Good evening, welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session.
I'll open the meeting at 5.04.
It is Wednesday, June 5th, 2019.
First item of business is to receive a report for
the Development Code and City Initiated Rezoning.
I think Ron McGuint is here to present.
>> There it is, Chair, members of the commission.
Appreciate the opportunity.
This is a presentation just to prelude to what's going to be coming on the 26th of June,
is the next City Initiated Rezoning Group 2 is what I'm referring them to.
This is the schedule that we have prepared for the City Initiated Rezoning changes.
As you can see, we had our first one on May 29th.
It will be going to council next week on June 11th.
Again, the next upcoming one for the Planning and Zoning Commission would be June 26th and then July 10th.
Just want to give the commission an update.
We've been meeting with individual stakeholders, recently Denia Ranch Estates.
We will be meeting with UNT and other neighborhoods as we continue through the City Initiated Rezonings.
Not only to give them an opportunity to provide their feedback or their input, but just to give them notice.
It's one thing to receive a notice in the mail, but to have someone explain to them what's really going on at a meeting is helpful.
I had a really good meeting with Ranch Estates on last Thursday.
They were given an explanation of what we were doing, and they were very pleased, and we'll see that coming forward on the 26th.
And these other neighborhoods, we will be meeting with them as well,
as we get through the area, through the corridors, and into the neighborhood compatibility areas.
This slide here, just to kind of recap, we did hear 23.
We did not hear area nine at our last meeting.
That will be brought forward with the next group.
All 22 was moved forward by the commission.
There was one area that was postponed indefinitely, and that was area eight.
So this is the group two area that we're taking.
As you can see, it pretty much covers the entire city area.
I've got other slides here that zooms in.
I apologize for the quality of the image.
It's not as clear as I hope.
We have approximately 21 areas, 350 parcels with this one group.
So the first area that we're going to be referring to is what we call I-35 corridor.
Again, includes the area nine that was part of group two, now is part, I'm sorry, group one now is part of group two.
We will be taking some areas along I-35 by the university.
Those will be going to MR.
Moving further north on I-35 by 380,
between 380 and Ganser Road, upper area of the city, we will be taking a number of areas, as you can see here.
One area including the Ranch Estates development or neighborhood, that is proposed to go to an R1.
The others are going to G-O and H-C in the areas that you see here.
Another area that we'll be looking at is the loop in 380.
The majority of these are going to SC, suburban corridor, primarily because of what arterials they are.
That again being the loop and 380.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Is that, what is that, area 37?
>> Uh-huh. >> Is that that one that was split in three?
>> Correct. >> Separate parcel, and now it's all one?
>> It is, yeah, we're- >> It's going to be suburban corridor?
>> Correct. >> Okay, great, thanks.
>> I think this is the last of the groupings.
This is an area on the loop between the loop and Mayhill.
There are a number of areas that are zoned now for light industrial.
I think that the area is more suitable for general office.
And that's what you see here with the pairs between again, loop 288 and I-35.
And we'll get into the details.
I just want to give you all an idea of what's upcoming.
Not only for you to kind of think about, but also if you have a potential conflict of interests.
Obviously, we want to make sure that we have you make that announcement in front of consideration of these areas.
The majority of these will go from SC, GEO, and the last one would be MR, which is the larger area here.
The landfill is in this general vicinity, just kind of give you some orientation of where that area is.
And that's pretty much it.
We had a way of presenting it last, PNZ.
We're working, staff's working on a way of making it a little bit more concise, a little bit more shorter, is probably the better word.
So we're acknowledging how we did it last time.
And we've learned that that's probably something that we probably need to change.
So we're going to group them, as you saw here in this presentation, a little bit more higher level, still covering the necessary information.
And then as we have done with the last one, it will be a one consideration,
meaning one recommendation from the commission with the next group.
So anybody have any questions?
>> Mr. Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So we left area eight unsettled last week.
Where is that going to fit in as we proceed?
>> It will most likely be part of the group three.
>> Group three, okay.
>> Yeah, we're working on researching other information and we'll bring that as group three.
>> Okay, thanks.
>> Any other questions for Ron?
>> All right, great.
>> Great, thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> So that moves us to the agenda for this evening.
A couple of points before we begin, or just one point actually.
In the public hearing, item five D, which is kind of attached to five E.
It's the Hunters Creek project.
They are seeking a continuance on this item.
So what we are going to do this evening is move item D and E to item A, B.
In case there's any citizens or residents that would like to talk on that, we're just going to move it to the front end so
we don't have to wait for a postponement.
And then the plan is to open public hearing and see if there is a motion to postpone to a date certain of June 19th.
Other than that, the agenda is straightforward, right?
>> Correct.
>> So that brings us to our minutes.
Is there any updates or changes that need to be noted on the minutes by anyone?
We'll take those in two separate votes at the meeting tonight.
And that moves us to the consent agenda.
Is there any questions?
Looks like Julie has two and Mark has one.
Is there any questions on any of those?
Commissioner Beck?
>> Just some clarification.
I think it's, which one is that?
The consent agenda A, the, well, I left that.
>> The senior center, senior living center, is that just the extension of that, what is it, the Brookdale Denton cell?
Is that what we're looking at there?
>> Julie White, can you answer that one?
>> Yeah, I'm sorry.
Consent agenda A, PP1803.
>> All right, so this is a standalone lot.
So it isn't an extension, are you talking about an extension of the.
>> Right. >> Of the elderly housing on William Miller?
No, sir.
>> Because it sits, the area sits right behind it.
>> It does, it does, they are connected by a lot line, but it will be a standalone elderly housing use.
>> Okay, and they'll access off of William Miller?
>> No, sir, there will be fire access, or actually fire access will come from the adjacent property to the north.
But they will actually be accessed off of the I-35 access route.
>> From the, what would that be, the east end or the south end?
>> Kind of the northeast.
>> Okay. >> Side of the property.
>> Interesting.
Okay, thanks.
>> Any other questions for the consent agenda?
Great.
That moves us to individual considerations, item 4A, which is actually Julie White again.
I'll call her up for presentation on SP18-54.
>> All right, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton,
and I'm presenting SP18-54, Bel Air Assisted Living.
The request before you is to consider approval of an alternative development plan for a proposed elderly housing development.
The subject property is outlined here in yellow.
It is about 1.83 acres.
It's on the north side of McKinney, adjacent to Bel Air Drive.
The purpose of the alternative development plan is to deviate from sections 35.13.8 buffer requirements,
section 35.13.13.4, non-residential and mixed use buildings in a pedestrian-oriented district.
The current zoning of the property is NRMU 12, it does have overlay conditions on it.
The zoning was approved in 2015 in order to develop the site with elderly housing.
And so those overlay conditions restricted the uses.
Elderly housing is one of the permitted uses on the site.
It also restricted the maximum amount of building that could be under air conditioning,
added a privacy fence to the north and east property lines, also increased the tree canopy overall and also for the parking lot.
NRMU 12 is considered one of our pedestrian-oriented districts, so
it has additional design guidelines for that pedestrian-oriented development.
And the applicant is seeking an ADP to address some design criteria in order to develop that elderly housing use.
So just again, ADPs do allow for that flexibility from sub-chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code, and those are the design considerations.
So and here are the sections that they would like to deviate from.
So the first is that there is a requirement that at least 60% of the street frontage should have buildings within 10 feet of the property line.
They're actually proposing to set those buildings back 50 feet from the right of way,
in order to provide activity areas for the residents and also to preserve some existing trees.
The perimeter fencing, when placed on a property, it's not a requirement in the Denton Development Code, generally.
But the code does require that that fencing be placed inside of any landscape buffers,
and they're requesting to actually put that fence on the property line.
And then they're also requesting a deviation from the buffer requirements on the east property line due to a gas easement.
So we'll go over that while looking at their site plan and landscape plans.
So here is their proposed site plan.
They're proposing four 6,400 square foot buildings.
They're proposing to set them back 50 feet from the right of way.
The site includes three entrances, one full access entrance in the center, and then two just entrance only.
Activity areas are proposed for those front yards, as I said, and decorative fencing will contain those activity areas.
They're also proposing front porches on the buildings.
And here shows those fencing required by the overlay, and then the parking is proposed for the rear of the site.
So if they follow the DDC requirements to move those buildings up within 10 feet of the front property line, this is kind of what it would look like.
Here you have your four buildings.
That 10 foot -- the orange line is a representation of where that 10 feet would approximately be.
The black dash line is actually a 25 foot setback, which is what's required per the plat for the residential properties for the neighborhood adjacent.
And then here shows that 50 foot setback, and you can kind of picture what it would look like at the street.
They're proposing to actually move that back, once again, to provide -- to activate those front parts of the area.
It would actually be more in line with what you typically see in a residential area, and staff feels like it's appropriate.
When we talk about the landscape plan and the buffers, if they followed the subchapter 13 requirements,
that north fence would be placed in this location here within the landscaping between the fence and the adjacent property owner's fence.
Now in our analysis of the case, this is something that you can often see in commercial areas where you've got the fence on the inside of the landscape buffer.
But when you're talking about kind of a residential area such as this, that adjacent fence on this single family neighbor's property would really create a corridor.
So you would have this landscaping sandwiched in between two fences, making maintenance difficult and really not providing any actual buffer between those two.
And there is a type C buffer, and they are proposing to put that type C buffer here, but they just want to make sure that that fence is on the property line in here.
And here's showing what it would actually look like if approved, that fence on the north property line within those buffer trees between the building and that fence.
Just generally, their landscape plan, they are providing that 50% tree canopy per the ordinance.
It would be a total of over 40,000 square feet at maturity, over 34,000 square feet of new trees.
They're actually preserving over the minimum, 5,000 square feet over that minimum.
They've got the 20% parking lot canopy.
They have the privacy fences we talked about.
That additional buffer on the east side, here's that gas line easement, which really does prevent any additional plantings.
They have strategically located their landscape islands in their parking to take advantage of that existing tree canopy that's there, so they're actually preserving those trees along that eastern property line.
We're not really anticipating the use to create nuisances for the adjacent properties.
This elderly housing is a residential use, so we think it would function like any other residential, wouldn't provide any nuisances for the adjacent properties.
However, there will be headlights for the cars, and so that fencing will definitely mitigate any lights that would shine on the adjacent property.
Here's the proposed elevations, the color elevations.
The criteria for approval in subchapter 13, the first is it preserve existing neighborhoods.
The proposed design and uses are compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods per our analysis.
That parking has been located in the rear to reduce those visual impacts, and they've proposed to put those activity areas close to the street that would foster social interaction and provide a nice place for the residents to sit.
A share quality development, the request is not to lower design standards, but just to develop that elderly housing use.
The setback as proposed would maintain visual consistency with the neighborhood, and the additional tree preservation and planting in front yard would also elevate the design standards of the development.
Any fencing and buffers would mitigate light and noise for those adjacent properties.
Another criteria is to focus new development activity centers, this is an infill lot, so it's not contributing to sprawl.
Number four, ensure infrastructure can accommodate development.
The necessary infrastructure is in place, water, sewer, as well as roadways, and it would result in a high quality development meeting the intent of the standards.
That uniform 50 foot setback would create that visual consistency along the street.
The activity areas in the front yard would also contribute to livability for the site.
They're proposing, well, they're required as part of the development, pedestrian improvements, and that includes sidewalks and street trees, and then the 50% tree canopy on site would be consistent with residential development.
Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends the request as it meets subchapter 13, and I'll stand for any questions.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Julie.
When we talk about elderly housing, these, looking at the plans for them, it looks like they're single room only type occupancy buildings where they got their bedrooms, but there's a common area.
So we're not talking about elderly that require medical attention or anything like that.
>> This would be more of an assisted living.
>> Oh, it is. >> So it's going to be a little more intensive than a, you know, because elderly housing in our development code runs the gamut, and this would be more of the assisted living.
>> Okay, is one of the things that we're going to align, let me go find it here.
The maximum, it said, the maximum of 25,000 total square feet of gross air conditioned floor area.
But you said that there's going to be four buildings of 6,454, and that comes out to about 800 square feet over, so is-
>> That includes porch area.
So the overlay just was for air conditioned area.
>> Okay.
And just for my own notification, gas lines, underground gas lines, is there a distance that they have to be from residential units?
We don't put residences on top of them.
>> We don't, but the easement would- >> Right.
>> They have that easement taking care of.
>> On a minimum, okay, just curious about that, I think, thanks.
>> Any other questions?
>> Thank you, Julie.
>> Next item for business is item 4B, presented by Sean Jacobson.
It's ADP 19-5.
>> All right, good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Tonight, we're presenting ADP 19-0005, which is an alternative development plan for the Fred Moore Park.
So this is located at the corner of Wilson and Lakey Street, that northwest corner, northeast corner, I'm sorry.
It's on a plot of about 3.639 acres, primarily NR2 with a little bit of NR4.
And what's proposed is essentially an expansion park building.
So this is the culmination of a design that was presented to city council last year and was given consensus support by them.
But in the process of reviewing it, because we do have those non-residential and
mixed use buildings in a pedestrian oriented district, they apply because this is NR2.
Some of that design ran into some provisions of those standards, and so this ADP is to allow for some deviations.
And these are those four deviations.
So it would be that requirement for 25% windows, doors, or display areas when within 10 feet of a side street, a sidewall is within 10 feet of a street.
Requirement for 60% of the street frontage to have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line.
Requirement that developments have a minimum floor to area ratio of 0.4, which is that building area or pedestrian area is divided by that overall.
And then the requirement that windows require an architectural surround not be flush with the exterior wall.
So we'll talk through how those four deviations kind of fit into the overall design as we go forward.
Just to give you an idea of what's in place right now, this is actually one of our older park buildings.
I've been at an event there and it's quite small for what they're getting done there.
And so we have an opportunity to upgrade that.
You can also see the front there, it's primarily just grass and cement at this point, not a lot of additional landscaping and just beautiful.
On that side there, we have those dumpsters right along the street.
And again, you have a much older building.
You can see those air conditioning units on screen from the street there.
Overhead, we'll just zoom in there so you can see that is the existing building to the south there.
That as well as the two covered patio areas, all of that is proposed to be demolished.
And that would be replaced by a new building that would actually connect directly to that existing building to the north.
So one of those deviations, that proximity to the street by having a slightly larger setback there,
that allows the new building to align more closely with the existing building and kind of create the aesthetic of one building rather than two separate.
In addition there, you can see that this overall lot is primarily park.
And so therefore, that deviation from the minimum Florida area ratio to meet that,
we would have to dramatically expand the amount of building and pedestrian areas on that.
And that just wouldn't fit the character of a park.
So what's proposed is to keep that low and thereby preserve that natural park feeling.
In addition, so that's that building area there.
As part of this overall development, numerous additional trees are going to be planted.
And part of moving that building back a little bit farther than what's required enables additional trees to be there,
screen that building from what's across the street and create a much more attractive view for those folks across there.
And in particular, if you see that dumpster area there, rather than sitting right along the street as they do now,
we've worked with the applicant, with Parks Department, with the designers to move that back from the street,
to swing it to the side and to put about 400 square feet of landscaping around it as well as numerous trees,
screening that essentially from all directions, making that very hard to see.
So big improvement for the neighborhood across the street there.
With the windows, so you can see, and I'm sorry we couldn't get a better illustration in this,
but to the south you can see what's existing now and then the proposed elevation.
The windows proposed are designed to fit better with the aesthetic of the overall building,
rather than putting large windows that would be looking into a kitchen and a storage area,
proposing to limit the size of those windows and match the design more to the overall aesthetic of the building.
And then just so you can see from that front elevation there, what's current versus what is proposed,
be a nice open entryway and then we'll have landscaping and trees in there in between.
So again, much more pleasant view for the folks across the street there.
So the criteria we use for assessing this, preserve existing neighborhoods,
in this case with the additional landscaping and screening for both the neighborhoods across the street in Lakey and Wilson,
will be an improvement for them. Assuring quality development.
These deviations are part of creating better aesthetic alignment,
making the new building fit better with the adjacent building and preserving that park character, keeping it as natural as possible.
This is not an expansion outside the established park.
It's barely an expansion outside the current building footprint, so you wouldn't have any sprawl with that.
Ensure that infrastructure is capable, infrastructure is already in place for the building that's there.
And big thing there is ensure that what's being brought forward, this alternative is a high quality development.
Again, I've just highlighted that change there for the dumpster, vast improvement over what's in place there.
And again, you've seen we're taking an older building and put in place great improvement, many more trees, much more landscaping.
So overall, it's a very pedestrian welcoming, which is really the intent of the provisions that we're deviating from.
But in a park environment, this is really more welcoming to pedestrians to have that additional landscape.
So with that, staff recommends approval of this request as it meets our requirements for an ADP and I'll stand for any questions.
Any questions? Perfect. Thanks, Sean.
Next item for business is moving into our public hearings.
First item will be 5A, which again will be actually 5C this evening, but Haley can present FR19-0001.
All right. Good evening.
This is a replant that some of you may remember for St. John Paul, the Second Pastoral Center.
The property is located on McCormick Street between Eagle and Fannin, just south of the UNT campus.
This replant is intended to combine three lots that were subdivided by the red lines you can see on the screen into one lot,
which is outlined in blue with the intent of building a pastoral center for students close to the campus.
The replant was originally approved in 2016 since that time it has expired without being filed.
Also a new replant had to be reviewed for this property in order for them to begin work on the site.
And happy to answer any questions.
Any questions on this replant? Easy peasy. Thanks, Haley.
Next is item 5B, which will move to 5D this evening and Sean has this item.
This is going to look super familiar.
So this is Fred Moore Park site again, and as part of this project, we take the opportunity to clean up.
So right now, as you can see there, we have two platted lots, the original Fred Moore one,
as well as part of the Jasper addition here and then a large section of unplatted property here.
All of this makes up the park, and so with this replant, we would be bringing all of that into one plat,
taking that large section of the park all together, it cleans up some unplatted lots,
and it also deals with some issues we were having with the ADP.
We just approved where you had an issue of like, well, we have a setback distance.
Well, we have all of this park. It's just being, we had issues created by unnecessary lot lines.
This will clean all of that up. Put the park on one plat.
We did notice this. We received one letter of concern when I called her and explained what was going on.
She was no longer in opposition to the replant.
So staff recommends approval, and I'll stand for any questions.
Can you go back to that overhead?
No, no, no. The aerial. Yes. The park goes north and east of that, up to the baseball diamond.
Why is that not being taken into, and even east over to Bradshaw, why is all that not being platted into one?
We had discussed that, and that is something that can be done in the future.
But at the point where we were, it was just, we didn't want to cause any additional delay for those folks to get their senior center.
Got it. So we move forward. But that's definitely something we can do in the future.
Okay. Any other questions for Sean? Great. Thank you.
Thank you. Next item is Haley's, it's 5C, which is moving to 5E for this evening.
All right. Good evening. This is an amendment to the previously approved Rainier Road Apartments SUP.
So the request for you is to hold the public hearing, consider making a recommendation to council regarding an amendment to ordinance 2017-222,
which allowed for a multifamily use on this property that is just under one acre located at the intersection of Rainier Road and Rainier Court on the south side of Elm Street.
So here's a look at the originally approved SUP site plan.
This ordinance from 2017 included a very specific site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations.
As you can see here, the approved plan specified two buildings.
They're townhome style, so each unit has an individual front door and rear yard.
There are five units per building for a total of ten.
It also includes a storage building here on kind of the northwest side of the property and 23 parking spaces.
Along with this were building elevations that very specifically nailed down the amount of brick and stucco that had to be on each wall of each building.
There was a condition attached to the SUP ordinance that said the proposed development shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan, and elevations.
Since 2017, the site has changed ownership.
They stuck with the original site plan and landscape plan.
They have a permit issued and are under construction, but the new owners hired a different architect and wanted to enhance the visuals of the building.
So now we'll look at those elevations that they're proposing to amend.
Just for reference here, the criteria for approval of an SUP.
These are outlined in your backup, but I didn't go into great detail because the site is already approved.
So we're really just looking at the similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage and the architectural compatibility criteria.
So here's a comparison of the 2017 facade versus what's now proposed for building one, which is the southernmost building on the site.
I chose to show the rear elevations because that's really what will be seen from both of the adjoining roadways.
But overall, you can see in 2017, there was an average of 30 to 50% stucco on each side of building one.
What they're proposing now lowers that to anywhere from 3% to 20% stucco, but then adds an element of stone to give more visual interest to the building.
And the stone would comprise 30 to 45% of building one.
Similarly on building two, I'm showing the rear elevation that would be visible along North Elm Street.
So a similar case where stucco was originally 40 to 50% of the front and rear sides of the building.
That's now being reduced to about 26% on the front and as low as 2% on the rear side.
Whereas stone is being added and it will account for 30 to 50% of the building facade on the front and rear side.
So as I mentioned, the use itself as well as the site plan and landscaping were approved in 2017.
At that time, the use was found to be consistent with all the criteria for approval.
There are no changes proposed to those plans at this time.
So the compatibility buffers, the existing tree preservation, all of that remains as it was in 2017.
And similarly, the style of the buildings is not being proposed to change.
They'll still be townhome style and look more consistent with single family.
This proposed change would not cause any nuisance or impacts to the property that we can identify.
Notification was sent, no responses have been received to date.
And with that, staff is recommending approval of the SUP amendment with one condition,
that the proposed building elevations as provided in your backup shall replace those that were approved with and
attached to Ordinance 2017 222, all other provisions of that ordinance shall remain as adopted.
Happy to stand for any questions.
>> Chris, you're back.
>> Thank you, Chair.
The elevation that faces North Hill, there's not a fence there, we're not requiring a fence there.
>> Each of the, let's see if this plan shows it.
Each of the townhomes has a small rear yard to allow for, I presume, pets or kids to play safely in the backyard.
So there would be a low, three to four foot high fence on the back of each unit, giving them each a small rear yard.
>> But not a six or eight foot.
>> No, sir. >> Great, thanks.
>> Any other questions for Haley?
Great, thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Item 5D and 5E are seeking a continuance to June 19th.
So we've notified residents of this potential change and we're not going to be hearing the presentation in the work session this evening.
So with that, I will close, do we have anything else?
Okay, with that, I will close the work session at 538.
We'll reconvene in council chambers at 630.
>> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for June 5th, 2019.
I'll call the meeting to order, seeing that we have a quorum at 630.
The first item of business is to stand, if able, and give the Pledge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flag.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Honor the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.
>> Before we go to the next item, which will be the minutes, I wanted just to provide an update on the agenda tonight.
Item 5D and E, which are the Hunter's Creek Project, is seeking a postponement to a date certain of June 19th.
So this evening, there will not be a presentation pending the vote of 5D and E.
And we'll just take those out of order when we get to the public hearing section this evening.
With that, the next item for business is consideration of the minutes.
Because of an absence, we'll take these in two different votes.
So I'll ask for a motion for the minutes for May 1st.
Commissioner Beck?
>> Move to approve minutes for May 1st.
>> We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Pernetta?
>> Second.
>> We have a first and a second for approval.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
Next item is minutes for May 15th.
Commissioner Pernetta?
>> Move to approve.
>> We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Cole?
>> Second.
>> We have a first and a second for approval.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 4-0 with one abstain.
Next item for business is the consent agenda.
Chair will entertain a motion.
Commissioner Beck?
>> Move to approve consent agenda.
>> We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Cole?
>> Second.
>> We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
Next item for business is items for individual consideration.
First item before ASP 18-0054.
I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation.
>> Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton.
And I'm presenting SP18-54 to you this evening.
The request is for an alternative development plan for a proposed elderly housing development.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of McKinney and Bel Air.
And the purpose of the ADP is to deviate from sections 35.13(8) buffer requirements and
35.13(13(4) non-residential and mixed use buildings in a pedestrian-oriented district.
The subject property has a zoning designation of NRMU 12 with overlay conditions.
That zoning was approved in 2015 with those overlay conditions
in order to facilitate the development of an elderly housing use.
It did limit the amount of square footage that could be put on the property,
as well as required privacy fences on the north and east property lines.
Additional tree canopy was also required as a result of it.
NRMU 12 is one of our pedestrian-oriented districts and
therefore has different site design regulations than what you typically see in
a commercial or institutional building.
And the applicant is seeking an alternative development plan to address some design criteria.
So an ADP is a process, it's a flexible discretionary process that the Denton
development code allows that permits applicants to deviate from sub-chapter 13
site design requirements if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The sections that the applicant would like to deviate from, there are three of them.
The first one would require at least 60% of the street frontage
to have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line.
The applicant is actually proposing to move those buildings back 50 feet.
They also are asking to deviate from the perimeter fencing that would be
required to be located inside the boundary of a required landscape buffer.
The applicant would actually like to put that fence on the perimeter of the site and
still provide that buffer, but put the fence on the perimeter.
And then there's a type C buffer that's required on the east property line,
which would require a certain amount of plannings.
There is a gas line easement in that location, which really prevents that planting.
They are proposing to put that fence there required by the zoning,
as well as preserve some existing trees.
So the proposed site plan is shown here.
There are four buildings proposed.
They are proposed to be set back 50 feet from the street.
That's that blue line right here.
There are three driveways associated with the development.
One full access and then two just entrances.
There are activities proposed for the front yard, and
that would allow a preservation of existing mature tree canopy.
And that there are decorative fences proposed for those front yard areas.
And then that privacy fence is shown here, and then the parking would be in the rear.
This is Bel Air Drive here.
So when we look at what the DDC requirements would be for setbacks, we show that
generally that ten foot setback would be this orange line right here.
A 25 foot setback is what the existing structures in the neighborhood,
those residential structures are required to meet per their plat when it was platted.
And then this blue line shows the 50 foot setback that the applicant is requesting.
So if those buildings were moved forward to that 10 feet,
you could see how that would look on the street.
It would be out of character with what that existing development pattern shows and
would potentially interrupt that visual sight line on the street.
What the applicant is proposing is to move those back 50 feet.
It would provide visual consistency not only on the subject property, but
then it would be a little more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
The DDC requirements for landscaping include that fencing here.
This is that north property line fence.
If they met some Chapter 13 requirements, that fence would be required to be pushed
in with that landscaping on the outside of that fence.
However, because of the residential nature of the area, there is an existing fence here.
There's the neighbor's fence.
And it really would create sort of a pinched corridor, making maintenance of that buffer
difficult, and really reducing the effectiveness on that buffer.
The applicant is proposing to move that fence to that property line,
still adding those buffer elements there between the building and that fence.
But to move it to that property line.
Just some other elements regarding their proposed landscape plan.
They're proposing street trees along Bel Air in accordance with the DIN development code.
That overlay condition requires 50% tree canopy,
which would result in over 40,000 square feet of canopy at maturity.
And that would include 34,000 square feet of new trees, as well as over 5,000 square feet
of preserved trees in addition to the minimum preservation requirements.
They're required parking lot tree canopy.
Also, they have that privacy fence.
This yellow shows that gas line easement, which really does restrict any plantings in
that back portion of the property.
And as you can see, these green circles here show those preserved trees that they're proposing.
And they've put their landscape islands strategically to capture those trees.
We feel that the proposed buffers, the fencing, and then those existing as well as
proposed trees, would mitigate any nuisances that would be caused from this property.
It really is a residential use in a residential area.
Really don't anticipate a lot of negative impacts.
With the proposed elevations, the criteria for approval in sub-chapter 13 of the DIN
development code, first, does it preserve existing neighborhoods?
The proposed design and use are compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods.
And that parking is placed in order to reduce those visual impacts.
And then having those activity areas close to the street really do foster social interaction
and really do help use to operate in a way that's consistent with a residential neighborhood.
A share quality development, the request is not intended to lower design standards, but
to allow them to maintain the visual consistency with the setback and to provide additional
tree preservation and planting in the front yard areas.
Focused new development and activity centers, this is an infill lot, wouldn't contribute
to sprawl.
Under infrastructure is adequate to accommodate development.
There is necessary infrastructure in place.
And would result in a high quality development meeting the intent of the standards.
This uniform 50 foot setback creates visual consistency.
The additional tree plantings, the fencing, all of it would make sure that it is compatible
with the surrounding property.
Also pedestrian improvements associated with the development would complete that sidewalk
network on that side of the street.
Also staff does recommend approval of the request as it does meet the criteria in Subject
13 of the Denton Development Code.
I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here.
Thank you, Julie.
I do not see any questions.
This is an individual-considerated item, so we're not going to have a public hearing opportunity.
Is there any discussion or motion from the commission?
Commissioner Beck?
We have a motion to approve.
Commissioner Sanchez?
I second it.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
Next item for business is item 4B, ADP 19-0005, and I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
My name is Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner with the Planning Department, and I'm here
tonight to present a request for an ADP for the American Legion Center at Fredmore Park,
and this is a request to deviate from section 3513 for non-residential mixed-use buildings
in a pedestrian-oriented district.
The site is about 3.639 acres that northeast corner of Lakey and Wilson Street, primarily
zoned NR2, a little bit of NR4, and this ADP is to facilitate construction of an expansion
of the existing American Legion Senior Center.
Those four areas of deviation we mentioned, one is that walls facing side streets must
be at least 25% windows, display areas, or doors; second is that 60% of the street frontage
must have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line; third is a requirement
for the development to have a minimum floor area ratio of .4; and the fourth is that windows
require architectural surround, not be flush with the exterior wall.
So we'll go through where those deviations fit in the overall plan as we go forward.
Just to give you a sense, this is the existing building, one of our older park buildings.
Primarily you're seeing cement and grass at the front there.
On the side there we have dumpsters that are essentially right along the street, you have
unscreened air conditioning units.
From above, we'll just zoom in there, you can see what would be removed would be that
building to the south as well as the covered patios to the north and west there.
And the proposal would be to replace that with a new building that will actually connect
directly to the building to the north there.
So that's one of the reasons for the larger setback, rather than being close to the road
there, moving it back allows it to more closely align with the building to the north, be attached
there.
It also allows for, as you can see, the addition of trees and a landscape area in front of
the building, provides greater screen for that neighborhood across the street.
You can also see around the dumpster area there, that's been moved off the street back,
so now the doors are facing away from the neighborhood, it has screening around that
landscaping and trees, and that again, benefit to the neighborhood across the street there.
With the Florida area ratio, not requiring that minimum, that ensures that we're not
having to add large amounts of additional building and pavement to the park, instead
we're preserving that natural environment with a lower Florida area ratio.
And then with the two window related requirements, as you can see, this is the south elevation,
so the existing is below there, what's proposed allows for not having large windows that look
into a kitchen and storage area, and the windows proposed better fit with the overall aesthetic
of the building, so that you have one kind of unified appearance throughout.
And just so you can see at the front of the building there, currently, again, there's
almost no landscaping or trees there, what's proposed will have a much more pleasant park-like
appearance for the folks across the street.
So when we assess an ADP, we have a number of criteria for approval.
First of all, does it preserve existing neighborhoods, and as we've discussed, you're getting quite
a bit of additional screening and trees, more attractive landscaping for neighborhoods across
Lakey and Wilson Street, and the building is being moved a little bit farther away from
those houses.
Ensuring quality development, these deviations allow for overall unified aesthetic between
these two buildings, the expansion and the existing building.
It would not expand beyond the boundaries of the park there, so you're not getting sprawl
because of this.
We have infrastructure for the existing park building, so that's ready to go.
And then the most important one, ensuring that developers alternative proposal results
in a high-quality development, and we're really happy about the amount of additional trees
and landscaping we're getting through this, getting those dumpsters off the street there
for the neighborhood, and having really a continuous building design rather than two
separate buildings.
It's going to be a benefit to the neighborhood.
So with that, we do recommend approval, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to
answer those.
We do have one question.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, John.
Just out of curiosity, this is city park buildings we're talking about, city-owned, city-financed.
What's the history behind that sign-out front that says American Legion Senior Center?
You know, that is a good question.
I don't know the precise history there, but I believe it may have been in the beginning
that it was also an American Legion meeting site.
It may have been a sponsorship, but I just don't know the answer to that.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
It's all right.
Thank you.
So many questions you have.
Thanks, Sean.
Thank you.
Just like the previous item, this is not a public hearing, so chair will entertain motion
or discussion.
Commissioner Beck.
We have a first, and Commissioner Preneta, do you have a second?
I'll second.
So we have a first for Commissioner Beck, second from Commissioner Preneta.
For approval of ADP 19-005, any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
That moves us into a public hearing.
As I mentioned earlier, we're going to take two items out of order this evening.
So instead of going to 5-A, we're going to skip to 5-D, item Z18-0025A, and open the
public hearing and ask a commissioner for a vote to postpone to a date certain of June
19th.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, chair.
Move to postpone this to a date certain of June 19th.
Commissioner Preneta.
Second the motion.
We have a first and a second for postponement of Z18-0025A.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
Next item for business is item 5-E. I'll open the public hearing for S19-0004A and ask the
commissioner for a motion to postpone to a date certain of June 19th.
Commissioner Preneta.
Motion to postpone to a date certain of June 19th.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Sanchez.
Second.
We have a first and a second to postpone or approve the vote to postpone.
See any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
Next item for business this evening will be 5A, FR19-0001.
I'll invite Haley for presentation.
Good evening.
This is a replat for lot 2R of the FMDARN ALL edition.
The replat is a combination of lots 2, 3, and 4 of the same edition.
You can see on the map here the red lines representing the former property lines that
would be abandoned by this plat and the blue outline representing the new larger lot boundary.
The intent is to develop this site with a pastoral center for UNT students.
It's located just south of the campus between Eagle Drive and Fannin Street along McCormick
Street.
With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Haley.
I do not see any questions.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so on this item.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
Commissioner Pernetta?
A motion to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Sanchez?
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
The next item for business is item 5B, FR19-0005.
I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the public hearing.
Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the commission.
This will look familiar because, again, we're back at Fred Moore Park.
As part of this process, as we were going through the ADP, we realized we also had the
opportunity to clean up what is currently two platted lots that are part of the park
as well as a number of unplatted lots and a drainage plot there.
What's proposed is a final replat to take all of that property and bring that into one
lot, Fred Moore Park.
That would just remove a lot of unnecessary lot lines, put that part of the park all on
one plot.
We did notice this proposed replat.
We received a letter from one property owner, but when staff spoke with her and explained
the nature of the request, she had no concerns.
Staff recommends approval of this request as it meets our criteria for a final replat.
Thank you, Sean.
I do not see any questions for you.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
Mr. Sanchez, I make a motion to approve FR19005.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Fernetta?
Second the motion.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
The next item for business is item 5C, S19-0008.
I will invite Haley for presentation and open public hearing.
Good evening.
This is case S19-8 for an amendment to the Riney Road Apartments SUP.
The request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation
to council regarding a request to amend SUP ordinance 2017-222 to allow for changes to
the approved building facades for a multifamily development.
The site is located on the south side of North Elm Street.
You can see it outlined in yellow on the map.
It is just under one acre in size.
In 2017, an SUP was approved for this site allowing a multifamily development that ordinance
included a very specific site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations and had a condition
that the proposed development had to substantially comply with all of those plans in the future.
You can see here the approved landscape plan so it includes two buildings.
They are town home style so the units each have a separate front entry and they do have
small rear yards that will include fences that you can see here on the back sides of
the building.
There is a total of ten units, 23 parking spaces, and then a detached storage building
on the site.
If you've driven by this property, you'll notice that it is currently under construction
with foundations recently poured for these as their permit has been issued.
They could develop today in accordance with that approved SUP, but the new owner of the
property is seeking to make some architectural enhancements.
For reference here, the criteria for approval of an SUP, these were all discussed in your
backup.
The most applicable to this amendment are the requirements for similarity and scale
bulk and coverage and architectural compatibility with the impacted area.
Looking at building one now to look at those proposed changes, you can see on the left
side what was approved in 2017.
This is the rear side of building one so this would be what fronts Riney Court.
And then on the right side of the screen is what's proposed.
So the major difference, as I mentioned, is the addition of stone to the facades.
Previously it was all stucco and brick, anywhere from 30 to 47% stucco on the original elevations.
That would be reduced to around 20% on the front and rear.
And then the stone elements would account for 30 to 45% of those larger building facades
on the front and back.
Similar story with building two, this is the rear side of the building that would be visible
driving along North Elm Street.
So similar case where previously it was 40 to 50% stucco on the front and rear, that'll
now be reduced to 25% on the front, less than 5% on all other sides.
And the stone elements would account for 30 to 40% of the building facade.
When doing our analysis, staff considered that there are no changes being proposed to
the development of the site.
Everything is still in accordance with the approved site plan and landscape plan, which
was found to be consistent with the criteria for approval and the underlying zoning in
2017.
These proposed change in material would make the buildings perhaps more consistent with
residential style development as stone is a common material and would not result in
any nuisance or impact to the surrounding properties.
Question was sent out regarding this request, we've received no responses to date.
And staff is recommending approval of the SUP amendment with one condition, that the
proposed elevations would replace those approved with and attached to Ordinance 2017-222.
All other provisions of that ordinance would remain as adopted.
And I'm happy to stand for any questions.
Thank you, Haley.
I do not see any questions.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn to the days for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair, I move to approve S19-0008.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
With 5-D and 5-E already being heard this evening, that moves our next item to business
to the plan and zoning project matrix.
I'll let Richard start and we can have discussion.
Just wanted to provide one quick update.
I know we had a lot to be determined on this.
Just given the number of items being scheduled, we weren't sure some of these dates.
I did hear from Deborah and Christy earlier this afternoon and it looks like we will be
bringing the upland habitat item at the July 17th meeting along with the criteria manual
for the east.
I know they're going through the committee on the environment now and so what they're
projecting is once it gets out of committee they'll be ready for the July 17th meeting.
Did want to let everyone know for the next meeting we'll probably start early.
Right now we've got nine consent items which really shouldn't be too bad but we do have
right now tentatively seven public hearing items and obviously the two from tonight at
the next P&Z so it will be a full agenda.
Just to give a quick update on some of the council actions on the items, at the 521 city
council meeting they did approve the razor ranch south mixed use district.
There was one additional condition that was added.
If you recall they were doing these cottage style single family homes and with the reduction
in parking they did limit those units to one bedroom so that was something that council
put in place and then if you recall that the prairie parcel that was the rezoning of that
small lot there was an overlay restriction also put on that property limiting it to just
a single family home but also allowing for an accessory dwelling or structure.
At last night's council meeting they did approve unanimously the text amendment for the treatment
facility as well as the solutions of north Texas related SUP.
Both the rezoning and SUP were approved unanimously for Denton bank and the downtown design standards
were also approved last night so just a quick update on those items that carried forward
to the city council.
Great thank you for the update.
Is there any questions or additions to add to the matrix this evening?
Fantastic.
With that I will close the planning and zoning commission for June 5th at 658.
Thank you.