>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission
meeting for Wednesday, October 11, 2023.
This is our work session and with the quorum present I'll call us to order at 5.01 p.m.
First item on our work session is citizen comment on consent agenda items.
Is there anyone wishing to speak on consent agenda?
Okay.
We will move then to the clarification of tonight's agenda.
Any questions, comments on the minutes for September 27th?
Okay.
How about on our consent agenda this evening we've got two items.
Commissioner Perrett.
>> Thank you, chair.
Yeah.
Sorry.
I noticed that the large park dedication land in the middle aligns with one of the planned
trail corridors on our mobility plan and then there's I guess one of the platted lots is
there right at the corner.
Do we have a plan for how to effectuate that corridor in the long-term future and make
sure that the way this is going is compatible with that if that makes sense?
>> I'm actually going to see if Sean might be able to pull up the map for prominence.
I don't want to misspeak, I know they have been coordinating with parks but I have not
been part of those conversations so Sean if you may have any knowledge of the parks plan
for future trails on the large lot there.
>> For--
>> Prominence Square.
>> Yeah.
Yeah.
Sorry.
Did we want the GIS?
Or do we want--
>> Oh, the plat's probably good.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, this is a very colorful plat.
We don't often see plat's this--
>> Yes.
So essentially-- so right now parks has not made a specific plan for trail.
They do have a plan-- they actually have an agreement to have a trail through this section
here if you can see and then their hope is then to have that trail connect up to the
end sidewalk along here that would then connect up to University Drive.
>> Okay.
>> So a lot of time has been spent on making sure all the easements are in place to make
sure that that connection is made and then of course parks would have a significant additional
area in which they can have future potential trails and other projects.
>> Yeah.
That helps me to understand that there's a pedestrian easement right of way on the backside
of those lots so there's some flexibility there because I mean, again, the challenge
is actually going to be crossing the textile right of ways but sounds like we're taking
that into account so I appreciate that.
>> Very much so.
Parks is on it.
>> Thank you, Sean.
>> That's all.
>> Okay.
Anything else on consent?
Okay.
That will take us to items for individual consideration for A. Bryce can come up and give us a quick
synopsis of that.
How are you?
>> I'm good.
How are you?
>> Good.
All right.
So this is a variance request for a final plat.
They are requesting a variance from DDC subsection 8.3.2.C.2A.
They want to increase the number of lots they're able to take access from a private access easement
as well as allow a private access easement to connect to a private road.
The proposed subdivision is right off of Amick's road from the northern portion of it on the
northern side and it's about a mile west of Seawolf Road.
There's a little site data about it.
They're looking to create four single family residential lots and there's going to be a
larger agricultural lot that's left in the back portion of the property.
The zoning is in the ETJ division one.
This portion of Amick's road and I'll have a slide about it as well in the next one.
This red portion you'll see on the right side is a private road and the blue portion is
the nearest public road.
The variance is requesting that they are able to have five lots that connect to this single
private access easement as well as allow them to connect to that private road with that access
easement.
The provided access easement is 60 feet wide and for that reason we don't see that there's
any detrimental, the approval would not be detrimental to public health and safety or
anything along those lines.
Amick's road is also a 60 foot wide right of way.
The nature of the property is long and it's narrow just based on how the property and
the areas around it have been developed over time.
It's strict application of the subdivision code would not allow them to develop just
because that private road, Amick's road does not provide any frontage to a public street.
Additionally, if approved the number of lots that we see able to take access from this
private access easement and the connection of the private access easement to the private
road do not introduce any standards that will be incompatible with the DDC or the transportation
criteria manuals.
The proposed variance does not vary from the provisions of the comprehensive planning through.
The conditions with the subject property were not created by the property owner, it's just
kind of a result of how the property has been developed and the area around it has been
developed over time.
To conclude, staff does recommend approval of the proposed variances.
Any questions?
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you.
Chair.
Sorry.
That's weird.
Can you go back to the sitemap of the, with that ending access, that Amick's road, that
slot that goes up between the five, I don't think I saw this in the backup.
Is there not going to be a cul-de-sac there at the very end?
So there's not.
It's going to be just a 60 foot right of way that goes and leads to that back agricultural
property.
Is the county not going to have any rules on the, on fire access and EMS access within
there?
I know it's a 60 foot wide road within there, but being able to turn around and that kind
of stuff.
Yeah.
I'm not sure if they have any rules related to it.
We did ask them to review this and they didn't come back with any issues that they would
be asked them to change.
Thanks.
Anything else?
Okay.
Thank you, Bryce.
Yeah.
Next item for B, oh, that's your item as well.
So I'm here.
We'll let you summarize that one for us too.
So this is the final plat that the variances are associated with.
Our recommendation of the plat does depend on how you all choose to handle the variance
request.
If you approve the variances, staff will recommend approval of the plat just because it will meet
all of the codes and the things that we have laid out that they need to meet in order to
make it a plat that we would accept.
If the variance request is denied, then staff would recommend denial as they would not meet
those standards.
Any questions?
Not seeing any.
Thank you.
Awesome.
We'll see you at the meeting.
We've got 4C, FP230026, Mia's on her way up for a quick summary.
Hello.
All right.
Mia Hines, Associate Planner.
This item is a final plat for Legends Ranch Phase 1A.
At this time, it does not meet our criteria for approval.
So staff is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to the request extension that can be granted to October 25th,
2023.
Are there any questions?
Thank you.
We've got 4D, PP230021.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt.
This is PP230021, the Prestige at Mayhill.
This is a preliminary plat for multifamily development.
They do have some items that they do need to correct in order for it to meet our technical
requirements.
So staff is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension to October 25th, and I'll be happy
to answer any questions.
Thanks, Julie.
Do not see any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
We've got two public hearing items this evening.
First one is 5A, S210005.
This one should look a little familiar.
Hello, Sean.
Good evening, Chair.
We'll go ahead and pull this one up.
Okay.
As you said, yes.
This will be familiar.
And of course, I will have a more extensive presentation of public hearing right now,
summarize.
This is a request for now a 94 dwelling unit, multifamily building on 4.019 acres along
Teasley Lane, just north of that intersection of Teasley Lane and Hickory Creek.
And as you know, the background is that this came before the Planning and Zoning Commission
back in August.
It was recommended for denial.
The developers now met multiple times with the neighborhood and in the course of that,
revised the plans in order to make significant changes, including adding amenities, addressing
where access connected to Hickory Creek, addressing the building design, and addressing that fencing
between the development and the adjacent HOA-owned lake.
So I'll go over it in more detail, but I've provided kind of a summary of the changes
there.
They've added one less unit, one foot lower in height, a pool has been added, the patio
area's been expanded, added a gazebo, a playground, open space has been increased, a tree canopy
has gone up by about nine percent, they've added a rooftop terrace, and they've also
provided that fence, as discussed, a security fence, six foot tall wrought iron that will
stretch from their northeast boundary to their western boundary where it will connect with
a six foot tall opaque fence that will run along the rest of their western boundary.
They've also added about an additional 25 trees between their development and the neighboring
HOA lake and neighborhood, and then that access to Hickory Creek.
So basically they moved their south driveway to the west end of their property in order
to encourage and guide vehicles to access Hickory Creek by going behind sprouts rather
than going directly through that parking lot.
So that's kind of a summary of the changes, happy to answer any questions you'll have
right now, and of course we'll have more information in public hearing.
Thank you.
Any questions?
Commissioner Prout?
Thank you, Chair.
Maybe my memory is foggy, but when this came to us, I mean obviously the previous plan
came to us last year, I recall that there was a lot of discussion about the lack of
a fence and that there was some drainage easement reason for why that wasn't there.
Can you explain what changed, how did we get that, and why is it not a problem now than
it was before?
Yeah, absolutely.
So we were able to have some meetings with our folks in flood plain to discuss.
The fence is completely outside of our flood plain.
Normally we have an easement beyond that, and so we were able to meet with our folks
in engineering to determine that as the fence was proposed, it could be placed outside of
the flood plain, but still potentially within that area, somewhat within where that easement
would be.
So in terms of the drainage easement in that northeast corner, they were able to receive
a variance for the design of that.
Engineering looked at that and said they were comfortable with how that was designed.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Thank you.
Real quick, I know we had 18 members of the public attend public meetings on the 2nd,
and it says that multiple residents expressed a continued outrage at the project.
Do we know how many residents were still opposed to the project?
Was it even or majority, do you happen to know that off the top of your head?
It's unclear.
I can only report on the comments I was given that were given, so I don't know the exact
breakdown.
Gotcha.
Thank you.
Yeah, it was just like we don't really have anything in writing from anyone as far as
from notifications, or do we?
Yeah, we did have one response written in support from the adjacent car wash.
Right.
Yeah, yeah.
So, yes.
And then obviously I did provide the notes from those meetings in your backup.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Any other questions?
I know the applicant will be here, so we can certainly get more information on the meetings
in that and how they went when we're in our public session.
That is correct.
Okay.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Our final public hearing is 5B, S23-0005.
Angie's coming on up for presentation of that item.
Hi, everyone.
Good evening.
Give me just a moment, please.
Okay, this is S23-005, this is an SUP request for a multifamily development.
I'll give you just a little bit of background here and I'll obviously have a more detailed
presentation at our meeting, but this is a 22.81-acre site located just to the south
of Dutchess Drive, approximately 740 feet to the west of Loop 288.
Dutchess Drive is classified as a collector and Loop 288 is classified as a primary arterial
roadway.
The zoning on the site is suburban corridor, which does require the submittal of an SUP
for the land use multifamily dwelling, which is why the applicant is here before you this
evening.
The proposal contemplates seven buildings.
Four of those buildings are your traditional low-rise multifamily and they're concentrated
along the frontage of Dutchess Drive, sort of framing the entries.
Then there are three more townhome-style cottage products that are proposed in the southwest
portion of their development impact area.
For a total of 262 units, the site is 22.81 acres.
It does have some significant ESA along the southern portion of the development.
They are compliant with our development regulations for ESA preservation as well as for preservation
of the upland habitat and are leaving approximately 43% of the site undisturbed.
This is consistent with our future land use plan and is consistent with our criteria for
approval, both general approval criteria as well as what we look at in an SUP request
such as mitigation of adverse impacts and staff is recommending approval of this request
this evening.
I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have at this time.
Commissioner McDade.
Thank you, Chair.
I looked around, I thought maybe Karina would be here today, but my concern was like always,
there's always traffic.
Sure.
There's always departments that are already going up on the loop and then now you have
these.
Is all that traffic just going to flush out to loop 288 because my concern, the concern
in our neighborhood is eventually with everything being built, eventually it's going to flush
out into Woodrow Lane also and that's one of our big, that's one big concern in our
neighborhood.
Yes.
So at this time, that just does not go all the way through.
As part of this, the applicant was required to submit a TIA, so they are required to along
their property line, complete the construction of Dutchess from Mockingbird to their Eastern
boundary as well as construct the side path and provide restriping for turn lanes into
their property.
Traffic will flow outward to loop 288 at this time.
The development that is right here at the hard corner of Dutchess and loop 288 was responsible
for putting, for paying for a traffic signal to eventually go at that intersection.
We do have partial funding and I spoke with our engineering department.
It is estimated that the installation of that signal will occur in spring or summer of 2024.
So there is some relief coming for that corridor.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
It doesn't have to be now, it could be in the public meeting.
I would appreciate understanding better how our development regulations ensure that the
runoff into the riparian areas is not going to be adversely polluted.
The way I see many of these parcels going that back up to Pecan Creek, because we want
to preserve as many trees as possible, that drives putting a lot of the flat work and
parking right along the border of the ESAs.
Then when there is a rain event, there's more wash off of that directly into the riparian
area.
I'm not an expert at all on environmental things.
I just want to make sure that we're considering that and that if there are challenges there
that we think through that in the longer term, if that makes sense.
Yeah, sure.
Off the top of my head and just thinking, I know it's civil engineering plans, obviously
detailed drainage plans are submitted to guarantee the flow of water because you're not allowed
per state law to increase the flow of water onto adjacent properties or dramatically impact
it in that fashion.
I guess I would also speak to just the fact of pollutants, although it's not maybe the
standard that you're looking for.
I think the multifamily land use as compared to perhaps some of the other suburban corridor
land uses could possibly be a better environmental neighbor.
We can maybe dig around and see if I can get a more concrete answer for you and other protective
measures we have.
I know some of those would come through reporting if you feel like there's some sort of pollutant
discharge that's occurring.
It's mostly just concern of when you have a horrible hot summer like we did for three
and a half months and you've got oil dripping on parking lots and then when rain comes and
all of it goes somewhere.
Whatever we had information we have now, that's fine.
I would look forward to as this goes to council, I would imagine that becomes a big important
thing to talk through if that makes sense.
Sure.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Yes.
I have additional environmental concerns that Commissioner Pruitt hit on one of them.
In addition to that, we know this is in the middle of a wildlife corridor.
We received comments about the width of the buildings.
Do we have any sense of the building width being in a diverse impact to the wildlife
corridors at all?
I did not see any comments on the width of buildings.
Could you elaborate on what the concern was?
I'm happy to talk more about wildlife corridors while you pull that up.
You are correct.
One of the key actions that came out of the Denton 2040 plan was the mapping of wildlife
corridors that consisted of two phases, if you will.
First was identifying areas in which the wildlife corridors that may exist, and those are labeled
on this map as green spaces, and they're generally consistent with the ESA map.
You'll see the ESA land use that we have up here in this left one.
You'll see where the ESA is, and then that green space is generally where that is.
The wildlife corridor is situated at the southwest portion of the site and really follows the
path of the Pecan Creek Trail.
These are estimated areas of travel based on a modeling system.
My understanding is, in talking to environmental services, they do need to be investigated
a little bit more, but in terms of preservation, they are preserving 43% of the site to be
remained undisturbed, and the closest perimeter fence from where this approximate wildlife
corridor is, is 145 feet away, with the closest building pad being approximately 214 feet
away.
I believe by preserving the ESA and protecting that area, the applicant is also able to preserve
and protect the wildlife corridor.
I'm not aware of any building with challenges that would be-
Sorry.
The challenge of the large buildings affecting the 160-foot recommendation for the corridor.
I believe that 165-foot recommendation came out of that Friday report, which is ... Help
me out here.
I'm struggling for my terminology.
It is not a codified regulation that we have in the development code to review against,
and it is also a very new tool that we have to review buildings with.
They are 214 feet away.
The closest building is 214 feet away from that proposed wildlife corridor, so if we
are wanting to provide a 165-foot buffer, I would say I don't have a concern with it
at this time.
Angie, the site plan may help to show what that measurement of 214 feet kind of looks
like, because I think there's ... Because the corridor that was mapped is nested at the
south end of the ESA, there is far more than 160 feet of width for the corridor, but you
can probably maybe point out the distance between the building and-
The corridor is estimated to follow this Pecan Creek tributary through this portion of the
site, so I measured from about here, kind of midpoint, to this closest building, and
that was 214 feet, so that is a rather large buffer.
This green fence, there's no development occurring outside of that.
It is intended as part of this, and it still needs to be discussed that this 6.7 acres
is eventually dedicated as parkland, but we do have in the conditions of approval that
if that dedication does not go through for any reason, the property owner is required
to preserve and maintain this in an undisturbed natural state.
Got it.
Thank you.
Yes.
Oh, sorry.
Anything else?
I assume they're going to need an alt ESA on this site at some point, correct?
At this time, they've demonstrated compliance with our environmental regulations.
As we know, when you go to civils, sometimes things may change slightly.
At that point, they would be required to come back, and that is in the conditions as well,
but should this play out exactly as it's lined out here, they've built in a buffer for themselves
to kind of allow for working within those regulations and account for maybe some of
that trial and error, but if for some reason that doesn't work out, they would be back
before you all with an alt ESA plan.
Good.
Anything else?
No.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Okay.
That would conclude our regular agenda items, so our final work session item is 3A, Receive
Training and Hold a Discussion Regarding the City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Chapter
2.
Hello, Madison.
Hello.
All right.
How are y'all doing?
I'm Madison Rusch.
I'm Denton City Auditor, and I'm here to give you your annual ethics ordinance training
which you're required to take for the ethics ordinance.
If you've been on the board before, you may have taken it.
It's not an hour and 45 minutes anymore, it's just 15, so that's why I'm here.
So today we will be covering the ethical expectations laid out by the city's ethics ordinance.
The ordinance's mandates and prohibitions are basically what it requires, how city officials
subject to the ordinance can request clarification on the ordinance's application, and just a
quick overview of what happens if an ethics complaint is submitted against you as a city
official.
So, to begin, the city of Denton's ethics ordinance was adopted in 2018 and was most
recently amended in 2023.
The ethics code is intended to foster an environment of integrity for those that serve the city
of Denton and its residents by ensuring that decision makers provide responsible stewardship
of city resources and assets and providing behavioral guidelines and requirements.
The key goal of the ethics ordinance is to further the public's trust in those who govern
their community.
More specifically, the ethics ordinance outlines six aspirational expectations.
These expectations cannot be used as the basis of an ethics complaint, but they are intended
to guide city officials in carrying out their duties.
And they include conducting yourself in a manner that fosters public trust, performing
your public duties with personal and organizational integrity, avoiding behavior that might call
your motives into question and erode public confidence, placing the interests and concerns
of Denton's residents above your own, valuing honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, objectivity,
fairness, due process, efficiency, and prudence, and balancing transparency with the duty to
protect personal privacy and preserve any confidential information that you've been
trusted with.
So while the rest of this training will focus on specific behaviors that city officials
must comply with, this is the most important section of the ethics ordinance.
If you ever find yourself questioning if a specific action or inaction might be ethical,
first ask yourself if it would align with these expectations.
It is important to realize that the expectations not only focus on the way things are, but
also on how they appear.
A city official has a position of privilege within their community that they must respect.
Serving your community as a city official is an honor that requires integrity and dedication.
In general, you can think about an ethics code as a stoplight.
In some instances, the code clearly prohibits specific behaviors or creates a red light.
However, in other areas, the code creates broader prohibitions or yellow lights.
Yellow lights communicate that a city official should thoughtfully and cautiously consider
if the action or inaction is ethical based on the city's expectations as they proceed.
So throughout the presentation, I'll be calling out which parts of the code are red lights
versus yellow lights to help provide guidance.
Now that we've covered the basics of the city's ethical expectations and general guidance,
I'll get into more specifics.
The ethics ordinance includes three mandates and nine prohibitions that cover different
actions or behaviors that a city official may take.
And I'll briefly cover them over the next couple of slides.
But I'll stop here if there are questions about general expectations from the ethics
ordinance.
Great, thank you.
Starting with the mandates, the ethics ordinance requires that city officials disclose certain
business relationships if they are relevant to a pending matter.
Specifically, if a business entity with a pending matter is owned by a city official's
partner, the city official must disclose this relationship to the city secretary and city
auditor at least one business day before the meeting where the pending matter will be deliberated.
All disclosures will then be provided to the relevant body before the deliberations occur.
So this disclosure requirement is a yellow light in the code.
Even though city officials are allowed to deliberate on these matters, per the ordinance
it calls out that there might be a risk that this type of business interest might receive
unfair treatment from the related city official.
In addition, it requires that city officials comply with any financial disclosures required
by Texas state law and that city officials report any person that they know has violated
the city's ethics ordinance.
These mandates are red light and not reporting a known violation of the ordinance is itself
considered to be a violation of the ethics ordinance.
So any questions about these mandates that are in the ordinance?
Great.
All right, on to prohibitions.
Beginning with conflicts of interest, ethical best practices suggest that city official
recuse from deliberating on a pending matter if they or their relative have a personal
or economic interest in a business entity or property that's not shared with the general
public.
This general guidance is a yellow light that's intended to draw attention to the risk of
conflicts of interest.
However, I should note that while it's good guidance, this general kind of prohibition
is not actually included in the ethics ordinance.
Denton's ordinance does include some red lights and specifically defines the following as
conflicts of interest, owning 5% or more of a business entity's voting shares or stock,
owning $600 or more of a business entity's fair market value, owning $600 or more of
the fair market value of real property, receiving $600 or more in income from a business entity,
serving on the board of directors or as an officer of a business entity or a nonprofit,
or having solicited, received or accepted an offer of employment from a business entity
or person in the last 12 months.
If you have a conflict of interest as defined on the slide with a pending matter on an agenda,
you're required to recuse yourself from the discussion and submit an affidavit of abstention
to the city auditor.
That's me.
A pending matter includes an application seeking approval or authorization, a proposal to enter
into a contract or a case involving the city that is or may go before a civil criminal
or administrative tribunal.
Further, it is a violation of the ordinance for a current city official to represent a
person, group or entity before a city board or commission for compensation.
This prohibition also applies to former city officials for one year after termination of
their official duties.
Similarly, former city officials are prohibited from performing compensated work on a city
contract or arrangement if they substantially participated in the negotiation, award or
administration of the contract unless that participation was limited to deliberation.
Any questions on conflicts of interest or representation of others?
Great, I'm getting good at this.
Sorry.
Next, the ethics ordinance prohibits a city official or their relative from accepting any
gift that might reasonably influence a city official in discharging their official duties.
This is a general prohibition that acts as a yellow light for city officials.
The ordinance does also include gift-related red lights, specifically a city official cannot
accept a single gift valued more than $50 or multiple gifts with a total value of more
than $200.
In general, a gift is considered to be anything of monetary value such as cash, property,
services, meals, entertainment or travel-related expenses.
If a gift is accepted, the city official may remedy the violation by promptly donating
it or reimbursing the gift giver for the actual or fair market value of the gift.
If you do accept a gift, you have to disclose the acceptance and how you remedied it by
filing a disclosure with me.
The ordinance does allow certain exceptions to the gift prohibition, meaning that these
are considered green lights and they include lawful campaign contributions, expenses related
to a city official's travel to a conference or other training event that's connected to
the city, expenses related to appearances at nonprofit or community events related to
city business, complimentary attendance at fundraising events or hospitality functions,
complimentary or promotional copies of trade publications or clothing items or gifts that
are given due to a personal, familial or professional relationship, regardless of the city official's
city-related duties.
Any items that fall under one of these exceptions do not need to be disclosed, however you can
choose to do so if you would like to.
Questions about gifts?
Great.
Next, it's a violation of the ordinance for a city official to misuse the influence or
information gained due to their official city position.
Specifically, a city official may not use their influence to secure special privileges
or treatment for a person, group or business organization beyond what is normally available
or to imply that they can do such things.
While this is a specific prohibition, it's a yellow light as it is not meant to prohibit
a city official from providing individuals, groups or businesses with information on how
city processes work so that they can more easily access normally available services.
For that reason, city officials should proceed cautiously and thoughtfully when trying to
help the public with specific concerns.
Specifically, city officials should be cautious when stating what they can or cannot do to
ensure that a concern is addressed.
Further, a city official may not state or imply that they are acting as a representative
of the city unless they have been authorized to do so by the city council.
And it is a violation of the ordinance for a city official, either current or former,
to use confidential information gained through their official capacity to advance the personal
or private financial interests of themselves or anyone else.
So these are red lights and there's no instance where misrepresenting yourself as an authorized
city representative or using confidential information for personal or private interests
would be ethical under the ordinance.
Questions about misuse?
This is the last prohibition, but there's a little bit more after this.
So it is a violation of the ordinance for a city official to abuse the city's resources
or the power or privileges granted by their official position.
Specifically, a city official should not use, request, or allow the use of city resources
such as facilities, personnel, equipment, software, or staff time for private purposes,
including political, except to the extent that those are available to other residents.
So while this is a specific prohibition, it's kind of a yellow light because it does not
have clearly defined thresholds and there are instances where a city official can ethically
use city resources like if you were renting a city facility at the publicly available price.
On the other hand, it is a violation of the ordinance for a city official to harass or
discriminate against a person based on their ethnicity, race, gender, gender identity,
sexual orientation, marital or parental status, or religion.
It's also a violation to interfere with any city related criminal or administrative investigation,
including persuading or coercing someone else to withhold their cooperation.
So these are red lights.
There's not really an instance where harassment, discrimination, or interfering with an investigation
would be considered ethical per the ordinance.
Questions about abuse of resources or power, position?
All right.
Now that you have an understanding of the expectations, mandates, and prohibitions outlined
in the ordinance, if you ever come upon a situation where you need additional guidance,
you have a couple of options.
So first, if you need direction, helping to find a section of the ordinance related to
a particular situation or just an answer about how to submit a disclosure or an ethics complaint,
you can reach out to me.
Hillary can probably help you just by telling you where I am.
So you can reach out to city staff.
Second, if you have a personal attorney, so not Hillary, they may be able to provide you
with an interpretation of the ethics ordinance to help you decide whether to recuse yourself
or not in a given situation.
And finally, you can also request that the Board of Ethics issue an advisory opinion,
which is intended to answer a question about compliance with the ethics ordinance in a
particular situation.
And the biggest advantage of an advisory opinion is that a city official can use it as an affirmative
defense to a submitted ethics complaint if you relied upon it in good faith.
So essentially, if you ask the Board of Ethics, hey, is it OK if I do this?
And they tell you, yeah, we think so.
And then you do what you said you were going to do, and somebody submits an ethics complaint
against you, you can say, they told me it was OK.
That should be OK.
That should work for you.
But don't just do it willy-nilly.
So to receive an advisory opinion, a city official must submit the request in writing
to the city auditor, including relevant details of the situation in question.
I'll then communicate the request to the Board of Ethics chair, who assigns it to a panel
of three Board of Ethics members for review.
And they'll issue their advisory opinion within 30 days of receiving it.
It usually does not take that long, but that's the maximum time.
Any questions about advisory opinions?
Cool, we're almost done, I promise.
Finally, the Board of Ethics' primary function is to process ethics complaints.
There are four phases of the ethics complaint process that I'll briefly run through.
And if you want additional information on the complaint process, it's available on the
city's Board of Ethics web page, or you can just ask me.
So first, the initiation phase.
During this period, an individual submits an ethics complaint using the prescribed form
to the city auditor.
This complaint form should be accompanied by any evidence such as images, videos, or
documentation that the complainant has to support their allegations and must be sworn
to in front of a notary.
All then determine if the ethics complaint is administratively complete, but I won't
make a judgment on the complaint's merits.
If a complaint is accepted, a copy is then forwarded to the complainant, the respondent,
and the Board of Ethics chair who will assign it to a preliminary assessment panel.
During the preliminary assessment phase, a panel of three Board of Ethics members reviews
the submitted ethics complaint and determines if it is actionable or baseless.
A complaint is actionable if, on its face, the behavior alleged in the complaint would
constitute a violation of the ordinance.
The panel may also recommend that a hearing be held to determine if a complaint is frivolous
instead of determining if it's actionable or baseless.
The outcome of the preliminary assessment is communicated to the complainant and respondent
by the city auditor, and if the complaint is determined to be baseless, the process
stops, though the complainant may submit a written appeal within 10 business days, which
will then initiate the next phase, which is the hearing phase.
So during the hearing phase, the Board of Ethics schedules an evidentiary hearing and
may request additional documentary evidence or issue subpoenas to require individuals
to testify.
The complainant must attend and testify at this hearing and may also present any additional
evidence that they've gathered.
In addition, the respondent may provide testimony and evidence for the Board's consideration.
And both the complainant and respondent have a right to be represented by legal counsel
at the hearing or another representative.
And based on this evidentiary hearing, the Board will then determine if a violation of
the ordinance has occurred and then they might issue a sanction.
Once the Board has decided on the ethics complaint, the complainant and respondent both have five
business days to submit any new evidence and request a reconsideration in writing with
the city auditor.
The Board of Ethics chair will then review the reconsideration request and will unilaterally
determine if a new hearing is warranted based on the new evidence.
And so if during the evidentiary hearing, the Board of Ethics finds that a violation
has occurred, they may issue one of four sanctions, which are shown on the slide, and that's based
on the perceived intent and the seriousness of the violation.
And so that's just kind of a decision matrix on there for you to see, but I'm not going
to go through them.
And so if a sanction is imposed, the city official will be notified within 10 days by
the city auditor.
So questions about the ethics complaint process?
Great.
And that's the end.
Surprise.
Congrats.
I do need you to sign that you were at this training.
Thank you, Madison.
I think he mostly.
Thank you all for being here.
Commissioner Pruitt?
I do have a question.
It just took the entire presentation for it to sink in.
I was not fully aware, unless I misunderstood, the $600 limit applied to $600 of the company's
value.
It strikes me as we don't have that many of the Big Ten companies that own everything
in the world doing business in Denton, but if they do.
I think the intention is if you own stocks in something, if it's less than 5%, you're
probably OK.
I think it's talking about owning a company.
Does that help at all?
So it'd be $600 of interest in a private company, maybe?
Yes.
OK.
Yeah.
OK.
That helps.
Thank you.
Great.
Any other questions?
Sorry.
Before I leave.
OK, great.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
For making us all legal.
OK, with that, I will adjourn our work session at 5.43 p.m. and we will reconvene in council
chambers at 6.30.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, October 11th, 2023, with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.30 p.m.
First item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.
Thank you.
Our first item for consideration this evening is the approval of the Planning and Zoning
minutes from September 27th.
Commissioner Villarreal.
I move approval.
Commissioner McDade.
Second.
OK.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
OK.
Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That moves us to our Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Second.
First and a second to approve the Consent Agenda discussion.
OK, vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
Next is our items for individual consideration.
Our first is 4A, V23-0007.
Bryce is on his way for presentation.
I.
Bryce Villarreal, Assistant Planner.
So this is a variance request for two subdivision variances that we have for a final plat.
The variance request is from DDC Subsection 8.3.2.C.2A.
They're requesting a variance in an increase in the number of lots able to take access
from a private access easement, as well as the ability to connect a private access easement
to a private road.
The proposed subdivision is located on the north side of Amick's Road, approximately
one mile west of Seawolf Road.
The zoning of the property is the ETJ Division 1.
The applicant is proposing the subdivision to create four single-family residential
lots, as well as one large agricultural lot in the northernmost portion of the property.
This section of Amick's Road is a private road.
Here's some design details here, the red shown on the very right side of the screen is the
private portion of Amick's Road, and the nearest public road is in blue, that is Amick's Hill
Road.
The Amick's Road is a 60-foot wide right of way.
It's a private road, and the proposed private access easement is also 60 feet wide.
The two lots in the southernmost portion of the property will both have the ability to
take access from Amick's Road, and also from the private access easement, depending on what
the development would like to do.
The considerations that we approached with this application is that the guarantee of the
variance will not be detrimental to the public health or the public interest.
If approved, we do not anticipate there to be any sort of negative impact on public health,
welfare or injurious to other property.
The easement is 60 feet wide, as well as Amick's Road itself.
The way the property has been developed over time has led to a long and narrow nature of
the property, and strict adherence to the subdivision code that we have in the DDC would
not allow the property to be developed, as it does not have any public street frontage.
Additionally, if approved, the increase in the number of lots able to take access from
a private access easement, as well as the connection of a private access easement to a private road,
does not introduce design standards that are incompatible with the DDC or the DIN 2040
comprehensive plan.
The conditions associated with the variance requests were not created by the property
owner after the date of the adoption of the subject regulations.
Staff does recommend approval of these variance requests.
Any questions?
Any questions for Bryce?
I do not see any thank you for the presentation.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Second.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Let's vote, please.
The motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to 4B, which is related to this item, FP230011A.
Take it away, Bryce.
Commission.
Welcome back.
Bryce VanArstel, assistant planner.
Based on the approval of the presented variances, staff does recommend approval of this final
plat 230011.
It is a subdivision that creates four single-family residential lots, as well as a larger agricultural
lot in the back.
Are there any questions?
I'm happy to take them.
Thank you.
I do not see any questions.
Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Second.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to 4C, FP230026.
Mia is here for presentation.
Good evening.
Hi.
Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner.
This item is a final plat for Legends Ranch Phase 1A, located just north of West University
Drive, east of Thomas Egan Road, just east of the city's proper boundary.
This property is located within the city's ETJ, within the Legends Ranch Municipal Utility
District.
At this time, the plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval, so we are recommending
denial as staff, but we have no objection to the requested extension, which can be granted
to October 25th, 2023.
With that, I'll take any questions or comments you have.
Thank you, Mia.
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
Mia, do we know which aquifer that mud's going to be going into?
Is it the Palux or the Trinity?
I do not know, off the top of my head.
Sorry.
No problem.
I could get that answer for you and report back.
Yeah, maybe eventually get him an answer and then email it to him.
That would be great.
Any other questions for Mia?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Villarreal.
I make approval of the extension request to a date certain of October 25th, 2023.
Commissioner McDade.
Okay.
I've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of October
25th, 2023.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to 4-D, PP230021.
Hello, Julie.
Hello.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt.
This is a preliminary plat for a multi-family development located on the north side of Edwards
Road, just east of Mayhill.
They do have some items they still need to work through to make sure that they meet our
technical requirements for preliminary plat, and so staff is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to their proposed extension to the August -- I'm sorry, October
25th P&Z meeting, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Any questions?
Thanks.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Make approval of the extension request to a date certain of October 25th, 2023.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
I think we've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain
of October 25th, 2023.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to our public hearing portion of the meeting.
Our first item is 5A, S210005A.
Sean is here for presentation, and I will open the public hearing.
Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission.
Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner.
I'm just going to pull up the presentation here.
So I am here to present S21-005A, Teasley Lane Multi-Family.
This is a request for a specific use permit for a 94-dwelling multifamily on 4.019 acres
west side of Teasley, north of the intersection of Teasley and Hickory Creek.
This is a permitted use with a specific use permit in the SC Zoning District, so the question
for you tonight is whether this meets the additional approval criteria to receive a
specific use permit.
This case, or a similar version of it, came before you back in August 2022.
You recommended denial.
Since that time, the developer has met multiple times with the residents, and in response
to the concerns of the residents as well as the concerns expressed by the Commission,
a number of changes have been made to the design.
It has gone back through our staff planning review process, and we are now able to recommend
approval based on its consistency with our requirements and with the comprehensive plan.
So let's look with a little more detail at some of those changes and things that will
be new to you all.
So the number of units has been reduced by one, and the height has been reduced.
One of the concerns expressed was that there were not enough amenities on site, and so
there was a concern that residents would therefore be encouraged to trespass onto the neighboring
property to use the amenities there.
And so the developer has now added an 850-square-foot pool, a 2,000-square-foot playground
area, added a gazebo, is still providing benches, tables and grills in that front area,
and has expanded the open space that is miniatized by about 1,000 square feet.
There is one less trail because the second trail was provided originally in the flood
plain area, and residents are now being encouraged to stay out of that area because that is immediately
adjacent to the neighbor, so that the area where the secondary trail was will now be
blocked off by a fence.
There has been a rooftop terrace added.
The tree canopy has been increased by over 17,000 square feet.
As I mentioned, there is now a security fence, so again, that concern about trespassing.
There's a fence that now extends from essentially the northeast corner to where an opaque fence
begins on the western boundary, so there's now an unbroken fence line from the southwest
corner to the northeast corner, and I will show that in more detail on a coming slide.
There was also a concern just about the amount of buffering between the multifamily development
and the neighborhood, and so there have been an additional 25 trees added in that area.
Discuss that in a little more detail.
And finally, a concern particularly expressed by the commission was the design of the driveway.
It was located on the south side, on the east corner, and was therefore essentially guiding
drivers to drive directly in front of the sprouts as they were accessing Hickory Creek.
That driveway has now been relocated to encourage drivers to go behind sprouts if they are trying
to reach Hickory Creek going south.
So just to show you that in a little more detail on the site plan, you can see the new
fence that has been added, the expanded patio area, the other amenity areas, the new location
of the south driveway.
Parking still achieves at least one space per bedroom, and as you know, the design uses
an underground parking garage to limit the amount of above-ground paving.
The building has also been redesigned to add additional architectural features to break
up the façade, so there's many more awnings, balconies, and changes in materials.
And a rooftop pergola has been added to that northwest corner, so there's a terrace area,
essentially just to make that a little bit of a softer edge to the building that is closest
to those residents, the northwest.
Here's just a few renderings, that view from a couple angles.
The landscape plan, so again, this is 30% above minimum landscaping, 40% above minimum
tree canopy, meets or exceeds buffer requirements on all sides.
You can see those additional trees that have been added, and in particular on that northwest
side, those trees have been added right along the edge of the parking lot, which is where
the higher ground is, in order to provide maximum buffering of any headlights from the
parking lot, and some buffering of the view of the building itself, so they've been concentrated
in that area for a reason.
Again, the nearest residential is actually directly to the west there, and so that has
both the standard buffer along the west boundary line, as well as an additional 28 ornamental
trees and a six-foot opaque fence that are above and beyond our buffer requirements.
In terms of access and mobility, again, this does have three points of access, two teesley
lane through surrounding commercial, and then the access down to Hickory Creek Road, as you
can see, that relocated driveway in order to better direct residents.
Another thing that changed, just as part of the process, the developer is able to add
additional ADA-toss-friendly pedestrian routes to give residents leaving the site more options
that could be used by those of all abilities, and this is designed to, in general, provide
more ability to walk to the surrounding uses or to drive them without needing to ever go
on our public roads.
It does help to achieve the goals of our comprehensive plan in the realms of mobility.
Staying on that theme, obviously, one of the most important things we consider is our comprehensive
plan.
Future land use here is community mixed use.
Goal is primarily commercial with supporting complementary residential service and other
uses.
Because this multifamily use would help to support surrounding commercial, it does provide
that complementary use within the area, and overall, within that community mixed use area,
the residential density would still stay below the five to 10 dwelling units per acre recommended
by the 2040 plan.
Does also help to achieve our goals in the area of design along corridors, providing
safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians by putting people within walking
distance of the places they want to go, shopping, education, employment, shifting towards more
mixed use development.
Helps achieve our goals in the realm of housing choice by providing more diverse housing options,
and does align with our preferred land preservation plan and wildlife corridor goals by keeping
development out of the floodplain and actually adding trees and shrubbery to that.
In terms of compatibility with the surrounding area, as zoning district, SC does actually
permit commercial uses of the same height, scale in this area already.
Mixed use area, so you can see around there, we have a mix of commercial and residential
uses, and so this would be an additional part of that mixed use that would help to support
the surrounding commercial, while also providing something of a transition or buffer between
TZ lane, an expanded primary arterial, the noise of that, the commercial, and then the
residential to the west and north of it.
In terms of minimizing adverse impacts, we've addressed this, but again, that screening
compatibility buffers, extensive buffering of surrounding residential.
In terms of traffic, this would produce about 402 weekday trips, so AM/PM peak there, 30
and 37.
The TIA was approved with no significant traffic impacts.
There is significant traffic around in the area, and that will increase, but this is
not the primary driver of traffic impacts in the area, and so no mitigation was recommended
there.
The cross-connectivity and those multiple exits, the fact that you're able to leave
in my multiple routes helps to reduce the traffic impact on the area, and it will have
to meet all of our lighting requirements.
All of the standard public outreach was done.
We did receive one response in favor.
So with all that, this does meet all of our approval for criteria, both regular and specific
to the SEP.
Staff does recommend approval with a number of conditions, and these are essentially designed
to incorporate the key elements of the plan, while also providing some staff flexibility
in areas where landscaping is located, how many are designed.
With that, that is my presentation, and I will stand for any questions.
>> Thank you, Sean.
Any questions at this time for Sean?
Okay.
I do not see any.
Thank you very much.
I do have some cards in front of me.
The first will be the applicant, so I will invite Amy Bissett up and get the presentation.
>> Good evening, Chair and commissioners.
Amy Bissett, 97 LAN, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201.
I do have a presentation, so I'm going to pull that up here.
>> Thank you.
>> Give me just a moment.
As Sean mentioned earlier, this has come before you previously in August of '22.
I was not involved with the project at that time.
I was contacted after the recommendation of denial and engaged specifically to facilitate
neighborhood engagement activities prior to them redesigning their site and resubmitting
to the city for new reviews.
And so I'm going to speak specifically to my activities and the neighborhood engagement
that we have endeavored to take on over the last year.
In fact, I was engaged just almost exactly a year ago and have been active on the project
since then.
As you know, this is a four-acre site located just north of Sprouts.
It's predominantly one- and two-bedroom units.
There are 94 units, and 86 of those are one- or two-bedroom units.
And as you know, the zoning requires an SUP, and this has been here before with a recommendation
of denial.
When we were brought on to assist with neighborhood engagement, we took a broader outreach to
include full subdivisions.
With our first round of neighborhood meetings, we mailed to every address in Lexington Park
about 280 addresses, and in addition, we contacted the HOA and utilized their distribution list
by email and their social media.
And we also contacted the HOA for Wheeler Ridge and provided digital invites to that
neighborhood as well.
We launched a dedicated web page that provided ongoing information over the last year to
the neighborhood every time an update was made.
And we recorded every single meeting and made it available to anyone within these neighborhoods
who had reached out to us and expressed an interest in learning more, whether they attended
a meeting or not.
We held our first three meetings in November.
They were virtual because it was so close to Thanksgiving.
And with those first three meetings, we received 46 RSVPs and an additional seven requests
for information.
Not everybody attended those meetings, but they were well attended.
And we provided the recording of the meetings and the slides afterwards to anyone who had
reached out to us.
I'm going to walk you through in a few minutes kind of the iteration of what came out of
those November meetings.
And then we went back to the drawing board and came back in January for two in-person
meetings where we had 16 RSVPs total.
And at the conclusion of those meetings, we began the staff review process with the city
again.
We went through five submittals with the staff between January and August of this year.
And when we were released to come to public hearing tonight, we held two additional virtual
meetings on October 2nd with 22 RSVPs.
So that was seven neighborhood meetings total over the course of the last year.
I'm not going to rehash the zoning designation or the SUP requirements, as Sean covered those
in detail.
What I do want to do is talk you through the iterations that have occurred and why over
the last year.
This was the original site plan that came forward in August of '22.
Just make a note at the bottom of the screen where the north arrow is pointed to your left.
Most of the time you're going to see that orientation because of the shape and length
of the building.
So this was the original site plan.
When it came to PNZ, we heard concerns about access and safety through sprouts and the
additional traffic, the lack of on-site amenities and specific concerns from the Lexington Park
HOA about the ease of access to their pool and pond and trails and playground.
We heard security concerns between the multi-family and single-family.
The scale of the development, the adequate amount of open space and concerns about drainage
issues.
The way we identified and addressed the access and traffic concerns, this is the original
site plan again and you can see the two primary points of access to the site we relocated.
This shows it with the sprouts overlay where you can see that one of those points of access
kind of directly dumped out into the front door or the front drive aisle through sprouts.
So we relocated that to the other end of the site to where the access was pushed to drive
behind sprouts where there's a 30-foot public access easement today.
And that is shown here on the updated aerial.
On-site amenities, the original site plan did not include the on-site amenities that
the neighborhood was concerned would be problematic for them.
So in our initial iteration in November, we did add a playground and a pool and the walking
trails that were closest to the neighborhood and the pond, we proposed a wrought iron fence
around those walking trails to prevent direct access.
Here are some of the renderings from those presentations in November.
And then this was the original rendering that you saw last August and then this was the
updated rendering in November of last year.
We had addressed detention by identifying that there's both dry detention pond that's
above ground as well as underground detention proposed as shown on this site that extends
the length of the majority of the parking lot that's above ground.
We heard from the neighbors at that point in time that they were still concerned about
the scale and height of the building, that the architecture seemed flat was the description.
Fence concerns, they wanted to see a fence between us and the single family, but they
were concerned that it'd be tall enough and that we'd be able to receive approval from
FEMA and they wanted to see a larger pool.
They felt like it was too small.
Concerned about noise and light from the car wash and tree sizes and landscape buffer.
So in January, we came back and proposed the removal of the fourth story hard corner nearest
the neighborhood to provide height relief, increased building material variation to provide
greater architectural softness and an increased pool size.
We also relocated all of the walking trails to the other side of the building so that
there was no residential view of the trails around the pond that might invite them to
cross the crossover into the Lexington Park neighborhood.
We made a commitment to plant large canopy trees for visual buffering and additional
screening hedges and we doubled the tree canopy requirements.
We relocated the fence to the edge of the parking lot and placed trees and landscape
buffering between the fence and the neighborhood so that we fenced the residents on one side
and then provide all of the green buffering on the other side closer to the neighborhood.
These are renderings from January.
These are renderings from now.
So now that the actual building materials have been selected and updated, we reflected
those in the renderings.
You can see the rooftop terrace that is a drop, basically the removal of that fourth
story unit and there's been added a lattice with greenery to provide a visual screening
between the rooftop patrons and being able to look out at the pond and the neighborhood.
There's an overall height reduction and you can see the building materials that were selected.
This is the view across the pond last January.
This is the view across the pond today based on the changes that have been made.
I'm going to walk through, I'm going to skip the rest of what I've got here because I'm
going to show you a visual of it here in just a moment.
January renderings, October renderings, here's a rendering that shows the pool, the larger
pool size as it's currently programmed, the playground and the walking trails that are
on the opposite side of the building from the neighborhood.
This is the overall site plan that includes the underground parking and really focuses
on working with the existing topography and focuses on the landscape and tree buffering
between the development and the existing neighborhood to the north.
So I want to zoom in on that for a moment and show a couple of elements.
The bright blue line is the six foot wrought iron fence.
Then you've got the transplant of six significant sized cedar elms from other locations on the
site shown here in the dark green plus the additional, there's 11 larger canopy trees
that are being proposed that are a mix of two different tree species plus a continuous
row of possum haul hollies along the wrought iron fence and of the Nellie Stevens hollies
along the existing wire fence north of the site that's on our property line.
Here's what both of those look like, the Nellie Stevens hollies grow 12 to 15 feet in height
and do provide a continuous screening.
There were some questions from the neighbors about whether or not those were appropriate
choices for this area.
They are both appropriate in terms of being in the correct zone and being able to survive
the winters and the summers here.
And as Sean covered, our landscape percentages and tree canopy percentages are more than
double what is required by the SC zoning.
We did get some additional comments from neighbors and if you don't mind I'll just wrap with
this.
This is my last slide and I won't go through all of these.
What was provided in your backup in addition to the notification map, the last two pages
were a chat record from our last two neighborhood meetings.
The longer list was from the 6 p.m. meeting and the shorter list was from the noon meeting.
We do have answers to some of those questions if you would like to hear them today or want
to go into specifics on any of these comments from the neighbors.
They were comments that were made or questions that were asked in the chat during the meeting
itself and we just kept a record of that.
To your question, Commissioner Villarreal, there were four people who commented in the
chat record that had questions or expressly directed or expressed opposition in that record
and I'm happy to go into more detail on any of that.
And I do have both her and the engineer if you have specific questions for either of
them.
I think that the developer did want to come up and say a couple words and is it correct
that we would be combined 20 minutes for that?
Yes, correct.
Okay.
Then I'm going to invite Tony Hader up here with Christians and Companies.
Great.
And we do have a brief video to play as well that I'll start while she talks.
Sure.
Good evening.
My name is Tony Hader.
Tony, I need you in front of the microphone.
Thank you very much.
My name is Tony Hader.
I'm with Christians and Companies and we are looking to come into your lovely community
and I first wanted to just start off with thanking Sean for the intro to our project
and he's been wonderful to work with for collaboration, getting this plan updated to where it's at
and then also with Amy helping us on board.
It has been fantastic working with her, working with the public.
So that has been great.
Through this video, through this video, kind of just shows the overall idea of what we're
looking at.
And then I do also have a board that has our actual building materials on if you would
like to see it, if you want to pass it around if I may start on one end and pick the other.
So, going through kind of your comprehensive plans, your plan for 2040, it does look like
you have almost half of your housings are actually rented out instead of owned.
And this location is actually under 15 minutes from the two universities that you guys have
in your community as well.
So we want, you know, we listen to the public, the comments that they had.
We want to be good neighbors.
We want everybody that's around our apartment building to enjoy being around our apartment
building and be in addition to the community.
So, unless anybody has any specific questions for me.
>> I believe we do.
Commissioner Prout.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Just a question.
I guess a lot has changed since this first came to us last year.
Just ballpark with the time delay plus the redesign plus the changes in the design.
Could you put a number from my head on how much we think we've increased the rents on
the proposed units versus the plan last year?
>> We have not increased the rents.
It's just part of developing the developer cost to make sure that we get the design that
the city wants.
They're still between the 1,000 and 2,000 per month, depending on whether it's a one-bedroom
or a three-bedroom.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> You will have three bedrooms, I thought.
>> Yep, there's eight three-bedroom, 41-bedroom and 46 two-bedroom.
>> Anything else for the applicant at this time?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
>> Sounds good.
Thank you for your time.
>> Appreciate it.
Okay.
This is a public hearing.
I have some cards, but you are welcome to speak even if I don't have a card from you
yet and I will ask again multiple times.
First card I have is Ryan Juergensmeyer.
Good evening.
If you'll state your name and address, your time will begin.
>> Thank you.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Ryan Juergensmeyer.
I've been a resident of Denton for seven years, and I currently reside in Lexington Park.
We gathered here today to speak in unison and voice our opposition to this project.
There are several reasons why we, the voters, your constituents, citizens of Denton, do
not want the apartment building in the small lot proposed by this developer.
The current area has more and more of us speaking out to the injustices placed upon the people
while those with money, power, and influence make the decisions that impact the people
they do not represent.
These out of state developers have come to Denton as part of the growth gold rush.
They want an apartment building to maximize profits when they see the dangling care handled
by a representative stating the need for more housing.
The problem with this project is that there are already established neighborhoods of single
family homes and many apartment buildings in the area.
Hickory Creek Ranch Apartments is only .8 miles away, has 212 units.
The Hunter's Creek Apartments, located only 1.2 miles away, has 214 units.
Along with these apartments, and within a five-mile radius of the proposed project,
there's also Hilltop Road Village Apartments, Holley Tree Apartments, Canopy at South Lakes
Apartments, Woodhill Apartments, London Berry Oaks Apartments, Waters Edge Apartments, Pace
Crossing Apartments, the Ridge at North Texas Apartments, Providence Place Apartments Home,
Preserva Pecan Creek Apartments, Lodge at Pecan Creek Apartments, Millennium Place Apartments,
Kensington Park Apartments, the Lakeshore Apartments, Ashley Village Apartments, and Lakeshore Village
Apartments.
That's all within five-mile radius of the proposed lot.
That's for a grand total of 3,498 units already existing.
Also, this list does not include the numerous townhomes, condos, and single-family detached
housing also available for rent, nor does this include those apartment buildings outside
the five-mile radius, where numerous large-scale apartment complexes are in various phases
of being approved and built.
And I think we know that from North Den, there's several, several projects.
We have a lot of land and a lot of space, and there's a lot of apartment buildings.
But this is where we're focusing on this four-acre lot in our backyards.
However beneficial renting is for those that are not in a position to buy a home at any
given point in time, building wealth in a strong community comes in the form of homeownership.
Those that currently live in the area of this proposed project need places to eat and shop
nearby.
Not more apartments, car washes, and urgent care centers.
We were not able to stop the building of the car wash on the same lot, nor the new urgent
care center built next door, even though there's an existing and operational urgent care within
less than a quarter mile of that one.
There's a total of 11 car washes within a five-mile radius of Tommy's Express car wash
that was just built on the same lot.
We don't want Den to become a town of apartments, car washes, and urgent cares.
At this rate, it seems as if this battle has been lost.
Those of us living in the Den and surrounding areas, because of the love of open land and
old Texas way, we don't want to, oh, I'm sorry.
We don't want to live in Dallas, Fort Worth, or Lewisville, where almost every open piece
of land has been paved over to mirror that of Los Angeles.
You have an opportunity to embrace the culture of the people you represent and do work on
their behalf, and not the behalf of the developer.
There's plenty of available housing for Den to grow, and plenty of available land to expand
into.
But dropping a four-story apartment building on a small open lot, where the proposed building
will be the tallest building around for miles and miles due to the land height and the height
of the building, will be the new beacon and symbol of Den, the new apartment mecca of
DFW.
What legacy do you want to be a part of, keeping culture and heritage of the people intact
or pushing aside the voices of your people for outside interest?
We all hope you choose to shut this project down, and thank you for your time and consideration.
And while I do have just a little bit of time left, I do want to address, because I did
see in the agenda all the attachments that were there.
Obviously, Exhibit 9 shows the buffer notification map, the 500-foot buffer and 200-foot buffer
zone.
Obviously, there are six houses total within that 500-foot buffer zone, and I know that
the -- if I could just finish up real quick, too.
Of course.
Also, Exhibit 12 is the fiscal summary.
This one kind of struck me, because it looks like here it's over a 20-year total general
fund impacts.
General fund net impact over 20 years is $40,200.
Take into account current inflation rates from the last 20 years, $1 is equal to $1.67.
So let's go ahead and cut this down to $20,000 over 20 years or a net increase to our budget
of $1,000 a year.
And I know that we had a number of people, residents, that spoke out on this project
this last year when this was being developed, and we had more engagement.
I felt like there was more communication from the builder and developer in response to that
at that time.
The only reason that I received notification for the latest meeting is because I attended
the last one.
We didn't get notification in the cards or anything else, so once we found out, we had
to spread the words ourselves.
So I think there's a little bit more of a lack of community engagement this time around
after the change has been made, but the apartment building is still the apartment building no
matter how we dress it up.
Thank you.
Next card I have is Ellen Keim.
My apologies.
Thank you.
I have the wrong agenda item.
Okay.
Next card I have for this one is actually the only other card I have is Stephanie Newhart.
Hello.
Good evening, everyone.
It's good to see some of you again.
A little over a year ago today ... Hey, Stephanie.
Will you state your name and address, and then we'll begin your time.
Thank you.
Stephanie Newhart.
Thank you.
4316 Bay Meadow Drive, Denton, Texas, 76210.
A little over a year ago today, I sat in front of most of you in opposition of this development
meeting.
That meeting was a catalyst to a whole lot more meetings, including one with almost each
of you.
Those meetings brought me so much insight, clarity, and forethought into the attempted
intentionality of Denton.
The framework we are creating, using, and changing to establish developments.
Chairman Smith, you taught me that it's so much more than just about buildings and people.
It's about the individual gears operating the entire city together that have to move
simultaneously to work so pieces don't get left behind or broken.
That Denton is unique, facilitating three major economies that directly impact each
one of us, whether we realize it or not.
Each piece is just as important as the other.
Chairman Cole, you taught me that it's more important to keep deeply committed because
it's more than just developing the future.
It's about making sure that we plan that because the land we're building on was the foundation
of its people's past, and that we're building on top of a whole lot of memories.
That families have grown and changed, and that the land can't always sit there.
It was understanding that because of families like yours, the state is now passing on tax
breaks.
It's important to recognize that homesteaded homes are not the reason for the $30 billion
surplus.
It's because of families like yours that are passing on their heritage to make way for
new homes and families.
In doing so, the financial burden has created a spread where once one ag-exempt owner is
now possibly hundreds of taxpaying representatives.
Madam Chair, you taught me that it's not about politics.
It's about a team collaborating with a vision established by a local committee to make sure
we don't forget where we started.
In hearing all sides of the story, so we do it, the Denton way, that you are all a team
of people who live and work here.
All of you shop at the same grocery stores that I do.
These conversations led me to run for City Council because I wanted to see things being
done differently.
I wanted to see better projects and hold developers accountable.
A year ago, it was never about flattening this project.
It was about bringing the community into the fold and making it better for all of us.
I understand why my neighbors are still upset.
It's 95 units where it used to be zero.
This developer took our feedback and truly made an attempt to alleviate the burden that
it would cause our neighborhoods specifically and on our HOA amenities.
As someone who owns and operates apartment units, pools and playgrounds and general amenities
are incredibly expensive not only to build, maintain, but also to ensure.
Adding these features was a gigantic financial impact to this developer and therefore they
weren't able to reduce the scale.
But honestly, this was actually the best option for a multifamily unit here.
If this developer were to reduce the scale but continue not to provide amenities, the
impact on us would have been immediate.
My goal was always to find the best for all parties.
This developer did that to the best of their abilities within the difficult landscape they're
building on.
Denton is growing.
The projections show that we will be the center of the Metroplex in 25 years.
The goal is to guide the growth, not control the growth.
Design for City Council requires tough decisions.
I very uniquely had an opportunity to possibly be voting on this.
Therefore, while it may not be the majority voice in the room tonight among my neighbors,
had I made a council seat, my consideration would actually be to approve this development's
SUP, understanding that they're required to maintain the project as promised.
Had I removed my home from the equation, this is an approvable project and that's what this
is about.
Thank you for all of your hard work.
Your positions are often thankless but necessary and vital and I appreciate all the time each
of you have committed to this.
My hope is to join you and continue making sure that we don't lose what we love about
Denton.
Thank you.
I don't have any other cards in front of me but is there anyone else wishing to speak on
this item?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Smith.
I'm going to make a motion to approve.
I'd like to just say thank you to citizen comments on the opposition, the fear coming
in with this apartment complex.
I live about a mile from this project site location as well.
I was also in opposition of this project when it first came through so to developer, consultant
and engineer, you guys did an awesome job of listening to what I think the commission
said as well as what the citizens brought up.
I think that while it was definitely more costly and more time consuming, the amount
of neighborhood meetings and feedback and responses to that feedback is probably in
my six going on seven years on the commission, probably the most responsive I've seen developer
with the neighborhood.
And so I'm very happy to motion to approve this.
Commissioner Cole.
So I'll second it and also this, I wish we saw more of this pragmatism and compromise
in the city.
For the applicant, the neighborhood and the city staff to keep at this and keep engaging
with one another.
This is how it should be and we have an empty seat up here tonight because our elected officials
don't know what compromise and pragmatism is and you are a real shining light in this
whole process.
I was a no last time, I will be voting to approve.
Thank you.
We've got a first and a second in starting discussion.
Commissioner McDade.
Thank you Madam Chair.
I was going to say that when it first came, I was also a no, but I was very, I was very
impressed when I heard the applicant say that they were going to take in all the extra dollars
and not pass it on to the consumer.
That really impressed me and with that being said, I will vote yes on this.
Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval.
More discussion.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Yes, I really appreciate everything you've done to engage the community here.
Stephanie, I appreciate your work to compromise on this.
I appreciate the changes made.
However, with that being said, I still don't think this plot of land makes too much sense
for an apartment complex of this size, so I'm going to continue to vote no on this.
Thank you.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you Chair.
I think it's a better project.
By better I mean more expensive.
It's going to attract a different future resident.
Perhaps the nearby neighbors will not run in fear of people who have a little bit closer
to the amount of money that they have.
I'll just point that there's an article that Professor Maureen Brady recently published
in the Harvard Law Review entitled Turning Neighbors into Nuisances.
And it's a historical take on how private law governed nuisances, and then eventually
that morphed into zoning.
And I'll just say we're doing a really good job of making sure housing that is built in
this city is not affordable, and we need to start turning neighbors into neighbors.
Thank you.
Thank you Commissioner Pruitt.
Any other discussion?
I guess I haven't said anything yet.
You know I struggle with this the first time around.
I'm still struggling with it, and it really has nothing to do with the fact of apartments
going here.
I think apartments are certainly appropriate and an appropriate neighbor here.
My issue is with the size of the lot, the topography of the lot, this small-ish complex
becomes a giant complex because of the way it's going to sit on that lot.
And as well, I think this is one of the most poorly designed ingress and egress developments
that we have.
I'm there every weekend.
It is very difficult at times to get in and out and around that complex.
And adding 94 apartments to that, and you don't have anywhere to go with ingress and
egress, and I appreciate very much the reconfiguration of this.
I think it's tremendous engineering to only lose one unit from the original and add all
of these things, and moving driveways and whatnot, but you're still basically shuffling
cars in and out of the same very small space that has multiple retail around it, you know,
this car wash right there, the new Einsteins, which is bringing in a tremendous amount of
cars, the couple of drive-throughs that we have, I mean, it's complicated now.
So while I greatly appreciate the neighborhood engagement, I think that is imperative as
Commissioner Cole said.
That's what we need to keep on doing.
And I'm happy that we did have a neighbor come and speak in favor, and that's great.
But my issue remains, I mean, we've got specific use permits in place in the SC corridor on
purpose, and that's not only to say, oh, the project is really pretty and appropriate,
is it appropriate for this specific spot.
That's what it's there for, that's why we do this.
And while I think it really is pretty, and I think that a lot of what was done and redone
to appease fears of the neighborhood, I just, I can't get on board with trying to cram this
in on this elevated lot.
So with that, and I think, is there anyone else wishing to speak?
I think we've all said something.
I'm going to go ahead and ask for a vote.
That motion will carry for two.
And I will ask Sean this, when does this go to city council?
Please.
I think it's at 7th.
November 7th.
Okay.
So the city council will hear this on November 7th.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
That will move us to our next public hearing item, which is 5B, S23-0005.
I will invite Angie up for presentation and open the public hearing.
Hey, good evening, chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglaris, senior planner.
Give me just a moment here.
Okay, this is S23-005, Olivia Apartments.
This is an SUP request for a multifamily dwelling use on approximately 22.81 acres of land located
just south of Dutchess Drive, approximately 740 feet to the west of loop 288.
The subject property is zoned suburban corridor.
Urban corridor lists multifamily as a permitted use with approval of a specific use permit,
which is why we're here before you this evening.
The site is situated, like I said, near loop 288.
It is a primary arterial.
It has four travel lanes, Dutchess Drive, where the site will take access off of as a
collector with two travel lanes.
It does have a five-foot sidewalk along the northern portion.
The site is currently undeveloped.
It does have significant ESA on site, and that includes upland habitat, undeveloped flood
plain riparian buffers, as well as water-related ESAs.
The surrounding uses, there's a variety of them.
There's some multifamily to the north and east of the site.
There are duplexes.
There's developing single-family and the adjacent R4 zoning.
There are also some professional offices across of Dutchess Drive and next door to the subject
property to the east of it.
So, there's a variety of land uses in and around Dutchess Drive, as well as along the
loop 288 corridor in the vicinity of where this site is located.
Give you an overview of this site plan.
As I said, it is 22.81 acres of land on that.
They're proposing seven buildings.
Four of those buildings are your traditional low-rise, multifamily buildings.
The remaining three, which are kind of tucked here in the corner, are more of a townhome-style
cottage product.
Between those seven units, there are 262 apartment dwelling bedrooms.
On site, there are 448 parking spaces, 114 bicycle parking spaces, and the site is designed
so that really those main buildings hug Dutchess Drive and frame the entrances.
The parking is tucked in the back.
There's internal pedestrian circulation, which takes access off of Dutchess Drive, works
its way through the site, providing connectivity to and from the apartment complexes, and then
eventually stubs out towards the bottom for potential future parks trail dedication.
There's also on-site amenities for residents of the site to use.
That includes two dog parks, passive and active areas for open space, an amenity center, as
well as a pool.
There is approximately 6.7 acres of ESA land that is proposed to be dedicated to the Parks
Department to be kept in its natural state.
Part of the conditions of approval with this that's being recommended is if for some reason
that parkland dedication does not go through, the property owner keep and maintain that
land area in its natural state.
Looking at the landscape plan in a little bit more detail, they are required or they're
providing a landscape buffer along this western property boundary where adjacent to single
family uses that are currently being developed.
Within that buffer, they're preserving 50% of the existing tree canopy.
They're also providing internal landscaping.
Your traditional nine by 18 landscaped islands with canopy trees are located within there.
On-site, they're providing approximately 57% tree canopy coverage, 61% of landscaped area.
That is 505,000 square feet roughly of landscaped area of that approximately 367,000, 100,000
of that is to remain undisturbed.
They're providing our required street tree requirements of one tree per every 30 feet
along Dutchess Drive and the plans reflect a generally 43% preservation of their total
land area on-site.
That's a little bit deeper look at the landscape plan.
I want to talk about conceptual elevations because the building height in areas of transition
does come into play with this project.
These townhome buildings, the ones that I pointed out earlier, are within 50 feet of
R6 zoning.
They're not allowed to exceed the height of the allowable height in the R6 zoning which
is 40 feet.
These buildings come in at approximately 24 feet and eight inches.
Then we're between 50 feet and 100 feet of R6, they're allowed the allowable height of
the R6 zoning plus 15 feet which is 55 feet.
That's also the allowable height of the SC zoning district.
However, all of these buildings come in at roughly 39 feet, six inches.
Just kind of give you an idea of what the product will look like as well as how they
meet our height adjacency requirements.
Looking at this and how it matches with our comprehensive plan, the future land use designation
is moderate residential which is intended to apply in areas of central Denton.
Transition zones between existing single family uses and mixed use areas towards our commercial
corridors.
This product is consistent with the goals of moderate residential.
It does serve as a transition area as you get closer to Loop 288 and it's consistent
with the development patterns and scales that we see in and along the Loop 288 corridor.
The urban design principles in the comprehensive plan and table 4.1 call for a number of standards
but this building demonstrates siding the buildings along Dutchess Drive, framing those
entry ways, situating our parking behind buildings so it's not immediately visible to those who
are driving along the right of way.
It's preserving existing tree canopy in ESA and is also compatible in scale to the developments
around it.
This does meet our continued housing goals of meeting needs of residents and a diverse
style of product as well as price points and it also meets our land use goals to grow compactly
by providing development within the Loop in an area that's adjacent to existing services,
career opportunities, retail and existing residential.
It does meet that of developing compactly, developing the land inside the Loop provides
access to key components of the city and then also the site itself is developing compactly
whereas the most northern portion of the site is being developed while that southern portion,
approximately 43% of it is being preserved in accordance with our ESA regulations.
Speaking of ESA regulations, the preferred land use plan generally follows our official
ESA map.
As you can see here, there is a substantial amount of ESAs on this site.
As I mentioned, there's upland habitat, there's water related ESAs, there's riparian buffer.
The site does demonstrate consistency with our approval criteria for environmentally
sensitive areas in the DDC and is currently showing again preservation of approximately
43% of the total property.
At this time, the site does not need an alternative ESA and is compliant with our goals of land
preservation.
As I mentioned in work session, if for some reason something changes during the civils
and it doesn't appear that they're able to meet those ESA requirements, they would be
back before you all with an alt ESA plan that would be a public hearing that would need
to be approved.
As part of the overall land preservation and wildlife corridors, one of the key action
items that did come out of the 2040 plan was identifying and mapping wildlife corridors
and that's this map that you see here.
So I'll explain this a little bit.
The green areas that you see, these are the green space areas that were identified in
the wildlife corridor mappings.
These are consistent with what the ESA map shows.
So when you look at the two land areas, you'll see they follow the same pattern.
This darker line here is what's estimated to be the wildlife corridor.
The wildlife corridor on this site is generally estimated to exist parallel to that Pecan
Creek tributary that's running along this portion of the property line.
The proposed buildings on site, when you look at how close they might be to the wildlife
corridor, the closest building from where the estimated corridor is is 214 feet.
The perimeter fence is 145 feet away from where this estimated wildlife corridor is
to be.
So by preserving this lower 43% of the site and leaving it undeveloped and in its natural
state, they're also meeting that they're providing buffering between where the buildings
may be and the wildlife corridors, leaving that area of the site largely untouched.
Looking at mitigating adverse impacts, which is a criteria for approval for SUPs, they
again, as we said earlier, are providing that western buffer to where will be a future residential
developments.
They are required to provide some offset improvements per their TIA.
One of those is to construct the southern half of Dutchess from Mockingbird to the eastern
site boundary.
Along with that, they would be responsible for constructing their portion of the sidewalk
and shared use path that is supposed to go along Dutchess Drive, and then also providing
re-striping to provide a two-way left turn lane from Mockingbird Lane to Dutchess Drive.
In addition to that, they're required to meet our standing lighting details, which
means at the property line, light spillover shall not be greater than one foot candle.
They're providing 61% area of landscape coverage and 57% of tree canopy, respectively, we require
in the SC 20% landscape coverage and 30% tree canopy coverage, so they are exceeding our
minimum requirements.
The upland habitat preservation requirements in the DDC specifies that residential developments
preserve 50% of the upland habitat, which is what this development is held to and they
are demonstrating compliance with.
I do want to note that SC allows a range of uses, many of those are commercial, so this
is able to mitigate adverse impacts to the upland habitat better than a commercial development
might be able to because a commercial development would be allowed to reduce their preservation
to 30%.
By developing as residential, you're arguably preserving more of that upland habitat area,
and those preservation requirements also require that that area remain largely intact, so there's
not separation of areas that are identified as upland habitat.
And then as we discussed earlier, they're compliant with our height and transition zones,
so the buildings that are closest to the residential are matching that scale and providing the
compatibility and architecture that we want when we have multi-family developments next
to residential developments.
I don't have this on the slide here, but I did want to mention that the applicant don't
hold two neighborhood meetings, they were earlier this summer, there were no attendees
at those, we did send out notifications to those within 200 and 500 feet, I did receive
three letters in favor to those responses.
We are recommending approval, there are a number of, as this meets our criteria for
general approval as well as our specific criteria for specific use permit approval, with a number
of conditions.
Those conditions are related to tying down the site as you see it today, specifying the
number of units that are allowed, the minimum landscape area that we expect to see, the
preservation of the ESA, the stipulation that if they're not able to comply with our ESA
regulations, that they do have to get an all ESA plan, as well as our standard language
that allows for some staff flexibility to accommodate for minor planting adjustments
that may need to be made along the way.
We are recommending approval, as I said, with those conditions.
The next step for this project would be city council at the 24th.
I know this doesn't quite allow for the one meeting between when you originally hear it
and city council, but as we get closer to the end of the year and we have fewer meetings,
as well as trying to mitigate the number of public hearings we have on any one item, kind
of just trying to do the best we can going forward.
With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have.
The applicant is also here, I believe they have a presentation, and I'm done.
>> Thank you, Angie.
Any questions for Angie at this time?
Thank you.
Okay.
Now I will call up Ellen.
Okay.
That works.
However you want to use your time, it's fine.
Hello there.
>> Hi.
How are you all?
>> Will you state your name and address for us?
For the record, please.
>> Yeah.
My name is Griffin with Trumont group.
Our address is 14241 Dallas Parkway, we're in Addison.
I founded Trumont group about seven years ago.
We're originally from Fargo, North Dakota.
I'm here today to kind of put a face behind the name of who we are and why we want to
be working with you all in the city of Denton.
Primarily, quickly my role with the company, I oversee our operations, new investments,
our staff, and projects and our developments.
You know, we started Trumont largely in part to create value and that's across the board
and create win-win situations.
That means for ourselves, obviously, our partners, our stakeholders, our design team partners
and consultants, and importantly, most importantly, our stakeholders being our residents and future
residents and the cities that we work within.
We're super keen to work alongside cities.
Angie has been amazing to work with wherever she went.
So thank you for your responsiveness and, you know, we went through three rounds of
comments and back and forth with your staff.
Each and every one of them in the departments has been responsive, which we greatly appreciate.
We met with Councilwoman Bird.
She obviously we'll see her in a few weeks and the rest of the team, but, you know, we
have her verbal support and a lot of her incorporations into this design as well.
And at the end of the day, if we're not creating win-win situations, it's not a project that
we want to be a part of.
We certainly, as Angie noted, did not have the same community outreach and input on the
project.
We had plenty of city input.
Y'all's development code is strict, which we can appreciate.
I think it's important to note that we had no variances and that we complied with everything
within it.
We believe that the community outreach was limited in this case, largely because of the
location that we're in and we truly believe that this location is meant for apartments,
not only by our viewpoint, but y'all's as well as Angie noted in the comprehensive plan
and then what current zoning.
And I appreciate your comment in the last public hearing of this specific use permit
is there for your review to see if it fits this specific piece of land, which again,
we obviously stand by.
I'll just note quickly on our partnership, the partners that we founded this with, it's
been my best friend since the first grade.
Our extended partnership has many units, largely throughout the Midwest where we're from and
a history of owning apartments for 30 years.
So our intention is to be here for the long-term, to be owners for the long-term and to be very
much a part of the communities that we build and develop within.
We are the contractor of record as well.
That company is Trumont Construction, also owned by myself and my other two partners.
Again, because we believe in developing quality projects, controlling that quality and complying
from the minute our vision merges with y'all's all the way through completion and through
ownership for the next hopefully couple decades that we're alongside y'all.
I will, Angie did a phenomenal job kind of outlining the project, so I'll skip a little
bit about the location, but just quickly on the project progress, again, we've been through
three rounds of comments.
We have our design team lead internally, Ellen's our project design manager and then we've
got our engineer and our landscape architect as well here to address specifics and how
we've worked with a very challenging site that's, if not developed the right way, may
never be developed and again, how we believe we're enhancing the specific area that we're
in.
We attended your working session, so we're prepared to address a few of the questions
that were brought up and as far as the rental rates and the type of community that we're
aiming to develop, it's in that same price point.
I believe we were about an average rental of $16.50 across the community, but that's
a blend of our one, two and three bedroom units and yes, again, I'll just be repeating
Angie here, but I'll just quickly get into the type of developments that we have, typically
they're market rate, class A developments, the amenities that we have.
We believe to be industry leading, I can't tell you the amount of time that we spend
thinking and forward thinking again, we intend to own these properties for the long term
and the amount of redrawing that we do to properly fit the amenities that will serve
today and tomorrow and also make room for plenty of green space and outdoor living.
As Angie said, we've preserved 43% of the site, some by necessity, but we've made concessions
down from an original plan of over 300 units to 262 to fit y'all's Denton Development
Code, but also to make a site plan that we believe will be effective and desirable for
the long term, I'll let Alan get into a couple of those details, but first we're going to
call up Josh with Quiddity our civil engineer, sorry I was off in another land, but I'm happy
to answer any questions, we're super excited to be here, we've been looking in the City
of Denton for five years now, we haven't got to submit a plan, I've gotten to know Ron
McGinty in the planning department for a while, most recently Angie, we've shared this plan
with Ron before Angie was on the case and he was excited about it and supportive of
the location and we're just, recognize Denton's growth of course, as y'all do as well, but
we're here to be a part of it and really excited to be here, so thank you.
Good evening commissioner, my name's Josh, I'm with Quiddity Engineering and my address
is 2657 Gosling Way, Fort Worth, Texas, I wanted to address some of the concerns brought
up during the work session, Commissioner McDade, you mentioned the concern about traffic, we
had a traffic impact analysis approved in July, as part of that traffic impact analysis,
we worked with the city to incorporate the adjacent traffic impact analysis, it's done
along the 288 corridor in Dutchess Drive so that we're looking at the overall picture
of what traffic is doing in the area, not just our site specific, as part of that traffic
impact analysis, the determination was that we needed to build out the south portion of
Dutchess Drive along our property frontage and striped that to incorporate a two way
left turn lane, in addition we'll be providing the sidewalk shared use path along the south
portion of that drive. From a civil engineering perspective, the site will be designed with
the Denton Development Code, we're going to design it per all the design manuals, seeking
no variances, we're looking at the environmental concerns there, we're looking at the drainage
and any mitigation that may be required along the way, that will all be done per the manuals
and the design code and we'll be working closely with staff throughout the entire process to
ensure that we're following the letter of the law. A lot of the site will be designed
around the concrete corridor, we understand the importance of that and we've provided
additional buffers to ensure that we're not negatively impacting that corridor, part of
that is dedicating the parkland and leaving it in natural conditions, another is outside
of the ESA we provided a five foot buffer to ensure that we're not impacting any trees
that are within that ESA. Additionally, this is my firm's fourth project with Trumont doing
the construction and the design and so we haven't had any environmental issues come
up to date and that's our intent going forward. Jeremy Vlad with ValleyQuest can talk about
the trees and how we're uniquely avoiding the ESAs and all that good stuff.
Hello. Hi, I'm Jeremy Vlad with ValleyQuest Design, 222 South Elm Street here in Denton,
and I believe that my part here will be the shortest but definitely one of the most important
as we worked our way through working with city staff and definitely the tree preservation
plan aspect of the design and working with the environmental department. As Angie already
mentioned and it's summarized here, we are exceeding the minimum preservation requirements
and above and beyond that in a lot of ways. It's interesting in a lot of the preservation
plans that we do, you really get to see the numbers and the percentages of what's being
preserved but what doesn't really show through in the numbers are areas like we have on the
southern part of our site, that 43% that you keep hearing about where there are innumerable
trees and more than just trees, obviously the understory and other valuable habitat that
are being preserved. One of the things that we did on this project
that was a little bit unique as well just to help alleviate some of those preservation
and open space concerns was to, as you know, there is a definite line out on the site that
delineates the environmentally sensitive areas. We took that line and gave it an additional
five feet just outside of that to where our development impact area is. We had a lot of
back and forth with the design team and the architects, they were great about moving their
building. Sometimes architects don't understand how the buildings can affect the trees so
everyone, I think, came to a good understanding of getting those buildings to a place where
we, the developers, comfortable using the space that they have and maximizing the space
that they have and still preserving those quality and heritage trees out on the site.
But as I mentioned, that additional five foot buffer really ensured that we would really
reduce the impact to the environmentally sensitive area itself. So that was kind of our contribution
in addition to the landscape plan but I think that, you know, the highlight of this effort
was really the preservation and protection of those environmentally sensitive areas.
>> I will turn the phone over to Ellen. >> I know we're a little over here but I
just wanted to -- >> You had a total of 20 so you're good.
>> Oh, we're good. Wonderful. I just wanted to show some of the renderings here. We are
meeting all of the Denton code with the, you know, differing materials, the different facades,
the roof lines, the larger grand entrance, the secondary entrances. So while, you know,
going through plans, these may differ slightly. This is -- we will intend to meet code for
every point. And then just some examples of our past work. This is our apartment in West
Dallas that has been open for just about a year. 318 units. This is a project under construction
in north Fort Worth that will be opening at the end of this year. And we have a project
slated to start in Texas. And that is it. >> Any questions for the development team?
>> Thank you, Jared. Feel free to distribute this amongst yourselves or staff if it would
be better answered there. Just a couple questions about mobility and the trail access and that
sort of thing. I think the first half of this may be more about you and the second half
is probably more staff. Understand how the layout gives access that way. It's gated.
So presumably that access point is intended for residents, is that correct?
>> Yes. So what we have looked at here, let me see. So on our site, our trail access is
right in this bottom area here and connects through the site. We are planning to dedicate
all of this land. And we have also talked, have been in conversations about dedicating
a strip of land that actually connects up to Dutchess so that the city in the future
has the ability to connect it to Dutchess drive. >> Okay. I think that probably answers half
of my next question. The other half is probably a staff question, if I may, Chair.
>> Of course. >> So I can envision how that could connect
up to Dutchess. I recall, gosh, it might have been two years ago now, when we had an application
for the parcel to the west of this, I believe, there was talk about the secondary arterial
that's on our mobility plan that extends down from, what is that, Mockingbird, north of,
I'm sorry, it's not Friday yet, I shouldn't have an excuse, but anyway, north of McKinney
there, extends down south from there. And at the time, there was rationale given that,
well, there's enough parcels just east of this that we think will have some mobility
connections from north south as this develops. The way I see this here now, it basically
looks like it's cutting off that access from down here all the way up to McKinney, right,
in the future. And so I'm just asking, like, from a staff perspective, do we have a rationale
for why that is not needed? And if so, is there a reason that we're not looking at a
mobility plan amendment here and that sort of thing? Does that make sense, Angie?
>> I do follow the question. I would need to pull probably transportation's comments,
which I can pull up and see if Karina had the more detailed explanation within that
rationale. But I know that it was not discussed during this review. So let me, I can see if
I can pull that real quick. >> Sure. I'd appreciate that if you have any
background. So thank you, Chair. >> Of course. Thank you. This is a public hearing.
I don't have any other cards in front of me, but is there anyone else wishing to speak
on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for
a discussion or a motion. Commissioner Smith? >> Make a motion to approve.
>> Commissioner Cole? >> Second.
>> Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval. And I will just ask Commissioner
Pruitt, do you want to wait to get a response from staff?
>> I'm okay going forward. It's just my direction in general, I think, that this is a very huge
opportunity area of our city. There are some very large amassed parcels that those will
come in due time. There are also more parcels like this. So let's make sure we are dotting
our I's and crossing our T's about the type of connections we want, where we want them,
so that we don't force ourselves into more strange shaped odd situations, if that makes
sense. >> It does. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
We do have a first and a second for approval. Is there further discussion? Commissioner
Villarreal? >> Yes. Thank you. I appreciate all the mitigation
efforts you all are taking for this project. But with just environmental concerns still
in mind, I'll not be voting yes to this project. Thank you.
>> Commissioner McDade? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to
say, you know, very nice presentation. But as everyone knows, I'm not a big fan of apartments.
And I think true, Denton does need apartments. I think about the last public hearing the
speakers talked about they had 3,000 apartments within a one mile area. If you look in that
area which I actually live in, you're looking at almost 10,000 apartments and it's still
growing in a one mile area. I'm glad they're actually doing the traffic right there at
Dutchess. But right now I just don't think that area needs any more -- I really like
the townhouses. And we could have more of those. But as far as apartments in that area,
I just think we have too many in that area. And for that reason, I'll also vote no.
>> We've got a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion? I'll just say a couple
of words. Thank you for coming out and putting together a nice presentation. You know, this
is one of those specific use permits that I think, you know, we've done a good job with.
I think it fits with what is already developing in that area with the way we're going to connect
Dutchess eventually to Woodrow down the road. I think the concessions that you've all have
shown with the environmentally sensitive areas is being handled. I'm hoping that we don't
see an alt ESA come before us. That's my hope as this project. If this project does move
forward, that is my hope. So keep up that mitigation work, please. With that, let's
go ahead and vote on the board, please. That motion will carry for two. Okay. That will
take us to our planning and zoning matrix. And I will have the floor for that.
>> Good evening. So we actually have not had any additional council action on anything
since our last meeting, so nothing to report there. I did want to bring up some dates with
respect to our three area plans just to keep on your radar. For the northeast plan, just
a reminder that the joint meeting that had been previously scheduled for later this month
has been canceled. However, we are doing a special called PNZ meeting on November 1st,
so you should be getting calendar invites from Kathy if you haven't already received
that. And that will be to discuss the implementation strategies coming out of that plan so far.
So we'll then meet about that at a work session on the 14th of November. With the downtown
plan, you may have seen Cameron and Sean out and about at various events. That will continue
through the fall. They have a lot of public engagement going on, including great responses
that they gathered at the Jazz Festival last weekend. And we are looking at a December
5th joint meeting with city council to discuss the downtown plan. So just a date to keep
on your calendars as we move into the holiday season. And then with the southeast plan,
they're currently going through about a month's worth of intercept surveys. So you'll see
Julie and Mia out at various locations around the city, or mostly in southeast Denton, trying
to gather responses on that. I know they were at one of the schools today trying to inspire
future planners as well as get some younger opinions on the plan. So they are doing rigorous
community outreach there. And we do have a tentative plan for a joint PNZ and council
meeting about southeast in January. So you'll see more information about that as we move
along. And that is all I have to report. Great. Thank you. Is there anything to be added to
the matrix? Commissioner Pruitt. Yeah, I don't know whether this would be a formal matrix
item. I guess I have a question for staff/legal. Several of the community members and presentations
tonight have brought to my mind that the terminology planners speak of homes that are oriented
in a multifamily building is often used of units or apartments as opposed to speaking
about the homes people would live in and then speaking of an apartment building when we're
talking about the physical building. And, you know, maybe I need to be less pet peevish,
but my feeling is that that borders on dehumanizing the majority of Denton residents who do rent
and all of the new residents that could move here. So I don't know if it's something that
we need to talk about as a body to see, you know, are there that or other language that
we feel could just bring civility and unity to some of the discussions between us and
the public. And there may be other things, too, but it's just something that's been on
my mind for a while and kind of came to a point this evening. So, you know, if there's
no legal reason, for instance, or procedural reason why we have to use that type of language,
my preference would be to move to language that respects all residents. And if we need
to have a work session to discuss that so we get everybody's input, I'm fine with that.
Go ahead. We were actually just talking with Danny Shaw from Community Development last
week and we do plan to have her team come do just kind of an update for you all on the
affordable housing toolkit and some general topics related to housing. So we can look
at rolling that into that discussion. That's a good idea. Commissioner Smith, maybe to
make to quantify or make a little more concrete. My buddy Eric's trying to get to I don't think
in for all the time on commission we've ever had a demographic work session item where
we break down what is the number of, you know, units in the city of Denton that are in multifamily?
What is the number of units that are single family residential? What is the number of
units that are located in mixed use area or zoned and specifically a residential single
family residential only area? I doubt that we have hard numbers on number of rent versus
zone, but I think it might be good information that we do that on a more periodic basis for
commission, just so that as we have these types of conversations, I think there's plenty
of and assumptions and we can feel like there are hundreds of thousands of apartment complexes
around us. But in true reality, it may not be that way, or maybe we can just at least
be more informed. And so I think that it might be good to also have that demographic data
that might help to lean towards what commission approves trying to get to, which is these
are homes and diversity of housing as part of the 2040 plan and us being able to talk
about it from the data standpoint might give us a reality of, yeah, we have 40% renters
in the city of Denton. I have no clue making that number up, which comparatively against
other cities is low, high, comparable for being a college town, so on and so forth that
might be just some good perspective for us as a commission to obtain.
I think that would be an excellent work session item, yes. Okay, anything else for the matrix
or any concluding items? Commissioner Villarreal.
Yes, just wanted to remind folks that early voting for the bond election and the Texas
state constitutional election does begin Monday, October 23rd and election day is Tuesday,
November 7th. Thank you for that. And there is great information
from the city regarding the bonds, so if everybody needs information on those propositions, they
are very well documented online, so I would encourage everyone to do their homework before
voting day. Thank you for that reminder, Commissioner Villarreal.
And with that, I will adjourn us at 8 p.m. Thank you, everyone.