Good afternoon and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Work Commission for
February 20th 2019. Having a quorum present I will open the meeting at 2.09.
The first item in our work session agenda is to receive a presentation from
the Denton Independent School District and I believe Paul Andrus is here to
present. The floor is yours. My name is Paul Andrus. I'm with the Operations
Department, Denton ISD. I've got Gary Ryan here with our Construction
Department, Denton ISD. Ray Bledsoe and Bob Templeton with Templeton Demographics.
So we're here to talk about construction planning and growth. I believe at your
request or for sure Julie's request. But what we're going to do is present our
fourth quarter of 2018 growth report that we use every day. That's how we plan
for future. We see all the developments. Julie does a good job of keeping us up
to date when new ones are coming in. So I'm going to have Bob present that and then
we'll be available to take questions afterwards. Sounds great.
Well thank you. It is my pleasure to be with you this afternoon.
Templeton Demographics, we are a consulting firm. If I can interrupt, I apologize, they want you on the mic.
Thank you. Sorry about that. Templeton Demographics is a consulting firm. We
specialize in working with school districts across the country. We work
with about a hundred school districts. Most of those are suburban, fast growth
school districts that are adding literally thousands of homes per year.
We've been fortunate to work with the Denton School District for about the
last ten years where we have helped them with understanding the housing growth,
turning that into population growth. We model out how to change the attendance
zones and we are affiliated with MetroStudy. So we are a part of the
MetroStudy family. The MetroStudy companies literally track 93% of all of
the housing construction across the country. So in every major market across
the country, their employees are physically driving active subdivisions.
They're counting how many homes are being started, how many homes are being
occupied. They interview the cities, they get the preliminary plats from the cities.
We put it into this giant database so then we can then turn that into relevant
information for the school district. So this afternoon I'm going to go over our
fourth quarter report that we presented to the Denton School District and show
you what we're seeing with the housing market and how that translates into
enrollment growth for the school district. We're very fortunate in the DFW
region. When I mentioned DFW region, that's all of the major counties within
the metropolitan statistical area which does include Denton and we're 3.4% job
growth. We literally are either first or second depending upon which month that
you look at the data in job growth across the country. That 3.4% job
growth represents about 127,000 jobs that were added during the last 12
months ending in December. I don't see that changing in the short term. Within
the next couple of months, like several months, we still have many relocations
that are coming to the DFW region so the job growth is in a very strong position
to continue. Right now the number one city has been Houston so Houston has
jumped back up the list due to the growth in energy related jobs. We're also very
fortunate in Texas. San Antonio and Austin continue to be in the top 25
cities for job growth but that 3.4% job growth literally is one of the highest
percentages and net job growth cities in the country. Unemployment rates very low.
These are almost 50-year lows that we're seeing in terms of the unemployment
rates. The US rates at 3.7%, Texas is at 3.6%, the DFW MSA is at 3.3%, and Denton
County is at 2.9%. So very low unemployment rates. These can be a
little bit of a problem for the service industry markets in terms of food
service, janitorial, logistics, transportation, construction. All of the
service industries tend to have a challenge filling their jobs when the
unemployment rates get this low. And so this is a little bit of a concern as it
is having an impact on the cost of construction. It's raising the cost
because the subcontractors are charging a premium to do their work. The housing
market is also continuing to be very strong. Across the DFW region we have
started about 34,752 homes. That's an annual number across the DFW region.
That's up about 1,490 from the fourth quarter of 2017. We do think we're near
the ceiling. So that 35,000 is about the maximum number of annual homes that will
likely be seen added to the DFW region. Now when you look at the job growth, so
that job growth is continuing to cause a need for additional housing. So we do
expect that the housing market to be very healthy over the next year to two
years. Now here's a look specifically at Denton ISD's housing picture. Now this is
you know the full Denton ISD which is several cities. So it's multiple
municipal jurisdictions. So we're able to track that looking at deed transactions
as well as the metro study survey. And you can see back in 2010 we had about
1,500 home sales in the Denton School District and since that time it's gone
up about 41%. So we've seen a 41% increase in existing home sales. Now the
yellow part of that bar graph and the dark green of that bar graph represent
what I'm going to call distressed property sales. Foreclosures. REO stands
for real estate owned sales which is basically bank owned sales. And you'll
notice back in the 2010 we had a significant amount of distressed property
sales and today it's almost nonexistent. And that's because the housing market is
so hot right now when properties become distressed either through health or loss
of a job those families can sell those homes very quickly so therefore it
doesn't go to foreclosure or a bank owned real estate sales. So the market is
very healthy. Yes sir. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Let me just get one
clarification. Were we talking about single-family homes here? Single-family.
Multifamily is not in this picture. Great. We do track the
multifamily very closely as well but this is looking specifically at single
family. Thank you. Now here's a map of the school district and we looked at home
sales the dark blue areas the dark blue neighborhoods where we have the highest
concentration of home sales. Now we do track the Robeson Ranch home sales even
though they don't have an impact of students. It's age restricted but we do
track that so that the district can see how many homes are being added to the
the appraised value records. You can also see that 380 corridor. So the 380
corridor is probably the strongest or the highest volume of new home activity
is taking place in that part of the Denton School District as Frisco builds
out and as that growth continues to move north and also the improvement of the
380 infrastructure will be very helpful to allow that growth to continue driving
down 380 is a little bit of a challenge at times and so as that roadways as
those roadways get improved and we see more lanes it will continue to push
growth into that part of the school district. So you know Little Elm is in
that area but Little Elm is getting closer to build out. Frisco is slowing
down. Actually Prosper is the number one school district now in the DFW region
for new home starts so for many many years it was Frisco. So Frisco is
already dropping down that list. I want to show you a ranking report. This is
where Denton ISD ranks in the DFW Metroplex based on annual closings. So
Prosper is number one. 2,715 annual closings per year and Denton is second
with 2,234. Frisco has dropped to third. VDL stands for vacant developed
lots. Those are lots that are on the ground ready for builders to build on
today and you can see Denton ISD has 3,815 vacant developed lots ready for
builders. Denton ISD has the highest amount of future lot activity or future
lot inventory in the DFW region. 29,087 future lots. Now future lots are
preliminarily plotted developments. They're future phases of existing
developments. They are concept plans that developers have started to groundwork on
through different P&Zs. So it gives us an indication of the amount of land that is
in some part of the development cycle. Now there is a large amount of raw land
that this does not include. So raw land that's ranch or ag land that hasn't had
any development interest on would not be in this number. So that 29,000 does give
us an indication of the development interest into Denton ISD. Yes sir. Is the
plans of Hunter Ranch and Cole Ranch would those be included in that 29,000?
That's a significant number. I do have the information on Cole Ranch. I know that the
two are merging. So this is where our numbers are estimates. Okay. And as it
goes further into the platting process we'll get some refinements. But right now
I want to say our estimate is for about 11,000. Okay. And so your number may be a
little different. But that 11,000 be included roughly in this 29,000. Okay.
That makes sense. Yes. So I mean you've got two really large futures. The Cole
Ranch in the hills of Denton is also I want to say about 4,900 to 5,000 lots. So
yes those are roughly in the future but it would not include when we see the map
and you see where the active and future subdivisions are there's still a
tremendous amount of vacant land that would not be in this picture. In my
estimations Denton ISD is going to be a fast growth school district for probably
25 to 30 years. You can see if we're building 2,200 homes a year and there's
roughly 29,000 lots that's about 12 to 15 years of supply of lots. So just in
this amount we've got 12 to 15 years of supply. Commissioner Smith. Thank you
chair. Bottom double asterisks table does include age restricted communities of
communities like like Robeson. That's correct. There's 55 and older restriction
there. So how many of the homes included in the 29,000 do you think are age
restricted? You know I have some details on that. I know from the it's not it's
not a very large amount. It's not. There's probably no more than a thousand. That's correct. Of the 2400
starts yeah about 300 of that is from Robeson Ranch. Okay. So roughly I'll just
round it down to 2,000 homes a year are being built that are not age restricted.
Okay. Which that's what's going to continue to put Denton ISD is one of the
fastest growing school districts in the state for 15 to 20 plus years. And that's
it. I think that's good news. I would much much rather be in a community that's growing
and adding population. We do have clients that are declining and built out. Well not
necessarily built out but Wichita Falls is one of our clients. The economy in
Wichita Falls is not strong enough to add enough job growth to keep young
families moving to Wichita Falls. So our picture in Wichita Falls is a picture of
how do we close schools how do we get more efficient and those are much more
difficult challenges I think than the challenges of okay let's figure out
where do we build schools and how do we how do we handle the growth that's
coming. But you can see right now Denton is second in the DFW region based on
annual closings and Denton will be in that top three for the foreseeable future.
Now you can see you know Prosper is relatively new to this fast growth
picture within the last ten years. Prosper has jumped in here but within
about ten years Prosper is going to be winding down because geographically
they're not as large. The number of square miles in Prosper is not
anywhere close to the number of square miles that Denton ISD is. We track the
new home market this is new home activity every quarter so every quarter
we're tracking the activity and you can see in the fourth quarter we started
571 homes in the fourth quarter which was the highest fourth quarter total
that we've seen in Denton ISD. 571 and for the year for 2018 we started
2,490 this does include Robeson Ranch but in a little bit I'm going to show
you a table where we remove Robeson Ranch. So when we start looking at the data
based on the elementary schools we take it out so because those homes will not
impact students. Now here's a map of your school district based on your annual
closings you can see the red attendance zones have the highest amount of
activity they're closing more than 300 homes a year that's in that 380 corridor
it's the Union Park area it's the Savannah area you know those particular
elementary zones have the highest amount of activity we've mapped the top ten
most active subdivisions a majority of the single-family activity can be found
in the top ten so this is a real quick way to see where the most activities
taking place right now Wind Ridge is your most active subdivision building
about 205 homes a year second is Paloma Creek South that's just the Denton ISD
portion 184 Savannah 171 Robeson Ranch is fourth at 161 and you can see the top
ten list there but a majority of that is concentrated in the eastern quadrant
along 380 so that's where the school district is seeing the highest
concentration of single-family growth this map is based on vacant developed lot
supply when we build our enrollment projections we're looking at each
elementary zone where are they building and closing the highest concentration of
new homes new home growth is the main driver for enrollment growth so that's
what helps us build those projections in the short term based on where the
closings are the vacant developed lots show us where the growth is going to be
in the next two years so when we see where the lot concentration is we know
that's where the builders are going to be building next so we study vacant
developed lot supply for that and then next we look at future lots and so the
future lot supply gives us an indication of where the growth is going to be
headed beyond three to five years that's where you'll notice the coal ranch pop
up on the screen coal ranch is still several years away from delivering lots
they've got to go through a lot of hoops to get get checked before they can
deliver streets get builders building but we do know it's now taking another
step forward it's moving in the direction to get development sooner
rather than later and we also just recently heard about the joining of
efforts between coal ranch and hunters is a hunter's ranch hunter ranch so and
I don't know one of them is owned by Hillwood and we have a lot of
experience with Hillwood I'm not sure who the other developer is but as those
plans get processed through P&Z and get going through the the the process will
then get more clarity so then we can share with the school district how many
school sites are needed how many elementary middle and high school sites
when you see an 11,000 home project that's almost a feeder pattern of
schools so every 1,500 to 2,000 lots equals one elementary school 1,500 lots
will fill up an elementary so you can add 10,000 that's roughly five
elementaries that's literally two to three middle schools and that equals a
high school so coal ranch the hunter ranch that could easily be one whole
feeder pattern of growth for the Denton school district now this is where we
remove the we do take out the age restricted lots when we break it out by
elementary zone and as I mentioned we build the projections at each elementary
campus and then let them migrate up into the middle schools and then ultimately
up into the high schools so you can see Union Park is starting more than 730
homes so they're roughly growing more than a hundred elementary kids a year
just in that particular elementary school the second most active area is
Providence also along 380 227 and then your third most active area is Ryan
Elementary with 205 but keep in mind anything any zone that's building more
than a hundred homes a year is really experiencing strong growth and you've
got you know roughly seven to eight elementary zones that are building more
than a hundred homes per year so the growth is spread throughout several
areas of the school district here's a map that just kind of gives you that
30,000 foot picture the green outlines are active subdivisions that are
building homes the yellow outlines are where some of those future lots are you
can see the the coal ranch here hills of Denton up here you know those are your
two largest concentration of future lots I want to say this was close to 5,000
lots estimate now that'll that'll get refined as they go through the platting
process but down here this is close to 11,000 that does include some potential
multifamily that could result in this area as well you can also see this
concentration east along 380 literally the fastest growing part of the district
right now and then you know a few years ago this area was also one of the
fastest growing parts of the Denton School District this is primarily was
primarily driven by Lantana master plan community had approximately 5,000 home
it's nearing build out her right at build out you do have some futures down
here in the very southern tip which would be categorized as larger lot higher
price point definitely lower yielding students here high yielding this is some
of the most affordable product in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex so keep in
mind in Frisco the average new home price is over 430 for new home average
new home price so the average new home price in this area is a little less
than that so this would be considered a product that would be attractive for
families with kids elementary kids which is why we're seeing such growth at the
elementary and middle school campuses in this particular area some of the details
Windridge about 1,300 lots there were 50 homes under construction during the
fourth quarter dr. Horton is the main builder in this development they're
starting a hundred and fifty four lots for phase one streets are paved in
section 2a with a hundred ninety two lots that price range is 230 to 335 very
affordable product for that particular area that's also in that 380 corridor
Union Park 2,832 total lots about 30 homes under construction during the
fourth quarter and home building is underway for a age-restricted section so
there will be some age-restricted lots here that we will then pull out of our
student mix we estimate that they're going to be building about a hundred and
fifty to two hundred homes a year that price range on the low end is 270 could
get as high as five hundred thousand in Union Park just to the east of that area
is Arrowbrook it's almost 1,700 lots 52 homes under construction during the
fourth quarter and they built about 140 homes during the last four quarters that
price range is 260 of the to 340 they're building about a hundred and thirty to
a hundred and fifty homes a year in Arrowbrook Wensong Ranch it is split
between prosper ISD and Denton ISD the Denton ISD portion is about 393 total
lots there were 11 homes under construction and this is a little bit of
a the the lots are actually right in here the lots aren't down here this
whole piece here is Park Road trails and green belt area and so even though this
green outline is very large the Denton ISD section is only this corner right
here which represents that 393 lots Oak Hill Ranch 391 future lots the groundwork
is underway on phase one with 142 lots first residents expected end of 2019
building about 30 to 40 homes per year and then we've got Prairie Oaks 985
total lots 275 vacant developed lots are ready for builders building about 140 to
150 homes a year you kind of get the idea and that corridor building well
over 500 homes a year so the largest portion of the school districts single
family construction right now is in that East corridor of the 380 area with all
that said and done here is what this looks like in terms of the forecast for
the Denton School District now you can see over the last four years they have
added roughly look at my notes here about 3,000 kids almost 3,100 kids have
been added in the last four years and the housing market is still expanding
in Denton ISD over the next five years we're forecasting about 3,709 students
of growth during the next five years the yellow box is the largest grade per year
the green box is the second largest grade per year you can kind of see the
wave or the bubble as the larger classes are heading their way toward the second
secondary campuses there's a couple of reasons why this is happening one is the
price points of the new homes have gotten a little more expensive so it's
older families that are slightly older that are buying the new homes in Denton
ISD the second factor is the Millennials are not having their children as early
or as young as the previous generations for Gen Xers and so we have seen a slow
down at kindergarten because of the change in birth rates now that's a
national issue it's not a localized issue but with this said in the next 10
years the district will likely add seven thousand five hundred and thirty
additional students that'll put the district's enrollment in twenty twenty
eight at thirty seven thousand six hundred and thirty seven now I'm often
asked how certain am I that these projections are actually going to happen
and for Denton ISD I'm a hundred percent certain that their enrollment is going
to get to thirty seven thousand I'm a hundred percent certain the only
question is is it going to happen in eight years nine years or ten years it's
not a matter of if they're going to get that big there's so many lots so much
vacant land the economy is so strong that for districts like Denton and
prosper the forecast models are going to happen it's just like the weather is the
front going to get here in you know two days or is it going to get in here in
three days and so it is a challenge for the school district because of the need
to get bonds passed get buildings built that does require a lot more lead time
they can build a house in six to nine months it takes two years to build a
school by the time you go through platting getting it permitted and
getting it actually constructed so that's the reason why we do our best to
keep them so informed about the housing market and what it looks like and what
it does to the projections now this is focusing in on that East 380 corridor
it's the Braswell High School feeder zone so that feeder pattern roughly is
building about a thousand forty nine homes a year so almost half of their
homes are being built in the 380 corridor they've got about sixteen
hundred and sixty eight vacant develop lots and over ten thousand futures so
literally you know this area is going to continue to be the fastest growing
portion of the school district it is roughly about five thousand additional
students will be added to this feeder pattern in the next ten years so if you
remember I was forecasting about seven thousand students of growth in the ten
years five thousand of it's going to be right here so this is where they're
going to have to have new facilities expanded facilities to take care of the
growth in the Braswell High School attendance zone next area is the Denton
High School attendance zone there again we've got a lot of futures here so we've
got eleven thousand four hundred and fifty seven futures we're only building
about 300 homes a year right now but down the road this is going to be an
attendance zone that is going to grow for a very long time but it's still in
the early stages of its rapid growth here's what the projections look like
within the Denton High School zone so in the next ten years the Denton High
School zone is going to add about two thousand kids over the next ten years
now should the coal ranch hunter ranch accelerate and maybe they deliver their
lots in three years I don't know that that's kind of about what we're thinking
that there's still two to three years away from being able to deliver lots and
so it might accelerate a little bit but the reality is we're planning on about
two thousand students growth in the Denton High zone now the Geyer zone is
basically South Denton and kind of in that flower mound Argyle area of the
school district you know Lantana this was the driver for growth historically in
this theater pattern they're building about 363 homes a year but they only
have 443 vacant develop lots and about 348 futures and there might be some
infill stuff that might pop in here but what I see for the future for this zone
is a little bit higher price point larger lot sizes high lower yields
because of the price point of the homes in this area right through here so our
forecast for growth in this area actually is calling for a slight decline
so we do have areas that are declining what causes decline in an area like this
gentrification so those families as those kids go off to college and they
stay then the school-age population starts to shrink while those kids are
off at college when do they move because that's going to be the key factor for
Lantana is when do the kids go off to college and the parents finally that
sell the house and leave so that a younger family might come in behind them
with school-age children so we start to watch for gentrification and mobility in
areas like the guy or high school attended zone next would be the Ryan
attended zone the Ryan attended zone is kind of the north east quadrant that
doesn't include the 380 quadrant there is some growth in this area they're
building about 360 homes a year 768 vacant develop lots almost 2400 future
lots and in the next 10 years we're forecasting about a thousand kids of
growth in the Ryan high school attended zone now these are some of the specialty
schools that don't have attended zones that are schools of choice and over the
next 10 years you know we really don't forecast much growth for them because
they don't have an attended zone but right now we've got about 753 kids that
are attending the either schools of choice or schools that are specific to
their needs I'll summarize and be happy to answer any questions we're very
fortunate in the Dallas Fort Worth area and in Denton we've got very low
unemployment rates so the economy is very healthy the most growth in home
sales over the last five years were seen in Ryan and Union Park Elementary
attended zones Ryan Savannah Union Park zones account for about 60% of the
district's total closings during the last 12 months didn't ISD started and
closed over 2,200 homes in 2018 and we expect that the district will grow about
3,700 students during the next five years and 2023 that'll put the Denton
ISD's enrollment projections at 33,807 students and in 10 years we expect the
district will likely have 37,600 students within the school district I'd be happy
to answer any questions Mr. Beck thank you chair thanks for presentation I'm
just curious to be any way we could get something like this just to have his
general information for us down the road is that possible yes we have not actually
presented this to the Board of Trustees we're doing that Tuesday but it will be
online or I'd be happy to send it to Julie and then she can pass that on
after next Tuesday okay and I did want to make a couple clarifications we are
working with hunter and coal ranch currently to place school sites on on
both of those pieces so we've got a great relationship with Hillwood that's
Union Park and also with OC vest at Stratford so we're working with those
folks already and I know you saw Union Park elementary under that's our brand
new one that's going to open in August that's number 24 elementary 24 elementary
25 is in the current bond that we just passed of 750 million we believe that
will probably be in the Sandbrook area which would help for Sandbrook and
Erlebrook it's out east also and I don't know if you remember on the Denton high
zone where you saw Ryan elementary getting to numbers sooner than later we
own a site in country lakes kind of an Argyle you guys won't know where that's
I think but we don't have that one in the bond yet but that could be the next
elementary site so yeah quick question for you sir you mentioned you're 100%
certain that your projection rates would fall now is that presuming that
everything stays it is I mean if we have another serious recession or something
like that that's gonna throw a monkey wrench well if and when a recession
happens it doesn't mean that we're not going to hit the projection it's going
to delay when you hit the projection that's why I make the comment of I'm a
hundred percent certain so anything that from economy or job loss or slowdown in
housing it just instead of it happening in year 10 it happens in year 12 so I'm
hedging myself a little bit when I say I'm a hundred percent certain well the
reality is for a district that has so much growth ahead of it it's you're
going to get to that number it's just a matter of when not if now when we work
with Keller down the road Keller is near build out those I do not make that
statement for Keller because they are subject to different factors that could
cause that number to go down because they're at the end of their building
cycle Keller wasn't on the top 10 list anymore but between the 80s 90s in the
early part of the 2000 decade Keller was in the top five in the region for growth
well now they're built out and they really don't have much left to grow so
and I meant I did not touch on and I wanted to touch on the multifamily
picture we track multifamily just like we do single-family and I've got these
little bitty turquoise areas that represent the multifamily projects now
one thing that's different about Denton is you've got a lot of multifamily this
college related so therefore it has no impact on kids as well but we do track
the multifamily we track it to see if it's a lifestyle or a college or
affordable it's the affordable multifamily that do have the highest
concentration of students per unit and those are the ones that we see that have
the greatest impact on the district but I wanted to mention that because you
asked earlier and yes we do track it but a majority of our growth is a result of
single-family housing being added to the area
I'm not sure if you guys are aware I don't know how many square miles the
city of Denton is but Denton ISD is a hundred and eighty square miles when
you're looking at that map Keller is 43 to give you a comparison and Keller's
enrollment is about 34,000 that's the enrollment of Keller right now so to
give you a sense of the densities you know you didn't ISD really does have a
20-year horizon for growth because of this the sheer size of the district
how does that size get set is it does DISD control whether it expands based
upon need or does that set somewhere else these were set school district
boundaries were typically set in the early 1900s so they get set they were
set many many years ago and they are independent of municipal jurisdictions
and so but once a boundary gets set it becomes very difficult to change the
boundary so typically districts can't just annex DNX property there's a
little bit of room to do it if it's unincorporated or uninhabited so an area
that's uninhabited can be moved a little but once an area is inhabited with
residents it's too difficult to change the boundaries because of all of the
legal hoops that have to be jumped through to get the area changed but to
Jerry's point it does seem like the eastern part was brought in with these
developments is that accurate no they were those boundaries were already here
crazy yeah
no actually Robeson Ranch was originally Argyle ISD and they dis annexed it but
that was before there were any people there and so I think the school district
would contend that they got a good deal on that that was a good situation for
the school district because the amount of property value that it added to the
school district's appraisal values so I have a question just jump and I don't
know if it was your line can you tell me about when a development comes in that
will ultimately come to our Commission do you know at what point you see it and
once you see it does that just go to the futures or how do you take a
consideration and know when okay we need to actually consider this or thanks for
the heads up but we're not even considering this right now you're eight
years away can you tell us about that timeline as soon as it comes through as
a preliminary plan as soon as it goes through the planning process we pick it
up as a future okay now because of relationships with
Hillwood if we start to see a concept plan that has a lot count we will
sometimes go ahead and pencil in or drawing like coal ranch so even though
coal ranch has not been formally plotted we do have an estimate built in for coal
ranch so it's a function of if we pick it up through the platting process we
enter it in as a future if we pick it up from conversations with the developer we
enter it in as a potential future and is that in that example of Hillwood do they
just come down their own volition to you or how does that actually sometimes
through the district where they have contacted the district and then the
district will send us a concept plan initially we see a concept plan first
but the concept plan won't necessarily have the details of the lot right it'll
just have 200 acres 600 homes and so when we see that concept plan we will
sometimes enter that in as a future and is there ever a time or is there a
consideration so on a large property where it's 5,000 homes or lots is there
ever a time where your office the district gets this like no like we do
not have the capacity is ever pushback or you're receiving like okay this is a
curveball we're gonna have to swing at it well that's where I typically
encourage the school districts position that's not our role to deny whether
something is viable or not our role is to the school district roles to educate
the kids as they come and so we don't typically advise our clients to voice
opposition to development plans we that's the city's that's the PNZ in
city's role to work through that as far as I know we've never said no to a
development I agree and my senior here haven't seen it but there is seemingly
conversations about what is the school or how does didn't perceive this and if
it's just I doesn't know how entered related that a process was but if I'm
understanding you correctly if the commission the city says yes economically
zoning wise this is feasible then your then task to kind of figure out how it's
actually gonna play out and that's when we take that information and build it
into the enrollment projections so then the school district can see how many new
kids are going to result from these developments and then that allows them
to start to plan the box next bond election for you know three or four or
five elementaries to middle schools and a high school based on the available
housing information that we have this current bond is the first time in a
long time we've done any development within the city limits actually as you
guys probably know we've got the new Denton High School coming up we've got a
rebuild of what was this pull the mic up sorry I've got a rebuild of Woodrow
Wilson's kind of a rebuild of Strickland and eventually a rebuild of Newton razor
probably so that's what a lot of this bond was so the next bond will probably
be growth again we do have another middle school in this current bond and
we've also got elementary number 25 which I mentioned and that brings about
an interesting point in other municipalities it's do you go and task
them to raise the money for school and through their bond process or so out in
Union Park that's not the city of Denton is it no it's not so how how do those
funds work to build schools well since it's Denton ISD it's pretty much the
Denton taxpayers that fund the Denton schools they're painted that didn't ISD
tax though right you know I would imagine yes okay okay that's a whole
different topic I think mr. Smith was up thank you how does the estimates for
future growth and having homes change if there's a shift in desire for single
family residentials to be rezoned so the multifamily can be built instead is
there is there kind of fail-safe put in place to kind of adjust for that is so
yeah all this area here that's all that's all developed land that you
know for single-family residential what there's a big shift and change and we
start seeing so we've seen a lot more and more of zonings come in front of us
to hey we want to take this area that's single-family residential or commercial
and take turn into multifamily so it's not things that are zoned right now for
that multifamily high density area well as soon as we saw the change we would
immediately change our model based on the density now I don't see as much
single-family land going multifamily there tends to be more resistance to the
zoning up like that yeah the practicality is well I need to find out is
it class a multifamily is it I guess even expand the question from you know
what we see maybe it's not taking in our you know in our to and turning it into in
our MU and we're turning it into big high density but it's taking in our two
and turning it in our six and so an area that was designated for two units per
acre is now 60 minutes an acre so it's not necessarily multifamily at that
point in time but we are increasing density how reactive is these estimates
are they very reactive gotcha so because we get the data on a quarterly basis
so each quarter we are tweaking the model based on how we see it change you
know it's very interesting there's a lot of misconceptions about products and you
know what we see is it really has to do with a number of bedrooms yep so if a
multifamily project has 400 units that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to
have 200 kids so what I really need to see is what are the mix of three two and
one bedrooms in Capella ISD we work with that district and you know they've got a
huge Cypress water Cypress yes and they have a restriction on the number of one
bedrooms that they have to build like 70 percent of the units have to be one
bedrooms because meant to be kind of commercial I guess so what they call yes
that commercial work and work and live right so it really doesn't matter how
many units they are it's not going to generate very many kids because of the
one-bedroom restriction but if you have a lot of two and three bedrooms then
there is more potential for higher students per unit and then after you
guys present this to the board how available are you or is there is denies
states of presenting this to other community organizations if it's so they're
open to do very open very open yes okay all right got it we're doing three three
around the fourth quarter right now okay so we presented to the bond facility
committee the facility committee we presented here who should we contact you
can send it to me thank you Mr. Beck thank you chair and I appreciate
chairman Rozelle's questioning about how y'all react as a new development comes
in so if I understand this right then when we face a group of citizens where
new developments going in and their big concerns the school district can't
handle it we are we can feel comfortable now that you guys are aware of it that
yes schools will be able to handle any growth there is that what I'm here you
say so far yes okay okay good thank you Mr. Sanchez based on the information
it's all projections there's a school ever fought the district never find
itself not having enough rooms or capacity in a school and what do they
do in that event I've kind of heard that's happened before so I was just
curious if we get in a bind there's always those dreaded portable classrooms
that we move around the district has I think we own about 97 of them right now
and they're they're decent they're good classrooms they have their own heat and
air we put them close to the building so that they can use the facilities inside
and that's how we do it on a temporary basis and that's when we start planning
for additions or another school any other questions from the commission
I don't see any thank you very much for coming and presenting this information
extremely helpful thank you the next item on the agenda for business is to
receive a report on the development code update thank you chair members of the
Commission this presentation shouldn't take too long provided to you in the
backup sent out last Friday and then delivered on Monday is the latest draft
of the DC update I know that you all have looked at it and reviewed it and
have tons of questions so really I'm here to help take your comments so look
seriously I have a presentation but I just want to just kind of lay it out a
little bit I mean the work sessions that we've scheduled for the Commission is
really to get your feedback on the draft DDC so today and then we've got one
schedule for next Wednesday as well so we have an opportunity to do that so let
me open up my presentation and we'll start with the den plan 2030 how's that
, thank you.
Okay so as a start I wanted to just share with you and as a recap I know
that some of you are very familiar with the den plan 2030 and really is the
guiding document in which we started this effort with a DDC update I know
some of the new members I provided you all with copies of the den plan 2030
that's really an important document in which we should use as a guide in our
decision-making how we manage growth how we we look at development coming into
the city so the plan 2030 as shown here is the city's comprehensive plan again
it's our guide document related to decision-making it's really sets the the
vision for the next 15-20 years and that's we started back in 2012 looking
at you know 15-20 years 2030 as our planning time frame included in the den
plan 2030 is the community vision statement we went through a number I
think a total of nine community forums in which we gathered as much input as
possible to create the community vision statement it was later shared with the
public went through a number of iterations and again that vision
statement is in den plan 2030 and also included in your backup if you haven't
already seen it. The plan itself has ten elements I won't go into each one of
them the ones that I think are most notable are the lane use mobility
community character and housing and neighborhood those are the ones I picked
out but again there are other elements here that are important that everyone
should be familiar with when considering the decisions that you all make. The
first one plan framework just to give you a gun an idea of what went through
what went in the preparation of den plan 2030 we we went through a number of
iterations or drafts again we went through developing with the community
vision statement the themes included in the plan itself were highlighted in
mobility community character sustainability and community health
those were the things that we made sure that we kept going we kept going back to
when we were drafting the den plan 2030. Involved in that process was a citizen
advisory committee a then plan ambassador group as well as a technical
advisory committee went through a number of phases through the plan it took about
two years starting 2012-2013 and ended up in adopting this back in 2015 February
of 2015. I'm gonna go through this really quickly just again to give you all a
sense of why the den plan is such an important document and how it shapes the
den code 2030 update. The first phase was really starting the process kicking it
off. Phase two was the information gathering process we again we talked
about the community vision statement and the input that was gathered was during
phase two. Community forums there was surveys both phone surveys as well as
online surveys. Phase three is when we start to put together the growth trend
scenarios and I think you've seen this in past presentations the future land use
map the preferred growth concept all of which is back to the community vision
statement and really that's what drove how we we drafted the future land use
map and again we'll be talking about how the future land use map in the zoning
map the drive zoning map should be consistent. We had a lot of participation
and we ended up with a preferred growth. We took the alternatives of a growth
trend, a center alternative, a corridor alternative, and then a compact
alternative and ended up with a preferred growth alternative concept
that is and again that is in the den plan 2030. Phase four is really just
putting the stuff together putting the document together and then over a thousand
participants in the process and it was interesting I don't have my my plan here
but if you look at the plan itself on the back cover there's a list of those
individuals that participated so there was some ownership in the plan because
they were involved we want to make sure that they were acknowledged and so in
the plan itself if you flip to the back page those participants that were
involved have their name listed in the plan itself. Again I went through this or
mentioned this earlier phase five related adoption process we took this to
the planning zoning Commission it was approved or recommended for approval
that is 5-2 and then City Council soon after that in February of 2015 and that
was approved 7-0. Okay so how does this then plan 2030 relate to then code
update? Again we look at the den plan 2030 as the guide in which we implement
or update documents. So land use is one of the elements I mentioned earlier and
in the land use element are land use goals and these goals here are listed in
the den plan 2030. Grow compactly so what does that mean that means we want to
make sure that we have areas in the city that are developed with a more higher
intense or intensity and density so that's why you have the mixed use
districts identified. Grow with purpose we want to make sure that we have an idea
of where we want to go so again we talked about you know zoning you know
some of the areas around north of the loop we do we want to make sure we
preserve those areas so we want to grow with purpose and protect those areas.
Grow our assets our assets are for example the downtown our focus areas are
established neighborhoods we want to protect that so you see in the
development code buffers setbacks screening so those are those are related
back to the the goals of the den plan 2030 and how that translates to the den
code update. Grow resourcefully kind of goes back to you again do we want to
start building out past the loop or do we want to you know reserve or you know
reserve as much as we can and our resources are actually are important the
tree I'm gonna I'm gonna just tie into that the tree code again ties back to
our resources our environmental insensitive areas again our resources so
we want to make sure that whenever we make an update or amend a code we
want to go back to these goals grow with character it's not just protecting the
character that we have now such as the downtown it's also creating character in
areas that we don't know we don't necessarily have today our nodes our
commercial nodes areas that are you know our employment hub those are areas that
we want to increase you know the character how do you achieve character
you look at the the sidewalks the architecture the the landscaping the
parking all of which goes back to you know growing the character of the city
of Den and lastly growing with balance balance of course we want to make sure
we have a balance of housing a balance of commercial and also employment a big
part of the den plan 2030 was this idea of business innovation an area in this
in the city where there's a place where corporate you know businesses business
parks can locate and and that's really what we're trying to do we want to
identify areas within the city that's residential that's commercial that's
industrial but also for employment so I think that's a big part of what we want
to strive for and when we went again when we're looking at the den code update
community character I kind of touched base on that a little bit we talked
about character long-term sustainment we want to protect our established
neighborhoods we want to make sure our new development are sustainable we want
to make them last so it goes back to some of the standards that are found in
chapter 6 community is that interaction having a linkage of networks open space
amenities all of which again is in the den code when you think about the
standards of sidewalks walkways open space those all come back to how we want
to build communities in our city and then we talked about creating character
already mobility another element in the code that plays an important factor in
the den code itself access and circulation are big components and that's
actually chapter 6 of the development code if you look at the standards that
are required under that it goes back to the goal and the actions and the
recommendations from the den plan 2030 transit is another goal of the mobility
element we want to make sure that again we provide accessible linkages to
transit facilities throughout the the city making sure that when we approve
developments there's there's some connection to those transits building
and creating mixed-use developments and we go back to mixed-use developments we
often talk about you know providing mixed-use developments in an area where
there's transit gives the person an opportunity to live and not have to get
in a car and just be able to access their their way through the city or even
to the region through transit I think this is the last of the elements that I'm
going to highlight neighborhood and housing obviously this is a big one
because one of the things that we talked about is housing we've seen a lot of
development that come into the city that go through the planning zoning
Commission that use a development code when they propose or come through with a
project we want to see a diversity an array of housing types so included in
the draft that you have today are new housing types we have of course single
family duplexes townhomes we want to increase I believe another more robust
townhomes development in the city we have triplexes four plexes we also talk
about multifamily and last week or last time we met the rent by the bedroom
those those are all housing types that are you know what we want to make sure
we have available for those citizens and lastly I know we we talked about this as
well and it is also covered in the dang code twenty I'm sorry the den code is
the proposal and inclusion of tiny home development so again going back well why
is that there well it's something that we we thought about when we were talking
about the damn plan 2030 as we thought we were thinking about housing types
again the housing and neighborhood elements bless you also talks about
established neighborhoods protecting our established neighborhoods they don't
have to be historic they can just be just neighborhoods we want to make sure
that we protect those neighborhoods and when we started drafting the zoning map
that was one of the things that we paid attention real attention to because we
knew that a zoning proposal or a new zoning district in an area adjacent to
a single-family established neighborhood could impact that area so we were
sensitive to that and lastly livability I mean livability is a lot of different
you know things that can be said about it just making sure that there's open
space for for people to walk to enjoy amenities and then and then just
generally be able to have shopping or employment those all play an important
part in what this development code should be so as you look at that code and
start reading it remember that there's there's there's a goal in which this
code is trying to achieve so that brings us up to where we are today I really
just wanted to share that portion of the plan 2030 because it is an important
document and it is important in making sure that when we review the DEN code
and prove it in the near future it is consistent with the DEN plan 2030 and
that is really what we're trying to do you've seen this slide already I want to
pause here and ask if you have any questions before we move forward on the
DEN plan 20 or the development code itself
Tricia Cole thank you chair I got a question about okay how much of the
population projections changed since three four years ago when this was sure
well you know that's an interesting question because I get asked all the time
every year you know what's our population projection and when they when
I say they the consultants put the plan together which we were involved in they
were projecting close to 200,000 people by 2030 and I was like well that's a lot
of people in you know 15 to 20 years that's an increase of about 60,000
people right we're currently at a hundred thirty five hundred forty
thousand but when you look at the master plan communities that are there now and
that can come and you just heard the presentation from Templeton there's a
there's there's gonna be an increase and as far as population projection I don't
think it's changed I think the DEN plan 2030 got it because they knew that those
master plan communities will be coming in the near future in fact we identified
it in our future land use map and highlighted not highlighted but rather
represented it in our future land use map because we knew that that was
something that was gonna come soon maybe not not in the next three four years but
as you all know in recent discussions or recent City Council meetings Cole and
Hunter are looking at starting that development and if that does come come
through that's 15,000 units that's not population that's just a unit so
multiply that by whatever factor it is 2.8 per unit persons per unit we will
see 200,000 in the long term so we're we're getting there so to answer your
question has it has it and has it been affected I would say we planned for it
and I don't think it's changed we may see more actually than what was projected
back in 2015 okay all right well really this is an opportunity I I'm not gonna
go through the code you know page by page we have identified some major topics
and major changes that we have already discussed through the presentation with
Clarion I'm happy to go over those same topics with you if you have specific
questions I'll be obviously available to answer those questions but really wanted
to give this Commission the opportunity to ask questions that may not have been
covered or need further clarification when it comes to those topics so I'm
just gonna go through this and if you have any questions please let me know
so we've already again this is a something that you've seen already
through the Clarion discussion we won't talk about the following items here that
will be something that will be discussed as a separate discussion the tree code
there is the late not the latest but the version up to where we had it last week
in the version there in the development code today so if you're looking at the
landscaping and conservation ordinance what you have in the code itself is
pretty close but note that there are still changes being done to even more
refine that ordinance and we will discuss that at a later time as I'm just
going to go through this the topic of discussion that you see here on the
fourth bullet is really the chapters one two and three the general provisions the
administration and procedures chapter as well as the zoning district chapter the
zoning district chapters are probably a big one that the Commission may be want
a little bit further clarification and we can prepare that or do that for you
all as we continue this presentation I'm gonna skip these because these are just
gonna be something that will be coming up in the next planning zoning Commission
work session that again is scheduled for February 27th okay so I've prepared the
list and this list is similar to what Clarion presented I'm gonna start with
chapter one and the big one that we discussed when I say we that's the
Denton code review committee the DC RC was in chapter one was nonconformity
right that's a big part of it and it was directed or determined that we are not
going to create nonconformities for single-family detached dwellings duplexes
or town homes if those established existing homes were developed and
constructed legally they will remain legal even if the zoning map changes or
the development standards changes they will still remain illegal and not be
considered nonconforming Ron I have a question about that we talked last week
Clarion that existing structures I think we're talking commercial if they meet
certain thresholds 50% or a thousand square feet would trigger that portion
of the update to meet new codes if it's above those thresholds that all of us we
were able to code how does that play into the residential home if there's a
renovation or a tear down can you talk about do those same thresholds apply
across all residential zoning categories as well yes so the the residential for
example an expansion you know they're still going to be the requirements that
they have to comply with when it comes to the new code right because they can't
encroach now if they were already encroaching over that the new setback
line that's that that structure would be considered nonconforming but we're
saying that for financial purposes or whatever you know legal purposes they're
not considered nonconforming there was still remain legal so to you answer your
question if they're expanding and they're encroaching into that setback
they can't it's only if they were there prior to this code so they will still be
required to comply with all the requirements of the DC it's just that if
they're currently outside those requirements currently then they would
not be considered nonconforming so they're moving say for like an NRR 4 I
believe has the two from six feet to five feet right if they were encroaching
that it's still not listed as a nonconforming if they were to pull a
permit on that one foot encroachment they're still okay to touch that
property or fix the property that would be encroaching they just can't take
something that was outside six feet and now put it in that zone so if it will if
they're expanding they would not be able to go past five is that if they're
already past the six if they're already past six they would not be allowed to
expand even further okay yeah we're not we're not we're not encouraging more you
know outside but we recognize that those that have already been established have
been legally constructed would not be considered nonconforming and I guess my
point is if they touch what would have not been nonconforming and now they've
updated that they're still protected by the nonconforming status lose that if
they have to fix it fix oh yeah you know I mean if it's if it's something that
they're they're just we you know you know touching or you know maintenance
those those and there's actually a section on maintenance those would
continue to be able to to remain there it's just when they're expanding you
know where it is currently not there they would not be able to okay that makes
sense thank you okay Christian Sanchez so what I know he has a question about
tear downs what happens on a tear down if they there's a there's there's a
believe a 50% I mean if you're gonna tear down voluntarily yeah if you're
gonna tear down and say you're you want to rebuild a house where normally you
wouldn't put a house and they tear it down completely at that point can they
build in another house yeah well yes they can okay and but they have to
comply with it I thought you were asking a different question okay yes you can
build back but it's got to comply with the code that's currently in place I
thought you were asking if it was you know they wanted to go past the really
question again in chapter one pending applications and approved projects we
obviously have a lot of activity today and that's not going to stop where we
were not going to hold those projects to get this code update so as as those
projects come in they will be able to continue and we talked about you know a
time period between the adoption and the effective date the ability to select
which one of course we would hope that they would choose the newer document but
they still have the option to to stick with the existing one but again those
projects will continue and we're not we're not stopping progress is I guess
what I'm saying and the last item or last bullet just follow up on what you
were just saying to Commissioner Sanchez when you were saying that if you
voluntarily tear down a structure and you're saying they could rebuild they
could rebuild an allowed use correct under the new code but even though the
prior use may not be allowed anymore so they may be restricted if they had a
prior use that's no longer allowed under the new code if they voluntarily tear
it down so build back in other words they could build it allowed to use that
they can't necessarily build a use that's no longer allowed correct it was
obviously voluntary there there's no conformity there's the non-conforming uses
you know but there's a there's a provision in chapter 1 that talks about
if it was damaged through natural disaster I don't there's a there's a
there's a lot of factors that play into that answer that question if they're
doing it voluntarily then they have to comply with whatever use is permitted
they have to comply with whatever design standards that's currently in place
thank you chair okay so on the same topic Ron just to clarify so we're not
going to call single-family homes non-conforming but they will have to
adhere to the non-conforming going forward with the renovation
percentages correct or rebuilds right correct yes okay so if it's existing
it's fine but it's still going to fall into non-conforming parameters right you
mean we're talking about you know existing homes that have been there for
a while the zoning change made them non-conforming we don't we didn't want
that the committee did not want that however if there are plans to expand
build whatnot they have to comply with the code we're not increasing the
non-conforming transition mr. Beck thank you chair just to confirm my
understanding too is that once say it is a house that's now in a mixed-use area
once it's destroyed either by so-called acts of God a fire or just abandoned
they can't rebuild them because it's now in a new zone is that right there there
is there's again there's those provisions there's the natural disaster
there's 50% 50% is the it's completely wiped out that's what I'm saying by
either and I believe and I believe there's provision if they want to to go
through the board of adjustments to ask for a variance but the intent is to not
a lot of them unless you know there's there's other you know the ZBA for
example where they're less than 50% okay thanks again those those are all under
chapter one chapter before I leave chapter one that is there's a provision
or a discussion on new zoning districts and I know that that's an important
thing we are also working very hard on making sure that those zoning districts
that are going to go away comply or are similar in the new zoning district so
for example we started this exercise with some zoning districts in combining
them and we combined in our two and our three and made it our three well that
didn't really sit well with the public and the committee decided which I think
is a fair comment where we wanted to make sure that we didn't have a lot of
those so what you see today in the draft map and in the development code is that
if it's in our one it's gonna be our one and our two it's gonna be our two and so
on and so forth nothing's gonna change for those neighborhood
residentials one through six so if you are an NR six you will get an r6 and the
hope is that it's not gonna impact that property owner as much because we're not
changing much when it comes to those zoning districts now we do have a new
r7 which is the combination of the dr1 the dr2 the rcr1 and the rcr2 so as you
can see we have four zoning districts that we either use or don't use as
often and we're combining that into one zoning district that is referred to as
r7 that's that's just another explanation of how we transition from
the current code or the current zoning district into the new line of zoning
districts there is a table I'm gonna skip down to three so can there is this
table I think you all seen this before and again this is all right this is an
outdated I apologize this is already an outdated version this should be the what
I just described earlier so don't look at this part in fact don't even look at
it that that new chart really will will reflect where the existing zoning
district is going to be in line with the new zoning district again the CMG the
commercial mixed-use is going to be your suburban corridor zoning district your
mixed-use NRMU NRMU 12 is going to be your MN mixed-use neighborhood zoning
district so we're combining making it more concise a little bit more clear and
really just allow I hate to use the word flexibility but it really is an
opportunity to you know reduce the number of zoning cases or applications
because really what is the intent you can go on back to the den plan 2030 we
want to see more mixed uses we want to see more housing types we want to see
more walkability and that's what's covered in the den code update any
questions on chapter one okay chapter two which is another important chapter
includes all of the processes the important document or important table
there is the list of application types and you see that in that table then if I
can refer if you guys have your book with you refer to page 16 and on that
page see if I can do this
there's a spell word here here we go I wanted to pull it up for the the viewing
audience for those that don't have a copy in front of them I will I just
wanted to highlight that because I think that's an important table and for those
that are viewing it's den code 2030 comm to be able to access the latest draft
and there we go so this is the table the top part of the table you see that
we've listed all the application types that we see come through the planning
zoning Commission and ultimately City Council not all of them but most of them
it identifies a reference of where you can learn more about the process or
procedures for each of these types when public notices are required if a
pre-application is required if a citizen participation is recommended who the
approving body is the reviewing and approving body is if it's an R there
they're really reviewing and making a recommendation if it's a D then that is
the decision-making body and if there's a bracket around it that means there's a
public hearing that's required for that application so a specific use permit for
example you we notify every way we can online mail publish as well as posted
signs on the property we require pre-application and then we recommend a
citizen participation from the applicant ultimately it goes through the planning
zoning Commission for their recommendation and then to City Council
for their consideration so this table is very handy it provides the citizens the
development community really the the plan or the process a map of what really
is going to be required if they decide to apply for a for an application type
mr. Beck thank you chair okay I'm looking at under planning and DDC
amendment zoning amendment yes sir so we're talking about a zoning change
request right correct okay at the map the zoning amendment map that's changing
the zoning of the map on on the map okay over in the column where it says
citizen participation it's recommended that is correct what happened to would be
well that's a that's a comment we can obviously take note of but we've heard
from several several folks in and that is currently the proposal moving forward
it's all folks be like developers everybody okay because last time I
thought the conversation was and I thought it was even written down that at
least on zone change and maybe even SUPs that neighborhood meetings would be
required I can just say that there's been a lot of discussion on this topic
if it's the Commission's purview we we can take direction from the Commission
and identify which one if that is the case will require a public hearing or
I'm sorry a citizen participation but we're we're recommending we're
encouraged encouraging applicants to participate in a neighborhood meetings
one or two pressure else thank you chair we but you're not taking away the public
hearing no no that's that's that's a separate this is this is citizen
participation is having the applicant hold neighborhood meetings one before
they submit or they get comments from staff and then one before the the first
public hearing which would be the Plain Zoning Commission for example well to
continue again and if this is something the Commission would like to discuss I
kind of thought we were in favor of requiring neighborhood meetings because
it eliminates a lot of hassle by the time the public gets to the public
hearing and a lot of questions get answered where if we wait till the
public hearing then and only then does a developer kind of lay out things where
citizens probably wouldn't come to the public here so if I'm gonna let Richard
hop in real fast if I recall also I know the way we had originally brought it
forward I know there was some I think some legal concerns with having it as a
requirement before somebody somebody could submit an application and so
that's where we had left it sort of moving forward as as a as a voluntary
action I wasn't familiar with that so legal could you elaborate on you want to
or you want me to jump in if you want to there's there's two issues really you
know one is that that a required was called permit under chapter 245 can
create a vesting event and certainly that's a that's a policy decision in
there but you know it's something to be aware of that it could create that and
the second issue is oh geez it just jumped out of my head oh as far as
non-discretionary decisions that that having that participation meeting with
the neighborhood could create a false expectation that that their input and
their their thoughts one way or another could have a an impact when legally it
cannot so for example if you're talking about a plat application you know for
for a final plat just use a simple case that has to be approved if it meets the
standards of the Denton Development Code and if if you if you have a
participation meeting and have the citizens come out they're likely to be
kind of upset about it if if they come out there and and realize that it doesn't
really just spent their time for nothing because it's it's not a discretionary
decision now on zoning cases that's a different matter you know there the the
the citizen input is a very important part of that discretionary decision of
whether or not to allow a particular zoning change to occur or to allow a
change in it say a text amendment okay thanks thank you chair well what I'll
just add to that Commissioner Beck in my opinion is that sometimes there's not a
neighborhood to have a meeting with as well so if it's required I mean you know
I mean that doesn't make sense either highly recommended and I think I think
we've shown to where developers are certainly willing to do that at the
recommendation of staff and so I think the requirement factor is I mean not
only for legal purposes but it may not make sense either well clearly where
there isn't a group of people that can sit on or there's one person that that
goes without saying but we're talking about areas where generally when it gets
to the public hearing the public's just now founding out about how things are
going to be laid out and what their plans are and creates a lot of grief
there where it could be eliminated at a meeting if they just sit down and talk
with them then so but clearly where there's there's no public outcry or
anything like that I wouldn't expect one to be able but if I could hop in before
Commissioner Smith to two points it'd be really hard to write recommended or
required unless there's only one person attendance like that becomes a little
nuance in the language but to Commissioner Ellis's point we have the
public hearing and for the Commission and for counsel it's certainly in the
best interest for the developer and understand what's about to be brought
towards the public it's in their best interest to have that meeting which is
why we're recommending it so they're not blindsided at the meeting so I think I
would hope that developers would still pursue that practice because if I was a
developer and I come to an open hearing I would want to know what the public's
about the rail against me right so I have a defense for it which is what the
public hearing in essence allows them to do so I'm fine with it being
recommended but not required but I know Christian Smith had some words I think
just added we've you know it was it wasn't but maybe till a year ago or so
that there was really being stressed to developers they have these neighborhood
meetings and so I remember the decision seen before this Commission year and a
half two years ago where we know said hey we're gonna table this conversation
till you have a neighborhood meeting and so I don't I don't think
recommendations a good way to go on this because you would end up forcing
people into having to have neighborhood meetings when it's not necessary it's an
expense and a restriction on a developer that it may not be needed in all
situations but if we know as we as a Commission are gonna obviously see it
zoning cases SUPs that look like hey have you talked to the neighborhood yet
and the applicant says no okay well you're gonna need to go do that before we
even give you a decision because we want nothing of it till we hear with the with
the neighborhood ones so just you I mean just add to what Commissioner Smith was
talking we have a pre-application conference and you see here it's it's
required in most of the complex projects and we will obviously stress to the
applicant at that time that hey this is what the Commission has done this is
what we highly recommend so there will be opportunities for that but I do see
both sides and of course ultimately it's a policy decision on how we want to move
forward all right more on chapter 2 and again you've heard this presentation
from Clarion I'm just gonna repeat it just so that we have opportunity if we
need to to bring up any questions or further clarification we already talked
about the pre-application we already talked about the citizen participation
there's a site plan review and put it into presentation looks for AV thank you
for that there is a site plan procedure included in the DIN code in fact all of
the applications that you saw on that table has a separate procedure section so
you can see what is required what you need to do and where it will end up and
being considered included in those procedures are application criteria for
approval and so you as a commission or a citizen or a developer you can see what
that application criteria I'm sorry approval criteria is is for that
application type let's see here another procedure or another process is PDs this
is a new thing that is not currently in the code that is something that is being
proposed and for some of you that are familiar with PDs you know that we have
several currently in the city and what is being proposed is that it be brought
back and this is to allow for development types or development that is
that cannot necessarily meet some of the design standards but way but wait wait
through PDs be able to provide more in one respect while less than others so
that's an option that is a available to the applicant to submit if they choose
to does anybody have any questions on PDs I know that we've heard several
presentations in the past where PDs have come in for amendments but we're again
this is going to be new this is something that an applicant apply for a
new PD for a part of the city for sure back thank you chair so we're not
limited to five acres or anything like that anymore that's any size correct
that that is the the direction that we receive and again that is obviously open
for discussion but right now the proposal is that PDs would not have a
minimum acreage so property that is less than five can come in and request PD and
of course there's gonna be a lot of work that goes into the PD so hopefully we
can address it when when we're in that stage okay thanks included as well in
chapter 2 is a list of flexible or relief procedures and those are in the
form of minor modifications interpretations and development
agreements I really want to focus on the minor modification that is what we're
hoping would reduce the amount or eliminate the amount of alternative
development plans in fact there will be no alternative development plans if you
are not able to develop even with a minor modification you're going to be
directed to your options are PD rezone or comply with the code we hope that
they are able to comply with the code but if not there are other options so
again minor modification is the other flexible option Ron is ZBA involved into
that process or is it minor modification goes to staff if not it comes to P and Z
based on a PD or rezone the the way it is and if I pull up that the the chart
and I can explain further from that chart so bear with me
just need to get to it real quick
hopefully I haven't passed it it's way in the back there we go so this chart here
for for those are watching are the standards that can be modified and it is
up to 10% so for example if you want to if you want to propose a lot area lower
than what's the minimum you can go down to 10% of what that requirement is vice
versa if you want to increase your lot coverage 10% higher than what is
required then you can go up to 10% and the way to answer your question chair
Roselle is that if the application is going to be approved by staff then staff
can make that determination or approve that if it is a more of a P and Z or
even City Council then they would have to go through them to get that minor
modification make sense yep so thank you I think it's gonna avoid the ZBA but
hopefully we we can look at it and approve it without having further you
know alterations great anybody have any questions on minor modifications again
just setbacks you know someone was saying earlier well what's 10% of five
feet you know so I mean there's there's there's there's obviously room and this
allows some flexibility again what we were talking about earlier for someone
that may not be able to meet it and then they just need that 10% this is one way
of doing it and not have to go through the whole process of a ZBA or even a
zoning change that's that was the intent of this process okay and just the two
last bullets here the special exceptions is not being carried forward and the
subdivision variance is not moving forward again the intent is that it's
it's available the way it's the code is drafted there's ways to get there
through other options okay chapter three this was that Richard sorry Ron okay can
you go back maybe explain a little bit about the zoning certificate of
compliance and how that really will replace what we do now with with
certificate of certificates of occupancy which really are more of a
building code matter where this will actually as it should take the place of
that and explicitly say what you can and can't do with that site as that use
changes with a zoning certificate as opposed to that certificate of use so I
just wanted to point that out because that will be something new that that has
never been done currently it all gets wrapped into a CO which really isn't or
certificate of occupancy which really isn't a land use or zoning function
that's really a function of the building code so they've been separated out
they'll have a CEO and if it's just a change of use so say it's it's going from
you know it's within that same building type and maybe Scott can can talk a
little bit more on the on the building classifications whether it's mercantile
assembly I mean that that's really a CEO as opposed to whether it's a restaurant
or church and I think there's even there's three pieces to this one is is
we we may have a piece of land or a parcel that someone's going to occupy or
use that we can't issue a certificate of occupancy to because there's nothing to
occupy but they but they're able to use that so ie if it were let's say a flea
market so they're going to utilize the land as a flea market is it an
appropriate zoning district so to be able to issue that number two is then
when we have a structure in place and we have a certificate of occupancy which
says then the building classification and the type of use within the building
meets the zoning requirements and meets the building code and then the third
piece to that would be what we do today is if we have a change in ownership or a
change of a business we issue another certificate of occupancy which is not
accurate because it's not a change of the building type or the over the
business use it really is a licensing procedure so it's a business license so
we're just trying to clarify so we don't create confusion and I'll give you an
example if you have a business on the square if it's a if it's a B use in the
building code that could be an accountant's business it could be a
chiropractor or I could change between it whether it's a bank to a
chiropractor and I'm issuing a new certificate of occupancy which may then
in turn change the date of that certificate of occupancy etc which
legally could create some problems so we just want to separate to say no it's not
changing anything on the land use not changing anything on the building use
it's just the person in the building is changing so three pieces to that if it
makes sense
any other questions on chapter 2 before we go to chapter 3 all right chapter 3
this is the exciting one it contains the zoning districts in includes the
purpose and a description of each of the zoning districts I will be happy to go
over each of those and I actually will pull up that if we want to just wanted
to get your your input the zoning districts are condensed and when we
started off with there are new ones as well so if no questions I'm gonna go
ahead and get to the zoning districts I think we're good
apologize for going back and forth but I think it's important to you see the plan
the the code that is so the first one is our rural I'm sorry I'm kind of stuck
with it for our existing zones the residential rural district the RR in
that is the lowest intense zoning district that we have proposed so this
is the area that primarily is around the periphery of the city in areas that
have large lots and the minimum lot size for an RR is five acres the lot width
the minimum lot width lot depth is 100 and 200 and then your your setbacks are
shown here your maximum building height is 65 and lot curvers just maximum lot
coverage excuse me is 35 so it's meant for those large track large lot
developments along the periphery of the city yes so currently when a land is
annexed and it comes in as an already 5x they have to have it zoned again before
development go yeah it was never zoned not to being good with it was just
given that as a designation so going forward if the city annexes land it's
going to come in zoned as an RR there's still gonna be a holding well the plane
is to if the city area annexes a property either voluntary or involuntary
most likely be voluntary that we zone that a month later immediately after so
but in between it will have the RR as kind of like the designated one but the
intent is to zone that property immediately to the appropriate zoning
district and most of the time you see annexations that come in they
immediately want to zone that property and that's the hope
agree but it will be RR but it does seem going forward and annexation could it
would be zoned a full zone as soon as it's annexed with the hope of soon after
rezoning it but it it will be annexed into the city with a zone of RR the
process is separate it has to be annexed first okay before we can zone it because
technically it's not in the city sure so when we notice we can only notice
properties within the city or you know the application and so it would have to
be annexed first so that's what I was saying earlier that after a month later
or so when we can get it scheduled we'll have a rezoning of that property okay
so it seems like we're not providing enough time for someone to come in with
a plat or anything as an RR it would still kind of go through the formal
zoning process before development was to commence correct zoning has to be in
place before obviously otherwise they would have to plat according to the RR
and most of the times they they don't want to do that they want to do
something more in line of what they were thinking of when they first considered
annexation okay so that's RR any questions on RR just let me know if you
all have any questions R1 is again what we currently have as the NR1 zoning
districts one of the things that I failed to mention and I'll pull up in
this chart one of the things that is missing or is not included is density
there is no density requirement you just have to develop within the development
standards that are shown here that also includes the development standards that
are in chapter 6 when it comes to parking as well as open space and
landscaping so the idea is you're you you're not tied to density but you're
tied to the development standards which we sort of have today but again moving
forward the density is not going to play or is not outlined as it is currently
does that make sense and I know there's a lot of faces that are like what are you
talking about no density development standards is what we're going to be
using so the development standards for R1 minimum watt area is 3200 square feet
and if you know the R1 that's what it's currently 32,000 excuse me thank you
and I'm not going to go through that list but you can see what is being
proposed and a lot of times the density is kind of controlled by the minimum
lot area so you can only build so much because you can only put so many lots
within that minimum lot area with that minimum lot area okay I'll continue with
R2 the same thing in R2 is being proposed to be R2 and minimum lot area
there is 16,000 square feet maximum height is 40 and lot
coverage is 30 R3 is your NR3 10,000 square feet maximum building height is
40 a 50 percent maximum lot coverage R4 is your NR4 zoning district minimum lot
area is 7,000 you're getting you're getting smaller in lot area so that
means you can build more lots on a property so that again we're going from
low to high maximum building height is 40 a higher lot coverage maximum of 60
percent we don't have our five because we do not have our our NR5 and we didn't
want to confuse everyone so we jumped in our R6 so the R6 is what we have
currently as NR6 minimum lot area there is 6,000 square feet again the building
height is 40 and lot coverage is 60 percent R7 is the new zoning district
that we described earlier as being a combination of the dr1 dr2 RCR 1 and
RCR 2 and you see that the minimum lot area there is 4,000 and that's that's a
substantially dropped from 6,000 to 4,000 the intent here is that you're looking at
smaller type developments in the form of townhomes or duplexes something to that
effect and again building height is 40 maximum lot coverage is 65 a little
higher because of the lower or the smaller lot area that's all of the
residential dimensional standards after residential we go into mixed-use
districts so does anybody have any questions on the residential districts
all right mixed-use districts we've got three districts in here the first one is
the mixed-use neighborhood this replaces the NRMU the NRMU 12 zoning
districts and you'll see here that the lot area is minimum water is 2,500 again
for higher density type development the height here is 65 feet and there is a lot
coverage up to 80% moving on to MD MD replaces your DCN and DCG zoning
district primarily the areas close to downtown and again the dimensional
standards you see here are none primarily because it's in the downtown
area and there is more room less room that is to develop so requiring setbacks
and a lot with for certain areas in the MD is not feasible and you probably are
probably wondering where that MD is located it's really concentrated in the
downtown area so if you haven't had a chance to look at the zoning map it's
Parkway exposition Carol and sycamore so just that general area around downtown
Mr. Beck thank you chair what is the distance in this case from the I guess
that'd be the curb at the front of the building then is there a minimum from the
curb to the front of the building there so the curb there said there has to be
sidewalks and typically that's gonna follow the property line so the building
can only encroach up to the property line right and so it wouldn't hit the
curb it would it depends okay I guess what I'm gonna have going after is what
kind of walkways are we looking at then in conditions like this or five foot six
it all depends on the right the right away classification so depending and
again there's not I mean looking at downtown you've got Elm Locust Hickory
Oak or some of the major streets those are not gonna change the properties are
not gonna encroach far into the right away it is already established so the
intent is to build right at the property line okay thanks and the last mixed use
district is the MR this is your RCCN and RCCD primarily along I-35 the Golden
Triangle Mall the medical city area those are primarily MRs are proposed to
be MR they are obviously high intense mixed use districts again going back to
the Denim Plan 2030 there is a lot of goals and actions to create more
walkability more mixed use more compact and so this is a result of that you can
see that the maximum building height is up to a hundred feet and can cover up to
90% I'm gonna make an assumption but clarify so I'm not assuming the
difference between MD and MR is is 5% lot coverage the reason I'm assuming
they're separated out is for the uses in those locations correct okay so list of
uses in both zoning districts differ because of the the area and the intent
of those zoning districts okay we're leaving the mixed use districts and
getting into the non-residential zoning districts unless there's any other
unless there's questions on the mixed use districts okay so the first one under
the non-residential zoning districts is SC which is suburban corridor those are
the ones that you see or will see part of the draft zoning map along University
Teasley the loop those are the areas that we see more of the SC they're
primarily for commercial corridors of course and then also commercial nodes
where major corridors intersect you'll see a lot of the SC proposed in those
areas with that we've got dimensional standards associated with them the
maximum height is 55 and maximum lot coverage is 80% highway corridor is your
larger corridors that's primarily I 35 you know I 35 east west as well as north
and I wish we can show and we'll look at the zoning map and hopefully this will
make more sense when we see the zoning map to mr. Beck thank you chair you're
going back suburban corridor yes sir was there any dwelling residential type
dwelling that's allowed in there multi-family that that's that that's
covering face over business right that's covered in chapter 5 where we have the
list of uses and I can tell you that multi-family is permitted in the SC
with a specific use permit and then work live dwelling is permitted by right okay
thanks highway corridor even higher intensity maximum height a hundred feet
maximum lot coverage is 80% geo general office this is your I see I'm sorry ECC
and ICE zoning districts your light industrial your office little bit more
intense commercial uses are permitted here the intent of general office when
we go back to the den plan 2030 is where do we create more employment
employment hubs you'll see more geos along the west side of town north of 380
that is an identified area for business innovation we want to see that area grow
not necessarily heavy industrial but we can see potentially light industrial or
even more corporate business parks that sort of thing that's something that we
want to promote as a city dimensional standards for that are as follows you do
see a height up to 100 feet and again locker which no more than 80% and then
we've got three more here on the next one is light industrial that's your you
know you're lighter than than compared to the heavy that is your ICG no ECI
and ICE zoning districts maximum height here is 75 and up to 85% your heavy
industrial is a maximum height of 75 and a maximum of 75 I'm sorry 70% and again
this is your ICG primarily the area west of I-35 by the airport is where this HI
is located and then the last zoning district that we have identified is PF
and as you heard from the presentation in by clarion this is to capture all the
governmental as well as institutional properties your universities your FEMA
parts of the county buildings as well building county properties as well so
that's that's under the PF zoning district and these are the lot or the
dimensional standards for PF okay well that is the summary of all the zoning
districts that we have proposed does anybody have any questions okay well I'm
gonna go back to my presentation because I think the next step if the
Commission would like to again we're going to turn this on to slide show we're
gonna skip this slide we're gonna go to we're not going to go to four now it
really is something that we will discuss at our next meeting but I wanted to give
an opportunity since we just talked about the zoning district is to go to
the map and kind of just show a little bit what we talked about where where
those zoning districts is because when you consider the development code update
you're also considering the zoning map so just want to make sure that when that
time comes you guys are familiar and comfortable with the zoning map as well
so I want to
and again this map is available currently online at den code 2030 comm for those
that are viewing you can search your property and see what's being proposed
mr. Ellis thank you chair on that note Ron can we maybe get that website link
on the city's website okay everybody may not know the Dutton code 2030 I know I
couldn't remember it off the top of my head and I went to the city website and
it was very difficult to find to eventually get so linked in the front
the main page absolutely it should be on the front page if we want public input
and we want it fast which we do because I think we want it by next week I mean
let's get it out there as easily as possible for people to find it that's a
good comment I appreciate that and thanks we'll make sure we get that thank you
you know have a link on the front page is that already there Charlie it was
missed by me if it's there thank you so if you landed on here the header scrolls
through a couple ones but didn't code is the I saw that the link on it said
attend a meeting which is not seemingly not quite the same as hey look at your
map you know it's a little bit misleading I did eventually click on that
and eventually got to the links I was looking for but we may want to tweak
that a little bit right yes we can get that corrected we were trying to drive
traffic to go to those public meetings but we can make it more prominent yeah
what I might hear yeah right I'm gonna say keep that so we can get them to
attend the meeting because that's what we want to but somewhere put it just
another button that says hey view the the draft zoning map view the draft code
give us your opinion that kind of thing yeah thank you thank you okay so those
that are able to go online the draft zoning map is available for for you to
view and make comments provide input as we just discussed briefly there are
public meetings set for next week the 25th and the 27th there more information
on the on the website but if you don't have an opportunity to come to those
public meetings you can come visit the Development Services Center at 215 West
Hickory so here is the draft zoning map and you can see that the area that is in
red I'm gonna start with that because that's the most prominent one that's the
HC that's the highway corridor and you can see that it's a long I-35 on all
fronts the next one is kind of hard to see is the suburban corridor the pink
you see that along University you see that along the loop and if we scroll
down a little bit on Teasley as well as Fort Worth Drive the other zoning
district that looks that's prominent here is the PF which is again the public
facilities you see that the area here is shown here is Texas women University
this is UNT the city-owned property the landfill the airport and the large parks
the regional parks North Lakes as well as South Lakes Park over to the west
side of the city you have the heavy or high industrial the purple here again I
was telling you earlier that's the heavy industrial and then you have some light
industrial that front I-35 and some on the north side of that area the geo
which is your general office you see that along this area here which is again
that area that's currently undeveloped but can see a potential proposed
development of maybe a corporate office but we also have them here along Shady
Oaks right by the loop and that's an area that can see a general office as
well it's it's there's a lot of stuff going on we encourage those that are
watching those are playing zoning Commission if there is a particular area
that you guys want to look at knowing that there's those zoning districts
available if we have this right we are certainly open for feedback to
thank you chair Ron you you were pointing out the geo so that is a hundred
foot height was that discussed at and that seems kind of high in some of the
places that we have geo particularly right there yeah where I could see a
hundred feet not necessarily working so I don't know if that was I think it was
intended to allow for high taller buildings but of course if it's adjacent
to a residential again again wanting to protect those established neighborhoods
there are provisions such as setbacks if we go back to the dimensional standards
if they are adjacent to a single family of course they're going to be stepped
back away from them but we can always obviously revisit a hundred feet seems
high and I don't know if we have examples of them yeah not only for there
but kind of off Shady Oaks I mean that kind of changes that whole area if that
was actually going to develop that high anyway it was just a thought and then
like like we said earlier parking is going to play a factor and a lot of
landscaping requirements so the height is there but it's it's gonna it may not
be able to be maximized and we've got other provisions that help protect those
sensitive uses as well so the MD I was telling you guys earlier sorry where we
are looking at downtown it's it's it's really here this is a darker purple so
this is not the MD this is actually the MR but the MD primarily MD is in this
area here that shown that is shown around or within the downtown area and
then everything else is either zoned the residential zoning districts the NR 1
through NR 6 the brown that you see here are the R7s so you can see that they're
close to the universities primarily because they are higher intense and
there there are opportunities there for serve several types of housing close to
the universities one key feature here if you are watching if you want to type in
your address you can type in your address here and it'll take you to your
parcel and then once you find your parcel you can click on it using this
tool here to determine what your current zoning is which is dr2 and what the
proposed zoning is which is our seven upcoming we will have a link to show
those dimensional standards that we went through so you don't have to go back to
development centers you you can actually click directly onto it and know what is
being proposed such as the maximum height the maximum lot garbage for that
proposed zoning district so anybody any questions on the zoning map the only
question I have and it's not necessarily directly to the map but you mentioned
that all the residential zones are 1 through 7 will be exempt from non
conforming issues the single-family single-plex in townhouse yes every
other piece of property and and then could be subject to be non conforming
have we done an analysis on what that looks like of how many buildings and
properties will be considered non conforming so to answer that question no
we have not however I can tell you that we will create nonconformity but we will
also clean up some nonconformities created back in 2002 okay so it's not
having never gone through the nonconformity is there a timeline or
action on property owners when they have a nonconforming property what's the
consequence and remediation for that if they don't change their use they can
continue as a nonconformity if they are they keep it vacant or remain vacant as
long as they market it they can continue as such however again that's covered in
chapter 1 if they do not market in they became becomes a vacant or under or not
used they could potentially use their nonconformity gotcha
any other questions it doesn't have to be the chapters that we just went over I
really wanted to focus on these three chapters and the zoning map for this
work session and then we'll cover the other chapters at our next commission
work session so any questions on what we've covered so far or if there's any
other topic that you all want to discuss we can just wanted to add to to what
what Ron had just talked about we were very strategic sort of in this in this
draft of the map to really go through and make sure sort of methodically to
ensure that we didn't have those nonconform those nonconforms particularly
single-family right I think if you compare this to that first draft you'll
see it's substantially substantially different and Ron this draft has been
made public for five days do y'all have any metrics on how many people have
viewed this website and any initial feedback or inertia from with this um I
haven't I've initially with the the public meeting that we had on Wednesday
last week we had a lot of people that had called in and discussed but not
recently not after this was published we anticipate that we would get more when
we have those public meetings and that's I think we'll get a lot of comments then
but today I am not aware of any certainly we can certainly check on that
and see if there has been activity we hope there is we want people to look at
this and we want people to make comments Christian back you mentioned five days
it's what was that well the public was on Friday right the draft was made
available to the public so it but it's staying there for a while right as in
the last five days it's been public I was just curious but there's no time
limit on though it's there until we reach an approval till till we get a
new drop-down yes okay thanks so just just an example you know this is a
zoning district in the Nile again I'm going to click on it and you can see the
NR 3 it's zone R3 and that that was again what Richard Richard was talking
about we wanted to make sure that we kept the zoning as close as to what it
is today with regards to residential so any other questions I don't see any okay
feel free to give me on just one note if you got questions if you got requests if
you want to send that to me before our next meeting so that I can prepare for
it I'll certainly appreciate that as well thank you thank you Ron so the
next item on the agenda is work session 1c we'll have Richard lead out a
discussion on establishing policies and procedures and then just put on the
radar I was thinking out after that we'll take a short break before we dive
into the agenda up until dinner public hearing Richard take it away and this
item is really I don't have anything prepared it was just more of a some
some direction that I'm looking for there's been obviously a number of
things that have come up I know in one regard it was even when we were electing
a new chair it was you know what what's the policy and procedures how do we how
do we do that and there was really nothing written that was sort of early
early on I think last year and then where it really got to me is over the
last couple meetings where we get the request for for deferral or postponement
from from an applicant and we have kind of been and of course I hate to say it's
because we've always done it that way but we've always done it that way where
we just kind of put it on the agenda and I know in the particular the last two or
three meetings some residents have been very upset by that by that fact and so
really it's you know as I think about it more it's really shouldn't be a staff
determination it should be something that that that the commission wants to
if they want to grant that deferral it shouldn't just be an automatic and so
again wanted to get your thoughts on that and should we create formal policies
addressing some of these items. Mr. Smith could you possibly go through the right
now with regards to deferrals and that kind of stuff the timeline that leads up
to the public agenda being published just so we kind of know in regards to what
deadlines applicants have coming up and when they have to notify for to be able
to be on public record by Friday be able to be published for Open Meetings Act
and kind of what things we could possibly think of to put in place
leading up to that. Advertising we typically have you know 10-15 days
before when we post the signs and then we publish it the agenda that Friday a
lot of times sometimes letters letters sorry but letters go out sort of when
it's servants of zoning or SCP those go out those go out well in advance those
are at least two you know roughly two weeks before the meeting signage 15 days
out same thing with the signage it's in the newspaper and so a lot of time and
then the agendas obviously publish that Friday as soon as those items get posted
that that that that puts it on the agenda posted I'm sorry what when it
gets advertised okay gotcha that essentially that essentially puts it
puts it reserves its spot on the agenda so essentially we're talking about
roughly 15 days out it is that the agenda is built 15 days correct this
correct so and we have a draft that we work on in well in advance sure but once
once it gets advertised it's pretty much on there sure unless there's something
that that just sure it was incorrect and then as soon as the agenda is posted on
Friday there's nothing that city ever has right now for any notification after
that agenda has been posted on Friday whatsoever it's not really to get it out
in that it that amount of time I mean it's one thing if they tell us within a
week and so we can we can include it in that in the agenda when it goes out that
this item has been postponed but it's when the I when the agenda is already
out and we get the call on a on a Tuesday or a you know a Wednesday morning
asking for the idea to be postponed that that's where it gets a little if it's
before the agenda comes out I don't have that big of an issue with it but it's
when it's that Tuesday or Wednesday or even an hour before the meeting that I
think it's probably more more appropriate like my personal opinion just
to give feedback would be all the way up until Friday at 5 when the agenda is
posted I think that the applicant should reserve the right to be able to withdraw
their item from an agenda yeah that until it's published and put on there and
yes the signage has been put out in the layers we put out but there's no way to
really mitigate for that if there's something that happens in that short
period of time but it's almost like saying that you know hey applicant if
it's it's posted on Friday it's gonna be heard on Wednesday whether you want it
on there or not and it's after the agenda's been posted that and we have to
I think the biggest complaint I think we see is that if it's you know people are
coming in and they're grabbing the agendas on the way in and it's saying
hey this has been postponed it's not on there but it's actually been postponed
that just that and that that protects us as a commission because we've been we've
had you know knives figuratively thrown at us from the crowd of collusion and
making your decision before you get in there and blah blah blah and so it
almost would help if it's only you who's been only paychecks are huge guys you
should check them out but that's that's my personal opinion is leading up to to
publishing on Friday at 5 and after that creating support process for us as a
commission really is the procedure that says it's on the agenda it's being
discussed and if the applicant wants to make a come up at their section after
the staff presentation has been made in requests that the Commission tables it
then we as a commission could consider it but if you're posted in the agenda
your public hearing and conversations allowed to happen so yeah I just need a
clarification so this would be specifically when the applicant is you
know withdrawn or something does this in any way impact say like we had a forgot
what the long discussion was a couple of weeks ago I think it's SRO's where we
were tabling to a date uncertain would we be just making all of those a date
uncertain until staff could provide you know a date put it on a future agenda
there I think it's I think if it if it comes up really as an applicant's
request for an item I would most likely probably have it go to a specific a
specific date yes sometimes I think with with this it really depends I think if
it's a if it's a code amendment I think that we're bringing forward and something
comes up in between whether we want to put it to a date certain or or keep it
open until until when ready I think we'll just have to play that by ear
really it's those those items if it's withdrawn it's withdrawn but it's on
those items where where we get at the last minute and particularly when this
when it's been postponed a number of times I think it starts almost to send
the wrong message to to the to the to the residents and they start having this
this assumption that all of a sudden we're in cahoots together and we're
continuing to push this item off and I just I just don't want to give that that
appearance so this is just to avoid the appearance of a battle of attrition
where they're waiting for a time when people are not going to eventually
correct okay well yeah please please understand that this is all of this is a
policy decision and I'm not meaning to argue with anybody on this but I did for
the benefit of the Commission and those watching I did hear something about the
applicant reserving the right to postpone there is no right to postpone the the
zoning case is one that could be brought by an applicant or requested by an
applicant it could also be requested by the city and so it's certainly within
the the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission to continue forward
with considering the zoning case and perhaps even denying it so it's not
something that the applicant necessarily controls once they make the application
for a zoning case it comes before the Planning and Zoning Commission that it
could be an act of grace that it be postponed and brought again at a later
date it's not necessarily a matter of the applicant's right to postpone it and
just so we're clear on that I wanted to clarify and and and let the Commission
know that you do have the option of continuing forward not withstanding the
applicant's request to postpone the item so the floor and I just wanted to
clarify on that one because you just mentioned that there's no right to
postpone that technically we could go forward at any point I being reasonably
new on the Commission I don't know that we've ever done that before knowing that
there is a practice going on that that you know at a request to postpone we
traditionally do that would it seem odd if we suddenly seemingly arbitrarily
decided to move forward on you know with the case that has been requested that a
postponement has been requested on well just to add again it's all a policy
decision that the Commission can you know make their preferences known to the
staff on that if you feel that it's odd and you would prefer not to create a
precedent or I don't know whether it is a precedent there may be precedent in the
past for all I know but it's it's certainly something that you could give
feedback on and and let the staff know what your if you do desire to set up a
policy one way or another you could and and so it's it would assist staff and
scheduling matters if it knew what your preferences were if you wanted to treat
it as if it were a right to reschedule you certainly could there's absolutely
nothing wrong with that but it's just I think the staff is trying to feel out to
see what what the Commission's preferences are are there any kind of
automatic rules you open a place where somebody has say one right to postpone
two rights to postpone you know if you decide to set it up that way you you
certainly good just to hop in two things and Commissioner Smith for
clarification if we change the policy that staff no longer can decide
postponements then when they call in at the ninth hour to staff they Richard
could say that's not my call P&Z will make that call tonight so hopefully we
give them a heads up saying it's it's no or go based on P&Z that night but I
understand Commissioner Parnetta's points well taken they don't have the
right to reserve a postponement they do have the right to withdraw an item and
they can withdraw an item up until public hearing actually takes place
there's not even when they're their items called could they not withdraw it
or what's the cutoff for them pulling the item from us that's more of a staff
push as far as the pragmatic there's no legal requirement for that but you know
certainly can withdraw it but you know they would have to resubmit an
application I don't know if there's an extra fee associated with that or not
yeah once an application is withdrawn we treat it as a as a brand new we we
close it and then require a new submittal Commissioner Smith just a
clarification this is a this is a procedural change is not we're not not
new code new ordinance being passed just a internal procedural that's it okay
thank you pressure else okay so we just have no policy on this is what you're
saying correct Richard okay so I guess my suggestion would be is can you bring
solid concerns as a staff in front of us and then let's talk about them when we
don't I mean we've got just a packed agenda I know this and I'm thinking we
can't necessarily work through this yeah it was more just to get the appetite if
it was yeah no I think it's a great idea that because clearly it's a concern to
you and the staff and and maybe if you can present a work session that has
these concerns and then we can maybe hash out suggestions possibly establishing
policy if if need be that would be my suggestion I completely grew with
Michelle it's actually had a note to understand what other items maybe need
bolstering I know we focused on the postponements tonight but you also
mentioned nominations and so without encourage if the Commission knows of
policies that we can we can provide to you and then at a work session you
congregate those together to provide kind of filling in all gaps if possible
great effect I'll just I'm gonna add it to the matrix and then just get a date
in that way prepare and well in advance so it's just not right I just more or
less wanted to see if there's an appetite to even have that discussion
there's an appetite from from me as he's eating any other question oh any other
questions on item 1c then if it's agreeable with the Commission can we
take a five-minute break and then we'll pick back up with the agenda we'll pause
the work session at 433 call us back to order at 442 we'll dive into the work
session item to the clarification of agenda items that will go over to this
evening it's worth noting that item 2a has been no not to a 3a 3a has been
withdrawn by the applicant 3b is seeking a postponement to the March 6th meeting
and item 3c has been withdrawn as well so a B and C are not going to be heard
this evening that will start us with 3d at the public hearing but first we have
items for individual consideration
yes clarification is a 3c is requesting it's been withdrawn it has been okay 3c
is withdrawn and then a and B have also been withdrawn and/or postponed okay a
is withdrawn B is postponing to the March 6th meeting any other questions
about the agenda this evening any other additions to add Richard just just on
item 3 I can see an eye because I need my glasses on item on item 3l on on the
tree code what staff is going to be requesting is that this item also be
continued to to March 6th but actually put open that item and that way if if
anyone is here to give comment have them give comment and then we're just
requesting a continuance to March 6th we had met with the Denton County
Developers Alliance on Monday who raised a number of concerns that they had we
had a four and a half four and a half hour meeting with them on Monday and
gotten some other some other comments and we just want to make sure that that
we address all of those and make whatever necessary changes prior to in
addition we'll be going back to I know that that council council member Briggs
requested that we go back and have a special call committee on the
environment which they're also looking to do which will happen before the next
meeting when this comes back on on the six I just want to make just kind of
wanted to give you a little bit of background on that as to the reason why
great thank you with that let's start with the items for individual
consideration that's item 2a Julie Wyatt's item good evening I'm Julie
Wyatt this is ADP 188 the request before you is for an alternative development
plan for a proposed office development on about three acres and the purpose of
the alternative development plan is they would like to deviate from some of the
site design requirements in section 35 dot 13 dot 13 dot 4 in the Denton
Development Code the subject property is located on the northwest corner of
Teasley Lane here and Lillian Miller so it's this property here in yellow some
background on the property the zoning for it was approved in 2006 they zone to
NRM you with overlay conditions your backup has that ordinance it has all the
overlay conditions enumerated but specifically I want to talk about a
couple of them that restricted the uses to professional services and offices
administrative or research facilities or medical centers it restricted the
development on the site to single-story construction and each building had to be
either equal to or less than 9,000 square feet required minimum 80% masonry
pedestrian scaled lighting and a landscape 30 foot buffer on the north
and west property lines between the property and the residential development
I'm just to talk about what the purpose of NRM use owning is it's it's it's a
neighborhood scaled service higher density residential and commercial
zoning district so it it's meant to provide some day-to-day service and
commercial uses for surrounding neighborhoods but it is supposed to be
pedestrian scaled in design and so that's why it's got additional site
design requirements in sub chapter 13 is to make sure that any development on the
site really does push toward a walkable environment so specifically what they
would like to deviate from we'll just it's all in your backup but just we'll
go over it briefly first that the ground floor wall would have to be within any
ground floor wall within 30 feet of the street would have to have 50% of the
wall area in displays or windows or doorways their buildings have less than
that they're at 26% and 28% typically we see this type of transparent building
walls in retail or restaurant type uses those uses aren't permitted under that
overlay so that's why they're actually proposing some more office or medical
use medical offices so they're really those those numbers of windows and doors
aren't aren't really that type of building design at least 60% of the
street frontage shall have buildings within 10 feet of the front property
line this property is on a text dot road and is with all of our text dot roads in
the city there is a public utility easement adjacent to that right-of-way
so just by virtue of the fact that there is a 25-foot easement outside of the
right-of-way they could not put buildings where the code requires a
development shall have a minimum Florida area ratio of 4/10 because of that
increased landscape buffer as well as the restriction on the building heights
and building lot building area they really can't meet that requirement so
their proposed Florida area ratio is 3/10 buildings cannot be set back more
than 15 feet from the street unless it's used for pedestrian activities such as
plazas or outside easing areas they do have proposed setbacks of 26 feet for
the buildings adjacent to Teasley and then 186 feet for that building at the
back once again due to that that easement they really just can't pull
those buildings up to the front and then NRMU requires 40% tree
canopy outs or 40% tree canopy and trees planted within a buffer can only count
toward 40% of the minimum tree canopy because this property has such a large
landscape buffer it really is making it difficult for them to meet that that
requirement however they are proposing that that tree canopy outside of the
buffer at 35% so we'll go over that in a minute hopefully it'll make more sense
so let's go over the site plan I'm just look we're just looking at the the
proposed buildings here there is an existing building here at the corner
they're proposing three buildings 9,000 square feet or less single-story they
are proposing adequate vehicle parking associated with the uses 8 bicycle
parking spaces also they're proposing pattern and color concrete walkways
located in strategic areas that's right here and then also some pedestrian
connections in the back to alert the drivers to possible presence of
pedestrians so if you're familiar with the area there's a lot of students that
walk on Teasley to get to the elementary school across the street so they wanted
to provide that pedestrian that pedestrian connectivity particularly in
this location right here and make sure drivers are aware that that students may
be walking it's not a part of this request but there are drainage concerns
in the area so just wanted to go over those briefly there is there are some
drainage improvements associated not only with the private improvements but
also the city is undertaking some drainage improvements in the area and in
particular the the parking lot will actually be graded lower than than that
30-foot landscape buffer which is in this location to make sure that that
water drains toward toward the south and then toward the street like these these
blue lines are showing there's also a retaining wall in this in this location
to direct the water away from the homes particularly in this area and then the
city in the purple they're under design for some drainage improvements right now
they've got a flume that they're looking at putting in in this area to get the
water to Teasley so the intent is to have the parking lot water and and this
buffer water drain toward Teasley. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair.
Julie is this where the sandbags have been for forever? Yes ma'am. So the city is working on that?
Yes ma'am. Nice to hear. Yes. Commissioner Smith. What's a flume? It is it is a pathway for the
water to actually go under the sidewalk. I've probably seen it before. It's going to be
like a concrete. So they will have underground detention as a part of this
development so this water is going to be collected underground and then it'll be
piped out to the street and it's supposed to be released slowly. Their
landscape plan was also included in the request this this lighter green this is
that landscape buffer and you can see what plants they're using a combination
of preserved trees on site as well as tree plantings and that buffer is
actually already in place it's already there. They're also proposing foundation
plantings between the right-of-way and the buildings as well as street trees.
Now under current code NRMU requires that forty percent of the lot be under
tree canopy. Buffer trees are only allowed to be counted toward four or forty
percent of the buffer trees may count toward that overall canopy so it
actually reduces the amount that could be included in this area. So so they're
by by this design they're actually not meeting that minimum forty percent
because they are only counting forty percent of these trees. However at
maturity the trees that are planted both in the buffer within the site and on the
street as well as preservation over the minimum will count will be about sixty
seven thousand square feet of canopy. So they will exceed that it just it it's
made a little differently and how they are calculating that.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Julie has it been discussed with where these
landscape trees are going that it doesn't shield the the driver from being
able to see I know we're gonna have the colored but I mean it this is highly
walked multiple times a day. I agree. By a ton of children. There so the sidewalk
is in this location down here and it's actually it's so the side is actually
elevated in the sidewalk kind of there's some elevation changes to the site. There
aren't any actually street trees being proposed in this location they're
proposed for right here and they are I talked with engineering and it does meet
all their site requirements for visibility. So the only street trees that
are going to be adjacent to the right-of-way will be in this location. So
if a driver's pulling out sorry if a driver's pulling out and turning right so
if they look to this direction that a tree won't won't impede their vision.
Okay so right you said if they're turning this way but we've got trees that
way you're saying they're gonna be high enough because I mean kids are walking
both ways right and to in from I think I think only a right out it's only right
out there. Right but what you said was they they're gonna look to the left and
be able to see. They'll be able to look they'll be able to look to the left and
see that there there won't be any trees impeding their vision of pedestrians. I want them to see
kids who are coming from their right. Well these trees are actually going to
be planted between yes they will be and then they will also be planted between
the sidewalk and the right-of-way. So they'll actually be outside of that line
of vision so it's great question. Chris Rebecca do you have a question? And here are
their elevations sorry it's a little unclear I had to blow them up quite a
bit but as I said they're proposing 100% masonry buildings and they are gonna
have residential character and that's something that's required in the
ordinance that they have pitched roofs on their single story. They do have
four-sided architecture so all around it will it will have that that masonry and
the architectural detail and then if you could see that these these are the the
elevations that will be adjacent to Teasley and they have things like awnings
and and wall sconces architectural detail to really present well to the
street to to provide that character and the and those details for pedestrians. So
the criteria for approval for alternative development plans are in
sub chapter 13 of the debt and development code. So first is it does it
preserve existing neighborhoods? The proposed design and uses are compatible
with the adjacent with the adjacent neighborhoods due to that overlay
requirement as well as the the interventions that they're proposing.
They are proposing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Drainage
improvements not only on the private portion but also the city drainage
improvements and then they also had a neighborhood meeting. Typically
neighborhood meetings aren't something that that applicants do for alternative
development plans but due to the the closeness to the neighborhood we
require that the applicant have a neighborhood meeting so they did have
that neighborhood meeting I attended and a lot of the discussion did did center
around that drainage component. A sure quality development the request is not
intended to lower design standards but would it would facilitate full
development of the site and the overlay conditions as well as the proposed
landscaping are in excess of what the debt and development code requires. So the
debt and development code doesn't actually require those foundation
plantings for the building or that minimum masonry requirement. So they're
actually going above and beyond what the code has. Focus new development on
activity centers. This is an area that's that's been built up over decades and
this is really kind of one of the last pieces of property in that general area
for commercial development and so this would not contribute to sprawl but it
really would be infill for an existing lot. Ensure if infrastructure can
accommodate the development. There's the necessary infrastructure in place for
the transportation. You've got Teasley and Lillian Miller and then there are
also the city drainage improvements that will hopefully help that that water
situation and direct the water and where we want it to go and then does it result
in a high quality development meeting the intent of the standards. The overlay
conditions are intended to increase the harmony with the neighborhoods but it
but they did introduce design challenges particularly the the limiting of the
scale of the buildings as well as that increased buffer. So what the applicant
has done is is proposed alternative elements such as 100% masonry, minimum
bike parking, foundation plantings, pedestrian interventions and then that
overall tree canopy in order to meet the intent of why we have those pedestrian
oriented site design. So based upon the criteria for approval staff recommends
approval and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Ellis. So Julie I'll
just bring up what I had emailed to you that what they're naming the project
violates the ordinance in place so have we talked to them about I haven't had an
opportunity to call them but but we will make sure and I've put a restriction on
the site that they'll have to any signage would have to would have to
comply with that and and what Commissioner Ellis is talking about is in
the overlay conditions there's actually a prohibition for the applicant to use any
neighborhood surrounding neighborhood names in the branding of their site. So
there is a Hunter's Ridge adjacent to the property and they did has their
shorthand for this ADP name the project is Hunter's Ridge so that will have to
be scrubbed for any future development and they'll have to brand it or name it
something else. And does that have to be part of this approval recommendation
tonight? It certainly could be sure and it where we really at the staff will need
to make sure that we're that we're complying is to make sure any signage on
the site is is consistent with that with that ordinance. Thank you. I have one
question the existing buildings of an emergency is there anything in code to
protect ambulance egresses and right now there's no parking on this
west side so an ambulance can can come in a pretty good speed and get to the
building. I imagine once you have cars and parking spots there could be
potential impediments to safety is there any consideration of how an ambulance
considering the use that's on the land functions within that parking lot? I know
that they have a port-a-cachet for that emergency I'm pretty sure they have that
and I don't know where their ambulance actually parks. So you know that wasn't a
part of the request in terms of that parking lot design because the parking
lot design is particularly on that side has already kind of been designed put
into place. So you know that since that wasn't a part of the request for that
emergency but you could certainly you know add a condition. Why does it
know if the city had any provisions like at hospitals it's like they almost have
their own road to get back to their own place and the let I understand from
Lillian Miller that's built out if they're coming south but they're coming
from the west on Teasley and taking a left into right now it's a single drive
with no cars and that's that's gonna change drastically. We don't have any
site design requirements specifically for emergency vehicles or or hospitals
they have to meet fire obviously they have to meet the fire lane requirements
but there's nothing within the code. Okay any other questions for this item?
Yes, Commissioner Beck. So there will be a left turn lane coming from the west on
Teasley that they can turn into but coming out of that development they
can't cross over Teasley and head east can they? Because that was the concern.
Yeah I think you're right I think they can. Okay yes you're right. Now that I'm
thinking about it I think it is a full access I think they could turn left out
of that. Okay that was Commissioner Ellis's concern with that tree that now
I you know tend to agree with because if it was only a right turn coming out it
wouldn't be a problem because they can because they're looking left but now if
they've got a if they're gonna make a right on the Teasley coming out. This is
an existing tree so this one's already here. These are these are smaller canopy
trees so but you know if the Commission feels like that might create a safety
issue for for students that that could certainly be something that could be
removed. Well for cars just pulling out and wanting to get onto Teasley. Something to consider.
Thanks. Any other questions for this item? Thank you very much Julie. I'm sure you have
others tonight. The next is item 2B another ADP. I'll invite Haley for
presentation.
All right good evening so this is a request. This is a request for an
alternative development plan for a facility just north of the existing
Peterbilt plant. So you can see the location of the property and outlined in
black on the map. The requested ADP is to deviate from three sections of sub
chapter 13 one being the fencing and screening requirements the second being
the access parking and circulation requirements and then third some of the
non-residential site and building design standards. So the property in question is
just over 12 acres it is located in an industrial center zoning district as you
can see on the map and the proposed use as I mentioned is a truck sales facility
that would be a supporting use for these existing Peterbilt facility. So these are
all outlined in detail in your backup so we'll just run through briefly what
their specific requests are. The first standard that they are seeking to
deviate from is our permitted fence materials. The DDC has a very specific
list of what materials can be used for fences currently. So the wire mesh
security fencing they're proposing on three sides of the property is not among
those permitted materials. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. First of all when we say
wire mesh are we talking about chain link? No sir it is slightly different from
chain link. Okay what does wire mesh look like? I've got a picture of it later on in the
presentation actually. Okay great. Okay let's wait until we look at it because it seems like if they
want that as opposed to what was required for security reasons seems like
a weaker fence for some reason but let's wait and see your picture. Again and the
code does allow for security fencing such as it specifically calls out razor
wire and barbed wire but that's only for industrial uses and what they're
proposing is a commercial use so it's still even if this were a permitted
security fence material specifically listed in the code it still wouldn't
have been permitted for a commercial use. Okay but yeah I do have photos of the
fence materials later on. So the second deviation is for a requirement in the
code that limits the height of a fence that is located forward of the front
building line so if you want a fence along your front property line it can
be no taller than three and a half feet which seems like it would only apply to
residential but the code doesn't expressly say that so the way it's
written it applies to all fences and what they're proposing is a seven foot
tall ornamental wrought iron fence along the front property line and then third
as I mentioned the parking lot screening so when you do have vehicle spaces
located in front of a building between the building and the street the code
requires that very prescriptive 15 foot wide area containing a berm a combination
of trees and then either zero scaping a shrub row or a three foot high wall. What
they've proposed is a 15 foot wide area containing a berm and shrubs. They are
proposing to push their street trees back to the backside of that area but
then they couldn't quite fence fit the street trees along with the required
screening trees so they've proposed to relocate those screening trees to along
that wire mesh fence on the north and south sides of the property and then
finally the code only allows front parking along arterial roadways the
property is located on precision drive which is a collector street so that is
an additional deviation to have that vehicle parking between the building and
the street and when you do have front parking the code prescribes that your
building not be set back further than 85 feet from the street and their building
is 148 feet. So looking in detail at some of these things they have just over
5,000 square feet of building it's a combination of an office building in
this area and then what they're calling an undecking facility and I asked for a
little more detail on what that is but haven't received it to date I believe
it's where they would take the tractor and trailer apart but I'm not positive
on that but the applicant should be here this evening to provide more details on
that operation. They did confirm there's no vehicle maintenance of any sort that
would occur in that building. They have employee and customer parking located
here in front of their office building with 12 parking spaces. The rest of the
site is approximately 400 truck spaces that would be storage and display area
for the vehicles that are for sale. Overall they have 38% landscape area
their zoning district only requires 10% so they're well in excess of that
because the property does extend further to the south here for their detention
facilities. And then they are providing the 15% required tree canopy. So looking
at the fencing and landscaping now the solid orange line demonstrates where the
wire mesh fence would go that we'll look at in just a second. The dashed orange
line is where they would have that wrought iron a little bit dressier fence
along the frontage to present better from the street. It would be a gated
facility so the gate would cross this primary entrance point here and then
looking at the trees you can see here's where they have that 15-foot area with
all the required street trees along the entire frontage and then on the north
and south property line they're accommodating the required screening
trees that would have been required here but they're proposing it along the fence
to further screen the north and south sides of the property. And then in the
back they've accommodated all the other required trees to hit that 15%.
Thank You Chair. Haley on the east side of Precision there is that where the
that large development is going in. Correct. Student housing development.
Chris you're back. Thank you Chair. So Precision is the only road that has
access that there's nothing on the north side? Correct. So if you back out and look
further north there is a parcel between this site and Oak Street here so they
they have no frontage other than Precision which is currently under
construction as part of this residential development. Okay great thanks.
All right so here's kind of the examples of what the fences looked like from what
they provided so this is the the front wrought iron screening fence with the
gate that would be along Precision and then this is the wire mesh you can see
it's a it's a tighter knit I guess linkage than what you would get with the
chain-link fence that is proposed to be a black coated fence so it would be you
know a little above and beyond the typical aluminum chain link security
fence that you would see in a facility but it is as you can see here a much
tighter weave than what a chain-link fence would be. So again as Julie walked
through there's the five criteria for approval in sub chapter 13 for an
alternative development plan so we'll go through those. The first being
preservation of existing neighborhoods as I mentioned this is a supporting use
for existing industrial development. There is as Commissioner Ellis pointed
out a multifamily under construction across the street. The code when there's
right of way between a commercial and multifamily use doesn't require a
buffer but they are proposing as you saw in the landscape plan to screen this
facility and they will have that security fencing to prevent anyone from
that residential development from being able to access the site. The second
criteria is to assure quality development. The request as you see here
isn't intending to lower the development standards they're needing the fencing
for security purposes for the vehicles and then they are still accommodating
all of the required landscaping on site just in alternative locations. The third
criteria is to focus new development to activity centers. This is within our West
Park Terz area so it's an area intended for industrial development and
supporting uses so this is well within what we would expect to see in this area.
Fourth criteria ensuring or ensure infrastructure can accommodate the
development. The infrastructure is not on the ground today but it's all under
construction so the dashed lines on our map here indicate a water and sewer
facilities that are under construction. As I mentioned precision drive is also
currently being built from its current terminus here at the north boundary of
Peterbilt's existing facility all the way up to Oak Street and that development
is going in along with the residential development here. It is a collector
street correct. And then the final criteria is that the results would be a
high-quality development that meets the intent of the standards. So as I
mentioned their their fencing is not an attempt to provide a lower quality
material than what the code would require it's just something different
that I suspect probably wasn't a popular material at the time our code was
drafted in 2002 and it is for security purposes. They are coating it in black so
it wouldn't be a reflective material that could potentially distract a driver
as they go by and they are also proposing to relocate their trees in a
way that would help screen the fence and the trucks from the north and south
sides. Thank you chair. Hayley on that student housing development that's
being just the east of that there. Do we have a site plan for that yet?
We've already approved that. That was approved with a specific use
department. I couldn't remember. Do you remember vaguely where the
entrants and exits were for that and if this facility at all is gonna be next.
What I'm thinking is if there's an undecking I don't know what that is I
don't know we're gonna ask the African tonight but if there's trucks moving in
and out of there and that's student housing back there as well and on a
collector's tree that doesn't seem like a whole lot of room for trucks to be
moving in and out of long with students driving in and out of there too. Correct
it's slightly off-map here but you can see their primary driveway for the
student lines with this which is what's required within our criteria manual for
safe maneuverability so that there's not driveways offset just enough that
someone could sure miss someone else coming in or out. And then finally staff
is recommending approval of this request because we found it to meet all the
criteria for approval in sub chapter 13 and happy to answer any other questions.
The only question I have Haley is is truck defined like they have a truck
sales office is is that a definition truck? It is 18-wheeler tractor trailer
rigs is my understanding is what their definition of a truck is. I think I
understand what they're saying is a truck what I'm wondering is are we
putting in place that it will only be tractor truck trailers and not pick up
trucks in a used lot in three years from now I'm wondering yeah are we
protecting against a used car lot going in or are they limited to what I imagine
is Peter built trucks being sold in their lot? Well the code loosely defines
all things of this sort is auto and RV sales so this falls within that
definition so any anything within that realm could be permitted under that use
definition. So apart that's I guess by right I mean correct so apart from the
ADP they they could actually put a car lot there correct? Correct I think based
on their site plan and just the way they have it configured can tell these
spaces are 100% intended and sized for 18-wheeler I suspect Peter built trucks.
With ADP's they're being bound to the substantially close to the site plan
correct? Correct yeah they would have to amend the ADP in the future to
reconfigure the site. Okay that's helpful enough okay thank you. Any other
questions? Commissioner Smith? Jerry's gonna punch me because I know this is not
this is is there any way before public hearing we could see how that site plan
for that that student housing developments being done and what the
what the the entrance and the exit from that area is just in relation to this
project and the only reason why I know Jerry's gonna punch me is because this
is an ADP this has nothing to do with the use as Commissioner Rossell already
brought up they could put a car lot there just as soon as they do anything
else so we're talking about fences and buffering here not about use of the area
but I don't know maybe maybe I just didn't talk something off it online
about about what it looks like just because this seems it seems like a
dangerous area to have to have semi trucks coming in and out of there with
it being right there. And that was something that our traffic engineering
department looked at with this the driveway for this is actually a little
wider than what would typically be permitted to allow that extra
maneuverability there but precision drive to my understanding is a road that
was intended even within the towers to always be built to accommodate
industrial traffic. Okay. Richard do you have anything to add to this? Haley do you
know if the driveway to the east of the the entry into the truck lot is that is
that the entrance into the shown on the slide? This is the only thing I have that
shows where that driveway is I believe the apartments had two drive two
driveways on the northern end of their property was the primary entry I believe
this may be the gated southern entry but I'm not positive on that I'd have to
pull up the plans. Good no worries that's fine. As I'm understanding your
question essentially you're asking whether the the alternative plan would
be justifiable given the configuration that you're asking about. The alternative
plan is not something that you would have to grant necessarily and so you
perhaps you know what you're actually expressing Commissioner Smith is you know
that that could be a factor that bears upon whether you feel that the
alternative plan would be justifiable under the under the criteria that are
set forth in the code. Okay thank you. Any other questions on this item? Great
thank you very much Haley. The next order of business brings us into the public
hearing again public hearing A B and C are not going to be heard tonight so we
will jump right into 3D which is the final replat and I invite Cindy Jackson
for presentation.
Okay thank you yeah you can see that Cindy Jackson FR 18 - 0 0 1 5 is a
request for approval of the final plat of a lots 1a - 1 and 1a - 2 of the gray
forest edition. This is actually a residential replat of lot 14 block D
Park West edition which is this lot right here and lot 1a block A of the
DeWeerd edition which is this large lot right here. The property is located
within the neighborhood residential in our 4 district. One of the lots this lot
along Chisholm is actually developed already with a single-family house. The
applicant plans to subdivide this large lot and replat half of the the western
half of it onto this lot leaving the remaining lot vacant with plans to
develop with residential use. The plat actually meets the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance. We sent out notifications since
this is a residential replat we this is a public hearing. We sent out
notifications within 200 and 500 feet and we we had notice published in the
newspaper. All is we didn't receive responses back I did receive some phone
calls from people who received the notices just asking what was going on
what what they were trying to do with the lots. The applicant will be here
later on to discuss this however that concludes my presentation.
Mr. Beck thank you chair thanks Cindy just for clarification it appears to me
that lot 182 is simply going to be the backyard for that house that's right but
there's probably an intent to build on the house on the other lot which faces
Stewart. Yes. Okay okay thanks. Any other questions? Thank You Cindy. Thank you. Next
item for business is 3E and I invite Haley for presentation.
The floor is yours. All right so this is a proposed detail plan for a self storage
facility. So the request before you is to consider making a recommendation to
council regarding this detail plan for a self storage use within plan
development 176 which is also known as Wheeler Ridge. The property you can see
on the map outlined in yellow. It's located on the west side of 2499 north
of Hickory Creek Road and south of Robinson. The property is just shy of
three acres in size. So a little bit of background on this site as I mentioned
the properties within PD 176 which is Wheeler Ridge. This PD was originally
approved back in 1999. The PD is a large area containing the subject property in
many of the homes in this area. It was proposed to contain a maximum of 628
residential units and it also called for two commercial tracts which includes
the parcel which the subject property was a part of as well as the
property at the corner of Teasley and Robinson. A plan development requires a
kind of two phases of planning. The first is the concept plan that outlines the
very general terms of what can go where within the property. That was approved in
1999 with the with the original PD and outlined what uses could be built on
these commercial tracts which was essentially everything permitted within
the commercial zoning district in the 1991 code. So a very long list of uses.
The second part of the planning for a PD is the detail plan for each specific
parcel that determines how the site will be developed. What configuration of site
design and landscaping and building is required there. So that's where we're at
tonight is looking at how this particular site can be developed for a
use that was permitted on the property as far back as 1999. So looking into the
the details of what's proposed here. This is the site plan so you can see here in
blue are the four buildings that are proposed on the site just under 85,000
square feet total between the four buildings. The only actual vehicle
parking proposed are these five spaces outlined here in red that are for the
office that's generally located in this part of building A. You'll notice there's
only one driveway on the site so that would be a shared point of entry off of
2499 for this use and the car wash which you may remember last year we had a
detail plan for the car wash that council approved. Once they get into the
property there are gates proposed at these two points so you know you could
visit the office and then beyond that you have to enter through one of the
gates and all of the circulation is internal in between the building so
there's no drive aisles that would abut or potentially have glare onto the
residential uses surrounding this. In orange on the map I've outlined where
they're proposing fences so the building walls would kind of form the
back of much of the property but they are proposing in between there an eight
foot masonry wall that would have a couple of gate locations there's one
here as well as I believe one in this area that would be wrought iron gates
and then up here surrounding the detention pond on the far north end they
would propose that that fence transition into an eight foot wrought iron fence to
allow for drainage flow through that area. So this is kind of a colored
rendering of what the buildings would look like from the streets so this is
that office portion here with the glass windows so building A that you saw here
would be two stories all of the remaining buildings would be single
story. Looking at this in a little more detail that the PD had some requirements
for commercial developments to either be constructed of glass stone stucco tile
concrete wood or similar materials so you can see here they've proposed a
combination of brick and stone veneer some brick accents there is some ifas
which is a material similar to stucco proposed just along the tops of the
buildings for the cornices so it would be full masonry construction. The building
height the PD permitted up to three stories and the story was defined as
eleven and a half feet at that time so the highest point of building A here
above the office is thirty two and a half feet so it's within what's permitted
within the PD and then just looking at some of the other sides of the building
here this is actually what would face along the residential side so you can
see solid masonry construction no windows very few points in which any
any visuals from the inside the site could be there there you can see one of
the gates and the fence that would be between the buildings. So now looking at
their landscape plan the PD as I mentioned adopted in 1999 so they follow
the 1998 landscape code that was in effect at the time the main requirement
there was for 15 trees per acre so based on the size they are required 45 trees
they're proposing 50 trees total on the site 17 of those would be planted here
along the backside of the building so they have a 25 foot gap between this
utility easement and where the building starts and they're proposing the
landscape that heavily to provide again some visual variation and buffering
between them and the residential uses. Total their site would have 27 percent
landscaping and 21 percent new tree canopy and they are meeting the DDC the
current DDC regulations for tree preservation so they're preserving just
over 40 percent of the quality and secondary trees on the site. So the 1991
code outlined the criteria for a detailed plan approval the first of
those is that the plan complies with the general concept plan or development plan
approved for the property. So what you see here is the highly detailed concept
plan that was adopted in 1991 it basically broke the PD into three
tracks commercial development on track one here at Teasley and Robinson. Track
two was single family where they had that approximately 600 units of
residential planned and then track three is this triangle that we're looking at
tonight which again was designated for commercial development. So the use and
standards that they've proposed here are within what was originally approved
with the PD. And then the next criteria is that the plan provides for a
compatible arrangement of buildings and uses that wouldn't adversely affect
adjoining neighborhoods or properties outside of the PD. So this development
is in line with what we would typically see along a highway it is kind of
standard highway commercial development but in terms of the adjoining
neighborhoods they are providing a 25 foot setback as required in the PD
between them and the adjoining residences even though there is
approximately 175 foot of easements providing additional separation there
between this commercial tract and the nearest residences. Site lighting and
signage are not directly addressed in the plan development standards so staff
feels that there could be some potential for nuisances there with commercial
development having signage and lighting. So we did recommend some conditions that
we'll look at later related to that. The third criteria is that the plan provides
for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic. We felt that the
detail plan meets that it has all internal circulation so again no
potential for nuisances from glare or lighting for the adjoining residences
and they are meeting tech stops requirements that one singular driveway
that they're sharing with the car wash has already been approved by tech stop
as have the plans for a turn lane into the site on 2499. And then finally that
the plan is in substantial compliance with landscaping sign subdivision and
other regulations of the city or that it offers corresponding benefits if it's
proposing deviations. We again generally found that it is in compliance with the
PD regulations our current regulations that would apply such as tree
preservation and again the two pieces where we felt there was some room for
concern signage and lighting we have proposed conditions related to. So we
this case was noticed we sent the the mailed notices received no responses to
those to date and the applicant did hold instead of one large neighborhood
meeting they set up individual meetings with each of the HOA's in this area so
Wheeler Ridge and the two phases of Oakmont. I was able to attend the last of
those with the Oakmont West group and there were approximately 20 people in
attendance that had relatively mixed feelings about the development. So as I
mentioned we are recommending two conditions for the approval of this the
first the no exterior lighting on the building should face a single-family
residential use or if such lighting is proposed it be screened from view of
adjoining residences and then a photometric plan be provided with their
building permit application to demonstrate compliance with the current
DDC site lighting requirements. The second criteria is again due to the close
proximity of residential uses to this and the majority of the PD's in this
area allowing for residential uses that these developments should comply with
the current code of ordinances sign regulations for a non-residential
district and specifically that no illuminated wall signs face any adjoining
single-family use. The applicant hasn't proposed that what we felt as we did
with the car wash that that was important to provide that protection and
I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have.
Thank you chair. Pardon me. Sorry to have my mic on. Thanks. Thanks Amy. A couple of
things the two gates in the back is that just for access to get back there and
mow the grass? Can you go back to the site plan show that? I'm assuming that
where at the other side of the easement there's probably a fence line that the
houses have. So there's no direct access if they went through that gate? Correct.
These are all rear property lines here and then that hundred and seventy five
foot electric easement. Right so there's fences there where if they got into that
area through those gates they couldn't go directly through the houses or anything.
Okay then the other thing I noticed on the site plan up on the I guess it'd be
kind of the north west corner there. It says that there's a proposed eight foot
high wrought iron fence on top of the wall. How tall is that wall? Are you I guess
referring to the wall that would be here? Well see I believe there's a retaining
wall there associated with the detention pond. I'm not sure of the exact height of
it but I could certainly find out. It's probably going to be a small wall then if you're going to put an eight iron. I believe so. Okay I think it's just for the detention pond. I thought we had the six or eight foot masonry wall in there. No sir. Okay thanks. Any other questions? Thank you Hailey. At this time dinner is here for us to grab a quick bite. I would hope and suggest we do a quick
break. We still have a lot of items left about an hour to go and then with that
I'm certainly not discouraging questions in work session but hopefully over the
next hour we can use our discretion of what's asked here. First to tap asks in
public hearing just to facilitate an efficient move through the schedule once
we get back from getting our food. So let's try to do a five minute grab food.
It's 531 we'll break now. Thank you and welcome back to the work session. It is
537 call it back to order at this time. We are on item 3F. Julie White for
presentation. I'm not sure this is possible on this item and other items
might be more possible but if there isn't an abbreviated presentation if we get at
the high notes we do that much preferred and then we'll stand for questions for
sure. Absolutely. Thanks Julie. All right I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting a
portion of the alternative ESA plan. Christy Upton is actually going to be
doing the technical part. So I'll just briefly talk about the request and the
location. The request is for an alternative environmentally sensitive
area plan. The areas are outlined here in yellow. It's to restore across
timber's upland habitat on approximately two-tenths of an acre and
restore a riparian buffer on approximately one acre. Just a brief
background. Some of you probably remember this this area was subject of an
alternative ESA plan back in 2016 as part of the Villages of Carmel
development of phases 4B and 5B. So the preliminary plat shows the areas here
outlined in red and as part of the development the the applicant did an ESA
assessment on this this upland habitat here which is the tree portion that was
actually removed as an ESA prior to the preliminary plat because it did not meet
the minimum dimension requirements of 10 acres. The riparian buffer was
confirmed as an ESA prior to the preliminary plat because that
there was an intermittent stream there. So in the the plat was approved in 2015
the applicant knew at that time that they wanted to pursue an alternative
ESA plan in order to remove the protections for the riparian buffer. Let
me go back to that map I think that's better. So they wanted to remove the
protections for the riparian buffer. In exchange they they proposed to to
preserve the the upland habitat that no longer was an ESA but still had the the
trees there and the the the the understory and all of those factors
associated just didn't meet that that 10 acre minimum. That alternative ESA was
approved by City Council and and so then the development went forward with final
plats. In 2018 in the summer the applicant approached the city and said
we made a mistake and we cut down about two-tenths of an acre of trees and
actually these areas the the areas these two lots that were part of the
preliminary plat but the that the trees were preserved on these as part of the
alternative ESA and so these these lots were never final platted so those
weren't supposed to be graded but they did end up cutting down the trees and
grading it and removing the topsoil. So they approached the city and we talked
about it and tried to come up with the best plan of action for them to move
forward and so they are now before you and will ultimately go to City Council
with an alternative ESA plan to restore not only the area that they removed that
was preserved but then they're also proposing to restore that riparian
buffer. So with that I am going to turn it over to Christy Upton to talk about
the technical aspect. Thank you Julie and commissioners and I will try to also
speak through some of the information here. I did want to add we have some
visuals about the encroachment this is the upland habitat that was removed and
inadvertently in addition to the 0.2 acres or so of upland habitat that was
part of those two lots there was also some encroachment with a sidewalk that
was put along harbor mist and during that construction the the construction
crews pushed the dirt work up into the the upland habitat removing all the
understory and also we wanted to explain to you what happened with the riparian
buffer. This was inadvertently filled greater than what was approved by the
nationwide permit that allows for 300 linear feet of ephemeral streams to be
filled and they had filled 702 linear feet and with that information once they
realized that they had exceeded that linear feet allowance they went back to
the Corps and the Corps and and the applicant are working through a
mitigation project for the core purposes and that's an important
part of what's going to be occurring with this project. The criteria for
approval is to create and expand or improve preserved areas, improve
encroached habitat, maintain habitat continuity, maximize public access and
utilization, preservation of the protected area in perpetuity and to
create a high quality development. In this case staff feels that they have met
this criteria except for improving encroached habitat or environment which
we did not feel applied to this project. Their restoration strategy and just to
to help you keep track of which one is which we're calling the riparian buffer
area the original ESA and they are going to restore for 402 linear feet of the
original riparian buffer for the Corps purposes and they had that those that
part of the lot where they intend to restore and there was area on the
outskirts of that riparian buffer and what they have proposed is to recreate
an upland habitat along the riparian buffer that they are creating for the
Corps purposes. In that project that part of the project it will be using 177 of
the 195 tree caliper inches that they removed from the original I mean from
the alternative ESA the upland habitat the 0.2 acres that unintentionally
graded. So they'll be putting 177 inches into this area here and then
they will also be trying to recreate an understory habitat by using an American
Beautyberry shrub, post oak seedlings and a mix of black lamb prairie
seed mix. And then in the Alta ESA area which was the little over 2.2 acres of
upland habitat that was inadvertently removed they are going to place trees
along harbor mist trail to harness the lot and kind of create a barrier there
and a visual barrier but also to create a sense of that this lot is not to be
maintained and in the same manner as you would maintain other grassed areas and
that they will be putting a black lamb prairie seed mix in to kind of create a
savanna area within that upland habitat. An example of the black lamb
prairie mix the additional mitigation strategies will be to bring topsoil in
to the restored areas to promote plant viability to landscape use landscape
irrigation and to either use infrequent or no mowing schedule to implement and
will be implemented to promote a natural habitat progression and they will be
installing educational signs that promote this is just an example of what
the sign would look like they had a number of choices to choose from but the
sign will be promoting crest timbers upland habitat. The long-term
management and monitoring of this will be a three-year monitoring period the
applicant will place any den material during that three-year application and
monitoring period they'll repair any eroded land and remove any trash the
annual report will be generated for environmental services to review and
after three years there will be a final acceptance and staff is recommending
approval with the following conditions I won't read everything I'll just kind of
hit the highlights for you to replace the 195 tree caliber inches that they
removed inadvertently from the upland habitat to place 0.5 acres adjacent to
the Corps of Engineers project with the upland habitat restoration and the
0.23 acres of the Crest Timbers upland habitat along the alternative ESA
section and then the annual reporting plants to be installed will be
maintained and then they are also an agreement of a either a bond a letter of
credit or an escrow in the amount of twenty four thousand three hundred seventy
five which is currently the hundred twenty five dollars per tree caliber inch
that is within our code and then then to this was not in your packet we have
added this since we're proposing that there be a homeowners association
document that be created and filed us to establish the maintenance of these lots
in accordance with accordance with our ordinance and Julie has added some
information about the notification public notification for a public hearing was
sent out we have received three letters in opposition primary concerns that
we've heard about our drainage the the lots there a few lots there on Delray
who have some concerns about drainage the proposal would not add any impervious
area to the site so it wouldn't wouldn't increase any runoff to the site so but
but that's what we've heard from the neighbors so far and that is the
presentation we'll stand for any questions mr. Beck thank you chair Julie
would you know if the enforcement rules that are coming up that'll be on the new
DDC will those be the ones used to make sure nothing goes awry this time well
maybe that's a question for Richard I could speak to what's proposed on this
one okay because we've got some lesson learned on enforcement with ease this
because we've we've tried to figure out the best way to enforce that and and we
felt like it actually it was Richard's suggestion to have to put in that bond
letter of credit or escrow in that amount for that three-year period and to
make sure that if if they aren't alive that we have a mechanism to support or
to support the the requiring them to go back and replant or that we would
replant ourselves if they didn't so we felt like that was probably the best way
to approach it and then in addition to the HOA documents so the city will have
some kind of trigger to after three years yes yeah if after three years if
ninety percent aren't thriving then that's where the enforcement would kick
in he has and we've kind of been both both groups water administration and
planning have been working with them that the homeowners association he was
he was fine with that he did have some current concerns about that bond or
letter so we added in the additional or escrow the city of Denton has a provision
that that developers can sometimes escrow money for sidewalks so it's
something that happens kind of frequently with development so he he
understood why we were requesting that condition and he felt like the escrow
was probably the best the way he would want to approach it so that's why we
left some options in there for him when you're talking about the ESA
maintaining in perpetuity you're talking about the creek right you're not talking
about the upland area both oh both yes sir is there anything in there that would
state that the ESA especially the upland be maintained say like moing to maintain
the you know the flowers and all that if you just let it go over time you're
gonna lose them I'm gonna let Christie answer that okay during my discussions
with the applicant about this HOA idea he he said and we might ask him during
this evening's meetings more if he's still in agreement with this he he said
that right now he's the declarant of the HOA documents and he can put in that
document anything that that the city has proposed at that time so I think right
now it's open for for him to add in whatever information we would like to
request and the long term you also want to make sure that you're managing that
not just okay we're preserving it and that makes a big difference any other
questions on this item all right thank you very much next time we have is 3g
zoning case presented by Julie Wyatt this is my last one all right so I'll
be I'll be quick about this one as well so this is for a zoning case Audra
Heights the request is to rezone about 8.7 acres from neighborhood residential
mixed-use 12 to neighborhood residential mixed-use the subject
property is located on the north side of Audra near the loop 288 corridor under
current zoning you could see that NRM you 12 here that's in that orange
hatched and then NRM you is adjacent to it that's that red the surrounding zoning
includes an NRM you 12 to the south as well as some NR for for our single
family neighborhoods surrounding you've got NR to which some pretty large lot
single-family and then NR three to the to the west of the subject property
there's PD across the loop and then you've got a little bit of community
mixed use there at the loop in University the applicant is proposing to
extend that NRM you toward the west to take in that 8.7 acres before we talk
about the background but we'll go really quickly so the maximum lot coverage in
NRM you 12 is 60% lot coverage within the city of Denton includes all
buildings and impervious surface so driveways that walkways anything rain
can't get through townhomes are a permitted use in NRM you 12 at a maximum
density of 12 dwelling units per acre so based upon this the applicant
preliminary plotted the property in December of 2017 and you'll see it right
here you'll see it's a townhome development with alleyways this layout
was actually based upon a misapplication of the Denton development code which
relates to lot coverage so in in sub chapter 13 there is a provision that
driveways that are constructed with a pervious surface are not counted toward
lot coverage but counted as landscape area so that is the way they proceeded
with their plat and it's the way actually a lot of townhome developments
within the city have proceeded in early 2018 the city embarked upon some update
to the parking rags and they went back and and and looked at that provision
within the code and determined that though that provision had actually been
misapplied and that in actually in the code it specifically prohibits single
family and duplex lots from taking from from using this provision so so that
single family and duplex lots even their driveway would have to count toward the
lot coverage so when they came in for a final plot we alerted them to that fact
and that there it was going to be difficult for them to develop the site
with the adequate parking in the building under the lot coverage
requirements so because this affects the develop ability of it they have
requested to rezone to NRM you because that permits an 80% lot coverage the
criteria for for rezoning is in subchapter 3 of the Denton development
code so the first criteria is the Denton plan 2030 what's the future land use so
this area is has two future land use designations that affect it moderate
residential and neighborhood mixed use moderate residential is is for
residential development 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre think of kind of infill
and inner-city neighborhoods a variety of housing types maybe single family
with smaller lots but so you get that moderate density but but it is a
residential future land use designation neighborhood mixed use can include
residential development with a variety of housing types so once again that
townhome or duplex development but it also folds in the commercial uses and
retail services those day-to-day uses in both of them scale and compatibility is
important when we look at the design so if you'll just look at the future land
use here's the subject property in black you've got that orange here that's the
moderate residential the pink is the neighborhood mixed use and then you have
the surrounding to the to the west of the subject property you have low
residential you got business innovation across the loop and then community mixed
use along along University so as we look at the future land use and remember the
future land use is a guide it's the 30,000 foot view of how the city of our
vision of our city that zoning pattern that's where we start implementing some
of those goals so when we look at that future land use we we we see that the
zoning patterns must protect the existing scale of neighborhoods within
that future land use and so even within this you want transition areas to allow
development to either gradually increase or decrease and this is an interesting
area because you really can see this in action so if you follow the red line you
can see this is low residential the intensity the intensity grows as you get
toward loop 288 as you get toward that commercial corridor so you go from low
to moderate to then neighborhood mixed use as you get up to University you even
get more intense to the community mixed use because it's not as close to
residential neighborhoods so that that transition and that gradual scale change
is really important the proposed townhome use is consistent with both
future land use designations but staff feels like that NRM you may it could
disrupt that progression of intensity that it it it wouldn't allow it to flow
as well that NRM you really is more consistent with that neighborhood mixed
use so future land use rather than that moderate residential and that really
that the existing zoning is more consistent with with both future land
use designations it really does do a good job bridging the gap between the
moderate residential and that neighborhood mixed use because it still
allows a wide variety of housing and some commercial but a really reduced
scale so a use comparison this only pulled out what what is different in the
few in the two different zoning districts so for instance places that we
looked at duplexes and single-family are permitted under current zoning they're
not under NRM you so it kind of takes away that residential component NRM you
does allow some more intense uses like hotels or bars or restaurants things
that may introduce incompatibilities with with those surrounding single-family
neighborhoods NRM you also permits building height up to 65 feet so it's
quite a bit taller than what is what's out there now the second criteria for
approval is adequate public improvements it's important to know that the
proposal would not increase the density but the intensity on the lot so we would
increase the lot coverage but not necessarily the the density they did
there the trip generation for the townhome use is is 604 trips during a
24-hour workday or weekday so it doesn't trigger that TIA here's some site
photos this is the subject property right here I was standing across the
street so there's the site and this is kind of standing on the corner and
looking back at those residential neighborhoods this is the the duplex
development just adjacent to the subject property and then here's the
single-family neighborhood to the south of that duplex development there is
adequate water and and wastewater within within the area for them to connect to
so just other findings so stuff based upon the future land use designation
based upon the the development in the area and that zoning pattern staff
feels that that NRM you would reduce the transition area between the loop 288 the
high-intensity commercial development you would normally see on a highway
corridor and that low density residential to the west however if the
planning and zoning Commission does opt to recommend approval we recommend some
overlay conditions first that the uses would be restricted to the townhome use
with that limitation 40 which is in which is what's existing for NRM you now
which essentially limits the density or the number of townhomes that you can do
to 12 per acre so it essentially limit the density to what's existing reduce
the maximum building height to 40 feet and then also provide for common area
lots owned and maintained by an age an HOA adjacent to Audra to provide some
screening to provide that transition through design mechanisms between the
single-family neighborhoods and and the and the zoning and that would include a
screening wall as well as a type B buffer which is five trees and 20 shrubs
or I'm sorry 30 shrubs per 100 linear feet notification was sent out we've
received one letter in opposition and I passed that out to you signs were posted
on the side and they did have a neighborhood meeting and based upon the
the criteria for approval the future land use staff recommends denial of the
request and I'll stand for any questions
Christopher Smith thank you so the the record the staff recommendation if there
is approval is pretty much to keep it in our new 12 but the density and just add
an HOA requirement and then the only reason why they're even requesting an
RMU in the first place is because they're trying to get to that 80% lock
coverage standpoint so you think that even the applicant are probably okay
with the density requirement that's being enforced upon that or has that been a
discussion the applicant will be here this evening so you can talk with them
about their the they haven't given any indication that they are in disagreement
with with the restriction on use or building height I think they may have
some concerns about the the screening along Audra but but they haven't given
us any indication and you're just saying right now because that lot is so thin
that there is no way for them to be able to do the density be able to provide the
driveway and the 80% lot coverage correct there's just not there's no
feasible way for them to do that so they would have to reduce density or change
they'd have to change their lot sizes they may have to revise their their
building layouts maybe go taller so there are you know there may be design
interventions they could do to meet the lot coverage but it would change the it
would change the site plan that was originally submitted what was the height
from those back in 2017 we don't have it's because it's residential we don't
have a site plan they would just have to meet the requirements what was that this
is a preliminary plot they would just have to follow current which is 40 yes
sir did this meet the requirement before the change in 2018 when it was no it
never met the requirements it was approved the preliminary plot was
approved and and and the preliminary pat plat meets zoning so as it's laid out it
meets the bulk the dimensional requirements within the zoning district
for lot size and density where it doesn't meet the zoning is lot coverage
and that really comes in at the development of the site so when they
came in with the final plot we alerted them to hey you can get a plot approved
but you may not be able to develop the lots the way you would like to because
of that lot coverage so what you're saying if they go ahead and increase a
lot size then they like you just said 12 units per acre they would be able to
meet the requirements right as proposed they're actually under 12 units per
oh so so you know it and and this is an issue that staff is aware of because it
really does it does affect townhome developments and it's something with the
new didn't development code we're looking at trying to look at different
standards for townhome developments because it does restrict the
develop ability of that use I guess for clarification that bullet DDC was
misapplied by whom staff any other questions thank you very much Julie
sure next item is item 3h this is Haley
and Haley as Julie so graciously did any brevity to the presentation yes
appreciate it I think this one's a little easier to try to breeze through so
this is an SUP request for dent one and if you look right outside the windows
across the street you will see their existing facility so the request before
you is to hold the public hearing consider making a recommendation to
council for an SUP for a vehicle repair use the property as I mentioned is just
across the street here on the south side of McKinney Street the property is zone
DCG this zoning district does require an SUP for vehicle repair this use has been
an operation on the site for a little over a year and a half this request
actually came to light because our zoning enforcement officers became aware
that this facility was operating without a certificate of occupancy so through
that they determined that the best course of action to bring them into
compliance with the code would be to pursue the specific use permit so that
it meets the use regulations for this district there are multiple aspects of
the site as it exists today that are outlined in your backup that aren't in
compliance with the current development code regulations because development on
the site dates back to the 1970s so as part of this SUP we worked with them to
determine ways they could at least bring the site closer into what the DDC would
require in terms of site design so we won't run through all the criteria for
approval but they're outlined in detail in your backup just a quick look at
their site plan the vehicle repair use although there are multiple buildings
on the property is confined to the 600 square foot building outlined in blue so
located just behind the new taco shop on the property this is the secondhand
sports building here and then this is a vacant building some of the improvements
as I mentioned that they're proposing to make to help bring this more into
compliance would be the installation of a six foot wood screening fence here with
gates to allow their cars to move in and out this would screen the vehicle
storage area that they have on the site it's currently just a gravel lot and the
code requires that any inoperable inoperable vehicles or outdoor storage
be screened from the right-of-way so that fence would help accomplish that
goal and then additionally they are proposing to install the required type C
landscape buffer here between this use and the multifamily use that's located
just to the south of them and in addition staff recommended that that
buffer be continued up the eastern side of the property because there are
concerns from the neighbors about noise and other potential nuisances generated
by this use that's been there as their neighbor for about a year so we felt
over time at least that addition of landscaping there could help mute some
of the noises from the side the future land use for this property is a down the
downtown Denton area so this does call for high density residential with other
supporting commercial uses so while vehicle repair does have potential
nuisances that they are working to mitigate with some of these side
additions it is a necessary use in a full service downtown area where you
want people to be able to live and work and have all their needs met as I
mentioned just a little bit of background the site has been developed
and like it is currently since the 1970s as far as we could tell this use has
been there for about one and a half years so there's there's no increase to
the traffic or anything like that that would occur with this approval because
the use has been in place for it so long we did provide notification regarding
this request as of the time I had put this together I had received one
opposition from this property prior to the meeting I did pass out two
additional responses that we received today one is for the owner of the
secondhand sports facility adjoining this who owns the entire subject property is
in support of the request and then the most recent notice that was passed out
is for this property here at the corner who is also in opposition to the request
and that would bring the total opposition up to 12% and the applicant
did not hold a neighborhood meeting in this case so staff is recommending
approval with several conditions I won't read through all of those here but
they're generally related to limiting the use to the what's shown on the site
plan today in terms of building footprint vehicle storage areas parking
and things of that nature and in addition as I mentioned the increase of
that landscape buffer up the east side of the property to help screen them from
there the offices next door and then no storage of inoperable vehicles on the
side so I'm happy to answer any questions and I'll go through all this
in a little more detail at the public hearing any questions great job next item
is 3 I Sean Jacobson for this zoning case
good evening chair members of the Commission the case before you is a
request for a city initiated rezoning of the 15 properties that make up the
Denton Service Center note there along mingo Road the challenge we've identified
is we have 15 properties in three different zoning districts that make up
the service center two of which do not even allow the use that is currently on
the site and our hope is to accomplish a number of things through rezoning this
first of all under a DCG zoning district the community service use would be
allowed on all 15 tracks we would bring all those properties under one United
Zoning District instead of three you there would be the option to then
replat that into one property instead of the 15 that it is currently and it would
also allow with the dimensional standards higher lot coverage the
necessary sorry parking area repairs as well as the expansion of the fleet
services facility both of which are badly needed on the site so again when
we're looking at a rezoning we continue consider our two key criteria future
land use map and then that we have the adequate public services the intended
use for this is government and institutional and we believe this meets
the use because this site provides exactly as future land use calls for
shared and efficient provision of public services and DCG the zoning proposed
would allow the continued use on site and therefore it is in line with the
future land uses intention for this area in addition for criteria to water sewer
have been in place for many years and there's no expected major increase in
trips generated eventually there will be a few more vehicles added on site but
they're not even expecting to do that right away the new building is just to
meet the capacity they already have compatibility of zoning for the area
this is actually a continuation of the DCG zoning that begins slightly to the
south along mingo and this would permit the use that is on site we did send out
public notices and courtesy notices we received three responses in opposition
to in favor we did hold a neighborhood meeting to which no one came and we also
did post 13 signs around the perimeter of the site staff is recommending
approval of the request as it meets the criteria in the Denton Development Code
with that I'll answer any questions you have great time another presentation
Mr. Smith how did the city start you start doing use in an area they weren't
zoned to be doing you said in the first place my understanding is that the city
has the option to do what it needs to do in the areas where it needs to be done
and in this case we're simply choosing we're saying you know what it's better
that we follow our own rules that's just the right thing to do you say the city
gets to choose whether or not wants to play by the rules or not that was a
misstatement withdraw that from the record Richard we are going to do
anything that's required of any public or I'm sorry private property we're no
different and so we want to ensure that whatever we're going to do we're going
to have the consistent zoning I don't know for sure what the zoning was on the
site before but I think that you see even in the citywide rezoning that
happened in 2002 how did that not get swept up in that no clue okay I might be
just kicking kicking rocks around for the Kega K rocks around but just think
if we want developers to come in here and what not and compose projects and
you know say well cities holding us to a higher code this is a pretty good
example what time when say didn't hold itself to a higher code here and so I
want to make sure that it's just some clarification and I might like to speak
to that that actually we are holding the city to you're gonna get a code so
absolutely facilities requested there they intend on adding bays to the
existing fleet services building its interior to the property but we
identified the problem so those sins of the past we're trying to rectify and say
well if you choose to redevelop then you have to follow the code like everybody
else okay I will tell you that city management's philosophy is is that we're
going to be held equal to or to a greater standard than what the code
speaks to so with this development they intend on doing parking lot improvements
as well as improving the landscape and buffering on the property okay good sir
back thank you chair just so the purpose of changing this zoning to one DCG is
not with plans to build something there at this point it's for consideration in
the future the only intended building at this time is the expansion within the
actual footprint currently at the site of that fleet services building about
16,000 square feet look same height as what's there okay there's nothing on
paper anywhere about any okay great thank you
push for Sanchez Scott you mentioned something about the buffering is that
once it gets rezoned is that something that that would be looked at it within a
certain amount of time because what when you drive by there I mean the neighbors
have to face it and it's a lot of it doesn't look very neighborly it doesn't
look very nice it doesn't it kind of brings a neighborhood down unless they
start fixing the boundaries and doing something to to the neighborhood to that
area so that that rest of the neighborhood can probably look a little
bit better so my my question is how soon would any kind of buffering be done once
this thing gets changed first of all going forward the intent would be to
follow as Scott said all the standards within the development code in terms of
putting in buffering with all new work as it's called for at this time I don't
believe their plans to immediately with the rezoning put in any additional
buffering but going forward any new project would be looking at that as the
development code calls for I know that the city's intent is is the first phase
of this would be to address that the bays so the bays are interior to the
property no one's gonna see or really even know the difference that they're
adding those on however with that being said there's also intent to repair the
parking lot it's it's I don't know if you've ever been on that property it's
it's a mess so we have every intention of putting a plan together I think
they're trying to craft that as we speak and with that will be that buffering so
I can certainly attempt to find a date to say if we have a timeline of when we
think we're gonna do some of that buffering but I know that our intent is
to do that I think we've talked about sometimes when we do rezoning one of the
requests or one of the things we require is for them to do certain things and you
know that's to me that should be a a no-brainer is because those neighbors
have to look at all that old some of his old equipment big equipment sitting
right next to him and it really doesn't it doesn't do justice I mean not that
that's I'm not saying it's it's not one of the best neighborhoods but again it
you have to if you start somewhere and maybe if the city fixes their problems
maybe the neighborhood will take a little bit more pride in their own
neighborhood we treat it as residential is a residential neighborhood and we
want to be good stewards in the community so we have every intent of
doing the right thing that's why this is coming forward rather than what has
happened in the past in the recent past of truly just permitting the work the
work being performed so we're trying to we're trying to do what it is that we're
we're holding others to be accountable for so we have every intention of doing
the right thing I'll work to get you a date Richard you know the only thing I
wanted to add is this is really the first step the second step is really to
have this property replatted there's a multiple you know as Sean alluded to
there's multiple parcels out there but we can't plait that into one because it
it's not consistent with the zoning so we need to have the zoning before we can
get to the to the plating stage Commissioner Pernetta and we'll probably
go into this more in the you know in public hearings but to your point I mean
actually I guess this would be a question for you guys would the approval
on this could this be based on an amendment to actually ensure you know
standard beautification along this to you know to the area that faces the
neighborhood so that way we can kind of discuss or address the neighborhood's
concerns about how it affects the look of their neighborhood or would that be
something we do at a later date I guess it's would it be like it's an overlay
overlay I don't want to call it a restriction but an overlay requirement
that the that the landscape be put in if I'm understanding yeah that was the
question would that be something we could address as part of this vote or
would that be a later thing that we have to do it would it would be required I've
got to look at the the applicability table but if you increase I think the
expansion applicability table if you increase a thousand square feet or I
don't remember the percentage it kicks in a number of kicks in a number of
requirements one of those are the landscape requirements I just can't
recall and it would be it's a 16,000 square foot expansion I mean within the
footprint but that might we can look at it before we get the public hearing I
think that can where we have to just watch is because there's so many parcels
so it would be applicable to that parcel but but we can look at whether we
can get that to apply across the property any other questions we can
certainly flush this out more in public hearing thank you for the presentation
next up is item 3 J rezoning by Ron and Guitta job chair you got my last name
correct I'll stress not about that else well I'm gonna try to be as brief as I
can this is a rezoning for a property north of Robertson Street just east of
Skinner Road it's for a zoning to go from NR for to NRM you the applicant has
stated that the purpose is to use the home or the structure at 511 as a
restaurant it is currently a non-residential use it is used as a
catering establishment which is different from a restaurant so the
current zoning is NR for that was established in 2002 but prior to that it
was zone SF 7 both SF 7 and NR for does not permit restaurants the applicant is
seeking a zoning of NRM you NRM you does permit restaurants with a limitation
that it'd be no more than 4,000 square feet and not have a drive-thru use just
just want to explain that part of our analysis was looking at the den code
update and zoning map draft zoning map and we see that this area could
potentially be served as a focus area it's currently in the area there's
currently NRM you on Skinner Street and then just to the south of the subject
property is the Fred Moore High School again a non-residential use so looking
at this area this could potentially be a focus area on a neighborhood servicing
type area for the residents of the southeast den area here's an aerial of
this site and again I mentioned some of the existing zoning but there are
existing non-residential uses in the area the church to the west railroad to
the east Fred Moore to the south and the drainage channel to the north and some
underutilized properties within the area something to consider and you've you've
heard this two requirements already that does it conform with the future land use
a map but generally the the land use element it is in our future lanes map as
a low density residential however there is provisions in the den plan 2030 that
talks about promoting walkability increasing other mixed uses in the area
so we looked into this as well as the other criteria and that is does the
proposed rezoning could that facilitate infrastructure and services and it will
I'll cover this more in my presentation at the public hearing notice this were
sent out as of today no response was received just some photos of the site
itself you can see that the home here is the requested structure that the
applicant is wanting to do have a restaurant use staff is wrecking
recommending approval of the zoning change requests and I'll be happy to
stand for any questions any questions on this item fantastic great job Ron thank
you before moving on decay I would like to invite Scott McDonald back out to
address a landscaping clarification on the previous items the 1827 be yes just
for clarity as far as being able to commit to what it is that we're doing
in kind of a time frame that we're doing and of course it's not exact as of yet
the first phase of this would be that we'd take care of the the fleet base so
we would do any vertical construction prior to do anything with the parking
lots the next phase and that would be taking care of the parking lots with the
parking lots we would be doing all of the the buffering and landscaping around
those parking lots so I make that commitment to the fact that we already
have we intend to even in those areas where we're not necessarily required to
that we're going to take care of the buffering all around that parking lot so
where it is that we might be taking about or talking about having to address
those requirements because we're the one of the particular areas that we're
rezoning we're committing to taking care of that in the entirety of the site
because we'll be doing parking lots on both north south east and west basically
if that makes sense so rather than rather than creating another overlay for
the for the city or for the zoning map to contend with if we can just address
the fact that that will be required by the the code itself with the parking
lots and we intend to do the parking lots and anticipate that will be in 2020
so that construction for the vertical buildings would be in 2019 and then we'd
commence into the parking lots which really would be 2020 so it'll be
addressed so all those projects are planning and zoning or they just so that
who's gonna over oversee that there's all that that the staff so as far as for
the approvals because it wouldn't come before this body on either of those so
it's just the typical permitting process where we require those things to occur
so if they if for some reason that wasn't the case and again why we're here
today is because we've already told those in in in the city that were
wanting to do this work that they had to comply with a code so we're here for the
very reason somebody asked to do something we said that you need to do
that the second piece to that when they apply for their building permit and
construction permits for the vertical buildings as well as for the parking
lots then we'll make sure that they comply with the code again city
management's direction is is that we're gonna do everything possible that we we
set the example for the rest of the community no different than what we did
on the McKinney Street parking lot thank you clarification thank you that moves
us to item 3k it's SUP presented by Sean Jacobson and for the sake of time so we
can do public session if there's no disagreement from the Commission can I
ask Sean to skip to recommendation and questions
yes sir and we'll save the full presentation for public hearing does
anything can everyone okay with that absolutely do you want me to even open
the present PowerPoint yeah if you could just show us the recommendations from the
city and yep so the recommendation is for approval this is a request for a
specific use permit for a accessory dwelling unit which will be used as a
cabana behind a residence the neighborhood had a meeting they've
expressed overwhelming support I had one person say this will enhance our
neighborhood meets all the criteria we recommend approval great is there any
questions so a building next to a pool where you can have sleeping eating
cooking
any other questions on this item okay thank you very much Sean for keeping that
brief so with that we are gonna close our work session at 628 will reconvene
in council chambers at 635 good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the
planning and zoning public hearing for February 20th I will call us meeting to
order at 641 seeing that we have a quorum I appreciate your patience and
getting us started this evening we'll try to get right into it I just wanted
to clarify before he hopped into the agenda that there are some changes if
you are here for some items I wanted to clarify that item 3a which is z 18 - 8b
has been withdrawn item 3b s 18 - 5b is being postponed to the March 6th meeting
and item 3c z 18 24b has been withdrawn and will not be heard so item 3a 3b and
3c we will not be hearing this evening or discussing with that our first item of
business is to stand if able and provide a pledge allegiance to the US and Texas
flag
The next item of business will begin our individual consideration items 2a 80p
18 - 0008 and I will call Julie Wyatt for presentation
good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am
presenting 80p 18 - you this evening so the request before you is an alternative
development plan for a proposed office development on about 3.4 acres the
purpose of the alternative development plan is to deviate from site design
requirements for non-residential and mixed-use buildings in a pedestrian
oriented district in subchapter 13 of the Denton development code the subject
property is shown outlined here in yellow and it's located on the northwest
corner of Teasley Lane and Lillian Miller Parkway some background on the
site the existing zoning was approved in 2006 and within that zoning case there
were overlay conditions put on the property those are outlined more fully
in your backup but just want to hit the high notes it did limit to limit the
uses to professional services and offices administrative or research
facilities and medical centers any development on this side has to be
single-story construction and it has to be either equal to or less than nine
thousand square feet per building 80% minimum masonry requirements on the
exterior pedestrian scale lighting and then as part of it also a landscape 30
foot buffer on the north and west property lines these were intended to
increase compatibility with the adjacent residential development the purpose of
NRM you is is to provide services and higher density housing but but as at a
pedestrian scale and to encourage walkable environments in context so and
that's why they have within the Denton development code additional site design
guidelines for those pedestrian-oriented districts like NRM you so within sub
chapter 13 as I said it has some other site design requirements and due to the
the some of the site constraints that were put on the property with that
overlay conditions and in particular the 30 foot buffer and also the limitation
on the building size it's made it difficult for the applicant to meet
those right requirements so the first one being the ground floor wall within 30
feet of the street shall contain greater shall have more than 50% of that wall
area in display areas windows or doorways because these uses are our
office or medical office and not some retail or restaurant use that that
amount of transparency isn't really something you typically see in those
offices so the applicant is requesting to have 20 26% windows and doors in
building 2 and then building 3 that 28% another requirement is at least 60% of
the street frontage shall have buildings within 10 feet of the front property
line unfortunately they can't achieve that in this location the property is on
a text dot highway and in all text out roads in the city of Denton have a public
utility easement outside of the right-of-way which scoots those buildings
backs back away from the street so they are proposing to put those buildings
adjacent to that 25 foot easement right there adjacent to that so it'll be 25
feet from that property line developments must have a minimum floor-to-area ratio
of four tenths they are proposing three tenths floor-to-area ratio with that
easement the limited building size and that buffer it really is difficult for
them to meet that four tenths buildings cannot be set back more than 15 feet
from the street unless it's used for pedestrian activities once again with
that easement there's a problem there they just can't scoot it up into that
easement and then NRMU requires 40% tree canopy they are meeting the overall tree
canopy on the side where the where the the issue comes in is in subchapter 13
the trees that are planted as part of the buffer only 40% of those trees can
count toward the overall canopy because they are required to have such a large
buffer that 30-foot buffer makes it difficult to meet that overall canopy
netting out essentially 60% of the trees within that buffer so they're
requesting a deviation from that so we'll go over the site plan there is an
existing building here at the corner with parking associated with it in the
dumpster is also existing as well in the green we've got that 30-foot buffer
there to the north and west the blue are the are the three buildings that they're
proposing there are 9,000 square feet and under they're also proposing bike
racks eight bicycle parking lot spaces here outlined in in red and then they're
also proposing some pedestrian facilities to to alert drivers to the
presence of pedestrians and that is in in the form of pattern and colored
concrete here at this driveway intersection and then also within the
side as well it's to meet that pedestrian oriented that the intent of
those site design requirements it's not a part of the ADP but but the applicant
did have a neighborhood meeting and at that meeting a lot of drainage was
discussed there's a lot of drainage issues that go to these these
residential dwellings right right in this location so so there there are two
two ways that the drainage is being attacked in this in this instance first
the private improvements they are proposing to grade that parking lot
lower than that landscape buffer to to divert the water toward and some
underground detention in this location and then it would be it would be released
onto the right-of-way onto Teasley and then also there is as part of the private
improvements there is a retaining wall proposed here between the parking area
and that landscape buffer to once again keep the keep the water from the parking
lot from going into that buffer and the adjacent properties and then the city
is also looking at some drainage improvements a flume in this location to
direct the water that's coming in from this buffer towards easily and away from
those residential properties and they also proposed a landscape plan you can
see here in this green area that is that landscape buffer it includes a
combination of planted as well as preserved trees and that's already in
place what's not in place is this this green area and those are foundation
plantings that they're proposing between the right-of-way and the buildings to
kind of activate that sidewalk to kind of add additional interest and visual
interest for pedestrians and to really meet the intent of the pedestrian
oriented district as I said there is a mature canopy that will meet the code
requirements and based upon their plantings and the preservation in excess
of the minimum they would have at maturity a tree canopy of about 67,000
square feet we did talk and work session about the trees plant those street trees
planted particularly in this location due to the sensitivity of the the
pedestrians there's a lot of school children that walk in this location we
check the code based upon you based upon the concerns and those street trees do
have to be set back a minimum of five feet from driveways these do meet that
requirement if you can kind of use those parking spaces as a as a guide the
parking spaces are 18 feet deep so so they're probably about 25 feet those
street trees from that that intersection in order to give those drivers the
visibility that they need and then we also talked about it in work session
about let ambulances we don't have any specific requirements for ambulance
location or driveways but they will have to meet all all access requirements for
fire for emergency vehicles so that that won't change they still will have to
meet that emergency vehicle requirement I'm here they're proposed elevations
sorry they don't look that great they didn't reproduce well but they are
proposing that 100% masonry with a residential character that's part of
that ordinance with the pitched roofs four-sided architecture within the
development also adjacent to Teasley in order to provide visual interest for any
pedestrians to add their adding awnings and wall sconces on those those front
elevations criteria for approval or in step chapter 13 of the didn't development
code first is it preserve existing neighborhoods the proposed design and
uses are compatible with those adjacent neighborhoods they provide those
necessary services but they are limited based upon that overlay they are
proposing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in order to meet the intent
of that pedestrian oriented design element the drainage improvements both
in the public and private side will are intended to help those adjacent property
owners and then they also held a neighborhood meeting should the second
criteria is to sure quality development the request is not to lower the design
standards but to facilitate full development on the site and actually the
overlay conditions in their proposal actually exceed the code requirements in
terms of things like foundation plantings masonry requirements residential
design standards focus new development to activity centers this is this is kind
of a developed area this is a one corner that hasn't been developed in an area
that has a lot of a lot of neighborhoods and so this would expand that existing
development wouldn't contribute to additional sprawl is the infrastructure
adequate to accommodate the development there are Teasley and Lillian Miller are
there and so there is adequate transportation once again that city
drainage component is something that will help help the the adjacent property
owners and then finally does that result in a high quality development meeting
the intent of the standards the overlay conditions were put in place to increase
the harmony with those adjacent neighborhoods but it does it did introduce
design challenges particularly with the the building size and that increased
buffer in addition to that easement along the roadway so the applicant has
proposed alternative elements to meet the intent of the pedestrian oriented
site design standards and that's the masonry the bike parking those
plantings around the buildings those pedestrian interventions and as well as
the overall tree canopy so based upon the criteria staff does recommend
approval of the request I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is also
here thank you Julie for the presentation I do not see any questions
at this time this is not a public hearing but we do invite individuals
wishing to speak to do so we just ask that you would fill out one of these
blue cards after you speak if possible we do have a couple cards of individuals
who are wishing to speak so I'll just call them out and the order I receive
them the first one is SL Montse Montgomery if you could please come to
the mic take your time and then when you do get to the mic if you just say your
name and address for the record we'd appreciate it and you'd have three
minutes to speak my name is SL Montgomery I reside at 1117 Ellison
Park Circle I'm concerned with Adam J the drainage and this original
section two Adam J said the applicant will provide detention ponds on the
side as site as needed we need them now I've had my house flooded once in May
of 2015 and almost again in 2017 had not the city place sandbags there I probably
would have had it flooded last year I think the the applicant need to do care
care of the existing runoff right now not after all of these buildings are
built but let's take care of the water system problems now thank you very much
the next card I have is Charles Parker and if you could just state your name and
address for the record and appreciate it and you'll have three minutes as well my
name is Charles Parker I live at 1524 Hunter's Ridge Circle immediately north
of the of the proposed site I'm showing you here the very first section of the
Denton Development Code that basically says no development will be approved in
the case where there are violations of the Denton Development Code already in
existence and that's the gist of my my speaking to you here first of all the
emergency room is not zoned for the place where it is it is permitted as a
medical office at the time the building took place there was no such designation
of a medical office at this point the Denton Development Code has been
updated to call that a medical clinic and it specifically defines a
freestanding emergency room as a medical clinic that clearly and directly
violates the Denton Development Code the Denton Development Code allows the
overlay allows a doctor's office but not a 24-hour freestanding emergency medical
center and we have filed that objections to that our neighborhood has but those
have been turned down because we were supposed to have filed our objection
within either 10 or 15 days of the initial approval which we couldn't have
known about because that was not something that was publicly available we
did file an application to the ZBA to fight this when when the certificate
occupancy was issued we argued that that was contrary to law so that's the
elephant in the room is that the existing use of this one piece of
property in our neighborhood violates the code the second issue that mr.
Montgomery brought up is the drainage and that is a very valid point if you
look at item J of the overlay as he mentioned there was substantial earth
work done when they built phase one the the freestanding emergency room if you
look there was substantial earth work done and the the code J requires that
the drainage be improved and it specifically says the existing drainage
be improved so that's my concern about that and as mr. Montgomery mentioned you
know there's the sandbags that are in place today right now that didn't have
to be made until after the freestanding emergency was there so there are two
large violations of code the third violation of the overlay code is will be
heavily landscaped and miss Wyatt mentioned that the heavy landscaping is
in place this is what it looks like today and I think if you look at the
language of the landscaping requirement in the overlay code it says heavily
landscaped and will include evergreen someday that will be a beautiful live oak
tree I appreciate very much you bring those concerns and I'll invite staff up
here in a minute to see if we can clarify some of the current structures
and how they meet code what I want to do is get through the cards and we'll have
city come up and we'll make sure to address those questions the best we can
the other card I have for speaking I also have a card saying they didn't want
to speak so I hate to push on the spot if you don't want to speak but Connie
guess are you wishing to speak or not okay
no not at all if you just states your name and address for the record we'd
appreciate it and you have three minutes my name is Connie guess and I live at
1504 hunters Ridge Circle I just wanted to speak in opposition of this one of
the things that I have been concerned about as I drive by and see the orange
bags over there I do I think that they are an eyesore as far as the the
community is and particularly with the kids walking by I do think that they
need to be there for the problem that exists there but I think that there is
should be a better solution and I think that solution should have been taken
care of before that they ended before while they were working on the the
building the the the clinic over there that they did and I guess one of the
main things that I have that I'm concerned about is the the pitch of the
building I understood that there was to be a pitch and not a flat roof line
there and I just wanted to know how they got away with doing the flat pitch there
based on what I understood that there was going to be what she had what Julie
had showed earlier that there was going to be nice pitches and everything and
not a flat pitch it's what we are seeing here and it looks like that what they're
proposing in their design also is going to be one of the other buildings is
going to be a flat flat pitch there how was that approved how did they get along
with that whenever they say that the code says that there will be not to be
that but yet they built it and they got a lot they got away with it I think it's
a valid point the elevations are a pitched roof are you talking about in
internally like in the center of the roof there's yes the flat space yes well
and it's you drive by and it's it's it's flat it's on top though right okay and
it was to be flat it was to be pitched as look and looking like it's to be a
house or anything else there and it's it doesn't look like that at all whenever
you drive by and you look at it and also wanted to make a comment as far as it
and it not it doesn't look the canopy that they're talking about as far as it
being lush like Charlie had talked about it's very bare the trees and
everything else over there as far as it being lush and the percentage that they
were talking about if it was to be a sixty percent or canopy I think it needs
to maintain a sixty percent canopy and I don't think they need to look at
reducing that at all if that was a small lot and they knew that was a small lot
going in there I don't think they need to try to reduce it down they need to
take their their buildings that they're wanting to build and try to reduce those
down with the area of the land that they have there thank you I appreciate it
thank you very much the only the card I have is an individual in opposition that
is wishing not to speak but I wanted to read it into record Catherine Parker at
1524 Hunter Ridge Circle is in opposition to the project at this time
the applicant is here is the applicant wishing to speak or hold for questions
and again if you could state your name and address for the record yes please my
name is Matt Craig and I'm with cumulus design I'm the civil engineer on the
project I wanted to briefly discuss the water situation with the new development
the initial portion of that development would be to do the underground
detention because it's under the paving as well as the landscape areas it would
need to be installed first just to so things can be built over the top of it
and the owner is currently working with the city to address the drainage at the
corner they prepared a plan for that and upon completion we were going to work
with them to get that addressed as well Gary McCullough I'm the architect on the
project that one image of the flat roof area is not accurate so they all are all
three of the new buildings are sloped roofed all the way to the top she's
right that the building one did out of a flat area that you can't see because
there's mechanical equipment hidden behind that but it is a pitched roof up
to hide that so that's the way it is but there are pitch roofs on all four
buildings in the end all residential style and it's certainly the three that
we're proposing tonight or that way yeah I think the drainage thing is it's
important to know that a lot of the water that hill is further out into our
site and so we're stopping all the water from running towards there happen 85% of
the water that now goes to their house is going to be stopped by our little
retaining wall there in our parking lot so most of the water issue is going to
go away when our develop our project is developed you know that that last 30 foot
buffer which is a natural buffer that we're leaving as a it's got a lot of big
huge nice trees we don't really want to cut those down I don't think anybody
wants us to cut those down certainly if it rains in that area in successive rain
then you know that's the issue that I think the city is working on but we're
not touching that area it's because we don't I mean that's really right up
against their out there back fence but everything else from the 30 foot buffer
over we're handling all of that water which now runs towards their house so
it's really eliminating most of that potential problem so we're here for any
any other questions you may have we do have a question in question back thank
you chair and I'm sorry what was your name again yes Gary okay Gary are y'all
the developer of record of the first building the building that's there now
the 24-hour so so you know I think the overall land developer is the same guy
apologize for not exactly knowing the ownership structure that's a
freestanding emergency center these are our office buildings it's kind of a
different project for us okay so y'all didn't have anything to do with that
initial well we did we did do it but it's that that's kind of a this is a
whole new deal okay were you aware of the drainage issue that well so so again
when I mentioned that kind of that ridge on that property well I mean that
they're saying now that it's a problem and I put sandbags up there yeah I
understand that so there's a ridge down the middle of the property it's a
drainage area map okay sure you're familiar with yeah that water on the
east side of the property goes the other way so we didn't actually affect
anything on the west side of the property okay now we're trying to I can
now that you're building over there we can we've actually been meeting with city engineers
since May okay on this issue to try to resolve it and I think we've you know
appeased that process it's taken a while because it is a difficult issue okay and
certainly understand their concern that that's not to not to not agree with them
once your new development gets started you'll be taken care of yes that's
correct thank you for clarification the sandbags were installed after the
emergency building went in but you're saying that your project did not affect
that I'm just wondering the coincidental timing of those two
things I don't mean to address the particular flood issue that they had
because I'm not I'm not burst on it frankly but I will say that we added no
other water to that area because we're on the other side of the ridge and to
some of that flooding was occurring so long ago as well before we were involved
in it at all okay I think I think that you know that piece of land is kind of
unique in that regard we do have one more question to Mr. Sanchez yes and I
speak to one of the previous individuals that were talking about the and that was
my question could yeah yeah sure one of you okay he mentioned that the flooding
some of that flooding was occurring and because of the layout of that of that
lot a lot of that water was already running in that area are you guys aware
of that were you guys were you having that problem prior to prior to the
construction of that building absolutely I believe the issue dated back and was
addressed when the zoning overlay was passed back in 2006 because if you look
at the goat the zoning overlay in 2006 it required whoever developed that to
address existing flooding and that's why I argue that it applied to the first
building that's already been built and has not been addressed and should not
necessarily apply to future promises when we build the rest of it it's fairly
easy to do detention ponds before you build that out and I think if you look
at the photograph that I showed you the Google Earth photo there was extensive
re-leveling and changes done to the the flow of the property I don't disagree
with the architect when he says that they didn't affect that drainage but the
code says existing drainage okay thank you so at this time can I ask Julie I
don't know if the other commissioners have any other questions for you but I
have two based on the feedback heard tonight can you speak to the conformity
of the ER functioning and the approved overlay and secondly that the drainage
because they would have to go through engineering at the platting can you
talk to can you tell me more about how that drainage was not resolved to the
engineering stage if or if it was can you elaborate on that process well I can
try I don't know if I could speak to the the drainage improvements that were
associated with the the E with the ER but I can try to talk through what's
going on now so that that ER the the overlay allows medical centers and at
that time that ER came in the didn't development code had a little bit
different definitions for the medical type uses and one of them was medical
centers and so it was pretty broad broad use we we sense then have revised the
didn't development code to actually be a little more scout a little more
strategic about what the the medical uses are so we actually delineate the
hospitals medical clinics and then medical offices so that medical centers
really did encapsulate a lot of different uses including the use on the
site drainage so the the ER operator now is conforming to the approval overlay
conditions it it conformed to the use as they were defined at the time but since
like I said it's since then we have had a didn't development code update to
redefine those medical office and offices and be a little more specific
about what we mean okay and then can you tell me the information you know about
the drainage or what what the issue might be here sure go back to the it's
not very so I can't speak to what what was done with the with the the ER but I
can say for this project the applicant is proposing underground detention and
so the intent of that is to capture the water the runoff particularly from the
parking lot and then and then divert it from those adjacent properties and
release it on to Teasley I believe that there's still the matter of the buffer
and if you've seen the site the the buffer area does kind of slope to those
residential properties we've talked a lot to the applicant about how to you
know either grade that buffer or burb that buffer and it still may be an
option but there are trees there are post oaks in that in that buffer area
which are being preserved and disturbance of the soil could certainly
affect their their ability to live so it's kind of we're looking at I mean we
can we can look at all options for them of course they still have to meet all
the landscaping requirements so if there were any trees that did need to be
removed they would potentially need to modify their preservation plan or their
landscape plan but but thus far we have in working with the applicant not felt
comfortable with burming or grading of it just because of the preservation of
those existing trees I appreciate the clarification we do have a couple
questions Commissioner Ellis
the sandbag area is that what the city is currently working on I'm sorry say
that again so this this area of sandbags that has has gone up and has been there
for quite some time is that something the city is working on yes so the city
and the city is working on that and they are communicating with the applicant the
city is looking at putting a flume in this area to drain the water from this
landscape area toward Teasley so the water would go under the sidewalk in and
out who is doing that work that it's our engineering group so they're they're
working in through the design right now and I don't his name escapes me but I
could certainly get it for you okay but that's a separate thing that's being
worked on aside from what we're discussing today correct correct now
they're working though the groups are communicating because of course it makes
sense for all of this to to happen so that it addresses the problem
comprehensively Commissioner Sanchez so when you're talking when they're talking
about the retaining pond or retaining structure that's gonna keep a lot of
that water plus I think you also said there was going to be a retaining wall
on that side on that west west side so that should both be between the retaining
wall and the and the what I call it retaining area or pond with that they're
gonna build that should reduce the number of the amount of water draining
into the into the neighbors the applicant's engineer may may be better
at explaining that but my understanding is that they will have underground
attention which is a series of pipes that collects the water and then would
then I'm released it out to to the right-of-way so that is my understanding
yes sir okay I think Commissioner Beck thank you chair thanks Julie one of the
speakers mentioned that about the loss of the tree canopy and that was my
concern that you explained to us in work so would you explain to her how we're
gonna be meeting that tree canopy in the long run we're not gonna meet it
initially is that right but and it is tough at the development because they
plant they typically plant two-inch caliper trees and so it takes a while to
recover that canopy so when we look at a site we look at what the mature canopy
would be and so we look at the types of trees that they're proposing and then we
we look at their average canopy and that's how we arrive at that mature
canopy so you're right you know at the initial at the outset it it is it looks
different but the intent is for it to those trees to then then grow up and
provide that that canopy coverage we're looking at about 15 to 20 years for that
happens but it'll be okay thanks Julie thank you Julie I don't see any other
questions at this time the chair will entertain a motion or further discussion
if needed
Tricia Ellis thank you chair can I talk to the applicant for just a second yes
please I don't think you were in our work session but one thing that had come
up in work session is that per this ordinance this development cannot be
called hunters Ridge office park are you aware of that I'm not sure that's not a
problem in in the ordinance as written okay it can't reference any name of of
adjacent subdivisions and hunters Ridge is a subdivision this I'm sure that it's
not a problem okay we'll correct that
while the chair waits for a motion or discussion can I get clarification from
the city does that need to be in the conditions for approval the name or
because of ordinance will that be already taking place by the ordinance
so you can certainly be handled that way but you there's absolutely no reason why
you couldn't specify it here as well perfect Chris or Sanchez just listening
to what you know some of the history it seems like there was already an issue
there with it with the drainage and I don't think the the developer or the
person there is totally responsible for that that should have been some of that
should have been probably even addressed by the previous developer that developed
him those that developed those houses if you already had an issue then I mean he
may contribute somewhat but I don't but my understanding is that that issue has
always already in existence my personal opinion is non personal opinion but from
the information I've received I would have to vote for for the project I think
that the city is with a new drain there is going to help the drainage issue and
also the pond the retaining pond and that system that they're trying to create is
going to help if it doesn't there's other I guess they can go back and see
if what else they can be done but at this point they are trying to address
that issue and and along with the city hopefully they'll be taking take care of
it if they don't somebody's gonna have to take I mean long term whatever they
develop there that issue is always going to exist until they take care of it so I
think they're doing a trying to work on it and so I'm gonna vote for the project
Christian Pernitta yeah and I just wanted to clarify Julie you mentioned
that they were building some flumes below and you referenced the the bags
the the eyesore bags that were out there so with regards to the objections as far
as runoff and everything goes what we're seeing right now would actually kind of
mitigate some of the issues that we're having right now am I misunderstanding
that or do we not want to go on the road I'm not an engineer but it has been it's
it's been communicated to me that this is going to help reduce that problem or
go in the right direction to make it better so that's my understanding as well
as the city city working as well to to mitigate those drainage issues and with
regard to the flims and everything as I understood in the work session and it's
flims right okay anyway as I understood in the work session that would that
would eliminate the need for the bags there would they still be there do we
haven't it's the city's intent to to to put that flume there to direct the water
in that location so that those bags can be removed the intent is for the city
is to make those drainage improvements within the public right of way to get
those bags out of there and solve the problem okay thank you very much that's
all that so I appreciate everyone coming out who did come out to you to speak on
this it seems as though the drainage will actually improve from what I
understand once this project moves forward and and I don't feel that the
developer should be held to maintain an ordinance that they weren't approved
under initially so if the Medical Center was able to be done initially and at the
time they were approved and I think that that should be kept so seeing that those
two things I think have resolution in my mind I move for approval of item 2a with
the statement that going forward Hunters Ridge nomenclature is removed from the
project Christian pernetta a second your motion with the statement we have a first
and a second any discussion Christian Ellis thank you chair can I maybe make a
friendly amendment to possibly address some caution with regard to the school
children that will be crossing nearby a thought I had is to possibly have a sign
in that landscaping to say caution children crossing something like that I'm
really concerned if this gets developed that that we're going to have an issue
there with these school children at some point with cars coming out of this
development so my hope is to get something in place here other than just
the colored cement that is being proposed is the applicant amenable to
having additional signage for school crossing at the crossing on the south
side of Teasley Lane I don't know if I can point at this but I'm looking at the
Southland are you talking about another drive there yeah I am yeah we're
certainly a sign I'm not sure exactly what the sign says but we're we're open
to that okay I don't know what the area there is a tremendous amount of school
children walking that area two times a day right and it's a lot of children and
and with cars coming out of there and something needs to alert people to just
be aware I'm that yes so we're okay with a sign if that if that if that's what
if that's what you're asking if we put a sign there the sign can be there the
applicant is certainly agreeing that we want to take precaution in that regard so
I don't know exactly what the right answer is but we're you can put that as
a stipulation that we will address that okay thank you very much and I will make
an amendment to my motion that I approve the ADP with the statement that hundred
ridge title be removed from nomenclature of the project as well as additional
signage on the south interest on Teasley Lane identify that there is children
crossing Commissioner Burnett are you okay with that amendment I second with
the amendments yes and Commissioner back thank you chair and I want to thank
everybody for coming out and speaking to this tonight these are legitimate
concerns and to mr. Parker's point about drainage doesn't need to be dealt with
after developments done it shouldn't negatively impact your property so you
have that on your side as far as the code goes when they're through this
development if it's gotten worse you need to come to the city and point that
out to hopefully it won't suspect they're gonna do everything can I get
the indication it's not gonna get rid of a hundred percent of it but it's gonna
be better than it is now so but it can't negatively affect it from where it is
now so do follow up on that if it does thank you see no other discussion I'll
call for vote on the board
motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is item 2B ADP 18 - 0009 and I
will call Haley for presentation
Good evening this request is also for an alternative development plan for a
truck lot associated with the Peterbilt facility on the west side of town
specifically the request is to consider approval of an ADP to deviate from three
sections of subchapter 13 specifically the perimeter fence and screening
requirements the access parking and circulation requirements and the
non-residential and mixed-use building standards specifically the parking
section so you can see the subject property outlined in black on the map so
this property is just over 12 acres it is located south of Oak Street along
the future extension of precision drive which is currently under construction the
property is owned industrial center general and the proposed use is a truck
sales facility which falls under the the broad umbrella of auto and RV sales
within our code which is a commercial use so looking at the proposed deviations
from the code in a little more detail there there are four specific proposals
the first is requirement within the DDC that perimeter fence materials be
constructed of either wood wrought iron masonry brick vinyl PVC or composite
material so it is a very exclusive list of permitted materials the applicant is
proposing an eight foot tall wire mesh security fence on the sides and rear of
the property so it's a material that I suspect wasn't popular at the time of
code adoption it wasn't included in that list of permitted materials the second
proposed deviation is also associated with the fence the DDC has a maximum
fence height of three and a half feet for any fence located forward of the
front building line and the proposal here is for a seven foot tall ornamental
wrought iron fence along the front property line again for security
purposes the third proposed deviation is from the front parking screening
requirements so when there is parking located between a building and the
street the DDC has a very strict set of requirements for that area to be screened
it has to be a 15 foot wide landscape area it must contain a berm either one
large tree for every 40 feet or three small trees clustered every 30 feet and
then it has to contain either zero scaping a three foot high continuous
shrub row or a three foot high wall what the applicant has proposed is to provide
that 15 foot wide area that will include the berm and the continuous shrub row but
because of constraints on the site they're locating their street trees on
the backside of that landscape area instead of along the right of ways would
typically be required and then because of that there's not room for the
screening trees that are required in addition to that so they've proposed to
relocate those to the north and south sides of the property along the fence
line and then finally the DDC actually only permits parking between a building
and a street along arterial roadways the precision drive which this property has
frontage along is actually a collector road so it doesn't meet that
requirement and then in addition to that when you do have that front parking your
building can be set back a maximum of 85 feet from the road the buildings in this
case are 148 feet from the street so we'll look in a little more detail at
their site plan now what you can see here in red is just over 5,000 square
feet of buildings that includes an office and a truck undecking facility
they do have 12 traditional vehicle parking spaces located to the front of
the building with a few of those spaces here on the side so that's the front
parking that I was referring to and then the remainder of this site where you see
the striping those are proposed truck parking spaces so they're much larger
than traditional car spaces and they would be used for storage and display of
the vehicles that would be for sale on the site and there's just over 400 of
those overall the site will have a 38 percent landscaping which is much higher
than the 10% required for the ICG district and it will meet the 15% tree
canopy requirement so looking at the fencing and landscaping the the dashed
orange line would represent where the wrought iron fence would go along the
front property line there would be a gate here at this entry for controlled
access and then the solid orange line around the remainder of the site would
represent where that wire mesh fence would go the the green areas indicate the
here along precision drive that would be where they're providing that 15 foot
wide area with the street trees and the shrubs as well as the berm and then the
other two areas these are the locations of the proposed or the proposed
alternative locations for those parking lot screening trees so you can see
they're located here along the fence line so they would actually in these
alternate locations help screen the vehicle storage area and the proposed
fence specifically these are the specifications provided for the fence so
this would be the ornamental wrought iron fence along the front edge and then
this is an example of what the wire mesh fence would look like and it's my
understanding that all of these would be black coated materials so not reflective
as you would typically see with chain link or something else so there are the
five criteria for approval for an ADP the first being preservation of existing
neighborhoods this this is an industrial area so this truck lot would be a
supporting use for existing industrial development in the vicinity there there
is multifamily located across the future precision drive in most cases you're
used to seeing a compatibility buffer when there's commercial and multifamily
but in this case the right-of-way provides that separation so the the
screening that they're providing is actually you know above and beyond what
will be required by the code with that right-of-way there the second criteria
is assuring quality development the request as you've seen here is not
intended to lower our design standards but to allow enhanced security on the
site for the vehicles that they would be storing there third criteria is focusing
new development to activity centers this is intended to be one of the city's
large industrial activity centers so it's consistent with that by providing a
supporting use for some of the industrial development in this area the
fourth criteria is to ensure infrastructure can accommodate the
development although there is not infrastructure in place today if you
drive out there on Oak Street you'll see a lot of construction in this area so
the the water and sewer lines you see here in blue and red respectively are the
extensions of infrastructure that's currently underway from the current
terminus of precision drive up to Oak Street to provide a connection and a
loop there and the precision drive itself is being constructed as a part of the
multifamily development that's underway so all of that would be in place by the
time this development we're ready to move forward and then finally the last
criteria is that the design would result in a high quality development that meets
the intent of our standards as I mentioned the the fencing options that
they're proposing are not necessarily lower quality materials they're just
alternative materials and it is for a valid security purpose that they're
seeking this and then in addition with the landscaping alternatives that they've
proposed again they're meeting their minimum standards for tree canopy and
for landscaping but they are proposing to relocate these trees to a location
that would actually help screen the truck lot itself from the right-of-way
so with that staff is recommending approval as we found it to meet the
criteria outlined in sub chapter 13 happy to answer any questions thank you
very much Haley I do not see any questions thank you just like the other
item this is not a public hearing however we do invite anyone to speak who
wishes to do so we do have a couple cards filled out we will start with Rick
Jones perfect which do you know which item and I would assume that Tom Brandt
is the same item this Tom Brandt here are you're on that the plane development
item great okay so we have no cards for this item
Mr. Smith Haley you see the applicant was here tonight
can we speak to the outcome yes I'm Ashley Reynolds with Pacheco Coke what is
an undecking building the contractor is going to speak great if you just set
your name and address for the record Craig Wiedemann 609 Gannett Trail
Northlake decking building is actually a building that the trucks are stacked on
top of each other and so the stacked trucks come into this building there's a
Gantt crane that they take those trucks on and off and where they process that
got it I know you're the contractor you say you're the contractor for the
actual build out that's correct actually what is your role okay so neither of you
guys know anything about how the utility of this site is it's not how many how
often there's gonna be on decking what times are the good stuff yes actually I
do okay yes so the trucks will come in frequency is about 15 trucks a day that
would be coming in to be decked and undecked it's not 15 trucks linked
together or 15 right and typically there are three trucks that are decked so you'd
have basically five loads of those trucks coming in per day it'll be 24
hour no it'll have normal business hours for that it's it's got a normal auto
sales type of feel to it a lot of the sales are actually not online there is
some the client did want to value some of that visibility to the street which
is why they went back and forth with the landscape they do want to display the
trucks but they also wanted to adhere to you guys in that development and then the
the entrances in in and out of there with the fencing everything else we're
putting up wide enough people take me if it's if it's three trucks decked up on
top of each other getting in and out of there won't don't think it'd be an issue
that the drive will be wide enough for those turns off off a collector Street
like precision yes sir we feel that it is we actually are wider than what is
required for that reason so good and we did provide enough clearance between the
actual decking process and the gate itself so that we don't have any kind of
stack gotcha gotcha Russia thank you thank you very much
mr. Cole we have a first for approval mr. Smith second we have a first and a
second for approval any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the
board
motion carries seven zero congratulations as a reminder going into
the public hearings item 3a 3b and 3c will not be heard tonight so the next
item of business will be item 3d fr 18 - 0 0 15 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for
presentation and also open the public hearing thank you chairman and
commissioners oh come on trying to get this open here we go
there we go fr 18 - 0 0 1 5 is a request for approval of the final plat of lots
1r excuse me 1a - 1 and 1a - 2 block a of the gray forest edition being a
residential replat of lot 14 block D of the Park West edition and lot 1 a block
a of the de weird edition the site which totals a hot one point one five acres is
located on the west side of Stewart and the south side of Chisholm Trail the
applicant is requesting to replat the site into into two lots currently it's
two lots but they're reconfiguring it splitting the large lot here into two
adding it to this lot which is on the south side of Chisholm and this will be
a standalone lot that will front on Stewart Street the site is in the
NR4 zoning district and meets all the requirements of the zoning district
also meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and staff
recommends approval thank you very much Cindy this is a public hearing anyone
wishing to speak may do so we just ask that you fill out one of the blue cards
so we have it on record we do have a couple individuals wishing to speak the
first one will be Lynn is it Beck fork Beckford if you to state your name and
address we'd appreciate it and you're provided four minutes my name is Lynn
Beckford I live at 1009 Stewart Road in Texas and I own lot 3 block a and my
concern is with the survey I think that they might be taking some of my land and
I didn't know how to go about protesting that and having them clarify with me so
I got the letter and I'm here to hopefully maybe work with them to get
some clarification because it's about five feet that I'm seeing that they
might be taking of my land I've been there since 2012 and I had the land
surveyed and I know they sold the land one other time and I'm sure it was
surveyed and I never saw the steak before until they just surveyed it so
I'm just concerned that I'm gonna lose some land rightfully so what lot are you
I am lot 3 block a I'm the long one right behind right next to it the big
long unfortunately it's out of our purview tonight but we can't get you in
connection with the right people to go about setting up the protest and get you
down that path okay and so what I'd like you to do is talk to Cindy Jackson and
she can direct you to either she can handle it or she will get you the right
person okay but that's the next course of action all right great thank you good
luck much the other card I have here is Gail frisbee scale here and if you could
just say your name and address for the record we'd appreciate it and you have
four minutes my name is Gail frisbee I live at 1112 Abbots Lane in Denton but I
own the property at 613 Cordova and if you look on the map Cordova circles not
really a circle it's kind of a big L and my property is I guess on that big L
it's the one on the left and it kind of goes up to a point I think I need a
definition of what replating means and is there something going on this
property are they just moving a line from lot to lot will there be any
improvements on this property and the reason I asked this is because where my
property is my property is lower than this property and water just shoots
right down that hill right into my the house that I own and I was just wondering
if they're gonna be any any improvements on this or is this just a moving of a
line it's a great question the only thing we're looking at tonight is the
moving of a line moving of a line there's nothing under consideration apart
from taking and rearranging just the division of where the land and plat so
anything not that's being heard tonight okay thank you of course this is a
public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so seeing no other
speakers I will close the public hearing and offer the dais a conversation or
motion Commissioner Smith motion for approval and Commissioner Beck second we
have a first and a second for approval any discussion on the item seeing none
I'll call for a motion on the board or vote on the board motion carries seven
zero the next item for business is item 3e PDA 18 - 0009 I'll call Haley for
presentation open the public hearing
good evening this is a detailed plan for a proposed self storage facility
located along 2499 so the request before you is to hold the public hearing and
consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding a detailed plan
for property located within plan development 176 you can see the
property outlined in yellow on the map it's just shy of three acres total and
as I mentioned is located on the west side of FM 2499 in between Hickory Creek
and Robinson the current zoning for the property is PD 176 which is also known
as Wheeler Ridge this particular PD was a first approved in October of 1999 at
that time the PD allowed for a maximum of 628 residential units and provided
for two commercial tracts of land that totaled about 16 acres so a PD just for
reference does require kind of two steps to the development planning the first of
those is the concept plan that determines generally what uses are
permitted and where would those uses go so that was approved along with the
original PD back in 1999 the second part of that is the detail plan which is what
we're here to discuss tonight which are the specifics of how are the sites
designed how its landscaped and how it's going to look so now we'll go into that
in some detail this is the proposed site plan which is just a portion of the
detail plan it also includes landscaping and building elevations what you see
here outlined in blue on the map are the the four proposed buildings they total
just under 85,000 square feet total there are five parking spaces for customers
and employees located here adjoining the office which would be the corner of this
this front building there is one driveway location to the property it
would be shared by this use as well as the use to the south which you may
recall we had a detail plan proposal for last year for a car wash on that part of
the property and that was approved by City Council so they would share that
one driveway and there are text out approved plans for the installation of
this driveway as well as for a turn lane here on 2499 into the site all
driveways internal to the earth within this development would be internal to
the buildings there are gates proposed at these locations so aside from the
parking the majority of the vehicle maneuvering would be within the confines
of the buildings as you see it here there is some fencing proposed the PD
requires a masonry wall so there is a 25 foot set back here between the
property line and the buildings and then where there are gaps between the
buildings there's a proposed masonry fence along this portion of the property
that would be eight foot in height it would have wrought iron gates to allow
access to that 25 foot landscape buffer that would be back there and then on the
north end of the property there's a detention facility so around that in lieu
of the masonry they're proposing a wrought iron fence around the detention
pond these are the proposed elevations for the building so just a color
rendering and then we'll look a little more closely at the materials so the PD
requires that commercial developments be constructed with either glass stone
stucco tile concrete wood or similar materials what they've proposed here
falls within that category they've proposed a combination of brick and
stone so it would be all that would be a masonry building facade they do have
some EFAS which is a stucco like material around the top of the buildings
but overall it would be brick and stone that would be seen the PD allows a
maximum height of three stories a story in the 1991 code was defined as 11 and a
half feet on average so the highest point of this building is at 32 and a
half feet that's on the building fronting 2499 all the other buildings are
much lower than that down to as low as 13 feet in height just another look at
some of the other angles of the building here again this would be the office
portion for running 2499 this is the back side so you can see the building
here with some architectural details and brick variation and then this is an
example of how that masonry wall would connect the buildings so now looking at
the landscape portion of the plans this PD again as it was approved in 1999
references the 1998 landscape code that code required 15 trees per acre so based
on their property size they're required 45 trees the site or the landscape plan
reflects a total of 50 trees 17 of those are what our code considers medium or
large canopy and they're proposed here on the back side in that 25 foot
landscape buffer that I referenced earlier overall the site would have
approximately 27 percent landscape area and 21 percent new tree canopy they are
preserving a few trees on the site here around the detention pond and then one
that was fell within the buffer area so they do meet and exceed the current DDC
requirements for tree preservation as well so looking at the criteria for
approval which again are outlined in the 1991 code rather than our current DDC the
first of those is that the plan comply with the general concept plan or
development plan approved for the property so this is the concept plan
that was approved in 1999 it broke the property into three tracks the first
commercial or the first track was commercial here at Teasley and Robinson
the majority of the property was designated as track two for single
family development that's where those 628 units I mentioned would go and then
here on the opposite side of the utility easement was tracked three which was
designated for commercial development at that time because even then it was known
that FM 2499 would be going through this area so the use and development
standards outlined here conform with this concept plan the use is permitted
within the PD and it meets the development standards as I've described
them the second criteria is that the plan provide a compatible arrangement of
buildings and land uses that wouldn't adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods
or properties outside of the plan so what we see here is an example of kind of
typical highway commercial development it's in line with the other approved
development on this property in terms of scale in terms of it being compatible
with adjoining neighborhoods in addition to the hundred and seventy-five foot wide
electric easement that separates this from the nearest residents they're also
complying with the requirement for a 25 foot setback where they adjoin
residential development two things that staff identified that aren't discussed
in the PD or lighting and signage we felt that both of those for any commercial
development have the potential for some nuisances so you'll see later that we've
recommended some conditions related to that and then the next criteria is that
the plan provides for an adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic so
as I mentioned there is one point of access from FM 2499 for this site the
text dot has already approved the plans for as I mentioned the turn lane as well
as the driveway location and how it would be constructed all of that was
approved even before the car wash development came in so they're just
complying with those text on approved plans and then internal to the site as
we saw on their site plan they're providing mostly internal circulation so
there won't be any glare or lighting from headlights of cars visiting the
facility that would be visible to the surrounding neighbors and then finally
that the plan is in substantial compliance with the landscaping sign
buffer or sign subdivision and other regulations of the city or offers
corresponding benefits if it deviates from them staff found through our review
that it is in compliance with all the regulations within the PD within the
1998 landscaping code and then as well as with other requirements of the DDC
today such as true preservation a notification was sent regarding this
request I received no written responses to date the applicant did hold meetings
individually with each of the HOA is in the area it's my understanding they had
three meetings one with Wheeler Ridge and then two with the separate sectors of
the Oakmont subdivision and so staff is recommending approval of the request
with two conditions the first be that no exterior lighting on the building should
face a single-family residential use or if such lighting is proposed that it be
screened from the view of adjoining residential properties along with that we
would request that a photometric plan be provided with the building permit
application so that it demonstrates compliance with the current DDC site
lighting requirements in subchapter 13 the second criteria is that due to the
proximity of single-family residences the residential nature of the PD and the
lack of signage regulations within the PD that the project and said comply with
our code of ordinances sign requirements for non-residential districts as well as
the limitation that no illuminated wall sign face and adjoining single-family
use well that's not proposed we felt that that protection was important just
because of the residential nature of all the surrounding properties and with that
I'd be happy to stand for any questions we do have a question for you
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Haley you mentioned HOA meetings do you know
what took place at those meetings in the discussion I was I was able to attend
one of those the last one they held with Oakmont I believe there were between 15
and 20 people in attendance that that heard the presentation that the
applicant will give tonight it seemed like there were kind of mixed reviews
some felt the use was kind of the lesser of a lot of things that could go on the
site that may be more more traffic or more noise generation that others had
concerns with the design of the site as it was proposed thank you very much Haley
this is a public hearing if anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so we
just ask that you fill out a card after before you speak I believe Rick Jones
this is your item we have it right this time yes that's right perfect can you
set your name and address for the record
okay and as the applicant you have ten minutes thank you my name is Rick Jones
I'm a principal with advantage storage and commissioners I appreciate your time
tonight and Haley did a great job of giving you an overview of the project
some of the slide material that I have may be redundant so I'll skip through
that as quickly as I can to be respectful of your time a little bit
about us advantage self storage is a local storage developer and operator
since 1996 we we develop we construct and we own and operate storage
facilities and we have the slide indicates 40 storage developments in the
Dallas Fort Worth area we currently own and manage and/or manage 45 facilities
most of them in the Dallas area but we also have them in other municipalities
in Arizona and Colorado some people get the idea that storage is a lesser use
and it certainly is and can be and has been but with some of the modern
standards and architectural designs that we have today this is more consistent
with the type of although this is a four storey building it's consistent
with the quality of the facilities that advantage develops the proposed as Haley
has indicated consistent with the general concept plan approved for the
property and it provides for the compatible arrangement of improvement so
it's not adversely affect the adjoining neighborhoods we believe and provide for
safe circulation vehicular traffic as she covered in detail and complies with
all of the ordinances that are required for the development of the site self
storage is an allowed use under the provisions of PD 176 would also indicate
that some of when I met with the homeowners associations there were
several people had you know individual concerns but one of the more consistent
ones was that it would be a traffic problem this one driveway that goes in
and out is directly across the street from I think Pine Hill Lane and several
people indicated that that's a problem getting across Pine Hill since the
traffic on 2499 has increased and all I would say that is we're taking three
acres and as a as a commercial user of three acres we produce about the lowest
amount of traffic that of any use that we know about 60 cars a day so and also
compared to other types of retail that would generally have their fire lanes on
the exterior perimeter of the development our fire lanes and our
traffic patterns are internal to the building so it's it makes our buildings
if you will buffer to the to the net neighborhood beyond so it really is a
nice compatible buffer commercial use with adjacency to to single-family
residential not to mention that in this case there's the hundred and fifty foot
utility separation so that gives you kind of an overview of what the car wash
how our proposed site plan melds with the car wash Haley kind of covered the
the layout of the site plan but I didn't want to point out a few things is just
you know as if storage is an approved use there's a lot of ways you can
configure storage but we took care to place this two-story building along 24
99 and put basically the primary entrance is this this gate right here
you go in loop around that building and go in behind that building so when you
drive down 24 99 or if you're exiting on Pine Hill Lane you're not going to be
looking through a gate down a driveway which is a typical in fact many of our
facilities are configured that way but we took care in this case to to have
that driveway configured so that it doesn't impose on the neighborhood or on
24 99 we talked a little bit about this buffer 150 foot buffer plus the 25 foot
setback here so 175 feet really to the backs of the houses there in Wheeler
Ridge and I think she's covered the size of the buildings and the set it's 85
thousand gross square feet it'll be about 70 thousand net rentable and that
equates to approximately 560 individual storage units you can see that we've
used a mix of brick and stone cast stone and ethos to design the project we had
the architect provide this slide for us to especially when we met with the
Wheeler Ridge folks that that is a scale drawing if you will if you were on the
fence line of those houses that back along that 150 foot utility easement
looking back at the back of the property so you can see you can see the proposed
landscape trees the single storey building here and then two storey
building beyond and then this is the tall architectural feature that goes up
to the 32 feet that that Haley mentioned I think she's covered the elevations
sufficiently I did want to share with you some slides of other projects a lot
of times when you know developers stand here with architectural drawings some
guys do really well at you know executing those and some don't this is
a facility that we just finished in Plano that is similar scale this is a
two-story building that is on Independence and McDermott in Plano and
it's similar in in many respects the architecture is a little different but
the scale is the same in the interior shows you the quality that we developed
the interior that's the office there's the entrance gate to that facility two
storey building on your left single storey building on the right that'd be
the same as the proposed scale this is the internal driveways again you can see
the two-story building now on your right and the single storey buildings on your
left this is the loading area and elevator access for the two-story
buildings this is another project that we completed and it's a similar scale
two-story scale completely different kind of architecture but just to show
you the top of a scale that you know storage can have I wanted to close with
a few slides that show what we've in the past we've proposed and what we've
delivered in a few communities around the Dallas Fort Worth area this is a
facility that we proposed across the street from Stoneburg Country Club in
Frisco many years back and this is the project that we delivered here's a
rendering of a project that we proposed and a master plan community in McKinney
called Craig Ranch and this is the property that we delivered this was a
quirky project that we worked with Lake Highlands Homeowner Association it's on
Northwest Highway in Dallas and actually the Homeowner Association designated one
of their residents an architect to guide the architecture of the building and this
is what he and our architect came up with it's very unusual but this is the
project that we delivered there on Northwest Highway and with that I'd be
happy to answer any questions that you might have Mr. Jones I don't see any
questions so great job we do have individuals wishing to speak the other
card we have here is for Tom Brandt if you just state your name and address for
the record my name is Tom Brandt I live at 6600 Hailing Way it's just across the
street adjacent to this proposed business on right of a pine hills at
Hailing Way our main concern to some even prior discussions on other
businesses is property value unsightliness to the neighborhood that
already exists apparently and we're finding out too that all these essential
first zoning laws were implemented in 1990s our neighborhoods have developed
since then but the zoning laws haven't changed to fit the criteria of developed
and established neighborhoods that's mainly my concern I appreciate the
people's businesses a while back we had another similar issue and we confront
our the unanimous decision of Wheeler Ridge Oakmont West Oakmont which is a
suburb I live we're adamantly against any industrial type related businesses to
no avail some of the council people here showed pictures of other developments
that others says he's had to accept none pertaining to Denton our concern is being
residents that live there we've been there they're adding this into an
existing neighborhood and that's just our effect I am NOT against his
business I'm not against car washes put them where they should be in an
industrial type area where there's already existing non-residential
surrounding the total environment of a commercial business that's three stories
tall whatever that is so now we've got a car wash and a storage unit and next
we'll probably have maybe a pick and pull car parts if that's eligible we
don't want it in our neighborhood and that's not for any particular reasons
against that business it's not appropriate for that environment that
they are allowed to have it in because of obscene zoning laws and apparently
no one wants to change that we tried to dispute it we even appealed and
successfully had a chance to appeal the other businesses that got overwritten
because they overrode our neighborhoods right to decline and not have that type
of business in the neighborhood so essentially it didn't mean anything
because most of the attitude was that's your neighborhoods not on our neighborhood
I mean that's that's how the existing residents feel about the City Council
right now not all you because some of you backed it up and you have your right
to your votes the only thing we can do as citizens is get the people that will
endorse and support land homeowners and property owners to protect them so we're
just against there's other executive professional buildings that could go in
here that meet the contour of our existing neighborhood like I said the
businesses are great not in our neighborhood and traffic is always an
issue that needs to be addressed there but that's not the issue I'm trying to
press with this business it's just the existing residents and their property
values and nuisances are going to have with these types of businesses there's a
business right down where I work nearby of Russell Newman it says and it's a
nice-looking storage unit surrounded by industrial buildings that's what we don't
want in our neighborhood it seems like we're gradually having to accept our
neighborhood becoming the next industrial park of Denton that's good
for people who don't live there not for the people that reside and spend
hundreds and thousands of dollars on their homes and the residents just be in
a good school district and everything we like about Denton so Denton is making
the changes the people the residents aren't I appreciate it I just did want
to have a question are there any restrictions on business hours and times
of days seven days a week people have access all night long into this area of
our neighborhood or is there going to be any constraints on that so there's not
any current restraints on 724 I'm not sure the hours of operation I think I
appreciate you coming on speaking I think that the challenge we're going to
have to your points as a commission is in the year 2000 Wheeler Ridge came in
and planned out a development and they at that time said this area is for
commercial this is for houses this area's another section of it is for
commercial which is what we're hearing tonight so 18 years ago a neighborhood
came through laid out this plot of land and designated this particular property
for commercial use and so I certainly appreciate and understand your concerns I
had relatives that lived on pine hills I'm aware of that traffic flow but again
the challenge will be it's been designated for 18 years that that
property is to be used as commercial so I just want you to see where our
challenge will be tonight in this vote when our problem is - we're only allowed
in typical H ways that we all have and had to abide by is height of our privacy
fences when you put a 30-foot building behind an 8-foot privacy fence ain't
going to hide it so anyhow I appreciate it my concern would be access hours and
days of the week and you know it's going to be something that people can go in
and out all night long and and and security issues for the local
neighborhood understand these types of businesses no nothing personal but some
of the things they attract make people want to go shopping for storage units so
he puts things in that aren't theirs bottom line sir I understand your points
I appreciate you coming out and localizing them okay thank you very much
thank you this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do
so seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for
conversation discussion or motion Commissioner Smith thank you I live in
the neighborhood just writing that the very last didn't edge of Oakmont but I
bought my home I knew that 2499 was gonna be expanded from where it ended at
2181 all the way up to 35 then across 35 and would eventually will be taking
over all of Mayhill all the way to 380 but that area is is designed and and is
best use is going to be commercial and this neighborhood I think understood
that knowing that the textile right away was there in existence 18 years ago so I
want to make a motion in support of the project we have a first for approval
Commissioner pernetta a second that motion we have a first and a second for
approval seeing no discussion I'll call for a vote on the board
the motion carries seven zero congratulations the next item of
business is item 3f a esa 18 - - I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and
open to public hearing
all right I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner I'm going to start out discussing this
ESA or alternative ESA plan and then I'm going to have Christy Upton come up to
and talk to you about really the the the meat of the request and the technical
aspect so so this is alternative ESA 18 - villages of Carmel so the request
before you is to consider a recommendation for an alternative ESA
plan environmentally sensitive area it's to restore a cross timbers habitat
upland habitat on approximately two tenths of an acre and then to also
restore a riparian stream buffer on about one acre and you can see that the
subject property it's in two places here it is in yellow this is the upland
habitat and then there is a riparian buffer in this area so just give you a
little bit of historical context and then I'll I'll turn it over to Christy so
the preliminary plot for phases 4b and 5b were approved in 2015 and within
that included two areas a an upland habitat or a tree stand an isolated
tree stand in this area and then a riparian buffer in this area as part of
that development the applicant wanted to to pursue an alternative ESA plan so
they came before the Planning and Zoning Commission and ultimately City
Council and within that plan they they wanted to swap property the riparian
buffer for some trees in that tree stand that upland habitat they wanted to
develop that riparian buffer with some houses so so that was approved in 2016
that swap of land and met the criteria for approval and they and it moved
forward the development move forward the final plot for 4b was approved as well
as 5b as part of grading for 5b the the applicant inadvertently took down some
trees that were in that upland habitat that was intended to be
preserved and also remove the topsoil this was a result of a grading plan
that was done with the preliminary plot that then didn't follow over to the
final plot but that grading plan was was in the mix and it did a result in the
loss of those trees so the applicant approached the city in 2018 last
summer and said we cut down some trees what do we do and so we we met with them
we talked internally and we felt like the best course of action was for them
to move forward with a revision to that original alternative ESA plan and and
come forward with a restoration plan so that's where we are today and and they're
moving forward that restoration plan and now I'm gonna have Christy talk to you
about the parameters of that plan thank you Julie Christy Upton environmental
compliance coordinator and I'm gonna give you a little bit more details about
this timeline so bear with me I'm gonna try to go over some of what Julie
explained and give you more details so in 2008 the city conducted an assessment
of the upland habitat and one of the criteria for this upland this
cross timbers upland habitat to to continue its designation is that a it
remain ten acres or greater and by the the time that this assessment was done
there was five point eight acres of that tree stand and it was so the
designation was removed because it no longer met that criteria and we're now
going to refer to this as the eight ESA which will be important as we we go
forward in this presentation in 2015 the city conducted another assessment and of
the riparian buffer it was an unnamed tributary of pecan Creek and it was
considered an ephemeral stream and the riparian buffer that the city has set
for this because of the drainage area to it is 50 feet on each side of the creek
and thus it's a hundred hundred feet back to back it was rated in fair
condition using the rapid stream assessment tool that the city had uses
for assessing riparian buffers and we'll consider this the original ESA as Julie
mentioned there was the ADP in 2016 and this was approved with the original ESA
being swapped for the all ESA so they removed the approval was to remove the
riparian buffer in for in exchange to preserve two acres of the original I
mean of the all ESA sorry now I'm getting myself mixed up all right so what
happened with the upland habitat as Julie explained was that due to an
inconsistency between the grading plans and the final plot there was
approximately 0.23 acres of the all ESA that was graded and prior to that
grading occurring the applicant had conducted a tree survey and that showed
195 caliber inches in that graded area so we do know that there was 195 inches
of trees that were in that area what we do not have is trees that were less than
six inches and any understory this is some photographs that were taken a few
days after the encroachment occurred kind of give you an idea and then in
addition to that and think somewhere around 2018 and there was some earthwork for the sidewalk
construction along Mist Harbor trail that resulted in some understory
impacts where the contractors as they were building that sidewalk used or
moved some of that earthwork into the understory and thus removing the
understory in in that general location also with that ADP 16 2001 I mean sorry
one that they was approval to remove that riparian buffer designation they
also received approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to get coverage
under the nationwide permit that allows for coverage and allows for fill of up
to 300 linear feet of the ephemeral stream there was inadvertently there was
702 linear feet filled of that riparian of that femoral stream so the applicant
is the is proposing to mitigate for both the riparian buffer and the upland
habitat and the criteria for approval for this all isa is to create and
expand or improve preserved areas to improve encroach and habitat or
environment to maintain habitat continuity to maximize public access and
utilization to preserve create preservation of the protected area and
perpetuity and create a high quality development and staff feels that they
have met these criteria except for the improved encroached habitat or
environment because we feel that this does not apply to this particular
project the restoration strategy is to restore 402 linear feet of the original
isa riparian buffer which they have worked with the Army Corps of Engineers
to restore that buffer so that part will will be down under the Corps of
Engineers mitigation plan what they are proposing for the city of Denton is to
take 177 of the 195 tree caliber inches and to recreate an upland habitat at the
edges of that riparian buffer so that it will increase the entire area of the
restoration the the 177 tree 177 tree caliber inches plus an American
Beautyberry shrub and post oak seedlings and a blackland prairie seed mix will be
used along that area to recreate the upland habitat the other strategy is
along the all isa portion of the property the the two acres that were
preserved and the point two three acres that were encroached upon they will be
restoring that to upland habitat by creating a mix of savanna and trees and
they will be using the blackland prairie seed mix and the remaining 18 tree
caliber inches that were removed to harness the lot and this is an example
of the blackland prairie mix additionally the applicant will be
bringing in topsoil to restore the the area and to promote plant viability and
we'll be bringing in landscape irrigation to both sites to promote plant
viability and to implement an infrequent or no mowing schedule schedule to
promote the natural habitat progression and then install educational signs along
the sidewalks so to help the community understand the importance of the
cross timbers upland habitat this is an example of a sign public sign the
applicant is also offering long-term management and monitoring to ensure
viability of the of the plan the applicant will replace any dead plant
material and will repair any eroded land and remove any trash and will create an
annual report to environmental services for up to three years where the report
will include work performed the current survivability of the plantings and any
condition of the trees at the edge of the all ESA clearing and after three
years the city environmental services staff will conduct an inspection and
will issue final acceptance based upon the conditions being met staff is
recommending approval with the following conditions that 195 tree caliper inches
35 American Beauty berry shrubs and blackland sea and prairie seed mix and
riparian recovery seed mix be planted half an acre of adjacent that is adjacent
to the Army Corps of us Army Corps of engineer restoration project will be
planted according to the alternate ESA plan and the point two three acres of
crest timbers upland habitat will be restored to call according to the
alternative ESA plan annual reporting during the first three years describing
the cumulative mitigation work performed and the survivability of plants will be
submitted for staff and inspections plants install as part of the proposed
native flora vegetation are to be installed and maintained for that three
year period to achieve a 90% survival rate in addition a bond letter or credit
or escrow and the amount of $24,375 which is $125 per tree caliper
inches are to be to be planted should be provided to the city within the 60 days
of this approval and then upon completion of that three-year landscaping
establishment period the city will inspect the trees and we'll be looking
for that 90% survival rate and that bond would be returned upon that success then
the last recommendation is a new recommendation that staff has added and
we are recommending also that the homeowners Association documents be
created and filed for the two lots so that the homeowners Association purpose
will have the purpose of preserving the ESA in perpetuity and any maintenance of
these lots will be done in accordance with sub chapter 17 ESA standards and a
copy of those HOA documents be provided to the city no longer than the final
annual report and with that I'll turn it back over to Julie real quick to add in
some information about notifications the city did send out notification of the
request we have received three letters in opposition and you can see it's
kind of tiny but it is right in this location and I provided those to you
this evening and it seems like that their main concerns have to do with
drainage in the area the proposal wouldn't add any additional impervious
surface so so just to let you know about what what those concerns were and I
believe the applicant is here perfect we actually have a question I'm not sure who
it's for Commissioner Beck it can be either one of you thank you chair thank
you Julie thank you Christy well done it was well it was thorough presentation
appreciate it I was here when this development removed that repairing
buffer in the beginning so I'm delighted to see we're getting part of it back
looks like we're getting 402 of the 702 that was there originally is that
correct yes sir okay and of that alt ESA up there that it's two acres is that
correct the original alternative ESA was for two acres the impacted area is only
two-tenths of an acre so just where the tree is a small portion of it yes sir so
everything well that little square you just showed them is that the acre is that
so the entire alternative ESA was this area right here right the area we're
talking about is just about this little area right okay what about the rest of
these is it not there anymore intact okay so that's still there and will be
preserved correct okay good deal thank you I do not see any other questions we
this is a public hearing and so if you wish to speak on this item you're more
welcome to do so we just ask that you fill out a card we do have one card here
and is the applicant Justin Bono Bono and as the applicant you have ten minutes
to speak if you just state your name and address for the record yeah thank you
commissioner and chair and commissioners Justin Bono I'm the manager of Astra
Carmel LLC the developer of the project I actually don't have anything to add I
think Julie and Christy did a great job of covering a complex situation on two
tenths of an acre of land so that we've been working through for the last
several months but be glad to stand for any questions that that you do have sure
I appreciate being here for that I do not see any questions at this time well
nevermind Tricia Smith are you guys willing are you guys willing to take on
the new recommendation and for the HOA yes and I think it's that's I appreciate
you raising that issue it's important to note that on our final plat both of
these areas are already labeled as common areas on our final plat so there's
really no change in intent of having the HOA maintain those areas it was already
the intent for the HOA to do that we'll obviously need to put some belt and
suspenders in the documents depending on what ends up moving forward through you
guys and through council as to the specifics of what they need to do but
but the intent was always for the HOA to maintain these areas that are labeled as
common areas on the final plat. Do you, in case of just a response to that, do you
feel like the recommendations being made by staff has got enough detail in there
where you can have the direction to how to put in the belts and suspenders as
you? I think so well yeah and we obviously submitted a detailed proposed
report on how to deal with this and the details are in the report in our
proposed report that the staff is recommending approval of too. Thanks.
Thank you. This is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do
so. Seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for
discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve with staff
recommendations. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. We
have a second for approval with those conditions. We have a first and second
for approval. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the
board.
Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is 3G Z18-0028A. I'll
invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing.
All right.
All right this next item is a zoning case. It is Z18-28 Audre Heights. The request
before you is for rezoning for 8.7 acres from neighborhood residential mixed use
12 to neighborhood residential mixed use. The subject property is located on the
north side of Audre just to the west of loop 288. This is a this is a depiction
of the current zoning. Under the current zoning is the NRMU 12 and you can see
that in orange. Adjacent to it you have NRMU between the subject property and
loop 288. NRMU 12 is also to the south of the subject property. There's also NR4
which is one of our residential zoning districts. NR3 and NR2 which are are
also lower density residential zoning districts. You have NRMU to the north as
well. The applicant is proposing to extend that existing NRMU to the west
for the existing development as you can see in this picture right here. A little
bit of background on on how we got here. So as I said the subject property has a
zoning designation of NRMU 12. The applicant is proposing a townhome
development. As you can see there was a preliminary plat that was approved in
2017 that depicted townhomes as well as a right-of-way and an alleys. The maximum
lot coverage under current zoning is 60% and in the city of Denton lot coverage
includes all impervious surface. So that is buildings and any driveways sidewalks.
This layout that they proposed was based upon a misapplication of the Denton
Development Code and actually in subchapter 13 of the Denton Development
Code. That section states that pervious driveways, if they're constructed with
grass creed or pavers or something that rain could get through, would not count
toward lot coverage but would instead be counted as a landscape area. And so that
was how townhome developments really went in the city of Denton for a very long
time is that that application of that provision that they would put make the
driveways pervious and that way they met the lot coverage requirements. Early
last year the city reevaluated the parking standards for residential
development and and as part of that analysis and as part of looking in the
code we went back and looked at that provision and and determined that that
that provision was actually misapplied and in fact that the part of it actually
states that it it removes single-family and duplexes from that provision and so
that driveways even if they were made with a pervious surface would still
count toward lot coverage. So so with that discovery the applicant submitted
for a final plot because they had the the approved preliminary plot they
submitted a final plan we let them know it's gonna be difficult to develop your
site because you because meeting 60% lot coverage on your lot sizes is is gonna
be hard to do. So we discussed what their options were and they have proposed to
rezone the property or request to rezone to NRMU because that would allow 80%
lot coverage that would allow them to get the driveway in the building and so
that so that's that's why we're here tonight. So the criteria for approval are
in subchapter 3 of the Denton Development Code and it we look at the
the future land use element in the Denton plan and then also the public
facilities. So we'll look at criteria number one the Denton plan 2030. There's
two future land use designations that actually apply to the property it's
really on the edge. We have moderate residential and neighborhood mixed use.
Moderate residential is one of our more urban residential future land use
designations. It allows densities up to 12 dwelling units per acre. It
encourages a variety of housing types and smaller single-family duplex town
homes. But development should maintain that scale and character of the
surrounding area. Neighborhood mixed use is is more as you get toward loop 288
and that really folds in that commercial and service component. So it it looks to
add those those essential services the day-to-day uses to for those those
surrounding neighborhoods. So it's not a a primarily residential zone or future
land use designation. So when we look at this and when we analyze our across we
really had to borrow from both future land use designations and really look at
and look at both of them as a guide as where to go and and when you look at the
future land use. That really is the high level view of the way that the city
should develop. So as you get closer to zoning you really need to look at that
pattern of development and how that how that zoning affects the pattern of
development. And in this instance what you can do is look at how the future land
use and then the resulting zoning should allow transition the area to transition
in development scale and intensity and in particularly from the west toward the
east. So if you'll look at the low residential in this area here the yellow
as as you move toward loop 288 you really can see how how the the future land use
scale increases and then the zoning increases as well. So so that that
those transition areas are really important because it does allow for that
gradual increase or decrease. The proposed townhome development is
consistent with both future land use designations. However staff feels like
NRMU is just a little too intense for this area that it could disrupt that
progression in that transition area and increase the intensity in a place that
it really shouldn't be increased. We feel that NRMU is more consistent with that
neighbor the purely neighborhood mixed use rather than the moderate density
moderate residential or at that cusp of the moderate residential and neighborhood
mixed use. We feel like the the existing zoning is more consistent with both
future land use designations because it does bring in both elements. It brings in
the variety of housing but with the reduced densities the reduced reduced
building heights and it pulls out those commercial uses. We look at the use
comparison. I'm only showing the uses that actually are different between the
two zoning district but I think it highlights that NRMU 12 permits things
like duplexes and single-family dwellings whereas NRMU doesn't and it
really goes more to that commercial side. NRMU permits things like hotels,
restaurants, bars, those those a little higher intensity commercial type uses
that could be incompatible with the surrounding residential areas
particularly our low density residential areas to the south and to the west of
the subject property. NRMU also permits a maximum density of up to 30 dwelling
units per acre which really is increases that density and then building height
goes up to 65 feet which is higher than the existing 40 and the surrounding 40.
We also look at adequate public improvements. While the proposal does
not increase the density of the development it would increase the
intensity of development so keep that in mind. The trip generation analysis
did not rise to the level of a TIA and and essentially that the uses that are
that they're requesting are consistent with what could be developed today. Here's
some pictures of the subject property. This is looking across the street
toward the subject property and toward loop 288 off in the distance. This is
kind of near the subject property looking then on the south side of Audra
and clipping that that residential neighborhood to the south. This is from
across the street looking at an existing duplex development that is adjacent to
the subject property and then here's that that lower density single-family
dwelling or a single-family neighborhood to the south of Audra. There are
adequate public improvements in the area in terms of water and sewer they
could tie on to existing connections. So just other findings that the staff
looked at. So we feel like if approved NRMU would reduce that transition area
would increase the intensity of development in the subject property in a
way that would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. However if you
did opt to recommend approval we do request we would suggest some overlay
conditions just to increase that conformance. First to restrict the use
permitted uses down to that townhome with that limitation 40 which limits
that maximum number of dwelling units to 12 per acre. To reduce the building
height to 40 feet which is consistent with what is out there what is what is
permitted today and then also to to have common area lots adjacent to Audra to
provide that transition from the development to the single-family to the
south. Provide that buffer area and those common area lots to include a screening
wall as well as landscaping in the form of a type B buffer which is a ten foot
strip with five evergreen or and deciduous trees and 30 shrubs per 100
linear feet. Notification was sent out we did I did receive one written notice one
in opposition. It's outside of the 200 foot buffer it's it's to the it's off of
Audra to the west of the site. Signs were posted on the site and they did have a
neighborhood meeting. So based upon the criteria of approval and conformance
with the comprehensive plan staff recommends denial of the request. I'll
stand for any questions and the applicant is here. Thank you very much
Julie we do have a question. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair Julie I'll ask you
were you at the neighborhood meeting? Do you know? I was at another meeting that
night so I got in at the at the very end so I really didn't hear a lot of the
discussion regarding it. I believe there were concerns about traffic and but but
I don't know all of the concerns. Okay and I assume I'm sorry one more question
that rezoning was the only option that you saw for it's the cleanest option in
this in this scenario. They have you know it was the way for for the community to
to to hear what they're wanting to do and also to for them to seek to get that
lot coverage that that would be that would be consistent with their
regulations. And did you go over with them any of your recommendations if it
was approved? Your overlay because I assume that would impede the project as
initially intended. Well I have provided it to them. I don't think they have any
concerns regarding the restriction of the uses. They may have concerns about
that buffer area along Audra.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. To answer Commissioner Ellis's question and to come to the aid of our illustrious Julie Wyatt, I was at the
meeting for the full deal and the main concern was how Audra would handle the
traffic. It's a poor road right now. It ends into loop 288 and you can only turn
right. I think there's projections of looping it around where it will connect
with another street where they can cross over but that was their main concern.
The other concern that I think the developer alleviated some was you know
too many people. Right now that where those duplexes are is mainly students.
They're noisy. They're messy. They're rowdy. They thought this development was going to be similar to it but we were pretty well
assured that it was going to be something totally different. So that was
the gist of it and there were about six people there.
Julie I have a question for you. Looking at the geography of the lot, it's
skinny and long and it appears to mimic nearly exactly the same sort of
original platting on the street to its west. The city believes that MRMU 12 is
better. Am I understanding correctly that you think that's a better preferred, not
you, but staff believes that that is the preferred zoning not the MRMU, correct?
Well in the request and this one is is is challenging because there's a really
specific project that they're they're moving forward with but when we analyze
a rezoning request we have to look at all of the factors associated with that
zoning district and and and what it could bring. So our analysis looked
not only at what their request was in the background of that request but how
that NRMU fit within the future land use and and and and the the NRMU coming
closer to those single-family areas. It's just it's pushing closer to those
neighborhoods. We felt like there was wisdom in the existing zoning of NRMU 12
and and that they could pursue the use under current zoning and so it really
wasn't in terms of that use it was in their specific use but in terms of you
know the entirety of that zoning district. And for clarification they can
pursue the use under current zoning by changing their lot size primarily I mean
there might be other factors like height and stuff but one of the rates is to
change their lot size. They they could yes there would have in order to meet
all parking and and and and building size requirements there would it would
have to be a change either the lot size go make a taller building you know
something of that nature there would have to be a design intervention. And help
me process this that by rights the city's okay with the building taller but
not that that's an okay transition is a taller building but the city is not okay
with a more dense building under an MRMU because it's shorter it's just seems
that height that's a perceived density you talked about intensity of use I'm
understanding that the city in a sense would prefer a taller building over the
change in zoning to increase density. That may result from the case and that
is that is a possibility and and we understand that this is a concern the
way our code really is written it allows town homes but then it it constricts
them to a point where you really it makes it difficult to develop them so so
I and that is certainly something that we're looking to correct with the new
didn't development code. But we have to look at we have to look at those at the
neighborhoods adjacent and see how zoning decisions affect them and and and
sometimes if you if you approve a zoning district and and enlarge it then you
have adjacency to to change the zoning in the next lot so so what we have to
look at is even just beyond that specific case and look at the you know
what that zoning means and what it would mean for the surrounding zoning
pattern. Okay thank you Julie I don't see any other questions. This is a public
hearing anyone wishing to speak on the item I certainly do so I have one card
to speak in one card not to speak we'll start with Alan Hermaly.
And if you could just state your name and address for the record appreciate it
you have four minutes. Good evening my name is Alan Hermaly I live at 1401
Brandywine Circle and I thought I was going to speak about let me get this
right. S18005 did I not get that correct? So we don't have an S18005 because
that was scheduled for this evening according to the public notice. That was
a 3B that was that was postponed to the March 6th meeting. Yeah that item has
been postponed we're gonna hear it on March 6th. March 6th okay so so you
not taking any comments on this? Not this evening. Okay well I would like to
take this moment just to bring up one point. I really like the idea of
considering the impacts of the adjacent neighborhoods on zoning changes and so I
would like to like the council least consider the impacts of multiple
changes adjacent to the neighborhood. We have this this this change to the east
of the Oakshire neighborhood there's another proposed zoning to the
to the excuse me to the to the west of the neighborhood and another change the
one I wanted to speak to the S18005 to the north in their neighborhood. So you
have all these multiple changes occurring which I consider be cumulative
impacts on the neighborhood that that that at one time you thought was
appropriate to protect through through zoning. So I'd like you to consider these
multiple changes that occur adjacent to the neighborhood as opposed to
individual changes but that's all I have to bring up tonight. Well I appreciate
being here and adding that input as the areas as you said or they're all kind of
mixed in together in a way so I appreciate the feedback. Thank you. I look forward to
seeing you on March 6th. Yes March 6th thank you so much. Thank you. We do have a
card marking opposition and I'm gonna try I think it says Mandy Carson. I don't
know I apologize if not. Nancy I'm sorry I should know that. Nancy's marking
opposition address is 2908 Oakshire Street not wishing to speak this evening.
This is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.
The applicant is here. Is the applicant wanting to present or just here for
questions?
And if you could just state your name and address for the record. As the
applicant you're welcome to 10 minutes. Good evening my name is Earl Escobar
with Cranel Engineering address is 2570 Justin Road in Highland Village Texas. I
just want to quickly go over some slides maybe to help shed some light on the
exact reasoning why we're requesting this zoning. Our project entails the
development of 89 town homes. The lot sizes are 24 feet wide by 100 foot deep.
These lots are alley-loaded and our main roadway is actually a residential
collector which is a little bit wider than a standard residential street. Our
pavement is going to be 36 feet wide which will allow parking on both sides
and still accommodate two-way travel. We have an open space located at the north
end because primarily because of a existing creek that runs along that
that area. We currently have a final plat and a set of construction plans for this
development that has been reviewed and approved by city staff and the use that
we're proposing town homes are they're permitted under both the current zoning
NRMU 12 and the zoning that we are requesting to be rezoned to NRMU.
Primarily we are requesting this rezoned to allow the 80% lot coverage that's
needed to develop a town home lot the way it's supposed to look like. With the
NRMU I know we have a limitation 40 of 12 units per lot or 12 lots per acre and
right now we are standing at 8.6 lots per acre density wise which is you know
closer to NR6 than we are to the maximum NR12 or NR12 the current
zoning and I think Julie mentioned that the town home use does meet the
definition of moderate residential land use and just wanted to go over some
several several items that are creating somewhat of a hardship on the
development of town homes in general in the NRMU 12 zoning. The first one is the
definition of lot coverage. Denton defines lot coverage as Julie mentioned as
anything basically impervious within the lot and under NRMU 12 it allows
for 60% which is quite low for a town home site. There's only only one other
city that defines it the same way as Denton that's Fort Worth but they allow
up to 85% which is the norm. There's some other research with other cities on what
their lot coverage requirements are for town homes and they define it
differently. First they defined lot coverage as just the percentage of the
lot covered by just the primary and accessory buildings. The paving for
driveway sidewalks leading from the house to the public sidewalks aren't
counted towards that lot coverage and these other cities range from you know
60% up to 90% really and that's for the building itself and the way we're
proposing it based on our building size and our lots that we're proposing. We're
at 57.5% which puts us under the 60% lot coverage
under Denton's requirements but once you throw in the driveway and the sidewalks
we're going to be well above that. Some other items or factors that create a
hardship for us are the misapplication of the previous paving counting towards
landscape area which we did not know until we were in the final plat stage
after we received our preliminary plat approval back in 2017 and then also the
parking requirements requiring four parking spaces per dwelling unit. That
results in a wider driveway which kind of prohibits the building being pushed
back towards the street especially for alley-loaded lots because the driveway
has to go with it from the alley to the to the rear of the house and that would
penalize us even more or lot coverage. There's just throughout two examples with
some pictures showing I guess the misapplication of subchapter 13. One was
the Villages of Carmel which is built out now and the way they got around to
developing their townhomes was with that misapplication subchapter 13 and
there's a couple of buildings and this new development off of Riney Road called
Vista del Royale. They were able to develop two of their buildings with the
same pervious material for their driveways to meet that lot coverage
requirement but then since then since the misapplication of subchapter 13 they
had to recently get a ZBA approved to allow that 80% lot coverage which is the
reason why Julie did not attend our neighborhood meeting because she was at
the ZBA meeting with this case. So wanted to show you what our lot layout would
look like if we did receive approval for NRMU rezoning again with our 24 foot by
100 foot lots. Our structure is 1380 square feet building footprint wise
total square footage with the two-story be about 2,100 square feet including the
garage and with flat work and driveways our drive our lot coverage would be
about 77 and a half percent and that would be right below the 80% max lot
coverage for NRMU. In order to have a code compliant layout under NRMU 12
with the same building footprint our lots would have to be 24 foot
wide by 145 feet long or deep and we would have to set back the building 65
feet from the right-of-way line from the street because we could not push the
building closer to the street because the driveways would have to go with it and
penalize us with the lot coverage. So with that said our lot coverage under
this scenario would be at 58.6% which is below that 60% threshold and
again these houses would be almost 200 feet apart from face-to-face which is
not the intent of a town-owned development. In order to make this
development compliant with NRMU 12 and using the lots that we're proposing at
24 by 100 we'd have to go vertical. We'd have to go with a 900 square foot
structure with three stories. We will be well below the 40 foot height and with
that we would it we would be right below 60%. Just to give you a little building
elevations of what we're proposing each lot or unit will be constructed with
distinct materials and colors so it'll have that look of individual units or
lots versus having a uniform look and look kind of look like multifamily and
this is the rear and that concludes my presentation. Any questions? We have some
questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. In regards to staff recommendations if we
were going to if we wanted to approve it with NRMU but with the restrictions the
staff recommendations were restricting at 12 units per acre making the 40 foot
requirement and then they said that both of those things were not not not
difficult things for you to accept too but on the the the buffer areas said
that was hard. Can you explain a little bit more about that? Yeah. So the buffer
requirement there is an existing gas main I believe it's an Atmos gas line
that runs along Audreau Lane and there is a I guess some sort of a 50 foot or
variable width easement I'm not sure what the average width is about 40 to 50 feet
wide from Audreau to accommodate that gas main and so the open space we
understand we could do that but the screening wall I mean the screening wall
couldn't be adjacent to Audreau Lane because of the gas main location but we
could certainly push it further back. Couldn't be or couldn't be well while
preserving the amount of units that you guys want to put in or could you guys
remove one band of units? We would be able to preserve the number of units as
shown we just have to dedicate an open space along Audreau but the actual
construction of the wall would have to be set further back then. So engineering
wise it can be done it's not not preferable but it can be done. It can be
done it's just will it how will it look aesthetically because that wall would
actually be set back about 40 feet from Audreau Lane so is it really it's pretty
it's an awkward setback. How close would it how close would that be then to your
first units there those first lots that that 40 foot setback? It would be six
feet which would be the setback for that first unit. Six feet so pretty
sure enough to give a side yard. That's still pretty small. Okay thank you.
Mr. Beck. Thank you Chair. Thanks Earl. Good seeing you again. First met Earl at the
meeting I didn't recognize. How many units are there altogether Earl? How many units
are we proposing? Yes 89. 89 okay. One of the things I heard at the meeting other
than Audreau Lane which is something y'all can't control it is a bad road it
needs improvement but it's going to add to traffic and that was one of the
concerns but their other concern was they were comparing what they thought
you were going to potentially build to the duplexes just to the west of you
there which as I mentioned earlier had students and they were rowdy they were
transient and tended to be messy so they claim. So could you characterize the
population that you're going to be releasing to would you mind? We have the
developer and the homebuilder and the management. 2717 Gold Lake. I'm sorry you
said characterize. Yeah can you characterize the tenants you're going to be
leasing to or you guys is it going to be similar to what the duplexes are? I think the
duplexes kind of target specifically students from what I can gather. We're
going to be targeting young families you know I think they they may be doing by
the bedroom type of leasing which we don't want any part of okay so it's
certainly not our intent to do it that way if a student wanted to lease a place
and with their parents and they were strong enough to do that they certainly
could but they'd have to be able to afford the whole place in order to do
that so because we don't do by the bedroom leasing. Okay and I like a lot
what I saw that you were doing like the fact that the alleys are there so it
takes the streets off the takes the car off the streets and at the end unlike the
area over the duplex it closes that area off where people and I think you were
agreeable to putting the gate in there to sure prevent absolute traffic running
through there so I was to be honest with you I was kind of surprised when I saw
Steph was considered denial this I thought what you're doing was a good
deal but I understand and I guess if there were more people here protesting
and I might line up on the side of the city but based on what I've heard you
say and what I see and and considering what could go in there you know it could
be worse yeah so we're not increasing that's it we're not asking an increase
in density we're gonna we're gonna build these one way or the other they're
gonna be three stories and set back further and in my opinion an uglier
product same square footage or we can put a nice looking product on the ground
and you own the property directly to the east of it to yes to how far up to the
loop all the way to the loop okay what were your plans for that we've got a
submittal in or about to be in for a hundred hundred sixty bed assisted
living facility eight building our ten building 16 beds each okay so it'll be
really really nicely landscaped we're gonna have a lot of trails and whatnot
up in that part where the power lines are right anyway sounds like a good
development me that as opposed to what could possibly go in there so thanks
mr. good I have a quick question for Earl I think maybe it may not first
welcome back there was some lament even last meeting of the lack of your
presence here at meetings so you've been missed so it's it's good to see you back
presenting I said like the project but I have a question if you just help me out
if we're looking at this this graphic here the southern most lots in purple
yes are wider than the rest yes those are in the easement and will not be
developed my understanding correctly or there will be developments on those last
two ones the bottom two yes there is enough room to construct a unit oops
between the easement and the neck and a lot one right so the contention perhaps
not contention I'm just trying to stand we either you're either putting a fence
at the where the purple and blue meet or you're setting it back all the way to
that first building and you would prefer to have the fence more south than what
staff is potentially suggesting my understanding the fence situation the
gas main is located pretty much at the bottom of this lot and so it is that lot
planned on being developed no
it's not defined and so I mean really if we we were planning on just setting it
back I think 50 feet is that what we I think 50 feet on there but there's other
if you go down the street there's other ones that are much closer to that gas
pipeline we were just giving adequate space going off of the other development
next door and the working plan is to put your masonry fence basically right on
that gas line or the gas easement exactly yeah but you're saying that if you
had to move it to go all the way back up to that six foot set back on the first building being
constructed well I mean it could go closer to what we've proposed and on the
northern boundary of that lower lot okay but I guess it could go about 10 feet
closer I mean it's a variable with the easement so there's it's not defined how
close you're allowed to be and we can only go off of what other people but it
would be your preference to keep that fence as close to Audra as possible
rather than putting it up against that those first two yeah not have 50 feet
off of the road and then have a like an empty lot just there and then a wall but
I mean we're open to whatever you know the council thinks is best I think that
clarified at least my confusion so I appreciate that
Mr. Smith thank you chair staff could you give a clarification here on why the
setbacks be requested that far back there is that easement there and staff
is not it's not prescriptive on where that goes the intent is to provide a
screening wall as you typically see on on residential developments adjacent to
arterials or or you know arterial roads you often see that masonry wall
that separates a residential development from from that traffic area and then
also between the the wall and the in the right of way to provide that that
landscaping to provide that that softening of the wall in the sense of
arrival for not only the residents but then also to add that transition area
from the subject property to to the neighborhoods surrounding it so so the
intent is not only a screening wall but to have that type B buffer to add that
softening to add that gateway so I guess maybe give me clarification on this this
easement that's not it's not it's not like a traditional easement where it's
it's got a hard number that you have to abide by it's it's very it seems like
it's it's it's it's a little fluid here is that what I'm hearing or my well
their preliminary plot does show the limits of where they're showing that
easement so their preliminary plot does show that easement and and it's my
understanding and talking the applicant and then and then reviewing the
preliminary plot and I'll just use their there's as an example so that these
these actually are lots that would have a townhome on them but that that lot is
oversized in order to have that easement on that on that individual lot so staff's
contingent is to have have a a community-owned lot an HOA lot adjacent
to the the right-of-way in whatever configuration but to provide that
screening wall and that entrance feature in there to provide that transition in
that buffer area. Thank you. Mr. Good, this is not to do with the
easements and walls. Average price of the home you guys primarily leasing or
leasing okay all right thank you. I think I would like to follow up with
Commissioner's question Commissioner Smith's that maybe it's gonna be hard
to answer because they're not selling them you're leasing them but what's the
opportunity cost associated with losing two lots that you could build on if the
city is suggesting not to build because if they're outright buys of 200,000 we
could we could concurrently put a value of 400,000 two lots is it possible to
help us evaluate them so based on the cap rates that these would be actually
valued at they'd be around 210,000 a unit something like that based on some
of the other developments that we have had appraisals on. Okay that's helpful
thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair okay so I'm still confused okay
not with the project but with some of staff recommendations and what what can
you do in in their recommendations what can we because yeah I mean for me to to
go with the rezoning we'd have to have some overlay conditions on them or I
just wouldn't be comfortable no no no creating an RMU district here so so you
saw what she or we can put him back up no no no I and I actually I'm completely
fine with them the only concern we were saying is that we'd we'd hate to we were
fine with everything up there it was the the screening wall thing was not even a
problem because it was a screening wall it was more like well I mean losing two
lots and then it being kind of unattractive because we've already got
50 feet there is kind of we felt kind of silly about but if if that's what you
guys think that is what it would take and I mean we're open to it we're
definitely not saying that's a hard no by any means I just feel like you've
already got a buffer kind of there I think it's tough because we've got the
variable with easement right and so we designated 50 feet nobody told us go off
50 feet and if you talk to if you talk to the gas company they want 150 feet
when you have a variable with easement they'll ask for as much as they can get
so it's really one of those things I mean we could probably take it down to
40 feet and then provide that 10 feet in between and still not lose anything I
mean there's other houses that are 20 25 feet off this pipeline right down the
road which I mean you think that's doable yeah so if that helps like with
the buffering it's just it's really weird having this old archaic variable
with easement like they don't like them courts don't like them the gas company
tries to bully with them like they when I originally went to them they try to
ask for 150 feet but their their current reg you know goes as small as 25 feet so
we were just trying to kind of play it safe a little bit so I mean we could
read redesign it where we're 40 feet and then we have the 10 feet buffer and then
we've got all the rest as proposed and as far as like you know restricting use
and restricting all that we're we were always good with that we never intended
to this to be anything else in fact we were gonna build it we were still gonna
build it regardless it was just gonna be a three-story product with bigger front
yards I don't see any other questions appreciate it I know we've been talking
for a while but it still is a public hearing if anyone is wishing to speak on
this item more than welcome to do so we just asked to fill out a card seeing no
other individuals wishing to speak I'll close this public hearing and turn to
the days for discussion or motion Commissioner Smith I'm gonna make a motion
for an approval of this project with the limitations are recommended by staff we
did do an approval of 12 units an acre 40 foot height and then when it comes to
this buffer with this easement prefer if we didn't put a number down on the
recommendation we make to City Council and instead just make a recommendation
that a buffer in the screen will be done that before City Council sees this
for final approval that applicant and staff come to an agreement on something
and then present that to City Council so we both agreed to this rather than
saying staff is this way and applicants we could do whatever we'll just get a
fixed number we don't really care as long as you got a fixed number for the
City Council it matters to us so that's a weird motion but that's it we have a
first to approve with conditions Christian back second we have a first and
a second I do have some discussion I I'm I'm I'm opposed to requiring common
area lots I'd prefer to keep the type B buffer and then they can work with the
easements to figure out how that 10 feet is going to work with the the two
southern lots but I think asking them to abandon two lots could affect aesthetics
but also I just don't think it's necessary on the Audre Lane if there's a
just looking at map and 200 feet to the west there's a garage that would be
significantly closer to Audre then then their property so I just don't I can't
support requesting the applicant to abandon two lots so I guess it's worth
asking for a friendly amendment or I would motion a move to amend the first
motion I think my motion really came down to the fact that the easement
requires 50 feet staff is recommending much more than that and just help me
understand make sure I'm correct on this so I guess more along once my motion
wasn't necessarily for so much of the common area as it was just there's going
to be aesthetics that has to be put in because there's a 50-foot there's a 50
foot easement there no matter what that the deciding point on where that easement
is set or where that wall is set can be decided between applicant and staff
before council if I'm missing something I'd appreciate the clarification yeah so
on item C it's saying common area lots owned and maintained by homeowners
Association you're wanting to leave in there that there are two lots left
for what the applicants presentation showed is that there was going to be
those two those two much larger augmented last two lots closest to Audre
were already going to be designed that way for the preliminary plat and that it
was so much about they're gonna that those two lots were gonna be there no
matter what those developments are gonna be there no matter what and so if
whether whether we whether the ease what the easements at 50 feet is a minimum
correct something like that right can you say come to the mic yeah sorry what
we're saying is I think you're on the right page as far as like changing like
not putting a definite code because we can decide later on that part that
doesn't eliminate you from having those two homes there that's the motion that I
have it as of right now doesn't eliminate you from being able to have
those two lots correct right there's got to be an easement of some sort and it's
got to be some sort of minimum we've kind of declared 50 feet it's like our
safety minimum but what we're saying is we could probably take that down to 40
feet and then still provide what we need to provide in that 10 feet and not lose
any lots I guess what I'm trying to say is that what my motion was the way that
I worded it and the way that it is what staff and applicants work with before
they go to City Council so I motion doesn't eliminate the ability to use
those two lots and that's what mr. correct is agreeing is that the way that
it's motion that easement they were dead lots anyway they're dead lots matter
what that those for those two correct the discussion be done before City
Council doesn't get effect whether or not he's gonna have those two two lots to
be used for appreciate the clarification I could have sworn and this is a good
clarification those last the southern lots are wider to accommodate both a
townhome and the easement I know is that lot actually have a townhome on it Earl
can you that's correct they are oversized lots to accommodate the gas
easement and to also accommodate a townhome on the north side of that
easement right so what I'm what I'm concerned about is if this says it leave
a lot yeah it's an essence saying those two oversized lots are now common areas
and that's that's what I'm saying oh I see what you're saying yeah no no no so you'll yeah I
think you're both saying the same thing it's just I misstated so that first lot
does actually have a unit on it and it's just oversized to adjust for the so
there wasn't a dead lot actually okay so the way the motion stands I'm by by we
approve this motion the way it stands it does not remove any any any units from
being able to be within the project correct correct if we do adjust the that
lot to be smaller or basically but yeah can I just ask Mr. Smith to restate your
motion yep and I think that would be really helpful yep yep so the motion is
to approve the rezoned NRM you but restrictions that were made by staff
recommendations of 12 units per acre 40 foot and height restriction and then an
easement or I'm sorry a wall and screening to be decided upon and setbacks
between applicant and staff before this project is brought to City Council as on
motion okay okay and question back do you agree with that motion still second
yeah okay for that question part I will make sure to get to you a question all
this had on the board I want to make sure respect you chair what I'd like is
for Julie to please put staff recommendations up thanks
D you're gonna get Mr. Burnetta okay I just want to make sure that I'm
understanding what what the motion is because I was I was under the same
understanding that you are that the staff recommendation includes a common
area a lot that would take these out does your motion say that we are not
requiring the common area a lot is that what we that's that's correct okay all
right I feel kind of like we have to have the stated on that's I'm wondering if
we need to clarify item C further Jerry or do you think Commissioner Smith has
articulated the changes to point C adequately enough I'm sorry you're good
the the recommendation C was for an overlay on the zoning conditions I think
that even if condition C were not there at all it would still be a complete
recommendation for zoning and so whether it's sufficiently stated to allow the
case to go forward I think kind of depends upon your judgment as a
commission as to whether you feel comfortable with those that issue of the
of the setback requirement being left as a fluid item to be filled in prior to
going to the City Council but I think the idea is that the recommendation is
to approve at least the land use with at least the first two overlay conditions
into and to put up the the six-foot masonry screen wall and and buffer as
stated I but I do hear that the common area lots are are not necessary as far
as part of the motion okay that's correct I want to ensure that all
commissioners understand the motion the second and what we will be voting on is
there any ambiguity that we need to clear up in terms of what the same
motion is Krishna Ellis thank you chair so just to clarify on here with the
recommendation bullet point three we are removing common area lots from that and
keeping the rest of the yes the recommendation my motion is my motion is
for regards just a point C or three or whatever we're calling this is for a
buffer to be decided upon between applicant and staff before City Council
and whatever the setback is is up to their discretion and they come to
agreement upon before this is presented to City Council nothing in regards to
common common area lots is being referenced can I make a recommendation if
it might help I don't know Julie if you could come forward take this out of
presentation mode and maybe edit the third item you know while Commissioner
spit Smith is speaking make sure that it I think the states the spirit this the
spirit of the bullet point there was to create a buffer is for what it seemed
like from discussions with staff was that was to create a transition from
what will be considered essentially a high density area within this
neighborhood from the road back to this high density area and so you needed that
that little buffer to be there and something that the applicant decide
whether that is you know 50 feet away from the road or what staff was
recommended which much further back and that's you know shrubs and walls and
everything else involved in there rather you know that discussion become to an
agreement rather than having staff just throw something up there willy-nilly so
that was some phenomenal buffering about 10 at the point here is I'm not
suggesting that the staff is changing his recommendation at all you know the
recommendation was as it was but just for the purpose of making sure that the
Commission understands what your motion is is that accurately stated you know
with with those three conditions or is it that's correct yeah there is there is
no there is no definition within there about about how far from bag from Audre
that's being set and that'll be a distance that can be decided between
staff and applicant so yes that is accurately depicting my motion okay and
just for absolute clarity Commissioner Beck do you second the amended motion as
written I do okay do you have other discussion apart yeah I just want to
mention in support of this a couple of things a based on what the applicant is
presented I think we've got a good product here we've got a density if I
can use that word anymore that's much less than an NRMU 12 which is good
because that's the whole intent of creating the buffer anyway as Julie
mentioned is to good start with a lower density and work towards a higher density
so it does that and it does better than if we had actually had the NRM 12 the
prospect of building next to it the retirement home is a good deal this is
land infill area that you know again we're looking to get filled and this is
a good good project for that so for those reasons that I just think it's a
good deal Commissioner Ellis thank you chair just real quick for the developer
so as we kind of rewrote this and all this sure how does this look I mean does
this work absolutely no I guess I mean that you can accommodate this if this is
the recommendation going forward so any other discussion on the item well I
appreciate your patience and working through this and and it seems like
there is an ongoing conversation over a year and a half so I appreciate your
patience and I'll be in support of this there's no discussion call for vote on
the board
motion carries 7-0 congratulations before moving to item H we've been here
for three hours so if there's no objection by the Commission I'd like to
propose a short break we'll break at 922 thank you thank you for that short break
providing us that time it is 932 and I'll call the meeting back to order the
next item on our agenda is 3h is s 18 - 0 0 0 7 B invite Haley for presentation
and open the public hearing all right so this is an SUP request for a vehicle
repair facility so the request before you is to hold a public hearing and
consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding an SUP request to
allow a vehicle repair use on approximately 0.57 acres that's located
on the south side of East McKinney Street and you can see the property
location outlined here yellow on the map so a little history about this
particular location the property is owned DCG the existing development on
the site that includes four buildings has been in place since approximately the
1970s as far as we can tell from our records the this particular use actually
exists on the site today it has for about a year and a half now however
within the the current zoning DCG that zoning has been in place since 2002
vehicle repair uses require and a specific use permit this request
actually initiated as a code violation case when our zoning enforcement
officers found out that this facility was operating without a certificate of
occupancy so the the means of rectifying that and bringing them into compliance
with the current code is to obtain the specific use permit required by the DCG
district as part of this request we analyzed the site's current compliance
with our code regulations and what we found was as noted that the use
requirements are not being met as there's not a specific use permit there's
currently no screening provided at the right-of-way for the storage area the
there's a large part of the site dedicated to vehicle storage and that
does require screening per the Denton Development Code the site is required
for the within the DCG district we require 15% landscape area minimum the
site does not currently comply with that but with some of the improvements
they're offering to make they would come up to 16.8 percent landscaping and then
DCG district also requires a minimum of 20% tree canopy there's currently no
trees on the site so with the improvements that are proposed on their
site plan currently they would come up to a 10% tree canopy and then street
trees are also required for for all developments there currently are no
street trees on the property everything up to the right-of-way is paved on the
front half of the property so they're also not proposing any street trees with
this with this SUP so I won't go through these in detail but the criteria for
approval of an SUP are outlined in detail in your backup and we'll have
them here if we need them in general it provides for a compatibility analysis to
determine if there's any nuisance potential and what could be done to
mitigate for that so looking in detail at their site plan in blue I've outlined
the the 600 square foot of building on the site that is currently dedicated to
the vehicle repair use the building just to the north of this adjoining it is
currently a restaurant we have here a retail facility on the western side of
the property and then a vacant building exists on the eastern side of the
property one of the improvements the applicants proposed to bring them into
compliance with our screening requirements is to install a six foot
high wooden fence here where you see the orange line and that would include gates
at this location as well as here at the back of the parking lot to allow for
vehicle maneuvering throughout the storage area that's this located here so
that would provide the required screening from the right-of-way for the
vehicles that they store on site another substantial improvement they have
volunteered to install is this type C buffer that's the code requires between
commercial and residential uses there is a multifamily development just south of
this currently it's separated only with a wood fence so they would be proposing
the type C buffer that would be the 15 foot wide area containing six trees and
25 shrubs per hundred linear feet so that's that improvement is what would
help bring them into compliance with the minimum landscaping for the zoning
district and get them up to that ten percent canopy in addition to that staff
is also recommending that that buffer be extended up this eastern side of the
property currently there's a wood fence there between them and an office
building it contains things such as an accounting firm and we've heard from that
neighbor that there are issues with sound from this property and from this
use in particular with noise issues so the installation of that buffer in
addition to the fence would at least provide some additional separation there
and as those trees grow they would mute some of the sounds from the site part of
our analysis is also to look at the comprehensive plan so the Denton plan
2030 designates everything you see on the map and read is designated as
downtown Denton so this area is intended to be high density residential as well
as have a mixture of supporting uses commercial office civic uses basically
everything necessary to have a full service downtown where people can live
work play and have all of the services they need within close range so while
this use does have some potential nuisances such as noises and odors that
should be mitigated for it's also one of those necessary services that people
would need in an area where they live and work this site as I mentioned has
been developed for several decades with this current use as far as I could tell
from our historic records this building was originally a fuel station and at
least for the past year and a half dent one has operated their vehicle repair
facility here so with the continuation of this use in the potential granting of
the SUP there's not wouldn't be any increase in vehicular traffic or other
nuisances such as that there is no additional parking required for the use
it's within the central business district so we don't have a parking
requirement there however there are nine parking spaces on the site for the three
uses that exist there today to share and two of those are designated on the site
plan for use by this facility so while the site today is not entirely
compatible with the surrounding uses at this time the screening and buffering
that they're proposing and the staff is recommending would help bring it into
compliance and mitigate those nuisances notification was sent regarding this
request as of the time this presentation was put together we had received one
opposition from the property to the east as well as one in favor from the subject
property just today we received a second opposition that was provided to you at
the work session that's from this property here at the corner of Austin
and McKinney and that does bring the total percent opposition up to 12% there
was no neighborhood meeting held for this request and staff is recommending
approval with several conditions the first being that vehicle repair would be
limited to the 600 square foot one-story building shown on the site plan the
second that all customer vehicles for this facility for either repair or pick
up following repairs would be kept behind that fence so that those two
parking spaces would be left open for you know more short-term traffic all
storage of vehicles would be behind the fence the third would be that the
proposed six foot wood fence as shown on the site plan would be installed and
maintained so long as the vehicle repair use is located on the property unless
that storage area is paved and striped as a parking lot which is another option
they could do to bring the site into compliance fourth would be that the
proposed type C landscape buffer shown on the site plan along the southern
property line be installed and maintained in accordance with the city's
landscape code in addition staff recommends that the proposed type C
buffer be installed also along the eastern property line along the
existing wood fence up to the southern edge of that existing building that's
shown on the site plan and if you if you look at the details on the plan you'll
notice that the the buffer contains as they propose it smaller deciduous
ornamental trees so staff additionally recommends that those be replaced with
either medium or large canopy trees from our approved planting list so that that
would help the site come into compliance with that 15% minimum I'm sorry 20%
minimum tree canopy the fifth condition is that no storage of inoperable vehicles
would be permitted on the subject property and then six that failure to
adhere to these conditions could result in revocation of the SGP in accordance
with the DDC provisions in subchapter six and with that I'm happy to answer any
questions thank you Haley we do have a question Mr. Smith thank you chair Haley
if the SCP is approved does the business owner or the or the I guess the
lieutenant the building they still need to send a CEO completed as well before
where's the SP wipe that out no they would still need the CEO they've
actually applied for a CEO and it's it's declined at this point pending approval
of the SGP thank you I do not see other questions thank you Haley this is a
public hearing if anyone's wishing to speak you should may certainly do so we
just ask that you fill out a card do you have one individual wanting to speak CJ
moyo moyo okay he was here I think he stepped out during the break and I
haven't seen him come back in I can go look for him if you'd like or yeah let's
check real fast looks like Scott is looking into that here he is perfect
mr. moyo if you can state your name and address for the record we'd appreciate
it sure it's CJ moyo 8712 Swan Park Drive in Denton Texas like to thank the
chair and the commissioners for this time thank you thank you Haley I just
had ten quick points that I wanted to I'll read them quickly about what auto
hail repairs is trying to do first of all this company applying for the SUP
because we're trying to get this overlay on the property depth one was established
in 2005 in Denton and we do somewhere in the tune of about 600 to a thousand
cars a year auto hail repair wise it's a great team great service also we signed
the lease for numerous years at this property 208 which is actually just
across the street I don't know if you had a chance to take a look at the
property there so we actually share the same area general and a lot with the
taco shop in a secondhand store we're proposing some developments there that
are gonna kind of make it a little clearer what we're trying to do but we
signed a lease for numerous years there and you know really just to do auto hail
repairs because at the time we're not aware of the new DDC and and things of
that nature so our understanding was because of the specific characteristics
of this building we figured you know it would be a straight shot for a CEO but
um we submitted numerous applications for a CEO and finally learned that we
could seek the SUP tool to address our request for continued use of this
property we started using this property actually in April 1st of 2017 so we've
had to you know kind of learn the process with dealing with this particular
lease this facility great building though auto hail repairs are seasonal in
nature due to spring and summer hailstorms PDR process which is what we
propose to use at this facility does not involve any paint whatsoever no
chemicals or substances in the case of Bondo for example these substances and
such things are never used to achieve repairs of auto hail repairs it's
spent it's through a special tools which are all made out of steel and it's
really an art craft by the technicians so this means an environmentally safe
use of the property and no stress on drainage etc to protect our neighborhood
and pedestrians in that general area why why did we request to use this
particular property this property and building on site as the site plans show
is very compatible with the requested use for auto quick servicing which we
believe was actually the reason why that building was built way back then access
doors are out of the main traffic flow of McKinney Street so we think that's
going to be a great thing in the sense that we don't interfere with McKinney
traffic flow auto hail repairs are not intended as a permanent use of this
property so the sub tool the SUP tool may allow use to achieve property owners
desire to establish an event center and restaurant on the on a long term basis
we've already seen the establishment of the taco shop so our use of the two
garage bays and the proposed storage area would pave way for future
developments there in conclusion having a had a chance to attend hearings on the
new DDC draft in our relationship with property owners we feel that the proposed
flat brings development and conformity to all the DDC standards for the property
which will promote the city's 2030 plans for increased pedestrian traffic in this
area with that I can take any questions thank you we do have a couple questions
Commissioner Smith a chair definitely want to support small business down the
downtown area and so I think that no I've gone over to second sports and
Eastside and didn't kind of brewing over there it's a hey you guys fit in over
there I think my only my only problem that I want to stress to you is that you
know you kept operating after multiple times of being told to stop operator
that you're operating without a CEO and we've had a case like this had come to
us in the last couple months with another auto service shop operating out
of a storage unit over off University the same thing you know just you can't
whenever this whenever there's rules that we have to abide by it says the
city for the safety of those around us got to abide by the rules and so you know
I think it's much more of a scolding than it is a you know saying we're not
going to vote for you but the but let's not do that okay thanks thank you
Chris you're back thank you chair and mr. more you just pronounce that right
that's perfect I'm not gonna shake hell damage repair help me understand your
neighbor to the east I guess it is was concerned about the noise factor so what
do you what do you do there that would make noise I mean you said you don't
paint so there's not that but what kind of equipment would you use that would
you know develop this noise that he's concerned about um you know I don't
believe I'm aware of any noise complaints they may have been they didn't
reach me but that generally the process involves a technician accessing the
underside of the panel and basically just finessing the metal until it thanks
okay so there's no heavy-duty equipment yeah noise equipment it may have been
perhaps maybe some of the traffic going in and out something and okay well
that's what I thought okay thank you mr. Sanchez now ale doesn't you know like
you say it's kind of sporadic so in between there say you don't have hail
for a couple years what and I mean in this area what would it be considered
using it for something else no sir we have not used it for anything else we
don't intend to but generally you figure there's a hailstorm event for about 10
minutes 30 minutes and that will damage a hundred thousand cars in an area so
there's a lot of work to do for a long time so in general you'll find that you
know the use of this property could go on months and months after the event okay
I do not see any other questions I appreciate you being here thank you this
is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so seeing no
other individuals wanting to speak I'll close the public hearing and turn it to
the dais for discussion or motion Commissioner pernetta like to make a
motion to approve can we have a first for approval
Commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any
discussion on the matter motion to approve with recommendations yes second
thank you for the clarification mr. Beck any discussion on the item seeing none
I'll call for a vote on the board
motion carries seven zero congratulations the next item of
business is item three I z 18 - 0 0 2 7 B I'll invite Sean Jacobson for
presentation and open the public hearing
good evening mr. chair and members of the planning and zoning Commission the
request before you tonight is for a city initiated rezoning of the 15 tracks of
land that make up the Denton Service Center just off Mingo Road about 45.13
acres of land the issue we're seeking to resolve with this rezoning request is
that currently those 15 parcels are covered by three different zoning
districts dr1 and r4 and NRM you 12 we would like to unite all of those parcels
under one zoning district DCG part of that goal there is to bring the zoning
into line with the longtime use you'll see that I've highlighted the community
service use which is what is ongoing at the site now is actually not permitted
in two of the current zoning districts that cover this site so goal one is to
bring that site entirely under one zoning district that actually it permits
the use what that will allow then is a replatting of that site so that we don't
have 15 different properties we have one property making up the service center
DCG is also important because what to the things that need to be done on the
site are resurfacing of the parking lot which you talked about a lot of parking
lot there there requires more lot coverage than is permitted in the current
zoning districts and also there is a need to expand the fleet services center
on site and this will facilitate that it won't go outside the boundaries of the
site but it'll simply provide for a slight expansion of the building that's
on site now so when we look at a rezoning there are two key criteria we
consider does it match the future land use and can we provide public services
to it future land use designation for the service center is government and
institutional use so that's listed the intent is for government owned land
should include buildings and sites meant to serve a particular service for the
city of Denton and were encouraged to locate them in a way that provides for
shared services and efficient use of land this is actually a great example
of that because a wide range of departments are able to use this one
location and it's central to the city therefore because DCG provides both the
use and the standards that are necessary for that current and ongoing service
center use it is compatible with the intentions of the Denton plan 2030 in
the future land use of that area our second criteria is adequate provision of
public improvements this site has been developed for a long time water and
sewer are already available and there's no expectation of an immediate increase
major increase in trips from there in the long run there will be some vehicles
added to the site but even the additions to the fleet services center right now
are simply to deal with they don't have enough capacity for the buildings they
already have on site so we're not expecting a major increase in trips from
the site either finally compatibility with the area DCG
necessary would actually be a continuation of the zoning that is
already a long mingo and the railroad there you can see to the southeast it
does permit the use that is on site and so it's more appropriate than the
current three zoning districts that are covering the site at this time we did
send out notifications both the 200 and 500 foot distances we received three
responses in opposition to in favor we did have a neighborhood meeting on
Monday staff does recommend approval of this request it meets our criteria and
it achieves that goal put forward by the future land use with that I'll take any
questions y'all have we do have some questions commissioner back thank you
chair thanks Sean can you go back to a site that is a pretty clear picture of
keep going okay go back for okay I need the biggest picture you can give me of
the site all right as best you can show us where the fleet service center is and
which direction are you going to be expanded in yes sir so the fleet
services center is here okay and the expansion we go from about here to about
there so it's going away from the residential area yes okay yes all right
about 16,000 square feet okay thank you commissioner pernetta so when we're
addressing the zoning basically we're consolidating everything based on what
I'm seeing right now the character of what's already there isn't going to be
changing drastically that is accurate sir okay and the responses that we got
negatively tended to raise the point of property values and everything what was
bought up in the work session was that as work is done on the parking areas and
things like that at that point it triggers the fact that buffers and
things like that would go in which would tend to beautify and actually cover that
area from the residential which would kind of address the the issues that
we're seeing with the opposition right that would be opportunity yes sir
according to our standards because we'd be putting in an institutional use next
to a residential use there would be landscaping buffering requirements yes
sir okay excellent there's just things I wanted to clarify thanks to mr. Smith
why'd my finger mr. Morris I know I gotta wipe my finger the city I said in
work session I'll say it again pretty disappointed that the city just went
ahead and started doing development whatnot without regards to the zoning but
I am very very happy the city is willing to play by their own rules and to not
not continue going forward in that manner of saying well zoning doesn't
matter us we are the city so glad glad we're getting this all unified and we're
we're playing with it on parameters so thank you absolutely sure mr. Sanchez
yes I also wanted I just want to reaffirm what Smith said you know kind of
disappointed but long term you know there's some small buildings that are
going to be constructed but you're we're looking at a pretty large area which is
I think 45 acres and when you look at that hole at 45 acres and you kind of
drive the boundaries you see where there where there's a lot of as a neighbor and
looking into that area whether it's my back in my backyard I think it's pretty
depressing for the city not to put some kind of buffer around the whole
area there's there's big neighborhoods right there if you look where you talked
about the where they're going to be building those what did you call the
fleet services services if you look to the right of that and then go up going
north and then take you know just follow that line the boundary there's a lot of
neighborhoods right there that probably you know don't deserve to be looking at
all these all this big equipment I drove by there today there's a barrels of I
don't know probably diesel or whatever sitting in there and you can see it
right from the road it I'd like to see the city do a little bit more and instead
of just waiting till the project comes and until they do a project and start
building buffers around their whole property line so that neighbors don't
have to look at that we wouldn't allow that in any other neighborhood you
wouldn't allow that in any neighborhood except that one because the majority
those people you would probably consider I don't know what their income is but
it's not the upper end of the of the neighborhoods so I think it's allowed
because because of the neighborhood and I think it's a shame that the city
allows that they wouldn't do that up on North Denton or up a forest hill you
know so I think it's time the the city wake up and put a buffer all the way
around that okay Christian Pernetta I will be voting to prove this having said
that one of the reasons that problematic is because in a way this is a
complete right if we don't approve it nothing changes this area looks exactly
the same way as it does and actually by voting you know by voting for it at the very
least as they do more work on that we'll get those buffers and things like that
but like I said I'll be voting for it I'm not sure you know what the rest of
the which is going to be doing but I do want to stress to the people who live in
this area and I'm not legal they want to jump in here I just wanted to say
something on behalf of the city real quick as a 30 year employee this this
facility the service center was out there when I first started working here
30 years ago and the last citywide rezoning was in 2002 so I don't think it
was the the idea that the city built the structure in violation of the zoning
necessarily it's that the last zoning failed to account for the existing uses
Christian Ellis thank you chair yeah I just I guess want to add a little bit
more that I think this will allow improvements to get started by by
changing the zoning at first I was a little bit concerned going DCG but
looking at our draft zoning map for our new code and new draft it is labeled
public facility which would eliminate other uses from from happening there so
I was happy to see that and and I and I did question development services why are
we doing this now knowing we're rewriting the code but this allows
things to get started if we do it now we don't have to wait for ample
implementation of a new code so make sense thank you Sean I don't see any
other questions this is public hearing so anyone wishing to speak may certainly do
so we just ask that you would fill out a card we do have some cards here that we'd
love to hear your your thoughts on this the first one is Leonard Chavez the view
to state your name and address for the record you would have four minutes to
speak right next to the surface in I've lived there for about 50 years and my
biggest concern is drainage I've been after the city for at least four or five
years drainage still runs across my property they allowed some people up on
the hill to build some homes all that water came down so what bothers me is
when they go in there to start building that all this water is going to come
right my direction and I know there's a lot of traffic that comes in and out of
there which I can understand that but I also have 18 wheelers coming in that
sometimes at midnight doing deliveries you know and in 2017 my house got
flooded because of the hill before I never had that problem until they built
Paco trail and then the water all started headed towards me now they've
raised the road level up to where my property is lower than the road so
everything comes to me and basically I just want to know what the plans are for
the future of that property I don't have that answer as far as we've been
informed there's not any changes in use going forward but if Scott would like to
add clarity to that Scott McDonald director of development services mr.
chair that ultimately the plan is this will have some interior renovations to
the fleet services building and along with that will be parking lot improvements
with those parking lot improvements the drainage will be taken into
consideration so I think that if there are any conditions that exist today it's
as a result of however many years that that's been existence and I don't know
that when that was put in if there was any sort of plan ultimately I to look at
that my personal opinion it was just a hodgepodge of of buildings and storage
of equipment this is going to be a more pragmatic approach to how we address the
parking situation the traffic situation and ultimately drainage I will tell you
that the city's doing everything that it can do on any of its projects to be a
good steward to our community to be representative of what it is that we're
asking others to do in the community and and drainage is a big component of that
so I most certainly will speak with a city engineer directly and and make sure
that we look at this particular situation as well as I know to the
future that we'll be addressing off-site drainage I appreciate the
clarification thank you thank you Christian back thank you Scott quick
question according to cave is do our 18 wheelers do they have a means of the
ingress and egress in the back back there coming off Ruedale trap that let
me let me say this I don't think that there's been a traffic management plan
there so I think for the for the most part that there hasn't been much
attention given to that I will say that we have been looking at that and I will
say that we've made an awful lot of investments in the new streets in the
area we've resurfaced and made repairs and we do not want those large trucks
going over that so rather than making that commitment to say where they're
going I will say that we are curtailing that and I know that we're gonna look at
that even more so to the future as we make the improvements to the parking so
ingress and egress is an important component I would say if that's going on
that seems like it should be a violation of use that street that's a that's a
small street we're we're attempting to correct the sins of the past so we're
making any number of improvements to try to to make sure that that we are good
neighbors and and we recognize that's a residential neighborhood and I don't
know that it's been respected in the same way that we intend to do that to the
future okay to be continued thank you thank you thank you we have another
card here it says Pat Nash and Carolyn
if you can just say it's your name and address for the record I reside at 1508
Santos drive and I'm here about the property at 916 Northwood this was my
parents house they bought it 60 years ago they're now deceased so my sister my
brother and myself held the house the house is two houses down from Texas
Street which crosses over right next to the city my brother's living there now
and he says that and I know it is it's very noisy he says they start like at
four o'clock in the morning with loud trucks and I will tell you this they
may have fixed Paisley Street but Wood Street and probably Ruedell they're a
wreck they're just horrible you can't even go down it hardly and the main
concern was and I think y'all addressed that was there going to be a buffer of
any sort they we've dealt with this for years with my parents but there's just
no buffer and it's just getting worse and worse and worse and I just wanted to
know if they're going to improve the roads over there put a buffer in and I
wanted to know what was going to be done y'all said that and again we were
worried about the property value was it being so close to where it is
obviously doesn't help the property value so those are my concerns and I
think that's all I have well I appreciate you coming out and vocalizing
those thank you very much if you have another card
Commissioner Pernetta sorry I did have a question for for you real quick so you
mentioned some of the questions that you had speaking to you yes you mentioned
some of the questions you had were addressed based on the condition of the
you know the zoning in the area right now compared to what you we believe will
be going forward are you are you more comfortable with what would be happen if
we approve this then if than if we didn't are you I'm sorry could you kind
of start okay I'm sorry so you mentioned that some of the questions that you had
were addressed previously you mentioned buffer and you know basically the
condition of the property is as adjacent to it to where you are based on what
you've heard are you more comfortable with what you think what we what we all
believe will be the case like what they said they're going to pay a little bit
more attention to that neighborhood I mean it has run down over the years yes
because a lot of the people that live there are now deceased and people buy
the houses and and so it's not what it used to be but the people that still own
the houses I remember it as my childhood home right and I hate to see that the
road I mean it just just run down you know and I've been over there when the
trucks city trucks they just go barreling down it's like they don't have
any respect for that side of town right and I don't know I do feel better with
what the buffer I do feel better about that and and if y'all could improve the
roads that would be really be good I mean I thought when they did Paisley
Street they were going to go ahead and go down wood but they didn't all right
well thank you very much it looks like we have one more question for you ma'am
because you're saying just yes you said noise is a big issue it starts pretty
early in the morning 4 o'clock in the morning 4 o'clock in the morning so do
you think what would be a good time to and that I know that they get to work
pretty early but there is it is a neighborhood and that kind and that kind
of a traffic is I'd say six at least I mean at least six okay most people are
getting up at six or so to go to work you know unless they work nights and
they've come home to go to bed but I would say I mean I just think four
clocks pretty early okay I think it'll be an improvement what they're doing but I
think there's certain things like noise that has to be addressed because it is
a neighborhood and we have to look at that consider the neighbors okay we
appreciate that very much like I said I don't I don't live there but I would go
if I live there I'd be much noisier than I am now thank y'all thank you
absolutely if you just come down and state your name and address for the
record
my name is Patsy Nash I live in Lewisville 1102 Pelville Brook Drive and
and that's my sister but another concern will the city trucks be coming down
Wood Street because you have the house that my mother has it's just the second
house right there up where Texas where it goes down to the service center so
will they be coming down Wood Street I think they have before and I'm I agree
with picture Sanchez that their hood is you know run down it was our home when
we were growing up it's all run down my brother lives there right now because we
haven't done anything with the house but anyway that was that's a concern is to
all the traffic because it is so close I mean I mean you just go you just go a
little ways and take a left and you're about there at the service center you
know thank you I appreciate you coming on it's asking the question absolutely if
you just come forward and state your name and address for the record I'm
Karen Rodriguez and I live at 821 North Roodale Street down this road from him
and yes Roodale Street is tore up that's where all those trucks run through is
right down Roodale Street and they do start early in the morning those of us
that have little kids and yes I may be older but I haven't adopted a little
girl and I mean it's just terrible and then the streets we get charged on our
electric bill for the runoffs that we don't even have runoffs on our street we
have no curbs we have no no I mean it's just a street and then when they fixed
everybody else's they skipped our part they started from Paisley and went all
the way down to McKinney on Roodale but when they got to Paisley they just quit
from our street on down to Mingo they left it because that's where they
traveled from and those big trucks are always right there on Roodale it's a
mess it's a big mess and we keep wondering
Leonard said he's talked to several people and they keep telling him we're
on the road or we're on the list to be fixed and it's never gotten done I
certainly can understand the frustration
where are they gonna be parking around there because we also have issues with
the rats and the raccoons and I've seen several coyotes my little girl thought
they were puppies they seen the big dogs and then the little puppies they thought
they were puppies she's mommy I wanna pass no no no don't touch those you know
you gotta stay away from them there's just lots of coyotes over there and I
have big issues with I don't want rats I don't want roaches I don't want any of
that stuff from those those trucks sure certainly understand Scott I know you
mentioned traffic can you clarify the intent of the city and using those
roads perhaps well there's there's several things that are occurring
simultaneously and and and I will say that I think there's some plans to use
the site more appropriately than maybe what it is you so some of that land that
that has been used for storage of materials is probably going to turn into
parking I think much more of that is going to move towards the railroad tracks
rather than the residential so I think there'll be some changes in use it's
going to take a while to get to that point and I say that meaning that the
building expansion will occur first than the parking so that we're not tearing up
the parking to address the the progress on streets I know that there are and I
can't tell you the specifics but some of those streets have been rebuilt and
others will be rebuilt so those are all those are all scheduled to be done I
just can't speak specifically to the schedule I will have staff collect their
their information as far as contact information and I'll make sure that we
get back with them with some specifics on what the plans are for each of those
streets great as far as addressing the noise I'll also address that with staff
is to again if we have equipment on that side of the property then we need to be
more respectful and obviously try to use it in a different way so I don't know
how much of that's been communicated but I'll certainly make sure that it is I
appreciate that and I think the buffers would help sound as well just to piggy
back on on what Scott had just talked about we actually have an additional
neighborhood meeting scheduled prior to this going to council that's scheduled
for March 18th and so what we can try to do is make sure that we have the staff
members city engineer and those involved at that meeting to answer some of these
questions that way everyone's there at one point in time and so we'll reach out
to you again and provide you with that that information I know we don't have
this going to council until April 2nd
sorry can you repeat the question and then answer it just so the audience can
hear yeah so that's going to be okay the question was where will the
neighborhood meeting on March 18th be held and that that meeting is going to
be held at the City Services facility center on Woodrow okay Woodrow Street
and I'll be happy to make sure what we do have that posted on the website
and we have sent that information out but I'll be happy to make sure we
communicate that exact address perfect thank you Sean this is a public hearing
we've had some great feedback if there's anyone else who would like to speak on
the item certainly can do so seeing none I will close public hearing and turn to
the dais for discussion or motion Commissioner Smith make a motion for
approval we have a first for approval Commissioner Pernetta let's second the
motion we have a first and a second for approval is there any discussion the
only thing I would like to add is is I think I can speak on the entire behalf
of the Commission by thanking you for coming out and providing context to this
I think it's the right thing to move forward to consolidate that but it seems
in tandem with that the city has some obligations and some opportunities to
help the surrounding neighborhood so I would encourage you to go to the both
the neighborhood meeting and the council and let them know and your vocal pressure
can help ensure that the task being done with buffers and rearranging of parking
and streets and traffic that stays ever-present on the council's mind and on
city staff to move that forward so thank you for coming out I appreciate it
tremendously I will be in support of this but with the hope that some of
those ancillary streets do you see some remediation with that I'll call for a
vote on the board
the motion carries 7-0 the next item for business is item 3 JZ 19 - 0 0 0 1 call
Ron Minguita to present and open the public hearing
thank you chair members of the Commission bring forward for your
consideration is a rezoning change request for a property located north of
Robertson just east of Skinner Road and west of the railroad tracks the property
is being considered for rezoning for the purpose of the applicants request to
establish a restaurant use on 509 and 511 Robertson the approximate acreage is
0.82 acres as shown here on the aerial a line in yellow by way of background the
subject property prior to 2002 was zone SF7 in 2002 it was then rezoned part of
the zoning change of this entire city to NR4 but just before 2002 I skipped 1996
the applicant or the property here at the time requested that the property be
zoned for commercial or restaurant use that was not accepted or approved the
owner was given the option to rezone they opted to seek a variance through
the Zoning Board of Adjustment and again in 1996 the Zoning Board of
Adjustment granted not a restaurant not a restaurant but rather a catering
establishment and so that was the use that was carried forward from 1996 to
present recently in September of 2018 a property owner I'm sorry a business owner
I wanted to again try to apply for a restaurant use for the subject 509 and
511 that application was denied again for the fact that the zoning did not
permit for a restaurant use working with the applicant between December and
January we concluded that the direction that the applicant needed to do was a
zoning change request and that is why we are here today the zoning that they're
requesting is NRMU which is a zoning district that will permit NR will
permit a restaurant use there is a limitation because it is a
neighborhood mixed use that the restaurant use cannot exceed more than
4,000 square feet and that it's only a sit-down type restaurant just want to
make mention that the property owner through another venue we had several
public open houses as you all recall back in early of 2018 where we were
talking about the zoning map the property owner approached the staff and
asked that the property be rezoned as part of the upcoming zoning map update we
thought that was a good idea with it being a focus area a commercial corridor
the area which I'll describe a little bit further is is with some non
residential uses however that zoning map as you all heard during a work session
is not for some time looking at April for its consideration we explained that
to the to the applicant they were not really wanting to wait they rather rezone
the property so that they can get started on their restaurant use and so
we're bringing that forward in front or in ahead of the DDC DDC update in the
zoning map request so here is the aerial that shows the site the restaurant or
the proposed restaurant use proposed zoning area is generally in this area
here there is already NRM you in the area these two lots north of Robertson
as well as South Robertson is currently zone NRM you and you can see that
between Skinner to the railroad there are some single-family however some of
the areas that you can see here are currently under developer under are not
currently used so this would lend itself for a possible commercial note if that
is what is being accepted to the south is the Fred Moore Learning Center and
again according to the applicant this property has been used as a restaurant
prior to 1996 the city just does not have any records she does have and she
has provided proof via documentation and I'm sure she'll be able to share that
with you all but again looking at this area between Skinner the railroad south
to the Fred Moore Learning Center and north of the towards the channel it
would serve to community as a focus area and we're certainly looking at this as a
potential mix use area for any rezoning requests there is considerations that we
need to require to look into as far as approval criteria there are two and
you've heard several past cases and the same criteria apply does it conform with
the future land use element the future land use element shows this area as
residential low however there are other parts of the dental plan 2030 that
promote community neighborhood services as well as walkability and we see that
again looking at the area site specific there is an opportunity here that we can
certainly support some mixed uses does the proposed area can facilitate the
adequate provision of services and the answer is yes there are currently
services in the area and the use that is being proposed and hopefully in the
future can serve the the uses that we'll see if that again is the case with the
proposed rezoning section 35 3 3 b3 also provides additional review for zoning
requests that are not consistent with the future land use map and the items
that's listed here are covered in your backup looking at existing land use
patterns through considering it is in an isolated zoning district encouraging you
know again the most appropriate use of the land and based on staff's analysis
and based on what's currently on the ground so that feels that that is the
case and for that reason I'm sorry I kind of jumped ahead the public hearing
notices were sent out you can see that the area here in this exhibit shows the
boundaries or the buffer areas where the 200 and the 500 foot radiuses are as of
this evening we have not received any response either in opposition or in
favor some photos of the site shown here the larger exhibit or photo shows the
restaurant or the building that is currently used as a catering
establishment and is the subject of what is being requested to be a restaurant if
again the zoning is approved so with that again it per the the criteria for
approval and the additional requirements for looking at zoning that is not
necessarily consistent with the future land use map we the staff is recommending
approval of this zoning change requests and I'll be happy to stand for any
questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. Ron why aren't there any overlay
restrictions being put on this by staff recommendations for NRM uses there are
other uses whatnot and of course this area is specifically an area that we
think that this building would be used for just restaurant use but why a staff
are recommending any restrictions to just make it down just that just the
restaurant use alone. We didn't see a need again looking at the area let me
zoom back here we feel that the area would not need an overlay I mean if we
were to consider obviously one would would be the height but I don't think
that would be the case we feel that that is something that would be handled
through the development standards and again there has been no opposition or any
responses so not sure if there would be any need for it. My only my only fear is
15-20 years down the road this area gets gentrified some says well that's lots in
RMU we wipe out this building here and put a put an apartment here because I
can or whatever it is and there's or puts put not necessarily apartment but
you know what I'm saying is that go delve into some of the higher uses and
so you know we've we've seen things like this but from us as a commission
before and and restricted the limp the use down to specifically what the
applicants wanting and kind of almost a moral memorializing them the restaurant
itself is always being a restaurant always going to be a restaurant no matter
what. Right and and and that that can be a pro and a con right if we if we do an
overlay sometimes that would limit any potential other uses that could
potentially be in this area so again we want to make sure that this serves as a
neighborhood servicing area so if it's a different use and it's permitted in that
zoning district we certainly want to encourage that as well and just just by
way of again we will be talking about this more during our discussions with
the den plan update I'm sorry den code update MN would be the suitable NRM you
transition from from NRM you and we are certainly going to look into any
limitation as far as MN when it applies to areas within a neighborhood such as
what you see in this area. Got it. Thanks. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair and
thanks Ron. Just curious and not that I'm lying that it the NRM you it's being
requested here encompasses the residents next door to it too but why just wondering
why it didn't focus on the area where the restaurant is going to be at the
parking lot and in the house or the restaurant it it encompasses that house
next to it too. Was there a reason for that? The my understanding is the the
applicant I'm sorry the property owner owns all four lots and they're they're
wanting to make this again I'll let the applicant speak to their future plans
my understanding is that they all they own all four lots that are identified.
Four lots there's three that face Robertson then one and then the one in
the back and that could potentially be used as you know either additional areas
for seating or just storage associated with the restaurant use. Well and I hope
this goes forward I really do I when I my wife from St. Louis and when I go up
and visit with her you go to those older cities like that and in the
neighborhoods on the corners there's little restaurants there's pubs there's
little bakeries and everything like that it's all within walking distance so I'd love
to see this area develop into something like that. Right and I think there's some
history back to this and I know it doesn't it hasn't carried forward like we
would like to see but I think that's something that well as we move forward
yeah it's gonna have to come up to code and everything that's right exactly any
would any any restaurant use would have to come in and apply for a CEO and go
through the inspections and related code requirements. Sure okay thank you Ron.
Ron I have a couple questions for Commissioner Burnett I have some questions can you tell me
what is the definition of spot zoning? Well spot zoning is looking at if you
were to look at a larger area and you identify an area obviously spot of that
area that's generally what it's referred to there's obviously a lot of different
ways of looking at it there is a lot of literature that talks about what's
considered spot zoning what's not we we don't see this as as a spot zoning we
look at this and we'll again part of our recommendation is that we're going to be
looking at this at a larger area scale when we're looking at the den plan sorry
den code update as well as the draft zoning map. Thank you for that the other
question I have is it seems too hard for me not to notice that three items ago we
had in NRMU 12 have pushed back from the city to go to MRNU I know it wasn't
your item per se but there was two concerns stated on that was one the
staff felt that by changing MRMU 12 to an MRMU could potentially start
cascading other zoning this idea of zoning creep was a concern that was
expressed by the city and then the other concern was just the general
transition from one zone to another just like the overall density from moderate
and to high density as you approach loop 288 but yet in this situation the city
to Commissioner Smith's point did not put an overlay on this it's not an MRMU 12
to an MRMU it's an NR4 to an MRMU and I understand that there's a restaurant
there now but without any overlays there could be a lot a vet a middle school a
hotel a bed-and-breakfast elderly housing center and so I'm trying to
understand the consistency from the city's perspective as I walk through
this and that's not necessarily a question but sure something I'm gonna
hopefully hear out as citizens provide feedback but it is something that I'm
trying to process through and I understand the context of future zoning
happening but we just saw a case where the city was proactively zoning I just
don't know how a future zoning potentially on the road should affect a
zoning tonight and then I just got two responses to that and just wave looking
at it one we understand the the creeping right but I mean we look at the area the
existing area I think that those are two separate locations and we really want to
focus in this area the other thing is that what what we have as far as history
and we know that this area has been used for non residential uses and so that
gives us a little bit more of a reason for for looking at a non residential
zoning district in the past we we we look at not only what could be adjacent
to this area what potentially could be used in this area and again based on
what we have as far as history and what we want an invasion for the future I
think that the NRMU fits of in this particular area okay thank you
Commissioner Burnetta yeah and I kind of want to piggyback off of you know what
what the chair just mentioned what Commissioner Smith mentioned a little
while ago and he raised a very good point about gentrification I am for
allowing this but I'm a little nervous about how we go about doing it I like
the idea of an overlay because that would be very specific to this building
and specifically what they're doing as we know Denton's growing property values
are going up we are this area is ripe for gentrification and I want to make
sure that whatever we do preserves the character and the history of this area
and protects the people who live here from that kind of encroachment we know
that you know the you know the development codes are going to be
changing very quickly now you mentioned that this would be getting ahead of that
off the top of your head based on what's going to be coming in the code is is
what we're voting on here going to be essentially something that would be
happening anyway in that area or is there something if we were to try and
take the route of an overlay would we be doing something that would protect that
area but eventually would wind up being overridden by it by that code yeah just
just again some again these are all preliminary discussions you know nothing
is final until the the council approves the code but I know that as far as a
committee that meets on this specifically they talked about the MN
because this would transition to an MN if that is the proposed zoning gets
approved NRMU transitions into MN any building that's over 45 feet requires a
specific use permit that's something that's being discussed so that's that's
a limitation on height if this were to go forward as an MN in the in the draft
zoning or the zoning map update so that that's another you know that's a way of
looking at as well and I don't think that's been the purview of the planning
zoning Commission because it's still being discussed but anything again under
the MN where where the building is proposed to be over 45 feet I believe
would require a specific use permit that's going to be built in with all MNs
throughout the city so so when you're mentioning that and you're talking about
and I think the reason you're talking about the height is to basically address
the idea of there being the you know the the type of developments like they have
on Fry Street where apartments on top of what you know on top of the mixed use
ranks but outside of the height so the MN like I said is basically the
replacement for the NRMU so in essence this would it be this this strip that
would now be an M right that's that's that's something that we're we're
looking into actually this would be this is what we're considering tonight this
area here and you can see that this is already zoned NRMU this parcel and then
this parcel here this is actually a non-residential use we do have some
residential use there I understand but there's also some underutilized
properties here and then you got the railroad on one side and that that
creates that focus area that we're referring to okay so in a sense in a
sense the what we're voting on is essentially coming to the whole area what
we're looking at tonight is simply expediting that particular location is
that is that accurate say that one more time is it in a sense you know you kind
of drew a circle around us that this would all be and everything so in months
or whatever you know a few months that that essentially is going to be applied
to this in the whole area what we're basically getting down to is expediting
that applied to this particular business is that right that is that is correct in
that you know we explained to the property owner that we would be
considering this for a zoning district that would allow mix of uses they they
would have they rather move this move move forward sooner than later again as
I explained earlier because the that zoning map update is unsure we're unsure
as far as when that will actually occur and so they wanted to move forward
sooner than later okay if I can address real fast the the draft zoning map does
not have that as em in oh it doesn't it is not okay so it would have to be
rezoned to em in that isn't right that that's something that we're currently
looking into it's it's it's not again something that that draft map that we
have is just that it's just still a drought okay so all right so that's just
okay it's a preliminary conversation and in theory if we were to take the
the tact of doing an overlay specifically to this property in essence
it wouldn't be a moot point as of now right we we will take your
recommendation when I say we the staff will take your recommendation to City
Council if there is an overlay that is that is up to the Commission to make a
recommendation but again staff did not see a need for an overlay okay for this
particular zoning case all right thank you that's all I had
Commissioner Sanchez yes I'm looking at the there's already some and an NMRU
properties there the historical I guess what I look at is that there's some
historical justification for making it a restaurant and the community that we're
talking about is Southeast Denton it has some unique characters that you're not
going to find in other in other areas of the city simply because it is
Southeast Denton in Southeast Denton you have your own barbershop you have we not
recently we approved the funeral home expansion and we've done some because
those were historical uses for the for that area right it has history and so
that's why I look at this is that these are historical uses for this area just
like Fred Moore school across the street so I just wanted to mention that is that
Denton is and that not only is Robertson Road it's kind of like the entrance into
that come into that neighborhood it's it's kind of the corridor so having a
restaurant in that area kind of invites you into the rest of this into the rest
of Southeast Denton so I just want to say is then Southeast Denton is not what
the rest of Denton is it's unique in that they had there because of their
situation they had it own unique restaurants their own barbershops and
this is one of those historical uses that occurred in that neighborhood and I
think it has to be remembered that's what it was and and I know I've heard
people talk about that in about that restaurant and when they used to go to
Fred Moore school and stuff so I think it's very important to bring that back
to remember what what this is that what that area was and before you go to
Commissioner Alex real fast I think Jerry I wanted to interject real quick if I
could just kind of synthesize some of the comments that are being made here in
terms of what we often see in terms of an analysis on this this is obviously
not an ideal case as far as you know looking at a proposed use and comparing
it to a future land use map that this is as clear as we would like for it to be
but you know as we saw with with people's funeral home and I know Mr.
Prunetta was was basically articulating the the the analysis that you would
typically go through to look at a future land use map what are we going to do
with the future well essentially you were asking what are what are the future
land uses that are that that are viable here and as we were looking at the
people's funeral home situation a while back you know we were looking at what
was in the the comprehensive plan that that really talked about this because the
future land use is only one element of the comprehensive plan it's probably one
of the more important elements of the comprehensive plan with respect to
rezoning cases but there's only one element of the comprehensive plan and
and and I think that the part of that is the realization that over the years that
perhaps you know past rezoning cases and comprehensive plan analyses haven't
really taken account of as Mr. Sanchez said the history of the area as much as
it should have that that that that along Roberson Street there were some
businesses that that they came along and I don't know that that was fully
considered in the preparation of the future land use map and in assigning
zoning back in 2002 and and so to a certain extent it's it's a matter of
trying to come up with something that is supportable by the comprehensive plan
even if it's not the ideal case of a future land use map matching perfectly
with with the proposed use so I think with that in mind going back to the
chair's question what is spot zoning typically spot zoning is when you have a
rezoning that's not supported in some way by the comprehensive plan and and so
the the key element is it's not withstanding the the issue with a future
land use map can staff articulate some of the some of the you know the the
concern some of the goals that are stated in the comprehensive plan that
that would support a diversity of business uses recognize the history of
the of the land you know recognize how it's been used over the years talking
about one of the other cases that we had tonight the chair was asking about an
NRMU development I think this is probably a little bit closer to the case
we just saw with the city service center where you know perhaps the the the
comprehensive plan and and the zoning that occurred back in 2002 really didn't
take into account what was out there why because it wasn't legally important to
this recognize it from a legal standpoint the city could operate out
there notwithstanding the the the zoning that was eventually put into place it
wasn't important to challenge it and and I think that in a similar sort of way
that perhaps past efforts to define future land uses in this region we're
not sensitive enough to the needs of the neighborhood and the realities that were
out there so I think that it's important to look at this not only from the
standpoint of the future land use but also to the the goals and the and the
purposes that are articulated in the comprehensive plan you know that that
underlie our overall zoning goals for the city thank you for the word
Kirstie Ellis thank you chair I guess I just wanted to offer I understand that
the concerns raised with you know why didn't staff recommend overlay and
whatnot but I think for me you know every tract of land is different and and
offers its own set of unique circumstances with it so I would say
this looks like a revitalization opportunity revitalization of history
revitalization of neighborhood services going forward so I mean that would be my
opinion as to as to why crystal back thank you chair yeah in my cell earlier
to go for this I appreciate the chairman's and Commissioner Smith's view
about the gentrification and how to overlay and I tend to agree I didn't
really think about that but protecting this area is important but if I'm here
and again I appreciate Jerry's comments on you know probably focusing in
a little bit more where we can get by with this but are you saying that when
this eventually if it does speaking hypothetically goes in man if we do an
overlay now to protect this is that gonna throw a monkey wrench into it would
carry forward as any other zoning that has an overlay or a condition we will
have to evaluate that and make sure that those conditions that are more
restrictive would would have to follow obviously that again that's something
that we didn't see a staff but certainly if the Commission wants to make a
recommendation again we'll take that forward and ultimately City Council will
make that decision I would be willing to consider that because you know this this
area is bordered off by Bell on the on the West Hickory on the north I think as
far as Woodrow on these and but there's encroachment now already as far as
gentrification when you go up bill you've got the apartments going up there
it wouldn't take long for them to work their way in there so protecting this
with an overlay seems like a sensible thing to do right now so I just wanted
to put that out there when we start considering the vote thanks Ron for
sending in for questions I don't see any more at this time but I would be close
the applicant and property owner are both here if you have any questions for
them perfect yeah we have several cards this is a public hearing so anyone
wishing to speak we certainly do so and we'll work through these cards as I as I
receive them I want to be mindful of the applicants here they certainly have an
opportunity to speak I don't I don't think I have a card for the applicant if
you're wishing to speak I'm more than welcome to and if you could just state
your name and address for the record I do want to start off by reading a saying
by Martin Luther King for years now I've heard the word wait it rings in the ear
of every Negro with piercing familiarity that this weight has almost
always meant never we must come to see with one of our distinguished jurors
that justice too long delayed is justice denied this location at 511 Robertson if
you hear the elderly and seniors talking about it that this is the only place
that they can go and eat back in 1940 1950 it's it's not trying to have it
something else this is this is history for Southeast Denton this is something
that I want my grandkids to be able to say my grandparents came here this is
something that before we could go to another area this is the only place we
could go to we're asking if you took you know to look at it we're not we're
wanting it to be this is a historical landmark we want to leave it as that I
have pictures of the actual location from way in the beginning in the
beginning to what it looked like this is not a home this was a restaurant this
was actually put in and the first started out in 1938 as Sweetwise they
had hamburgers and fries for 25 cents you had all of Denton County not just
didn't all of Denton County said that went to Fred Moore high school they
could only go to this restaurant and eat are we trying to change it no we're
just trying to keep that history there to where this is for Southeast Denton we
want somewhere where you can come and feel comfortable be able to have
something in the neighborhood to be able to just go and enjoy yourself and come
back and you know feel the feel like family feel a vibe there I do have other
pictures from 1996 and before 1996 when touch of Q was there it was a restaurant
operating as a sit-in restaurant as well you can see that even before there was
the little pond in the back wasn't there previously what we're asking is to for
you all to vote that we do get a recommendation to be able to have this
as a sit-in restaurant my spouse was supposed to be here with me today and
taught but he was admitted into the hospital today at 430 so you have me we
appreciate you being here thank you any questions for me we do
Commissioner Pernetta I don't really have a question so I want to thank you
for coming out I think overall I know me and several others appear to be very
supportive of this there's a lot of talk right now and I think I want to make
sure that you know that what doesn't get lost in the whole discussion of zoning
and how we do this is is that we we support you know I support this I don't
speak for everybody support this and I wanted to go through I think right now
the the main discussion that we're having is how do we do this and make sure
that we preserve the character of the neighborhood and that's it but I do want
to thank you for coming out you know in some way or other I'll be voting to make
sure that you get the restaurant that you want it's well said Commissioner
Christopher Sanchez you mentioned some that the restaurant was in operation in
the 1990s yes so it was a restaurant now some of the stuff we read we read that
you know had closed down for so many years and some of the stuff we have we're
given but there's probably a lot of times it was in operation and probably
didn't have an operative OCO because you know it wasn't really paid much
attention it was in Southeast Denton who cares so I think it's probably you was
not I was a restaurant a lot more than that then it has been written simply
because of the location and so I think the people in Southeast Denton really
realize how important that that was a restaurant in the history that like you
just said it wasn't closed in 1960 completely for 30 years I don't believe
that myself when I was reading it and being from that area it probably kept
operating but didn't get the paperwork simply because of its location and and I
really appreciate that the history behind that I think it's Southeast Denton
is very unique from the rest of the city thank you thank you and I do want to
mention that we did have a petition online petition and paper petition that
we had over 300 signatures of everyone wanting to bring this to Southeast
End so I don't see any other questions I certainly appreciate you being here
thank you if we have any questions we'll call you back up okay next card I have
is Raymond Redmond
good evening planning and zoning members my name is Raymond Redmond I live at
724 Moore Street in Denton I just want to thank everyone for the support for my
grandparents restaurant over the last I guess 20-30 years of my adult life I've
somewhat worked on the attempt to get this zoning corrected that was rezoned
from my grandparents restaurant to SF7 back then the newspapers was the legal
notice and the property owners didn't have to know that they were going to be
rezoned something different than what they were operating under so this was an
attempt to finally correct that we had tenants that have not been able to open
up and get their CEO because of this particular zoning and so that's why
we're here in front of you tonight and by doing this NRMU would give them that
zoning to go ahead and get their CEO this building has has been approved in
the past for their health inspections and through the building inspections as
far as the codes for opening up a restaurant it has the grease traps it
has the commercial venerhood and those are not cheap so it has always been a
business it hasn't been a home in the past we have always wanted in some
parts to improve the property the building inside looks just like except
for beautification it looks just like when my grandparents were there and as
you know restaurants have in the tent and the trends have changed the
reception area is all a lot bigger the kitchen areas are a lot bigger and so by
the restaurant itself is a thousand square feet and it does have a lot of
history there we would like to do some type of expansion so like in the
summertime where everyone likes to eat in restaurants that the kitchen area can
have cool air conditioning and that takes a lot of planning and a lot of and a lot
of money and so that's why you can see we've we've worked over the years to
acquire the four lots so that we could eventually expand and modernize the
building so we're just asking that the planning a zoning take that into
consideration we're not trying to do anything out of character of the
neighborhood we still want to function as a neighborhood services and just to
answer your question I've lived with spot zoning I've heard that quite a bit
when my kind of definition of spot zoning would be and I thought about it
when you were talking about it it's sort of like a giraffe standing in the middle
of elephants and this would not be that consideration because this particular
property services the neighborhood a lot of the neighborhood that people that
live there come to this particular restaurant so it's kind of like still
within that same checklist just maybe not totally off just a house I just like
to ask that y'all approve this and they can move on and get their CEO and open
up if there's any questions I appreciate that there is questions
Mr. Smith thank you chair mr. Reben correct my grandfather opened up Jim's
diner on Fry Street back in the 1980s and so I think I know what it what it's
like whenever your grandfather opens up a restaurant that means a lot to a
community and unlike your establishment mine was torn down I think they put a
Chipotle up on top of it so if you want a burrito we can go on down there but
thank you for coming out you're the property owner correct do you have any
restriction if we were to make a motion to just restrict the use to restaurant
only sounds like you got another intention then to use those restaurant as
long as you own it I think I think our intention is to make sure that 20 25
years from now no one no no planning and zoning Commission's looking back and
saying well those idiots do by just letting it be in a more you without
letting a restriction be on there so you're okay with it with a
restaurant where the restaurant restriction is that great awesome thank
you very much we have one more question commissioner Pernetta yeah and I just
want to clarify you know it's funny is what when I talked about you know
maintaining the character of the neighborhood that that's exactly what I
was talking about because I used to I used to love Jim Steiner it's it's now
like a cookie plays or I don't have some apartments for rich college students I
don't know anyway but that's that's the whole thing that you know I guess we're
kind of talking about you know it's like you know respect when I talk about the
character of the neighborhood wanting to make sure that you know we do this and
when we do this we we honor and preserve history and we don't open up the door for
someone to come and put some you know abomination there and and it's it's our
fault but anyway once again totally support what you're doing and thank you
for coming out if I might say that you know Jim Steiner the engine behind the
economic development for that area is UNT I'm assuming okay it's not no it's
not hidden but for that neighborhood there's really no engine and I'm not
saying there won't be later on but you know we're just trying to say we would
like to get the building back into the commercial zoning and that NRMU is the
use that they could have that commercial commercial use for sit down
yes I just wanted to say I think you made a good clarification there is the
engine for that restaurant up there was totally different the engine to southeast
end is much different the people there won it because it's a community
restaurant it's not something that that occurred at UNT it you know you're gonna
you want to make money up there out of the you know here you want to bring
something back something that that the community wants to enjoy as a historical
issue or event thank you thank you very much the next card I have is Mary B
Wright
if you could just state your name and address for the record you have four
minutes to speak my name is Mary black right and and I I'm I'm from Denton and
and I was raised in southeast Denton and all the classmates all the churches I'm
just standing for Tammy because I like to support whatever's taking place in in
the community even though I've got to state my address is 2745 Mill Pond Road
my parents still live there everybody I went to school with is still there and
during the time I remember growing up I don't think we really left out of the
neighborhood because when you step I didn't understand why we didn't leave
out of the neighborhood because I know we had a Dairy Queen nearby and my only
memory of that is going to the back door and food being handed to us probably
burnt and and so that's why we mainly cook but everything in the neighborhood
as far as Tommy's there was a barbecue place we could go to it on Friday and
Saturday nights I just remember those memories meeting up and feeling like
that's my community and that's what I like to do is support anyone trying to
take care of work where I'm raised and so I'm I just support it and thank you
for your time appreciate you here this powerful testimony next card is George
Ferry furry if do you just say sure perfect say your name and address yeah
hi good evening my name is George Ferry I live at 2932 Stockton Street I'll be
quick because it sounds like everyone's kind of on the same page here I just
want to harken back to community and being a person who builds that and even
looking at this space and what we'll bring with you with any expansion it's
nice to have what mr. Beck said is like that that neighborhood place on the
quarter that you can go to that's super important to remember especially in
southeast Denton and then with the question about creeping I just want to
say like each each planning and zoning thing is unique as miss Ella said it's
different you have to take them they meet all of the qualifications and all
the requirements and as a small business owner myself I know how hard it is to
save money to have to wait for permits to come through and how costly that
weight can be so the sooner this can happen the sooner they can start making
money and expanding that and growing that neighborhood more thank you so much
for your time thank you very much next individual I have a card to speak and to
not speak so Jennifer Lane are you wanting to speak okay perfect good
evening if you could just state your name and address for the record yes
Jennifer Lane 1526 Willowood Street Denton yeah the reason you have the two
cards is because I wanted to register my support in case I couldn't be here but
the item came up later so I could be here I've eaten the food that's currently
available through the catering and it's a great place and that's a wonderful
gateway entrance to southeast Denton very inviting I super super support this and
I agree that it should be expedited if the city wants to planning and zoning
Commission or the city wishes to make an overlay district there's nothing to stop
the city from doing that later there's a areas other areas in the city that I
hope would become an overlay district as well which means that there's a little
bit of control over the whole commerce type of commerce in the whole area when
it's a budding a neighborhood and that could be handled at a later date at this
point the the you have pioneers who are sort of pioneer restorers regenerators
who are all unified the residents the business operator and the landowner are
all so united that it's inspiring to see that's it I appreciate you have a
question Christian Alice thank you chair hi Jennifer did you know that the
overlay that they're talking about is it actually a zoning overlay yes so it's
different than what you're talking about you're talking about overlay for an area
mm-hmm this discussion has been about putting restrictions on the zoning yes
and that would be something that could be addressed at a later time even if
this is approved I would imagine no well well I think we're talking we're just
talking about two different things the overlay for an area yeah that I mean that
right done right but what this is is when you go to rezone a property we can
put zoning restrictions oh yes yes there are yes also on the specific property I
understand that yeah so it's just because the larger the larger area too
I imagine is also something that you're looking at as part of the Denton code
but this this particular instance seems to need addressing immediately and I
support thanks I appreciate it Jennifer it's one moment we have
Commissioner Beck thank you and the other reason to look at on the back of
chairman else's deal by putting overlay on this specific area we're kind of
sending signal out to anybody else's hey you got an NRM you there I want to
build a 10-story well we've got an NRM you there with a restriction so we're
telling them that we're saying that it's limited things you can do so that's
right the type of thing that you're right it's to you know kind of set a
standard for and also a kind of even a guideline in a way as to how to approach
something like this yeah it's a beautiful idea thank you this is a
public hearing I don't have any more cards at this time but anyone wishing to
speak they certainly do so does anyone else wanting to speak on this issue at
this time we'll close the public hearing and I'll turn to the dais for discussion
or motion Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the zoning change with
an amendment to restrict the use of the NRM you area to restaurant use only we
have a first for a approval with the condition Commissioner Beck second we
have a first and a second discussion we'll start with Commissioner Pernitta
but I just kind of had a question for you every guys because I know we're
putting a overlay with a restriction for a restaurant you mentioned buying a
having a couple of lots attached to it was the purpose for that anything other
than than a restaurant would we be impeding this in any way by placing that
overlay
what we did have what the when we gathered the properties together the four
lots it we had like a tiki bar in the back and we had like customers that would
like to come back in the evening hours and sit on the umbrellas and eat
barbecue and so we had the four lots that we fenced off but those are four
properties and so code enforcement asked us about our fence and so we asked with
this in our emu that we consolidate the four properties so we could just put one
commercial fence up all the way around our property okay and I guess with the
overlay if we were to apply the overlay to as a restaurant if they wanted to
basically return to to to that would there be a problem with that would if
they were to want to open a bar some some sort we would it would have to come
back through this process to amend that overlay so it okay they would have to go
through the re-noticing the signs P&Z and City Council and that's just standard
that's just okay all right first and a second discussion to Commissioner Smith
yeah and clarification a bar a bar within the code is defined as 51% of
their sales is derived from alcohol sales that's correct correct so it's a
bar restaurant yeah if it's still a restaurant that meets that it's still a
restaurant so that's not that's on issue yeah thank you I'm gonna hop into this
discussion quickly but miss Bradley do you have a question
area for a positive area for like the kids to come to like put in a volleyball
court or anything like just a net back there for them to come play with that
overlay prevent that I don't think so long it was affiliated with with the
restaurant sort of an accessory use to it it wouldn't I mean yet the primary
use is really the restaurant if it's just an area for kids to play while the
parents eat or enjoy it wouldn't require anything additional I appreciate you
bringing that up because my discussion item was going to be related to that I
know I started this discussion initially questioning spot zoning which was one
pendulum swing to the left but now as I think about it and understanding the
future and you can sit down I don't you don't need to stand I appreciate it
though looking at the the draft zoning map apart from apparently the
understand this draft map is already out of date apart from from me trying to
process that it seems like this area three square blocks is moving to an MN
trajectory and so as I think about like all of that area and their neighbors
being general MN it seems highly restrictive to say all your neighbors
can do whatever they want them in but we have an overlay on you as just the
restaurant and it sounds like a restaurant should be there considering
the history that seems like a used to persist further but if they ever want
to put a bed and breakfast in or have a house above the restaurant then they
have to come back through this entire process which even the question of a
volleyball court I'd rather for me just rezone this to MRM you and they don't
have these questions and they have more freedom to do this especially since it
seems like the trajectory the momentum is that the neighbors will be able to
have that benefit soon it does seem like a restaurant needs to be there just for
the for the sake of the property the neighborhood but there's four lots and
I feel hesitant just to say that restaurant that's all you get and then
there's questions about what they can and can't do so I'm in full support of
getting this rezoned so we can get a CEO issued that sounds like priority number
one but I would I would like to see if Commissioner Smith would would consider
removing that condition I'll consider it but my my only my only hesitation there
would be our decision tonight is final whereas what happens to the DDC is not
and so if yes right now everything's headed towards MN there's no there's no
definite that's that's that's gonna happen and so if I had to say what's
what's the safest play for us as a Commission I think the restriction of a
restaurant is the safest play with no guarantee the fact that an MN is going
to have to go there because it's all drafting right now it's all conversation
so that's my only that's my only quandary about that so so before I go to
further discussion I just want to maybe ask for clarification of Roberts rules
at this point if if I put forth a amended motion that takes priority to be
voted on and if failed goes back to the original motion right you would put
forth an amended motion a motion to amend in one way or another see if it
gets a second then you would vote upon that to see whether or not your amended
motion supersedes the original okay then I would like to move to amend the
motion that the rezone would be from in our for to MRM you with no conditions
second okay I don't I don't know who said so as we update the board to show
my mover and Commissioner Cole secondary I do want to have the discussion so
we'll go to Christian Sanchez yes I agree with you I I was in the same I had
the same thinking is why limit that whole area is that that's a corridor to
southeast end and there are already some other properties there and so I think I
don't see anything happening there in my lifetime and and I think it's just I
think we have to be respectful of that area and the corridor that once existed
the businesses that once existed in that corridor and and eventually I think it
will happen that's all I want to state Commissioner Smith yeah I think just a
reiteration of what I said a second ago not against the not against the use
whatsoever I just think that it's a safer play for us as a commission and
we're gonna make a final decision you know what what happens if we do approve
it as NRM you and then for some reason through public hearings that that would
come back and the the citywide update doesn't make it MN it just keeps us as a
spot zone of NRM you right there in the middle and 20 years down the road there
is just we can't predict what's gonna happen in 2005 everyone thought
Unicorn Lake was gonna be this razor ranch right and then that a an economic
change caused everything to slow down and shift we don't know and of course
southeast didn't has been southeast didn't you know as anybody who's lived
over there it's been been that way for for a long time but that's not to say
that we don't know what's gonna happen in the future and I feel a lot safer if
we had the restriction on there so that's why I I don't think that a move
of approval of just NRM you alone is a good decision I would rather prefer the
restriction of restaurant mr. Beck thank you chair ditto what Mr. Smith said it's
I don't and so the owners don't misunderstand this isn't to bind you or
tie you up the fact that you want to do a few extra things but a volleyball court
in there I don't think that's gonna be a problem there's things you can do to
restaurant that still keeps a restaurant even though other restaurants may not do
it but what this is intended to do is to protect you in the future protect that
neighborhood in the future because once you put an NRM you in there then you're
saying that other things can go in there that you really wouldn't want in there
and we don't want people to come in there say well you gave them an NRM you
you know I would like one too to build you know a four-story building or
something like that so this isn't to bind you if that's what you want as a
restaurant and all the little extras it entails this protects you from doing that
to do that so I would vote against the amendment Chairman Roselle suggested to
for that purpose to protect you in the future and that neighborhood in the
future
there's another building literally a couple of feet away that's NRM you so
and then with the zoning change which is going to happen in a couple of months or
a few everyone will be able to do it once again as I stated why restrict one
location from what everyone on the block would be doing well and that's that's a
good point but and maybe we need to look at that too because once you open the
door to NRM you you are open the door to the gentrification of having these
apartments come in and build because it would allow them in our immune allows a
variety of things that are acceptable in other locations but in southeast didn't
probably wouldn't work too well especially long Roberts there that's
that's the only thing I'm saying but it isn't meant to single you out and you
know tie your hands unless it's just really meant to protect the neighborhood
I'm just trying to understand due to the fact that there's two locations on that street that are in NRM
right and when something comes in that wants to build there we want to look at
it in relationship to that neighborhood so we may put an overlay on them too if
depending on what it is that comes in that could happen okay real fast we have
several people still want to talk but Richard wanted to just wanted to provide a
little bit more perspective on on staffs analysis and why we didn't have have any
overlay conditions on this if you look at it I know we don't have the have it up
on the map but to the north of the property they're bordered by a canal to
the to the east you have a railroad you have the school and almost I mean right
away in a large parking lot and then to the to the far west I'm sorry just to
the west of the property where that vacant area is that's actually city right
away that's platted right away that has an easement through it so I don't think
in the near future will be vacating that and anything being built there and so
when we really looked at it it really is almost like an island within within this
neighborhood and that's where looking at compatibility and adjacency it really is
it's really its own area and so that was part of that that that analysis and part
of that that rationale as to why we did not have a an overlay for this property
just wanted to provide that perspective Commissioner Pernetta and these all kind
of go back to I guess the questions that I had earlier on whether or not if we
put an overlay on it you know would eventually we have a change to an MN
and I kind of and I guess right now if we place an overlay on this if it all
you know moves for zoning to MN then they would be the only ones that would
have the overlay and if they want to do anything differently they would have to
go through a process that nobody else would do whereas if we go ahead and and
I think to Commissioner Smith's point we don't know what's going to happen with
this because the you know we're still in a draft but I would guess that if we
have an RMU right here and we put MRMU right here we would pretty much be
defining that in essence this island would wind up becoming an MN and in that
point we would be driving exactly where it's going to go and the next few
months are creating a case for them to actually make that MN so yeah I guess
with that I I guess I'm kind of supporting the amendment because in
essence if if we were to make this an RMU we would be helping define what
everyone else in that neighbor would be and I guess when you look at what's
along there you know I don't know how many you know how apt gentrification
would be for property right next to a railroad and a canal and everything so
so maybe in and of itself the natural geography and the natural you know
characteristics of the neighborhood would protect it so that's I guess that's
it thank you Christian Ellis thank you chair yeah just a couple of things that
I wanted to add we just don't want to impede their development of this we're
all in support of this restaurant becoming viable again this restriction
goes with the land number one so it would always have to be a restaurant and
we don't want to impede from their growth on these parcels we don't they
don't exactly know even how that's gonna necessarily develop and we may be by
putting that kind of restriction on all those parcels may just be impeding
exactly what they want to do is they're revitalizing history here
mr. Smith just to make clarification I want to make it seem like if the code
the DDC code update and the city was citywide rezoning did not go through
with an em in this area did not want to make it seem like I was inferring this
would be spot rezoning but rather there'd be an isolation here but I think
Richard's point about this area itself once you really understand the context
of where it is that it is in its own right its own area and as legal
mentioned this whole area has already been operating in a mixed-use operation
array so I want to make that clarification on points earlier thank
you and mr. Beck okay I understand everybody's point of view and I mean if
that's the direction we're going okay I just don't want us to regret we're
crossing our fingers that nothing happens here that can happen here so I
mean I I don't want to restrict anybody either and if that's the way we want to
goes in NRMU without a restriction okay but I don't have to look back 15 or 20
years of fortunately here still in that you know somebody moves in and takes
advantage of the zoning that we created there and disrupts the neighborhood that
they want to protect so all right the board has been cleared it was close to
being cleared Christian Ellis thank you chair actually it's just because I
forgot to say how much I enjoyed the project narrative that was included in
our backup so thank you it was wonderful it made me smile it was great thank you
so with that I just want to add clarification for both the Commission and
those in the audience about what's about to take place there's a motion to amend
the original motion that voting yes for this would recommend to City Council the
change of zoning from an NR forward to an NRMU with no conditions if this
motion passes this item passes if this motion that we're both about to vote on
fails we'll go back to Commissioner Smith's original motion and vote on
that so with that one one clarification if if this motion to amend passes then
you would put the amended motion forward for a vote yeah right it becomes the
primary motion and then you vote on it again sounds great somebody might vote
differently for the two of them it's possible it's not it's not likely so
let's vote on the board if the amended motion becomes the primary motion
right so now motion carries 6-1 yours is the primary motion to approve yes yes
so I move that the motion now is what the amended motion was in our fourth
MRMU with no conditions Commissioner Cole a second we have a first and a
second for approval of the rezone any discussion seeing none I'll call for go
to the board
motion carries 7-0 congratulations I'm gonna provide two minutes for the
chambers to clear welcome back to the plan and zoning commission public hearing
it is 1131 I'll call back to order and invite Sean Jacobson for item 3 k s 19
- 0 0 0 1 I'll open the public hearing system planner the request before you
tonight is for a specific use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit about
half an acre at 606 Robert Street this area is zoned in our three and so it
requires a specific use permit for an accessory dwelling unit in this case the
accessory dwelling unit is a cabana it'll be next to the pool behind the
residence and it because it will contain living sleeping eating quarters it
counts as an accessory dwelling unit and therefore needs this specific use permit
when considering a specific use permit we have a number of criteria including
general compatibility the neighborhood architectural compatibility with the
main building and some concerns about avoiding nuisance parking generation of
traffic you can see here the site we've assessed all of those concerns so we're
talking about roughly 672 square foot ADU behind a 1634 square foot house
there's more than enough space around that meets a lot coverage meets
landscaping parking is more than adequately provided it's designed well
to match the architecture of the main residence the surrounding uses many of
the nearby properties have accessory buildings of a variety of kinds so this
is in keeping with the pattern of development in the neighborhood it won't
impede the orderly development vacant properties in the area because there are
no vacant properties in the area and it's a well-developed neighborhood there
are no nuisances for the surrounding properties it's well screened there are
trees and a fence around the property we've looked at the lighting there are
no nuisances odors being created by this we did send out notifications to the
neighborhood and we received three responses all in favor and you'll note
there from the residences on either side and behind the ones would be most
directly impacted the applicant held a neighborhood meeting which I did attend
and the neighbors were heartily in support I believe this would be a
benefit to the neighborhood therefore because this does meet our criteria for
a specific use permit staff is recommending approval with that if you
have any questions I'll be happy to answer them and I do believe the
applicant is also here fantastic I think for the presentation there are no
questions this is public hearing we have a couple cards listed here the first one
will be Lee Allison who is listed as the applicant which means you have ten
minutes if you would like to indulge us not for ten minutes
Lee Allison Allison engineering group 2415 North Elm Street Denton Texas with
me this evening are the property owners Frank and Anthony we did have a
neighborhood meeting I thought it was quite interesting about 18 people showed
up and I don't think anybody came concerned about the pool house they all
wanted to see the in house of that inside of their house it was so
immaculately well done and refurbished a couple of comments about this they could
build another bedroom onto their house they've got about a 1600 square foot
house two bath two bedroom and they do need a place for other guests to stay as
well as something to complement the swimming pool they've recently finished
interestingly you could build another master suite onto this house with an
exterior door and not have to be here for a permanent at all so now we're
adding another multiple use room onto the site that accomplishes what they
could do otherwise additionally I'd like to say that at first I've wondered why
an SUP would even be needed for something like this but after visiting
with some of the guests that were there that evening and other concerns in the
past sure if there had been a garage apartment with somebody up high that it
makes a good reason to come forward with an SUP so we're glad to do that but this
is a one-story building that's what's not raised up high there are no windows on
the back of the building and it'll be real easy to not very easy at all for
anybody to be looking out into other yards or being an intrusion to anyone
else and the architecture I'm sorry I didn't bring some exhibits but I think
some may have been in your backup was just incredible how it matches the 50
style of this house and and works well with it so I'll be glad to answer any
questions at this time or later if you so be but we're excited about this
project there are no questions for you right now I thank you thank you the
other card we have is Sonya Whedon Sonya my apologies
I am Sonya Whedon and I live at 528 Robert Street which is just two doors
west of the applicants home of first of all I want to say that what they have
done to this house is absolutely gorgeous and has improved the neighborhood not
only their own house but the whole neighborhood and it'll probably make
their taxes go up and mine too but that's okay it'll help the salary of my
son I do want to say that I do support this it I was fortunate enough to know
the original architect or one of them Ray Goff from the 50s and it seems
almost as though the plan with the swimming pool the deck that they put on
and this maybe a guest house is all part of a master plan that just appeared 70
years later but it works beautifully as a unit I have seen I have seen it seen
the pictures of it and it is really quite lovely our neighborhood is a
unique neighborhood I am probably the oldest living fossil in the neighborhood
having lived there for 54 years and during the 70s and during the 80s I had
my many trips to these chambers for preserving our neighborhood and keeping
it as nice as it is it is also a very critical neighborhood it's unique but
it's also critical it's bound on the north side by Sherman Drive it is bound
on the south side by University Drive and it is bound on the east side by a
block of duplexes that were emergency housing post-war houses that were put
in in 1945 I believe or 46 somewhere around there so it's very critical I
have been down here to preserve our single-family neighborhood it's a
neighborhood that has relatively large lots there are many of the neighbors
have multiple buildings out little houses tool houses garden houses dog
houses detached garages maybe out houses I don't know but I don't think we have
any guest houses now my question is that the special use permit will that affect
the zoning because so far it is a single-family zoning area and we do have
duplexes to the east so my question is how inviting would this special use
permit be for changing the zoning in the area from a single family to whatever
comes next this wouldn't have any impact on zoning it is pardon me it would have
no impact on zoning would have no impact zero I really support this and I think
it'll be it is a beautiful beautiful arrangement very well planned very well
designed Ray Goff who was a friend of mine and a colleague would be so pleased
it looks as though it were part of a master plan and I do approve of it thank
you thank you and I feel it's worth noting what a testament is to your
neighborly I just wanted to compliment your neighbors that they have a neighbor
here at midnight supporting their project that's strong all of the neighbors in the
neighborhood are very nice and we keep our properties very nice but I am
concerned about the change of zone sure it sounds like a great neighborhood
thank you we have another card it's not wishing to speak Gary Hayden and Deb
Conti they are in support their address is 2106 North Bell Avenue this is a
public hearing so anyone wishing to speak they certainly do so see none I'll
close the public hearing and move to the dais for discussion or a motion
Commissioner Pernetta make a motion to approve we have a first for approval
Commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval is there any
discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board
motion carries 7-0 thanks for staying up with us and congratulations next item
for business is our concluding item of the public hearing item 3l DCA 18 - 0
0 0 8 I will invite Haley down for a presentation and I'll open the and I'll
open the public hearing no just wanted to mention as Richard did at work session
we don't have a presentation prepared for tonight based on the latest draft
that was in your backup I think you've all heard most of what we would have to
say already a couple of times probably but wanted to let you know that where
we're at currently with the draft we're still taking in a lot of feedback from
the local development community and want to make sure we have adequate time to
read through all of that address it make any necessary changes so the draft is
still somewhat in flux we anticipate that we'll have a new draft ready for
you all to consider and hopefully vote on on March 6th I appreciate that the
public hearing is open if someone wanted to speak on the item they certainly can
do that this evening is Rick Baria wanting to speakers okay that being said
while the public hearing is open the chair would entertain a motion to a date
certain to table this to date certain of March 6th Commissioner Smith make a
motion to table this discussion till dates we have a first Commissioner Ellis
second we have a first and second to table the item to date certain of March
6th seeing no discussion I'll call for vote on the board
motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is the concluding item of the
evening it is the planning and zoning Commission project matrix I will turn
it over to Richard for clarification and then we'll open up for discussion just
wanted to highlight a couple items on here I know we had for three six I have
invited pre-tem to come and give that update so he is he is planning on being
here I know we had 320 to talk about the rezoning you know that continue that
discussion on RD 5x it might be appropriate that we we kind of bifurcate
maybe some of that and tie that into the discussion that we have planned for the
next special session next week with the DDC update so as we get into the use
tables and again begin looking at that at the zoning map to start to start to
have that discussion with that what time do we want to start I know that do we
want to do we want to solve that now or or or get back get back to us tomorrow
other than that the only I know I will be adding the item on the policy
discussion that we had earlier but after ten hours today do you have a a target
start time we think in like two we're thinking four do you I certainly don't
think we need to go as early as two unless unless it's it's really up it's
really up to up to the Commission we'll probably go a couple I would assume a
couple hours two three hours at least so whether you want to start in the
afternoon or early afternoon mid-afternoon or evening it's really
it's really up to you
great three o'clock four four would four be enough time or do we need more than
that for three selfishly speaking it's my son's birthday so if the earlier we
can get out the greater for me personally that's selfish but so like
three or four would work great so I can start dinner next week next week great
this for work can we go two hours the next 27th this for work for sure and if
we need to push it to three we can send an email for fun with me good okay what's
the newly planned for four kiss her back he was gonna talk on the he'll speak
someone on the mobility plan I have that coming back once they once they have a
consultant lined up but he'll be here to talk about those special study areas
that we did that the traffic analysis for Sherman where we are with Ryan Road
where we're with Hickory Creek just to give them give an update I believe
they're gonna be bringing that to a work session here in the near future but at
least I think that by that time they'll have some counsel direction and then
that way they can provide an update update to to the Commission and the
roundabouts my contribution to the matrix is I know this is not a PNZ area
but is there some way we can get something in motion to deal with the
issue that folks over there behind the service center with the roads and the
big trucks coming down that putting up signs is there whoever handles that now
understand there's gonna be the okay there's gonna be that neighborhood
meeting there's gonna be an engineer there so maybe that would be the
opportunity to do it but I just want to get something on record so we can
address it that's that's appalling that the even lamb come down the street I
think there's a weight load for certain streets anyway they'd be violating that
I would think but when we first talked about this rezoning for that property it
was really kind of like I said earlier the first step in getting it cleaned up
the next would really start looking at at correcting the platting if you really
look at the map there's rights of way that actually kind of zigzag throughout
their old easements so it's really just consolidating that getting it cleaned up
and and just being good stewards okay okay you'll give us notice on when that
neighborhood meetings gonna be okay Commissioner Ellis thank you chair
Richard can you give me like an immediate update on Bernard Street
please sure I was on it today between Sycamore and Mulberry and it is
appalling it is dangerous it is a it's it's a massive problem waiting to
happen if it hasn't already happened with hurting someone it is awful so
I would love an update on what is going on there please um secondly with what
happened with this long meeting today is there a way that staff or maybe us at
the beginning of a meeting can look at our public hearing items and possibly
adjust I feel bad that the item we heard basically last tonight was the easiest
was very much yeah a no-brainer and should have certainly been probably at
the very top of our public hearings I don't know how that is done when we
craft our agenda or how easy that is to make adjustments but I think I feel like
we kind of know you certainly do at staff know how many people have reached
out to you so what is probably going to to garner a lot of discussion and that
so maybe I don't know if it's something we talked about with procedures maybe
it's just something we look at every meeting or but I think it needs to be
looked at even when as we were kind of structuring this item and you know
speaking with all the staff and who was at the post you know who was at the
neighborhood meetings is there a lot of you know so we kind of adjusted knowing
that there's going to be a lot of citizens because the neighborhood was
all in support I really didn't think there would be anyone here for the item
and that's what I think we can adjust even for the applicant yeah even if we
didn't have anybody stay I mean even the applicant to stay that long is for what
it's worth rich and I do try to sidebar beforehand and re that didn't happen
today but we there is a conversation between chair and staff to try to look
at that but I agree completely feel bad for them being here about four hours
and this was a long agenda I think one of our longest ever yeah
Mr. Smith nature not really something we add to the matrix but just well we're
doing the DDC updates everything else can we just look out for any other
properties that are owned by the city that are zoned wrong or have multiple
zonings or something like that so do we can just include that in the
conversation with the DDC update and just you don't have to come bringing it
for us but just put in the city why we're zoning just make sure it's being
done don't need an update on the matrix just absolutely it's not let's not I was
pretty pretty surprised I got my packet on a Friday say oh that's cool part of
it why we're having a specific category for the only thing I'd like to add is
this formally add to the conversation we had in workstation about policies trying to
identify what policies are lacking and then how we go about drafting some
procedures around some of the things we're thinking of and then I'll just
encourage the commissioners if there are items that you feel lack policy or
confusion that we get them over to staff so we can kind of as comprehensively as
we can try to figure out what to do in these situations that are ambiguous any
other discussion fantastic I will close this meeting at 1151