a downer for me, but say they don't develop those gas sites.
The one on the south, pain number two, if they wound up shutting that down, do you have
any plans to extend that type D buffer then, or are you just --
Well, what will happen then is --
That may be a year or two or longer from now.
This area right here, which is the area you're talking about, the apartments are -- that
discussion negotiation was underway while these plants were being developed.
The agreement says we won't even put the landscape in here.
The apartments aren't even going to buy that now.
That will go away.
They may expand a little bit over here, some slight variation.
And what will happen is that will probably end up being commercial along with this.
That well goes away, and then that becomes a developable area.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you, sir.
If I could jump in here and just get clarification on the specific ask of what the applicant
recommendation is that might be helpful.
On the staff recommendation condition one, you're not wanting to change the maximum
of 17 acres to the 33.
Correct.
Okay.
So one, we're good.
Item two, you're wanting to change the 16 to a 20.
Basically yes.
Item three, change the total number of dwelling units that essentially would allow for a maximum
of 24, not 20 and a half.
The density yes.
Number four, the parking you're okay with.
Yes.
Number five, you want to change the percent to 65.35, not 49.51.
Correct.
And number six, you're okay with.
Yes.
So we're changing three of these in essence of the conditions plus the type D amendments
to the buffer.
Those are the requests of the applicant.
The type D already in there.
So the type D amendments to the buffer are already in the, it's under the conditions
that follow that set, if I remember correctly.
Well the type, I think the question is the 100% of the landscape trees being counted.
That's something in addition that you were coming tonight with, correct?
I'm not sure.
I thought that was in our request for an alternate landscape buffer.
Okay.
Maybe we can get that verified.
Maybe we can clarify that.
I guess my position is, of the three requests the applicant's making, maybe this is for
discussion, it doesn't seem like a massive ask, especially when you consider that there's
a 5% discretion to go up anyways, but I think it's good to clarify exactly what you're asking
for.
That's helpful.
From the sidebar discussions here, I would like to get clarification from the city about
using 100% of the trees in the landscape buffer towards the canopy requirement.
Is that permissible?
Or is that even a change to what's being asked in this?
That is not enumerated in the language of our recommendation.
It is reflected on Lee's concept plan.
I think the question that I would have that we may need to discuss more is rather that
is permissible as part of an alternative buffer.
I'm not sure that's within the range of what staff or what the director can approve as
an alternative in the DDC.
That's not on the agenda tonight, is it, an alternative buffer design?
No, the intent was that that would be approvable by the director at a later time with the site
plan.
Perfect.
But I'm not sure that...
This is not an issue for the commission.
So the ADP that's being proposed that Commissioner Beck just walked through, that's not relevant
to the case as is tonight, that will go to the city director for a decision.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Correct.
That the buffer is permitted within the DDC to be approved by the director as part of
the site plan.
Perfect.
So that's what's listed in our condition and recommendation is that you all just agree
that he has the right to approve that at a later date, so long as it's not less than
what's shown on the plans here.
I gotcha.
Okay.
So that's super helpful, if I understand it correctly.
Clarify?
Yeah.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
But to go back to that, but I think what she said is she doesn't know if the director can
approve 100% of the canopy being used in that effort.
True.
But that doesn't matter to our approval of what the...
I didn't know if it mattered to Mr. Howelson.
I don't have a choice.
If it's something he doesn't have the authority to do, an illegal part of the contract's still
illegal, so we wouldn't be able to do it.
Yeah, the mic.
I don't have a choice.
If that's something he doesn't have the authority to do, just because we've asked for it here
doesn't mean that you can give him permissions to do something he doesn't have permission
to do.
Authority to do.
Perhaps to Commissioner Ellis's point, is the project still feasible if you can only
use 40% of landscape buffering?
Can you still get to your 35% landscape?
Oh, it's not percent of coverage.
It's tree canopy.
Gotcha.
Okay.
So what it means is we just plant a few more trees.
Gotcha.
Commissioner Ellis.
Yes.
Thank you.
Just to continue there, I'm not sure I'd want to write it into our recommendation today
with that, not knowing if that's something the director can do.
Can we not deal with that, as we're rewriting?
Yeah, because I think the whole point of, I think what staff was trying to present here
was something in a bit more concrete than we typically will do and say, sort of like
the plan that's in front of us, and I think they wrote out these conditions so that we're
kind of all on the same page and we all know we're approving.
And now we're kind of rewriting that, and I think the whole point was to get clarity,
and now things seem a bit unclear, so anyway, let's continue the discussion to see if we
can clear them up.
Yeah.
Unfortunately, y'all were getting clarity, but we were getting confused after last Wednesday.
And now we're confused.
Ellis.
Ellis, Jared interject here.
Well, you know, there's a couple things.
First of all, I disagree with what Mr. Allison was saying about the purpose of the SUP.
It's not to enable negotiations.
The purpose of the SUP is to start with a baseline of code compliance.
That by itself is not sufficient to, otherwise there would be no need for an SUP.
The SUP is supposed to go above and beyond that.
The SUP is the opportunity for the city council to verify that certain impacts are being dealt
with in this kind of proposal here.
So for example, are traffic issues being dealt with in an appropriate fashion?
Is there sufficient mitigation of impacts associated with this kind of development in
this zoning district?
So and moreover, the council in the past has expected, and I think that that is the nature
of an SUP, is that the exhibit to the SUP should reflect what the SUP allows.
And so that's what staff was doing, and it was largely my suggestion to preserve legibility
because sometimes you can't read what's on this site plan.
So the point was to take what's written, what was submitted by Mr. Allison himself and write
that in there just to preserve it so that people can have a chance to read it and know
what it says so that it can be enforced at a later time.
It wasn't intended to be a negotiation point or what have you.
It was intended to reproduce in legible type what was written in Mr. Allison's own submittal.
So if there's confusion that's caused by this, probably the proper course of action
is to let the submittal stand on its own merits and take out the staff recommendations, including
the plus or minus 5%, and let it go up to city council to approve or deny the site plan
as submitted.
I think that's what the SUP approval process contemplates, and so if there's confusion
associated with that, then perhaps that may be the right way to go.
I would just respectfully disagree.
I can't find anything in the code that says there's any reason to negotiate or not negotiate
or to have to put additional constraints on there.
There is certainly a very interest in dealing with working with neighbors so that we meet
with them and address their concerns.
We visited with staff extensively about this, with our pre-design meeting, et cetera, regarding
how things were changing and how the approach to SUPs was going to be different than it
had been in the past, and that's how we came up with this concept plan, and then we got
surprised by this change.
We'd already been scheduled for BNC twice and delayed twice, and this never came up,
and then on the third one this comes up.
So yes, it was prepared in part by us and in part by the Wolf Corporation.
And again, we're willing to live with this going forward if that's what we have to do,
but at the same time, I've not heard anything from the code that says it is a process of
negotiation or it is a process to put something more stringent.
When we look at the intensity and we look at the impact on the surrounding area, the
zoning is already in place.
In fact, if anything, the multifamily and particularly even at 24 units per acre is
a medium intensity for what's already allowed in that zoning.
So now it's the city has a due diligence and responsibility to provide the infrastructure
and the planning to accommodate the zoning that it's put in place, and we're on the
lower end.
I say the lower, the middle end with this part of the improvements.
We could not come in and we could go to hotels and restaurants all over the site without
having to come for something like this, and there would be more intensity than what we're
bringing forward with this proposal this evening.
So I think those things have been discussed and thought about, mentioned with staff, talked
with planning staff, talked with engineering staff, talked with the neighbors, and I think
we've been appropriate in that.
We just had one understanding of how SUPs were now being applied, and in fact, we did
an SUP not long ago under that similar, so similar parameters, so we just appreciate
that.
I appreciate the context.
Can you help me put a puzzle piece together here?
There was a concept plan submitted to the city that has 16 buildings and has a 24 density,
and you said there was a change that precipitated your applicant recommendation.
So can you walk me through, you submitted a concept plan.
What was the precipice for you to now make some changes?
The precipice was that us having this understanding, I'm going to come back to this, demonstrate
that the DVC has observed that we're able to meet the zoning requirements, and because
it's apartments and those have a particular concern in the community, also that we go
in front of neighbors and visit with them and see if there's things we need to concede
in order to satisfy their issues and conditions.
We had a plan that demonstrates that we meet them, demonstrates that we very easily meet
all the code requirements, and we had plenty of room to wiggle with if we needed to as
we came forward.
Then, all of a sudden, as of last Wednesday, after twice being pulled from P&Z, one time
my fault, but twice being pulled from P&Z, we're being told now that there's going to
be limitations put into the ordinance that keep us very highly limited to what we put
on that concept plan.
Five percent, maybe we made it 15 percent but not exceed the code, but five percent
on a 50 percent coverage, I think this is up to 52 and a half compared to 80.
That's not much wiggle room at all, and when we got to go through detailed design later
and look at drainage and detention, that'd be nice to have a little wiggle room to work
with all of that.
Got you.
That makes sense.
There was an abundance of questions, and now it seems like they all are gone.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I think the reason, again, for these is so the site plan doesn't drastically change,
so you don't submit this and then suddenly it becomes something else.
I understand that you're observing the DDC and you're within the restrictions of what
the code is, but I think part of the SUP process is making sure we all understand what's going
on at site with regard to multifamily.
Like the code or not, the way it's written, that's how it's written, you need an SUP
for multifamily.
I mean, that's where we are today.
So yeah, I don't like that we got to this point because they're just using your site
plan as part of their recommendation.
They didn't really make it up.
They just went off your site plan.
So I guess that's what we need to make sure we get to understand.
What happened in the past is we would come in with a site plan like we did for the Woodlands
Apartments, but then we were detailed site planning and we knew it, and that was the
site plan we were going to actually live with.
Now the idea was to demonstrate, this time around we were under the understanding that
the idea is to demonstrate we can meet the code and determine if we need to put any special
limitations on it, and no special limitations had been identified until a week ago today.
And that's what really surprised us.
I wish we were in a better situation.
I mean, our backs against the wall, you know, we can take our 65% down to 60.
We can take our 24 units per acre down to say 22 or 23, but at the same time, that 5%
was just too little of a wiggle room tube under these conditions.
And unfortunately, because of contract situations, if you all accept the thing as staff recommends,
we kind of have to go that way just because now that's where we are.
We're kind of late in the game to make those changes, but we feel like we're presenting
as responsible, and it is something that, as Mr. Drake has indicated, can be written
into the ordinance and understood, and you don't have to pull out a map and look at it
and see if you can still read it in the future.
Jared, let's see, speaking then, Commissioner Sebelius.
Thank you.
Well, let me just be real clear because I hope I didn't come across the wrong way.
You know, from the legal standpoint, we don't care what the numbers are.
What we care about is that we have a determinate standard, that we have a determinate standard
that can be enforced, that can be applied, that's consistent.
If the numbers that we're recommending for putting in the conditions of the ordinance
or the recommendations of the ordinance or whatever you want to call it, if the numbers
that we're putting in there don't match the site plan, then the site plan needs to change
to agree with it.
If you want the site plan to govern, then the numbers need to conform to what's in the
site plan.
The idea of being close or, you know, having wiggle room, it makes it difficult to enforce
the site plan and for people to know what the requirements are.
And so our recommendation, ultimately, this is a council decision of what conditions to
put on the SUP approval.
It's their permit.
They are the ones who grant it.
They are the ones who have the authority to impose conditions if they think are appropriate
and whatever conditions they think are appropriate are fine.
The only thing that we would recommend as from a legal perspective is that they need
to be clear.
They need to be determinate.
They need to be written down and the submitted site plan needs to match what the restrictions
are.
>> Commissioner Smith, real fast and then I think staff will --
>> Thank you, Chair.
I think I'll just make this spiral out of control a little bit.
I think this will make it a lot easier.
It looks like from my understanding is that staff took a conceptual plan, not a site plan,
but a conceptual plan and tried to exactly what Jerry just said and exactly what Haley
had said is they tried to put it in writing that the applicant or whoever was going to
build on this site with this SUP had to follow those guidelines.
They used a conceptual plan that was given to them at the time to create these parameters.
All we're trying to do at the end of the day is just create the parameters to make sure
that no matter what happens and what development is built there doesn't go outside and build
a site plan that's incongruent with what the intent of this is.
We don't have a site plan to look at.
This is a zoning -- this is an SCP case.
So really all we're trying to say is these parameters, they play within the code.
There's nothing wrong with them.
All we need to do is just agree as a commission that these are parameters that the applicant's
willing to play within.
The city has no problem with them because they are within the code, so why would the
city have a problem with it if it's within the law?
So let's just move on forward as a commission and say, okay, well, if the applicant likes
it, it's not against city code, and the applicant's willing to play within those parameters that
we're going to draw on the sandbox here, then everyone should be hunky-dory happy, right?
Hopefully that makes it clearer.
Clear as mud.
[ Laughter ]
I'm going to ask Richard to start and then we'll go to Commissioner Pernetta.
Just wanted to provide sort of a little more background on this.
When we first started looking at these SGPs about a year ago, actually perfect case in
point, the item previously that was tabled, when SGPs were being looked at, they were
being looked at as full site plan construction drawings, and so we had one case where we
were actually recommending denial of the SGP, and so it's a little odd to put someone through
full design site plan review spending thousands and thousands of dollars to say, okay, yes,
you meet the code, but you know what, we're recommending against your SGP, and so when
we looked at that, to me, it wasn't really fair on the applicant.
We looked at the code and how it's worded and what's really required, and it's as a
plan, and so when we first brought it forward to city council, you know, even there, I think
it was the mayor that first said, well, you know, this is different, you know, we're not
used to seeing it in sort of a conceptual fashion.
And so we've been trying to kind of fashion it in a way that still provides some certainty
so they kind of know what they're buying, and I think, Margie, you had brought it up,
I think it was the McDonald's item that when it was approved here, it seemed very different
when it went to council, and what that did is it really just memorialized that plan into
the ordinance.
So now moving forward, that was the attempt to say, okay, as we bring it forward to P&Z,
let's make sure they're looking at the same thing to avoid any sort of confusion in the
future.
Now, one thing, and I don't know if this is even an option for Mr. Allison, if we do decide
to go with, if it's voted to go with those alternative numbers, could that plan, that
preliminary site plan be updated prior to going to council that reflects it?
I don't know if that's something that is possible.
Just thinking to what Jerry said, one or the other should match.
Just a thought, and a little more perspective kind of on the background of how we got here.
>> Mr. Pernetta.
Thank you.
>> Okay.
Just a couple of things, and the first one's going to jump back before all the confusion
just tangentially, and I guess this is probably more for Richard or Jerry to answer.
So I think Larry and I both kind of had questions or concerns about the wells and the setbacks,
and you answered that question right now.
Currently, as it stands, the setback, you know.
>> Can you turn your mic on?
>> Is it on?
>> Okay, I'm sorry.
Where we are right now, basically, those wells are about 433 feet, which is an extra what,
100?
The north one?
>> Yeah, only the north well.
>> The south well is going to be more than the 250 to 300 feet.
>> But the south one is farther away from like, you know, what we have is habitable structure,
right?
Right?
Is that correct?
>> No, let me find that exhibit, I apologize.
Pitcher's worth a thousand words.
The habitable structures here, there's the 250, the habitable structure is probably another
50.
In this case, well, I didn't show it, but there's the 250.
We're closer to 275, 280 for the habitable structures down here.
>> That's great.
I can see the ones on the bottom are farther outside of that setback.
My original question in the work session was the idea of the well moving out.
Now, when we're voting tonight, what we're talking about is a setback of 433.
In the event that the well operator ever wanted to expand that, that would be a separate thing
that would come before us, and we would vote on their motion at that time.
So what we're doing is completely separate on that one, right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
All right.
>> Haley, do you want to provide maybe a little more on a gas well site plan?
>> Yes, if and when the well site seeks to expand, they would also have to come forward
with an SUP as part of their watershed protection permit because their site is located within
a floodplain boundary.
>> Okay.
>> So you would have a separate SUP to consider for the gas well site plan.
>> Okay.
Excellent.
>> Wouldn't they also have to come back with another gas well site plan because this is
the site plan they have or the gas well plan is very specific on the number of wells and
where they are.
>> Correct.
That would be after they -- they would have to first get an SUP approved before they could
apply for a gas well site plan.
>> Okay.
>> They could come back twice.
>> Okay.
>> The gas well site plan is administratively approved, but the SUP, which would have to
contain a plan, as this one does, would come before you all as well as council.
>> Okay.
That helps a lot.
Yeah.
>> Christopher Beck?
>> I was under the microphone.
>> Can you turn the mic on?
>> I'd like to clarify something here because I was under the impression and I think you
addressed it because it's in a flood plan and then it would require coming back before
the PDC.
But that if they wanted to go to a smaller setback, a less setback, that all they need
is CBA approval, where does that come into play?
>> So there are multiple setbacks outlined in the code.
The reverse setback only applies when a protected use is approaching a gas well.
If the gas well operator seeks to expand, they're then expanding the existing gas well
site and have a 500-foot setback required.
They can't feasibly meet that because they're already well within 500 feet of several existing
protected uses in that neighborhood.
So to even be allowed to amend their site in any way, they would have to get that 500-foot
setback reduced either by going to ZBA, in which case it could potentially go down to
250 feet.
>> Could it go below 250 feet?
>> Never below 250 feet.
Or they could seek a written waiver from all of the neighbors that are within that 500
feet.
So they would have to do one of those two things and then go through the watershed protection
permit, which requires the SUP, then apply for a site plan.
So they have a very long multi-step process to ever get to that future pad site boundary.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Thank you very much.
That helps a lot.
So then back into the mock.
So when we're voting, we will be voting with conditions just based on what's being asked
for and at that point, those conditions are entered into the record into our minutes and
would then be taken specifically before city council so that way they're -- what gets sent
to them is enumerated specifically?
>> Somebody is going to be making a motion to recommend approval of a proposal with certain
conditions on it and they could be the staff conditions, you could make a motion to approve
with the conditions that Mr. Allison brought forward today, something in between.
It's just a matter of what that motion is.
Will it get a second and will it be approved by a vote for recommendation?
And that's basically what it's going to come down to.
>> All right.
Thank you very much.
>> Clarification, Mr. Allison, if you could maybe bend an ear for this question.
If we move forward with a recommendation that is not explicitly in line with the preliminary
site plan submitted to us this evening, can it go before council without an updated preliminary
site plan based just on the conditions that we enumerate this evening?
>> Are you asking Mr. Allison or me?
>> Well, I think it's two -- one, is it possible for city council to approve without an updated
preliminary site plan?
If not, is it possible for Mr. Allison to have an updated preliminary site plan prior
to going to council?
>> Tom just said, yes, I will.
I think we answered that.
>> Question A is now null and void.
>> I kind of like question A myself.
>> I think it's worth clarifying to know -- >> I didn't have anything to do next Thursday
anyway.
>> It would be helpful to know if an update -- if we change the staff recommendation conditions,
if an updated preliminary site plan would need to display and graphically represent
what we put in writing this evening.
>> I would certainly recommend that.
And I think that in bringing it forward to the council, to the extent that they want
a recommendation from the legal department, our recommendation would be that the site
plan match the conditions that are ultimately approved by city council.
City council may adopt the recommendations made by the planning and zoning commission.
They may choose their own conditions.
Again, this is the city council's permit approval.
PNZ is making a recommendation here, regardless of what you recommend, the council is going
to approve the conditions that they think are appropriate.
And so it's -- I guess what's brought forward to the city council is not nearly as important
that it match your recommendations as that it match the recommendations that council
ultimately approves.
>> Mr. Fernanda.
>> And just one more time to make sure that we're clear.
Based on what was presented by staff recommendations, that was -- the staff recommendations are
based on the original site plan, right?
So what we are possibly recommending based on Mr. Allison's request is not outside of
code.
It's just different than the site plan.
Is that accurate?
With the exception of the treatment.
>> That is accurate.
>> Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
>> Excuse me.
Mr. Neary is here this evening.
He would like to ask a question if that's okay.
>> Yes.
If you could just step forward.
This is a public hearing.
And your name is actually on the card already, but if you could state your full name and
address for the record.
>> Sure.
My name is Tom Neary.
My address is 1700 Pacific Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75201.
So just make sure that I understand and I'm going to --
>> If you could try to say yes.
There you go.
>> I'll try to speak loud.
So what your request is is that we got this multifamily component of the SUP with 17 specific
apartment units, apartment pods, is that right, 17?
>> If we could try to stay --
>> 16?
Okay.
So --
>> Mr. Neary, if you could stay close to the mic.
So we've got 16 components, 16 pods of apartments, and the recommendation is, and we've got in
this particular rendering, 20.4 units per acre.
We're looking to take that to 24 units per acre.
So potentially putting in two more pods in what is a conceptual plan, not a site plan
that's being approved for construction.
Is that what I'm hearing?
>> Again, I don't think that from a legal standpoint that we care what the numbers are.
That's a staff recommendation.
That's a staff review.
What we are recommending is that any SUP that the City Council approves, you know, whatever
conditions are associated with it, that it match the site plan.
That's going to be what our recommendation is, and that it be written in determinate
language and set forth what the standards are so that they're clear, they're understandable,
and they're enforceable.
It's not a document for negotiation, it's not a document for maneuvering about.
Part of the whole point is to prevent that, is to get a determinate standard of what is
permitted associated with this zoning approval.
>> So if you could use the cursor, there's a point that would help the mic.
Mr. Alston, can you spin the mic back around?
>> Sorry.
>> There we go.
>> So if we just made this 17 acres at 24 units per acre, that would be acceptable?
>> Not from the council's perspective but from this group's perspective.
So if we just ask for a 24 unit versus a 20.4 unit.
>> It does not exceed the requirements of the DDC.
>> Okay.
>> So it's within the allowable -- >> Tom, I think what they're -- what Mr. Drake's
trying to communicate is when we go before the council and if it all comes down to a
maximum of 20 buildings on the site, we need to have a concept plan that shows 20 buildings
on the site.
We can come down from there with our final plans and if it shows that we're asking for
65% maximum coverage and our buildings are at 62 or 63 or 64%, then we could put a limit
of 65%.
But if we come in with 50% coverage and ask for 65, that doesn't match up.
And I'm talking about the documentation that we finally end up with not --
>> Yeah.
But I guess my question, are we talking about the math or are we talking about the number
of units?
>> Both.
>> So both graphically exhibit the math that goes with it.
>> And what you propose to council may not be what council approves.
>> Exactly.
>> They may approve something different in which case they will need to match what the
council ultimately approves.
>> I think Tom's is trying to come to an understanding of what we finally need to mesh together.
>> I'd always envision this as a conceptual plan and not a site plan per site.
>> I think that's where we've kind of changed horses now.
>> That's how we'll.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
So trying to get us a little bit back on track.
The applicant has given his presentation and it is a public hearing.
Do we have any more questions for Mr. Allison at this point?
Perfect.
This is a public hearing.
If anyone's wishing to speak on the item, you're more than welcome to do so.
Okay.
Seeing no more discussion, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion,
motion questions.
Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I want a motion for approval based off of applicants requested recommendations of 20,
maximum of 20 buildings, maximum of 24 units per acre.
The garages as mentioned that were already in staff, and I guess the only other thing
that was different from staff recommendations was max lot coverage of 65% and landscape
of 35%.
And then all other conditions that included the text dot, the landscaping, the elevations
as well as the façade and everything else that's in the backup for the staff's recommendations
and conditions to be in my motion in a matching site plan whenever it goes to city council.
>> Preliminary site plan.
>> Gosh dang.
>> We'll perfect it.
We have a motion.
Do we have a second on the motion?
We'll need a second before we go to discussion.
>> Let me ask for just a clarification, that the parking also follow the number of units
that will be increased.
>> Yes, correct, as is stated in the staff's recommendations, yeah.
>> Commissioner Pernetta.
>> Second.
[ Laughter ]
>> The confidence is overwhelming.
[ Laughter ]
>> Do we have to repeat the vote?
>> No, you do not.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> So we have a first and a second.
Any discussion, Commissioner Beck?
>> Thank you, Chair.
And I've had to change my notes around here a little bit.
If this was really nothing more than we're changing a few numbers and everything, I wouldn't
have any problem.
If we're dealing strictly with commercial property here, I wouldn't have any problem
with it.
But we're talking about living units where people are going to live and in close proximity
to gas wells.
So I'm having a problem with it.
And what's being proposed does indeed serve -- and I'm going to read from my notes here
so I can articulate better, so bear with me.
What's being proposed here does serve as an ideal transitional develop between the single
family residents on the south and east side and the commercial development north of it.
This area along the I-35 front roads is well suited for commercial interests as our comprehensive
plan and future land use map indicate.
However, I'm troubled once again we're building developments that will draw greater traffic
there before the city has made accommodations to widen the streets that this traffic will
flow through.
Even though city staff have indicated that perimeter street improvements along Winter
Drive are expected, our experience too often has shown this process moves at a much slower
rate than residential development does.
But I am most concerned that the current design of this development poses a problem for people
like me who believe any residential dwelling in close proximity to active gas and oil wells
poses greater health and safety risk than official estimates from industry friendly local and
state governments that will let us believe.
Though current and future setbacks will stay at the 250 reverse setback limit, that's fine,
but to me that's still too close for comfort to the proposed development with its numerous
multifamily units.
It should be our greatest concern as public servants that allows any gas well being closer
than 1,000 feet to a dwelling where children in their early formative years, the elderly
with their weaker immune system, and pregnant women could reside, and I'll explain why.
Since the state took Denton's right of way to ban fracking within the city limits back
in 2015 with HB40 and established some minimum setback distances, new studies have shown
that those distances are likely inadequate to prevent health risks that affect neurological,
hematological, and developmental health.
Researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health, Boulder County Public Health, the University
of Colorado Boulder, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the University
of California Irvine have found that populations living within 500 feet of an oil and gas facility
could experience these health effects from inhalation exposures to benzene and alkanes.
According to a study published recently in the journal Environmental Science and Technology,
the cancer risk estimate of 8.3 per 10,000 people for populations living within 500 feet
of an oil and gas facility exceeded the U.S. EPA's 1 in 10,000 upper threshold.
And heading closer to home, studies in Pennsylvania and Texas found associations between proximity
to oil and gas wells with fetal death, low birth weight, preterm birth, chronic rhinosinusitis,
asthma, fatigue, and migraines, and though the researchers also noted that air pollutants
from other sources can contribute to these elevated risks, they stress that because risk
increases in proximity to wells, mitigation strategies should focus on controlling emissions
from oil and gas facilities.
So regardless of how this agenda item moves forward, I think before any of us decide to
allow any dwelling units to be built that house children, the elderly, and pregnant
women, we should know and understand what mitigation strategies are in place that focus
on controlling emissions from oil and gas facilities.
It should also be required that a more easily -- never mind, let me submit that because
we do have a good road that accesses wells for first responders.
But I'm hesitant, therefore, at this time to approve this SUP because these variables
make conditions uncertain to those people who will reside in the 336 apartments.
The DENT development code states that an SUP shall only be granted if all the following
conditions have been met, and the first one that comes up states that "that the specific
use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity."
It is my contention, based on the health and safety risks from gas wells, less than those
distances that scientific research has suggested are inadequate, that this SUP should be denied
because it will not be compatible with and could be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property and could significantly diminish or impair property values within
the immediate vicinity.
Even with the more intense Type D buffer offered by the developer on the east side between
gas wells and single-family homes, it does little to prevent the potential health and
safety risks I mentioned here.
Therefore, deny approval of this SUP.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Beck.
We have a first and a second, is there any other discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I really thought that this was not going to be as complicated as it got, and I really
have a problem moving something along to council, recommending something to council that I don't
really know what it looks like, and that was the whole reason for staff putting this in
here in the first place, so something doesn't become something that we didn't mean to approve,
and you know, it's okay, the plus or minus that they've got built in here, but now we're
going plus or minus, I don't know, 20% maybe more of what the conceptual site plan shows.
I mean, that could look considerably different than what we're attempting to move along here
to council, and I have a real problem with that.
As Richard mentioned, I don't like to see something that we recommended and then I sit
in the city council meeting, it looks nothing like what we recommended.
What are we even here for if things are changing as we move along?
So I don't know.
To me, a specific use permit, yes, is for the use, but it should also encompass what
is going to be in that use.
It should look something like that, and I don't know, I'm uncomfortable with now that
we've changed these things around, and I'm certain staff is uncomfortable with it.
I got a couple thoughts.
I won't be as eloquent as Commissioner Beck, I'm sure.
First, I think the direction the city's going in and memorializing things from the conceptual
preliminary site plan is the right direction.
I think that is a good thing.
It's a new thing to the P and Z and to council, but I'm for it, like Commissioner Elf said.
It helps us as a commission best understand in as large a picture as we can what's being
put forth to city council, and when they look at it and they see our recommendation, it
has some meat behind it because we know what we're actually recommending.
That being said, this project is so under the rights that it would have, and I've expressed
over and over again the fact that no one can build an apartment without an SUP in Denton.
No zoning class that I think of, that might be one, but if someone wants to build an apartment
complex in Denton, they have to go through the SUP process, and I've expressed my frustration
with that.
This is the only thing they can do, and it's not an opportunity for us to then say, well,
now we can deny it.
When Mr. Allison brought up a good point, you can go build a hotel on it right now, and
it doesn't have to come to us, but because we want to put multi-family, it has to come
to us, and now we have this unique opportunity to get in this odd negotiation and denial
when all the code from 80% lot coverage to building height to density, they're under
it by well over 10% to number of buildings, it just is so far under what they have the
right to build if it wasn't an apartment.
And so I think the right attitude was projected in saying, hey, this is what you think you're
going to build.
Let's build something very close to it.
I get that.
I think even if they put four more buildings on this property, which would in essence raise
their density to the 24, it will look kind of the same.
They're still limited to the 17 acres, so buildings get restructured.
We know what the buildings are going to look like.
It has to be agreed upon.
It's already in there what they're going to look like.
All that being said, I fully support this project going forward with the motion presented
by Commissioner Smith and seconded, knowing that I feel comfortable with what I'm recommending
to counsel.
I've seen enough for me to feel comfortable moving forward with the knowledge that they
have a lot of work to do before it gets to counsel to come up with -- it doesn't look
like it's easy to do.
So that's my two cents.
Before I call to a vote, I definitely want to see if there's any other discussions to
be had.
Commissioner Ellis.
Just a couple more thoughts, and I understand about adding a handful more units, and I can
deal with that.
Lot coverage is changing quite a bit, and we absolutely don't -- what is that going
to look like on there?
You don't really know what that's going to look like, going to 65 from 49?
I know it's going to be less than the 80% code.
But I do know that.
Fair enough.
Any other discussion?
Commissioner Cole.
I share Commissioner Beck's health concerns with the close proximity of those gas wells
as well, but if -- there will be no development in West Denton if we're, you know, we're held
to that.
I mean, there will be none.
Because that's where the majority of these wells are drilled.
But you know, I mean, that's awfully close.
It's awfully close.
But I mean, there will be no development if we're held to that.
And I mean, I live -- a football throw from a gas well, I have a water -- I'm on a water
well, so I'm concerned.
You know, if that thing goes, 250 is not enough, you know, if it's a severe blowout.
But you know, this thing is so muddled up that I really don't understand what the hell
we're voting for, to be honest with you.
And so on that, I'm going to have -- I mean, I'm going to have to be a no.
I mean, you know.
Commissioner Beck.
And I appreciate the sentiment expressed there, Commissioner Cole, and I'm not talking about
all development.
I'm just talking about where people have to live and raise their kids and may have health
issues.
We've already approved development close to gas wells that were commercial in nature.
And if this was purely a commercial development, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
I wouldn't have any problem with the fact that the number has changed because it stays
within the parameters set within EDC, as Commissioner Smith pointed out.
But my concern is always going to be if we're going to talk about living units coming in
close proximity to these gas wells, that new information is showing that they are dangerous.
They raise the potential of health and safety risks.
Even when they're kept down the road, if these leak and these guys are out of business, who
takes care of that?
That comes back on us, too.
So it's not all development.
It's just living -- where people have got to live and raise their kids.
Commissioner Smith, can I ask for a clarification of the motion?
The staff recommendation is to limit their ability to variance it greater than or less
than 5 percent.
Are you wanting the applicant's recommendations to abide by that variance or to be a maximum
limit on the project?
My specific motion should have been phrased as I wanted to keep staff recommendation as
is except for these three following things.
The change on item 2 from 16 buildings is max to 20 buildings is max.
The change in item 3 of the density of 20.48 units per acre to 24 units per acre and then
the changes in item 5 saying that the site plan of a lot coverage can be moved from 49
percent to 65 percent and landscape down to 35 percent.
And then all other recommendations and conditions that have been made by staff to remain the
same.
Thank you for that clarification.
So it's kind of funny that you said that with regard to -- I don't know what we're voting
for.
And when I say this, I don't know, this is probably more for people watching in posterity
than the moment right now.
I don't know if it was clear early on in the work session when I was asking questions about
the gas wells and mentioning having a kid with a breathing condition, I was always going
to have trouble voting on this one because the fact of the matter is I support development
in Denton and I want more housing in Denton.
I can't vote for this because as much as I asked questions about whether or not these
wells would ever actually come back in to production, and there was some nice reassurance
that it would take a lot to have that one come in, I have difficulty with this.
And I think going forward as a board, as a commission, basically discussing how we develop
Denton going forward, I don't know how we do, especially if we go west.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that.
Thank you.
>> Clarification, you are withdrawing your second.
>> Well, my second was to put this to a vote, really, not to -- my second was not let's
approve it, it was just like let's move this to a vote.
>> That stands.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Commissioner Beck.
>> I asked if Commissioner Perdida would consider removing his second for this.
>> He can legally do that, correct?
>> Yeah.
So my understanding is that my second wasn't an approval, my second was to take this to
a vote.
>> That's right.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> You can vote against it even though you motioned for it.
>> Okay.
>> We're going to stall here for a second.
>> Chair, just a minute.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you.
>> Do you clarify what you asked Commissioner Smith, is he removing the plus or minus 5
in those numbers?
>> He was --
>> You're leaving the plus or minus 5 and adding the numbers from Mr. Allison, understood?
>> Just to make sure, with the plus or minus 5, that would not be applied such a way that
fall below the code requirements, correct?
>> Correct.
Absolutely.
>> Okay.
So if it's okay with the commission, and we can just do this by nodding, I trust we'll
do an informal vote, would it be okay if we took a recess?
I think there's some conversations being had to see if there's a solution to maybe better
clarify what can happen tonight.
Would be okay taking 5 to 10 minutes and just take a breather on this?
Okay.
Then with that, I'm going to close the regular session at 917 and we'll reconvene in 5 to
10 minutes.
>> Thank you for providing us that recess.
It is now 927.
We'll open the regular session back.
And I'll invite Haley to provide an update of what -- where we stand right now with the
applicant.
>> Yes.
So during the recess, I was able to speak with the applicant and they would like to
request that this item be continued to November 28th so that they have the time in between
to update their concept plan and bring back a plan that would be consistent with the conditions
that they recommended tonight so that everyone knows what would be voted on.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> I'd like to amend my motion to -- from approval to motion to table to date certain
November 28th.
>> Is that a motion amendment or is that a withdrawal and remotion?
>> I think we know what he meant.
>> Thanks, Jerry.
[ Laughter ]
>> I'm not sure.
>> You would like to -- the motion is to table to the November 28th.
>> Correct.
Exactly.
>> Okay.
We have a first on the floor.
Commissioner Ellis.
>> Second.
>> We have a first and a second.
Is there any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote by show of hands.
All in favor for tabling?
Opposed?
Motion carries 6-0.
>> Our next presentation will be a lot shorter than the other ones.
>> All right.
Guaranteed.
[ Laughter ]
Next item is item 5F, DCA 18-0005B.
I'll open the public hearing and invite Julie for presentation.
Julie, you got out early last time, so we kept you here tonight.
>> I know.
[ Inaudible ]
>> That's true.
I did get off easy.
>> All right, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and we'll go over
this briefly.
I know we talked about it at work session.
This is DCA 18-5.
The request is to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a text amendment
to the Denton Development Code to address the Planning and Zoning Commission procedures
as they relate to tie votes.
As you're all aware, this is in response to a case that came forward earlier this year
that resulted in a tie vote, which meant that that case could not move forward to the City
Council per the current code of ordinances requirements.
So in September, City Council looked at this issue and had four options that they could
choose in order to address the issue, and the one that they chose was an amendment to
the DDC to address only P&Z rules to allow cases to move forward as a denial in instances
of tie votes.
So they felt like that was the most conservative approach, most targeted approach to the situation.
Denial recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission typically require a super
majority vote at City Council in order to approve, and since the tie vote isn't a majority
decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council felt that the super majority
provision wasn't needed in this case, and so their direction to staff was to not include
that super majority requirement.
This was considered by this Planning and Zoning Commission in October, and the direction at
that time was it was just too broad because this was really for instances when there was
a long-term absence or a recusal, and that we wanted to make sure we really captured
what that situation was instead of a broad application of the original language.
So there is a revised language, and that would be applicable to those instances where there's
either a rezoning or a zoning assignment, a specific use permit, a special exception
expansion, an alternative ESA or zoning text amendment, or a criteria manual amendment.
Not applicable in this would be things that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves,
so that would be something like a plat in ADP or a subdivision variance, comprehensive
plan text or map amendment, and then a new development code, wholesale new development
code.
So that wouldn't apply in those cases.
The language essentially focuses on process due to Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns.
Less about the actual reason for the recusal, but just to make sure that we have certainty
in the process.
So if, for instance, there are six voting members and there's a tie vote, that would
be carried over to the next scheduled meeting to give PNZ another bite at the apple.
And then if there's still six voting members remaining and of tie vote results, it could
then move forward to City Council unless the Planning and Zoning Commission during their
meeting votes to postpone that item for another hearing.
So that language is in your backup and it's listed here.
It essentially, if a majority voting, if the majority vote fails to either recommend the
request or an amendment of that request, that request would go to the next meeting.
If there was a second failure to recommend either approval or denial of the amendment
or proposed amendment, then at that point it would go forward to City Council as a recommendation
of denial, but without that super majority provision.
Staff, in looking at this and considering the discussion that we had at the last PNZ,
we felt like this revised language maintained the integrity of what the public hearing process
is. It provided an additional opportunity embedded
within that language for PNZ to reach a majority decision, but it also lays out a very clear
path as to how these cases will proceed so that applicants as well as interested members
of the public can be certain as to how, as to when the final decision will be made.
This amendment would also prevent leaving projects in an indeterminate state and that since the
tie vote is a failure to reach a majority decision, that super majority requirement
has been removed, but that Council, City Council will be apprised of any discussion items or
concerns that the Planning and Zoning Commission has so that they can make a fully informed
decision considering all of those factors. So based upon those considerations, staff
recommends approval of that revised language and I'll stand for any questions.
- Mr. Smith? - Just to give clarification, I'm assuming
that there's a, you know, that's simple for one. The second, the second time, so the,
yeah, if you go back to that flow chart, go one more, flow chart. That second, that second
tie vote, like technically that meeting, that next scheduled meeting, and there is six voting
members, the discussion could happen of, hey, we as a commission, we know there's six voting
members, the seventh will be here next time, we believe. Let's table, we can continue that.
- One other thing I was gonna ask was, was on the tie votes to make that, you know, get
all the way to the next meeting and then all the way to City Council, we need to go through
all methods of someone makes a motion to approve, and then it goes to a tie, and then someone
makes a motion to deny, and then it goes to a tie, and then that's correct. We're not
gonna be seeing, it's not like once it's one tie, it automatically goes because that does,
that second motion would allow for more discussion and possibly a discussion could lead to a
sway to approval or to not, I guess, approval of the motion.
- Yeah, it's a failure to make any kind of recommendation at all.
- We'd be going through both.
- And really, that's one of the reasons why I suggested inserting the language about as
amended also, because maybe you can't come to a consensus on a particular motion, but
even with an amendment to it of some kind, you know, or a modification to it, there should
be some way to reach a majority, one way or another, on a motion by placing conditions
or what have you on it to get somewhere.
- Commissioner Burnetta.
- So just to clarify, so upon the event of a second tie, it would automatically go through
or we would have to agree to send it through as a tie vote?
- As it's written, the second time the Planning and Zoning Commission fails to reach a majority
decision, as this is written, just the structure of this, it would go to City Council, but
it is up to the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission that if they feel like
another try may get them to that majority decision, it is always at the discretion of
the Planning and Zoning Commission to table the item until another meeting where maybe
that member would be present or maybe some amendment to the project may change the vote,
how it shakes out.
- Well, let me try refining that a little bit, because what I thought I heard you say
is automatically upon a particular tie vote.
The way that this is written is upon the failure of the Planning and Zoning Commission to make
a recommendation or to reach a majority, either way.
And so if you had a, let's say you have the first P&Z meeting and you have a tie vote,
you spin the motion around, it's still a tie vote, kind of similar to what we had the last
time.
And now you have the second P&Z meeting, you have a motion, say, to approve, and it winds
up in a tie vote.
That doesn't go to Council as a denial.
You still spin it around and see if you can get a motion to deny or you could maybe motion
to approve with a modification or something like that.
It's just that if you wind up where you cannot make a recommendation twice in a row, you've
had two bites at the apple, that's when it goes forward to City Council.
It's not on a particular motion.
Commissioner Smith?
And legal would then jump in at that point in time and say, there's no resolution, it's
now been by City Code code, it's now going to the next meeting, and then there's still
no resolution.
But now City Code is going to majority, it's going to City Council as a denial, no supermajority
rider.
I mean, well, I'm going to turn it back to the P&Z.
So if somebody could come up with another motion to bring forward, you're welcome to
do that.
Once you tell me that you've run out of motions and there's no motions to be made, that's
when it goes forward.
Commissioner Beck?
The only option I would see in a case like that is what Commissioner Smith said a while
ago, is if we know for sure that the third meeting would have all seven here and we would
have a majority vote, then that would be the only exception I could see.
Well, and then a motion to table would certainly suffice.
Okay.
But other than that, I don't see any options.
Maybe this is the elephant in the room, but I feel like it's probably worth noting.
I wouldn't see any table actually passing, practically, because there wouldn't be an
incentive for the individuals who are voting to deny it, to table it, because then they
could potentially be ensuring a denial which would require a supermajority vote by council,
where if you didn't table it, it wouldn't require the supermajority.
So I get the intent of the rule, but I just don't foresee a table happening.
Sorry if I mentioned it, but whatever.
Hopefully this never happens, guys.
Sorry.
But if that works, that's really your second strike.
At that point.
You're right.
And it should go forward to City Council.
Yeah, I think the way it's been written, and I appreciate Commissioner Ellis's lead
in kind of pushing this back, because what came here, like Commissioner Ellis has said,
this addresses the problem.
Previously, it wasn't as specific as it needed to be.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you.
I move to approve, and thank you, staff, for what you've done.
I appreciate it.
I did open it.
I haven't closed it.
I'll see if anyone wants to speak on the matter.
Understood.
Thank you.
Okay.
Any other questions for Julie?
Sorry.
Perfect.
Nice.
Anyone wishing to speak?
I don't see anybody.
I will close the public hearing and open it for motion or discussion.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I motion to approve.
We have a first.
Commissioner Beck.
Second.
First and second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll vote by show of hands.
All in favor?
All opposed?
Motion carries 6-0.
That leads us to item six, plan and zoning project matrix, and I'll ask Richard for
an update.
I wanted to note a couple things.
One that isn't on here but wanted to mention the microphone's not on.
When the commission meets, if you recall, you met in the capacity of the capital improvement
advisory committee.
That will be coming back to you again on the 28th for a shorter meeting.
They did go to city council yesterday for a work session, so they'll be bringing the
final final everything.
I'm told it will be about a half hour meeting they anticipate, but they need, I guess, that
formal recommendation based on whatever changes prior to it going to council in December.
So that will be on sort of whether we start at 3.30 or 4, I'm trying to get it for 4 so
we make sure we have everyone here so it's not too terribly early.
Also wanted to note the tree code, I'll be giving an update on the tree code, but in
a public hearing setting, but sort of wanted to preface it in -- after the meeting, I don't
anticipate it going to council the next -- you know, in a couple weeks.
It's more of -- I know we've had the discussion sort of at a work session setting, and I know
we've talked about having members of the public be able to provide comments or input, and
so at this point we thought let's start to bring forward the discussion draft more into
a public setting with the commission where we can get -- where we can start to get input.
So that will be sort of the premise of that public hearing.
It's not that we're asking for the recommendation to move to council within two or three weeks.
We anticipate coming back again.
It's just a form to sort of get it out there and have that discussion both with the commission
and the public in that kind of setting.
With that, we may end up moving the historic preservation incentives.
And I do want to talk to Roman to see when the consultant is going to be around that's
currently working on it, so maybe they can -- we can kind of tie that into -- tie that
into an update as well.
A couple other updates.
Just to give you an idea of that agenda on the 28th, we've got four items now I think
that will be coming back that had been tabled.
So we have the -- we have Teasley.
We have the request for the automotive garage from last meeting will be coming back.
And then obviously the item -- the item tonight.
And then I think we'll have one or two consent items that I know for sure.
And then I think a couple other items.
So it will probably be a pretty big agenda.
In addition, the tree code will be part of that public hearing item.
So we'll be there a little later, I anticipate.
I know we're starting to clear -- kind of clear the backlog of items.
I know there was the Robert rules of order as well as clarification on what can be discussed
at a work session.
I want to get together with Jerry and perhaps it may be more beneficial.
We do it maybe the first meeting in January.
I don't think we're going to have that many items on the agenda so it might be a good
opportunity to kind of talk about that and go through that right at the first of the
year.
And then we'll be sort of bringing forward some of the other items as we firm that up.
We did provide a little bit of an update on Lake View -- on Lake View Ranch.
I know that was a big concern from the last meeting.
We will be meeting weaving staff, development services, police, engineering and city manager's
office will be meeting with that HOA group tomorrow night to kind of go over some of
their concerns.
My understanding is that very next day the police department, the new chief did have
a speed monitors out there to try to address some of their concerns right away.
So it is starting to be taken care of, but I can give you a report after -- at the next
meeting sort of what transpired from that discussion.
One more item to add, what I think I'm going to start doing is we put out a weekly project
submission list.
And I want to temper it because I don't want it to really get into a discussion about projects
prior to them, especially if they're going to come in front of the board, but I think
it's good just to see what's coming down the pike.
Before we were sending it out in sort of a static spreadsheet, and I think I had mentioned
that that's kind of one of the things that goes to the school board and a number of other
folks that have kind of subscribed to this, how -- I don't know how we got that subscription
list to begin with, but we have this big list that we send out, but I did see -- and I don't
think anybody from PNZ is on that list, but what we've begun to do is turn that into more
of an interactive map.
And so every week now what we do is rather than send that static list, you still have
kind of the spreadsheet on the bottom that tells you what the request, the application
is, who's requesting it, who the planner is and the contact information, but then it puts
it on the map so you actually see where it's located.
And so that's kind of just the start of where we're wanting to head on with kind of just
getting the word out there of what's going on in the city.
We still have an overall interactive project map, but what we're trying to do is work within
the confines of the software that we have now.
We will be up, you know, going for an update on our software, but the idea behind that
is at any point in time, anybody can go to that map, and if they have a general idea
of where that property is or that they see something, they can click on it, get some
general information on the property, when it's projected to come to PNZ for a hearing,
that might move, but at least give some projections, but we also want to try to get when a neighborhood
meeting will be scheduled to also have that information on, and again, just as a way to
get that out.
So it's going to take some time, but I just wanted to let you all know where we're headed
with some of that, but then wanted to at least get you on the list so you start to see how
it's coming, how it's being displayed, and also welcome feedback as you're, you know,
we all look at things differently.
Other than that, that's all I had.
Thanks for the update.
Commissioner Beck.
Was there any consideration in my request for notification of PNZ members interested
in going to neighborhood meetings, is there?
Absolutely.
Okay.
When those are scheduled, we will send that out.
Okay.
And just anybody who feels up to it.
Okay.
Thanks.
I'll make sure that happens.
Any other requests?
Robert's rules will not be the first in January if I do it, because I'm going to be in Austin,
so we may be able to get another attorney to present that.
The only thing I have to add is, what's the requirements on removing notices once the
agenda's been held?
I'm getting questions from people saying, "Hey, what's going on with that property?"
I'm like, "That was a month ago."
Does it stay up until council?
Typically, it'll stay up until council, but they should be removed.
I think it's prescribed within a week or two.
I'm trying to recall off memory.
I know we've reached out a couple of times when it gets bad, or when they're not listening,
we send zoning enforcement out for having any legal sign.
Okay.
Well, good to know that's being monitored.
Anything else?
Yeah.
Tricia Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Just real quick.
Something an applicant said today, are they really getting a denial the Friday before
the planning and zoning meeting?
I mean, if they are, that's probably something we need to fix, because that's not probably
enough time for them to prepare to come before P&Z, but I just thought I'd ask that question.
No, and it's a good thing to add.
That was one I know we've talked about early on over a year ago, is making sure that we're
not doing this kind of surprise.
Here it is.
Well, I'll have to follow up with Ron, but the intent is, and I think kind of Lee hinted
to that, as we started to work through, we wanted to let him know ahead of time, just
so everyone's aware.
Yeah, if I could just get an update from you.
I'm just curious about that.
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay.
Thank you.
With that, great meeting.
We'll close it at 950.