>> Good evening and welcome to the planning
and zoning work session meeting for November 28th, 2018.
We can open the meeting at 437.
First item on the agenda is any clarification of agenda items.
It seems like other than two postponed items.
Is there any other changes?
>> The work session report, we're going to come back
on the design standards.
We just need to work through some more details on sort
of the governance of that.
So we'll be bringing that to another meeting.
Probably when we have less of a full agenda.
I know we've got quite-- I don't even know
if we would actually probably get to it anyways given the number
of items that we have today.
We won't be doing that.
>> And without a consent agenda,
we will spend the next two hours potentially
in our public hearing items.
So with that, we can jump right into item B
since item A is being postponed to the December 12th meeting.
Item B is the SUP that we heard last meeting
but I'll invite Haley for continued discussion
on the item.
>> All right, good evening.
I will keep this brief hopefully unless we need
to dive back into the details.
So this is the Windsor Drive Apartments SUP.
The request as you may remember was to make a recommendation
to city council regarding a request for an SUP
for a multifamily use on the property that's outlined
in yellow, it's approximately 31 acres located at the intersection
of Windsor and the I-35 frontage road.
This item was continued from the November 14th meeting
at the applicant's request.
They asked for more time to develop a modified plan.
I did want to point out that the public hearing was closed
that night so this would just be
for discussion and motion this evening.
And we're following the meeting, the applicant did decide
to move forward with staff's original recommended condition
so there is no revised plan to go
over with you all at this time.
And as you may remember, notices were sent for this case
but we've received no responses to that.
And just a refresher, with this case, we are trying
to capture all the details of the site plan in the ordinance
so all of these requirements listed
on the screen would be expressly outlined in the ordinance.
All six items relate to the details
that were on the original site plan.
And then based on that, staff did have four conditions
that we're recommending with the SUP.
The first be that council would recognize
that driveway access locations
from the state highway must be approved by TechStot
and that alterations to the configuration
of I-35 are currently in the planning stages.
So any driveway access locations
on the northbound frontage road which have to be altered
as a result of TechStot's plans during the permitting process,
we ask that those be able to be administratively approved
by staff providing that all other elements
of the site plan are complied with.
The second condition is that landscaping on the site plan does
reflect an intent to comply with all the DDC requirements
in terms of parking lot landscaping, street trees,
minimum landscaping, canopy area and buffers.
However, the applicant is requesting administrative
approval for an alternative buffer along
that western property line as you may remember
from the discussion last time.
So minor alterations to the locations
of individual plantings shown on the plan may be approved
by staff provided that the final landscaping complies
with the site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations
as well as all other components of the DDC.
The third condition relates to an agreement
between the surface developer and the gas well operator.
So one of our conditions recommended is
that the agreement entered into by these two parties
that sets forth the 250 foot reverse setbacks shown
on the site plan for both of the well sites be filed in the records
of Denton County prior to approval of a plat
for the subject property and then that a note be placed
on the plant recognizing the agreement and the setbacks.
And then finally the fourth condition would be
that notwithstanding the limited administrative approvals
that were outlined in these criteria as well as conditions one
and two that the city would reserve the right
to require approval by ordinance of any amendment to the SUP.
And I'm happy to go through any other details of the case.
It's just kind of a high level overview of where we're at.
>> Mr. Beck.
>> Thank you Chair.
Just to be clear, there is no-- currently there is no definitive
commercial development that will happen.
>> Correct.
There are-- if I can get to the site plan, the area shown
in red are intended for commercial development someday
but there are no definitive plans for that yet.
>> There's no date.
>> Okay.
>> Not that I'm aware of.
>> Great, thanks.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you Chair.
So what was-- the applicant originally was asking once the,
once the, you know, the conditions that--
or the recommendations I should say that the city staff were one
to put on there, they found out only a short period
of time before they would come back and see it.
Why did they eventually give in to the recommendations
and why is there no change?
Because that was the discussion a lot of last time was like,
well we'd actually have to see it this way instead.
>> Correct.
It was through discussions actually
with legal staff following the meeting.
The way our notices are worded, it implies that PNZ
and council can recommend and approve anything that is--
make sure I get this right--
equal to or more restrictive than what was seen
at the meeting.
What they were proposing is actually less restrictive.
>> Okay, so--
>> So it would have required another notification.
>> So, oh, so that's-- so they just said just for the sake
of notification issue and delaying the process--
>> Correct, yeah, just to keep moving forward--
>> Go ahead and--
>> Correct.
>> -- bend to the will.
Okay. And then if we vote-- vote any type of motion,
it would be for staff's recommendations
and the conditions, correct?
>> Mm-hmm.
>> Okay, got it.
Perfect, thank you.
>> Any other questions for Haley?
Great. Thank you, Haley.
>> Thank you.
>> Next item is the specific use permit S18-0002B.
This item was continued from October 24th meeting.
I'll ask Cindy.
Is Cindy here?
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, I'm behind Matt's head.
I couldn't see.
I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.
>> And this was for which one, sir?
>> S18-002B, 2B, got to be that--
>> One above that, two above that.
>> No.
>> Yeah.
>> Two above you highlighted.
>> Third one down.
>> This one?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, yes.
And I-- you are familiar with this one.
This is the request for an SUP for a specific use permit
to allow quick vehicle servicing in suite 110 and suite 111
of the budget self-storage site.
The property, again, is located at 2820 Virginia Circle.
You can see it right here.
Now, when we were last here, the item was continued
from the October 28th planning and zoning commission meeting
to allow the tenants, the two tenants involved time
to address the parking issues associated with these two suites.
If you'll recall, there was parking--
quite a bit of parking on the lot that was adjacent
to the site, the vacant lot adjacent to the site.
At that time, the public hearing was not closed.
We had-- we went out there today and as of today,
the vehicles have been removed from the lot adjacent to the site
and there are-- there are not a lot of vehicles
in the parking area in front of the units.
Mr. Melton who was in suite 111 has left
and Mr. Haney now has leased the unit
and has both units 110 and 111.
These are the photos that were taken back in February 2018
and you can see the cars are stacked.
There's no room between them.
I don't know how they get them out to be honest.
Along the front of the site, this shows the adjacent lot
and this shows the two units right here and here's a head
on of the two units right here.
This was taken November 11th and as you can see,
there are still some cars parked around here to the side
of the site and these-- the cars on the adjacent lot as well,
you can see these two cars which are right here, here
and there are also cars here.
So there's a total of approximately four cars still
on the vacant lot next door.
You can see there's quite a few less cars.
There are fewer cars there along the--
in the parking area in the front.
Now this was November 11th
and these pictures were taken this afternoon.
The adjacent lot is clear.
There are what you'd expect to see a normal number of cars along
the front of the site and here's a close up of that.
Again, just to remind you, this is a public hearing.
We sent out notices via certified mail
and courtesy postcards and we received no responses.
There was one site-- one sign posted on the site.
Staff recommends denial of this request.
However, should the commission decide to recommend approval,
staff recommends the following recommendations.
A new certificate of occupancy should be issued
for the correct use, quick vehicle servicing.
A new-- the new certificate of occupancy shall state
that the proposed use of new quick vehicle servicing is
limited to this particular business owner
and these two particular suites.
This specific use permit will be limited to the use description
and floor plan as shown in Exhibits 8 and 9.
Overnight, outdoor storage of automobiles is prohibited
and no more than two customer vehicles per business can be
parked in the parking spaces
in front of the building during business hours.
And that concludes my presentation.
>> Ms. Charles.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So Cindy, we actually only have one business now.
So, does that need to be reworded or?
>> No, no, he's in both suites, suite 110 and 111.
>> But it's just one, not per each.
>> So you're saying for each suite?
>> For each suite, yes.
We have to park each suite
and that's what we're saying is each suite can have two spaces
for customer parking.
>> Commissioner Pernetta.
>> Okay. And kind of along those lines,
I believe it was Mr. Melton-- Mr. Melton wasn't here.
It was Mr. Haney before.
>> Mr. Haney was here last time.
>> Okay. And Mr. Melton has since vacated the property
as we were told.
So Mr. Haney is now occupying both of them?
>> Yes, he is.
>> So he would need a specific use permit for both.
>> That's right.
>> Okay.
>> Commissioner Sanchez.
>> If I remember correctly, when we first discussed this issue,
one of the things is he mentioned that he had rented
that lot next to him and he had gotten permission
to actually gravel that and according to--
if I remember correctly, I guess he had gotten
from code enforcement permission to utilize that as long
as it was graveled but the problem was
that gone beyond that or something?
>> Code enforcement never gave them permission to do that.
>> Okay.
>> Code enforcement was concerned about the number of cars,
the fact that they were parking on grass as well as gravel
and the nuisance factor that was out there.
>> Okay, that's what I remember him saying something about,
that he had put gravel out there but then they had gone beyond
that so that was one of the big issues.
Now, my other question is, there's other offices there?
>> Yes.
>> So each one gets two parking spots, right?
Is that correct?
>> Each one gets-- well, it depends on the floor area
of their suite and it depends on the use.
So each one, I went through the manager of the site gave me a list
of all of the tenants in their-- the strip, the building right now
and I went through and looked at each CEO
to see how much parking each one required
and for the total strip, 12 spaces are required
and that's how many are provided.
>> Right, right.
And so, when we saw that one picture of all those cars,
were some of those cars belong to some of those other suites
or was it just-- we just assumed that they all belong to--
>> I don't know.
>> Okay.
>> We can't tell that.
>> Well, that's what I was wondering.
We just saw that one picture but we don't know
if those cars belong to anybody else in that office space
and so we don't know how many of those actually belong to that.
>> Well, I can tell you that 12 cars are permitted to park
in that area.
>> Okay.
>> And there were over 15 cars there.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. But we don't know who they belong to,
if they belong to him or they belong to somebody else.
>> Well, the-- now, from my discussions with the applicant,
some of them did belong to these two businesses.
>> Okay, okay.
>> The number, I don't know but, yeah, they had.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
And I hate to be Mr. Skeptical here but do we have any provision
other than maybe a complaint that down the road he may be
in violation again, I would maybe put before the commission,
maybe should we put that sometime
in the next year there would be a random inspection,
a one-time random inspection just to make sure it's compliant
because I can see this getting out of control again.
>> You're welcome to add any stipulations that you want
to add to the recommendation.
>> Would it be fair to kind of just ask, just a general nod
from everybody if that would be a--
>> I do have some concerns with putting
that in there as a requirement because this is passed
by ordinance and, you know, the enforcement is generally left
to the code enforcement department to enforce the provisions
of the ordinance that go through the legislative process.
>> OK.
>> I can tell you that the code enforcement officer is going
to have this on his radar for a while.
>> OK.
>> That's good enough for me then, thank you.
Commissioner Pernetta.
>> OK. So the-- you mentioned that there's about 15 cars,
that was as of today?
>> No, there's 12 today.
>> 12 today, OK.
>> Right. They had 15 parking spaces originally
and when the site plan was originally submitted
and I checked the dimensions of the parking spaces they had,
they didn't meet our required dimensions for parallel parking.
So the applicant restriped them according to code
and reduced the parking down to 12.
>> OK. The other thing that I remember, Mr. Haney talked
about the possibility of storing cars within the facility.
>> Yeah.
>> Were you able to check the size of, you know,
the building or the interior to see
if that could effectively do what he claimed?
>> We have-- I included a dimension site plan
in your exhibits and you can take a look at that
and see if that would work out.
It looks to me like he could fit at least two in there
but I'm not a car person so I don't know.
>> Thank you very much.
>> I think legal wants to ask a question.
>> Yeah. Cindy, just so we don't have any, you know,
misunderstandings here as far as if the commission were
to recommend this.
Are there still building code issues that would remain apart
from the zoning issues that might prevent this
from ever being a viable option for a business?
>> Not that I'm aware of.
>> OK.
>> No. The whole issue was the fact that they were
in violation of their CO and that they were parking
on the adjacent lot.
>> Christopher Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, that's actually slightly what my question was going
to be with legal ask which was that what was the likelihood
that an actual CO would be issued for this because--
but I'm guessing that you're what you're saying is
that the reason they're in the violation of their CO is
that they had filed for a use that was allowed
and if there's zoning but because we'll have an SCP,
now this use would be allowed so really other
than just building standard things, you know, exits,
mark, bathrooms, everything else.
They should be able to get a CO pretty easily.
>> Yes.
>> So it is very likely that if we approve the CO
that they approve the SCP that they will get a CO.
>> Exactly.
>> Sure. OK, awesome.
Thank you.
>> Christopher Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair and in so doing then, should he grow
and expand and move out of there that would allow somebody else
to come in and do this?
>> No.
>> We'd have to start over, right?
>> That is why we are putting that requirement
that you see right here.
The new certificate of occupancy shall state
that the proposed use of quick vehicle service is limited
to this particular business owner and these two.
>> OK.
>> So when the business owner leaves, they have to--
if they wanted to put quick vehicle servicing in there again,
they would have to go through the SUP process.
>> OK. Good.
Thanks.
>> So I have a couple of questions.
We took last time of limiting SUP to a business
and we-- I think the conclusion was the SUP is limited
to the use of the land.
Is it within this authority or the council authority
to limit the CO to a business?
>> Yes. This is how the city attorney said it had
to be restricted during the meeting last time.
>> OK.
>> The CO would be the instrument.
>> Gotcha.
>> It wasn't me.
>> Yeah, it was.
It's in the minutes.
[ Laughter ]
>> Remind me a dog when you guys come up with the minutes.
>> Yeah.
[ Laughter ]
>> Well, then, that'd be my question is if there can be
stipulations enforced, whoever issues the certificate
of occupancy, that that has to be limited
and what's the mechanism to ensure
that the individual's issuing the CO know about this.
That would be more just to put on their radar.
Commissioner Pernette asked a question.
I was surprised by the answer.
He said would each suite need to have its own SUP.
You responded affirmatively, we're only seeing one SUP.
So is this SUP for suite 110 or 110?
>> Well, then I must have misunderstood his question then.
>> OK.
>> Because this suite is for-- this SUP is for suite 110 and 111.
>> OK.
>> Those two.
>> Perfect.
That was my understanding.
I was a little confused by the response.
>> Yeah. I just misunderstood the question then.
>> Lastly, I'm not sure if it's articulated
or can you re-articulate, given these provisions,
why the staff would be in denial of this request?
>> Well, this-- we call this a soft denial to be honest
with you where we feel that because it was denied
as an automotive use previously back in 2010,
we feel that we would be better served if we went ahead
and recommended denial again and let the commission
and the council decide if this is an appropriate location.
>> OK. Thank you.
So any other questions for this item?
Great. Thank you, Cindy.
>> Thank you.
>> Although, don't go too far.
>> Oh.
>> Next item is S189A, the SUP for Verizon Wireless.
>> I have a lot of-- it would be at all possible to skip
to the next one while I sort of-- I printed out a bunch--
>> This one's-- I'm getting a notification
that you're not mic'd.
You're wanting to come back to the Verizon?
OK.
>> Yes. I'll come back after the next one
because I just need to sort out all of the notifications,
responses we got to give to you.
>> And just for those listening, Cindy said that she's going
to sort out some things and come back.
I wanted to make sure we don't miss that.
With that, Julie Wyatt, can you present on PDA 18-1?
>> Yes.
>> Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton.
And I'm presenting PDA 18-1, King's Ridge.
The request before you is to hold a public hearing
and consider a recommendation
to City Council regarding a general concept plan amendment
and detail plan approval for PD 115.
The property is on approximately 78 acres
and it is located adjacent to Bonnie Bray.
Bonnie Bray is here, just south of Elm Street.
So it's sort of in the north part of the city.
So we don't see PDs a whole lot so we'll just go
over briefly general items about plan developments.
So the 2002 Denton Development Code doesn't actually have plan
developments but it did carry over 15 PDs that were
in effect prior to the adoption of the 2002 code.
Because these are holdovers from prior to 2002,
we looked to the 1991 code in order to regulate these
and administer the PDs.
So in the '91 code it says
that plan developments generally encourage flexible
and creative planning to ensure compatibility of uses
and superior design, amenities, open space, and environmental
or historic preservation.
That was the intent of PDs.
And PDs were generally approved in a two-step process.
The general concept plan which was the broadest part of the PD.
It established maybe broad general guidelines,
the land use types, the general locations of those land uses,
and then the project boundaries.
It does not expire, it's kind of the base zoning of the property.
>> I'm hearing myself and it's freaking me out.
>> I imagine so.
>> It's very meta.
>> Guys.
[ Inaudible Remarks ]
>> Step two is a detail plan.
That is the final step in the PD process.
It really lays out the details, what the buildings look like,
the orientation, the landscaping.
These do expire after 24 months if it's not developed.
So the two steps for PDs, and we're actually going to be looking
at both of these items for PD 115 tonight.
So more generally, let's look at the background of PD 115.
It was established back in 1986.
The first general concept plan was approved at that time
and it was a mixed use development.
And you can see by the map here, this is PD 115 and it took
in all of this green area right here.
PD 142 is also green, it's adjacent to it,
but really we're looking at this area right here.
It wasn't developed, so in 2000 they revised the general concept
plan to reallocate some of those uses and that is still in effect.
That has not expired and we'll look
at that general concept plan in just a minute.
Also in 2000, a detailed plan
for the single family uses was approved, it expired.
And then in 2006, they came again, once again,
with a detailed plan for single family uses and it also expired.
So now we'll look at the 2000 general concept plan
that is in effect today.
It is-- it's actually much larger than the subject property.
So it continues to the south but this--
the subject property we're looking
at is just this part in black here.
And we'll look at just the mix of uses.
So they proposed single family, multi-family and commercial
and office.
The single family was located in these areas
and there were two lot sizes.
SF5, located here and here, called for 5,000 square foot lots.
SF7, in this general area and actually then continuing
on to the south, called for 7,000 square foot lots.
Multi-family was proposed in this general direct area
and then commercial and office in this area adjacent
to Bonnie Bray.
So they are proposing to revise this
to only permit single family uses in this area.
So this is the new concept plan and this is really just zooming
in on the most important part 'cause it's big,
it's hard to see.
So they are just proposing to flatten out the uses,
only permit single family dwellings at a maximum density
of 3.6 dwelling units per acre, minimum lot size
of 6,000 square feet with the dimensions of 50 by 100.
They also have other dimensional standards,
maximum height of 36 feet.
They have the setbacks, the front side
and rear yard setbacks and then maximum lot coverage of 60%.
This is fairly typical of what we see in our zoning
for our standard neighborhood residential districts.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So my math is right, they could build a house
up to 3,600 square feet, 60% of 6,000.
>> Well, that's a really good question.
The way we calculate lot coverage within the city
of Denton is not just the building,
it is all impervious surface.
>> Driveways.
>> That would be the building, driveway, sidewalk.
And really they're kind
of following those general development standards
within the PD.
>> 'Cause that seems if, yeah, if you got a house that big,
that doesn't really fit over there, does it seem like, yeah.
Okay, thanks.
>> So just generally the detail plan, the text,
it's in your backup.
I know it's pretty lengthy.
It discusses administration of the PD,
what the rules control, the phasing, infrastructure,
the uses and dimensions, those are consistent
with that concept plan that they're coming in with today.
Mobility, open space, landscaping,
perimeter fencing, and design.
We'll go over some of these a little more specifically now.
So we just wanted to kind of show you what they're proposing
versus what our standards are.
So the intent of the PD is to have more creative design
and superior, more quality development.
And so we wanted to show you what they're proposing
versus what a typical NR4 would permit.
So if they came in and just said we just want to do NR4,
we don't want to do the PD, that would allow a maximum density
of four dwelling units per acre.
They're proposing a little less than that at 3.6.
Minimum open space in our residential areas,
we don't have any.
They're actually proposing 13.38 acres of common open space.
Perimeter fencing, we don't have any requirements
for subdivision perimeter fencing
under the Denton Development Code.
They're proposing perimeter fencing in different locations
of masonry near Bonnie Bray and then wood
and ornamental metal to the south.
>> Mr. Smith?
>> I'll wait for you to get down to him.
Sorry, once he gets into your body, I'm sorry.
>> We don't have any requirements for tree canopy
and open spaces under current rules
in the Denton Development Code.
As part of our discussion with them,
they're proposing an average 40% tree canopy
throughout their open space areas.
We don't have any requirements for entry monuments.
They're proposing up to four.
Off-street trails, they're proposing 600 feet
of all-weather off-street trails.
Minimum masonry, we don't have any minimum masonry requirements
for single-family homes in the Denton Development Code.
They're proposing a minimum 70% masonry.
>> Commissioner Smith?
>> Thank you, Chair.
So on the entry monuments, just to make sure,
because I'm reading through this and you're going
to keep going through it, I'm sorry to interrupt you
halfway through.
>> No, it's all right.
>> But it seems like the things we're really making sure
as a commission, we want to make sure is that minimums,
if they want to set minimums, if there's pretty much most
of that stuff is, there is no minimum.
But we want to make sure they're not, you know,
superseding any maximums on there.
So the entry monument, when it says there's on requirements,
there's none, that doesn't mean that entry monuments are allowed
within our form, correct?
>> That is a very good question.
Yes, sir, they are.
>> It's just saying that they're allowed.
We just don't have any minimum requirements.
>> Correct.
>> They're going to say our minimum
for entry monuments is going to be four.
>> Yes.
>> So then that's not unusual, so okay, got it.
Just wanted to make clarification.
>> Perimeter street trees, under current code,
we don't require perimeter street trees for,
if say a subdivision comes in and it's adjacent to one
of arterials, there's no requirement for a developer
to put perimeter streets along that arterial
that abuts a subdivision.
They are proposing those perimeter trees.
And then neighborhood street trees,
our code does require those, and they are,
they are proposing to put those in.
They're a little different than our requirement,
and we could talk about that as we get a little down a little
further in our site design.
They're proposing a minimum medium canopy tree every 45
to 50 feet, and then they are proposing the right-of-ways
widths to be consistent
with what our transportation criteria manual requires now,
which is 55 feet of right-of-way.
So here's what the detailed plan looks like.
So as you can see, they show the single-family lots
in that minimum 6,000 square feet.
This area right here is the contiguous open space.
It does provide a linear open space through the neighborhood.
It's also got several points of entry to the open space
in these cul-de-sac areas.
So it's a little more accessible.
They are proposing traffic calming on some
of these longer streets to make sure that cars go
with safe speed, and then there are additional open spaces
and buffers surrounding the subject property,
and we'll look at those in a little more detail
in just a minute.
So here's their proposed landscape plan.
This is the broad view of it.
It's conceptual.
Within the text, it lays
out a little more specifically what they are proposing to do,
but just in general, the open space, this open space,
along with the buffers and this open space where it would have
that average of 40% tree canopy, and then there is a pond here
with a little stream.
So now we'll look at a little more detail,
zoom in on a few specific areas of that landscape plan.
So on the south side of the property, and as you may know,
the Denton ISD has acquired the property to the south,
so when we were talking with the applicant, we wanted to make sure
that that edge of their development was treated
in a really sensitive way because there's going to be a lot
of cars coming out on that area, and we wanted to make sure
that the buffers and the screening was appropriate.
So they are proposing a minimum 15-foot landscape buffer area.
That minimum is there because you can see it skinnies
up adjacent to those proposed lots,
but then it gets a little larger when you've got the open space areas.
That perimeter fencing along the edge will be wood with masonry columns
when it's 15 feet, and then along those open space areas,
they're proposing an ornamental metal fence to provide those views.
Street trees are proposed.
Every 45 linear feet, however, they are asking
that they could cluster those if they needed
to provide a little more natural landscape area.
They are proposing monument entry signs along this arterial.
Turf and native grasses, they are proposing some burming
in some of the open space areas, once again, to provide a visual break
as cars are driving along that roadway, and then a sidewalk.
All right, on the east property line, it's a little more straightforward.
They're proposing a 20-foot landscape area with trees planted every 45 linear feet.
Once again, they're requesting that clustering if needed.
A 6-foot masonry wall along Bonny Bray, monument entry sign, and then turf
and native grasses, turf or native grasses and landscape beds and sidewalk.
As we get into the internal part of the development,
they are proposing 600 feet of all-weather trail to--
throughout the internal, five seating areas.
They're looking at putting five seating areas somewhere within the--
that open space along the trail and it to be sort of a natural stone bench.
One shade structure, dogway stations, tree preservation,
and that tree preservation would go toward that 40% canopy that they're proposing.
Street trees along the internal streets at one every 45 to 50 feet.
They asked for that little wiggle room in the 45 to 50 feet because they wanted
to make sure that trees were planted in the right places.
And sometimes, depending on where the driveway is, it may increase that footage
of where that tree should go, so they wanted that little wiggle room, 45 to 50 feet,
to make sure that those street trees were put in the right place
and that they weren't put somewhere that would conflict with the driveway.
And then each lot is proposed to have one tree.
Additionally, each lot will maintain a 50% landscape area in the front yard.
So these are conceptual elevations and in the text, they're proposing four parking spaces,
which is consistent with the Denton Development Code.
It will essentially mean that each lot, each house will have a two-car garage.
The PD also calls for architectural variety, certain architectural elements
from a menu they'll choose from in order to make sure that the houses are distinctive.
Any attached front entry garage would be constructed of wood, synthetic wood
or stained fiberglass, so it would have a wood-look feel to it.
That, once again, that 70% masonry and then the 50% landscape front yard.
So we go back to our criteria for approval in the 1991 code and we're going to look
at two sections of criteria for approval because we really have two things we're looking at.
First, the general concept plan.
It just has one criteria and that is, does the proposed amendment,
is it in harmony with the plan for the entire district?
Well, the district's kind of shrunk due to the high school and just the evolution
of the district, but PD 115 was originally conceived of as a mixed-use development
with commercial office and residential uses.
Since it's shrunk, the uses have narrowed in the PD to only that single family.
However, the surrounding zoning and the future uses will really maintain
that mixed-use feel.
We're still going to have a mix of uses in the general area.
Additionally, the proposal is an extension of that land use pattern that was established
in 2000, it's really just broadening the single family use,
just really pulling out the multi-family use in the commercial uses.
So staff feels like it is consistent with that criteria for approval.
The detail plan has four criteria for approval.
So first, does the plan comply with the general concept plan?
Well, if the general concept plan is approved as proposed,
then the detail plan would be consistent with it
because it calls for those single family uses.
Does the detail plan provide for compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses
that would not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods
or properties outside the plan?
So what they're proposing is really a cluster of single family development that's oriented
inward toward those common open spaces.
They're proposing those buffers around it, either the 20-foot or the 15-foot buffers
around it, to separate from the adjacent uses and also from the high traffic.
And one area that is close to that is a very large lot subdivision to the southwest of
the subject site.
There's no proposal for any connection, roadway connection to that neighborhood, to the southwest.
So they won't be introducing traffic to that neighborhood.
So we feel like the proposal complies with this criteria for approval.
Commissioner Beck.
On that note, then, this arterial is going to be running on the south face.
That is going to connect with that road that connects that commercial area there.
Yes.
So you're right.
The road will actually connect, eventually, will connect through to here.
It won't connect to this road.
Okay.
Is that going to be considered a collector arterial?
I believe it's going to be an arterial.
It's a secondary arterial.
Secondary arterial.
We'll get to the mobility.
Okay.
Thanks.
It's going to be a four-lane divided, as proposed.
All right.
Does the plan provide for the adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic?
The proposal complies with all current standards for streets, and it's also proposing traffic
calming in accordance with our transportation criteria manuals.
We feel like it meets that criteria.
And finally, is it in substantial compliance with the landscape sign subdivision and other
regulations of the city?
So once again, because it's a PD, we look to an old code, and that's the 1998 landscape
code.
That required 15 trees to be planted per acre, or it could be a part of tree preservation.
So a combination of preservation and planting, there had to be 15 trees per acre, which really
came out to about 34% canopy per acre.
They're actually proposing, in their open space areas, a 40% average canopy.
In addition, they're proposing one tree per lot and also street trees, not only internally,
but also in excess of what the code requires, and that's the perimeter street trees.
So we feel like it does meet that requirement.
We also looked at the mobility of the area.
I know it's always a topic on everyone's mind.
They did do a trick generation analysis for the request.
They assumed 350 dwellings, so they assumed more than what they're proposing.
Per the trip generation manual, the 350 dwellings would generate about 3,300 trips per day,
which would be AM peak hour traffic of 230 trips, the PM peak would be 338 trips.
This coupled with so much going on in this corner, and I know we've talked about this,
mobility is looking at regional improvements for traffic, and that's why the Bonnebray
improvements are forthcoming.
So as we've discussed before, Bonnebray will be improved from university going north.
It will be a four lane divided as currently proposed, but it will have enough right of
way to come to six if they need it.
The final alignment is still under design, so we don't know where it will end up.
We're thinking it's probably going to track to the east, but we don't know the final
alignment.
It is targeted to be complete for the opening of the Denton High School, and that's in late
2021.
And then also as you asked earlier, this connector road here will be also as part of the improvements
of any development adjacent to it, and it would be a four lane divided, and at some
point in the future it will connect out to I-35.
Notification was sent out.
They also had a neighborhood meeting.
They actually had it on Monday night.
They had a few attendees, and they really were just asking questions about what they
were going to do.
So we haven't received any feedback.
Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request with the
condition that it complies with the general concept plan, the detailed plan, and the text
associated with those as included in your backup.
And I'll stand for questions.
We've got a couple of questions.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
On the -- can you go back to the slides when you were showing kind of the conceptual -- just
something where I can see that right there, that's perfect.
That pond, is there any type of -- first of all, is that a detention pond?
What is that?
They will use it as part of their drainage system.
Gotcha.
Okay.
Was it naturally there before?
Was this back in -- back in 2000 or whatever this whole thing started?
Did they begin doing a detention?
What was the history of it?
I just don't know.
I don't know.
Okay.
It is there.
And there was --
It was there.
We got it.
We see that there.
There was a gentleman at the neighborhood meeting who's farmed this area for many years,
and I should have asked him, but I don't know.
The only question I'm really having about that in regards to the pond is just the flooding
that might be created, because it looks like if you go back to the conceptual and if you
look at it on the -- if you get a closer look on the satellite picture, you can see that
far left in there, that just -- it just -- the river appears.
It's not really a river.
It's more of a drainage ditch is what it really is.
It's kind of a naturally flowing drainage creek, but I'm just afraid of building up
a bunch of concrete around that and causing what now -- what used to be a permeable area
to soak up a lot of that rain is now going to be funneled down to that.
And so I don't know, as a city, if we have done -- required the applicant to do an analysis
on that to make sure there's not going to be massive flooding once we build up a neighborhood
there.
As part of platting, they will have --
They will?
They always have to do the pre- and post-development conditions, and they will have to make sure
that they address that drainage.
So it's a great question.
They will have to do that.
And then would that also -- so adding onto that, the pre- and post-development, will
that extend to the property -- it's going to sound weird because I think the answer
is going to be no.
But will that extend to the property across the way?
Because you can't see it, but if you go onto an aerial view, you see that that creek, because
it goes out the right side, it actually extends basically underneath Bonnie Bray into a -- you
see just right of your cursor, that pond there.
And so while it may not affect that pond there, it may affect what looks like the natural
flow goes across Bonnie Bray to the other side, may affect that land over there.
So I'd hate to say -- hate to have a property owner do something to their property that
affects their next-door neighbor.
It may not affect them, but it affects their next-door neighbors.
Engineering always makes sure that they can't make conditions to adjacent property owners
worse.
Sure.
Okay.
So they have to make sure that they take care of the water.
The post-development does say, okay, well, it won't affect anybody next to us, that kind
of thing.
Correct.
So that's the Bonnie Bray improvements.
I suspect as part of that, there will also be some infrastructure placed in to accommodate
for water.
Okay.
And then could you show me on the map, just because I can't remember off the top of my
head, and looking at it, there's too many open fields to pick which -- where it's supposed
to be.
Where is the new high school?
It will be...
Is it right across the way, or is it just south of it?
Okay.
Somebody's honestly thinking it was north of '77.
Okay.
So it's right, right, smack dab.
There.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a couple of questions.
Now, on the north boundary line there, the property between that and the I-35 ramping
out, that's still PD?
Well, you probably remember, you've recently seen a rezoning case for this property to
zone it out of the PD to the adjacent -- the adjacent is RCCD.
They requested RCCD to be consistent with the adjacent property.
Okay.
It's actually going to City Council on December 4th.
Okay.
So that conceivably could be commercial?
The intent is to use the commercial to have some mix of uses in that area, which is not
even necessary.
That's part of a future land use, ma'am?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
That is actually business innovation to the north of there, but, you know, that's kind
of one of those areas of business innovation where those sort of supporting uses make a
lot of sense there.
Okay.
So as far as concerning tree canopy, do we know what kind of trees are going to lie in
the yard?
Are they going to be nice canopy trees, or do we know?
I brought the tree list.
I brought the tree list just in case.
Okay.
So as part of the PD, we talk mostly about medium canopy trees, particularly in the street
trees, because we want to make sure that they grow to a nice street tree, frame the street,
but not so much that garbage trucks are going to hit them and they're not going to -- they're
going to get pruned in a way.
The ones in the yard, the ones in the yard, there aren't any provisions for what actual
tree except that -- to take off of the tree list.
But they have the developer had suggested -- okay, that's all I wanted to know.
All right.
Thanks, Julie.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Yeah.
I just wanted to mention -- you mentioned about the pond.
If you look at this whole area, there's several ponds out there.
It's probably soil conservation service at one time.
If you look at some of that topography, it kind of rolls.
And in order to control erosion, they probably built a lot of those ponds in that area.
I just wanted to mention that.
Any other questions for Ms. Haley?
Perfect.
Thank you.
That was item E. We can go back now to item D, which is Cindy Jackson's SUP for Verizon
Wireless.
Thank you.
I appreciate you letting me take care of these.
I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Ms. Haley.
Where did it go?
S180009 is a request for a specific use permit for a freestanding monopole telecommunications
tower and associated equipment room.
The property is located at 816 Frame Street.
You can see it right here.
Here's Frame.
Paisley also runs along the south side of the site and the railroad is along the northwest
side of the site.
Over here you can see the city service center.
So it's very close to the service center.
The subject site is zone DCG and approval of an SUP is required for a monopole tower
up to 85 feet in height.
In fact, according to the table, approval of an SUP is required for any monopole tower
in the DCG district.
When looking at whether or not to recommend approval for an SUP, we actually look at the
SUP criteria.
We look at the -- we do a compatibility analysis between the surrounding property and the request
it used and we also look for telecommunications towers.
We look at 3513.8 telecommunication tower standards.
The site complies with both sets of criteria as noted in your backup.
Here you see the site plan of the warehouse in which it's located.
It will be located right here.
The tower and the equipment room will take up three storage spaces.
Those are going to be removed and the tower and the equipment room will be placed instead.
This is an elevation of the site.
You can see the tower which is a total of 80 feet and you can see the site plan.
This is the monopole tower.
This is the generator and equipment room and you can kind of see where the three units
used to be.
There's one, two, three.
Analysis, the zoning DCG, monopole towers less than 85 feet are permitted with approval
of a specific use permit, an SUP.
You can see the site is zoned DCG and then we've got DR1, DR2, NR4 and then DCG in the
proximity.
The subject site is located within a self-storage warehouse adjacent to the railroad tracks.
This location will minimize both nuisance caused by the site as well as visibility of the site.
The only thing that will be visible from adjoining streets or neighborhoods will be the pole
itself.
The actual equipment room and the emergency backup generator will not be visible unless
you go into the self-storage facility.
We sent out notices, 29 notices via certified mail and 118 notices via courtesy mail via
regular mail.
We received two responses in favor which I handed out to you.
Two signs were posted on the site and the applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting
to which I was the only attendee.
We got no response to that.
Staff recommends approval of this request.
It is compatible with the surrounding property and conforms to all applicable requirements
of section 35128, wireless telecommunications facilities as well as the requirements for
a specific use permit.
And that concludes my presentation.
Thank you Cindy.
Mr. Smith.
Hey Chair.
The neighborhood meeting, when was, do you know when the applicant sent out notifications
of the neighborhood meeting and where it was looked, do you know the details around it,
just whenever there's neighborhood meetings that are poorly attended, all that stuff.
The applicant sent the notices out a good 10 days at least before the meeting and it
was actually held at the Fowler Museum.
Okay.
Museum, I'm sorry, library.
I'm not going to say it's like whatever, I didn't know there was a museum there.
Fowler Library.
Museums, libraries, quietly both, got it, okay.
Any other questions on this item?
Thank you Cindy.
Thank you.
Do you have one more this evening?
Yes.
That is the next item, item FZ18-8 for the Sentinel Centennial on North Elm.
We have received quite a few responses to this in the past few days and I'm sorry the
one on the back.
We can wait until you're on the mic, I'm getting in trouble for you speaking off the mic.
Sorry about that, can you say that note again?
I will.
I will note that the one on the back is a duplicate of one that's on the inside.
Okay, Z18-0008 is a request for approval of a zoning change of a site from Neighborhood
Residential Mixed Use NRMU 12 to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use NRMU.
The 2.411 acre site is located at 3131 and 3161 North Elm Street.
You can see it right here.
This is North Elm Street and this is Joyce that is across from it.
Windsor Drive is to the south.
This shows the current zoning map of the site and you can see most of this entire triangle
is NRMU with a couple of exceptions, excuse me NRMU 12 and we've got some NRMU here and
NR4 here.
If this is approved, this is what the zoning map will look like.
You'll notice that this would be a continuation of the NRMU district that is to the north
across Elm Street.
Here's the proposed concept plan.
This is just a concept plan, it is not something that the applicant is being held to.
The applicant is proposing 71 units, one and two bedroom apartments, three stories and
I want to note that any future multi-family development that would go here if this zoning
is approved would require a specific use permit so you would see this before you again and
you would have a closer look at what is actually proposed.
When looking at criteria for approval for rezoning we look at whether the request conforms
to the future land use plan and if there is adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewer, schools, parks, public services.
The site is designated as neighborhood mixed use on the future land use plan.
The intent of neighborhood mixed use is applied to areas of Denton which are primarily residential
but were a mix of housing types along with retail and service uses that support the surrounding
neighborhoods are encouraged.
It recommends moderate to high density residential.
The types and uses and scale of the development permitted in the NRMU district conforms with
the goals of the neighborhood mixed use designation.
We also look at zoning compatibility.
The requested NRMU district is a continuation of the NRMU district located on the north
side of the site across Elm.
The proposed NRMU zoning is compatible with the goals and objectives outlined in the Denton
plan 2030 for areas designated neighborhood mixed use.
It is the most intensive of the neighborhood residential districts and permits a variety
of institutional, commercial and moderate to high density residential uses.
Now with regards to infrastructure, the applicant will be required to actually bore across North
Elm Street to bring water and sewer to the site.
You can see this is where it is located right now and they would have to get a text-top
permit to bore under North Elm.
North Elm Street is designated as a primary arterial with 135 feet of right of way.
It's currently constructed as four-lane divided roadway with an ultimate buildout of 135 feet.
So the applicant may have to dedicate right of way to bring it to their half of the street
to that width.
We'll know more when the site goes forward for plotting.
I want to note that the applicant will only have access to North Elm Street.
There's going to be no other access available to the applicant and based on the number of
units the proposed development is expected to generate 468 trips daily.
The PM peak total number of trips is 41 and that's per the 8th edition ITE trip generation
table.
>> Can I ask a question real fast if I understand that correctly?
The PM peak hour for 71 units is 48 cars?
>> 41.
>> Mm-hmm.
>> Okay.
That seems low.
>> Well, I'll be honest with you, I'm not a transportation planner so I'm not sure how
they came up with those numbers.
>> Okay.
>> But that's what the table said when I checked it.
>> Okay.
Thanks.
Chris, you're back.
>> Thank you, Chair.
While we're on the impact of traffic and I know this is a text out road but in the consideration
of how traffic is going to be affected, you're going to have a little back up there if you're
heading I guess it's northwest on Elm and you're going to try and turn into that first means
of egress there and there's no left-turn lane there so was that taken into consideration?
>> No, because that's a concept plan.
And they have to get a tech stop permit for a driveway.
>> So it's not likely that we don't know that?
>> It's not like they're going to have to be honest with you.
They might but normally they only permit one driveway for a site unless it's very large.
>> Okay and the only way you can access this is going to be off of Elm from what I can
see here.
Okay.
Interesting.
Thank you.
>> Commissioner Sanchez.
>> You mentioned that they'd have to drill under Elm Street to get water.
Swordline already exists on that south side, I guess.
Is that what you're --
>> No.
>> Water and wastewater.
You can see both of them.
The water is blue, wastewater is red.
>> So everything will have to be brought in.
Is there any idea of creating the same water and sewage lines on the south side?
I mean long-term that whole area is going to be developed.
>> Well at this time I'm not aware of any plans.
Typically the lines are put in as sites develop and the city participates if they request
oversizing.
>> Because eventually I'm just thinking eventually they're going to build it.
That's a long -- big cost for that particular -- to bore underneath that little Elm Street
if they could extend those lines at least up to where they exist.
I'm sure there's some other businesses further down there.
>> We agree with you.
It's not inexpensive to do something like this.
The applicant may be able to answer more questions about this, but that's what they've been advised
is that they have to bore under the street and they have to get approval from TXDOT to
do it.
Okay, analysis, well I pretty much went through this already.
The NRMU district permits a mix of housing types and density.
It's consistent with the future land use element.
The NRMU district permits a maximum 30 dwelling units per acre, also consistent with the future
land use element.
The concept plan that was presented to us has a density, proposed density of 29.4 dwelling
units per acre.
The proposed NRMU district provides a transition between established single family neighborhoods
to the South and the potential mixed use or commercial areas located along North Elm Street.
Existing land uses surrounding the site includes single family residents in a church, a regional
drainage facility, and undeveloped land.
The subject site is located on the north side of North Elm Street, approximately 1.65 miles
southeast of Loop 288.
Demand was to comply with all ESA, tree preservation, buffer screening, tree canopy, and lighting
requirements.
An extension of both water and wastewater service will be necessary to serve the site.
Public notices were sent out, 12 notices were sent out via certified mail, and 58 were sent
out courtesy notices via regular mail.
We received, in opposition, well, in opposition within the 200 foot buffer, we received four,
which equates to 40% of the land within the 200 foot boundary.
That will require this to be approved by council with a super majority vote of 6 to 1.
We received one response in favor, that representing 4% of the property.
One sign was posted on the site, and like I said, a super majority vote will be required.
We received a lot of notices from people who were outside the site or within the 500 foot
buffer, which are included in your packet as well, and they're pointed out here.
I received more, I noticed in my email just before I came here.
We will add those to the computations and present them to city council.
>> City is the opposition one land owner.
>> It's not, no.
These are all separate land owners.
These three, they are related, but no, this one land owner right here is not related.
>> Staff recommends approval of this request as it is compatible with the surrounding property
and consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton plan 2030.
>> Mr. Beck.
>> Thank you, chair.
Okay.
Thank you, Cindy.
I'm sitting here looking at the Google map on this.
I wasn't aware that there were any residential houses that backed up to this property, but
you say there's three.
>> Yep.
There's one here.
>> I thought that belonged, I thought, looking at, again, the Google map, I can see one.
>> Mm-hmm.
>> But then you've got the church there, the Jehovah's Witness, I believe it is.
>> That's Jehovah's Witness.
>> Okay.
That isn't their land then that backs up to that property.
>> No.
>> It's parcel.
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> No.
This is a house.
>> Okay.
In your statement that you're in favor of this, you point out that it aligns with the NRM
units across now, and I don't disagree with that, but I'm curious when I look at the future
land use map, that whole area is considered moderate residential, which NRMU wouldn't fit,
and yet there we have it.
How did that occur?
You weren't here when that happened, right?
>> Well, you can see north we've got moderate residential.
>> All right.
>> South we've got neighborhood mixed use, and they kind of overlap like our --
>> Right.
On the southern part of Elm, yeah, it does align with the future land use map.
>> I'm just curious how that entered.
>> The actual neighborhood mixed use, you can see it goes to here.
They overlap right here.
>> Okay.
>> So you can be either.
>> Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
>> Sure.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Cindy, with the zoning change, it opens up other uses other than just bigger density
for multifamily.
Did you take into consideration that?
>> Yes, I did.
The fact that this is neighborhood mixed use, and the NRMU district provides for neighborhood
services and neighborhood-sized retail and commercial, and it is along a primary arterial
that directly connects to the loop, we felt that this was appropriate.
If it doesn't happen, we actually talked about whether or not we should overlay it, and because
of the fact that we've got this primary arterial here close to the loop, we thought that it
may not be necessary.
If you feel it's necessary, you can recommend that as a condition.
>> So mainly just because it's fronting Elm, it was your reason for it didn't really take
into consideration what's behind it?
>> Well, what's behind it is a house and vacant land.
We've got a lot of residential here, however, this is not going to have any access to this.
It's not really going to interact with them at all unless we have people coming around.
>> Chris, you're back.
>> Along those same lines, well, I just had one of those memory lapses again.
It'll come back to me, sorry about that.
>> Cindy, kind of piggybacking off Mr. Ellis' question, the past two P&Z meetings we've had
actually zoning and SUP cases almost in tandem.
I'm surprised not to see the SUP in tandem with this.
Is there a reason why there's going to be a delay to get an SUP on this property?
>> The applicant did not submit an SUP.
They really haven't started the engineering yet.
That became clear.
The applicant had a neighborhood meeting last night and it became clear during the meeting
that the applicant hasn't even started the engineering really for this yet.
They're waiting to see if they get this approval before they start that.
>> Okay.
Mr. Beck.
>> Thank you, I remember, realistically, the way this is zoned now, we could have apartments
on that whole side of Elm Street from Windsor all the way up to Rhineland, correct?
>> Yes.
>> And that's a little troubling to me because it is supposed to be mixed use.
>> Yes.
>> And just going forward on this, I would think not only to city planners but when it
comes to us, that we ought to be considering that as we get down the road that we just
don't have bumper to bumper multifamily units there without a little commercial because
otherwise you're building up all that residential there and yet they're still going to have
to come into town or drive a good distance to get to some convenience stores or whatever.
>> Right.
Right now we actually talked about this too and we don't feel that the mixed use aspect
would work there right now.
>> Where?
In that from Rhineland to Windsor?
>> No, this property here.
>> Okay.
>> We need more --
>> Commercial.
>> I agree.
I agree.
>> And a good example is Victoria Station, that's a mixed use and those offices and those
retail spaces are usually vacant.
>> But we can't dictate --
>> No, we can't.
>> -- what the mixed use is.
That's the problem.
But, yeah, going forward I think we need to keep that in mind because I think then the
neighborhood of the people that live in the neighborhood would have a legitimate complaint
if you've got strictly multifamily all the way up and down Elm Street there.
Even though you're beginning to look like that now.
>> It would be up to you and the City Council if we would have that happen because multifamily
would require an SUP.
>> Okay.
And conceivably it would probably be easier said than done we could rezone it to accommodate
more commercial, correct?
>> Mm-hmm.
>> Yeah.
Okay.
Thanks.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> Was the applicant ever, when we were talking about permitted uses, was the applicant ever
agreeable to restrictions put on the zoning to restrict it just to multifamily and then
take out the commercial at that point in time just if they're -- I didn't see any of the
opposition letters that we see sometimes with people who are coming in for rezoning specifically
for multifamily use, don't worry about the new zoning allowing bars and clubs and kind
of things like that.
But I don't know if that was --
>> It wasn't broached with the applicant but he's going to be here tonight so you could
ask.
>> Okay.
Thanks.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Cindy, you mentioned a neighborhood meeting.
Did you go to that?
>> Yes, I did.
>> Can you fill us in?
>> Oh, yes.
Thank you.
There were approximately 14 people here and the -- I have a list.
A lot of -- all of the people there were not in favor of this request and some of the concerns
that they had were with the density.
They had concerns about visitor parking which actually visitor parking under our new parking
requirements they have to provide for visitor parking.
No transition from apartments on the north side of Northam to single family on the south
side of Windsor.
Well, again, it doesn't touch Windsor so there would be -- whatever happens here could act
as a transition.
One of the neighbors lived here, lives here.
She's concerned that if this property is allowed to be rezoned NRMU, then the remaining portions
of the neighborhood mixed use in this triangle area would be rezoned to NRMU as well.
Another person was concerned about safety.
She's got trouble with people crossing her property and littering.
She wanted to know about fencing that may be put up around the site.
Several attendees had questions about the cost of the apartments which they didn't know at
this time, they're not that far in the design.
They were concerned about affordable.
The applicant stated in his letter these were going to be affordable apartments and so they
were concerned about that.
The applicants asked -- again, they asked for more information about the rent.
Concerns about traffic, a lot of concerns about traffic increasing along North Elm.
There apparently are apartments across from the UNT engineering center that are being
developed as well as Denton High School on the south side of West Gate which Julie showed
you that location on hers.
And they're concerned about the parking that will be generated by all the development in
the area.
Concerns about the capacity of water and sewer service and storm water runoff.
The company that was there, the applicant indicated there's an eight-inch existing
water main on the north side of Elm and an eight-inch sanitary sewer line on the north
side of West Windsor.
The project could potentially connect through easements on adjacent private property with
relevant landowners or they would bore across through -- right now their plan is to bore
under North Elm.
And they are going to -- they indicated they would contact TechStat to determine the capacity
of the storm drain system in North -- in North Elm.
If it was lacking capacity, they would have to look at detention.
Just to circle back on the apartments, you mentioned they stated they would be affordable.
That's what they said.
Was there any discussion about the type of leases they had?
I know there's been a lot of concern around town about new apartments going up and moving
towards a single room occupancy model.
These apartment homes, usually when you see single room occupancy you see four-bedroom
apartments.
These are one- and two-bedroom apartments.
So I don't anticipate that they would be student housing, but they could be.
We have nothing restricting that.
Okay.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
This whole area, including this parcel of land that wants to be rezoned, NRMU, what
would be the buffer requirement between that parcel and the existing land around it?
Well, we have -- it's based on user zoning.
So if this were residential zoning and not NRMU, they'd have to buffer all the way around.
Right now there's no buffer requirements on the vacant property.
They will have to buffer along the church and the single family home.
Okay.
And what's that buffer requirement?
It's a type C buffer, 10-foot.
10-foot.
Okay.
Does it include fencing?
No, it doesn't, but we can require -- that's something that you can require when it comes
forward for SUP.
Okay.
Thanks.
Any other questions for Cindy?
Great.
Thank you, Cindy.
Sure.
Item G is being postponed to January 9th, so that would move us to item H. But prior
to Haley's presentation, I'm going to call for a break so we can get food.
It is 555, we'll reconvene at 605.
Welcome back to the work session meeting for plan and zoning.
We'll reconvene the meeting at 610 on the city staff presentation.
So the item tonight -- and I didn't know how much detail we wanted to get into in the work
session since this will be sort of our first time to discuss this sort of in a public hearing
setting, and we just presented this to council about two weeks ago as part of a work session.
And so legal is still going through their review, but we wanted to at least still have
a discussion publicly.
I know that has been talked about here, I think, the last time we presented around some
of the concepts and where we're headed.
So I'd like to just sort of run through some of these fairly quickly, but then a little
bit more in detail tonight.
But again, just wanted to go over the overall approach, again, looking at this sort of holistically
and really ways and how we manage and improve the urban forest and kind of the steps that
we went through.
Then really looking at that inventory, which was completed in 2016, setting goals and then
establishing those methods to achieve the goals, both publicly -- I'm sorry, privately
through the regulatory mechanism and then publicly through programatically.
How do we handle with public funds, tree fund dollars, how do we both kind of attack this
on a two-fold basis?
And then what I think is equally important is establishing metrics and sort of a report
card and evaluation on an annual basis of how are we performing, both from private and
public side, and are there adjustments that we need to make moving forward?
And so the way we kind of arranged this presentation is it was even good for me to kind of go back
to the real history of how the tree code started and go through kind of the background, past
and present, get into that regulatory framework with really the just of the presentation,
talk about the tree fund, that's kind of that bridge between the private and public, and
then talk to how we program some of that, both from land acquisition right away plannings
and how parks becomes -- has a role in this.
Interestingly enough, 2003 Flow Hospital redeveloped and there were a number of established oaks
on that site.
There was a lot of public outcry as a result of that redevelopment.
And in reaction to that outcry in 2003, the tree preservation ordinance was -- had begun
and it was adopted in 2004.
Interestingly a year later, the Denton citizens tree committee was created and they recommended
tightening that ordinance and removing some of the loopholes.
And I won't go through every draft.
There were probably well over a dozen, if not more, maybe two dozen drafts from staff
members, consultants, staff, committee members, consultants, I mean, it was numerous drafts
and there was never a consensus that could be reached from a year after this thing was
originally adopted to where we are today.
But I kind of -- what I also wanted to highlight in there, some of the actions that the state
legislature has kind of been picking at with respect to tree preservation and some of the
bills that they had been trying to pass through the years to where we are with this last legislative
session 2017, House Bill 7 and sort of what that did.
So here we are again, 2018, and this just gives you kind of that framework of where
we are present in coming up with this draft.
If you remember, we started talking about it towards the beginning of the year and kind
of put a hold on it to really look at this, not just tree, but also tree landscape, ESA
and how we move forward.
And so that's really where this draft is.
Again, it started with kind of this initial policy discussion back in April and May and
then listening to input from the Committee on the Environment, of course, Planning and
Zoning Commission, DCRC, as well as City Council, and then sort of holding with making sure
we're going to comply with Local Government Code 212095, making sure we're increasing
preservation and mitigation and then unifying the standards.
And so a little bit of House Bill 7, again, there are some prohibitions requiring homeowners
pay mitigation fees for removing trees under 10 inches in DBH and then mitigation removal
for dead or diseased or trees that pose an imminent or immediate threat to a person or
property.
Again, how that's defined is anyone's guess.
I think that's part of that carryover from that fire bill.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
A mitigation fee for removing trees under 10 inches, that kind of struck me as odd.
And I can see over, you know, charging somebody if they were going to move a bigger tree,
but if they're under 10 inch...
If it's less than 10 inches in diameter, the municipality cannot require a person...
Cannot require?
Yeah, to pay a tree mitigation fee for removing a tree.
Okay.
We're going to charge them, so thank you for clarifying that.
Mitigation fee credit, again, I think we went over this previously, but just wanted to touch
on it.
If a municipality imposes a tree mitigation fee credit for the removal, it must allow
for a credit to offset that fee.
And then if it's planted on the property for which the mitigation fee was assessed or on
a mutually agreed upon by the municipality and the person.
And then it requires that any tree that's replanted must be a minimum of two inches
in diameter at a point on the trunk of four and a half feet above the ground, which is
that DBH, diameter at breast height.
And then mutually agreed upon, it kind of defines and kind of hints to what that means.
We're really looking at just requiring it primarily on that replanting to be done on
the property itself.
There's language also in there that talks about 50% credit for residential and a 40%
credit for non-residential.
Interestingly, I think we can all read this a number of different ways.
We've called a couple of the cities that have modified their code to address this.
As we're calling, a lot have not yet addressed it.
And they asked us, how are you guys addressing it?
We looked at two in particular that I think Irving was the first to incorporate some language
in their tree code.
It was done in 2017 or 2018.
And then Flower Mound recently amended theirs.
They more or less adopted the language right from the local government code, but they were
one of the ones, how are you administering this when we spoke to, when staff spoke to
their staff?
And so the approach we really took is a very liberal interpretation of it and kind of mimicked
that of Irving and just took a straight 50% credit off, kind of off the top, if you will.
But I'll get into those, get into that example.
A little bit of the goals, again, unified approach, make sure we comply with local government
code.
Limit clear cutting and increased preservation, require mitigation for all trees removed,
guide priorities towards preserving larger quality trees, tree stands and habitat, promote
multi-age forest with native and quality trees, and then balance trees with reasonable development.
Looking at canopy goals, this was an item that was discussed pretty heavily with respect
to whether it should be 30%.
Ultimately, we looked at then splitting it between 40 and 20, 40% east of 35, 20% west
of 35.
What we did was just looked at where we are today with that, what's on the ground now,
and so we're about 33% and 16%.
We also looked at all of the current parcels and their zoning classification and applying
that canopy coverage that's required in the DDC now, if it would actually bring it up.
We're still shy, but what that doesn't include are any public plantings that would be done
with respect to right-of-way plantings or anything else or any future zoning changes.
So again, it's a goal for us to reach, but I think it could be attainable and it's pretty
close.
Kind of the summary of changes, I wanted to sort of start at more of a higher level and
just kind of talk about some broad categories rather than do a page turn, I think, with
each section of the code, but get into kind of some of the major changes, applicability,
tree type, again, the preservation and landscape, new opportunities for preservation, habitat,
and mitigation.
And so the first applicability, you may recall we talked pretty heavily about whether or not
the city should have to comply with the same rules as everybody.
There were some exemptions, and the only one that really stayed was the airport, which
kind of makes sense.
I don't think there's a lot of trees out there anyways to preserve to begin with, but one
of the major changes, and I have it kind of highlighted as a discussion item, is again,
we took straight from local government code single family duplex lots with trees under
10 inches at DBH.
Currently the code exempts all single family, regardless of DBH or size.
And so this would not.
So that is a change that a single family property, which currently is exempt if they had a tree
at 15 inches or 16 inches, they would have to get a tree removal permit and possibly
preserve or mitigate depending the type of tree.
Again, that's a substantial change, but I just wanted to highlight that.
Tree type and mitigation, this was something, this is probably the most discussed and debated
topic.
If you remember, we have a variety of preserve, protected quality, quality tree stands, secondary
secondary tree stands.
And so we try to consolidate some of those, and again, keep that landmark, which is a
historic or Texas big tree registry.
Right now we don't have any, but we think it's still a worthy category to have.
Heritage trees, which would be all protected trees with a DBH of 18 inches or greater,
and then all post and black check oaks, DBH of 4 inches or greater.
And then quality trees, any non-secondary trees between 6 and 17.
And so 30% minimum preservation, and that would be made up of those in green.
Now, secondary, 6 to 17 inches in DBH, the boat arc hackberry or cottonwood, there is
no preservation requirement for those.
However, if they are removed, there is a replacement rate.
But rather than on an inch for inch, it's for every tree removed, it's replacement with
a 2-inch tree.
And then there's some, the ability to get some credits, again, that's to sort of foster
or push towards preserving some of those larger type trees.
But if the hackberry, so if that secondary tree is greater than 17 inches, just say it's
18 inches, then it falls into that heritage tree.
So they would be, they essentially would be protected if they are greater than 18 inches.
>> Is this for all development, including single family residents?
>> Correct, correct.
And then non-protected, again, still a debate, you know, a debated item, particularly the
first two, the mesquite and honey locust.
What we did include, what we, trying to kind of meet in the middle, if you remember, we
have the concept of a preserved habitat or conservation easement.
So if it is part of a natural area that's adjacent to an, that's undisturbed, we would
allow for credit for that.
Interestingly, I'll show you on another slide, some of our parks folks brought me a limb
from a honey locust, and everybody that comes by my office thinks it looks like some barbaric
staff from Conan.
I mean, it is, it's pretty wicked when you look at it.
And so when you think of it in terms of preserving these in a park or somewhere else, it may
not be conducive to that.
Again, crepe myrtle, malty trunk, any diseased or dead tree, trees that pose an eminent or
immediate threat to a person's or property, again, I think we need to ultimately define
what that means, but that's straight from the local government code.
And then any tree listed on the Department of Ag's noxious and invasive plant list, and
that was a request that came from our watershed folks.
And so again, should the mesquite and honey locust be preserved, replaced, or just considering
a non-protected tree?
And this is that branch, and so I'm happy I got the ruler to balance, but it's almost
three inches in length, and it is, I couldn't bend the thing, and I didn't want to try
that much, but it is, it's pretty wicked.
And so that's, again, something to consider.
What I'm going to do is tag my partner, Haley, to come up on the landscape components, and
she's really been working on that component of this ordinance.
All right, I see the clock shows we only have five minutes left, so do you want to continue
with this now, or just continue the conversation in the regular meeting?
I mean, let's go ahead and take five minutes.
Okay.
All right, so we've talked about the landscape code in depth pretty well before now.
It hasn't changed a whole lot in the form, if you look through the draft code that we
provided, but one of the main goals overall of this entire code update was to maintain
and improve our minimum landscape area and canopy requirements city-wide.
So that's kind of broken down into three major components, the preservation that Richard
will talk about further, and then buffers in landscape areas within new development.
Some of the major changes that we're proposing, preserve trees will now be allowed to count
towards landscape and canopy goals, currently in the code, unless you're preserving in excess
of the minimum, that doesn't count, so that would give a little bit more credit there
towards landscaping.
We are going to introduce some requirements for diversity in terms of age and species
with new plantings on site.
We're introducing some low-impact design standards that Clarion had originally proposed that
we thought were definitely worthy of introducing, just bioswales and things like that, to give
a little more creative options, and then we are taking away the credit you may be familiar
with where pervious paving on a site can count towards landscaping in the current code.
And then we're also proposing to remove the credits that are currently allowed for ESA
to count towards your landscaping.
So those credits that were recently introduced in the ESA update, sub-chapter 17, were that
for tree canopy, you would get one square foot of canopy credit for every square foot
of ESA tree canopy, and then in addition, you could get two square feet of landscaping
credits for every square foot of ESA tree canopy, and one square foot for every square
foot of non-wooded ESA canopy.
So you'll see a little bit later on, we're introducing a new concept called the development
impact area that would take ESA out of your landscape requirements entirely, so we thought
it made sense to concurrently take away those credits, and so now it won't count for you
or against you, in essence.
So you've seen this table before.
We are proposing point systems be introduced.
So for buffers, the point system, again, it would depend on the use that's developing
and what is adjoining it to determine how many points you would have to have and what
the width of that buffer would be, and then within the required points, there would be
kind of a menu of options that they could choose from.
The current code is very prescriptive in what has to be in that buffer.
This would give a greater amount of flexibility in site design.
So just looking at example, multi-family, developing and joining single-family.
Family is very stringent.
It has to be 10 feet wide with five trees and 30 shrubs for every 100 linear feet.
Under the current option, all it would dictate is that it has to have at least that 10-foot
width and then 20 points from that list of options.
So that could be obtained by something as simple as a masonry wall or by some combination
of a wood fence with landscaping or just with landscaping alone.
We're also recommending a point system for all of the other aspects of site design and
landscaping.
We can go through those tables a little bit more in the regular meeting, because it looks
like we're almost out of time, but the general goal of the landscape code is to now provide
greater flexibility in site design while enhancing the requirements, but it looks like we're
almost out of time.
Yeah.
Let's go ahead and we can close the work session now at 5-20, yeah, is it 6-28, 6-28, yeah,
and we'll meet it for regular session in council chambers.
Good evening.
Welcome to the plan and zoning meeting for November 28th.
It is 6-37, we'll call this meeting to order.
Appreciate y'all waiting for us.
There's a delay in work session, so appreciate your patience.
First order of business is to stand and give the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas
flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which
it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag, one state under God, one indivisible.
With no consent agenda items on the docket for this evening, we'll move right into the
public hearings.
Item A has been postponed to the December 12th meeting.
That brings us to item B, S18-0008E.
I'll invite Haley for presentation.
This is a continued item that had a public hearing closed, so this evening there will
not be any public hearing on the item, but I wanted to invite Haley for presentation
so that we can have a discussion.
All right, and similar to work session, I'll keep it fairly brief unless there are some
specific questions we need to go look at.
So this is case S18-8 for the Windsor Drive Apartments.
The request before you is to consider making a recommendation to city council regarding
a request for a specific use permit to allow a multifamily use on the property that is
outlined in yellow on the map.
The property is a total of approximately 31 acres, located at the intersection of Windsor
Drive and the R35 frontage road.
As the chairman mentioned, this item was continued from the November 14th meeting.
At that time, the applicant requested the postponement to allow them time to develop
a modified plan.
The public hearing was closed at that time.
And then following that meeting, staff had discussions with legal and with the applicant,
and it was ultimately determined that the applicant would move forward with staff's
original recommended conditions and the original site plan that was shown on November 14th.
No modifications to that site plan are being proposed at this time.
A notification was sent out for this public hearing.
We received no written responses to that.
And the applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting back on September 6th and had approximately
20 people in attendance at that meeting with generally positive feedback at that time.
So staff does have several requirements based upon the site plan that was provided that
will be written into the ordinance to provide clarity, because ultimately, over time, the
plans, when they get attached to our ordinances, lose a little bit of their legibility and
integrity, so to preserve the integrity of what you all in council have seen, we're
adding these elements into the text of the ordinance.
With this, we're requesting that staff have the ability to approve an increase or decrease
of less than or equal to 5% of any of the amounts described below.
So first, the multifamily portion is part of a mixed-use development and will encompass
a maximum of 17 out of the 31 acres you saw on the map.
16 buildings are indicated on the site plan with a building footprint at 112,724 square
feet.
There are 336 dwelling units specified on the plan for a density of 20.48 dwelling units
per acre.
No fewer than 629 parking spaces are required for that amount of dwelling units.
The plan does reflect 632 spaces, however, 60 of those are within the footprint of the
building, so it doesn't trigger any need for pervious paving or an alternative development
plan.
The site plan specifies a total of 49% lot coverage, 51% landscape area.
This includes a 30-foot wide type D buffer along the eastern property line.
The plan does reflect an alternative buffer request that would be one tree for every 40
linear feet and a six-foot high opaque fence.
The DDC does grant the director the ability to approve this alternative buffer.
So we specify that the director may approve any alternative buffer that's equivalent
to or more restrictive than what's on the plan.
And then finally, the sample building elevation specify an earth tone and gray tone color
palette with facades of stucco, hardy board plank siding, and hardy board panels.
The final building elevations should reflect these materials and colors and be in compliance
with the Denton Development Code multifamily standards.
And then with that, staff does have four recommended conditions for this SUP.
First be that the City Council would recognize that the driveway access location from the
state highway must be approved by TxDOT.
Alternations in the configuration of I-35 are currently in planning at this time.
So any driveway access locations from the northbound I-35 frontage road, which must
be altered in response to changing TxDOT requirements during the permitting process, may be administratively
approved by City staff provided that such alterations comply with all DDC and criteria
manual requirements and that all remaining elements of the approved site plan be satisfied.
Second is that landscaping in the attached plan reflects an intent to comply with all
DDC requirements for parking, street trees, minimum landscape, and canopy areas and compatibility
buffers with the administrative approval allowance for an alternative buffer.
Minor alterations to the depicted locations of the individual plantings on that plan may
be approved by City staff provided that the final landscaping as planted comply with the
site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations as well as all DDC requirements.
Third, that the agreement that has been entered into and executed by CL Ventures LLC and Sage
Natural Resources LLC, which sets forth the 250-foot reverse setback for the multifamily
development from the two wells shown on the attached site plan, must be filed in the records
of Denton County prior to approval of a plat for the subject property and that a note be
placed on the plat that reference the agreements and the approved setbacks.
And finally, notwithstanding the limited administrative approvals authorized in conditions one and
two, the City reserves the right to require approval by ordinance of any amendments to
the SUP, the attached site plan, and the elements described on the previous slide, including
those referenced in condition one and two.
And I'd be happy to walk you all through the plans if there are any questions.
Are there any questions for Haley?
I do not see any questions for you.
At this time, the public hearing was closed last week, but I would like to invite the
applicant, Mr. Allison, to come and at least present the rationale or context for bringing
this item back and just any information you can provide for clarity.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group.
Let's start over.
Last time we came before you, and I think I'm going the wrong, okay, you know, here to obtain
or seeking a specific use permit to incorporate 336-unit multifamily project into a larger
31-acre mixed use development.
We're in agreement with the staff's report, and I think I indicated at the last meeting
that we could work with the staff's report.
We were seeking some more flexibility in the site, depending on who could come along and
what could accomplish it.
We really didn't understand that we were upzoning in our request.
We felt like because we were requesting limits that were lower than what the zoning category
required that it was still a downzoning, but apparently not.
So we're here and ready to go forward.
The development code requires a 250-foot reverse setback for protected uses.
I'm not an expert in the health industry in what these setbacks should be, so I'm not
here to argue whether it should be 250 or 1,000 or 100 or whatever.
That's something that y'all get to work with, and you have a responsibility to be working
with it.
And if technology and other things change, maybe the code needs to be changed, but that's
something that needs to be discussed.
But it's from the gas well pad site.
Our proposed site plan provides 433-foot setback from pain number one to a habitable structure.
A 300-foot setback from pain number two on the south to a habitable structure.
Currently, that particular gas well is between 50 and 75 feet from the subdivision to the
east of it.
That doesn't make it right.
It's just what it is.
Any future plan by the well operator to reduce those setbacks will require a specific use
permit.
That's a lie.
My fault got into the slide.
It doesn't require a specific use permit.
It requires a watershed protection permit because of their nearness to the flood plain.
That does require P&Z as well as city council consideration.
So any changes they want to make in the future will have to come back to planning and zoning.
That's a correct statement.
But it's not as a specific use permit, and I apologize for that error in our presentation.
This is a slide you saw before that shows the pain number one to the north, pain number
two to the south, the various setbacks, the distances and what's been agreed to.
Well, actually, what I do want to mention is our agreement with the gas well operator
is if they come in with an application to move their pad site to within 250 feet of
our protected uses, we will not oppose it.
It's not a pre-approval.
It's anything that just means we're not going to oppose it if that occurs.
The south on pain number two, our agreement is we won't put anything in that area.
We won't develop it at all, the commercial or the apartments.
Hopefully someday they'll abandon that site.
That's the ones that's so close to the neighbors, but for now it's still there.
They want that area free and clear in case there's ever a need for emergency vehicles.
You might be aware that pain number one had a lightning strike a few years ago.
Fortunately, I'm sure it was a big scare, but fortunately no one was in real danger,
but at the same time there were some issues about fire access and things.
I looked up the definition of protected use and on the left-hand side of this slide by
definition it itemizes what protected uses are.
On the right-hand side of the slide, I listed what I believe are the protected uses under
NRMU.
Some of those include dwellings and some are businesses, et cetera.
The items listed in black do not have to come to planning and zoning commission.
As long as we meet the agreed to setbacks with the operator, we can move forward, attach
single family, dwelling above businesses, live work units, et cetera.
The items listed in red require a specific use permit.
Those do have to come before planning and zoning and you do have an opportunity to consider
and vote on those.
I did put the L4 by multifamily in black, and the reason is if we were to reduce this
to 12 acres, which really doesn't work economically on the site at this time, but if we were to
reduce it to 12 acres so that the multifamily is only 40% or less of a mixed use development,
it doesn't have to come to the planning and zoning commission either.
Home occupation, hotels, again under the protected uses or public schools, et cetera, these are
on the right again more uses that are allowed by right under the current zoning consideration.
I just wanted to present that as a perspective.
I know that things got very discombobulated at the last meeting.
I think now we're back to being focused on the item as presented with some concerns and
considerations regarding gas wells, and I wanted to provide you some of our perspectives,
so I go back to my seat and watch y'all deliberate.
I'll be glad to respond to any questions if you should have any.
We do.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Allison, if you go back to the setbacks that you're talking about, you had mentioned
on the one more back to the numbers, the 433 and the 300.
You said that the, and it's not the specific use permit.
It's the watershed, that watershed protection, some of the things they have to apply to.
They would have to apply that if they want to reduce the setbacks from 250 downwards,
not from 433 or 300, but from 200, 250 downward, correct?
Or is that a question for staff?
I believe the current setback for a gas well would be 500 feet.
I think staff has something to say, too.
And I think it's really a staff determination as far as the setback itself.
I guess the question I have is that if you say, "Well, right now our proposed site plan
is 433 and 300," is it, they have to go and make that request to the watershed change
at 433 or 300, or is it only the change of the 250?
My understanding is they're going to ask for the setbacks to be where these red lines are.
And you can see on here the blue, that's where they're, the green is where their future set
pad site that they're wanting to put it and they're talking about.
And that would be a 250-foot setback there.
I guess I'm asking if they're, you're saying that if they wanted to reduce it, if they
wanted to do something to make that setback reduced, you're talking about the reduction
would be from, they have the right to come in and go all the way up to 250 feet away,
or if the site plan is 433 and 300, if they want to go any closer than 433 or 300 closer,
they have to file a change.
There's a special process.
I need to.
Okay.
We'll let Haley.
Sure.
So the gas well setback is different from the reverse setback.
So the operator is, I get vested for lack of a better word, in their existing site.
If they leave it as is, they need not go through any changes.
If they seek to modify the site and enlarge the site, do anything to it, it's substantial.
They have a 500-foot setback that's imposed upon them.
Got it.
So right now, as it stands, they couldn't do anything to, because they're already in
a 500-foot setback.
Correct.
They're already not meeting that setback, so they would have a very onerous process
that would start by having to get waivers from either all property owners within the
500-foot buffer saying that they're okay with it being reduced as low as 250.
It can never go below 250.
They could ask the Board of Adjustment for that permission as well, and then staff could
get them to a happy medium of 375, but that wouldn't help them out as well.
So they would either be going through one of those first two processes.
If they get that, they would then require the watershed protection permit, which, Lee,
you were correct, actually does require an SUP as part of that process.
So it would be a multifaceted process for them to ever get a reduction, but it would
be from the 500.
I guess what I was trying to say is that from the way the site plan is built at 433 on one
site and 300 on another site, that in reality, the development isn't going to go any closer
to the gas well up to the 250, and the gas well operator, they have a very cumbersome
process ahead of them if they try to move anywhere, basically.
Correct, and there's no means of them getting a setback approved for anything less than
250 feet.
That's the absolute minimum.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's all I wanted to know.
Commissioner Pernitta.
Actually, if you have a question for me, just to kind of piggyback on what we're talking
about.
So right now, those gas wells are not being used at all, right?
No, they're both in use.
They are both in use?
Correct.
So when we talked last week about, or a couple of weeks ago about, you know, the watershed
and everything, that was only if they were to expand the path from 433 to the 250?
No, that requirement would come into play for the northern site.
The southern site is not within the floodplain.
The northern site is within the floodplain already.
So any modifications to the site boundaries, or if they needed additional wells on that
site, would require that watershed protection permit process.
Okay.
But right now, the wells are in use and what we are voting on would be, and I guess out
of my misunderstanding, last time I thought the wells were not in use, but they are in
use and we're looking at 433 and 300.
Correct.
Both pad sites are considered active.
I don't think the production is all that high on either site, but they both are active
wells.
All right.
Thank you.
I did not see any other questions.
Thank you, Mr. Ellison.
All righty.
Thank you.
Sorry about getting wrong on the SUP too.
So because the public hearing is closed, there won't be opportunities to speak.
However, I wanted to read in the record the opposition of Ed Soft at 1620 Victoria Drive
in Texas.
With the public hearing closed, the dais is open for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Smith.
I'd like to make a motion for approval with staff's recommendations and conditions.
And just to add on to that, I think that, yes, while it is close to the gas wells, and
I understand the health concerns and the science for and against the health concerns there,
I think the project makes sense where it is.
I think that there's already other residential near that gas well as is, not that that makes
it right, but with the developer as well as the engineer working hard to even go above
and beyond the 250, I think this site could work.
And there is no promise that the gas will work for forever.
And so I do want to make a motion in support.
Commissioner Sanchez.
I'd like to second that motion.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to, and I'm going to read from a note too, if that's okay.
I just want to reiterate what I stated at the last PNZ meeting on this agenda item.
The current science is showing us that the 250-foot setbacks, the minimums they can have
for these active gas wills may well be inadequate, especially for small children, the elderly,
and pregnant women.
I appreciate what the developer and the gas will operator have tried to achieve here at
keeping these minimum setback distances from the gas wells and the residential development
they are promoting.
And I have no doubt that they too share my concern for the health and safety of those
vulnerable populations that can live near these gas wells.
But they have been given distances by state and federal agencies that too often seem to
favor profits over people, putting human life at risk based on industry standards that seldom
reflect the independent science that disputes their claims.
According to one research paper, the majority of setback distances in the area we study,
which Barnett Shell is a part of, are not derived from peer-reviewed data, data-driven
analysis, or historical events.
They are a compromise between governments, the regulated community, environmental and
citizen interest groups, and landowners.
The chances of any devastating explosion or massive emission of toxic elements might be
small, but reports have shown that some explosion radii can be as much as 0.8 miles.
However, there will always be those small leaks of volatile organic compounds and particulate
matter that fall within the allowable limits that the TCEQ and EPA advocate.
Yet people who live in close proximity to these wells and who have physiological sensitivities
like asthma and other respiratory illnesses could well suffer these lesser effects, impacting
not only their health, but their health care costs with more than normal visits to the
doctor or ER than those less susceptible.
There's a history of catastrophic events that result from chemicals in the human area.
Bhopal India comes to mind, the Gulf BP oil well disaster, the Texas City refinery explosion
in 2005, and in 2013, we all remember the West Texas fertilizer explosion, and these
are just the tip of the icebergs of these kind of events.
Yes, these are dramatic events, but they do illustrate the serious threat that hazardous
chemicals can pose when neglect and short-sightedness are part of the equation.
These tracks of lands with gas and oil wells on them can eventually be fully developed
once they are depleted and certifiably capped.
But even before then, they can be commercially developed with the existing setback limits
because the human patronage to these commercial sites will not routinely and necessarily reside
there over any duration that could pose a threat from these gas and oil wells like it
will the permanent residents who live at those locations, and with that in mind, I will oppose
this agenda item.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Rebeck, for those words.
Commissioner Pernetta?
Yeah, I just wanted to first start off with a clarifying question because I know, as Commissioner
Rebeck mentioned just a second ago, there are concerns about proximity to the wells
and how they may affect health.
I don't know what the vote would be right now, but if it was a vote to deny, it would
still go before city council and require a supermajority, right?
And that's one of the things that I want to have put out on the record.
While certainly we always encourage development in Denton, and as someone who pushes for affordable
housing, the addition of units is kind of a big deal to me.
Knowing that this vote or how I vote, how Commissioner Beck votes, et cetera, may not
make a decision on what happens with this property, I think it is important if we're
going to have developments that are close to wells to have them go before the city council
and have these things be discussed in a more open area where people can come out and discuss
these.
You know, similarly to Commissioner Beck, I'll be voting against this.
When I say that, though, I want to make sure that everyone who's paying attention to the
proceedings understands that this isn't killing this project going forward.
What I hope to do is open a discussion about, you know, how this thing impacts people and,
like I said, push this on to a larger forum where more citizens can come out and discuss
things.
Because I know city council is also looking at reverse setbacks and, you know, long-term,
you know, whether or not the current minimums, you know, satisfy the public good.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Commissioner Pernetta, I have a couple things to say.
I'm going to be supporting this project, and I think the research Commissioner Beck's done
is valuable.
It seems valid and worth it.
I think this project is not the correct venue to make those debates.
I think it's a council decision, and if the governing body of our city deems that those
need to be addressed, then that needs to be taken to the council in full force of all
its supporters.
But I think if the council has agreed upon and set these setbacks, it provides developers
some confusion and ambiguity that the commission of planning and zoning might be setting arbitrary
conditions that are not codified and they're not from the council.
And so now by stipulating that we have some commissioners stating that we're going to
change the codified rules of our city, I think that that doesn't promote a lot of unambiguity
and clarity to the process to be approved.
And so I'm not necessarily against increasing setbacks or looking into that to see what
the correct solution should be, but I'm not, I do not believe that the developer should
be held accountable for something that's not codified by the city.
That is the prevailing rule of the land right now.
And they're meeting all those things more than the minimums.
And so for that, I support that it looks like a couple more discussion items.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, chair.
Yeah, just a couple of words.
I absolutely appreciate the concerns raised by Commissioner Beck.
But in front of us right now is an SUP and it more than complies with our current gas
well ordinances.
It's possible that our code needs to be looked at.
It does need to be looked at.
But it's not this applicant's responsibility, in my opinion.
Its responsibility is to fall within the parameters of our code right now.
And it does that.
And it's not that I am unsympathetic to the concerns in the new studies coming before us.
But that's not what is before us right now, in my opinion.
And I will be supporting.
Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, chair.
And I appreciate both of your points of view.
And I don't disagree with it at all.
It likely is going to go forward and I realize that when I made my presentation, but if anything,
I hope it does start a conversation on moving in the right direction.
So it may be nothing more than a protest vote, it is for sure.
But there is a discussion that needs to be had.
And if this sets the wheels in motion on that, then I'll be set aside with that.
But I respect everybody's decision here to do what they feel like they got to do.
Thank you, Mr. Beck.
We have a first and a second for approval with conditions based on staffs recommendations.
Seeing no other discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 4-3.
Next item on the agenda is item C, S18-0002B.
This item was continued from our October 24th meeting.
So we will continue the public hearing.
We will not be opening it since it's already open.
I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.
Thank you, Chair, commissioners.
S18-0002, as you recall, is a request for approval of a specific use permit to allow
quick vehicle servicing in suites 110 and 111 of budget self-storage.
Just to refresh your memory, the site is located at 2820 Virginia Circle.
You can see right here, and it's very close to University, which runs parallel to Virginia.
This item was continued from the October 28th, 2018 meeting to allow the tenants the opportunity
to address the parking issues that were noted during that meeting with regards to parking
on the lot next door, as well as excess parking in front of the building.
The public hearing at that time was not closed.
The vehicles have been removed from the lot adjacent to the site.
Mr. Melton has vacated suite 111, and Mr. Haney has now leased the unit.
So Mr. Haney now is a tenant of both 110 and 111.
For some comparison purposes, here are the photos that were taken February 19th, and
you can see that the cars were stacked up very close to each other in front of the building.
Here's a view of the lot next door, and you can see that there's cars everywhere on that,
and then just some views, different views of the two suites.
Photos were taken again on November 11th, a couple of weeks ago, and you can see there's
a few cars still on the lot next door, and here's another view of the cars on the lot
next door.
You can see there's far fewer cars along the road parking in front of the building, and
that view is replicated right here.
Now these next photos were taken this morning.
You can see there's no cars on the lot.
You can see that the parking is not jammed in there like it was in February, and that
there is parking available for people to visit the other businesses.
Since this is a public hearing, we did send out notices to within 200 and 500 feet of
the site.
We received no responses.
One sign was posted on the site.
Staff does recommend denial of this request.
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission decide to approve this request, staff recommends
the following conditions for Suite 110 and 111.
A new certificate of occupancy for the correct use of quick vehicle servicing must be applied
for and approved.
The new certificate of occupancy shall state that the proposed use of quick vehicle service
is limited to this particular business owner and these two particular suites to prevent
them being grandfathered in.
This specific use permit will be limited to the use description and floor plan shown in
Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9.
Overnight outdoor storage of automobiles is prohibited, and no more than two customer
vehicles per each business can be parked in the parking spaces in front of the building
during business hours.
And that concludes my presentation.
We have a couple of questions, or at least one.
Commissioner Pernetta?
So I just kind of want to circle back on a few things because I know when we were here
a few weeks ago, the major concerns were parking in the vacant lot and parking in the front.
And the majority of things that we brought up, you know, to the applicant and everything,
seem to have been resolved on those fronts.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And as we discussed in the work session, the reason for the denial is based on the Certificate
of Occupancy, which we don't have and they can't get because of the current zoning.
But if we were to get the current, you know, award the current zoning, the Certificate
of Occupancy would most likely be approved.
So it's kind of a…
Right.
If this SUP is approved, then the applicant would have no problem getting a Certificate
of Occupancy.
Okay.
So I guess my next question is, if much of the denial is based on the lack of the Certificate
of Occupancy, are there any concerns that we have right now outside of that, once we
remove that, that would precipitate, you know, a suggestion or a recommendation of denial?
Well, as I spoke earlier in the work session, staff did not feel that they could reverse
the original denial because the situation is still as it was where we just don't feel
this is really an appropriate site for quick vehicle servicing.
However, with the conditions that we've got here and what the applicant has agreed
to and has done, we feel the situation has improved and that's why we're doing what
we call a soft denial.
Okay.
So if we were to vote to approve this, currently there are no adjacent properties that are
objecting or anything like that?
We receive no responses.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
To Mr. Sanchez.
When you say the original denial, when was that original denial?
2010.
Right.
That's what I was getting at.
Exactly.
Several years have been passed and then he had got a certificate for something else.
Can you turn your mic on, Commissioner?
Okay.
So it was, it's been about eight years since it was denied?
Yes, it has.
It has.
Okay.
If you'll recall, Mr. Melton applied for a certificate of occupancy for automotive repair,
which was denied.
Right.
And he changed his application, as you can see in your backup, to office as the use and
his certificate of occupancy even said office only, but he just went in there and did automotive
repair.
Okay.
I do not see any other questions for you.
Thank you for your presentation.
This is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.
I do have a couple of cards, I think.
The first one is Chris Haney.
Are you wanting to speak this evening?
If you could just state your name and address for the record.
Chris Haney, 17787 West FM 922, Forestburg, Texas.
I'm the owner of Haney's Grudge.
As she said, that was Mr. Melton.
We had this conversation at 1.30 in the morning the last time I was here.
That was Melton, Mr. Melton, that was denied and changed, like she said earlier and like
you saw earlier.
He's gone.
I've rented that unit for the sole purpose.
Not knowing what was going to happen with this, I actually bought his tools and stuff
that he had in there, so I went ahead and rented the unit until I see where this goes,
where it pans out, because everything in that unit is mine now.
The parking was an issue.
You can see from the pictures, none of those vehicles.
Mr. Melton moved out on November the 21st, which was the day before Thanksgiving.
Was his last day.
He was out.
I wasn't able to rent the unit until the day after Thanksgiving, because the office was
closed on Thanksgiving.
We were all closed on Thanksgiving, so I actually took over the unit on November the 23rd.
From that day forward, there's no vehicles on the side lot.
Only customer vehicles that pull up, drop off, and hand me the keys are out front.
With both units now, there's room for up to 10 vehicles, if I have to cram everything
in at night.
Working space is eight vehicles inside the building.
Right now, I have space for two cars inside.
Everything's in at night, like it's supposed to, and there's space for two more cars.
Everything's in and out, in and out.
Like I said, the denial was from 2010 for him, and I've done nothing but everything
you all have asked me to do.
I appreciate you being here.
We have a couple questions for you.
Yes.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you.
Mr. Haney?
Yes, sir.
Glad you're back.
Glad you made all the changes and everything else.
Happy to have you back.
Thank you.
I'll just let you know now, before we get to the motion, I'll support you to get your
working space up and going.
Don't want to hold back a small business, even though it is in a self-storage area and
everything else.
I know it's kind of a weird area, but the only question I have for you, as I think Commissioner
Parnetta was trying to get to, is that there was no ... His question lined to Ms. Jackson
was there was no reason why the certificate of occupancy could be denied for things like
safety.
I'm assuming then that with your knowledge of what a quick service repair shop, safety-wise,
would need, you would have no safety issues.
There's nothing with fumes or hazardous materials or power tools or anything like that that
would be a safety issue.
I think that's the biggest thing, is that being in a non-traditional ... There's not
a whole lot of quick service vehicle repair places that are inside of storage utilities.
It's not necessarily a storage ... The building that I'm in is an actual warehouse building
with concrete walls, and then all the buildings behind it are metal storage buildings.
Correct.
The building that I'm in is in the concrete warehouse building in the front.
Yeah, I guess I misspoke.
It's still not a ... It's not like a standalone place out in the corner of the road or whatever
it is.
Correct.
Yeah, there's no safety issues, nothing like that.
No, as far as the certificate of occupancy, I shouldn't have any problem at all getting
the CO the way I'm supposed to.
I don't know a lot of conversation that I know that Commissioner Beck had in the work
session, but just the fact that it's fixed now, it's good now, snapshot in time, cars
are off the lot, everything's good and clean, I think you're an upstanding guy, and I think
that was Mr. Melton's, a lot of his issues, the reason why it was all dirtied up.
I guess, not really a question, but more just an encouragement.
We do know that code enforcement's probably going to be really keeping a strong eye on
you for making sure you're there, and as long as you know that, and you're willing to play
by the rules, then I'm willing to support you in business.
As you would say, I'm on the map now.
I was kind of hitting back there for a long time, and we had this discussion last time.
I did nothing wrong with my CO at the time, and then my business evolved, and we had this
discussion last time.
But I'm aware now that I saw Mr. Sanchez driving by checking it out today, the building
inspections guy, I've seen him pass through, eyeballing.
I'm aware that everybody's looking, and I have no intentions of going backwards or anything.
I'm here to do what the city wants me to do, keep the city clean.
I love Denton, I'm born and raised in Denton.
Unfortunately, I got some property left to me, and I don't have to pay any house payments
or anything, so I don't live in the city anymore, but I love this town, and I've been born and
raised here.
Great.
Well, thank you, Mr. Haney.
I appreciate it.
Mr. Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to say you're a man of your word, Mr. Haney, and I do appreciate that.
I mean, you did everything.
I was skeptical, and it was one something a.m.
You came at the right time.
We were whooped down.
Thirty-seven cars in 28 days.
Yeah, that's impressive.
I wish you well in your small business.
I didn't realize how much was there and how much had accumulated until I had to get it
moved in that amount of time.
Well, you're a man of your word, and I appreciate your word.
I appreciate it.
I don't see any other questions for you.
I appreciate it.
All right.
Thank you.
I just want to clarify.
Is Vincent Huebinger here for the next agenda item, or this one?
Perfect, that's what I assume, but if you want to speak on this item, you're more than
welcome to.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
It is a public hearing, so anyone can speak.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open for a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Burnetta.
I'd like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendations.
The staff is recommending denial, so ... No, I'm sorry.
With the suggestions.
I'm sorry.
With the suggestions.
Okay.
Yeah, let me clarify that.
Motion to approve with staff suggestions.
Got it.
Perfect.
Thank you for that clarification.
Thank you.
All right.
Commissioner Smith.
Second.
Having a first and a second.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner Haney.
You don't have to come up here.
I just wanted to say thank you for doing everything that you said you were going to do when we
sent you away that night in the middle of the night.
I appreciate it.
I know you worked hard, because I drove by there a couple of times this week as well.
We have a first and a second.
Before calling the motion, I want to echo what the other commissioner said.
I appreciate you doing what you said you'd do.
It wasn't a small task, and it's a first initial step in providing a lot of confidence in us
as a city to have you as a business owner and working and thriving in that location.
When I drive by, it's a front door and a bay.
It seems perfect.
Open that bay up and get to work.
So I wish you all the best, and hopefully the CEO has no issue with the processing and
maintenance of that.
So I congratulate someone to be supporting this.
Seeing no other discussion, I'm going to call for a vote on the board.
Motion is approved, 7-0.
Congratulations.
Next item on the agenda is item D, S18-009.
I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.
Okay, S18-009 is a request for a specific use permit for a freestanding monopole and
associated equipment room.
The site is located at 816 Frame Street within the South Storage Facility.
Frame Street is here, Paisley is along the south side, and the railroad goes northwest.
The site is located in the DCG Zoning District.
Approval of an SUP is required for a monopole tower up to 85 feet in height in the DCG District.
We did a compatibility analysis, both following the SUP criteria and Section 35-12-8, telecommunications
tower standards.
As detailed in your backup, the site does comply with all of these standards.
Here is the site plan, and you can see that the tower site will be located right here.
The applicant intends to remove three existing storage units and place the monopole and equipment
shed in this location.
Here's a site plan of the site, which shows the monopole tower, the equipment, and the
generator.
If you look here, the dashed lines show you where the three units will be removed from.
And elevation shows the 80-foot site pole, rather.
Zoning analysis, as mentioned previously, a monopole tower less than 85 feet is permitted
upon approval of a specific use permit.
For compatibility, the subject site is going to be located within a South Storage Facility.
It will not be visible from the neighboring communities, streets, or the railroad, really.
All is anyone will see is the tower.
This will help minimize any nuisance caused by the visibility of the site.
This is a public hearing.
Notices were sent out within 200 and 500 feet of the site.
We received two responses in favor.
You can see them in green here, and I handed them out to you at the work session, representing
16 percent of the land area within 200 feet.
Two signs were also posted on this site.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting to which no property owners or citizens attended.
Staff recommends approval of this request.
It is compatible with the surrounding property, conforms with all requirements of Section 35-12-8,
wireless telecommunications facilities, as well as the SUP criteria.
That concludes my presentation, and the applicant is here.
>> Thank you, Cindy.
I don't see any questions for you.
This is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak may do so.
We have one card in.
It's the applicant, Mr. Vincent Hubebinger.
I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly.
>> Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Vince Hubebinger.
>> It should be one of these up here.
>> Yeah, it is.
I got it from here.
Thank you.
>> If you could just state your address for the record, that would be helpful.
>> Sure.
1715 Keplup, Texas Highway, Austin, Texas.
Thank you for having me.
Basically, this is a request for Verizon site located at this location kind of south of downtown
southeast of downtown.
Closer view shows it within the Thumbtack area, as Cindy was saying, in the storage
area.
They're going to take one of those, three of those units down, put the monopole in there
just south of Texas Women's University.
Very unique.
>> Is it possible for you to put that into presentation mode so viewers at home can view
it?
>> Is it not in presentation mode?
I'm seeing the presentation button at the bottom right.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
Sorry for the interruption.
>> My technology.
That's okay.
Let me go back to where I was.
Anyway, it's very unique to find a heavy commercial use in this area that meets the setbacks of
three times the height that complies with the code.
We thought this was a good site from the beginning and we moved it a couple of times and reduced
the height to make sure it worked.
You're going to ask why do we need another tower?
This is a capacity site.
What we have going on in this situation is all the apps that you're running on your smartphones,
your Amber Alerts, your Weather Alerts, your favorite sport teams, the Cowboys, of course,
alerts on their scores is all taken up infrastructure on that network.
So what all the carriers are having to do is try to download that capacity and that
capacity is only been dealt with by having a new site between them.
I'll show you the RF maps.
These are propagation maps and this is a basic map showing green in building coverage which
is what's preferred for everybody in kitchen coverage in your rooftops.
Very light yellow in there in any vehicle only and you can tell that's north of the
University, Women's University and up there by the loop.
You can see the existing sites around the area and you can see the proposed in the red
triangle.
Now once we turn it on air, it does take away some of that yellow but this is really a capacity
site for three of the sites that are surrounding.
Centrally located between those two would be perfect but we can't get into Texas Women's
University, the best we can do is this site right here.
This is just an aerial of all our existing sites surrounding us, you can see how we're
trying to spread out.
You may have not known where these are but they are there, a lot of times I mention that
monopoles are somewhat discrete, a lot of people don't know where their closest tower
is but for E911, if Denton has E911 capabilities and a 911 call comes in, it triangulates and
dispatch where you are within nine feet and that is through the GPS navigation, also in
the infrastructure so it's important for safety to get this done.
It meets all the requirements as Cindy said, goals, three times the height, those things.
Location again, in the middle of a structure that you really can't see any of the equipment,
you may see the monopole but a lot of the neighborhoods around there have fairly large
trees, it's a pretty older neighborhood that will kind of block up that view as well.
So we were a quiet but needed structure and there's the 210 setback from all residential
uses.
If you have any questions, let me have an answer.
Thank you for your presentation.
Thank you.
I do not see any questions.
This is a public hearing, anyone wishing to speak on this may certainly do so.
I don't have any other cards and I don't see any motion in the audience so we'll go ahead
and close the public hearing and I will turn it over to the dais for motion or discussion.
Commissioner Smith.
Motion for approval.
We have a first, Commissioner Pernetta.
Second that motion.
We have a first and a second, any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
Next item on the agenda is item E, PDA 18-1, I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation
and open to public hearing.
Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner and I want to get my presentation.
So I'm presenting to you PDA 18-1, Kings Ridge.
The request is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council
regarding a general concept plan amendment and a detailed plan approval for PD 115.
The subject property is 78 acres and it is located on the north side of town adjacent
to Bonnie Bray, just south of Elm.
PDs in Denton are a two-step process and are governed by our 91 code and that two-step
process includes a general concept plan and a detailed plan.
The applicant is proposing an amendment to that concept plan regarding the uses and then
the detailed plan as well, approval.
The concept plan never expires, it's kind of the zoning of the property.
The detailed plan, if the property did not develop in accordance with it, would expire
after 24 months.
So a little bit of background about the existing PD, it was approved in 1986, it was a mixed
use PD.
It had commercial and office and residential uses.
That PD was amended, the concept plan, in 2000 to reallocate those uses and in 2002
and 2006 they did do detailed plans for the single family uses, however those expired.
So that 2000 general concept plan and here we'll just briefly look at those uses that
are permitted in the locations for those uses.
So it provides for single family, lots that are 5,000 square feet would be located in
this area and this area.
7,000 square foot lots are proposed for this general area plus south.
Multifamily was proposed for this central portion and then adjacent to Bonnie Bray there
was commercial and office uses.
The applicant is proposing to amend this to remove those commercial office and multifamily
uses and just have straight single family neighborhood in that area.
So that is the detached single family at a maximum density of 3.6 dwelling units per
acre.
The dimensional requirements that they're proposing are 6,000 square foot lots with
the minimum width of 50 feet, minimum depth of 100 feet, maximum height of 36 feet.
They have setbacks that they're proposing as well as a maximum lot coverage of 60 percent
all impervious surface.
So that's the concept plan.
The detail plan gets a little more fine grain.
It outlines the administration of the PD, the uses and dimensions that are consistent
with that general concept plan.
Talks about mobility, open space, landscaping, perimeter fencing, those amenities as well
as design guidelines.
So just briefly a comparison of what if they went straight zoning versus the proposed PD.
The benefit of the proposed PD is we kind of know what they want to do and it gives
us certainty about what they're proposing as well as any amenities.
They're proposing things like open space which is not required in the Denton Development
Code, things like perimeter fencing, the masonry walls at arterials, they're proposing tree
canopy within the open space, trails, minimum masonry on those single family homes.
They're proposing that.
The Denton Development Code does not require that.
Perimeter streets and neighborhood street trees as well as the right of way widths that
they're proposing are consistent with what we would require with any other single family
development in the city.
So here is the detailed plan that they are proposing.
It shows the locations of the single family lots.
They're proposing 267 as part of this as well as the street networks and traffic calming
devices for some of those longer streets.
Here's the main open space common area.
It's connected and it provides several opportunities for people to enter that open space through
out the neighborhood.
Also buffers and open space surrounding the property adjacent to those arterials and abutting
land uses.
You're probably aware and most are aware that Denton ISD has acquired the property
south of this proposal and the new Denton High School is proposed to go in this location.
So here's the landscape plan that they are proposing as part of this.
We'll look at this briefly and then we'll kind of zoom into some specific spots.
This kind of gives you a broad overview of what they're proposing and what those open
spaces may look like as well as some photographs of the typologies of those amenities.
So when we zoom into that southern boundary of the PD, they're proposing a minimum 15
foot landscape buffer.
It'll get a little narrower in some spots, for instance in these general locations, but
it'll increase in other locations to provide open spaces.
The rumor of fence sitting in this area will be wood with masonry columns or ornamental
metal if a lot is adjacent to a larger open space.
They're proposing street trees along that arterial that is going to be on the southern
boundary.
On every 45 linear feet, however, those may be grouped together to provide a little more
natural setting.
Monument entry signs, turf or native grasses, berms in order to mitigate any visual impacts
that the high school traffic is going to put on that road.
So they really want to be really sensitive to the treatment of that landscape and that
buffering and screening there.
And then a sidewalk.
The eastern property boundary along Bonnie Bray is proposed to have a minimum 20 foot
landscape buffer with trees and a minimum six foot masonry wall as well as a monument
entry sign.
Internally, they are proposing 600 feet of all weather trail within their open space
areas.
Seating areas, blocks of natural stone, a shade structure, dogway stations, tree preservation
within those open space areas, they are proposing 40% landscape on average throughout the open
space areas and that'll be a combination of tree preservation as well as new plantings.
Street trees along the neighborhood streets and also lot trees for the individual single
family homes.
The design for the single family homes includes four parking spaces per lot and that essentially
requires a garage, so each of them would have a two car garage.
The PD also puts in architectural variety, there's a menu of items that they can choose
in order to make sure that there's variety among the homes.
Any attached front-end garages would have to have a wood look to them, either with actual
wood or stained fiberglass or synthetic wood.
70% masonry is required and then that front yard would need to be 50% landscaped.
So the criteria for approval is in the 1991 code, it does meet the criteria for approval
for both the concept plan and the detail plan.
There's only one criteria for approval for the concept plan and it has to be in harmony
with the entire district.
PD 115 was envisioned to be a mixed use district, it has shrunk in size due to the high school
coming in and so, but the surrounding zoning and the future uses will really mimic that
mixed use component, so it really is maintaining that mixed use feel in the area.
It's also just an extension of what the uses are, that it's really just broadening that
residential use.
The detail plan has four criteria for approval.
First is it comply with the general concept plan and if approved, it would.
It would also provide for compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that would not
adversely impact the adjoining properties.
This is a single family neighborhood that's oriented toward its common open space.
The buffers around it will kind of provide that screening and that separation between
those, not only those arterials, but also the adjacent properties.
And then also nearby, it's not going to connect to any nearby neighborhoods, it really is
going to kind of be adjacent to those collector streets, or arterials, I'm sorry.
Does the plan provide for adequate and safe vehicular circulation?
It does.
It's going to comply with all Denton code requirements, as well as provide traffic calming.
And is it in substantial compliance with landscape signs, subdivision, and other regulations?
The 1998 Landscape Code, which is what we kind of look at when we look at these PDs,
and it does, it requires 15 trees per acre and that could include planting and preservation
and that really comes out to about 34% canopy.
They're actually proposing 40% canopy on average throughout the open spaces, as well
as one tree per lot and one street tree.
So they really are meeting the intent of that, they're really increasing that canopy and
making sure there's adequate landscaping.
We looked at the mobility, it's not a criteria for approval, but it's certainly on everyone's
mind in that area, especially with the high school coming in and all of those, the additional
developments.
They provided a trip generation analysis, they actually assumed a little more density
than what they're proposing and based upon that 350 dwellings, they had nearly 3,300
trips with 230 of those in the morning and then 338 in the evening.
Based upon this development, but really also the high school in the area, there's a UNT
campus in the area, there's other residential developments, as well as a regional park.
Bonnie Bray is going to be improved, it's going to be improved, it's just the improvements
are going to continue north of university, it'll be a two lane divided, things like
capacity, safety, storm water, and utility will all come into play, that final design
isn't going to be ready until next year, so we really don't know where it's going
to land, but they know that it needs to be done by 2021 when that high school opens.
Information was sent out, the applicant did have a neighborhood meeting, a few attended,
really they wanted to know kind of what they were doing, it really seemed like a more fact
finding kind of neighborhood meeting.
We haven't received any feedback at all from residents.
Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval with the following condition
that any development would conform with that general concept plan, detail plan, and including
that landscape plan and that text that is in your backup and I'll stand for any questions
and the applicant is here.
Thank you Julie for the presentation, we do have a couple questions, Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you Chair.
Julie, hey I noticed in the detailed plan that the street that they're putting in on
the south there, they've labeled as Westgate, but they're not tying that into the current
Westgate, the north-south.
Well, there's, it's kind of, so this is named Westgate right now, and this is also
named Westgate.
This is Riney.
I suspect this will change, so although they're calling it Westgate because really when they
drew up their plan, they were continuing on with this street, which is named Westgate,
but I suspect fire is going to want, some, one of them has to change because--
Well, and it's really the north-south Westgate that has the homes on it that I was concerned
about, but it is not tying into that from what we've discussed.
It is not.
This will, this dead-end's here and will remain dead-end.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
To piggyback on what Commissioner Alice was mentioning, the, that Westgate that does jump
behind the, I should know, my grandma's shop's out there, the businesses out there on 35.
Stonehill Center.
Thank you very much.
Sorry, I blanked.
Who's responsible for expanding that?
Is that going to be the developers, the city project?
What is that secondary arterial, that expansion of that?
There is a gap here.
So as part of this development and as part of the high school development, they will
have to improve the portion of the street that's adjacent to their site.
I'm not sure if the city plans on, you know, as part of any regional improvements, plans
on closing this gap, but as it typically develops, this would remain undeveloped or this would
remain a gap until the adjacent properties develop.
So really, Westgate--
Really?
So the school and the PD could be and will be developed, and there's that connection
to the Stonehill Crossing and Bonnie Bray.
There wouldn't be a connection.
There'd be stub outs, but it'd be closed off.
It could be, yes.
Could be.
Well, and I don't know if as part of any city projects that that would be something that
would go forward, but it wouldn't be a requirement of the developer.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
You mentioned that there was going to be some tree preservation on their part, like 34 percent?
Well that will be--
What's that number come from?
So under-- when we review these, we have to look at previous codes because the development
code.
Okay.
So the '98 code required 15 trees per acre.
Gotcha.
Whether that was a preservation or whether that was planting on site, they didn't-- it
wasn't prescriptive.
It was just 15 trees.
So just by doing the rough math, that's about 34 percent canopy.
Their intent is in their open space areas is to do their tree preservation in those
areas to have those tree stands.
That may not get them to that 40 percent, so there will be additional plantings that
they'll have to do.
Well--
So it's going to be a combination.
And that'll be interesting.
I'm sitting here looking at the aerial map and I'm wondering if there's any trees in
that area.
I'm not talking about any substantive area of trees that they can't preserve.
It seems like they would be planning quite a bit to get to a 40 percent canopy, so.
But they are assuring us they will--
Well, and that would be something that would be a requirement of the plan development if
it is approved as it's written.
Okay.
So-- okay.
Well, I'll deal with it when we get down the road then.
Thank you.
I don't see any other questions, Julie, except I have one.
Will this come back to us for a site plan, or is this PD approval, they can go break
ground?
Well, they would have to go-- so if it moves forward, it's approved.
They would still have to plat, so you would see the plat.
Okay.
A preliminary and then final plat.
Okay.
Perfect.
I don't see any other questions for you.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing item.
Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.
I do not have any cards on the item.
If you could just state your name and address for the record.
Good evening.
Warren Corwin, Corwin Engineering, 200 West Belmont in Allen, Texas.
I'm representing the developer.
I'm the engineer working on the project.
Julie did a good job of showing what we're hoping to do, but I just want to give you
a quick thought process of our thinking on this property.
We have a concept plan now that would allow us to do single-family, multi-family and commercial,
but if you look at the area, much more appropriate for that use is north of us, because you got
the loop and you got 77, so that's the appropriate place for commercial multi-family retail.
So to get a buffer between the high school and that existing zoning, we felt the single
family basically, the 6,000 square foot lot would be the appropriate transition.
So when we first brought this project in a year ago, we had a 230 acre project that we
were really excited about working on.
I've been involved with this project since 2000.
In 2007, we did actual engineering plans right to break ground, and you know what the economy
did to that.
So we got back involved, like I say, last November, three weeks after we make a submittal
to the city, we get the curve ball from the school district where they want two-thirds
of the project.
So this 78 acres is what we're left with.
We're not really, I don't want to say we're burdened, but we have all the open space and
we have to deal with the thoroughfare that's going through us, so you know, this is our
thinking of what works, we feel works best for the project, does for that piece of land
that was left from the school in our piece north.
So I'd be happy to answer any questions, but that's where we're at.
I appreciate you being here.
We do have a couple of questions.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Corwin, thank you for your presentation.
On the secondary arterial that's going to go through there, Julie explained, I think
you're going to be responsible for that part of it on your side of the road and the school
on the other part.
Yes.
Are you working with them?
With the school?
Yes.
Oh, yeah.
We've had several meetings.
Okay.
Where it'll all be developed in one fell swoop.
Well, I don't know about that.
We will develop, we'll build what we plant against initially.
Now, where the conversation goes with the school and us as far as working together to
build it all at one time, sometimes it's difficult for us to build a private road.
Ours is private, but we have private money.
Theirs is public money.
So the way you bid projects and build with private public money may create the situation
where we just have to work that out.
Okay.
Just a question and concern I had, you're looking at a minimum of 6,000 square foot
lots.
Correct.
Is that right?
Can you give us an idea, a range of the housing square footages you're looking at from smallest
to largest?
I'm the engineer.
I've got the owner here could address that better than me.
Okay.
Because I was curious about pricing too, if you want to dare that.
I don't dare to.
Yeah.
I stick with what I think I know how to do.
Just always curious about that.
Mr. Smith, can we finish questioning this individual and then just so we have ...
If he can't answer that, then I'm through, yes.
We'll put this gentleman on standby to come up, but Mr. Smith, you have a question.
Yep.
Let's do that.
Just to add on to that, the average square footage is one of the questions I had, then
average house price whenever you guys build was a question I was going to have as well.
The only thing I really had a question of is that I know from asking about the Westgate
connection, the only reason I had for asking about that was the connection to 35 and just
knowing that that then creates an inclination to go that way, but you guys have no plans
to do that.
It's not even on your land.
It's not even part of your development.
It's going to be close, but it won't be a connecting there.
I was going to ask about neighborhood meeting and actually reaching out to the businesses
at Stonehill Crossing, but I don't think that happened.
Yeah, we're addressing our piece.
That's it.
That's fine.
Yeah, just the average price is all I have, so if you want to come ...
Commissioner Becker, will you restate your question and then whoever on your team is
best prepared to answer?
Yes.
Along with Commissioner Smith, I'm curious to what kind of square footage we're looking
at that range from smallest to largest, along with pricing of your houses.
If you could just state your name and address for the record.
Yes.
My question was since you're an American, 1800 Valley View, Suite 300, Farmer's Branch,
75234.
The square footage of the home should be between like 1700 and 3000, and the price point on
the home should be starting in the 270s and go to the 330s, 340s, something like that.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
That's it.
Thank you.
That's all we got for you right now.
Thank you.
Thanks for y'all's time.
Thanks for being here.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.
For the individuals who did speak, we would ask if you fill in a card just for our records,
that'd be helpful if you get a chance.
I do not see any other individuals wishing to speak, so I'm going to go ahead and close
the public hearing and open to the dais discussion or motion.
Commissioner Pernitta.
Motion to approve.
Commissioner.
Motion to approve.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Is Commissioner Pernitta, are you recommending approval with staff recommendations?
That is correct.
Yes.
Yes, I'm seconding that.
Perfect.
Thank you for that clarification.
Seeing no discussion, I will call for a motion on the board.
Motion carries, 7-0, congratulations.
Next on the agenda is item FZ18-0008.
I will open the public hearing and call Cindy Jackson for presentation.
Thank you, Chairman, commissioners.
This is a request for zoning change from neighborhood residential mixed use 12 and RMU 12 to new
neighborhood residential mixed use NRMU.
The 2.411 acre site is located on south side of Elm Street across from Joyce.
Oh, I'm sorry, I brought the wrong one down.
Let me go up and get my right notes.
I apologize.
This is a request to rezone from NRMU 12 to NRMU.
As you can see on the current zoning map right here, the site as it's currently situated
surrounded by NRMU 12 on all sides except the north.
If this is approved, the NRMU would be an extension of the NRMU which is located to
the north across Elm Street.
This is a request that the applicant is requesting to rezone to NRMU in order to construct a
multi-family development consisting of approximately 71 units at a density of 29.4 dwelling units
per acre.
This is a concept plan that the applicant has provided.
I would like to point out that this is just a concept plan.
It hasn't gone through review.
If this is approved, the next step would be for a specific use permit for multi-family.
At that point, we'll be able to work on the details of the site design more.
The criteria for approval of a zoning request according to 3534B, does the request conform
to the future land use plan and is there adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer,
parks, public services if the request is granted?
First, we're going to look at the future land use designation.
The site is designated neighborhood mixed use.
As you can see here, the intent of neighborhood mixed use is applied to areas of Denton which
are primarily residential, but where a mix of housing types along with retail and service
uses that would support the surrounding neighborhoods are encouraged, recommends moderate to high
density residential.
The types and uses of scaled and of development, which is permitted in the NRMU district, which
is requested, conforms to the goals of the neighborhood mixed use designation.
In compatibility, the requested NRMU district, as mentioned earlier, is a continuation of
the NRMU district located to the north of the site, as can be seen here.
The proposed NRMU zoning district is compatible with the goals and objectives outlined in
the Denton plan 2020-30.
It is the most intensive of the neighborhood residential districts and permits a variety
of commercial, institutional, and moderate to high density residential uses.
In order, another test is whether or not there's infrastructure available for the site.
The applicant has stated that they propose to bore along underneath Elm Street to provide
water and sewer to the site.
There is, I believe, there's some utilities that are located along Windsor, but they would
have to try to get the needed easements to get the utility to the site.
North Elm Street is designated as a primary arterial with 135 feet of right of way.
It's currently developed as four lane divided.
At the time of platting, if any right of way is required to ensure that it will meet the
ultimate right of way requirement, they will be required at that time.
The NRMU district permits a mix of housing types and densities and is consistent with
the future land use element.
The NRMU district permits a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre, and that's also
consistent with the future land use element.
The proposed NRMU district provides a transition between the established single family neighborhoods
to the south on the south side of Windsor, and potential mixed use or commercial areas
which may be located along North Elm in the future.
The existing land uses surrounding the site include a single family residence, a church,
a regional drainage facility, and undeveloped land.
The subject site is located on the south side of North Elm, approximately 1.65 miles southeast
of Loop 288.
Development must comply with all ESA, tree preservation, buffer screening, tree canopy
and lighting requirements, and extension of both water and wastewater, as I mentioned
earlier, would be required.
Public notices were sent out as well as courtesy notices.
I handed the responses out to you during the work session.
Received them all within the past two days.
We have received enough responses from property owners within 200 feet of the site to require
a supermajority vote of the city council.
40% of the land area within 200 feet of the site, property owners are in opposition.
Received one in favor.
That represents 4% of the land, and one sign was posted on the site.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting last night to which 14 people attended.
The applicant will discuss that further in his presentation.
I did go over briefly what was discussed during the work session.
Staff recommends approval of this request as it is compatible with the surrounding property
and it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030, and that would conclude
my presentation.
The applicant is present.
Thank you, Cindy.
We do have a question for you, Mr. Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Cindy, did you mention the analysis, the TRIP analysis?
I know you did in the work session, but did you do that here publicly?
I did not.
Thank you.
I did not.
Did you do the I.T.E. TRIP analysis?
Let's see.
Sorry, I've got to find it.
I kind of went off instead of following my script.
Here it is.
Based on the number of units, which is 71, the proposed development is expected to generate
approximately 468 daily trips with a P.M. peak total of 41 trips per the eighth edition
of the I.T.E. TRIP generation report.
Okay.
So, it's going to -- there's going to be 460 more vehicles traveling up and down Almore
Island.
That's correct.
What was the 71?
71 is the number of units proposed.
Okay.
But there was another number.
I'm sorry.
There -- 41?
Yes.
Right.
A P.M. peak total of 41 trips.
That's an increased number compared to --
No.
It's just 41 trips.
P.M. peak total of 41 trips will be generated by the site if it is developed with 71 units.
Okay.
P.M. being from 12 noon to midnight?
Rush hour.
Got you.
Okay.
Thank you.
We do have a couple more questions.
Elm Street is what kind of road -- I think you called it a main arterial?
Yes.
It's a primary arterial.
Primary arterial.
Now, what kind of businesses go on a primary arterial and what kind of -- how -- what kind
of planning do we look at when we look at --
Well, what we look at when we're looking at locating businesses, you want -- large traffic
generators should be along an arterial so that they have instant access, immediate access
to the arterial and they won't clog up the collector streets, our neighborhood streets.
So basically traffic generators.
Okay.
Something that is -- would not be sensitive to the traffic and noise of being close to
an arterial.
So primarily you're looking at probably businesses or multi-family kind of thing rather than
single residential?
That's correct.
Okay.
Christian Pernetta.
Yeah.
I just wanted to kind of get a gauge of the responses that you've got.
So if you could go back to the aerial of --
This?
Okay.
Yes.
Right there.
So when I look at the -- when I zoom in on the map and everything, you know, obviously
to the -- to the slight southwest we have the church and then on the southwest corner
I do see a house.
The properties immediately to the south and then I guess to the east of those.
Are there --
Here?
Yes.
Are there houses there?
Because I can't see them in the map.
I couldn't see any houses on there.
I know this property owner lives -- this property owner lives here.
I don't believe this.
This is not developed.
Coming to the DCAD, these are not developed sites.
Okay.
These three are not developed sites.
Okay.
Yeah, because I see one just outside that.
I just wanted to make sure that in those little plots there -- yeah, I didn't see it on the
aerial.
Well, I'm pretty sure the property owners are here tonight, so they could clarify for
you when they come up.
All right.
Thank you.
So now I don't see any other questions.
Okay.
Thank you for your presentation.
This is a public hearing.
And we do have several cards.
So if you are wishing to speak, we'd ask that you fill out a card, or when we run out, you're
more than welcome just to walk down and introduce yourself.
But before we begin that, I believe the applicant is here.
Is the applicant here?
Would you like to come down, and if you have a presentation or stand for questions?
I'm sorry, I don't have a card for you.
Can you just state your name and address?
My name is Craig Bond.
I live at 1107 Woodmount Court here in Denton.
And I work for KJE, we're the silver firm that put together the rezoning application
for the client.
And as Cindy said, the site, you know, meets the requirements to be able to apply for rezoning.
And so I thought probably the best thing for me to do is just -- we had the public meeting
last night is kind of go through the comments that everybody had that showed up.
I sent these to Cindy this morning so she could kind of review them as well.
Of course, the first concern was that we were going from NRMU 12 to NRMU, which goes from
12 units per acre to 30 units per acre.
And you know, I understand people having a concern about this, but out of all the property
around us, most of it is vacant except for there's one house where one of the residents
lives over there next to the family dollar store and then the other residence is over
next to the church.
So all the rest of the land around it is vacant.
And I'm sure that those landowners plan on developing that at some point.
Now on our site plan, we had I think 107 parking spaces and we didn't have any visitors parking.
So we're probably going to have to remove about four units to make room for that additional
parking space.
And so the count per acre will go down a little bit, not a whole lot, but we'll have to make
room for the guest parking.
I think in May is when they passed the new ordinance that required, you know, the guest
parking, I think 10% of the total parking count.
So we'll have to include that.
One of the residents, Mrs. Dean, she was concerned about safety and her house is the one down
there by the Dollar General store.
And in her complaint, she was saying that a lot of people would cross through her property
to get to the Dollar General.
And one thing we can do is we can put a fence, you know, around the south, east and west
side to and that would encourage people to go out to Elm Street and then walk down the
street to the family dollar instead of cutting across.
So I think that might help, you know, alleviate that problem.
And there were several questions about the cost of the -- or let's see, how did I put
that?
Let's see.
I think we introduced the project as more affordable housing as opposed to somebody
having to rent a single family home.
And there was some misconception for a little while that we were trying to put in Section
8 housing and we reiterated several times that it's not Section 8, it's just multi-family,
which is going to be cheaper than having to go out and rent single family.
And from what I understand, the City of Denton still has a shortage of apartments or student
housing and so it makes sense for the project to proceed.
And now there was some concern about the traffic or actually there was several of the people
mentioned that they were concerned about the traffic in the area.
They mentioned the UNT Engineering Center and then they also mentioned that there's
probably going to be some additional traffic from Denton High School that's going to go
up not too far away.
And I didn't really know what to tell them about that other than it's a four-lane arterial,
it can handle lots of traffic, and I think as these other developments occur, the city
is probably going to have to look at putting in some signals along there.
So I think at some point that will be taken care of and our client can't really do too
much about that.
So there's going to have to be participation from the city for traffic calming and stuff
in the area.
And of course, they had questions about the water and sewer and like Cindy said, there's
existing water and sewer on the north side, so we're going to propose boring underneath
the road to bring water and sewer.
And we also pointed out that for future development, for the other folks there, this is going to
be to their benefit because our client is going to incur the cost of the bores and extending
that water and sewer to the south side of Elm Street, so that's going to benefit everybody.
And the other thing I wanted to point out too is everybody was, a lot of folks were
opposed to the higher density, but our client, he did his own study and for his project to
make a go of things, 12 units per acre isn't going to, the math isn't going to work out,
so he's going to have to increase that to make the math work out, otherwise the construction
costs, the project won't work for him.
So that's why we, that's why he wants to rezone it.
And I think I've addressed most of the comments there that people had, so if you all have
any questions, we're glad to answer.
I appreciate you being here and for speaking.
We do have a couple of questions.
I think it might be prudent to remind the commission that we are only looking at a rezone
case tonight, so density, land use, those type things, specifics of parking and engineering
questions and those things would certainly come before us at an SUP case.
But if we could stay focused on a rezone case tonight, as tempting as it is to get into
a concept plan, I think that'd be productive for the discussion.
With that being said, Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
I know you said, Mr. Bond, I know you said that the owner did his own study and his own
maths to get down to that a 12 unit per acre was not financially viable, and so that's
actually one of my first questions I have for you, is why not a 12, why not keeping
within RME 12 and stick it to 12 units per acre?
I mean, on the acreage you have, you can get to 28.9 is where the math works out, so basically
28, too bad Cindy Jackson won't let you bump up to 29, but 28 units out there, do you as
an engineer, would you agree with the owner then, with your client, that at 28 units there's
no way to financially make that viable to be able to build a 12 unit per acre site?
We don't get into the cost that much, but we've had several clients on other projects
that they've had to kill the project because they couldn't get the density that they needed.
Okay.
I find it hard to believe, to be honest, that there are sites I feel like around Denton
that have that density and make that financially viable, we've seen that come before us, and
I just feel like it could be done, to be honest with you, but that's just a question.
And then I guess the other one was, this is just a zoning case, and Commissioner Rozelle,
our Chair Rozelle brought it up in a work session about, usually we see that the zoning
and the SCP, when it is going to be an SCP case, we see them come together.
And so the SCP wasn't done, and as Ms. Jackson mentioned, a lot of that was because, you
guys hadn't gotten into the engineering conversation yet, could you give us some clarity why?
Was it just timing, you know, the project came on too quickly to get the engineering
started, to be able to warrant the SCP, or waiting to see if the zoning passes first,
be able to spend the money and the time on the engineering to get to the SCP?
Any clarity you can give there, I appreciate it.
Yeah, I think it may have been a little of what you just said, that they wanted to make
sure that they were going to be able to rezone, because, you know, in addition to what we've
discussed here, we still have to talk to TxDOT, you know, about the, about the driveway entrances,
and we still need to look at detention, you know, we've got to talk to TxDOT and find
out if they have capacity in Elm Street, if they don't, then there's going to be detention
and we're going to lose, you know, lose some units there.
Yeah, so you're saying, I mean, there's obstacles past just the rezoning, that, you know, we
could rezone the site for this project, but there's a lot of obstacles afterwards that
could trip this project up even further.
Well, it might trip up the 30 units per acre, but, you know, we'd really like to be somewhere
between the 12 and 30 units per acre, you know, to make it more, you know, cost effective
and stuff and make the project work.
Understood.
All right.
Thank you.
Chris Trebek.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bond, for your presentation.
Would you be willing to work with an overlay that will keep you above the 12 but puts you
down a little bit closer to something that might be more acceptable, 20 units per acre,
say?
I think we're going to end up having to work with less than, you know, less than 30 units
just to get the parking and, you know, possibly the detention as well.
About four, though, I mean, I don't think you're going to come down much, that much,
so an overlay would bring you down a little bit more, but it would still keep you probably,
hopefully, within the financial arena to make it cost--
I mean, I wouldn't-- you know, our client would have to speak more to that than me.
Okay.
Is he here?
Yeah, he's here.
Okay.
If he wants to come down.
Well, is there any more-- if there's no more questions for him, then, yeah, if we could
bring him down.
Chair?
I don't see any more questions at this time, so if you're wanting to open up a--
Could we have the owner come down?
The owner?
Yeah.
Muhammad, do you want to come down for a second?
We're actually the architects here, too.
He may be better.
Okay.
Whatever you think's best, whoever you think can answer it best, and if you'll state your
name and address when you come to the mic, please.
My name is Muhammad Parva, I live 3110 Hillside Drive in Highland Village.
Okay.
Muhammad, I guess my question to Mr. Bond was, a lot of the problem that a lot of the
residents are having is the higher density that an NRMU would allow, and I was trying
to seek a compromise.
We could put an overlay on that area to help bring the numbers down, keep you above 12,
but keep you considerably lower than 28 units per acre.
Say if we got you around 20 units per acre, you think that would be manageable, financially
feasible for you?
Yeah, that would work.
Okay.
Okay, so that would be something we could consider and you would consider.
So if it's 20 units per acre and he's got about 2.4, so he'd be able to get 40 plus
units is what you're looking at.
Okay, you don't have to make an effort to make a decision right now, Bond.
When I said 20 units for work, it kind of, I didn't do the math, yeah, that's correct,
it's 44 units.
Yeah, because it's 2.4 acres times 48.
Our math genius is up here saying you're looking at 48 units as opposed to it would have come
down to 67.
So that is less than, that's about almost half.
So instead of rezoning, you would get an overlay, but you would have to limit it to that 48
units.
Well, you would get the rezone, but we'd put an overlay on it.
Okay.
Yeah, that would work.
Will that work, 48 units?
Yes.
That would work.
Something to consider then.
Yeah.
All right.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thanks.
We have one more question for, no, not for him, for you.
Okay.
Sorry.
Commissioner Sanchez.
My concern is I guess the cost of boring under the road and have you even looked at what
kind of costs you have?
It seems like we're putting, you're looking at doing a, changing the zoning, but you don't,
maybe you had taken the time to figure out what it's going to cost to bore that.
Because I know, I know the reason I was looking at something in a project I was doing and
it wasn't even close to the width of that road and the costs are astronomical.
Have you looked at that before we even decide that we want to change, that it would even
be a viable idea right now until maybe looking at bringing the utilities and all that on
the south side of Elm Street?
Well, it'd probably be about $100 per foot, 135 feet.
So you're looking at 135 to 150,000 per bore, so about 300,000 for the bore probably.
Yeah.
And that's what I'm thinking.
That's pretty steep considering everything else you're going to have to do.
I think that's why he wanted to have a higher density.
Okay, yeah, because it's going to be high.
So I guess my concern, my biggest concern is if we change it and then you look at it,
we can't do it because the costs are too expensive.
I guess it's what Tim was saying a while ago, looking at getting all the information first
before we go in there and change it.
Though I think in time, because this is a primary arterial, those kinds of businesses
or those kinds of projects are viable on a primary arterial.
I do agree with that.
I mean, that's my feeling, but I don't think at this point it's a viable project.
I mean, I'm just saying it's based on the cost and not having those that information
yet.
Would it be better to table this then and come back later with a more developed site
plan?
I don't know.
I was just going by, you know, you haven't done the whole research, I think, on it and
I think we're going to jump into it and then you're going to find out, you know what, maybe
this isn't what I want.
I mean, it's your decision.
I'm just saying it's based on what I can see here.
I'd be afraid that we'd be make a decision and then a year from now or several months
from now, you're going to come back and say, "Well, that wasn't the best decision because
boring across that street, across that road is going to be expensive."
I think it's worth interjecting here.
We're not looking at what the cost to build the construction is.
As a commission, we are trying to address, is it appropriate to have an NRMU zoning district
in that location, regardless of what their project can and will be?
There's a lot of other things that they could actually build besides multifamily.
They could come back to us and present to us.
Our duty here is not to see if their project is viable per se, but rather try to best ascertain
the request to rezone.
Like I said, I think rezoning based on the fact that we're on our primary arterial to
me is a good decision.
I agree with the staff and I'm just throwing that out.
I do agree with them that a primary arterial, as you look 20, 30 years from now, this primary
arterial is going to be ... There's a lot of vacant land in there in time.
It's going to be developed.
What do we want developed in a primary arterial, if not businesses and those kinds of things?
Residential is not going ... It doesn't really fit that for me.
Thank you, Mr. Sanchez.
We have a couple more questions.
Commissioner Pernetta.
I'm not going to say too much on this one, but based on where we are right now, the understanding
is that this would have to go to city council for a super majority anyway, due to the number
of objections we have.
Based on the idea that you guys are considering making adjustments to your request, I think
maybe tabling it at this time would be best, because even if we did approve it, you'd have
a long road to hoe to get through to city council, perhaps a revisit to try and find
something that might be more amenable to the surrounding neighbors might be the best.
Would it be possible if we table it now when we come back, can we do the rezoning and the
SUP at the same time then?
It would be possible to put them on the same agenda.
They would be separate items.
Okay.
They wouldn't be technically at the same time.
It would be one herd and then the SUP following that.
Okay.
That is an option.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
I was discussing this with legal and sidebar with Commissioner Pernetta, but I think my
biggest fear is, look, development in the city of Denton, all for it.
I think we're going to have people move in here, we need to put them somewhere.
I think apartments and renting are great ways to subsidize low income housing and to have
affordable housing.
I should not say low income housing, but affordable places for people to live, but I would hate
to rezone a piece of land and then you guys go do the engineering and find out the cost
and then maybe possibly, because this happens, we have cases presented to us pretty constantly
of this is rezoned, the project fell through.
Well, that stinks because now this other person is coming through and having to pay to rezone
this land again because it's not compatible to what the project they want to do.
I'd hate to change the zoning on a piece of land and then come back and find out the cost
through the SUP process and the engineering process, finding that out isn't going to be
viable.
That's why I'd have a hard time approving it or moving forward with this was that I
would rather see both of them present at the same time, see what the cost with the SUP
would be, see what the engineering cost, be able to actually do everything and see a site
plan and all that great stuff and then know there's more financial viability there and
then from there we could have conversations like Commissioner Beck brought up, which is
okay, how financial viable can a project be while keeping the unity density down to be
able to appease the neighborhood and be able to protect the neighborhoods around it.
So I guess it's not really a question so much as it's a comment and that's what I was talking
with legal about was that the possibility that after we hear public hearing and hear
from residents is a possibility we might table this and request you guys bring it back whenever
you have some better numbers and some engineering and some financial viability.
We would hate to be up here and even talk with you Mr. Pavar and say hey would you be
able to do 20 units an acre and you say yep and then you come back and find out it's like
you know what we just put an overlay on a zoning for 20 units an acre and that's not
financially viable.
That doesn't seem like good work on our end either.
That's unfair to you as the applicant and so that's my opinion.
Would you guys be opposed to a table if we got to that part I mean would you think you
would be willing to go through that process of starting the SCP getting those engineering
numbers and we did get to a tabling?
I think that would be the best.
Okay, well we'll let the public hearing see I'm not saying to make a decision but just
wanted to make sure that if we did as a commission make a motion to table and that was approved
to table that you guys would step away and start doing the numbers so as long as I hear
that from you then I'm good to go.
Sounds like that'd be the best course of action at this point.
With that conversation being said if we're wanting to table it might be prudent to try
to push the table with the public hearing open so typically when I would call for a
motion it's after I close the public hearing so if there is going to be a motion to table
it needs to be done proactively before the chair requests one.
So with that said I want to have Commissioner Prunette ask for the floor and then I'll give
it back to you Commissioner Smith.
That was actually going to be my question you know what the best procedure would be
whether we table it before we go into the public hearing because we'd have a lot of
people who want to speak and most likely they'll be speaking about something that's not actually
going to be what the decision is made on eventually what would be the best thing to you know make
sure this moves forward table it and then allow them to have the rest of their lives
back so they can save it for another day.
That's certainly an option just for point of order if there is a motion to table it's
second and approved the public hearing will remain open anyone wishing to speak tonight
I'll provide them that opportunity to still vocalize but it will come back before us which
would give them an opportunity to come back the night of the vote.
So public hearing and discourse will partake this evening regardless if there's a table
or not.
With that said there's a motion on the floor and Commissioner Smith I'll just ask that
there's an affirmation from the applicant about the motion.
Sure I'll make a motion to table the item until date certain.
We will remain I'm assuming no date name just date certain.
Date uncertain.
I'm sorry yeah okay got it motion motion to table date uncertain.
Yeah I'm sorry I didn't have my microphone on you're gonna have to table it to a date
certain if you're going to leave the public hearing open without re-noticing it.
If you're going to table it to a date uncertain then it will require staff to send out new
notices.
I mean the applicant can make can request city staff to postpone on agenda items we
can put it as a date certain and then if the applicant feels like the date after we have
a discussion here to figure out what what date would work for the applicant they can
postpone that right because we have that that item is removed from agendas.
Well you may have to re-notice it because you're going to be tabling it to date certain.
So one one possibility may be to extend your date certain out pretty far you know just
to make sure that sooner it's got to be date it's got to be right re-noticed as well.
Mr. Bond Mr. Pavard do you guys have an idea of if the request that's being made is one
is that clear what we're trying to find as a commission and two if it is clear what date
would be how much time do you think you would need and I would say be generous with the
time.
We could put it out two months.
Two months?
Yeah.
Could we get up?
I think Richard's working on getting the calendar.
Does anyone have the approved P and Z calendar?
They're working they're working on it.
Awesome.
And I guess why slow the floor chair Rozelle did mention that for those who are here and
wishing to speak you will still have the chance to speak tonight and voice your opinion if
you would like.
January 23rd?
Yeah.
That'd be that'd be two months out would be okay.
January 23rd.
Now by that time we may or may not have the textile driveways worked out but we will have
a site plan we'll know what the costs are for the boring.
Would you prefer us moving into February or would the 23rd be fine still?
If I may I would probably recommend February.
Okay.
That way if there is an SGP associated with that we will notice for that so that gives
us enough time.
It's typically two to three weeks in advance of the meeting for us to send the notices
so.
February 6th or 20th then would that be better to say that?
I don't have it entered yet is it the 6th or 13th?
I don't have the calendar is there two that month?
So it has to be at 6th or the 20th?
Why don't we go with the 20th and that'll give us time to get all the text out as well.
I'm gonna make a motion then a motion to table table the item until date certain of the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting as of February 20th and yep.
We have a first looks Commissioner Beck.
Second.
We have a first and a second to table we'll go ahead and hear that vote now and then progress
with the public hearing so I'm going to call for a vote on the board to table this to a
date certain of February 20th.
That motion carries 7-0 we'll enjoy the presentation in a couple months for y'all thank you.
Thank you.
This is the public hearing is still open and so we will still welcome your feedback and
comments we have a couple cards for speaking and a couple cards not for speaking the first
individual will be Terry Martin if you just state your name and address for the record
and then I'm gonna ask the Commission if we can jot down notes if they have any questions
that we want to post to staff if we jot those down once we go through all citizens feedback
we can bring up the appropriate city staff to collectively answer those just as a point
of moving the discussion along.
You can obviously ask the applicant any questions I'm not saying that but for city staff you
could hold them.
Yes sir if you just state your name and address for the record.
My name is Terry Martin I live at 1216 Mistywood here in Denton.
I'm representing or I'm responsible for the could we get a this picture like a plan of
plan view of this.
The aerial view of the surrounding area as well yes.
Yeah we can get that for you.
You don't have to stand up here with me I thought you was gonna do that for me.
Yeah so I'm just here in case he needs help hearing something.
I'm his son.
Perfect.
And what is your name?
Daniel Martin.
Thank you.
Same address.
The very first plan view that went on whenever you prefer this or come on back okay you're
getting close right I'd like to show which I'd like to show Windsor there that's right
there that's good that's good thank you thank you all for my inability to handle
computers and things like that.
The property that I'm speaking for is the property due south of this main body and the
property due east that runs down that runs down Elm Street the the I think common sense
many times many many times whether it's whatever outweighs what somebody has printed in a computer
program or a book or something or other this traffic you can't I don't I don't I don't
believe you can anticipate what the traffic is going to be there.
We have we have all these other projects going to high school out there that that huge apartment
complex across from from the research center the the the day to day and here we're fixing
to throw another hundred cars possibly easily a hundred cars at work time coming and going
the distance from that drive to Windsor is the is the bare minimum it's nothing whenever
that whenever that that Windsor is going to get so clogged up you can't imagine it and
then you're going to throw another hundred cars out there trying to get out and half
of those are going to try to go left and go north.
Denton is eat up with traffic problems I see no need in creating another one and but that's
but that's that's that's a my that's in my opinion that's a minor problem.
I understand about development I've been in construction all my life I understand about
development and progress and moving forward.
But that this exact property or the right hand side one has sold in the last 15 years
20 years has sold probably a dozen times and the deal fell through because of the expense
of boring under the highway and then when you get it bored under the highway yes there's
water there and there's a sewer line over there but that sewer line is already maxed
out everybody keeps failing to admit to admit that and and research that.
So even if so somebody is going to have to which it sounds like the taxpayer if they
have to enlarge that line to handle 60 apartments.
I don't know who's that who's that who's that's up to but I don't want to be paying for it.
Plus like I said the deals have fallen through whenever the they would have a contract and
then whenever the whenever they would start researching that it's a tremendous expense
to bore under a text on highway and they would back out on the deals that's happened over
and over and over over over a long period of time.
The the the developer very nice guy I've talked to him at length yesterday and today.
Last night meeting they could not tell us what the departments were going to rent for
they keep throwing around this affordable rent affordable rent that's the key that's
the key phrase affordable rent but yet we we we don't even have a clue what departments
are going to rent for.
I never went into a project in my life that I didn't have a have have a pretty good sight
of what the end was going to be.
I didn't go try to build something without researching what the what the plywood was going
to cost what what the what the hardware on that cabinet was going to cost I had a pretty
good idea now it wasn't always exact but I had a very very good idea and I knew what
the goal was the developer he'd has no no clue period and I think that's been discussed
a little bit only I'm putting it in a little bit harder terms.
Two and a half minutes left huh two and a half minutes left oh oh oh okay the the the
lot the lot due south is a very nice lot huge huge oak trees it's a very nice situated
place there's a there's a there's a house right down the way that's a huge mansion
type house this is a this is a pristine place for a very nice house prime some nobody's
going to want to build a very nice house without a swimming pool without a barbecue every time
whoever builds this house wife or daughter wants to have a swimming party everybody from
the second floor up in that in that apartment complex is going to enjoy the party with them.
I say that's a huge deterrent.
Apartments work well this kind of apartment works very well at a street intersection all
over Denton they work well there will you find them all over Denton they adjacent to
a storage facility something where people don't actually live a gas station that kind
of thing even even strip center but jamming it in there it won't work.
This vacant land we lost a picture this vacant land is not very big on the picture it looks
like you just you can't comprehend it from the south side there to Windsor Street this
guy can throw a football that far it's not very far that it's it's it's not two point
something acres sounds like huge it's really not that very big you get out there walk around
and it's not very big. And privacy concerns is before we came over here I wouldn't pick
my end up and there's people out there in the middle of that taking pictures she has
a tremendous problem with people out there all the time they throw their trash down they
go out there and take these pictures they cross in there they dump their trash it's
a dump she keeps it very nice and they just love to go out there and ride four wheelers
all this stuff every kid in that part and that apartment complex right down Windsor
Street here there the city has got a beautiful park all kinds of games all kinds of play
things the North Lake Center ball fields every kid is going to walk out of that apartment
boundary that big fine fence that restrains them walk right it walk right down the side
of it cross my property cross my aunt's property hit that very nice sidewalk that you built
in front of the and a long a long Windsor and they're going to walk right out to that
park they're going to come back and they're going to make that same crossing this is the
first time I want to interrupt a little bit if you wrap up and start to conclude the points
okay the developer bought this land knowing what the zoning was he had an idea of what
to do with it now he's decided something else and he's asking everybody else to make the
concessions for him to do something else he invested his money I'm just asking you to
do the right thing and deny this let's use some common sense I'm not above progress I'm
not above change but this particular situation is not it go back to the duplex plan he told
me himself he bought it with planning on duplexes it would be absolutely wonderful it fit the
area but there will be no buffer between that crop that zoning and the single-family houses
across Windsor if you approve that that is a tongue down there you need you need Elm
Street to stop to be the drawing line I'm sorry we went over thank you that's right
thank you Mr. Martin next individual is Julie Smith if you just state your name and address
for the record and it might be a good reminder that we will have a four-minute clock we'll
try to be if you want to go over a little bit we'll have some flexibility if we'd stick
to four minutes I'll be great thank you okay four minutes for a three-story apartment and
mr. Drake good to see you again kind of odd to be on this side of the dice and I will
say to you you do an excellent job of describing what is in front of the commission in terms
of the zoning and I really appreciate that I may have you come up and explain that to
the commission I'm responsible to and mr. Smith besides sharing a name in common that
no one else ever has I also really do appreciate your comments my sense is that we are probably
short in every housing type that there is in Denton right now there's a demand for any
type and and whether duplexes are built here or a six-story apartment building is built
here I think people will pay to live there I have been in Denton since 1969 that's why
Jerry and I have the same hair color and and and I had the pleasure of going to school
in a one high school town and so I understand also about growth if we're on the I-35 corridor
we're going to grow every city does who knew where Thackerville was five years ago and
now the entire United States knows where Thackerville is so so that is a done deal I mean we are
going to grow and growth is good and especially mixed growth for all the economic reasons
we all we all know about so the only question for I think planning and zoning commissions
and city councils and those of us who choose to live in these cities is how are we going
to grow I think it's a little disingenuous and let me preface this by saying Cindy has
been great answering my questions but things a little disingenuous to rely on the existing
zoning map to support a staff support as a recommendation to support this rezoning and
also on a future land use map that are mutually exclusive and what I mean by that is if you
look at your existing zoning map the area that's due north of the proposed is in this
red slash stuff and it's vacant right now there's nothing there if you look at your
proposed 2030 plan that's back to moderate density not high density so you may not eat
your cake and have it too so whatever your recommendation I would I would ask you to
notice that that there is a conflict between those two things having said that the existing
zoning here 12 I'm sure every commissioner has heard this but just for anyone in the audience
it hasn't it's it's beautiful writing in terms of the description which is this is 12 units
breaker where we are right now mixed-use development intended to preserve and protect existing
neighborhoods and to ensure that any new infill development is compatible with existing land
uses patterns and design standards and it also mentions that low and multifamily low
and moderate male to family which fit in that not unlike what you have mentioned Mr. Sanchez
and including retail uses if you back up and look at a Google shot of this okay you'll
notice that we do have retail uses they're tiny and wonderful if you have not had pizza
it bruises Romans pizza I suggest that you do so because you actually provides our dinner
quite regularly and of course his son Sam has the wash interior right next door we have
a dollar general store right there that's actually acts as this convenience store for
every parent on Saturday morning who has no milk and that little corner is the gather
up neighborhood type corner it's not intense commercial it's neighborhood retail that's
how it operates and dollar general things probably only brick and mortar that's going
to survive Amazon at least in the near future and so that building's not going away anytime
soon that use is not going away anytime soon we you know when you look at your 200 notice
full disclosure I'm the one house everybody keeps mentioning at a 1935 farmhouse I've
lived over 20 years now so I am the closest one to it but the house that people seem to
that you couldn't see is belongs to Agnes my dear neighbor there I mean she is next
to the dollar general so there are two homes but that's a very close look all you have
to do is back up and you'll notice my lots the smallest one as you go along Windsor to
the west at the corner there's some smaller lots but they're actually zoned less than
12 I think they're four I think they're four units per acre zone and then of course as
you go up Riney they get larger and larger the Northridge development subdivision to the
south of us which has always been kind enough to include me in their neighborhood and those
are three units per acre okay everything around us is between two and four units per acre
it's 77 is a huge corridor I recognize that I recognize it makes sense to grow and I actually
like to see retail and commercial and I that's a great use because I don't have a college
student coming home at 2 in the morning slamming car doors and that type of thing and when
what was proposed was one at the risk of doing what I say we shouldn't do a proposed one
and two bedroom we're talking college it means going to be primarily transient college student
renting so that's what's going to go there we are neighborhood we are a neighborhood
and so we're not just vacant land there was a home on Terry's property what he didn't
tell you is it actually was pre-civil war his father lived next to me he died of Parkinson's
years ago but as a child he watched his grandfather and the gentleman across the street put on
their respective union and Confederate uniforms and not speak to each other on Veterans Day
okay but then the rest of the time they were fine so there's a lot of history here and
we recognize it's going to change it's a huge deal for this to go to 12 for us right I mean
that's a big difference just to put 12 units per acre on this next to us but there are
other folks in town that are making plenty on 12 units per acre and all these other ones
that you talked to you and I thought maybe you should read notice this as the corridor
77 planning its own commission but the others are closer to 35 they're closer to more arterials
and they're less dense than what is proposed here every one that you have looked at tonight
is less dense than this and this is further from 35 it's closer to downtown and it's certainly
closer to the Northridge neighborhood and so in terms of zoning I don't think it's appropriate
to ups the zoning I think 12 makes sense even though I will admit I'll have trouble adjusting
to that but 77 is a growing corridor and I get it but more than doubling that I am opposed
to that thank you for your time tonight absolutely thanks for coming out.
The affirmation Agnes Dean is next.
And if you could state your name and address for the record.
My name is Agnes Dean I live at 428 West Windsor and I have been there since 1939 not at 428
Miss West Windsor but on the property in 1939 my mother and dad moved into the house my
mother was born in upon Terry's property that house has since burned and there was another
house there that has been destroyed but I have seen a lot of change when I was a child
the only people who came down and it was a gravel road two cars had to slow down to even
pass and it had was called the old Sanger Road was at one time was the main way to get
to Sanger and so we used to go into history I could tell a lot of stories but I'm very
concerned about the zoning they're trying they were trying to put too much on too little
and as far as my own safety I've hoped to be able to spend my last days right there
where I am few people get to live in the generations of history that I've been less blessed to
enjoy and I have to now ask people to leave the property I still mow and do a lot of things
that 85 year old women don't usually do and I'll have to go out and pick up paper and
trash and glass and cans and things where people have come across and have thrown their
things away as Terry and I left when he came to pick me up this afternoon there were people
out there and we had to ask them to leave my property I get a lot of trash over Dollar
General's fence but I have not really had the disturbance from Dollar General that I
thought I would have so I just asked that you preserve the integrity of the community
and of that neighborhood Northridge is a very good and stable neighborhood they have for
years asked and hoped that there would be a transition of town homes or something between
their neighborhood and then the commercial that's going to be back on Elm Street and
the high density that will be back there so I don't have very much more to say I'll wait
and see what the applicant comes up with in his next plan before I come back and say very
much more but I do appreciate your time in your consideration thank you very much.
Thank you Ms. Dean we actually have a question for you.
Okay.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you Chair.
Not really a question for you Ms. Dean thank you very much for coming out and I'd love
to pick your brain some time I like here in history and funny stories so more of something
I read into the minutes to remind myself when I come back around on February 20th and then
something maybe a suggestion to the applicant fencing some sort of foot traffic mitigation
from keeping the backlots that are there because I think that the last two public last three
public speakers have definitely brought up something that it would be pretty natural
for folks to cut through their land behind there so I don't I know there was the conceptual
plan that was put in the presentation was just that it was conceptual so if some sort
of foot traffic mitigation could be looked at and if my comments could be read into the
minutes to remind ourselves to bring that back up February 20th I'd appreciate it but
thank you Ms. Dean.
Thank you very much.
The next card I have of individual wishing to speak is Ashley Bender.
This is the last card requesting to speak I have other ones in opposition but if you
do have a blue card you can come up here and hand it in or we can just call you up next
and I'll take the card from you good evening Ms. Bender if you can say your name and address
for the record.
Hi I'm Ashley Bender I live at 606 Northridge Street I just want to reiterate what my neighbors
have said that we are a really magnificent sorry I'm really love my neighborhood and
I want to protect the integrity to use your terms I want to protect the integrity of residential
life that we have I am not opposed to development I am not opposed to new housing I know that
we need that in town I see it with my students all the time they need affordable places to
live but with the new development going in at Hinkle and Windsor and then with this proposed
zoning change that will infiltrate our neighborhood in really negative ways we already have through
traffic on my street cars going regularly well over the speed limit we have and nothing
to calm traffic there and when a development like this if a development like this were
to go in that will creep into the neighborhood because there is a cut-through on Mesquite
from Windsor and it's not just about traffic on Elm Street that traffic will be using Windsor
Windsor is already quite dangerous we've had to make changes on Windsor and change the
speed limit on Windsor because of accidents happening on that street we have kids who
have to cross Windsor to get to elementary school we have kids who have to cross Windsor
to get to we do have kids who will walk to Calhoun because they can't take the bus and
so we have kids crossing back and forth this very busy street I appreciate the conversation
that we have had tonight I am very concerned about this zoning change setting a precedent
for other changes rights other zoning changes in the adjacent lots and losing that potential
buffer that my neighbors have talked about I am also concerned about infrastructure and
I am sorry I wrote my notes and then I got choked up so I'm concerned about encroachment
on to Windsor specifically that is a residential street that whole strip right there people
live there and so I just want us to move forward with this neighborhood in mind we want to
be good neighbors to other developments we want to be good community members I feel confident
I can speak for my neighbors in saying that and we want to welcome new people into our
area but we want to do so in a way that protects the integrity that protects the quality of
life for the people currently there and that ensures a good residential experience for
people who will be moving into that area that's all I got thank you thank you Miss Bender
this is a public hearing of anyone wishing to speak we certainly do so you just hand
them to she will take care of it and if you could just state your name and address for
the record my name is Edward Cuthbertson I live at 512 Northridge Street in Denton I
where we live fall within falls within the 500 foot radius or whatever you call it of
the proposed zoning change anyway I'm not well versed in these kind of matters I don't
think of too much time but to have the zoning change from a 12 unit situation per acre to
a 12 unit to a 30 unit and multiple that times two it would be 24 units for if it was 12
or 60 units or whatever if it was 30 it to me it poses quite a transition that is not
compatible with the surrounding areas I don't know all the codes but I did remember last
night that I think our neighborhood is is NR for if that's the right code I don't know
if that's even the right thing to say but anyway to me my impression is apartments once
you have apartments you have transient population that's just the nature of apartments town
homes if they're for sale maybe that might be less transient but then of course the whoever
owns and buys them could rent them out so that could also be a rental situation. Duplexes
I'm going in order of least desirable to maybe more desirable in my concept from apartments
to town homes to duplexes I didn't even think of that that might be more acceptable if the
zoning is kept at NR 12. Somebody suggested to me and I hadn't even thought of this what
would be the feasibility or the appropriateness of taking this parcel of land and making it
into a park I don't know if anybody's ever thought of that but I don't know if there's
funding in the city for such things like that this area would you know I don't know all
the details it's just an idea which I'll just throw out that maybe will be thrown out but
as a possible possibility that would be very nice for surrounding areas I think these people
that are south of the of this 2.68 acres and east of it that own these this older tracts
of land I think their thoughts are that their offspring could develop something there for
you know housing for themselves but if I had that land and I was going to develop it and
there was apartments right in my backyard that would be less desirable to you know go
forward with something like that so I'm I'm in opposition to the zoning change I think
the the 12 capacity is is good enough it's probably actually a lot more than what could
be done in a more gradual transition but anyway I'm running out of time here thank you for
your time I appreciate all your consideration all the technicalities you have to consider
and that's like that's all I have to say we actually have one question for you Mr. Beck
thank you chair thank you Mr. Cuthberson yes did I say that right thank you for your presentation
appreciate your time here if I had my way we would put a park like we do churches on
every other block but that's not gonna happen you've got North Lakes just up you've got
North Lakes just up the street so I would like to ask you a question this really would
go out to the other ones that responded to I'd mention to the property owner if he would
consider reducing the density with an overlay I'm curious if we got it down to 20 and that
was financially feasible for him would that be more acceptable to you and if some of you
want to just nod or shake your head can't all does that mean that the zoning we would
be lower well zoning would still say it - 12 or would it it would go past 12 but it would
be less than the 28 he's proposing right now if we got it down to 20 units per acre that's
kind of a it would be less dense but then it would accommodate we would go ahead and
zone it NRMU but with an overlay that say we couldn't build more than 20 units per acre
is that she's shaking her head no so just curious that gives room for other adjacent
development to go up higher amounts well now there's limits to height oh no I don't I don't
mean right I mean they're usually gonna be density one right that could be three stories
so I don't have the knowledge of okay that was just I just thought I'd throw that out
there because it was something that we approached him with and he may bring back I just wanted
to say 20 unit does a 20 unit deal mean it's still gonna be an apartment or would it be
duplexes or townhomes it'll be multi-family still it just won't be as dense density was
the concern of I don't think anybody's really I don't think okay all right I had to throw
it out there thank you sir thank you very much I don't have any other cards for individuals
wishing to speak I have something to read into the record but if there's anyone else
wishing to speak you may certainly do so the public hearing will remain open seeing none
I'll read the following individuals into the record as opposition Gene Cuthbertson 512
Northridge Street W Lee Negrang sorry if I missed that 506 Northridge John Hyatt 513
Northridge Street at this time since we've had a motion to table and it's passed we
will close discussion on this I keep the public here open and that will be the end of this
item for this evening and I hope and encourage everyone to come back out when we take action
on this Christian back so none of us can cut I mean just make comments in general about
what we've heard tonight would you rather put that off until if you like to make a comment
go for it well I would just throw out to the audience kind of give a sense where I'm at
get some feedback when we come back in I'd like to hit a couple points if I may I think
one point that was made and I think the property owner is probably going to be looking at pretty
seriously too is the high cost of infrastructure whether it's going to be worth it to build
what he wants to build and add the infrastructure that he's going to need in the form of water
and sewage so that's something that yeah should be considered if we're gonna anything that
gets rezoned in our MU and then they don't come in and build what they say they're going
to build it opens it up NRM you can build a lot of things in there that in our in our
in you 12 can't bars of being one of them of course it has to have a little not a special
use permit but it has to meet certain criteria to allow that it would come before this commission
to do so now on the other hand the traffic issue I and somebody help me with this I understand
that everybody's concerned about traffic on Windsor but I'm not sure how this apartment
complex or any apartment complex that faces and can only be exited and entered off Elm
Street can impact Windsor that much that you're not going to have already you're right we're
going to have growth and I wish it was going to be commercial as much as residential in
fact that's one of the concerns I've got here is that whole area could be opened up to wall
to wall apartments multifamily so I want to see some commercial in there but eventually
as that grows eventually you're going to see some more traffic on Windsor but there's a
pretty good barrier there where people are going to be forced if they're coming from
the south they're going to come up Carol Boulevard they're going to hit Elm and then go up Elm
that way the other direction would be coming down Bonnie Bray yeah you're going to get
a little traffic from that but I just don't see that being a major issue especially with
one complex as that whole area gets developed as that whole area gets developed you're going
to see some anyway okay so just that no no sorry hang on the mixed use well I mentioned
that I am concerned that we're going to do more apartments in our commercial so that's
something that I mentioned in the work session that I hope staff can look at and as a commission
we can look at that we just don't open the door strictly to apartments here that we get
some useful commercial development in there so you people aren't having to go to Razor
Ranch or go into town or anything like that you can do it within walking distance again
whether it's NRMU or NRMU 12 they can build apartments here by right right now and I know
12 doesn't seem like a lot but if you do that all the way along there you're still going
to have the same problems and concerns you're going to have so whether it takes away from
the type of people who move in there or not no one knows that for sure but if we right
now if we did nothing you could still have apartments all the way up down there but again
one of my concerns I'm sure the concern some of the other commissioners is we want to develop
that where there is a true mixed use in there and I think that's all the points I want to
make so this bender I think you had a concern about something if you'd like to come down
would that be okay for her to do that yes you have a question for you do you have a
question about the traffic issue along Windsor Drive that I mentioned that what you consider
to be not that big of a concern is actually a significant concern because Windsor is using
it as a I use it all the time to get fraud to raise a ranch to get to Sherman and more
people because we're all looking for backwards right it's hard to get anywhere in town now
right so we're all looking for alternative routes and so the higher density the population
grows in that area and I know it's going to happen right the more people will be using
Windsor for that purpose which makes it a pretty many thoroughfares all the way from
out 35 to 288 almost right and that's what to a major community park right so it has
a pedestrian and bike component it does and that helps sometimes I think that the traffic
a little bit I just I just wanted I know y'all I just wanted to counter that I I do believe
it is far more of a significance concern than you're suggesting because yes while the entrance
and exit into this proposed apartment housing right would be on elm people will be using
Windsor to get where they need to go and it's already it's already dangerous right it's
already I don't I don't walk my kids across the street to go to the park but again you're
going to have that if it says NRU 12 - yes I understand that there will be increased
traffic but there is there is a way that we can try and prevent it right try and limit
it in some way that would be ideal okay thank you very much Mr. Pernitta so I'm probably
going to leave myself open to some harassment in the future I live in North Lakes so I kind
of feel your sympathy you know I feel so because you know I go down Windsor I jog at night
I like to jog at night because you know just to get away from the heat and one of the biggest
things that breaks my heart is that nice big open field that's on the corner of Hinkle
and Windsor is going to be gone I liked walking by running by high grass I don't know why
so you know when we talk about Windsor you know I didn't know I was walking by your house
my wife and I go up there often yeah exactly so you know one of the things you know I would
encourage everybody to do because one of the one of the things that we hear a lot is that
there are concerns about traffic and everything and I and I feel you I you know I a pedestrian
there and I get hit countless almost almost hit countless times you know I would encourage
people to talk to city council about you know possibly widening Windsor and things like that
because in addition to the thing that we're putting on Hinkle and Windsor which breaks
my heart tonight we put you know 236 units on Bonnie Bray just north of where the school
is going to go and those people are going to go on those same streets and everything
I don't know how I feel about you know about what's been proposed tonight yet and I'll
also deliberate and I'll see what they come back with because as somebody who wants affordable
housing I look at this and I also kind of cringe because then I find myself going you
know feeling that not in my backyard thing but you know I guess the point I wanted to
say is that you know you know kind of what Larry was saying you know I do understand
the traffic in Windsor I do understand everything around it you know no matter what happens I
always encourage people to talk to city council especially when it comes to things that affect
the roads because my daughter walks to Calhoun you know every day I walk my son to Newton
razor and I've seen the development that goes there and that is a concern to me so in addition
to this I would encourage people I would encourage everyone in the neighborhood to make sure
that whatever we do in terms of you know we do traffic studies but the traffic studies
don't always reflect the real impact of what you know people who walk in and live and play
in a vibrant neighborhood do so just wanted to toss it out there thanks Commissioner for
now before we move on to the next item the only I would say is I don't speak on behalf
of the commissioners but when we come into a meeting like this what we have is it's typically
data it sounds like Commissioner for now might have more first-hand knowledge I don't I don't
have first-hand knowledge of the area so we have data and staff analysis and citizens
coming out and vocalizing and providing feedback of what's happening on the ground is infinitely
important for us to have a healthy perspective of the context of the situation and so thank
you for coming out here it's certainly been enlightening to me to understand kind of the
scope what's going on I would encourage you and invite your neighbors to come out to the
next meeting in terms of the next meeting a couple notes if you did fill out a card this
evening the city will come they will follow up with you and remind you and let you know
the next meeting so you're not falling through the cracks and invites you back and so these
will be filed away and your phone numbers will be used to contact you and then secondly
not knowing how the applicants going to come back it could include an SUP which is a different
type of approval it will be in a separate agenda item which would provide separate ability
to speak but your opposition to one item does not correlate to another so if you have opinions
on either item they need to be expressed independently we can't apply one to the other so if that's
helpful going forward to know that they're they're potentially could be two items coming
back before you in February so if anyone else has any other thing certainly provide the
day is an opportunity if not we will move on to the next item what I'll do is is maybe
provide a five minute recess to clear the room unless you're staying for our tree talk
then we'll pick that up in about five minutes thank you and welcome back to our final item
which is item H it is DCA 18-008 a discussion about proposed revisions to the Denton Development
Code subchapters seven thirteen and seventeen the floor Richard Richard can only Development
Services Department what I wanted to do is I guess I'll call this our soft opening for
a public hearing on on the on the tree code I know we've we've talked about this a number
of times in in a work session but wanted to at least start the process to be able to talk
about it publicly as well as get those individuals in the audience or from the public public
would like to comment we are planning on coming back in in two weeks again for another public
hearing just to kind of continue that continue that discussion what we will make sure that
we do is try to get the word out a little bit more to the various groups that are interested
but again this is this is just kind of the first of many before before we ultimately
adopt this the draft that that is part of the packet has not been fully vetted by legal
so there's we're still kind of in that concept stage so I suspect when we come back it might
be a little bit you know some of the language might be a little bit tighter and and how
we interpret some of the some of the items from from this last house bill will probably
be somewhat different as well so with that I'll just kind of jump in jump into the presentation
feel free to stop me anytime when we when we first looked at this we really wanted to
you know we started working on a variety of number of drafts that were out there and quite
honestly I was getting confused at some point as far as which draft was the last one that
was presented to the various different groups and so we kind of just stepped back and looked
at it and okay let's let's really look at this holistically and what we're trying to
accomplish and let let's really kind of set up how we should how we should look at this
moving forward and and the base really being that that State of the Denton State of State
of the Denton Urban Force that was done in 2016 and let's kind of use that as as as kind
of the base map if you will in in in moving forward from there really setting goals of
what we what we want this ordinance to be or what we want want it to accomplish and
what we've seen I think in the in the past have been these little fixes throughout where
we really haven't fixed the whole ordinance together and so so that attempt is is really
let's set some goals and then really look at how can we achieve those both from a regulatory
or private private perspective but also programmatically through through how we spend our public funds
whether that be through capital improvement projects through tree fund dollars and and
the like but but most importantly how how how are we performing how how are these ordinances
or these codes that we write on what what results are they actually producing and making
sure that we have sort of a report card or metrics and we can we can evaluate this annually
and so that so the way we kind of set this up kind of try to color code it yellow and
blue me makes green is is go through the background sort of past and present talk get into the
kind of that the main breast of the conversation the regulatory or the private side get into
a little bit of the tree fund and then and then kind of hit on on some of the programmatic
changes that that recently have occurred particularly in our parks department with the creation
of the of a forestry division and so a little bit of background kind of touch on this briefly
the tree code was born out of like a lot of things public outcry over redevelopment of
of flow hospital and so the first tree preservation landscape requirements as we have it today
were adopted in two thousand four a year later there was a committee established to recommend
tightening that ordinance so from a year after it's been adopted there were always concerns
with the ordinance wasn't wasn't performing to how how it should be and as you can see
the the variety of of attempts and and and reports that went back and forth and and and
various committees there was never consensus in how to how to actually move forward in
in addressing it in two thousand and fifty in fourteen council directed staff again to
proceed with an update to accomplish there were three objectives that were were outlined
one one being that I've had provided more robust code that will expand and protect tree
canopy including planning of trees on private property with expenditures from the tree fund
and so in two thousand and fifteen there there was one change to the to the to the tree tree
ordinance that allowed tree mitigation funds for the planning of of trees on private property
as ordinance two thousand fifteen two five two I'm not aware that we've actually done
that but that that that language was changed in the in the code back in twenty fifteen
year later that's when we had the the Denton urban forest state of urban force was completed
and then as you know over the last over the last two years at least there's been a variety
a variety of drafts back and forth there's also a work session that talked about purchasing
properties for preservation there were five properties at that that time they had considered
none of which were purchased at that time and it was sort of how how do we you know
establish metrics or or kind of a decision tree for that and then kind of in the midst
of all of this there was a legislative session House Bill seven forty four failed they brought
it back at a special session House Bill seven which was signed into law creating two one
two zero nine five local government code specifically dealing with tree preservation kind of where
we were over where we are over the last year we we went to city council for a work session
in in April to talk sort of some policy get some policy direction we then followed that
up with with committee on the environment in in May and as you can see we've and as
you know we've we've kind of gone back and forth a number of times with various drafts
and and kind of building up to kind of the concepts or discussion draft that that we
have in front of you today and again looking really at at the base of this is is that policy
discussion that we had in April in May but then really looking at at making sure we comply
with local government code increased preservation and mitigation kind of the charge back from
two thousand and five and then and then making sure that we really unified unify our our
landscape and and ESA standards among among others House Bill seven I'll just touch on
on briefly there are some some limitations that we can and can't do with respect to requiring
mitigation for for homeowners if if it's under ten inches DBH it's four and a half feet above
we're limited in required in in in requiring any mitigation for that same with any dead
or disease tree or tree that poses an eminent or immediate threat to a person or property
I don't know what that means to be quite honest yet that was in a local government code there
was a a bill that was brought forward maybe two or three years ago it was the I before
I was in Texas but we I always heard it as the fire tree bill and that was one where
there was a fire I don't know if it was I forget which city it was in and there was
a discussion that if they were able to take down the trees they wouldn't have had the
fire and cause the damage well there's no tree preservation ordinance in that city but
but the bill had to do with if you felt that a tree was going to pose an eminent threat
you're able to remove it without any any sort of repercussions it ultimately didn't pass
but I have a feeling that's where this language kind of carried forward but that's just something
we need to ultimately flush out with with the city attorney's office mitigation fee
credit and even if a municipality imposes a mitigation fee you have to allow a credit
for the tree for a tree planting to offset that amount we do that now but we just want
to make sure that we carry that forward one thing that that's that's I thought was interesting
they they specify in that bill the size of the tree that that has to be planted so it's
only a two two inch tree at DBH which is a little interesting because when you trees that
size you typically don't measure it DBH are typically done in a caliper basis so that's
just something we have to we have to contend through as as we work through this as we work
through the language there's also there's also a section that talks about credit for
residential and and non-residential there's a 50 percent credit for residential 40 percent
credit for for non-residential as I stated previously there's a number of different ways
I think even even us internally I think we read it read it all we have three different
ways to interpret this very few cities have haven't have amended their codes to really
address it we sort of modeled but but Irving did but but really took more of a liberal
approach and just applied the 50 percent credit to both residential and and non-residential
for an easier way to just enforce that and then you get into a mixed use development
and then how do you how do you differentiate between there so we thought 50 percent would
just be across the board be be be the easiest and then getting in again getting into some
of the backgrounds and goals you know again unified approach making sure we comply with
with local government code limit clear-cutting require mitigation for all trees removed guide
priorities to preserving larger and quality trees tree stains and habitat promoting that
multi-aged urban forest with native and quality trees and then balance that with with with
reasonable development and one of the early discussions was a canopy goal for the city
part of it had to do with preservation if you recall there was a we had a discussion
whether it should be on on DBH or on canopy sort of the direction we we got was we were
okay with with setting the the the preservation on a D on a can on I'm sorry on a DBH basis
diameter at breast height but still keeping that overall canopy goal or preservation is
just a component of that we still have landscaping that that speaks to that and so the summary
the changes kind of kind of big picture for for this for this for this opening night applicability
types of tree again getting a little bit more into the preservation and landscape the meat
of it some some new options with respect to tree preservation and habitat and then get
into the mitigation applicability we remove the exemptions primarily for city facilities
with the exception of of the city airport for obvious reasons there's not many trees
at the airport to begin with but we did leave that in single-family and duplex lots with
trees under 10 inches at DBH currently we exempt all single-family and duplex one of
the initial policy discussions we have is had was should we just adopt but you know
but was in the local government code and that was sort of the direction we got at that time
and so that's that's why that is the way the way it is today at least in the draft whether
we ultimately change that through through discussion but that's that's where it is today the tree
types and mitigation this is obviously one of the most discussed items primarily as it
retain as it pertains to secondary trees we've we've reduced the category of trees to just
landmark heritage quality and secondary so right now the 30 percent minimum preservation
of DBH is based off of either landmark heritage or quality so secondary trees there is no
minimum preservation of those trees however whatever you remove you are required to mitigate
there's a replacement rate I'll call them the green trees if you will for simple to
keep it simple they're at a replacement rate on a per inch basis so that the the larger
the tree the more the more the replacement rate is so if you're a landmark tree and
the replacement rates at four to one for a heritage it's at three to one and a quality
it's a one to one when you get to secondary the replacement rate is instead of on an inch
by inch basis it's it's so you take out a tree you have to replace it you have to replace
it with a tree from from the approved tree list where it gets a little where it gets
a little convoluted is in our criteria manual we have we have a list of numerous types of
trees we have native trees but then we have preferred and then we have a not preferred
list and so the majority of the secondary trees for preservation are on kind of the
non-preferred planting list already so you can't get credit for planning those you're
not supposed to get credit for planning those based on canopy and so it's just trying to
just clean trying to clean all of that up however a secondary tree Boadark hackberry
or cottonwood could be a heritage tree if it's 18 inches or greater and so we've we
we try to kind of meet in the middle on on some of the stuff initially we were exempting
it it totally tree types again non-protected trees mesquite honey locusts crepe myrtle
diseases are dead trees again the eminent the eminent or immediate threat and then any
tree listed on the department of ag noxious and invasive plant list again one of the major
major points of contention or discussion items have been you know the mesquite and honey
locust and whether or not those should be a non-protected tree or a or a protected secondary
tree and even should secondary should we require preservation of secondary trees again we we
added in because we have the concept of preserve habitat or conservation easement allowing
a mesquite or or honey locusts to remain if those areas were adjacent to a an ESA for
example where where it's you're not going to have much interaction with with individuals
anyways so that was sort of our our attempt to to try to again try to meet meet and meet
in the middle and and this is this is my my my barbara club that that he would have actually
brought because I I just could not I mean I've seen that the thorns on a mesquite but
on on the honey locusts I never really pictured it to be this this large and so you can see
this the branch is not that big but the thorns are quite large so over just about three three
inches so you know these are I don't know if we really want to preserve these with it
within a within a landscape buffer or or or parking lot so again it's just looking at
it in in that that that that perspective landscape and and preservation at this point I'm going
to have Haley come up this is really been her Mr. Beck thank you chair this future public
hearing you're going to have that is there a date certain on that the next week the 12th
okay is this going to be a PNZ yep okay any chance we can do it earlier I mean because
if you're going to get the public here you don't want the last presentation of the we
certainly could okay just something we can put that as the first agenda item okay to
get a lot of public input I would thank you not a problem right so the one of the main
goals of the code update is of course improving our minimum standards for landscape entry
canopy so the three major elements that will aid in that are the preservation component
that Richard will speak to a little bit further here in a moment but buffers and landscape
area are also important in looking at that some of the major changes we're looking at
in the landscape code are allowing preserve trees that are within what we're now calling
the development impact area of a site to count towards the tree canopy current code only
allows you to count those trees if they are in excess of the minimum preservation we also
are adding language to encourage and require biodiversity within the trees planted on a
site so that in the event there is some sort of pest or disease that comes through that
not all of the trees on site would be wiped out potentially we are adopting some low impact
development standards that were first introduced by clarion in the draft DDC we thought those
were worth bringing forward ahead of time with the landscape code and then we are also
proposing to eliminate the credits are currently in the code for pervious paving to count as
landscaping on the site as well as eliminating the credits for ESA that were introduced with
the latest version of subchapter 17 specifically the the ESA code that was recently adopted
allows for one square foot of canopy credit for every square foot of ESA canopy as well
as two square feet of landscaping credit for every square foot of tree ESA and one square
foot for every square foot of non-wooded ESA that's preserved on the site as you'll see
a little bit later with the development impact area concept we're proposing to take ESAs
out of the mix altogether their preservation will still be required but it won't count
for or against the development when they look to what their required landscaping is on site.
So speaking of buffers what we have in our code currently that you've probably heard
reference to even this evening is the type A B C and D that are very prescriptive what
we're proposing is with the table that you see here depending on what your use is it
would prescribe a number of points that you have to meet within the required buffer area
and then to meet those points there is a proposed list of options that include fencing various
sizes of trees and shrubs so you can kind of pick and choose what fits best for your
site so just an example that we've looked at before whereas the type D buffer now is
a very specific number of trees and shrubs under this system there'd be multiple ways
of meeting that that could be as simple as a masonry wall or any combination of landscaping
that would work with your site design.
Similarly we're proposing a point system for all other aspects of site landscaping so
we'd require moving forward that a landscape plan be provided that demonstrates a minimum
of 30 points are provided on the site as well as that the site meets the minimum landscaping
canopy percentages.
So within these options we would require that two of the elements be in the form of right
away screening so that we have adequate screening for parking lots along the street and that
two of the elements be from within the internal parking lot landscaping categories to ensure
that we have adequate canopy and shade within our parking lots and then the remaining points
could be from any of the options.
So just looking at some of those options you can see for right away screening we have five
different things listed there a variety of things that could fit in different widths
of areas in front of the parking lot and then within the parking lot there are options that
include internal islands end caps at the end of your parking rows as well as an option
for a landscape median between rows of spaces.
And then other elements on the site this is where we get a little creative and introduce
some of those low impact design standards such as bioswales bioretention facilities
things like that that we haven't explicitly had in the code prior to this.
In addition we're also introducing the option for a living walls or even rooftop vegetation
is more frequently these days we're seeing requests for that but it doesn't necessarily
fit within landscaping in our current code.
And then because we've recently found out that Denton is a monarch city we've also added
an option for a butterfly or pollinator gardens that hopefully people can find a way to incorporate
on their site.
And with that I will pass it back to Richard to talk through the development impact areas.
If you recall when we first started talking about the various concepts and eliminating
the credits for the ESA we came up with the idea of this development impact area and then
looked at through our discussions at the Committee on the Environment it's really looking at
ways to preserve how can we continue to preserve habitat and it was interesting because around
the same time we've had a couple projects that have come in where we also have this
concept of artificial lot line that someone can use and it really gets a little convoluted
and it works in some instances but there's not a lot of guidance so what we wanted to
do is just try to provide a little bit more predictability and also give staff some guidance
in what and how it should work.
Where right now we had an area that was an industrial property that had an ESA with scrub
grass that they were able to count towards meeting their landscape requirements.
And so I understand the intent but it really wasn't I don't think getting the results
that we really intended.
And so with this instance what we did is we if you had an ESA on your site it really was
to exclude it from that development impact area and there's a couple of cities a number
of cities in the Metroplex that have kind of a similar concept but what we looked at
is but also trying to incentivize it so if you do have a preserved habitat you're able
to reduce your minimum preservation down to 20%.
And then we set some minimums 10% of the total site or 5,000 square foot and then mitigate
for that for 80% with some additional credits as a result of that preserved habitat.
And then we looked at it as you know should other folks be allowed to take advantage of
that if they don't have an ESA and then how do we differentiate it.
And so we really came up with sort of this conservation easement or conservation area
and we've had this conservation easement in the code for some time and it's really never
been never really been used.
So we also put that kind of follow the same model as a preserved habitat but also looked
at this as a possibility and I'll get to it later in the slide of you know if we do want
to look to purchase property or partner with someone with the Tree Fund maybe this is a
method that we can do that to preserve some of these some of these natural areas.
And so again this development impact area is also relates to the preservation but then
your landscape requirements are also based on it so your landscape requirements would
not be based on that ESA or if you had a preserved habitat or conservation easement either.
And so what I've done is I've just kind of put together you may remember some of these
some of these examples.
So I kind of gave a single family example a multi-family and a non-residential and so
this was a project recently approved on the south end of Bonnie Bray and I know the numbers
kind of look a little I know when I first presented to council there were some concern
because it's such a reduction in the amount of preserved DBH but I think it was almost
ninety percent if not more of the trees that were on this site were hackberry and mesquite
and so what this really does is there was a lot less preservation obviously because
they were secondary trees under the new and so but the mitigation obviously was much higher
and so when you kind of pencil it all out at the end of the day there's a five percent
increase of total DBH but you get a much what I guess we would call a much more quality
tree as opposed to preserving hackberries and mesquites and honey locusts on the site.
And so what we actually did is mapped or attempted to map where those trees were that were preserved
based on the tree preservation plan and so what they did is most of them are really stacked
up here in the corner anyways but this is a good opportunity also to look at ways to
preserve this there is a small little pond on here and that could easily been that conservation
area so there is some there is some flexibility with respect to that but I wanted to also
point out where we apply that fifty percent credit and so we calculate the DBH removed
and you have the calculated DBH which includes those that has those multipliers and then
from that point we took that fifty percent credit and then there's additional credit
depending on the type of tree again there were I think there were a handful of post
oaks out there so since those were preserved you would get you would get you know a greater
credit again pushing pushing towards more quality quality trees and so that's sort
of the single family example and again some of these are kind of the extremes but wanted
to look at it in those perspectives.
This is a multi-family site at 404 industrial the change in preservation is a one percent
reduction however there were substantial hack berries on the site that would require mitigation
and so that 365 inches is really because it's two inches per tree so that's where we came
up with that number and so you look at the total DBH is 141 percent this site poses some
other challenges this is one where they were able to use quite a bit of their driveway
and paved area as credit for open space because it was before some of the code changed now
and so whether or not this this could actually develop as it does today may may not be able
to or just in a different in a different form or form or fashion.
This is the one that that I think everybody knows the site that again I think was a lot
of the similar to when this was first created there was a lot of people were upset about
that the post books that were removed on this property for a restaurant and so just looking
at kind of the comparison so based on the proposed it would have been 80 percent more
DBH required slightly higher mitigation but overall 49 almost a 50 percent increase in
in total DBH and again that's that's after applying that again that 50 percent credit
but then also giving those credits back for for preserving those those post oaks.
Looking at mitigation fee this has been another one that that we've tried to attempt to to
address the current fee is at a hundred and twenty five dollars per DBH and I don't believe
this has been updated since it was first put in place and I haven't seen it change in quite
a while and so what we did is we looked at what we were proposing was a method based
on a manual that sets values for for maintaining a tree again a reasonable cost for maintenance
and irrigation for a period of three years what we did is we looked we talked with parks
and said well what's the actual cost for the same thing and they're at about three hundred
and seventeen dollars an inch and so we haven't we as we discussed it at the council work
session we didn't there was there hasn't been clear direction it was like you know
let's sort of talk how we should whether it should be what what was proposed or whether
or not we should just charge the fee for what what it costs some other considerations that
we had is where there are certain street characteristics or construction requirements make it infeasible
to meet planning requirements whether or not at that point in time rather than seek a variance
or some other method should they be allowed to pay into the tree fund for that right now
there there's we have some flexibility already I think with where we're headed with the point
system right now you can propose an alternative buffer but there's really no guidance with
respect to how how staff enforces that what we what we what I've been typically doing
is when we get those requests is making sure that if you can't plant the tree because there's
an easement or overhead utility line trying to plant those trees at least somewhere somewhere
else on the site but currently there's no there's no guidance or any set way to do that
so at least with this we wanted to again have that predictability or at least have that
menu of items that everybody knows is out there with respect to the point system but
in those extreme cases particularly when we get an infill is there another possible relief
valve to allow for that and then any any enforcement actions restoration fees that are a result
of enforcement actions should those fees from that enforcement action go into the tree fund
or should they just go into into a general fund and we haven't gotten any guidance yet
on that but that was something that that we thought might be might be something to consider
with respect to the to the tree fund we don't have a lot of it but we we may in the future
again managing the urban forest on the on the public side our current tree tree fund
regulations the bullet points it's what kind of what's in the code today we really weren't
recommending any changes at this point purchase plant maintain trees preserve wooded property
remaining in a naturalistic state and perpetuity perform and maintain citywide tree inventory
education and then support programs for public purpose of increasing tree canopy within the
city as approved by by the council and so what we really looked at as kind of the the
the center of all of this is is a forestry plan that I had mentioned previously and so
that is that that is something that that has been budgeted there there will be a project
kickoff in in december this this is actually going to be managed through the through the
parks department which is i think is probably a lot more appropriate and what they have
since done is is created a forestry division to really carry out a carry out a lot of these
these programs and so part of the what they've established as far as far as the outcomes
of that study again is staff training and and development opportunities look at prefer
tree and plant species identification identification and priority prioritization of planning areas
particularly as we get into planning for parks within parks within trail areas within our
within our rights away again best management practices strategies for preservation expansion
benchmarks again keeping that inventory and optimizing data branding outreach again going
also kind of promoting that educational component letting people know why it's good to have
trees and what those what the benefits are and really looking at again monitoring and
measuring our success and so part of part of that whole discussion too has been when
is it appropriate and how how should we consider land acquisition and so these were some items
that were presented at that council work session and when is it appropriate for for the city
to look at at that should it be part of a of a of a plan development that's something
that we're looking at bringing back as part of the ddc update we've had had some projects
that come forward as part of a pre annexation development agreement that was the creek side
development since that time we've had other larger tracks of land now interested in in
annexing in the city wanting to pursue something similar and so is that you know is that a
time that we should we should look at it just through the development review process or
or as a partnership you know should we be the the outright owner of the land or should
should we look at being a partnership through an easement where it where it's where it's
controlled through through some other entity or the city itself and then really where and
what is it what what are we going to prove you know what are we going to purchase or
what are we going to maintain is are they tree stands is it vacant land to plant trees
should it be those iso or conservation areas or is it market rate land that we want to
just kind of take take off kind of take off the rules and and and purchase and then what's
the cost should it be should be a fixed amount or percentage of the tree fund annually how
do we look at what what those those lost revenues are and then or or should we if we decide
to purchase vacant land to plant should we look at a mitigation bank where we can sell
credits similar to you know they're like a wetland mitigation area where we can look
at continuing funding that so I think there's a that that might come in the future but but
I at least wanted to to look at all options of how how how we should how we should approach
this since this item seems to be one of the items that continues to be discussed and provide
some guidance we tried to look at at a number of of cities that that do land acquisition
for tree preservation and just see if they have sort of a a matrix you know almost like
a decision tree or policy guidance and and none of them really have it so this was kind
of our best attempt to kind of kind of weave something together for for consideration and
then again getting back to the to the metrics and evaluation making sure that that whatever
ordinance ultimately gets adopted or passed we know that it's effective we can communicate
what we're doing we can have the transparency of what what we're preserving people don't
really have to ask that the information should be there making sure we're meeting those those
established goals and and what I'd like to ultimately get to a point is is publishing
those results as part of an annual annual report but also in talking with with Gary
and Parks is also using that as kind of a tool when they do their their forestry has
their own capital improvements project plan where they look at the number of plannings
that they're going to do each year for certain parks for trails and and rights of way mediums
and really looking at at how how we can use these tools effectively and what I put in
here this was I came across the city of Portland has has a pretty robust program but I thought
it was interesting you know they they tagged the number of inspections permits issue trees
permitted street trees parks and schools private emergency response but but you know right
away what what they what they did on an annual basis and and and where where the where the
need is and and so it kind of paints a kind of paints a picture I I don't know if we'll
get up to 15,000 inspections annually for trees maybe as we continue to grow but but
but it's at least somewhere I think to to to point and and and set the goal and so this
was just sort of an anticipated schedule.
Coming back again December December 12th what we'll do is we'll put that we'll put this
item on for the first public hearing coming back again on on on 123 we make me wait at
at that point in time we we may want to come back and have another public hearing what
I just try to do is just kind of forecast as far as when we want to when we want to
get this ultimately adopted we we talked about whether or not we should just fold it in with
with the DDC overall but I think it's been such obviously discussed item since a year
after it's been adopted in 2004 that we will we're going to take this sort of on a separate
track for adoption and so it kind of doesn't get doesn't get lost in in the weeds but that's
that's kind of the the the anticipated schedule I'll be happy to answer any questions clarifications
I know it's exciting stuff when I tell my wife she gets really really excited.
It's a lot to take in.
Richard I had a question and it wasn't your presentation was in her backup tree fund history
of revenue and expenses and yes balances it's really confusing to me not not the numbers
per se but the math do you have that it wasn't one of your talking points so this isn't the
venue I'm happy to table it yeah that that was something that that parks had had prepared
since they they really have managed that fund okay what I can do is if you want to ask the
questions maybe I can respond if not I will get I will get the answers sure the last column
budget 2018 to 19 expenses are set at seven hundred fifty thousand revenues are I assume
positive although parentheses typically mean negative two hundred seventy six two ninety
five it would seem to be that the annual net balance then based on that math would be a
negative four hundred seventy three thousand not a positive so I'm not sure about that
do you have in front of you the tiny version you have the tiny version so I may and again
that that it might just be reporting inconsequential although being down half a million dollars
is of consequence or why expenses jumped three times year over year from 17 18 18 19 and
then the current balance of the fund says two point two million how long has this fund
been around if we're annual net balances a hundred thousand dollars that we have two
point two million in the in the bank for this fund again it might just be that these numbers
is to be cleaned up from a right reporting purposes but this slide I think would solicit
a lot more questions than the department necessarily wants to have solicited I'll get the I'll
get I'll get get the answer I know that that in the last at least this last year there
was a substantial expenditures for for capital projects out of out of parks capital projects
there was a there was an agenda item a month or two ago that hasn't I don't I don't I'm
not aware that it ultimately got approved there Council did have some questions about
the expenditures for the for the amount of the amount of trees I'm not aware that that
item came back but what I'll do is I'll get that I'll get that answer included for the
backup for this might be helpful to have if we're gonna put in the history of the fund
maybe reported with more clarity that's all I had I don't see any other questions Larry
are you awake down there okay thank you Commissioner so is this a public hearing right it yeah it
we advertise it as a public hearing I didn't know what other way to really get input from
from the public we can we can just leave it open I guess and and continue it for the for
the 12th oh they make a motion for that uh Christian Smith make a motion to table the
discussion till date certain which was uh j uh December 12th to 2018 Christian Pernetta
I'll second that motion so first and second to table this item until December 12th seeing
no discussion I call for a vote on the board
other but you're mic'd up Commissioner that's probably right motion carries 7-0 that moves
us to our last item I'll let Richard meander back up here for the matrix Richard I'll let
you start with any updates to the matrix then if any commissioners want to add anything
to the matrix yeah just wanted to note a couple items obviously 12 12 coming back tree code
update also I have the historic preservation incentive program I know we had we had talked
about that previously the Lakota group will be in town that that Monday and Tuesday I
was trying to get them to stay an extra day but unfortunately was not able to but Roman
will be here to kind of give an update one on the overall historic preservation plan
where where that isn't sort of initial kickoff but also talk about how those incentive programs
will be incorporated into that into that plan will be bringing back probably one nine I'll
add back to this the the update on the downtown design standards and if you recall we we also
talked about that training that first meeting in January on Robert's Rules of Order and
sort of what what can be talked about at at a work session and I think that was it one
other item sorry I have I failed to do it yet but but I have Charlie helping work on
on a system where as we get community meetings scheduled we'll be able to send out sort
of that that blast notification to let everyone everyone know when those are when those are
scheduled so that that that is in the works does anyone have anything to add to the matrix
Mr. Ellis thank you just real quick as maybe just some cleanup with staff is can you make
sure that the the affidavit and the signs are in our backup I mean I drove out to a
property today to ensure that the sign was up because it wasn't in our material certainly
so I mean I know that's supposed to be part of it so if they post it as scheduled there
should be plenty of time to get it in our backup so we have it we'll do okay thank you
anyone else have any items I'd like to Christian Sanchez I know wall back we had on this list
we had talked that we're gonna have some training or talk about roundabouts whatever happened
to that is that we decide not to do it or we're talking about you don't remember yeah
and I thought perhaps pre temp covered it I can have I can have him provide some additional
background on on the on the roundabouts might get trade to cover that meeting for us so
I don't see anyone else the only things that I would don't I have two points rather than
than maybe three points I think that first I don't know if it's a guessing game or if
there's thought to it but I appreciate the stacking of the agenda tonight I thought it
went really well to have the quick ones up front to get them out so just wanted whoever
stacks these agendas I noted that it went well tonight so I appreciate that apart from
I know coaster Beck once trees up front next time yeah I totally agree there wasn't too
many people here the only other thing that I would I would like to just say to the commission
before even have our rules it's it's difficult for me as a chair to step into the engagement
from the audience members to the commission and so if we can refrain from pulling the
audience or entertaining individuals that aren't announced it just it alleviates that
selfishness for me but it just tonight there's a couple banters that I didn't know how to
interject properly and so if it's possible to refrain from engaging the audience members
that would be super helpful to first one that would come up I would say ask him that question
then anybody else coming up if they'd answer that question too sorry about that no no worries
the last thing is and I told city staff this and let vice chair Ellis know I will not be
at the next meeting the 12th so vice chair Ellis will be taking lead on that thank you
for that and then if it works out great for Roman is still provide that update I know
I asked request if I requested it I'm certainly able to catch the video so I just want it
is what it is okay seeing no other discussion items will close the meeting at 10.05