>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission
meeting for Wednesday, March 15, 2023.
This is our work session and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 5 o'clock
p.m.
Let the record show that Commissioner Villarreal is absent at this time.
First item on our work session is citizen comment on consent agenda.
I do not see anyone here to speak on the consent agenda, so we'll move on to a clarification
of our agenda for this evening.
Any issue, our first item is minutes.
Anything with the minutes for March 1st?
Okay.
How about the consent agenda?
Questions?
Need any info on that?
Okay.
Moving on then to items for individual consideration 4A.
Any questions?
Welcome, Jordan.
Yeah, come on up.
Yeah, just quick overview and then we can see if anyone's got any questions.
Erin, right?
Okay, this is Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
This is an extension request for, no this is not on it.
This is an extension request for a final plot for phases 7 and 8 of North Point addition.
It's generally located south of loop 288 and north of Beale Street.
It is an approximately 18.1 acre site to develop 63 residential properties lots and at this
time staff is recommending denial as it does not meet all of our criteria for approval,
but we have no objection to the requested extension to April 23rd, 2023.
April 12th, yeah?
Oh, yes, 12th.
Okay.
Very good.
Thanks, Erin.
Any questions for Erin?
Okay.
Thank you much.
For B, ZCP 220064 is here.
I'll let you come up and give us a little summary on that if you don't mind.
Good evening, members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner.
Just for a quick summary, this is a zoning compliance plan for the razor ranch or phase
one of the razor ranch town center.
If you recall, the site plan came to you about this time last year, so this is a revised
site plan for this area.
The site itself is just under 30 acres located at the southwest corner of West University
Drive and I-35, and staff is recommending approval as the request does meet all the
established criteria.
In my longer presentation, I was planning on going through some of the differences that
you might notice between the approved plan and the revised plan.
It's still all meeting code, which is why staff is recommending approval, but just so
you are aware of some of those differences.
That'd be great.
Okay.
Commissioner Anderson.
Commissioner Anderson, can you turn your mic on?
So we ... Yeah.
Well, that's it.
Thank you.
Isn't that the southeast corner?
Yeah.
I'm directionally challenged sometimes.
That is the southeast corner.
My apologies.
I'll make sure that's corrected.
I'll make sure that's on the other side of the highway.
Okay.
Yes, sir.
Well done.
Okay.
Thank you, Commissioner Anderson.
Any other questions for Mia?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Yes, ma'am.
Next item on our agenda is force C. I'll let Julie come up and the summary of that item.
Hi, Julie.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt, Planner with the City of Denton.
And this is PP22-0021B.
This one probably looks very familiar to you.
It is that force crossing phase two multifamily project.
The specific use permit was approved, so now they're coming back with that preliminary
plat that was denied last fall.
They still have a few more things they need to work through, in particular, some tree
preservation items, and so we are still recommending denial of the request.
And they've already received their one-time extension.
You are correct.
They have exhausted that extension.
Okay.
Questions?
Good.
Thank you, Julie.
Item four D has been withdrawn, so we will not be taking any action on that item tonight.
And four E, Julie, we'll let you just stay out there.
Yes.
So this is actually in the same area.
This is at that intersection of loop 288 and McKinney on that northeast corner.
They are coming forward with a preliminary plat for a car wash.
They still have some items that they need to work through in order for it to meet all
of the requirements of the Debt and Development Code, so we are recommending denial of the
request.
However, we have no objection to that requested extension to April 12th, and I'll be happy
to answer any questions.
Great.
Questions?
Good.
Thank you.
That's -- let's see.
That was four E. So four -- four F is E and G. Hello.
Hello.
Sorry.
I had to put my page.
Hey.
Good evening, everyone.
Angie Manglars, Senior Planner, Development Services.
This is a preliminary plat for Estella Hills.
It's a residential subdivision located on the south side of McKinney Street at the intersection
of Laney Circle and McKinney Street.
At this time, the preliminary plat does not meet our criteria for approval, so we are
recommending denial.
We have no objection to the recommended extension to a date of April 12th.
Any questions for Angie?
Thank you much.
Okay, that will move us to our public hearing discussion.
5A, staff is requesting that item be postponed, so I will be opening the public hearing and
leaving it open, and then I'll be asking for a motion for extension -- or a postponement,
I'm sorry -- April 12th on that one.
Okay.
Then let's go on to 5B, and Angie, show with that one.
Yes.
Good evening.
This is a plan development request, PD210007 for Sherman Drive Mixed Use.
I'll give you an overview summary of this request.
It is a request to a plan development on approximately 20 acres at the northeast corner of Loop 288
and FM 428.
The purpose of the plan development request is to establish the zoning that would allow
for a multifamily development.
It is generally consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan and meets our criteria for approval,
so we are recommending approval of this request this evening.
Really quick, just a little bit of background on this.
The site is zoned SC today, and a multifamily development could be allowed with the approval
of an SUP.
However, this development has approximately 52 horizontal multifamily units that are being
requested.
At the time this request came in, in November of 2021, the DDC did not have a definition
that captured the horizontal multifamily component, therefore they applied for a plan development
request.
Eventually we did codify those amendments in the fall of 2022.
However, this application had gone through several iterations.
We had adopted some different design criteria standards for the HML portion that would be
different than straight zoning, decided it was appropriate to continue in the manner
that they started.
So that's why you see a plan development request here tonight rather than an SUP.
Can answer any questions you all may have.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Angie, that little corner piece there at 2-8 and 4-28, is that owned by the same property
owner that's owning for the applied zoning change?
That's obviously going to stay SC, is that part of it?
Sure.
You're referencing this little part right here.
It's a very hard corner.
Yes.
That's approximately 4.5 acres.
It is not part of the plan development request, it is under the same ownership.
So it will remain SC, could develop under any use that's permitted in SC.
Yeah, just knowing from some of the feedback we've gotten from citizen comment that a need
for commercial space and all, there's a section there for commercial space is still owned
by the same owner and probably have the same intent that the applicant could speak to.
Can we, I know we'll get into it in public session, but just because we've had so much
feedback on this, can you go briefly talk about mobility and traffic within the presentation?
Can you just kind of cover that quickly and see if we have any questions there?
I can cover it quickly and maybe get some help from Haley here.
But there are two major road systems in the area, as you all are familiar.
We have FM 428, which is a north-south road that's owned and maintained by TechStot.
It's currently constructed as a two-lane road.
It does have a sidewalk on the western side of the road.
You'll notice here that our mobility plan classifies this as a freeway.
After the adoption of the mobility plan, TechStot did come back and let us know that this is
likely to remain a primary arterial.
So the map hasn't quite been reflected to show that, but that's what all indications
from TechStot are showing at this time.
Loop 288 is an east-west roadway.
It is also owned and maintained by TechStot.
It is currently constructed as a limited-access freeway.
It's designated as a freeway and the mobility plan is constructed with four lanes.
There is limited on- and off-ramps.
You all are kind of familiar with how Loop 288 functions.
TechStot does have plans to improve it.
The applicant has provided an area of right-of-way dedication for the eventual expansion of 288.
And then as part of this PD request along this eastern property line here, we've asked
the applicant to reserve the half-width of a residential street.
So it's a reservation rather than a dedication of right-of-way of 27 and a half feet.
It runs north-south.
It's not saying that a road will be there, but as the area develops and things change,
should that need ever arise, at that time we could come in and require dedication and
construction to kind of support the growing region and provide additional north-south
connectivity through the area.
And because that's going to be horizontal multifamily and therefore rental property
for the most part, that property management company will be the one going through.
There's no problem with the reservation piece because that land will still be owned by somebody
else and that dedication will be done there, unlike if this was single-family residential
that's being developed, something like that, a reservation process would normally happen
because I guess then it would be an age away having to do the dedication, is that correct?
I'm not entirely sure how it would function if it were just straight residential in this
case, but we've shown the dedication or the reservation rather on both the development
plan and spelled it out in the development standards that, you know, should traffic studies
in the future warrant this road, we can come in and require dedication and the construction
of that.
So we've tried to capture it in a few different ways there.
Okay.
Was there a reason why it wasn't?
I saw on the site plan, but is there a reason why not go into a dedication now?
Is it just because it's just not unnecessarily needed?
If it's going to be set aside just for the road in the first place, why not go to a dedication
now?
Sure.
We had that conversation.
The TIA ultimately didn't support requiring a dedication at this time.
With this not being a thoroughfare shown on our mobility plan, it's an ask that we would
like to see.
Dedication would be great because it would save us some steps, but reservation is where
we ultimately landed.
Got it.
Can you also show the site plan and just the accessibility for mobility within there?
Sure.
How the site plan's built out?
So this will give you a pretty good picture of just the site as a whole.
So it's not all horizontal multifamily, but you'll see here in the shaded blue component
that you have 52 horizontal multifamily units.
They're primarily situated along the northern portion of the site.
Here in the orangish color, you have your more traditional mid-rise apartment-style buildings.
There's five of those.
It totals 305 units.
The interior of the site is a detention pond with associated landscaping, and then you've
got some amenity setters.
Along here, you'll see where you have your driveways coming off of both Loop 288 and
FM 428, and then I think you wanted me to speak a little bit more to the transportation
aspect of that, so we'll look at this slide.
The TIA did require some turn lanes and decel lanes to be constructed as part of this project,
so I've shown them here.
One of the requirements is a southbound turn lane at the driveway location one, which is
right here along FM 428.
It also required a northbound right-hand turn lane for both driveways one and two, which
you can see along here.
Driveway two is right here.
It'll sub into the eventual commercial development, but it will be constructed as part of this
overall phase, and then a required westbound right-hand turn lane here along Loop 288,
and then the reservation, again, should the area ever need it, you can see here along
this kind of red outlined area.
It's a 27 and a half feet, which is a residential street when it's fully built out.
I didn't know if you were done.
You're good.
Okay.
Commissioner Anderson.
Thanks, sir.
On the commercial property, the 4.5, 6 acres, I thought they were supposed to have two access
in and out.
I only see one.
The two points of access is a requirement of the DDC.
This is not part of that request, so it's not reflected on the site plan, but let's
say in a couple months this is approved and they do come through with commercial.
That's going to have to be addressed at that time.
Any other questions?
Angie, you mentioned the TIA.
We've had a lot of feedback on that because that was done, I think it was in 2021.
Do you have any concerns with that possibly being needed to be redone?
Not that I received indication from our third party HR green firm that reviewed it, nor
have we really had that concern come up internally, no ma'am.
Okay.
Yeah, I'm having a little bit of struggle with this as I've been studying the material,
especially as it relates to the future land use, which is community mixed use.
This is so not community mixed use, which in my interpretation of it, majority should
be commercial.
The majority of this piece of land is residential.
I'm struggling with how staff decided that that reflected in accordance with the future
land use map.
If you want to speak to any of that.
I can speak to that a little bit.
I'll pull up that slide real quick just so you can see.
Community mixed use, you are correct, is a transitional area meant to transition from
your residential areas into your commercial corridors.
It does call for commercial development, but also views residential components to that
commercial as complimentary and appropriate within the location.
As we look at this site, we see that it's consistent with the development patterns that
we're seeing along loop 288.
If you specifically look here to the south of loop 288, you have a similar development
pattern emerging where you have your residential components coming in with the supporting commercial
on these out parcels.
It didn't show up as well as I had hoped, but this area here was a recently approved
ZCP for a multifamily development where apartments will be going, but these remaining out parcels
that could be accessed off of the loop are MN and SC zoning.
That would be that commercial component that you're looking for.
When we look at this as a transitional area from the northern residential units that you
see, especially there to the north and northeast, as you get closer to the loop, it is consistent
with the development patterns that we're seeing.
We did find that this fits the overall goal of community mixed use with those just different
components that you see there.
Okay.
I think that's it for now as I continue to ponder anything else.
Commissioner Villarreal.
I was going to ask during the meeting itself, but since Chair Ellis brought it up, have
we received any data points suggesting that a TIA done during COVID could unintentionally
undercount the amount of traffic we're expected to see?
Haley indicates that she has an answer for that one.
Okay.
Corina wasn't able to be here with us tonight due to some trouble with her vehicle, but
I did talk to her about the TIA for this earlier, given some of those comments that we received.
She indicated that although the analysis was done during the pandemic, they also made allowances
for additional traffic being added to their numbers to make modifications to account for
that presumed reduction.
At this time, we don't have any cause for concern with those numbers because that's
our understanding is that they did account for some additional trips beyond what they
saw when they did the traffic counts, assuming that there was a certain reduction in vehicle
traffic due to COVID, but if the commission has concerns with that, we can certainly ask
the applicant to speak to that further tonight as they should have some of that background
information.
Commissioner Anderson.
Yeah, thanks.
Yeah, that would be good because since then, that neighborhood on the north side of the
football stadium has almost been developed.
You're going to have how many apartments and horizontal housing there?
Friday night, football traffic already backs up on loop 288 and 428 on the south side.
I mean, I'm looking at this and I see traffic nightmare.
That's what it's going to be.
Yeah, and also just more with the TIA, I think that was done in July, so was anything given
to the fact that school was not in session and kids go there daily when school is in
session to that complex, so did they speak to that at all?
I haven't read the document myself, but it is my understanding that they made allowances
for additional trips for those factors, such as school and COVID.
So I believe that is included, but we can certainly look into that further.
Okay.
We can talk more about that done in detail if we can get some of those answers, and maybe
the applicant has those answers anyway for us, so.
Yeah, sure.
Okay.
Anything else right now?
Okay.
Thank you, Angie, very much.
Thank you.
Okay, that's the end of our agenda for this evening, so we'll move on to a work session
report, and that is Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion Regarding Regulations and Procedures
Related to Public Hearing Notification.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt here for a boot camp on public notification.
I believe this came about, Commissioner Smith asked us a while ago.
I think it was 2020, it might be 2018 or 2019.
But specifically regarding notification in the ETJ, we thought we would just expound
upon that and just have a refresher about public notification regarding the state of
Texas and also what we do here in the city of Denton.
So here we are, we're talking about that tonight.
So what I really want you to come away with is what the Texas law is regarding public
notification, what the requirements are in terms of the ETJ, what does the DDC require,
and then just other notification resources within the city of Denton.
So before we get on that, I just want to talk briefly about why we do public notification.
So y'all don't have to shout out any answers unless you want to, but just kind of wanted
to talk about like why we do that.
So first we want to ensure transparency in our zoning rules.
We want everyone to know what the rules of the road are for the adjacent properties and
when that changes.
We want to inform citizens of potential uses and development scale on a property.
We want to inform citizens of upcoming public hearings.
We want them to know the time, the date, the place.
And then we also want to allow nearby property owners to provide feedback for any changes
to zoning.
Any other thoughts about why we do that?
Anybody want to throw out any ideas?
That's okay.
>> State law would be one of them because you have to.
>> And you also have to, yes, that's very good, absolutely.
It is absolutely a state law requirement.
And it's also a Denton Development Code requirement as well.
And so within the City of Denton, when is that public notification required?
Y'all are really familiar with that, but essentially any changes to our comprehensive plan, zoning,
either text or zoning map change, SUPs, you see those a lot.
Alternative ESA plans, you don't see those as often, but they do come up.
Also annexation and historic and conservation district designations also require public
notification.
So now let's get into the nitty gritty.
This is pretty text heavy.
I apologize for that, but I do want to let you know that I have copied in the State of
Texas statute on here, but I've got some helpful hints within it.
Everything in bold is something that I want you to pay attention to.
And then also the items in blue, those are the translation for these state statutes.
They can be confusing and kind of overwritten sometimes.
And so we've got some helpful hints within there.
Excuse me.
So the first thing I want to talk about is Section 211.007.
This is related to the Zoning Commission.
And this is in Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code.
So what that states is before the 10th day before the hearing date, that's 12 days, written
this, that's a letter of each public hearing before the Zoning Commission of a proposed
change in a zoning classification.
That is a change in the zoning map, shall be sent to each owner as indicated by the
most recently approved municipal tax roll.
And I have municipal underline.
That word is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and that is related to the questions
regarding the ETJ.
And we'll talk about that more in an upcoming slide.
But essentially any property within our city boundary, because they are the ones who pay
those municipal taxes, of real property within 200 feet of the property on which a zoning
on which the change in classification is proposed.
That's our subject site.
And then it goes further, and I won't read all of it to you, but it also states that
it has to be sent by United States mail.
Those of you who've been here long enough, remember that we used to send them by certified
mail.
We've since modified that.
Commissioner Ellis is nodding her head, so she remembers those days.
We used to send all of these notices by certified mail.
We've since just sent them by regular mail.
And this is what's known as a mailed notice.
We call it by other things, but essentially that's the mailing.
That's kind of how we talk about it within City Hall and at our planning and zoning commission
meetings.
And what you want to take note of is, so this mailing notice, this written letter that we
sent to send to property owners, that is only for the planning and zoning commission meeting.
So it's just for that first public hearing and the dual public hearing requirement.
Any questions on any of this?
This should be pretty standard for y'all.
So we'll talk a little bit more about that ETJ.
So remember, the state requirement, it's sent to the municipal tax roll.
And the state of Texas attorney general actually gave further clarification on this to municipalities
because this does come up from time to time.
And that it states that summary of that opinion is that a landowner is eligible to sign a
protest to a proposed zoning change under 211 if the lot or land is within the specified
geographic limits and ownership as indicated on the most recently approved city tax roll.
So that's really where the rubber hits the road and that we don't send out those notices
outside of the city limits because they are not within our municipal tax roll.
Now that doesn't mean that if they send in a protest form that that isn't provided to
the planning and zoning commission or the city or the city council.
But that in terms of the mailing and the protest, you would have to be within the city limits.
Does that make sense?
Any questions?
Commissioner Smith.
This came up because of a project for literally Margie and I and maybe Jason were on the commission
when this was brought up.
There was an apartment complex off of 377 that was right at Cross Street.
I can't remember what it's Cross Street.
Brush Creek, I think.
Was it Brush Creek?
Man, your memory is way better four years ago than mine was.
Okay.
Haley agreed.
So there was ETJ behind the subject property.
Maybe there was strip zoning along 377.
There were some houses, I think, on the north side that were in city council or in the city
limits.
And so we sent out the notifications, a bunch of folks showed up and said, "My neighbors
over here got a notice, but I didn't get a notice.
Why didn't I get a notice?"
And that's something I've been bringing up for a while, like why can't we send letters
to them to let them know the project is happening even though it still has the state law requirement
that it won't count towards the protest procedures within Texas local government code?
So the reason I wanted to have this whole conversation at first point, and it was a
thorn in the side three years ago, and it's still kind of a thorn in the side now of notifying
those that are in the ETJ that are affected by it, even though they're not going to be...
It's kind of a you lose on both ends there.
Either we don't notify them and they feel like they're out of the loop and not being
notified, and we don't notify them because we don't want to create the illusion that
they can write back in and count towards the protest, but at the same time, if we don't
notify them, they feel bad about it.
It's a sticky wicket, I agree.
I don't know if Haley wants to add anything to it.
There are other provisions that the city does that gives that notification, and so maybe
we could table that and come back to it, because the city of Denton actually goes above and
beyond what that state law requires.
So, maybe that'll answer the question.
If not, we could certainly come back to it.
Would that be all right?
Great.
We also have in the Texas local government code section 211.006, and that is the procedures
governing adoption of zoning regulations in district boundaries.
This reads that a regulation, which is a zoning text amendment, so if we were amending the
DDC regulations, or boundary, and that would be a map change, so changing the color on
the map, is not effective until after a public hearing at city council or on the matter at
which parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard.
So before the 15th day before the hearing, and that's 17 days, a notice of the time and
place of the hearing must be published in the official newspaper, or a newspaper of
general circulation.
Within the city of Denton, that is the Denton Record Chronicle.
I've marked through the rest of that provision because that is related to general law municipalities.
The city of Denton is home rule city, so that wouldn't apply.
So this is what is known as that newspaper notice, and this is required for city council.
And so now we'll go to the next slide, which is, so just as to wrap up, what the state
of Texas requires is a mailed notice for the planning and zoning commission, and then a
newspaper notice for city council.
Remember the mailed notice is 12 days before the meeting, and then the newspaper notice
is 17 days prior to the meeting.
The mailed notice is only for a change in a map boundary, so a change in the color of
the map.
The newspaper notice would be required for a change in the Denton Development Code text,
and also a change in the color in the map.
So clear as mud on that one.
Denton goes further.
Denton requires those items, but they also require a newspaper notice for the planning
and zoning commission.
So we go one step further on the newspaper notice.
We also require postcard notice for residents within a 500 foot buffer, so we take that
mailed notice a little further.
We also require signs to be placed on the property every 500 linear feet along a public
roadway, and that is something that the applicants do.
And then we also place a notice on the city's website.
So what we try to do with these items is to capture those residents who wouldn't otherwise
be notified, those residents within the ETJ, or maybe those outside of that 200 foot boundary.
200 feet isn't as big as you think it is, especially if you're in outlying areas.
It doesn't necessarily capture a whole lot of people, so we want to make sure that there
is adequate access for those who would have an interest and that's why we require especially
that those signs be placed on the property.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you, Chair.
Just one question.
I've always wondered, am I correct that the postcard notice number two on the second list
is done by utility address?
That is a great question, yes.
And I'm assuming we have more access to DME utility lists.
How does this work near the edge of our borders where we have some people either maybe in
the city of Denton but served by Encore?
You know, that is a really good question, and I'm not sure I know the answer to that.
It is my understanding that we don't notify outside of our city limits, even with the
500 foot public notify, oh, you're talking about the flip side.
Yeah, I'm talking the flip side of Denton residents that may be served by Encore just
because there's a few weird spaces.
Well, we also have the utilities in terms of water and sewer, and so our city of Denton
boundaries, our CCN for water and sewer, I believe take more than care of our city boundaries.
So I believe those utility notices would come from that pool.
Got it, thank you.
Great question, though.
Questions?
Julie, when you mentioned, you know, on the city's website, exactly where is that?
It can be challenging to find.
Yeah, and that, I think, yeah, I'll let you go ahead and answer that, and then I'll probably
say something else.
There are, you know, I have success in just like going in the search bar and putting in
the project number, but it is challenging.
But we do have a new feature that I'm going to highlight at the end of this, which is
something that our citizens can opt into to get additional notifications.
So it can be somewhat difficult to find, though.
So now let's get to, so we've gone over state law.
It just has those two notifications.
The city of Denton goes above and beyond that, so let's talk further about that.
In subchapter two, we have table 2.2-A.
We looked at this earlier in the presentation, but I just want to dive a little bit deeper
in this.
It's got the items that require public notification.
That's that comp plan amendment, those zoning amendments, specific use permit, and then
alternative ESA plan, and then what public notices are required for each of those.
And really, all of them require the online, the mailed, the published, which is the newspaper
notice, and then the posted sign, except for that DDC text amendment.
And that makes sense because that isn't property specific.
It is specific to the rules of the road for the entire city.
So really, we just have that online and then the published when we're talking about that
notification.
I believe we also send out a notification per city council's request to push notification
from our application system just to let the development community know what those changes
are, so we don't catch them by surprise for any DDC text amendments.
Subchapter two goes further regarding public notification.
We have the public notice requirements in terms of scheduling those public notices,
and just references once again that table that we just went over that within the application
received, it would need to follow those public notification requirements.
C, I just want to point out, constructive notice.
Nothing strikes fear in the heart of a planner like an error in your public notification.
It wakes you up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.
Did I send that notice?
Did I make a mistake in that notice?
So nothing will strike fear.
Maybe we should dress up for that as Halloween because it is very scary.
But we do have a provision in the DDC regarding minor defects, and it wouldn't necessarily
impair the notice if there was something like a grammatical error or a spelling error.
If we did make a mistake in the time and place and date of the meeting, that's where you
would really have a serious notification error.
You'd have to redo it.
And then failure, the DDC also talks about failure to receive notice.
We've kind of heard it before.
Somebody comes to public hearing and says, "I didn't get the notice."
Having that notice is that city responsibility.
Sometimes maybe that letter wasn't received.
Maybe they didn't see it in their mailbox.
That would not invalidate that notification if they didn't physically receive that notice
as long as it was mailed.
And then this comes up from time to time where during the discussion at a public hearing,
there is maybe a change in that project that we see, and we talk about it, and I know Hillary
jumps in in that, where do we need to re-notice?
The city of Denton is not...
Our zoning districts are set up that they...
There isn't always a very clear progression in intensity.
We have a lot of mixed-use districts that could be challenging to determine whether
or not that there is a change in intensity requiring a new notification.
I think we've been pretty conservative on the approach to say if a change is warranted
in that request, that we require a re-notification.
So I think we'll continue to struggle with that at public hearings, and it really is
related to the nature of our zoning districts.
So here is the menu of the items that we send out.
I know we talked about them earlier in the presentation, but here we have the notices
that are posted by the applicant.
So here are the signs, here are the website notices, the postcard for the 500-foot boundary,
the newspaper that gets published in the paper here, and then we have that 200-foot letter.
We try to give more information in that 200-foot letter.
If it's an SUP, we include a site plan.
If it's a PD, we include a site plan.
We always, in all of our notices, except for the sign, provide that map to give them kind
of an idea where the project is going to be.
We always have that contact information.
We want to make sure that they can contact us.
And then for that 200-foot notice, we have that response letter, and that's where they
can either mail it in, they can email it, or they can fax it in.
We also have an e-comment.
This kind of grew out of COVID, I think, that any applicant who wants to can provide that
e-comment to your meetings, and I know that's something that comes in quite frequently.
And then finally, we have a new item.
It is a development, a project information, and that is where they can sign up for push
notifications when a project comes in.
This launched in August of last year.
Thus far, we've had 102 individuals sign up for this, and they provide their name, their
address, or I'm sorry, their email address, and then where they want to get the notification.
So there's a boundary that they can choose.
So maybe they ask for a half a mile from where they live, or a mile from where they work,
or I think the majority of those who have signed up have placed a pin in the middle
of the city of Denton and said, "We want five miles from there," which would essentially
capture most of the city, if not all.
So that is an opportunity for our citizens to find out what's going on within the city
of Denton.
So that concludes the presentation.
I don't know if it answered your question, but we could certainly talk about that and
might have Hillary or Haley jump in on the discussion, and I'll be happy to answer any
questions.
>> Commissioner McDade.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just have a question about the 200 and 500 feet buffers.
>> Sure.
>> I know if it's already by right, I mean, they really don't have to send out anything
about the property, correct?
>> Correct.
It would only be those project types that are shown here, and that's really that zoning
action.
>> Right, right, right.
Yeah, because I know if it's by right, but I've always felt like if you're going to come
into a neighborhood and you want to be a good neighbor, that's just nothing like seeing
something built in the neighborhood and you have no idea what's being done.
So I didn't know if the applicant, it's up to his discretion whether he wants to send
something out or, I mean, he's not forced to, but just speaking, you know, it's nothing
like I don't know what's going on over there.
And then to be told, well, it's already zoned for what I want.
So I didn't feel that need.
>> It is at the discretion of the applicant.
Yes, sir.
>> Excellent, thank you.
>> More questions for Julie?
Commissioner Smith.
>> Hey, Chair.
The ETJ issue, I know some guys on DCRC, they'll have a conversation down there about that.
So we'll just move on from that conversation.
I waited three years for it and I said we'll talk about it some other time.
The only thing I was going to say is that 102 have signed up since August 2022 for that.
I mean, can we put a PSA at the start of every single PNZ meeting and invite all these very
concerned and interested citizens to come in there and know, hey, you're here.
Because, I mean, we're not blasting out on Facebook or advertising it out there on city
website other than that, like, you can go to the link, but, I mean, I'm sure 102 since
August 2022 isn't maybe exactly the number that we would expect there to be enrolled
in those push notifications.
So something we could do as a commission that might be helpful would be thank you for showing
up.
By the way, if you want to sign up on there, I don't know, just throwing that idea out
there is like throw that PSA out there.
I mean, you know how the city council's got their fancy little don't cuss at us and don't
throw stuff at us video at the very beginning?
That could be the PNZ.
So it'll be Margie's face and she can, you know, whenever, if you ever want to know more
about what's happening in your planning and zoning areas, sign up online at this website.
So I don't know what marketing has been done for that, but 102 since August 2022 is not
very good.
Well, if I might, I don't know that that's easy to find either.
Like I'm on the site here and I think, like, I don't know, I mean, I'm on development
services, which most citizens wouldn't necessarily even know to click on that department.
But also it should at least be on that page and I don't even see it there, the opt in.
And so maybe, yeah, we do need certainly to make it easier, I mean, I can bring that up
on our matrix and we can address it there if that's because between that and even where
development notices, that honestly should be on the front page of our website.
You should not have to go to departments, click on development services to look at notices.
Personally, I just think we can make it easier.
We've got the buttons on the bottom of the home page for public hearings or public meetings,
I'm sorry.
I don't see why we couldn't just add, you know, public notifications and have that button
down there or something like that.
And then it could jump to development services just with that button on the front page, you
know, versus going and clicking here and then here and then getting it.
We can definitely make that request or just, you know, just to make it, you know, it's
great that we've got them out there, but we want to, I mean, we don't want people to have
to.
Even after e-comment, sorry, even after the e-comment, because I think I remember when
you fill out an e-comment, you get a confirmation email back that says, I believe so, I've done
more than a couple of them.
It's just like your e-comment has been submitted, like just, there's got to be some simpler
ways we can go in there and say like, thank you for submitting your e-comment.
By the way, if you want to know about new projects that come up in your area, feel free
to sign up.
Boom, here, that kind of stuff.
Yeah, sure.
And it's not just pushing, I know it's just pushing development stuff, but it's also pushing
whenever there's notifications coming out from city councils, you kind of cover it too, right?
So it's development, PNZ and the city council.
So it's pushing out those notifications that would normally come out.
So everyone always knows.
So I'm sure there's going to be people who are going to sign up who are very, very zealous
about being in the tune with what's going on within Denton, and then very quickly realizing
that setting a pen in the middle of the city and having a five mile radius of being notified,
they're going to be annoyed like crazy, but at the same time, it's like, we hear this
whole conversation started out of the fact of hearing from citizens of, I didn't feel
like I was notified.
Okay.
We can't control whether you read your mail or not, but we can control access to information
to a degree.
And so this just seems like something we talk about.
I know we're going to put on the matrix, but I think after all the conversation we're
going to have tonight, that having this conversation, matrix time is probably not going to be my
most enjoyable thing to do.
I understand.
That's good.
Yeah.
And again, I think, you know, we can't force people to be involved, but we sure could make
the access a little bit easier for them where they don't have to go searching for the information
that we're putting out there.
So I think any improvements we can do to that is helpful in that regard.
Yeah.
As I say, no need to mention it at matrix time.
We've made note of the issue, and we can certainly work with our web design team on that.
I know they've recently helped us make things like our applications and checklist more readily
available and visible on our development services page, so we can work to make sure that these
are put out there in as many places as possible to let people know that you can go get notices
here.
Absolutely.
Yeah, it's great feedback.
It's been lost.
And you know, we all are on it all the time.
You all are on it.
You know, we know exactly where to go, and we click, click, click, click, click, and we
know the person, the departments, all of that, but in the greater scheme of things, and to
Commissioner Smith's point, when you think about, like, we have very -- we do have very
involved citizens in our public hearings, and the fact that only 102 signed up since
then is saying we're missing something with regard to that.
When they show up and talk to us, they sound like they're going to disrupt our city council.
I know, they don't always do that, but, you know, if they can sign up right then and there
and they can be notified, then, I mean, it's almost, to me, it's kind of like you talk
the talk, let's see if you can walk the walk.
You want to get notified, get notified.
And I'm probably inviting for everybody who doesn't have a term limit ending in September
to have a whole lot more public hearing attendees, but you know what, that's -- so you signed
up for it, buddy.
It's on you.
Yeah, no, great feedback, and there's got to be some turnkey solution we can come up
with.
And we will definitely continue on that.
Yeah, and I think on this -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Pritz, just on the whole thing, you know,
this is never going to be 100% perfect, right?
It just isn't, because you can't force people to look at things, you know, so I think we
have done a great job from -- in making it better from what I remember at the beginning,
even what things look like and those teeny little signs that we used to have on the property
that were like you had to stop your car and park just to read them, you know, so all of
these are -- yeah, that's why this continued discussion, and if there is a way to fix the
ETJ problem, I don't know if there is because they don't have the voice, technically.
I guess we're just going to have to continue to have discussions and see if there is any
kind of way to make that a little bit better, but they can certainly opt in.
They don't have to live in the city to opt in to notices, so, yeah.
Okay.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you.
So, I don't want to belabor the point, but just a couple of ideas as you're thinking
through how to make this effective.
In my mind, the difference between the obvious notifications that we do and the opt-in stuff
in order to -- or rather the goal behind having the opt-in system to get more people involved
is to hear from a broader cross-section of the residents that we have.
And so, the goal there seems like we should try to let people know who are not in the
200-foot boundary, right?
And it's not saying that we need to broaden the scope for everything, but maybe start
thinking of general public relations things that the city does, like the state of the
city event.
Like, could we set up a computer there that says, "Here, sign up right here," right?
Like, if there's, you know, City of Denton booths at Jazz Fest, like stuff like that,
right?
Just to try to get in front of people who don't know where City Hall is, essentially,
right?
Yeah, this is -- yeah, absolutely.
Greg?
Awesome, Neil.
Commissioner Smith.
I did have one thing on the ETJ that I wanted to bring up because I don't think we're going
to get to it in DCRC for a while, but Hillary.
Is there a liability issue when a non-citizen is notified and files a protest against, but
therefore, it's not counted into the 200-foot rule if their property is within 200 feet
but they're in the ETJ?
I ask it that way.
I know.
I ask it that way because we, as of now, the way I've always seen this ETJ notification
issue as well, to stick you with it, and if we notify them in the ETJ, they don't count
towards the property deal, okay, we take plenty of protests from people who don't live in
the 200-foot.
We get protests from people who live in the 500-foot, right, and those don't count towards
the property deal.
So is there specifically a liability for them being in the 200 that us prompting response
back opens up the city?
And that's the reason why it is a sticky wicket because if there's not a legal issue within
that, then I don't necessarily see the sticky wicket part of it because we already tell
people now, "Thank you for your input."
Ultimately, it doesn't matter in the sense of, I shouldn't say it that way, it also doesn't
matter in the same way that somebody who lives within 200 feet does.
So I don't know if that question makes sense.
I said a lot there.
I think it does.
So to briefly recap, if there is an ETJ property within 200 feet of a property that's being
heard at PNZ, what happens if they receive notification and wanna say something or wanna
protest and doesn't get counted?
And specifically, is there a reason why the city from a legal standpoint would sit there
and say, "No, us soliciting that feedback from that property in the ETJ within the 200-foot
property, them possibly having the appearance of having some sort of traditional impact
would be a problem."
Okay.
So I'm gonna give you an attorney answer and I'm gonna tell you, it depends.
Okay, perfect.
I don't think that we have obvious exposure because as Julie went through with the state
statute, it's municipal properties on the municipal tax roll within 200 feet.
I would wanna consult with MAC about the appearance question 'cause I think you raised an interesting
question.
And I just, I like to talk to MAC before I give risk assessments.
So that's something I can report back on.
Yeah.
It almost, I've been, like I said, I've been dwelling on this for three years and it feels
like some of the things we could do, like if they are in the ETJ, sending them the 500-foot
postcard, that kind of stuff, just something that they physically have.
It doesn't happen very often, I get that, but with the growth that's coming to Denton,
it's gonna happen more and more as we keep growing.
And because we can't involuntary annex anymore, that we're just, we're gonna start running
more and more into specifically properties that are along the ETJ, heck, properties that
are coming into the ETJ and we're reviewing it in our local agreement, which is not, like
it'd be a public notice, so maybe it's not the biggest deal in the world, but there's
these issues we start running into where we're gonna have more and more ETJ residents who
bring up issues that, I mean, just something, I know they have the sign and they've got
other things they get to see and they'll have the electronic notice 'cause Margie's gonna
start campaigning for it, so, but it just seems like it's something that the liability
issue scares away from something that I think isn't as big of an issue.
I think that's a good point.
Hillary, if you do have that discussion, can you maybe get back with us and just kind of
give us that, that opinion once you and Matt talk through things and.
Absolutely.
Hailey, can you put it on the matrix and then I'll just cue us to have that discussion?
Yeah, because, yeah, I mean, to Commissioner, well, Commissioner Smith's point, if we're
not gonna get in any trouble or if it's just a matter of it doesn't count, it's not that
we don't wanna hear their voices 'cause that certainly could matter to how a vote turns
out or whatnot, but it just wouldn't count for that percentage factor and basically,
yeah, are we getting in trouble if that's the case?
Are we giving the wrong impression or whatnot, but that'd be good feedback to get once y'all
have that discussion.
Any other questions for Julie?
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
I'd just go back to the people getting noticed by utility.
The only thing I worry about that is West of 35, people like me in the city limits that
are co-serve/encore on water well, propane for whatever, they're not gonna, you know.
I don't think, oh, maybe, I gotta check on that.
I'm not sure because, well, there's a good reason why, but yeah, so, I mean, I just was
hitting at that.
It is a challenging problem because, and we've changed the utility addresses, Haley, maybe
in 2019, 2018, and I think because the concern was we weren't capturing enough people from
the mailing address, and so we were looking to see how we could capture as many people
within that 500-foot boundary as possible to make sure we got renters and not just property
owners.
I'm just gonna add, it was really the renters, I believe, was council's main concern.
They were making sure we capture everyone at the multifamily address, not just sending
a notice to the property ownership office, basically, and at the end of the day, ultimately,
extending the notices to the ETJ will be a council policy decision, so if that's the
direction they wanna go, we pass that expense along to the applicant, so, you know, we might
get a few complaints in that sense because their mailing bill would go up, but if council
wants to make that city policy that we extend that notice, then we could certainly do that.
- And I thought of one more thing. With so many of our communities having HOAs, is there
possibly a way to send a notification to an HOA, and then they can disseminate it in their
newsletter or something? And I bring this up because, you know, as we draw that line
and I realize that in discussions we've had that there's not really a better way to do
it than the way we do it, but when we had a public meeting for, I think it was a zoning
change, in front of the preserve, right, and you drew that, and what, two streets in that
massive development got notifications, and again, I know they passed the sign and whatnot,
but you know, not everybody pays attention to that kind of thing. You know, that would
have been an ideal situation where if the HOA gets it, then they can put it out, then
it's up to the residents then to read their HOA stuff, but are, so, is that a thing?
- I think we notify the HOAs, don't we, if they have an organized HOA?
- Yes, so, I guess twofold. If an HOA owns property that falls within one of our radiuses,
then they will receive the notice. It goes to whatever address they've registered with
DCAD, but with the city does have a list of HOAs that have essentially made themselves
known to us and sent in information to say this is how to get in contact with us, this
is our current president, and so for those that we have that are basically registered
with the city in some sense, our GIS team has that list and they have those mapped,
and so if we have a notice going out to properties within a HOA that we have identified, then
we send them a notice as well and add them to the list.
- Okay, so we're already doing that, okay.
- To the best of our ability. I'm sure there's HOAs out there that we don't have records
of or contact information for.
- Well, if we're, okay, if we're just relying on a list, I mean, are we doing anything?
It's not that hard to, like in that situation that I gave, I mean, if you don't have them
on the list, then they probably didn't get it.
- I'm not sure how, I know we've tried to update the list in the last few years. Essentially,
the issue we have is a lot of the HOAs have management companies and we don't have direct
contact information for them, so that's where we rely on them to inform us that, hey, we're
an organized HOA and we want to be kept informed of things, so.
- Okay, understood, thank you.
- Anything else? Commissioner Pruitt?
- Thank you, Chair. That brings up an interesting question. I'm scanning this to make sure the
answer isn't already there. In the case when the ownership of a property within the 200-foot
boundary is an illegal entity as opposed to a person, how does, like an HOA, but it could
be a multi-member LLC or whatever, right? How do we accept a protest from an entity,
or has that ever come up?
- It has come up. Well, first of all, we do send those letters to whomever gets the tax
bill, right? So that's how they get it. So if it's in an LLC, it generally goes to, sometimes
it's a PO box. We often send those property owner letters, then that actual physical address.
But we have, in those times, it doesn't happen very often, but we have received letters from
entities that maybe are an LLC, and we try to marry that information with maybe who we
can try to determine who's in charge. So it's not always perfect, but we do try to look
at that. It's come up once in the last 10 years for me, so it hasn't been something
that happens very often. Hillary, did I do okay on that?
- You did great.
- Okay.
- Well, it's been 10 years.
- It's been 10 years.
- Anything else? Awesome discussion, you all. Julie, thank you.
- Yeah, so we'll continue to work on all of these items, and we'll continue to make it
better every time.
- Keep us informed of everything that's been updated. That would be great. Commissioner
Smith, thank you for putting it on The Matrix.
- Thank you for your stuff.
- All right, with that, that ends our work session, so I will close us at 6.01 p.m.,
and we'll see you in council chambers at 6.30.
- Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for Wednesday, March 15th, 2023. With a quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.33 p.m.
Next item on the agenda is the Pledge to the U.S. and Texas Flags.
- I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
- I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
- I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
- Thank you.
All right, next on our agenda is the... Consider approval of the PNZ meeting minutes for March
1st, 2023. Commissioner Smith.
- Make a motion to approve.
- Commissioner Cole.
- Second.
- Got a first and a second for approval of the minutes for March 1st. Any discussion?
Let's go ahead and vote on the board, please.
That motion carries seven, zero. That will move us to our consent agenda this evening.
Commissioner Smith.
- Make a motion to approve.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- Second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion?
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries seven, zero. That will move us to our individual... Items for individual
consideration. Four A is FP230005. I'll invite Erin up to present this item. Good evening,
everyone.
- Okay. Oh. There we go. Okay, this is an extension request for FP230005. This is in
the North Point edition, phases seven and eight, and it is approximately 18.1 acres
to establish 63 residential lots. At this time, staff currently recommends denial as
it has not met all of our criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the requested
extension, which could be granted to April 12th, 2023.
- Great. Thank you, Erin. Any questions for Erin? I do not see any. Commissioner Villarreal.
- I move approval of the extension request to a date certain of April 12th, 2023.
- Okay. And Commissioner Britt?
- Second.
- Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of the extension request to a date
certain of April 12th, 2023. Seeing no discussion, let's go ahead and vote on the board, please.
That motion will carry seven, zero. That will move us to item four B, ZCP220064. Mia is
making her way to present this item.
- Good evening, members of the commission. Mia Hines, associate planner. This item is
a zoning compliance plan for Razor Ranch Town Center phase one. It's a revised site plan.
The original or the approved site plan was approved and reviewed by this body in April
of last year. This is a revised site plan, and I'll sort of go through some of those
differences with you with this presentation. The site itself is just under 30 acres, 28.75
acres located at the southeast corner of West University Drive and I-35. As far as the zoning,
the base zoning for this property is RCCD located within the Razor Ranch Overlay District
RR1 or Town Center and South RR2 sub-areas. The proposed use of retail is permitted within
the sub-area. As for Razor Ranch site plans, usually this body is not used to reviewing
zoning compliance plans. However, because this is in Razor Ranch, that's why this is
coming up before you. This particular site is subject to ordinance 2016-017, specifically
Exhibit C1 and D1, and that is what we check their site plan to ensure that they were meeting
a site plan, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevation requirements. We confirm
that with those exhibits. Here is the criteria for approval found in
DDC sub-chapter 35 as it relates to Razor Ranch zoning compliance plans. Just briefly
going over these, we want to ensure that the site plan substantially complies to the concept
and schematic plan approved by council. We want to ensure that the site plan provides
for compatible arrangement of buildings, that the site plan provides for adequate and safe
circulation and that it fully complies with all other sections of the overlay district.
So here, and of course in your packet, is the proposed site plan. Initially, the approved
site plan for Razor Ranch Town Center proposed up to just under 300,000 square feet of retail
space with just under 1,300 parking spaces. With this new iteration, they are proposing
a total of just under 320,000 square feet of retail space, and that would up that just
to over 1,400 parking spaces. Just for a brief overlay, so you can see this side by side
or one over top of the other, just showing you some of the differences. So what you have
there in the brown is what's being proposed with this revised site plan. What is in the
red is what was approved with the previous site plan. So as you can see, there's some
out parcels there in this center and over to the northeast corner of the site, and those
are being removed with this revised site plan. Additionally, the buildings there, the larger
buildings there, are no longer being broken up. So the one to the east was gonna be three
different retail spaces, and it's just one large building now, and then the one to the
southwest was supposed to be broken up into two, and now they're proposing it to just
break that up. I'm sorry, three, and now they're proposing to just break that up into two.
So here is the proposed landscape plan, and then the side by side comparison just showing
what was approved. Again, what is required is 10% landscape area and 25% minimum tree
canopy coverage. They are meeting or exceeding that with this proposed plan. The 29% was
referring to the overall, I believe, lot coverage, and then 13% is what it would be within the
development impact area. So the overall site does include a little bit of the area to the
south, is about just under 55 acres. This site is just about 28. And then again, for
a little overlay, so you can see the difference side by side of what they're proposing has
that central drive is a little bit more further landscaped, and of course they removed those
out parcels to the north, and then this is what was approved with that original site
plan. So I didn't include all of the building elevations, but just wanted to sort of highlight
a larger or a different feature with this proposed site plan. We did, in order to continue
the sort of emphasis on that main north south drive, we had them soften, or they proposed
to soften up the interior corners of those larger buildings with some glass and some
green walls within that area, and then also furthering that landscape within that main
north south drive. And so I wanted to point that out as an additional feature that was
not a part of the approved landscape or elevations and site plan. So with that, staff is recommending
approval as it does adhere or meet all of the criteria that I discussed earlier, and
at this time I will take any questions or comments that you have.
Thank you Mia. Any questions for Mia? I do not see any. I do have one card wishing to
speak on this individual consideration item, so I will invite Amy Bissett up.
Good evening commissioners. Hello, thank you. I have a presentation that I've prepared,
but I don't feel the need to actually present it unless you have specific questions where
I can pull it up and go into detail for you. But out of respect for the public who is here
to speak on another item, I will forgo it unless you need me to make it.
The backup material was great in Mia's presentation, and then this verbal presentation. So I think
we got our questions answered, but thank you for offering.
I do want to introduce Anne Cleter with Fidelity. I'm sorry, Fidelis Realty. She's representing
the developer in case you have questions for her as well. So all right, thank you.
Thank you so much. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Anderson? A second.
We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go ahead
and vote on the board please. That motion carries 7-0. That will move us
to 4C, PP 22-0021B. I invite Julie up for presentation on this item.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. And I am presenting,
here we go, PP 22-0021B. This request is a preliminary plat for a multifamily project
that recently received specific use of permit approval from City Council. They still have
some items they need to work through on that preliminary plat, so staff is recommending
denial. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Julie? Yeah, they did receive
their extension request as we discussed in work session.
Correct, yes. One time only, yes. Okay, very good. Thank
you, Julie. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal?
I move denial. Commissioner McDade?
A second. Okay, we've got a first and a second to deny
this request. Any discussion? Okay, let's go ahead and vote on the board please. That
motion carries 7-0. Item 4D has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will not be hearing
that item or taking any action on that item. That will move us to 4E, PP 23-0006. Hello
again, Julie. All right, Julie Wyatt. This request is for
a commercial lot. It's a preliminary plat at the intersection of Loop 288 and McKinney.
They do have some items they still need to work through, so they have requested an extension
to the April 12th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and staff has no objection to that.
I'll be happy to answer any questions. I do not see any questions on the board, Julie.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Commissioner Villarreal?
I move approval of the extension request to a date certain of April 12th, 2023.
Commissioner Cole? Second.
We've got a first and a second for approval of the extension request to a date certain
of April 12th, 2023. Seeing no one wishing to speak for discussion.
Let's go ahead and vote on the board, please. That motion will carry 7-0. That will move
us to 4F, PP 22-0031B. Angie is up to present this item.
Good evening, everyone. Angie Mingler, Senior Planner Development Services. This is a preliminary
plat for Estella Hills. It is a residential subdivision of approximately 326 lots, located
on the south side of McKinney Street at the intersection of McKinney and Laney Circle.
At this time, the plat does not meet our criteria for approval, and staff is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to an extension that could be granted to a date certain of
April 12th, 2023. Happy to answer any questions.
All right. Thanks, Angie. I do not see any questions. Thank you so much. Commissioner
Anderson? Thank you very much to approve the extension
of a date certain of April 12th, 2023. Commissioner Villarreal?
Second. We've got a first and a second for approval
of the extension request to a date certain of April 12th, 2023. Any discussion?
Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will take us
to our public hearings for this evening, item 5AZ230004. As it's listed on our agenda, staff's
requesting this item be postponed to a date certain of April 12th. I'm going to go ahead
and open the public hearing. Julie, for the public's sake, did you want to just please
give us just a quick summary of what I haven't said yet? Thanks.
Be happy to. Excuse me. This is a request of rezoning. I don't have a presentation,
but just of about seven acres on Camelot Drive that is located at the northwest intersection
of Stewart Road and Hercules. Some of the uses on the property are not consistent with
the existing zoning, and so staff was looking to potentially rezone that property from R3
to R7. That will come back before you with a full staff analysis in April.
I've got R6 on this agenda. Sorry, R6. I'm sorry. I apologize.
Just clarify. Yes, I misspoke. R3 to R6. Yes, thank you.
Very good. Thanks, Julie. Appreciate that. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve
a postponement to date certain of April 12th. Commissioner, approve it.
Second. We've got a first and a second to postpone
this item to a date certain of April 12th, 2023. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, let's
vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will move us
to Public Hearing 5B, PD21-0007. I'll open the public hearing and invite Angie up for
a presentation. Hi. Good evening. Angie Mengele, Senior Planner
at Development Services. Bear with me. I'm going to switch presentations real quick.
This is request PD21-0007. A little bit of background on this request. This is a rezoning
request of approximately 20.92 acres at the northeast corner of Loop 288 and FM 428 from
suburban corridor to a planned development with a base zoning of mixed use neighborhood.
The subject property does have a future land use designation in the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan of Community Mixed Use. The site today is predominantly undeveloped to consist of
open pasture, has a mature tree canopy throughout the site and a detention pond situated along
the southern boundary of the site there. The property is part of a larger 25.48 acre parent
tract. You'll notice here on the aerial and on the zoning exhibit, they're leaving 4.5
acres of the property out of this zoning request that is to remain SC for future commercial
development. The zoning in the area is varied. It consists of existing suburban corridor,
residential four and then there's some public facilities in the area as well on the other
side of FM 428. A little bit of background on this case. The property is zoned SC suburban
corridor which does allow for multifamily development with the approval of an SUP permit.
This is a planned development request to facilitate the development of a multifamily project.
The reason this is a planned development is the project consists of approximately 52 what
we call horizontal multifamily units which are detached units for rent. At the time the
application was submitted in November of 2021, the DDC definitions did not capture this horizontal
multi-living use that we've seen coming more being requested within the city. There wasn't
a use that really captured what they were wanting to do so a planned development was
created to define what that meant and to adopt development standards. The DDC has since been
amended in the fall of 2022. Horizontal multi-living was worked into our overall definition for
multifamily. However, as this project had been through several iterations at that time
and there were some deviations from what you could get with straight zoning, staff did
determine it was appropriate to move forward with the planned development request rather
than have the SUP request. So that's kind of how we got to the planned development and
that's why you see this case before you this evening in that way. A little bit more background
on the area. The area is at the northeast corner of FM 428 and Loop 288. Just a little
bit about the infrastructure in this region. The 2022 mobility plan does show FM 428 as
a freeway status. Is it a text dot owned and maintained roadway? Since the adoption of that
plan it's been made known to the city by text dot that this is going to remain a primary
arterial. It is currently constructed as a two-lane road. There's a sidewalk on the western
side of FM 428 and then on Loop 288 that's the southern boundary of the property. It
runs east-west. It is also owned by text dot as an existing limited access freeway and
is currently constructed as a four-lane divided freeway. Within this development plan and
we'll get more into it later along the eastern property line the applicant is proposing to
reserve 27 and a half feet for the future construction of a north-south residential
street. So a little bit about the development plan. As stated the intent of this PD is to
allow for a multifamily development. There are two primary uses that would be permitted
as part of that development. One is horizontal multifamily and the other is your traditional
mid-rise multifamily apartments. So I've kind of broken this up. You can see here the
areas that are in blue is where you would see your horizontal multifamily units. The
proposed development plan contemplates 52 of those units. As you move south closer to
Loop 288 you see your traditional mid-rise apartment units. There are five buildings
fronting along 288 and then moving into the interior of the site. Those total 305 units.
Other amenities that you would find on site are typical of multifamily developments. There's
a pool and amenity center. There's several small pocket parks that are linked together
through an internal trail system. The architectural standards that have been specified in the
development standards for the horizontal multi-living component are more similar to what you would
see for a single-family development rather than an apartment development. So they're
using those architectural standards and site design criteria rather than what straight
zoning would call for which would be the multifamily design criteria. Here's the right-of-way
reservation we were talking about. This runs north-south. It is 27 and a half feet. It's
a reservation for a future residential street should future development in the area ever
necessitate that there be additional connectivity provided. So this reserves the half width
of our typical residential streets. As the area continues to develop if a TIA warrants
that there be additional connectivity we could come back at a later time and do the dedication
and the construction of that residential roadway. Just a little bit on the landscape plan.
The proposed development for lot one which is where the horizontal multifamily units
are is proposing 31 percent total landscape area with 50 percent mature tree canopy once
built out and then lot two is showing 36 percent total landscape area with 73 percent mature
tree canopy. This meets and exceeds the requirements of MN based zoning which is 20 percent landscaped
area and 40 percent tree canopy coverage at build out. There are some on-site amenities
throughout the site including a pedestrian trail that would connect individuals from the
multifamily units to the on-site amenities including the pool, the dog park and the little
pocket parks that they have scattered throughout. You can kind of see them on this plan here.
And then along the north and western areas where adjacent to existing or future possible
commercial development there's a landscape buffer that's provided there. You see an additional
row of trees and buffering that's been provided as part of that landscape plan. A transportation
impact analysis was performed for this development and called for three improvements to be made
as part of this to accommodate for the traffic that would be generated. One of which is a
southbound turn lane that you would find at driveway one. Driveway one is the most northern
driveway here and so the southbound turn way would be here along FM 428. Additionally the
TIA called for a northbound right hand turn lane desal lane that would be constructed
for driveways two and one. Driveway two would lead to what could be the future commercial
development would be constructed at this point but its intent is to serve that future commercial
development. It's being constructed as part of this overall phase. And then finally driveway
three is situated along loop 288 and they're providing a right hand turn lane from loop
288 into driveway three which is approximately right about here on the site plan. When reviewing
this staff reviews this against our general criteria for approval as well as that of a
plan development or criteria for approval for plan developments and we find that this
is consistent with both of those sections in the DDC. Specifically it's consistent with
the comprehensive plan and the future land use goals as well as it provides a greater
level of design quality than what could be achieved with straight zoning. It's compatible
with the surrounding development patterns that we're seeing along loop 288 and there
are public facilities within the area that are adequate to serve the development. A little
bit more about the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan. The future land use does call for this
to develop as community mixed use. Community mixed use applies to key corridors in the
city and serves as a transitional area from residential to our commercial developments.
The residential component should be complementary to the commercial component but is allowed
and contemplated within the community mixed use future land use designation. Additionally
this development pattern that we're seeing it is consistent with the developments that
we've seen along loop 288 with the residential components and the multifamily developments
coming in and leaving the out parcels for future commercial development. This pattern
is most evident here seen to the south of the loop at this corner where you have the
multifamily component and then the out parcels have been left for future commercial development
which you're starting to see emerge in these areas here and on that hard corner. And then
most recently an apartment complex was approved here for Sherman Crossing leaving these out
parcels along loop 288 zoned both MN and SC for future commercial development. The comprehensive
plan also recognizes that providing a diverse housing market with a variety of density styles
and price points is something that is a goal of the 2040 plan and this plan would meet
that in helping to provide those additional housing options in a variety of locations
throughout the city. In exhibit one of the packet that went out for you all you do have
a detailed list of deviations of what's being requested versus what could be allowed under
straight and then zoning I don't think we need to go through all of them but did want
to point out a few of the key points one being permitted uses and then has an expansive list
of permitted uses that could be allowed by right under that zoning district. As part
of this PD the allowed uses are limited to multifamily and horizontal multifamily as
well as the accessory uses you would typically see with those developments including an amenity
center a leasing center on site resident storage swimming pools but it really limits the amount
of uses that could be allowed under this PD should this be approved any deviation from
those uses would require a PD amendment similar to this process. And then the multifamily
site design under code today if a horizontal multifamily development were to come in they
would be subject to our multifamily development site design criteria and architectural standards.
This PD spell the architectural requirements and site design would follow the single family
development standards for the horizontal multi-living component creating more of a single family
style type of development you can see here it kind of shows we're zooming in on the horizontal
multi-living component there's walking areas provided through and between the units they're
oriented to face one another similar to what you would see in a residential style of development
and then the architectural renderings that they've submitted have followed along with
that overall goal of the PD with those site design and orientation deviations that they're
requesting as part of this. In accordance with our with the DDC in Texas state law we
have notified residents within 200 and 500 feet of the subject property as well as posted
on our website and in the debt and record chronicle. At this time we have received nine
responses in opposition that includes the e-comments that you all have been seeing come
through so we've received nine responses opposed to this request up until about 5pm this evening.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting and that was back in March of 2022 so a little
over a year ago there was not a second meeting held after that. Staff is recommending approval
as this is consistent with our general criteria for approval and our criteria for approval
of plan development requests. The next step would be a public hearing at city council.
I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. The applicant is here and I believe
is also wishing to speak to you all this evening. Great thanks Angie. Commissioner Smith. Thank
you Chair. Angie just to clarify and make it nice and succinct. Currently as it's zoned
as MN it could develop as multi-family not necessarily horizontal multi-family because
there's some other restrictions within there. It is currently zoned suburban corridor.
Correct. They could get an SUP for multi-family and that would allow for the horizontal multi-family
component. Understood. And then they're requesting a base zoning with this of MN which would
still allow for the horizontal multi-family component. You'd find some differences in
the site design and orientation. That's really, yes that's correct. Thank you. Commissioner
Smith. Thank you Chair. Because it's currently zoned SC, if it were to develop under those
criteria with retail, it's my understanding that the number of traffic trips that are
used in the manual that generate the TIA would be higher than this so we would expect more
of a traffic impact if it was retail than if it was the proposed development. Is that
correct? If I understand, let me make sure I understand the question. Is the question
is if it were to develop as retail today would that have a higher traffic impact than residential
development? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Don't know traffic generation maybe as well as some
of my colleagues. I'll look to Haley and see if she may have a better answer really. I
don't know the exact ratios for the various uses but I believe retail typically falls
somewhere in between what's estimated for multi-family and single-family type uses so
it could be less but of course that would also depend on the mixture of commercial uses
that they tried to put there. For example restaurants would probably be a much higher
ratio than just strictly retail so I can't answer the question directly. It would probably
be comparable, maybe a little bit higher if they were looking more restaurant than strictly
retail uses. Commissioner McDade. Thank you Madam Chair. I know in the work session you
went over the traffic analysis. Could you go back over that? I know you mentioned I
think it was done in 2021. Yes the TIA was done in 2021 and we followed up and looked
into that. I know the concern is that that was done during COVID and that could affect
impacts and the study did take that into account and I believe correct me the percentage if
I'm wrong but had a 45% projected increase in what they saw based on just knowing that
traffic was lower than what it would normally be due to COVID and then it had also been
asked was Stark Farms and Stewart Ridge taken into account and their eventual build outs.
Both of those numbers were added into the TIA to run those two developments at their
build out. So the traffic patterns were studied. They took into account that it was COVID and
so that was factored in and then the surrounding developments that had already been entitled
those numbers were factored into the TIA as well. All right thank you. And Angie on that
as well they took into consideration that school. Yes DISD facilities were accounted
for. Yes ma'am. Since they were not in July. Okay I don't see any other questions at this
time for you Angie. Thank you very much. I do have several cards wishing to speak on
this item so we'll go ahead and get started on that discussion. I'll invite Amy Bissett.
She's the applicant on the project. Hello again. Good evening commissioners. Amy Bissett
109 North Elm Denton 76201. I'm going to catch you by surprise here and tell you that
I don't actually have a presentation that I'm going to make and the reason for that
is at the conclusion of tonight's public hearing my client has asked that we request a postponement
to March 29th and I'm going to tell you why and I'm going to give you and then I'm going
to answer some questions that were raised in the work session but I want to start by
saying that we were going to request that postponement but we out of respect for the
community members who we knew were going to show up tonight we wanted to allow the public
hearing to occur and remain open in two weeks as well so that nobody wasted their time coming
out tonight. So having said that the reason that we're requesting the postponement is
that some of the questions and concerns that have been raised over since public notifications
went out are specifically related to the commercial corner that is being reserved and we are working
in partnership with Stacy Standridge on that corner and he wants to be here to be able
to answer questions about his intentions for that or be able to speak on it and additionally
the property owner who has been a long time Denton resident and stakeholder in the community
wants to be here and is ill so we will respectfully request a postponement at the conclusion
of tonight's public hearing. I do want to address a couple of questions. One question
that came up in the work session was related to right of way reservation versus dedication.
We were asked about making or dedicating right of way on the eastern side of the property
line from Loop 28 to our northern property boundary. That northern property boundary
is in the ETJ and the intention when it did connect would connect through to Hartley Field.
We opposed right of way dedication because we believe that the Hartley Field residents
would not want to see that connection happen in the long run and there is no imminent development
occurring to our north. I do want to talk a little bit about neighborhood engagement
as well. Angie mentioned one neighborhood meeting. We actually did hold two. The first
neighborhood meeting was on February 10th and mailed to everyone within the 500 foot
boundary that you all talked about in your work session and had no RSVPs. We did then
reach out to the North Denton Neighborhood Association and open it up to a full neighborhood
meeting for anyone who wanted to attend. We held that meeting in early March of last year
and then have provided follow-up information, documentation, answers to questions over the
course of several months after that. In just general timeline, we started in November of
'21. In April of '22, we were about to be scheduled for a public hearing when the right
of way reservation dedication issue came up as well as a 40 foot easement for our future
water main on loop 288. Those two requests by the city sent us entirely back to the drawing
board which reduced our overall density, reconfigured the site, and delayed us to where we are today.
I mention that because I want to acknowledge the extremely unfortunate timing that this
is occurring right at the commencement of the small area planning process for North
East Denton. I just want to say that when we commenced our process in November of '21,
this was nowhere on the radar at that point in time. We're not trying to be disrespectful
to that process. It's just extremely unfortunate. My client has spent 15 months and probably
well over $100,000 preparing for this public hearing this evening. We're here despite
the timing. As it relates to the traffic study, I can provide data tables if you allow us
to come back in two weeks under a postponement, but I want to say a couple of things. Yes,
it was adjusted for the school year. Yes, it was adjusted for COVID. Five scenarios
were run going all the way out to 2028. They accounted for a growth pattern going back
to 2011. The data is strong and both precedes and outlasts COVID and accounts for the school
traffic. They also specifically looked at the football games on Friday nights and how
that traffic correlates with the peak traffic for the development. The football game traffic
is terrible. It just is what it is. The traffic that is generated by this development, those
peak hours, they're not at the same time. It's not necessarily compounding the football
traffic, but I certainly acknowledge and understand everyone's concerns related to that.
We did update our traffic study in August of 2022. We originally had three driveways
located on Loop 288. We have reduced that down to one. In that traffic study update,
we also added the southbound turn lane into the development so that pulled traffic out
of the main lane that used to queue coming south on Sherman Drive. Our initial traffic
study was prior to the signalization of Loop 288 in Sherman. We updated the traffic study
to look at the signalization and how that affected the overall development as well.
Let's see here. I believe that covers the questions that were asked in the work session,
and I'm happy to answer any additional questions that you have, but I do respectfully request
after we've had a chance to hear everyone tonight a postponement to March 29th. Thank
you.
Thanks. I guess one question that I've got. I mentioned in work session about how this
request relates to the future land use map and the fact that the future land use map
says community mixed use and how in work session I mentioned this is far from community mixed
use. Can you speak to that at all?
I can. If you look at the concept plan, we've really tried to concentrate the density right
along Loop 288 and as we moved further north to decrease the density into the horizontal
multifamily with the intent of trying to follow both the future land use plan and the desire
of the neighborhood and then reserving that hard corner. That is an odd shaped piece of
property to develop entirely commercial. We believed that we were meeting the intent of
community mixed use by providing transitional housing that transitioned from higher density
into medium before moving into the low density north of us and reserving that hard corner
for those future retail and commercial opportunities.
Okay. I definitely appreciate that explanation.
Any other questions for Ms. Sidd? She's up here.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. We'll go ahead. The next card I have is Reed Faring. Good evening.
If you'll give us your name and address, your time will begin.
Hello. I'm Reed Faring. I live at 4572 Coyote Point, which is just outside the city limits
out past Hodge Elementary. I'm part of the Northeast Denton group. I have two comments
about this particular proposal. One is that if you live out there, you don't believe,
you just don't believe that you can add 3,600 car trips a day to that intersection without
making life miserable for lots of people. On a bigger issue, I'm really concerned that
this proposal, not to mention others that seem to be in the mill with the Carter Ranch,
are being taken, it seems, I would like to know differently, kind of one at a time, whoever
comes first. The first properties to develop are at the front of the plane. The people
that end up living at the back of the plane are going to be pretty miserable down the
road. I honestly, I mean, I really respect all the work you do. I'm a 45 year resident
of Denton, and I love this town, and I want to see it grow, not to become a suburban slum,
but to become the town that we have loved all these years. That requires planning, and
I don't see that. I wish I could be wrong, and maybe I am. I don't know what happened
to 2030, honestly. It didn't seem to have any effect on the initial Taylor Morrison
proposal for Carter Ranch. They can rezone kind of at will. The planned developments
are a mystery to me, how somebody can come in and just change the zoning for a particular
area. But my point is, this whole area of northeast Denton needs to be looked at from
a fully developed perspective. How much traffic can Hartley Field and Mingo and Kings Row
handle? Those are the only three ways to get out of this part of Denton, and when you start
building up close to the exits, obviously it's the developments farther down the road
that are going to pay. So there are a lot of big issues here as well. This part of Denton
is ideal to create open spaces and a natural habitat for people to enjoy, for children
to study and learn about the history and natural history and culture of this region. I don't
want to expand to that, but I do want to urge you all to back off before you consider more
proposals in northeast Denton and give us a plan that's realistic, that doesn't involve
building huge bridges across Clear Creek and doesn't involve stop lights every block on
the south end of Sherman just outside the loop. With the development of agave, expansion
of the Stark property, development along the long road, this whole area of Denton is going
to go. We know that. Developers love all that flat land. So what we need is a plan to make
the quality of life in northeast Denton the best we can. So I love this development. It's
got the kind of housing we need in Denton. I'm just very concerned about the location
relative to traffic problems down the road. So thank you very much for hearing me.
Thank you, Mr. Ferring, for coming out. By the way, are you on the small area plan? Have
you been involved in the small area plan discussion that we've gotten started?
Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. The next card I have is Ann Woodbridge. Ms. Woodbridge is going to wait and speak
if this item gets postponed. Are you sure you would not like to speak this evening?
Okay. Bridget Marshall? Come on up to the podium and we can talk.
Good evening. Good evening. I'm Bridget Marshall. I live at 3539 Pine Trail, Denton. I strongly
believe that an apartment complex development at this location with such a busy intersection
and heavily traffic roads will create a serious traffic safety hazard and endanger lives.
This PD should be denied due to the many traffic safety issues and discrepancies in the developer's
traffic impact analysis, including inaccuracies in the traffic counts and level of service
ratings and noncompliance with text dot standards. It did not take into account the Agave Ranch
traffic. It took into account Stark Farms and Stewart Ridge, but not Agave Ranch. It
did not take into account the football games or other band and sporting events going on
at the stadium. The TIA inaccurately states that typical events start around 7 p.m. after
the p.m. peak hour, so they anticipate to be little to no overlap between peak event
traffic and peak site generated traffic from the development. However, most people go to
the stadium early, before the start of the game, during the p.m. peak hours, okay, for
various reasons. This should all be taken into consideration.
I listened to the work session, so I'd like to know where is the data in the TIA showing
the additional traffic counts that Ms. Bissette pointed out. There are two text dot noncompliant
driveways on the hill on FM 428, which the staff analysis omitted. The developer's TIA
on page 3 specifically states drives 1 and 2 along FM 428 do not meet text dots minimum
360-foot drive approach spacing. The TIA did not take into consideration traffic using
Hartley Field Road, which has significant traffic turning onto and off of FM 428. Sitting
below the crest of the hill, driveway 1 has poor sight lines with Hartley Field Road.
Standing right from driveway 1 endangers drivers turning left from Hartley Field Road at the
same time. Turning left from driveway 1 into the southbound FM 428 lane below the crest
of the hill with heavy traffic will be extremely dangerous and is an accident waiting to happen.
The variances proposed in the TIA were not mentioned in the staff analysis. They will
not change the fact that the hill poses a significant hazard for any driveway access
regardless of where it is positioned on the hill. If drivers from the apartment complex
want to go southbound on Sherman Drive from driveway 3, they will have to cross three
to four lanes of traffic in a very short distance, less than 510 feet, across loop 288 traffic
exiting at 60 miles per hour to turn left, creating a serious hazard. The development
generating 3,553 daily car trips on top of the heavy traffic congestion we currently
experience is extremely concerning. Stark Farm, Stewart Ridge and Ogabe Ranch have not
even been built out yet and are expected to generate a total of approximately 12,000 daily
car trips. It is already difficult to turn onto FM 428 from Hartley Field Road or Long
Road. Traffic will be a nightmare when these developments are all built out. This is a
terrible location to build an apartment complex for everyone concerned, including the future
residents. People will be injured, or worse, killed due to placing emphasis on the wrong
kind of development over safety. High density apartment complexes should not be located
at the corner of two heavily trafficked high speed roads. Safety first for all motorists,
bicyclists and pedestrians should be paramount. The proposed PD does not improve mobility or
mobility, and promotes traffic safety per DDC 1.2.5. Please deny PD 210007 which is
not appropriate for this location and require that the TIA be updated for accuracy. Thank
you very much for your time. Thank you very much for coming out and speaking. Any questions
for Ms. Whitbridge? Okay, I do not see any. Thank you so much. Next card I have to speak
is Trey Rosell. Good evening. If you will give us your name and address, your time will
begin. Hello, I am Trey Rosell. I live at 2408 Twin Post. That is on the north side,
just barely in the loop. It is funny, I have talked into a microphone probably a hundred
times for work, but never for one that is so important in my personal life. I like mixed
use zoning. I would really like to ride an e-bike to a restaurant that is a little closer
than going to the square every time. So I can appreciate that. We value it in our house.
My biggest concern is with the traffic plan, and mainly bicycles. There are a lot of bicycles
that head up Sherman northbound to get out of town and go ride in the country. Currently
riding up there, it is a little horrifying, the use of the shoulder as an acceleration
lane to get on 428, as it is currently. When I looked at the site plan earlier today, I
was pretty shocked by it. I think there are three driveway stubs, it is not really going
to work for cyclists that are not willing to ride on Sherman. Sharing an acceleration
and deceleration lane with cars is worse than being in Sherman, because it is just more
variables where people are speeding up, slowing down, in and out. With the design on the site
plan, I do not know how I am going to navigate those traffic stubs. There is more than one
of us, by the way. There are quite a few people that ride up there. I do not know if I am
supposed to go over them, am I supposed to go on Sherman to go around them, am I supposed
to pull in to the development and then get back out? It just does not really work for
me. I think it is a considerable concern in this
area. There are kids that ride a bicycle that do not have a license that need to get to
the stadium, for a variety of reasons. I know there is a sidewalk on the other side, but
it is not paved all the way up, so currently, and I see it every time, there are kids that
walk on the shoulder on the other side of the road, on the other side of Sherman. In
addition to that, we have a really nice mountain bike trail up to the north. A lot of people
ride a mountain bike, rather than drive, ride up Sherman, turn right on Hartley Field, and
then go enjoy the mountain bike trail, one of them. Also, ride up to the green belt frequently
to head north, like I said earlier. It is very important, I think, that we give reconsider
to the traffic plan and get something closer that gives cyclists a place to be. There is
now with the shoulder, it is not great, but it is manageable. I also hope we sort of reaffirm
our commitment to Vision Zero. This is kind of antithetical to that. It does not give
a buffer. It does not give any protection. I know TextDOT is coming. I know 428 and 288
are going to be dramatically changed. That is a different battle, and I am sure I will
get to speak and participate in that battle, I hope. But for what we have now, I really
need something, and the people I ride bikes with, and the people I do not ride bikes with,
need something so we can get out of town to the north and enjoy bikes. Thanks for your
time.
Thank you for coming to speak. That is all the cards I have wishing to speak. I do have
several people who did fill out comment cards. If you would like to speak when I read off
your name, just raise your hand and let me know. I have got a card in opposition from
Ned Woodbridge, and another card in opposition from Anthony and Isabelle Spinelli. I have
got a card in opposition from Stephen Ernt, and a card in opposition from Mary Ernt. This
is a public hearing. If you did not fill out a card, that is totally fine and would like
to come up and speak. You are welcome to do so. Come on forward. Hi, I am Ned Woodbridge
at 3596 Hartley Field Road here in Denton. I had not planned to speak, but I just want
to follow up on what was said here with my predecessor about the bikes. What he talked
about is absolutely true. I live on Hartley Field Road. There are packs of bikes that
go by certainly every day on the weekend. I would say it is in the hundreds. They come
up. It is a favorite loop to come up 428, as he said, Oromingo Road coming out of town
and doing a nice little loop up in our area. I think that is a really important consideration
to think about, providing for bike traffic that does not conflict with, as he said, the
turning off and turning on of cars and so forth. This is a safety issue. I know Ms.
Manglera mentioned that there was a walking path. Unfortunately, there isn't. I really
wish there were. I see students coming up and down, as I wrote to you earlier, with
towels in hand and their skateboards walking down there. The car is zipping by. It just
gives a lot of concern to me. That should be given some consideration. I think the whole
both pedestrian, auto, bike interface needs to be really thought about carefully. I would
really like to encourage you to think about that in terms of the planning for the front
of that property. It would be really helpful. Lastly, this is my own fault. I was surprised
to see that in the future land use map that this area was in fact a multi-use, I guess
is the word was, because I had consulted the flum in the actual plan itself and it showed
it as yellow, which is low-density housing. Anyway, I don't know how that transitioned.
That was where I left off with that, but somehow it transitioned to this. I do think it is
fundamentally incompatible with what the comprehensive plan says is the desire for this area.
Keep in mind, that comprehensive plan was a result of significant effort in 2030 and
this past year with the update with input from the community in terms of what is really
the desire for various areas in the city. I'm talking widely now, not just Northeast
Denton. I do think this is incompatible. We are going through a process. I am on the Steering
Committee of the area plan for Northeast Denton. I hope that we can more flesh all this out
in terms of what the area would like and the community would like to see. Anyway, thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Robich for speaking. Is there anyone else wishing to speak at this time?
Come on down. Sure. Thank you.
I don't know if you can give us your name and address. Your time will begin.
Good afternoon, guys. My name is Hugh Brar. I'm at East 3010 East Sherman. I'm actually
the owner of 7-Eleven that is on East Sherman Drive. Listening to that gentleman, we see
bikers all the time, especially on Sundays or during the football games or what have
you. It is a little bit concerning. I'm not opposed. I'm not forward towards it or neither
denial, but it is a little bit of a concern for the city, for the children that are actually
going to the football games or coming back or going to the skate park actually. We treat
our business as a family-oriented business and the children that live around across from
the apartment building, across from us. Kids come over there. I ask them all the time,
do your parents know? You are crossing a major, I wouldn't say a highway, but the way people
are treating it, they are treating it as a highway. 60 miles, 70 miles per hour cars
are traveling. So with that being said, it is going to be very much of a traffic hazard,
even though I would love it as a business owner, but it is going to be heavily trafficked.
So please think about the children and the people that go for a walk across or this way
or the bikers. Thank you.
Thank you for coming to speak. Appreciate that. Is there anyone else wishing to speak
on this item? I do not see any. Hillary, let me ask you this question. Since the applicant
has stated they would like to postpone the item from being voted on tonight, would the
public hearing remain open for this particular item or do we have the time, since she mentioned
I think March 29th? I don't believe we would have time to re-notice
for the 29th, so we would need to leave it open if you wish to continue public hearing
on the 29th, I believe. Right, we would need to leave it open.
So what I would not want that to do is eliminate anyone who has spoken tonight from being allowed
to speak again then, especially if the applicant is coming with new information, a presentation
that they were not privy to see today, so please let me know how that would play a role.
Because if it does play a role that they cannot, then I would prefer to close the public hearing
and then maybe we just would postpone longer so that we would have time to re-notice that.
I'm not entirely sure off the top of my head if someone would be able to speak again from
a precisely what the code says, but from a spirit of all of the values that Denton has
important of transparency and fair play and such, I think it would recommend letting anyone
who spoke today speak again, especially, as you said, since there would be new information
potentially they would be responding to. Yeah, exactly.
Haley, did you want to add to that? Yeah, I was going to add I don't recall the
time limitations, but I believe there is language that allows at the Chair's discretion for
anyone to have additional time to speak if they wish to do so. So I believe that would
be up to your decision as to whether you wanted to allow that.
Okay. So then it would be agreed upon that we would leave the public hearing open on this
item and anyone wishing to speak again, whether they spoke tonight or not, would be at my
discretion to let them, which I'm saying right now I would let them.
I think that would be best practices. Yes, ma'am.
Okay. Very good. I appreciate that. Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to table discussion to date certain of March 29th.
Commissioner Cole. Second.
Okay. We've got a first and a second to table this discussion to a date certain of March
29th, 2023. Any discussion? Okay, I'm just going to add this so that it's some food for
thought as we go hear this item again. And it is to explain currently on the property
it's zoned SC. SC district is intended to provide moderate to high density commercial
office and retail uses along high traffic corridors. The SC district provides elevated
building landscape design, buildings oriented to the street and appropriate buffering from
adjacent neighborhoods. While the SC district is primarily auto oriented, it provides a
safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists. This is the corner of Loop 288 and Sherman
Drive. So I'm going to leave that. Next, this PD has an underlying zoning request
of MN, which is mixed use neighborhood. That is defined as the MN district is provided
to support compatibility between higher density mixed use areas and adjacent residential and
commercial uses. This district contributes to a vibrant environment for pedestrians and
cyclists and includes varying densities of residential neighborhoods serving retail restaurants,
commercial and office uses that are sensitive to the surrounding build and natural context
and scale and form. So those are the two basic zoning districts that we're dealing with on
this corner. So we need to think about that. And again, we're talking about a large corner
of Loop 288 and Sherman Drive. So I look forward to further discussion. If there's no other
discussion here, let's go ahead and vote on the board. The motion is to postpone to a
date certain of March 29th. Let's see. That motion carries 6-1. And we will see you back
on the 29th. And thank you, all of you who came out to speak on this item and continue
to communicate, and we'll see you again on the 29th. Thank you. That will move us to
our matrix. And I'll turn it over to Haley. Yes. Just wanted to note, I do have notes
from our discussion at work session, so we will add something to the matrix regarding
continuing and following up on the discussion regarding notices to ETJ properties. Just
to give the commission some updates from recent city council action, at their meeting on
March 7th, we did have the zoning to light industrial at 380 and Thomas J. Egan that
was approved. And then the code amendments for outdoor storage and display were also
approved unanimously by council. So thanks again to our DCRC for all the hard work on
that one. Great. Anything else for the matrix from anyone? I would just like to add, I don't
know if it's an actual matrix to be added, but to just make a suggestion to be on top
of mind for staff, we've had a couple of things come before us, and we're going to hear them
both because neither one, well, one's being reconsidered and one we didn't take action
on tonight, but this PD in lieu of SUP, I just would like that to be top of mind that
that doesn't become something consistent, because I don't think that's a good idea.
I think we have SUPs in place to discuss SUPs, you know, and so I don't know how to, again,
not that it needs to be a work session, I don't think, but if it just could be top of
mind because then maybe it does need to be a work session if you're seeing it more or
you're desiring it more. So 100% agree with you, it's actually in the code that a PD should
not be used where an SUP can be used. I think it's unfortunate timing that both of these
cases coincided to be running together on our agendas basically, but we do strive our
best to deter PDs because we don't want to become a city of 100 or 1,000 PDs, which could
easily occur. So we do push everyone as much as possible towards straight zoning and specific
use permits where appropriate. I would say these cases are oddities that just happen to
coincide.
Yeah, okay, okay, very good. I appreciate that explanation. Seeing nothing else for the
matrix, any concluding items? Okay. Then let's adjourn at 7.38 p.m. Thank you.