>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission
meeting for Wednesday, February 14th, 2024.
This is our work session and with a quorum present I will call us to order at 5.04 p.m.
Let the record show that commissioners Thaggard and Cole are absent at this time.
First item on our work session is citizen comments on consent agenda.
Is there anyone here to speak on consent agenda?
Then we'll go to our next item, which is clarification on tonight's regular meeting agenda.
First being our minutes from January 24th.
Any questions on those minutes?
That takes us then to consent agenda.
Any questions on the consent agenda?
We've got two items there today.
Objections for individual consideration, 4A, I'll have Erin come up for that one.
We did get an email on that that changed from our backup.
I think they were just waiting on civil engineering things to be completed.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission, Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
Yes, you did receive an email for this.
So this is the final plot for Denton Shady Shores edition.
We were previously recommending denial.
They had a few more engineering comments to work out in their civil plans, and that is
the condition for approval for final plots.
They've since worked all those out.
So now we are recommending approval.
Great.
Any questions for Erin?
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
4B on items for individual consideration is V23-0008.
Matt's on his way up to give us a summary of that item.
Hi.
Hello.
First time.
Welcome.
Thank you.
All right.
Matt Burdine, good evening, members of the commission, Matt Burdine, assistant planner,
today presenting a subdivision variance request, V23-008, Hoke edition variance.
So I'm going to show a few slides from the presentation just to show where this is.
So it's associated with a minor plat that came in.
Here we see northeast side of Denton.
This variance is for a property more on the east side in ETJ1.
Here's a site a little more zoomed in.
As you can see, it's about a half a mile north of US 380 off of North Trinity Road.
And then this is just a picture of the subject property itself.
All right.
So the minor plat that came in, the purpose was to create two lots, one of which is a
flag lot.
And there are two subdivision variance requests, both associated with that flag lot.
One is to increase the max flag pole length from our standard of 300 feet to 521 feet
for the proposed lot one that you see.
And then also the second subdivision variance request for that same proposed lot one was
an exemption from the permanent turnaround requirement in DDC chapter subsection eight.
Some considerations that when analyzing this variance was the -- in regards to the turnaround,
the fire department did review the proposed plat in the event that they had to visit this
site and they determined they could safely enter and exit the proposed lot one safely.
And in regards to the maximum flag pole length and increase in that, as you can see, 300
feet is marked out and then up to 521 is what they're requesting.
In analysis noted, the challenging site topography of this property, there is quite a large pond
in the front of the lot and so any development on this lot is forced more towards the back,
which staff determined would likely create irregularly shaped lots regardless of how
it's subdivided.
Another consideration was when these improvements such as the home and pond were put in place
and according to the applicant, the pond and homes have been on this property since the
early 1980s, which is well before the DDC regulations came into effect in 2019.
And overall, do not expect this subdivision variance to be detrimental to the public safety,
health and welfare and staff is recommending approval of this subdivision variance.
Any questions?
Thank you, Matt.
Any questions?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
We'll see you at the regular meeting.
Next item for individual consideration is 4CFP240004.
Hello Julie.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt.
Sorry, ah here we go, sorry about that.
All right, Julie Wyatt and this is a final plat for Audreau Oaks Phase 2B.
This is a single family residential neighborhood located on the south side of Audreau Oaks east
of Nottingham.
It is consistent with the preliminary plat, however they do have a couple of items that
they do need to work through in order to meet all of the technical requirements and so staff
is recommending denial.
They have requested an extension to the February 28th meeting.
We do not have any objection to that.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Any questions there?
Is that their first request for extension?
Yes, it is.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
See you later.
We've got two public hearings this evening.
The first being 5A PD 230003.
Let Mia come up and give us a summary of that item and we can take any questions.
Hi Mia.
Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission.
Mia Hines, senior planner.
This item, or I have a detailed presentation to go over during the regular session, walking
us through the PD development standards and proposed development plan, but just a brief
summary.
This item is a request to rezone approximately 12.24 acres from MNSC and R3 to a new PD.
The site itself is located at the northwest corner of US 380 and Old North Road.
The, or if approved, the required, or the development would be required to be developed
according to the PD development standards and PD development plan that has been provided
to you in your backup.
The Denton 2040 future land use map designation for this area consists of community mixed
use closer to the university, East University Road and Old North Road and then moderate
residential to the north of that as we push further into some existing single family residential
development.
Just some background of the applicant and this project.
You may recall seeing this site, Z22-0003 came before this body in summer of 2022.
At that time, the request was simply to rezone a portion of the frontage from SC to MN to
facilitate a multifamily development.
Some of the residents from the neighboring community showed out and had concerns about
construction or development taking place on that site and being close to their rear property
lines and some additional concerns about height that would be permitted under straight MN
zoning.
At that time, the council sort of postponed the item and directed the applicant to come
back with a PD to show a more comprehensively planned site and to codify some of the concessions
that they agreed that they would do with that straight zoning case.
This is their way of doing that.
They have a PD with a full development plan and also included the commercial piece along
East University Road.
Of course, we did review this PD pursuant to our criteria for approval and staff is
recommending approval of this request this evening.
With that, I will take any questions or comments you have.
Thanks, Mia.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Mia, I know you said the council, it got postponed.
I can't remember what happened at PNZ with that one.
Did we approve it?
Yes.
That was a recommendation of approval.
Okay.
Do you remember if the vote was by chance at all?
I do not, but I can look that up and get that for you in the regular session.
Okay.
Gotcha.
Thank you.
Anything else?
Commissioner Prout.
Thank you, Chair.
I believe it was 6-0.
The last one meeting I missed in the last three years.
Anyway, I don't want to go at length because we got a full work session here.
I'm confused by the nature.
I understand why this happens.
Council pushes it back, et cetera.
But in our review back up, it says there's no competing goals, policies, or strategies
with this proposal, et cetera.
And that's sort of the same language that was used when it first came before us under
the MN zoning of a smaller portion of this land.
Was there really no discussion amongst staff about whether straight zoning or a PD is better
from a planning perspective because that's what it sounds like is when it came in the
first time the applicant asked for straight zoning and that's what we gave them and we
supported that.
Then when they came back with the PD, we supported that and we're just not talking about the
elephant in the room.
Yes.
And Tina may have something to add here, but I can add a little bit.
When we do get applications in, of course, we look at the application.
We take in their application, what they're trying to do, and we work with them and review
it and stuff.
We base whatever their request is, we look at our criteria for approval on that specific
type of request, and we go from there.
In the same way we did with the PD, we weigh it up against the specific general criteria
for approval for a PD, and then we go from there and work with the applicant.
But Tina may have something to add to that.
Just to add, so when the original request came through, obviously, as Mia pointed out,
we recommended approval because it met our criteria.
Ideally, we would like to rely upon our development standards as provided for within the straight
zoning districts.
However, in this case, given there were neighborhood concerns expressed, particularly at the city
council meeting, and I can't recall if we had anybody at the PNZ meeting, but I do know
we had folks at the council meeting, and then combined with the direction that we received
from council, the council was interested in all of the concessions that the applicant
was offering up to be provided for at a plan development district.
In this case, the fact that the applicant has expanded their subject property has included
the commercial property.
We believe that this is a really good design for this property and actually results in
a better project than what we potentially could get under straight zoning.
Hence why we're recommending approval of this project.
Is it a plan development district?
Yes, in this case, the PD process was used to ensure that there is a better development
plan that prevails.
If the applicant ever wants to deviate from this plan in the future, then it's going to
require an amendment to the plan development district.
I guess just to follow up, I think it's been almost a year and a half, like 15 or 16 months
since that came before us originally.
Is that a typical timeline?
That seems like a very long time.
When interest rates are going up, I'm trying to understand why that takes so long.
Is it because they had to get all the way through CEP to get the confidence that all
the criteria will be meetable?
When it comes to working on plan development districts, they do have a tendency to take
more time compared to an applicant coming in with a zoning compliance plan that would
comply under the existing zoning.
In this case, the applicant still needed a zoning entitlement in order to be able to
make the multifamily component of the project work.
But I don't recall, Mia, when did they re-submit this project?
I believe under the PD that was submitted in maybe April of last year and between the
back and forth to get this to a point where staff is reviewing their full zoning compliance
plan.
We're making sure utilities are preliminarily placed in the right place.
All of those things, making sure they're meeting the DDC in areas that they're supposed to
or specifically requesting the deviations or alternatives from areas that they're not.
That whole review process, working with staff, of course, we posted our submittal calendar
online and then it's up to the applicant to re-submit and get that into us when they're
ready for it.
Yeah, so from April to now in January, for a site like this, that's a reasonable time
period associated with it because of the complexities that are involved with the project.
If the applicant is engaging the community during that time frame, then that just adds
to the time length compared to if they were not.
It's not uncommon for plan development districts to take a longer time to bring forth because
also the complexity of the review associated with the development plan that is being required
for this particular type of plan development district.
If it was just a PD overlay where we were varying a handful of standards, then it's
a different situation, but in this case, being that the type of plan development district
they applied for, the fact that we've got to review all of their development plans associated
with it because we want to make sure it works.
If this gets approved, we don't want to have a plan that doesn't work where we're having
to come back and amend it, so it does take time and effort associated with it.
Thank you.
That helps.
Thank you.
Yeah, I definitely have a couple of questions.
I didn't see anything in the back up with regard to neighborhood engagement, but was
that done?
Do you know?
Yes.
Yeah, and I believe the applicant will be here this evening to speak to that a little
bit more.
Okay.
I know there was a neighborhood meeting a few weeks ago.
The HOA representatives from the HOA showed up to that meeting and were generally in support
of what the applicant's proposing.
Okay.
Then just some specific things because I was just confused.
With this subdivision that this is in front of, there's like a vacant lot that maybe has
a crash gate or something in front of it off Paxton Way.
I'm trying to understand what is happening with that, and I couldn't really get that
off the plan.
The only vacant lot that I know of has a gas line easement running through it, and it also
runs through this property as well.
Okay.
Okay, so then that makes sense of why that is there, and that they've got wrought iron
fence there.
I believe that's ... I might have to confirm and get back to you on that.
Yeah, I'm just wondering what's happening with like ... Is that staying like it is,
and then is it impeding someone's access?
If they're having access to it now, it just ...
Is it one of the ones in the ... Can you see my mouse?
One of the ones in the center here, or is it this one over here to the ...
No, it's in the center.
In the center.
Okay, yes, yes.
Yeah, that is most likely vacant because there's a gas line easement that runs through it.
This development is proposing a pedestrian connection to that, and agreed with the applicant
and the HOA, worked that out, and agreed to make a pedestrian connection at a gate where
the HOA would have direct access from therein.
So they're going to open that up?
Yes.
Okay.
That's one question.
Next one is the existing multifamily that's there.
They will not connect, correct?
My understanding, the applicant has reached out to them, and they are not ...
They are just going to stay locked like they are, okay.
One thing ... There's a point in there about certificate of occupancy.
Prior to getting that, the developer has to replace the six-foot fence with an eight-foot
fence, and then it says ... Well, on specific lots, four through 10.
But then it also says, "Or reimburse the owner."
So tell me how we came to that, and that seems like a really bad idea to have either or.
Who's going to decide that?
Yeah, so I think that agreement, that's one of those items that the applicant has put
in there based on an agreement between them and the HOA as well.
They might be able to speak to the timeline of that as well.
Yeah, because it would be very strange to me, we're going to have some going to get
replaced with an eight-foot, and then others are not, and how's that going to look?
Okay.
Yeah, I can pose that question to them as well.
I think that is all the questions I had written down, so I will defer to anyone else.
Anybody else?
Okay, we'll just talk to you further at the regular meeting.
Thank you very much.
Our other public hearing item for tonight is 5B SD 23-0002, Ashley's item.
Hello.
Good evening, Ashley Eckstead, assistant planner.
This is SD 23-2.
This is the special sign district for James Wood Auto Park.
The purpose of this request is that some of their proposed ground sign designs and locations
do not meet the code of ordinances regulations, and these are the height, the number, and
the setbacks.
These signs were previously installed on this property, and they were removed by TxDOT in
the acquisition for the 35E widening project, so they are just requesting to reinstall the
old signs.
The Denton side code does allow for special sign districts to deviate from the regulations
with an alternative comprehensive plan.
This is a large complex site.
It's 54 acres.
They have eight driveway connections and eight structures, so it is a complex site that we
do believe meets the alternative comprehensive sign plan requirements, so we will be recommending
approval.
The next step after this will be city council on March 5th.
I have a longer presentation for the public hearing, but happy to go into any more detail
or answer any questions.
Thanks, Ashley.
Anybody else?
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
Just wondering, usually these sign issues have been a ZBA thing.
Why is that not ... I'm just curious.
I just wonder why this is coming to us and not the ZBA.
The sign code allows for ... In order to create the special sign district, it is kind of a
zoning action, so it goes to planning and zoning first and then city council, so it's
more like that than just a variance for one sign for the height.
It's a whole comprehensive plan for this site.
Thank you.
Yeah, I think you're thinking of when somebody wants one sign bigger than another, but this
actually creates an actual district on the site.
Anybody else on this one?
Thank you.
Thanks.
Look forward to your presentation later.
Okay, that is it for our agenda this evening.
We do have one work session report, and that is 3A, PZ24021.
Receive a report.
Discussion regarding the City of Denton's affordable housing strategy toolkit.
Hello.
Hi.
Welcome back.
Good evening, commissioners.
Good to see you.
You know what?
I've already put this open.
Here we go.
Well, good evening, Leah Atkinson, Community Services.
You may remember last time we spoke, we went over some demographic and housing stock data
regarding City of Denton and its affordable housing needs.
So this time we're back to talk about our affordable housing strategic toolkit.
So as our community continues to grow, the City of Denton is committed to ensuring a
balanced mix of housing types and opportunities available to community members at different
income levels.
Therefore, city council adopted the affordable housing strategic toolkit in February of 2022.
This outlines five strategies with 18 targeted activities to deliver these housing interventions.
I'm going to just touch on this briefly.
As part of the affordable housing needs assessment and market value analysis reinvestment fund,
did break Denton down into seven categories, seven markets based on general characteristics.
I only bring this up to say that none of our strategies are one size fits all.
We don't intend to put the same kind of a development in every part of Denton.
We want to have specific strategies that are good for specific neighborhoods and communities
within Denton.
So for example, you might see Southeast Denton there, that yellow in district E has some
of the lowest homeownership rates.
And also 36% of renters are receiving some kind of subsidy.
So the plan there is not necessarily to build a large subsidized rental development, but
more so to work on increasing homeownership and affordable opportunities to own homes
and decrease displacement in that area.
Whereas we might focus more rental developments and subsidy opportunities in strong markets
such as B, C, and D, so that low income folks can get to be part of those succeeding neighborhoods.
The five strategies of the toolkit are infill development, first of all.
I'm sure you're familiar with that, using our land effectively, building smarter, often
smaller.
I'll talk a good bit about that later on, since it's of course very relevant to your
work.
The zoning relief and variances also might have something to do with your commission,
so we will also be coming forward to you with strategies related to zoning relief.
The big takeaway there is that we want to use slight zoning relief to incentivize affordable
housing development in the city of Denton.
Third, we want to increase capacity and resources.
So primarily we want to empower non-profit developers and bring more developers into Denton
doing affordable housing work, so incentivizing and empowering at the same time.
Fourth, we want to focus on preservation and expansion.
We have a lot of great housing in Denton, and we also have a lot of great affordable
housing programs, so we want to make sure that those are sustainable, and we want to
expand them to serve more folks.
Finally, we want to increase access to information, so talking about tenants' rights and housing
choice vouchers and making sure everyone is as informed as possible about how to be a
good neighbor.
I'm going to get a little bit deeper into each of those activities.
I'm actually going to start on accessory dwelling units.
So as you may know, we do have a pretty good accessory dwelling unit ADU program to allow
for homeowners to build backyard rental cottages.
We actually want to expand this program and make it even easier and really incentivize
homeowners to build these cottages and rent to low-income households.
So we're going to do that by having prototype housing models.
This is something a lot of cities have had success with, partnering with an architect
and having pre-approved plans for an ADU that homeowners can take and run in exchange for
streamlined permitting, expedited processes, also partnering with participating lenders
who want to empower homeowners to do this.
So this is one great strategy, especially when we consider our seniors who are experiencing
housing instability.
We additionally want to work on a small home community program.
You may know tiny homes are already in the DDC.
We want to take this a step further and make this something that we can do with tiny homes
and cluster cottages, like you see in this picture here, duplexes, townhomes to allow
for staggered density, right, not necessarily going strictly straight from single-family
homes to apartment complexes, but easing in and out with small home communities that can
make homeownership or rentals, right, more affordable for folks.
So this is something that you can expect us to come forward with projects and proposals
for you soon.
Do I have any questions here?
Cool.
All right, thanks.
Next, zoning relief, and I'll be brief on this one specifically because this is just
about an affordable housing overlay.
This is something we see as kind of a future project in a few years, but we do want to
explore the option of, in our stronger markets, finding small spots for an overlay district
to incentivize affordable housing in a high-opportunity neighborhood.
Do I have questions about that?
Yeah.
Cool.
Commissioner Smith?
What would those look like?
When you say an overlay, obviously you have specific ... Usually, an overlay is specific
restrictions.
So with an affordable housing overlay, then it's not necessarily restrictions.
It's then specific reliefs.
How does that get implemented without affecting underlying zoning elsewhere and maybe having
some negatives?
I can't necessarily think ... Okay, maybe setbacks or units per acre.
You throw a housing overlay on small areas.
I don't know what maybe small areas is, but you kind of gave that A through G ranking
within there.
If it's that D and below section that we want to be able to do that in or something else,
I don't know.
How do you do that without affecting other underlying zonings without having negative
consequences?
I'm going to let Danny take that one.
Cool.
Yeah.
Danny Shaw, Community Services.
I might let Tina help me out here specifically, but what we're looking at is it would affect
the underlying zoning if it had specific reliefs that were available or it might not.
It just depends on what we're looking at for the viability of the property that we're looking
at or the properties in plural.
So it could or it couldn't.
I think it would just depend on the different areas we'd be looking at for these overlays.
I don't know if you can help me with the better language.
When you have a zoning overlay district, it can provide relief to certain standards that
are otherwise in the base zoning district and the overlay district would have to call
that out or it could be more restrictive.
If we're trying to encourage more opportunities for housing in certain areas and we apply
an overlay, then one way to encourage those additional housing types may be to grant some
relief whether it's on setbacks or density or if height were appropriate, that could
be one, but I would anticipate it's more of how that structure is placed on the property
and then the mass or scale associated with it.
It would still be something that would be a reviewable process per project, right?
That's absolutely what we would expect.
It wouldn't be by right changes due to the overlay the same way like the razor ranch
overlay district has its own restrictions and those items don't have to come here.
I'm not saying every overlay district has those, but there would be some oversight on
it so it wouldn't just give Joe Blow property owner the chance to say, "Well, I want to
do something else that's not an affordable housing project specifically, but I want my
setback to be different.
I want my density to be different on my land without having some sort of ties to specifically
what the overlay district is designed for."
Yes.
If the goal is specifically to address additional affordable housing options, then we would
write the overlay as such so it's specific to incentivizing the affordable housing, not
all of the other uses that are allowed in that base zoning district.
We would be very careful in working with Danny's team on how we would write that overlay and
be specific to, in all likelihood, probably incentivizing or making it easier for housing
options to be constructed within a neighborhood, so since it's a zoning action, there will
still be the public hearing process.
I would anticipate when we get to this timeframe that there would probably be significant public
engagement associated with it because I would anticipate people would have questions about
how it works, and then we could be able to address better specifics at that time once
we have regulations crafted and a better understanding of what we're seeking to achieve.
Right, and I 100% agree because the goal here is everything that we're doing is to incentivize
it but in exchange for, so we will want those things built in that mean you're not just
getting it, you're getting it in exchange for an affordability for a certain period
of time.
Gotcha.
I want to throw a bunch of answers on my next question here because I don't want to make
it sound like I'm against affordable housing or anything whatsoever within that, but I see
two concerns here and I really want to frame the question and more of where did the idea
come from and how did other communities work through these two concerns, because one, I
could see this concern being, I could see an overlay being something that could be weaponized
to a degree of targeting a certain development in certain communities being in certain areas,
right, that if we want affordable housing in our city, we don't want it here, we want
it over there for one, and then two, I could see it being a concern of a citizen that if
I have a property in an area that an overlay district comes in that's affordable housing,
I say, "Well, I could sit there and say, 'Well, you're then deeming my home and my
property as being an affordable housing neighborhood which may impact my property values.'"
All of those things are asinine and I want that to be on the record that I think that
we shouldn't be viewing it that way or thinking about affordable housing that way.
I'm just more of getting ahead of the neighborhood folks that will come in and speak out against
it when this happens, and I want to know how other communities worked through those problems
in the past.
We'll give you some overview on that later if that's all right, because it would be a
long conversation about which ones we reviewed within the assessment process, but we did
and our consultant reviewed a couple of them to give us some good examples, but we can
provide that to you.
I'll take that answer.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks.
Mr. Perot.
Thank you, Chair.
I'll give you an overview on that note, are we at a point yet where we know whether we
envision an overlay being used as a bag of tools that applicants could come in and say,
"I want that one to apply to my property," as opposed to the city has the bag of tools
and goes out to actively incentivize the type of development in the regions that it's warranted?
Does that make sense?
It does.
This is actually, I will call this a tool in the bag of tools, so we're working towards
that right now, a development incentive package that will have the screwdriver, the knife,
the hammer, all types of different tools as our goal so that each property is unique in
how it looks and what it's able to do.
One developer looking at one property may need the hammer, one other property might
need the wrench, and so we want to be able to give that flexibility to the developer
to look at what's the best tool to help them with this kind of product in exchange for
that affordability.
I'll continue to say that repeatedly.
We're not giving anything away.
It's always going to be with the conditions of you will create that affordability over
a period of time.
Nobody's getting things for free on our watch.
Next we are wanting to build capacity and resources, so part of that is our capacity
building match grant.
We actually did already run this with ARPA funds, I believe, yes, and that was a more
general project with bond funds.
We're hoping to do this with affordable housing developers, specifically nonprofits.
So this is just an example of some of our major nonprofit affordable housing developers
in the city of Denton, and also pointing out that we really want to incentivize new affordable
housing developers to come and be in our community, and so yes.
So we'll be implementing that match grant.
Additionally, we do want to implement a low-income home ownership program.
It's actually a little known fact that housing choice vouchers can be used to pay towards
a mortgage.
A housing choice voucher, for those who don't know, was formerly called a Section 8 voucher.
Those are administered by the Denton Housing Authority and paid towards a portion of one's
rent, or in this case, a mortgage.
So this is a great way for low-income households to find a little bit more housing stability
and generate some generational equity as well.
So we're hoping to combine low-cost construction methods and favorable lending terms with down-payment
assistance in collaboration with the Housing Authority for tenants with these vouchers.
Do I have any questions here?
Cool.
Yes.
Commissioner Smith.
I know we've had some, like the Love First projects and those kinds of things.
I know we've had other nonprofits who started their capital fundraising towards these.
The only question I had is on the Capacity Building Match Grant.
How retroactive do we think those projects will be?
I know obviously it'd be to incentivize new developers and those kinds of things.
But if there are projects that have already been approved through zoning in the process
of capital fundraising, are there provisions within that match grant where we can kind
of go back to those that are already trying to do the work and saying, "Hey, we're sorry
this wasn't here whenever you came through, but we'd love to be able to open those tools
up for you to help you complete your project," right?
Right.
It's kind of a little bit easier to help someone who's 50% of the way there gets the finish
line rather than saying, "Well, this is only for those who are at step zero."
Right.
Exactly.
And trying to get them to get them going.
I want you to get the best answer.
Someone will let Danny take that one too.
I think you give great answers, but Danny might have a different one.
Yeah.
With the bond funds especially, we'll have opportunities to create different kinds of
grant programs that would benefit projects that have already been approved but are looking
for development.
That's the same with our existing programs.
Our CDBG and home funds that are already here annually, those projects can continue to ask
for funds throughout time to add additional resources.
So for example, '22, '23 we gave funding to Habitat for Humanity for four homes in
their project.
They're working on that right now.
An additional four homes in '23, '24 funding.
So that's one project example where we're continuing to support that project along the
way with funding.
Right.
So that would be no exception here.
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
We had a case a while back of an affordable housing development on Woodrow and McKinney.
And turns out it wasn't the Denton Housing Authority that was doing it, it was the Marble
Falls.
So I think it's imperative that this body knows who is involved, which housing authority
is involved.
Because I was really, I was like, why didn't Denton do it and why didn't Denton do it?
So could you kind of coach us through that process and?
Yeah.
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program is a federal program that goes through the state.
So developers apply for that program and there are other tools that they can utilize.
So in that example, there is a 50% property tax exemption for Chodos, community housing
development organizations.
If a developer partners with that nonprofit, then they will be eligible for that 50% tax
exemption.
So when that developer came to the city, we encouraged them to work with our local partners,
go to the housing authority, see if they can partner with you in a PFC project.
Go to Denton Affordable Housing Corp and see if they can partner with you as a Chodo.
But at the time, they were unsuccessful in being able to make those connections and they
did utilize a Chodo that is a statewide Chodo, one of the only ones that exists, to partner
to get that 50% tax exemption.
So it is important for us, like you, that that money stay in this community as well.
So we do encourage that.
But they at the time don't have to, right?
They could partner with the partners that they're familiar with as well.
Can you let us know as a body who, which municipality is doing this?
Because I would have loved to have known it was Marble Falls instead of Denton.
It wasn't, just to be clear, that project is not Marble Falls, the city of, it was Marble
Falls, a Chodo there, right?
Right.
So that, yeah.
But yeah, we, I mean, if it comes up, that we can make sure that the team knows.
I think that's good information.
I can't promise we can always be able to do it.
So if the project is by right and it's not coming in front of you, that may not be information
that you're going to have access to.
Why is it not Denton?
You know, isn't it, is it Denton missing out or is it, why would someone make a decision
to disregard Denton Housing Authority and go with that one out of...
Why wouldn't use that language?
You know, I mean...
I would say the developers attempted to work with, and there were various reasons why they
were not unable to partner with those organizations.
So okay.
So the Denton Housing Authority had a problem with that or couldn't do that where Marble
Falls could, or whatever other entity could.
Just like any developer, they're going to work with a partner that has deal terms.
And so whatever the Housing Authority's deal terms may have been different than what the
Chodo was offering in there.
So it was a better deal.
Hmm.
Okay.
Commissioner Cole, if I could add, and I just want to make sure that we don't get too far
off our posting topic here, but when we evaluate requests, like in that case, it was a specific
use permit.
So keep in mind, you know, the city also looks at it from a land use standpoint in terms
of is the land use appropriate for this location?
We don't look at, at least from a planning perspective, we don't look at specific operators.
So I know in the past we might've talked about, you know, if I have a drive-through restaurant
that's being requested and it's a specific use permit, it shouldn't matter if it's Starbucks
or Tina's Coffee Shop or Haley's Coffee Drive-Thru, right?
We look at the appropriateness of the land use.
So the financing structure aspect of it from a land use standpoint and when we evaluate
those requests, that's what we're focused on.
We're not focused on the specific operator or owner because that is not land use space.
Maybe you should be.
I mean, I just don't see why didn't, I mean, we have this entity, it is here, I don't understand
what they can do that we can't do in terms or, I mean, it just, I don't know, it just
doesn't seem right.
I mean, somebody's benefiting, why aren't we benefiting?
Again, to clarify, they attempted to work with the Housing Authority and were not able
to come to an agreement on the deal.
So they went to another.
So what didn't they do that we wouldn't do?
That would not be something I'd be privy to.
Okay.
Well, I'm getting kind of off on this deal.
Yeah, I'm saying that's taking us off on what we're actually posting.
But I just think I would like as a body for us to know who is doing this and who is.
The Denton Housing Authority is a quasi-governmental group that you could reach out to.
They are required to meet open records and public information that, you know, you're
welcome to ask.
We don't have a relationship legally to be able to require that information.
Okay.
Commissioner Villarreal, did you have a question?
Yeah, not to get too further down this rabbit hole, but it sounds like they were operating
in good faith.
However, we did have the scandal come out of Cameron County and their Housing Authority
and pretty much helping developers just get off the tax rolls, you know, with the cut,
which is, you know, what the story is referring to.
Do we have any relief in that, you know, case in case there is a bad-faith actor that comes
in and comes with that approval from the Cameron County Housing Authority?
Yeah, not at this moment, and again, right now we're really talking about partnering
with developers to do things like down payment assistance and, you know, building capacity.
When we talk about LIHTC projects, that does become more of a conversation that we can
have, and those go through a very lengthy process that occasionally does have to do
with the partnerships.
But yes, I think -- Yeah, just to add a little more clarification there, too.
Those go through the state, so they are evaluated and monitored and file land use restriction
agreements through the state, through the Texas Department of Housing Community Affairs.
So, if there was something like that, then they would be the governing body over that.
Do we have any other questions here on the Capacity Building Match grant or the Low Income
Homeownership Program?
Okay.
Thanks.
Okay, this I actually do have quite a bit to say on.
We talked about that toolbox a little bit already, and so this is what we call the Developer
Incentive Toolbox.
This is kind of our bundle of things that we can offer a developer and say, hey, here's
what we can give you if you agree to set aside a certain portion of units as affordable.
And so it's a few things that we've talked about already and that we're going to talk
about shortly.
What is that affordable overlay district?
We've also discussed favorable funding opportunities, such as a pre-development loan and capacity
match building, things like that.
One that I really want to highlight is a zoning relief amendment.
This is actually currently being reviewed by legal.
This should be coming to you shortly.
We worked really closely with the planning team on this to come up with nine incentives
for a developer to say, hey, I will take a slight parking reduction or a slight setback
reduction or this and that and the other in exchange for setting aside 20% of my units
for households, 50% AMI and below, and so on and so forth.
And so that will be coming to your consideration soon, so we want to make sure that's on your
radar.
And then additionally, and we'll talk more about this in detail later, but land for affordable
housing development, which gives us a bigger seat at the table and a little bit more negotiating
power to say, hey, we really need you to be building what Denton needs most here.
Last thing I would like talking about on this slide, that's a affordable housing development
for seniors actually developed by the El Paso Housing Authority in El Paso.
Not every project that we're going to build is going to be a large multifamily development,
but I'd like to point out this one.
I think it's really beautiful.
It's got a lot of colors.
It's got some great architecture.
It's got solar panels, rooftop gardens, that little wind turbine, walking trails, community
space.
This is the sort of project that we want to be incentivizing development in Denton look
like.
And so I'd just like to talk about that.
Do I have any questions here?
Commissioner Smith?
Thank you, Chair.
There's a fine gray line here that I'm internally battling of we streamline permitting, and
the incentives of monetary and tax and land and all those kinds of things are great.
When it starts getting to the sausage making, that's where I get a little bit ... I start
getting a little bit of pain in the stomach of we make it easier for one group to come
through the city, but we make it not easier when we make it harder.
But we don't give another group the same speed, right?
And it seems a little inequitable and a little scary, so walk me through that.
Yeah, of course, we're getting something in exchange for that, because affordable housing
is a council priority.
This is part of our strategic plan.
This is something that we've been set as a goal since 2022, and we've been talking about
for longer.
And so that is why we're willing to say a little bit more, like we will prioritize this,
because we know that those budgets for affordable housing are incredibly difficult to make.
So the longer you sit on that land, the more costly it is to you, and you mess with the
feasibility of that affordable housing development, and it ultimately costs the tenants and the
residents that are going to live there.
So you and Danny have both referenced this, Leah, but whenever we talk about in exchange
for something, what are some of the common things that a developer would be giving up
in exchange for that maybe you've said it and I've heard it and I'm just not registering
it?
No, precisely.
So we're going to be entering into agreements with them, land use restrictive agreements.
I'm going to be monitoring on an annual basis the rents of the tenants in those projects.
And so they're agreeing to saying 20% of my units will not have a rent higher than this,
and I will not lease them to a household with income higher than this.
And we're going to be, we're going to have some pretty high expectations for those developers,
I'll say.
Gotcha.
Yeah.
If you find something that doesn't fall in line, what are the ramifications?
Yeah.
You want to answer that?
Sure.
We take their permit back and make them go back through the regular process.
Basically there are financial penalties for it, so we would get that money back.
It depends on what year it is in the project and how long we've extended the affordability
period for.
So that would be written down?
Yes.
Again, those land use restriction agreements would be very specific in those remedies if
they are not complying.
Understood.
Great.
Thank you.
And if I could add something in response to Commissioner Smith's question.
So when we talk about streamlining development permitting, keep in mind on the land development
side of things, we're already heavily regulated in terms of how we must perform in terms of
timelines associated with projects, particularly when it comes to plotting and civil engineering
plans and that's provided for by the state statute.
If there's opportunities for incentivizing to assist on the permitting side of things,
then I could see there may be some opportunities there for the permit review when they apply
for a building permit, but on the land development side, we would have to work closely with Danny's
team just because of the regulations that are in place currently that regulate how fast
we have to perform.
Right?
And at the end of the day, I mean, we meet the state statute requirements.
We look to ensure that we have quality development that's meeting all of our development requirements
and to ensure that that quality development is happening.
So we would need to work closely as we would craft any incentives, particularly if it is
addressing any faster permitting because we are sensitive to the fact of not having inequity
amongst project review as well because we realize everybody is subject to financing and having
to get through the city's review process.
So just know that we're sensitive to that.
And just as a reminder, like Leah gave you a good example, though, it doesn't necessarily
have to be in that process.
It could be the fact that we're going to do some sort of other bonus or incentive, like
the pre-approved designs, right?
That would then streamline the permitting process because then they just pick it, they
pay and they're done, right?
So that ultimately would streamline the process immediately just for something like that.
So we'll use other tools that aren't just in the permitting or the land use conversation.
Yeah.
That's a great example because if we've already have, in that case, if we already have a pre-approved
set of plans for the structure itself, then that makes it much easier on the review of
the structure just to confirm that, yes, okay, this does meet our standards.
They are using our standard package that we have on this.
They've not made any changes.
And so then their efforts are focused more on the land development side of it, right?
Getting their zoning compliance plans if needed, their civil engineering plans if needed, platting.
Then we can focus on that aspect and where it helps save time then is more on that building
permit review side aspect.
I think it's a great example, Danny.
I know that we kind of worry about things from like an extreme a lot of times, right?
When there's something new, like we talked about this with STRs on the DCRC, right?
We start putting a code in place for STRs and then we start thinking that there's going
to be massive international conglomerates that are buying up every single house that's
on the market and turning into an Airbnb.
And we know that's not the case, right?
That's a far extreme for it.
Still it's kind of where that question comes from.
I don't think we're going to get to a point where we have so many affordable housing projects
that are in queue that non-affordable housing projects, and I'm not even saving residential
projects, I mean commercial projects, are just kind of getting pushed off on the permitting
side.
I get on the land use side, regulatorily we have to move things through, but in a permitting
side it's like, we'll get to you, but we're just so overflowing.
I think my brain's going to that extreme there, but the only reason why I voice that is because
I would really hate for that to happen.
That would be good.
I understand.
Any other comments, questions, concerns here?
The one thing I might mention is, I know Leah mentioned this, that when she was referring
to the section 2.12 DDC amendment that that would be coming soon.
So one of the things is, I know Danny's team is going to be making a presentation to council
later this summer to prioritize their projects as a result of the bond monies.
And so any ordinance amendments that this group would normally see, once she gets that
prioritization on where they're going to focus their program efforts, then we can update
you from a calendar standpoint and give you an idea of when some of these amendments might
be coming through.
Or I shouldn't say might, but when they come through.
Right.
Yes.
I only say soon because this is currently in review with legal.
And then moving on to preservation and expansion, there's quite a bit here.
So I promise to talk slow or and keep it brief really quickly.
We do have a landlord rental maintenance grants that's currently online.
So essentially we can help assist with the rehab of a vacant rental unit in exchange
for that property owner leasing it at an affordable rate for a period of time.
That's something that we already have.
We were able to accomplish that very quickly.
Additionally, we also already have a down payment assistance program at the city of
Denton.
We plan to expand that and make it more accessible and more frequently used.
And so that's one other strategy.
In association with that, we are also hoping to establish an employee homeownership program
in partnership with major employers in the city of Denton, one of which being the city
of Denton itself, but also our major universities, Peterbilt, Denton ISD, essentially teaming
up and talking about providing down payment assistance and again, that low cost construction
and infill in order to give folks who work in Denton the opportunity to own a home in
Denton.
I'll talk briefly on the housing trust incentive program.
One thing that we do want to do is help nonprofits establish something called a community loan
trust.
So, essentially, that's where the land is owned by that nonprofit and held in a trust
essentially at to always only be sold at an affordable rate while the homeowner will own
the home itself.
This is a more long-term project that we're looking at, but just as we talk about sustainability
and long-term affordability.
And then lastly, land banking.
This is actually where 75% of the bond funds we are proposing go.
This is just a map of land banks that currently exist in the United States just to show what
a common practice this actually is.
You can see Dallas right there.
Dallas land blanks has been in operation since I believe 2002.
And so our hope is to purchase vacant lots so that we have a seat at that negotiating
table and say we think that this can be a fantastic homeownership development for low
income households.
Here's what we expect if we're going to enter an agreement with you for this land.
Do I have any questions here?
There's a good bit.
Okay.
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
The landlord rental maintenance grant, Dallas implemented that several years ago and apparently
it's been a success.
So that's me as a homeowner maybe putting in an ADU and getting favorable terms on the
loan for that ADU.
Dallas really likes this program and apparently it's had a lot of success.
Yeah, of course, so separately earlier on we talked about that ADU program, so making
it easier for homeowners to build an ADU in exchange for leasing for a low income or moderate
income household.
This is a slightly different program.
This is for a homeowner or a property owner who owns a house or something or maybe a duplex
that they're leasing out and say it's in poor condition and they don't feel that it's habitable.
So they need it rehabbed but they don't have the cash on hand to do that or they just want
help for whatever reason.
We can assist with rehabbing that project.
While it is vacant, we are not relocating anybody in exchange for them agreeing to lease
it at an affordable rate.
So an ADU would not be covered under that because I know Dallas does and it's been...
Yeah, no.
Sorry, really quickly.
No, but we plan to have that program too.
Any other questions here?
Commissioner Smith.
That grant, the way that that description reads, I'm just trying to contemplate it because
I've heard of it but I never really dug super deep in it.
The way it's worded, it makes it sound like it's more of a loan rather than a grant.
It's a period of affordability in exchange for repayment from future rents or loan forgiveness.
So it's really more of a landlord rental maintenance loan.
It's a forgivable loan, which is similar to a grant.
Essentially it's so that if they don't do what we say, we can take the money back.
Gotcha.
But how the project runs right now, here's $10,000, I'm just making up numbers, $10,000
to do a rehab and as long as you rent it out at an affordable rate for five years and you
hold it there, at the end of that five years, we're going to forgive your 10 grand.
Correct.
Yes, essentially, yeah.
What are the size of most of those grants that we're seeing now as they come through
as the project operates?
Have we done many, I know that the project's online now, but-
This one's new enough and you can forgive me if I make a mistake, but this one's new
enough that we actually have not seen any projects come through with this just yet.
25.
25?
Oh.
Yes, 25,000, yes.
And there's like a minimum on the property value, like it needs to be like three units
or something like that.
No.
Gotcha.
So one little tiny house would give me 25 grand, huh?
Just kidding, I'm joking.
I'm joking.
All right.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Does this only pertain to long-term rentals?
Correct, not short-term rentals.
Yes.
Thank you.
Commissioner Perot.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a thought occurs to me and I may be answering my own question in my mind, so if you'll forgive
me, but bag of tools, there's landlord maintenance, there are other programs to be able to take
existing properties and allow them to continue being used if there was fear of them dilapidating
and not being able to be habitable.
Understand that.
Land banking, another tool.
I guess is the idea that if the city has more control over those programs that we can make
an active decision as far as for particular property F, is it more beneficial as far as
the number of units you get, that sort of thing, to rehab this structure or just buy
it and land bank it and redevelop it?
Does that make sense?
Yes.
Yeah.
I think you're on the right track there.
Yeah.
We do have that toolbox for different types of projects like Denton Affordable Housing
Corporation right now does a lot of rehabs and that's historically what they've done
for I think the past 20 years.
I know that they'd love to get into the development space.
So what we're looking at is trying to make it possible for any new development that comes
into Denton to have at least some affordability, whether that's I'm building a neighborhood
and I want this setback reduction or whatever it's going to be and so I'm going to take,
I'm going to set aside 10 of these for low income potential homeowners, right?
Or if it's a development like this or if it's a rehab, whatever it's going to be, we want
to seat at that table and for some cases it's going to be really small, like a setback reduction.
In some cases, if we want to build say supportive housing or housing for really low income folks,
that project might need more support and so that's when we talk about things like land
banking.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Do I have any other questions here?
Cool.
Lastly here, access to information, we do want to start an eviction prevention and education
program so this will be guidance documents, outreach, training assistance, possibly some
grant funding to deter eviction right now or not right now, in the future.
Additionally, interactive online mapping, this is already complete.
This is our map or at least one version of it.
This is a map that was conducted previously or assembled previously of those vacant or
underutilized lots for potential development.
Yes.
And then the landlord education program.
This is really just partnering with that, with Denton Housing Authority to talk to landlords
and explain what an amazing opportunity accepting a housing choice voucher can be and how that
can impact the tenant using that voucher and your community in a really positive way.
And so that's our last strategy there.
Do I have any questions here?
Yes.
So everyone has about 10 seconds to look at this and then I'm going to ask everyone to
close their eyes and write it from memory.
Sorry, I really like making that joke.
This is just a brief overview to give you a little bit of scope.
So you can see here at the top, we estimated the need at about 2,300 units of rental housing
by 2030 and then about 1,900 affordable homeownership opportunities by 2030.
Our goal estimates we are trying to meet about 1,200 of those units on the rental side and
then about 500 units on the homeownership side.
Now, of course, these estimates were made pre the bond funding.
So we're hoping to go a little bit above and beyond.
But this is how we currently have it set up.
This is how it was estimated with the remaining being up to the market to meet.
Do I have any questions here?
Cool.
This is a projected timeline.
If it is a bit small, I promise it will be sent out.
But I'll just kind of go over quickly the things that we see most upcoming.
Fiscal year 24 is when we will start actually seeing our bond funding.
And so right now, we're trying to get as much set up prior to that as possible.
So we're focusing on those infill projects, small home communities and ADUs, we're working
on those.
We are also always and forever working on marketing and outreach, but that's a little
bit less to do with you.
And then right now, we are working on that developer incentive toolbox, one project of
which being that DDC amendment with procedures for incentives for affordable housing.
And then I think that's most of the things I wanted to talk about.
We do also have a housing trust fund, which is essentially just the mechanism for which
we will be doing all of these activities right now.
We're drafting our policies and procedures, which will likely eventually come to you for
review as well.
Do I have any questions here?
Commissioner Villarreal.
Just really quick, and this is going back to the strat number one.
Other communities that have embraced small home communities and ADUs, do they have mechanisms
in place to keep or to attempt to keep as much as they can within the long-term rental
stock?
That's a very good question.
I don't have an answer off the top of my head, Danny, do you?
I can do that research and get back to you on how those maintain it.
One thing I will say is a lot of times smaller homes are going to be what we call naturally
occurring affordable housing.
So they might be subsidized at the start, but a smaller home is almost in most cases
going to be more affordable than a big home, especially for a household that doesn't need
a big home.
And so in terms of legal mechanisms to keep those affordable, I'll do further research.
But part of what we like about small homes is that over time they're sustainably naturally
occurring affordable housing, how that helps.
I know it does, and I bring that up just because I had a conversation with folks at the city
of Hurst and the city of Ulysses, and their concerns around ADUs were are those just going
to slip immediately into STR territory?
And I think that's where we're encouraging the incentive process overall, because that
incentive process gives us that mechanism to require affordability for a period of time
by agreement, whatever that agreement is, and for however long it might be.
So for the ADU program, for example, the more subsidy we might put in to help that ADU get
created and be affordable, the longer we would make that affordability requirement.
I would just add, the key thing that Danny is mentioning is it's an agreement, it's like
a development agreement, right?
So it's a contract and has enforceable provisions associated with it to ensure that it's meeting
the projected goals that Danny's team has for that particular program that's being implemented.
And just to be clear, that's what we already do within our minor repair and our home renovation
and restructuring program.
So we are confident that we have the tools that would make that requirement enforceable.
And on that note, that's always negotiable then, that term length.
Is there a minimum?
So these are programs that we're still building out.
Like I said, we're actively working on those policies and procedures for how this will
work in practice.
We will have minimums.
Neither of us are in the business of giving things away for free.
But yes, of course, we are trying to meet people where they are and see, well, what
do you need for the project?
What are we going to ask from that?
And so it will be customizable, but we're going to have minimums.
Did I answer that?
Yes, you did.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
All right.
Any other questions here?
Okay.
Well, that was it.
You can learn more.
You can visit our website.
You can read the entire Affordable Housing Strategic Toolkit.
I think that's probably the best way to spend your Valentine's Day evening.
And if you have additional questions, you can always email me.
My email's right there.
Thank you very much for your time.
Yes.
Sorry.
I know we want to eat dinner too.
Sorry.
Have you guys done much outreach to the nonprofits in the community that would be addressing
these and having conversations with them, making sure that they're so...
Yes.
We speak on a daily basis, I would say.
Awesome.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
A couple things.
One, I think on the slide that you had with...
It's not related to the slide, it just occurred to me then when you had the pretty picture
of the...
I like pretty pictures.
Yeah.
The one, the newer development that was somewhere in the Metroplex.
In El Paso, yes.
Thank you.
El Paso.
That's very Southwest Metroplex.
Yes.
You mentioned that there's significant costs that are incurred for in the pre-development
timeframe.
Can you help us understand how much impact that timeline has on sort of the cost to build
the housing?
Dana's going to be able to give you a better answer there.
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, everything that we're doing within the Affordable Housing Strategic Toolkit is
about bringing that development cost down in the variety of ways.
So the goal is to reduce the cost.
So when you're talking about the pre-development timeframe, it's the length of time that someone's
holding on to property, has those costs along the way until it's developed, right?
Whether it's opportunity costs, meaning they're not using it yet and so they're losing out
on the revenue that the property could be producing.
And then so many other impacts from the design phase all the way through that, those costs
are being incurred without incurring revenue and exchange.
So any way that we can shorten that process is helpful, right?
And that's certainly what we're looking to incentivize.
Okay.
And then on the subject of ... I guess I'm trying to combine the previous presentation
with this presentation of we have lots of needs for housing and that sort of thing.
You mentioned that that affordability need you were hoping would be met, some with subsidized
units that the city would have control over, some with market action, LITEX and that sort
of thing, is help me understand how development that occurs at market rate within the city
affects what our needs are for affordability and that sort of thing.
Yeah.
It's a bit like every tool we can throw at it and that is one tool that we need.
So development in general is beneficial, right?
Even if it's higher cost or luxury housing, one, it will reduce the demand on the lower
cost housing because people have access who can afford to pay for it with more housing
that they're interested in.
Over time that housing also becomes naturally occurring affordable as it ages, right?
So it's not a bad thing for any development to help with just generally the supply and
demand, right?
The higher the supply, the better we can affect the demand in general.
So it's great we're looking for that issue.
And you mentioned it and we mentioned it the last time.
Everything we want to do is to make sure that any housing development comes in has an opportunity
for us to create affordability within it.
It is exactly how this tool is designed to incentivize the private market so that we're
not having to invest a huge amount of city funds to make these things happen that we
can just incentivize to then balance out and then we create opportunity across the city
and not just concentrate in another area.
So it's a very important part of the conversation.
Thank you.
I'm really looking forward to this.
I think we've got the crack team here and I think we'll look back 15 years from now
and say, wow, look what we've done.
I will say the thought that, you know, there'll be amendments and that sort of thing coming.
My preference is for relief to be granted in cases where that relief quite honestly
is just not politically palatable unless it's affordable housing, right?
Whereas if it's relief that we all agree is reasonable to allow market raised housing
to also have, then all that does is reduce the cost to build all of our housing, right?
To a certain extent.
So I'll be looking forward to seeing what those things are and seeing that come forward.
Thank you.
Do I have any other questions before folks get to eat?
Okay.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you for the wealth of information.
Of course.
Will you be sending us this presentation as well just like the other?
Absolutely.
Excellent.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
With that concludes our work session.
I will adjourn us at 616 and we will reconvene in council chambers as close to 630 as we
can.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, February 14th, 2024.
Thanks for your patience.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 639 p.m.
Let the record show that Commissioner Thaggart is absent from today's meeting.
First order on business 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.
Next item on our agenda is the consider approval of our minutes from January 24th.
Commissioner Smith.
I make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
You've got a first and a second for approval and discussion.
Okay.
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion will carry 5-0.
That will take us to our consent agenda for this evening.
Commissioner Villarreal.
I move approval.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
You've got a second to approve the consent agenda.
Okay.
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That moves us to our items for individual consideration, first being 4A, FP240002.
Erin is here for presentation.
Good evening, Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
This is FP240002.
This is a final plot for the Denton Shady Shores edition, just north of North I-35E.
We previously recommended this for denial in your agendas.
We've satisfied all of their remaining comments, so now we are recommending approval.
Thank you, Erin.
Any questions for Erin?
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Second.
Okay.
There's a first and a second for approval, Ms. Platt.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to 4B, V230008.
And Matt is here for presentation.
Good evening.
Good evening, commission.
I'm here to consider a subdivision variance request for a property, sorry, for a minor
plot that was brought into the city.
So here we see a map of the subject's property within northeast Denton as located in ETJ1,
about half a mile north of US 380.
Here we see the subject property zoomed a little more.
As you can see, it takes public access from North Trinity Road with state parkland just
to the north of it.
And then here is a brief glance at the aerial of the subject property.
So this variance request is for a property in the city of Denton's ETJ Division 1.
The minor plot associated with it was to create two lots.
One of these lots is sort of flag lot, which is the subject of the variance being requested.
The subject property is, according to the applicant, used for residential and some agricultural
purposes with the surrounding properties also being residential and then a state park to
the north.
As mentioned, the minor plot associated was to create two lots from the plot of land,
one of which is a flag lot, which is the variance of our four.
These lots both have direct access to a public street.
And then the homes and pond have been present on the property since the early 1980s according
to the applicant.
So the first request is in regard to the flagpole portion of the flag lot, proposed lot 1 in
the graphic.
The request is to increase the max flagpole length from our DDC requirement of 300 feet
to a proposed length of 521 feet.
And as you can see on the graphic, it shows where that 300 feet would be if it was to meet
our requirement.
And the second request is associated with the first.
We have a requirement that for any flagpole portion greater than 150 feet is to have a
permanent turnaround.
And so their second subdivision variance request is an exemption or relief from that permanent
turnaround requirement.
And we did want to make a note that the proposed lot configuration has been reviewed by the
Sea of Denton Fire Department, and they did find it satisfactory for them to be able to
enter and exit in a forward manner.
Now I'm going to transition to the considerations and staff analysis for planning, zones, and
conditions evaluation.
There are four general requirements considered, the public safety, the particular hardship
due to physical conditions, whether or not it will vary from provisions of the comprehensive
plan and other city documents, and when the actions of the request took place.
And I'll go through each of those individually.
So first consideration is that the request invariance is not anticipated to be detrimental
to public safety.
As mentioned, Denton Fire Department reviewed it, and they would be able to access and leave
in a safe manner with the current lot configuration, that there is enough space.
Also the land uses of the minor plot in question are not detrimental to the surrounding properties.
As for the physical conditions of the site, it is noted that the large pond near the front
of the proposed lot two does create a challenge for subsequent development and subdivision
of the lot.
Any development on it, as you can see in the graph, has been pushed towards the back of
the lot.
Therefore, this likely creates irregular-shaped lots in the case of subdivision.
And then finally, the topography of the pond and the slope does create limited space for
that turnaround requirement.
Third condition, if the subdivision variants are approved, they will not introduce design
standards that are incompatible with the goals of the comprehensive plan, or the DDC.
And then finally, the conditions on the property that are leading to the subdivariance requests,
such as that pond and homes, have been present on the site since the early 1980s, according
to the applicant, and so these are conditions in place prior to the DDC regulations that
they're seeking the subdivision variants from.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of those subdivision requests as they comply with the
Denton Development Code.
Any questions?
>> Thank you, ma'am.
Any questions?
I do not see any.
Thank you very much.
>> No.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> Make a motion to approve.
>> Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Second.
>> Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to 4C FP 24-0004.
Hello Julie.
>> Good evening.
Julie Wyatt, principal planner.
This is a final plat for the Audreauke subdivision.
It's a single-family residential subdivision located on the south side of Audreau, just
east of Nottingham.
They do have some items that they do need to correct in order for it to meet the technical
requirements of the Denton Development Code, and therefore staff is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension to February 28th, and I'll be happy
to answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Julie.
Questions for Julie?
I do not see any.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> I move approval of the extension request to a date certain of February 28th, 2024.
>> Great.
Commissioner Cole.
>> Second.
>> We have a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of February
28th, 2024.
Any discussion?
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to our public hearings for the evening.
Our first is 5A, PD 23-0003.
Mia's making her way up for presentation.
I'll go ahead and open the public hearing.
Hi.
>> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.
Mia Hines, senior planner, presentation pulled up.
This item is a request to rezone approximately 18.3 acres from MN, SC, and R3 to a new plan
development.
The applicant has proposed to subdivide those 18.3 acres into two sub-districts, one with
basically a base zoning of MN that only permits multifamily land uses and sub-district B with
a base zoning of SC that permits a variety of commercial land uses, specifically some
restaurant, retail, and potentially a bank facility.
The site itself is located at the northwest corner of US 380 East University Drive and
Old North Road.
The future land use map designation for this site consists of both community mixed use
along the frontage of East University Road and moderate residential to the north of that.
Preventing land uses include single family residential to the north, existing multifamily
residential land use to the east, northeast, to the further to the east across from Old
North Road are some office developments, professional office developments.
To the south across East University Road, US 380 is a religious assembly.
To the west southwest is an existing drive-through restaurant and another religious assembly
facility.
As far as roadways surrounding the property, US 380 is a six-lane divided primary arterial,
and Old North Road to the east is a two-lane collector with on-street bike lanes.
Just a brief walkthrough of the development plan, again, we have the sub-district A with
a base zoning of MN.
Within that sub-district A, the applicant is proposing a total of 279 residences.
Within sub-district B, again, that base zoning of SC, and within those commercial uses proposed
within that sub-district, the applicant is proposing restaurant, retail, and bank, totaling
approximately 33,000 square feet.
There are several points of access for ingress and egress onto this site.
The green circles represent vehicular access points and the blue circles represent pedestrian
connections and stubs.
The main point of access is here along East University Drive where are aligned with an
existing median cut, and then there are secondary access points to along East University Drive
and one along Old North Road.
As far as pedestrian connectivity, they proposed to connect to a stub in front of the existing
restaurant to the east.
They are proposing to stub to the north along East University Drive and of course extend
the sidewalk across their frontage of East University and connect their extension to
the Old North piece as well.
Additionally, they are proposing an internal pedestrian connection or off-street pedestrian
connection to the north here directly tying to a HOA lot that is owned by the Old North
HOA residential, single-family residential subdivision.
Specifically regarding the sub-district A, the applicant is proposing four buildings
within that sub-district, again, 279 residences.
Vehicular parking space is appropriate.
Here you see asterisks within these notes on this presentation mark areas where the
applicant is requesting either a deviation or an alternative from the DDC.
In this case, I've flagged vehicular parking as the applicant has requested a parking ratio
of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit as opposed to what our DDC permits, which has actually
reduced the amount of surface parking that would be required for this site, again, really
promoting the pedestrian connectivity and access on this property.
They are, like I said before, proposing a 10-foot wide side path along Use 380, proposing
a total of 32% landscape coverage and 62% tree canopy coverage within this sub-district.
They are imposing on themselves an 80-foot building setback to account for the context
sensitivity and to respect the distance and spacing to the existing single-family residential
subdivision to the north, whereas under the straight MN zoning district, there is no rear
yard setback that would be required.
There's some distance spacing that would be required based on the building height, but
in general there is, and based on the compatibility buffer that would be needed, but in general
there is no rear yard building setback, so that is an additional setback that they are
imposing as a part of this PD.
Additionally, they are limiting their building height within this portion of the development
to 40 feet, whereas the max building height in the straight MN zoning district is 65 feet.
Again, that's to account for the context sensitivity, the surrounding or existing single-family
residential neighborhood to the north.
Sub-district amenities include an indoor clubhouse, outdoor pool, bocce ball court, and outdoor
seating.
Speaking to that compatibility buffer variation again, there is a minimum, they are proposing
some alternatives again to account for context sensitivity as well as an existing easement
that is along the property lines that they share with the existing developments to the
east.
In general, what they are providing is either substantially greater than what we require
per our base zoning compatibility buffer, or it's to again account for the trees not
being able to be planted within easements and work with the space that they have.
As far as use-specific standards, the applicant is requesting to be exempted from the minimum
12-foot wall height of the ground floor of the multifamily building facing the public
street.
They are still maintaining the pedestrian basically connections to those units facing
the street, but that overall 12-foot ceiling height would ultimately lead to an overall
higher building height, which again, respecting the context sensitivity, they are trying to
limit to 40 feet.
Again, the only permitted use within the sub-district is multifamily, and the elevations that they
have provided is what they would have to adhere to under this existing plan development, which
from the south, the top images from the south is the view that we would see as we drive
along East University US 380, and then the image below that is the view from the north
that the old north residential subdivision would see, and those designs, and I think
the applicant may speak to this a little bit more, but those buildings are architecturally
designed to limit the view point from the proposed multifamily buildings into the backyards
of the existing single-family building, so whether that be through balconies that aren't
truly balconies to where you can't step out, or they're balconies that are sort of recessed
tucked in to where you can't really view over into those single-family yards.
As far as sub-district B, again, the base zoning of SC, seven buildings are proposed
within this sub-district.
The development plan shows waterfront dining, whereas in the DDC, we require buildings within
the commercial district to be oriented around a plaza or framing a corner.
This essentially, they are wanting to count their waterfront feature as their plaza area
to, again, allow for the orientation of those buildings, and there are some renderings here
to provide any backup to sort of give you a better idea of what that might look like.
Landscape coverage is 67% tree canopy coverage as opposed to the 20% landscape coverage and
the 30% tree canopy coverage that is required under the base SC zoning district, a max building
height of 50 feet as opposed to the max building height of 55 feet that is required or that
would be permitted under the base zoning district of the SC, and again, a 10-foot wide side
path is being provided along Old North Road and continuing into this sub-district along
US 380 as well.
So the images at the top here are the sort of architectural style of what the applicant
is proposing, that modern farmhouse design is what they would be tied to.
The city can't regulate specific building material, but we can regulate architectural
compatibility, and so that's what we would look for when those building permits come
in and those elevations are finalized, we would look for something similar to these
images here.
As far as compatibility buffers, again, there is an easement where this property is adjacent
to the existing multifamily property.
So a 10-foot wide buffer with no trees south of that is what they are requesting, is what
staff is supporting.
And then the minimum lot size for the SC district is 10,000 square feet.
Within this sub-district, we are permitting that to drop down to 5,000 square feet.
And then further uses with higher intensity such as larger scale general retail facilities
would not be permitted within this sub-district, again, accounting for the context sensitivity
of this area.
So we did weigh this request up against our general criteria for approval.
Specifically, I wanted to mention that the PD would allow for the development of the
property as I've walked through those components, with land use as consistent with both the moderate
residential and community mixed use future land use map designations.
The property or the proposed deviations and alternatives to the DDC are, again, intended
to minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties and require a complementary character.
And the proposed PD development standards and PD development plans provides for, ultimately
provides for a greater level of building design quality community amenities and connectivity
that would otherwise be required, wouldn't otherwise be required of the project if it
were not developed under this PD.
And just to show you a bit of that context sensitivity, the architectural style that
you see in the existing single family or adjacent single family residential neighborhood, as
well as that top image up there to the left is one of the office buildings that is across
Old North, are all sort of in line with that modern farmhouse design, the pitched roof,
the type of building material used and so forth.
So this is complementary to that existing surrounding context.
And then again, speaking to the components of the Denton Flume community mixed use designation
is intended to promote a mix of uses, commercial uses remaining predominant, which they are
along US 380, economically viable uses, higher density without impacting nearby single family
neighborhoods.
Again, this whole PD takes into account that context and then also raising the standard
of design that would otherwise be permitted under base.
The moderate residential is intended to apply to transition areas between existing single
family and mixed use or commercial areas, which the moderate residential or the residential
piece of the PD would.
Additionally, the moderate residential is intended to maintain a scale style and building
orientation to complement the prevailing character of its surroundings.
Again, that is the intent of this plan development.
So we did perform public outreach via newspaper ads, property postings and mailed notices.
We did as of the writing or preparation of this presentation and writing of the report,
we did receive one response in opposition, accounting for a total of 0.57% for the total
200 foot buffer and one response in favor, as well as an e-comment that came in later
this afternoon supporting the project from, I believe, a member of the HOA, of that old
North community to the North.
So with that, staff is recommending approval of this request as it complies with the criteria
of the DDC.
And at this time, I will take any questions or comments that you have.
The applicant is also here this evening to answer any comments or questions you have.
Before I take comments, I wanted to make a couple of corrections.
I'd said that the application was submitted in April 2023.
It was May of 2023, so just a month later, the timeline and the reason behind it is generally
the same.
Also, the applicant may speak to their choice to replace certain parts of the fence as opposed
to others.
I did look at the existing fence line.
Basically, east of that gas pipeline easement, the height is already at eight feet.
And then west of it, the height is at six feet.
So as far as the replacing the six feet that's on that east side with an eight foot, it would
just be matching the fence line that's on that side, and then the other side would be
six feet.
Okay.
I think we do have a question.
Commissioner Perot?
Thank you, Chair.
A couple of things.
One, I just noticed that the street trees along US 380 appear to be give or take 35
feet back from the curb.
Is that because it's a textile right of way?
Why would the trees not be planted between the side path and the street?
So yeah, textile will not allow street trees to be planted in their right of way.
So the alternative is to still allow it to serve as the street tree, the function of
the street tree, but it can't be planted in the right of way.
Okay.
So it's a street tree, not at the street.
And then just a couple of questions for clarification on the property to the north of this.
That's zoned R6, I believe.
Can you remind us both what the height limitations are and what residential uses are permitted
by right in R6?
Primarily single family residential uses are permitted in R6.
I do believe there are some permissions for that middle housing.
So the duplexes and triplexes and maybe some SUPs are required for those.
I'd have to double check.
If you wouldn't, if you don't mind, I can double check that and get that answered back
to you.
And then the maximum building height, I believe is 40 feet within that R6.
Thank you.
Getting back to the fence thing.
So I think my thing was with the wording.
So it talks about the developer shall replace the six foot fence with regard to these, these
specific lots, or reimburse the property owner.
So that's where I was confused.
Is it an either or, and maybe the applicant can speak better to that, but that language
is very strange to me.
They can, and we can adjust the language also, but they can speak to that.
The, the, from what we would be looking at from staff's point of view is that the fence
is replaced with an eight foot fence, but the applicant can speak to that.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions for me at this time?
Sure.
Tina, go ahead.
And Mia, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was looking at the language in the PD.
The, the other reason why we've structured it the way it is in the plan development district
is to ensure that that happens by tying it to the CEO.
So it allows for either development to get under construction, but before it's completed,
the fence issue has to be addressed.
And since that was something that I believe the applicant negotiated with the neighborhood,
hence why we wanted to ensure that there was an enforcement mechanism provided within the
plan development district.
So I know that's not something that you all normally see, but we at least wanted to make
sure that there was an enforceable provision within there.
Right.
So my question remains that who, who are you enforcing it upon the property owner?
If the applicant ends up reimbursing that, I'm just confused again by the language of
who's responsible.
It's the responsibility of the developer.
So the developer either needs to replace the fence or reimburse the property owners for
their fence, reimburse the property owners for their fence.
Is that correct Mia?
Yeah.
Okay.
That's how I was interpreting the provision and the language.
Yeah.
It would seem like we should have like a congruent, congruent fence, not different people being
in charge of replacing their fence.
Anyway, we can talk about that further.
Thank you very much.
I do have a couple of cards in front of me.
The first one being the applicant.
I will have Amy Bissett come up here and give us presentation.
Good evening.
I got it.
I can find it.
Thank you.
Good evening commissioners.
Amy Bissett, 97 Land Company, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201.
I'm glad to see you this evening.
If you'll give me just a moment, I'll pull up my presentation.
All right.
So I did watch the work session this evening and want to start by addressing a few of the
questions and comments that were brought up during that work session.
Since Commissioner Ellis, you started with the question related to the fence.
Let's go there first.
So the majority of the fences today are eight foot fences.
There are a handful that are six foot.
The reason that we originally wrote that flexibility in there is because there are some trees along
those fence lines and we didn't want to force a tree or force a fence replacement in a scenario
where perhaps a homeowner would rather keep a tree than replace their fence.
And so we were trying to build in some flexibility.
However, I do tend to agree with you that that language could be tweaked a little bit
to clean it up from a land use and zoning standpoint.
That's the way that it's written in our memorandum of understanding with the neighborhood, which
I'll talk more about here in a little bit.
So there's a commitment that's been made either way, whether or how it's codified in the PD
standards.
Commissioner Pruitt, or the question of what the vote was originally when we were here
in September of 2022, you were correct.
It was six zero.
I will walk through that chronology of what has occurred since then in just a moment.
I will say that had we gone to city council shortly after we had, then the option of doing
the PD light or the text amended PD would have been available to us and we might have
shortened the length of time before coming back before you all.
But by the time that changed, we were deep into design and into commitments with the
neighbors that we felt like needed to be honored in terms of just making sure that they got
exactly what they were seeing when we got back here today.
Chair Ellis, your question about was neighborhood engagement done?
Yes.
And I'm going to go into that in some more detail here in a little bit.
And I think that covers pretty much everything.
If I haven't covered it, I'm going to here in just a moment.
So before I get started, I do want to let you all know that I brought me a bunch of
Valentine's dates for everyone with me tonight.
I have Matt Swedenberg with Stonehawk in the audience.
He's going to come up and speak alongside me here in a moment.
I have Eric Earnshaw.
He is our architect.
Mac McKee is our civil engineer and Michael Plasky is our landscape architect and Steve
Shatner is representing the development on the commercial side.
So if you have any questions for any of them, they're here available.
So I do want to walk through the overall timeline very briefly, just so you have a feel for
what we have been doing since you saw us almost a year and a half ago.
Our initial zoning submittal was in March of 2022, so almost two years ago.
We held our first neighborhood meeting in June of 2022.
It was a virtual meeting.
We mailed out to everyone within 500 feet and we reached out to the HOA.
Between that virtual first neighborhood meeting and when we saw you all in September of 2022,
we had some ongoing conversations with the HOA, but generally we weren't sensing opposition.
It was, can you help us with this gas pipeline easement issue with our fence and a couple
of other specific things.
After the planning and zoning commission meeting in September, there were some of the neighbors
who had not been involved in some of the previous discussions with the HOA that were particularly
affected by the closeness of one of the buildings.
So we held a second neighborhood meeting between PNZ and city council and that was opened up
to everybody within the HOA.
And then we went to city council like the following week.
So there was a considerable amount of opposition that rose between PNZ and city council.
And so at that point in time, council felt like it was best if we went back and looked
at this in a planned development perspective.
I do want to brag for a moment on both the buyer of this property and the seller, the
multifamily developer and the commercial developer for being here two years later and for making
a commitment to the neighborhood that they have.
It's been a pleasure to get to represent this project.
So our original plan really only was to rezone the piece of what you see here in yellow and
it was to rezone from SC to MN.
So it wasn't really bordering the existing single family homes.
And so the notification was not as broad as it might have otherwise been.
I just want to point out what was there before and while we knew the commercial would develop
and we knew essentially what it would look like, it was not included in our planned development
because it was intended to come at a later date.
And so we were just trying to facilitate the multifamily piece at that point in time.
After city council directed us to go back and basically create a planned development,
the HAOA took it upon themselves to appoint a steering committee.
They formed that steering committee in November and reached out to us and said we have a steering
committee that's ready to negotiate with the developer.
We held three neighborhood meetings with them between December and February and we entered
into a written memorandum of understanding with them February 15th of 2023, so a year
ago tomorrow.
And I'm going to pass around a copy of those with your permission just so you have that.
There are a number of terms outlined in that memorandum, but we essentially outlined those
prior to going into the full PD design so that we knew that we generally had an understanding
and a project that would work with the surrounding neighborhood before diving into the full PD
design because that is a lot of time and effort.
Three months later we made our PD submittal, that's the amount of time that it took us
to prepare the plans from there, and we entered into a staff review period.
We held a neighborhood meeting in June of this past year, and when I say neighborhood
meeting I mean with the steering committee, but then they would go back and report back
to the entire HOA.
After we got scheduled for public hearing we held one final meeting with them on February
1st and now here we are today.
So we do have a zoning plan that addresses both the multifamily and the commercial sides
of the project.
I will not go into any detail associated with it because Mia went into all of that detail,
but what I do want to do is point out a few of the elements that were committed to in
the MOU that you have before you.
There were 10 commitments that were made.
This aerial that you have in front of you, some of the main ones were the minimum setbacks.
We have written into the PD an 80-foot minimum setback, but buildings two and four are committed
to 90 feet actually, and then the buildings three and four, which are the closest two
to the neighborhood, have additional facade treatments to help with visual buffering.
The building four, we agreed on a building orientation that had the least amount of windows
facing north, and agreed to screen patios on the second and third floors and to put
Juliette balconies to false balconies on building three.
In addition, we do have enhanced landscaping in an area that has fewer trees than any place
else along that fence line.
So we've agreed to upsize the size of trees within that area and provide enhanced landscaping.
I shared with you the compatibility buffer and the additional width of that.
We've also agreed to some things such as the closest point of the building three only has
a single row of parking in front of it rather than a double row.
We've provided this pedestrian connectivity, so this is a gas pipeline easement, which
is why that wrought iron fence is there.
That's the only fence that the gas pipeline company would permit the HOA to put up.
They have a gate.
It's a gated access, and we've provided pedestrian connectivity from that gated access down into
the commercial development.
We also worked hard to provide architectural compatibility with the existing neighborhood,
which is adorable if you've ever driven over there.
It's one of the cutest neighborhoods in Denton, and we've committed to that architectural
compatibility both in the building elevations you see on the multifamily side as well as
the modern farmhouse style for the commercial side.
Here are a few project renderings here.
This one shows the commercial in front of the multifamily that wraps around it, just
so you get a feel for the scale and the architecture.
And I'm not going to go through this zoning comparison between what the first zoning change
included versus the new PD.
I think that we've covered that pretty well, but I do want to ask Matt Swedenberg to come
up here with Stonehawk and just speak a little bit about his company and their intentions
for the multifamily side.
Thank you.
Hey, everyone.
Matt Swedenberg, 7060 Arboreal Drive, Dallas, Texas, 75231.
I work for the developers, Stonehawk Capital Partners.
We are a multifamily developer, class A multifamily developer out of Dallas.
We do deals across the state and DFW, Austin, San Antonio, Midland.
We pride ourselves on the level of quality that we put into our product, specifically
in the amenities, the finish out.
We provide pool courtyard, gym, just a quality residence for our tenants.
And I just want to say it's been a long journey getting back here, but we've had the pleasure
of getting to know a lot of folks in the city, specifically the neighborhood behind us.
And I'm happy to say that we have come this far with them and excited to move forward
with the project.
So aside from that, here to answer any questions, and I think we have our whole team here as
well to answer any questions that you have, so that's all from my side.
Thank you.
Any questions thus far?
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
As you mentioned, it's taken a long time to get here.
Do you expect the total cost of this project to be greater now than it would have been
if you were able to move forward in winter of 2022?
I would say yes.
That's partly market-driven, partly the qualifications that we've kind of put on the site, so I'd
say in general, yes.
Not a crazy increase, but definitely more than what we initially thought.
Somebody had to pay DCAD last year, right?
I guess just because I'm curious, I like learning, from looking at the overall site plan, it
looks like basically the two most rear buildings were moved forward, parking was moved to the
rear, and most of the other changes were what appeared to be small things.
Can you help me understand what the biggest reason why it took so long, because I'm sure
you weren't wanting it to take this long, right?
Right.
I think it was mainly coming to an understanding and an agreement with the neighborhood to
the north.
A lot of that was through trial and error of coming up with new site plans, presenting
different solutions, and walking through that with them, and that takes time.
Eric produces all of our site plans, along with Mack and Michael and the folks over there,
and that's not an overnight process.
There's a lot of thought and intentionality that goes into that, so it's just time-consuming.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
I know you're the residential developer, correct?
Correct.
Gotcha.
Can I talk to the commercial developer real quick, whoever that is?
Good evening.
Steve Shatner with Imperium Holdings, the owner and developer for the commercial portion,
5051 Legacy Circle, Plano, Texas.
Gotcha.
Hi, Steve.
The commercial development there, how many of those are going to be built to suit?
How many of those are going to be intended for specific use, like a restaurant, anything
that you can give me insight on that?
Don't know.
Gotcha.
Market-driven.
So I guess that it's going to be built to suit then.
You're going to have market-driven by whatever tenant, whatever buyer comes along that wants
to build there.
You guys are just going to go by whatever they come in there.
There's not an intent to say, "Hey, there's going to be ..." I didn't see exactly how
many, but it looked like it was somewhere between six to eight commercial properties
in that entire mixed-use area.
It wasn't an intent to say, "Hey, we're going to try to make this all a restaurant.
We're going to try to make a portion of a restaurant."
There was no intent to it.
There's a good and bad thing.
It's more of just a clarification on a record of what the idea is.
Our design intent is to have lots four, five, six, and seven.
Can I go back a slide to pull up the rendering?
I'm not sure who's driving this.
You are.
I doubt that.
That's probably the best ... Yeah, that's fine.
There you go.
That's the one I'm looking for.
Okay.
If you can take a look in the center of right to the left of B, you see those four buildings
that are parked over the pond, which is a retention detention basin.
That's a focal point for the overall development.
Realistically, those will be restaurants.
Got you.
We don't really know what they're intended to use.
It would be underutilized to use it for any other type of place.
Dry cleaner or whatever else.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Then that restaurant space there ... By the buildings and how you have it lined out, from
your intent, I'm sure it's once again market driven.
I get that.
It sounds like, because that's the focal point, you're going to be looking in primarily marketing
those first before hitting those ones that are further east.
Obviously, whoever comes is going to come.
We have been negotiating multiple letters of intent, so at this point in time, we're
waiting for go time from BNZ and council to start those executions.
But for practical purposes discussion, lots one, two, three, I think they could go a lot
of different ways all, again, within the context of what we're trying to design here and then
also with the limitations of use of what we're allowed to do.
It will be within that box.
Got you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Any other questions?
Thank you.
Not at this moment.
Thank you.
Okay.
This is a public hearing.
I do have a card group request from the old North Park HOA.
Not sure exactly who that is, who we'll represent, but come on down, state your name and address
and your time will begin.
Good evening.
I'm Diana Sims, 2500 Rugby Lane, Denton, Texas, 76209.
And I'm Clark Perkins, 2209 Paxson Way, Denton, Texas, 76209.
Go ahead.
And we represent the HOA that's directly behind where this will be built, and we just want
to thank everyone this year, Stonehawk, Ralph Mason, Steven, thank you, Amy with 97 Land.
It's been a long journey, but we've come together and in the process of all of this, it was
a give and take, and it was something that we want you to know that we support this zoning
change.
So we're here to tell you that, and thank you for your consideration.
There was a lot of time put in.
With negotiations, there was even one meeting that Mr. Shatner came to and he was very helpful.
It's really been a pleasure to see things come out the way they have.
We had a lot of concerns at the beginning with those buildings so close to our backyards,
and we really are grateful to the city council for making this a planned development and from
something that went to, we thought was going to decrease our property values in a really
big way, that now we believe it's going to enhance our property values.
So we want to come and support them in this approval.
Thank you.
Can you answer my concern about the fence and how that wording came about?
Did you have homeowners that just wanted control?
Yeah, when we were in the meeting, there's about five homes down on that east end that
are going to be affected, and at the time, they really didn't know if they wanted to
have that reimbursed and there were just ideas thrown out there, but I think overall that
they would like it to be all built out so it's the same, and if there is a tree there
that's in the way, you know how they do cutouts?
So that's the preference, but we know that they're going to take care of it.
We know that Stonehawk's going to take care of all of that one way or another, but as
it stands right now, I just talked to a neighbor today, she said we'd really like it to be
all one fence, so it's uniform.
We trust that they're going to take care of it in the best way possible, so yeah.
Thank you for letting us know your opinion.
It's appreciated.
Thank you.
I don't have any other cards in front of me, but this is a public hearing.
Anyone else wishing to speak?
Okay, with that, I will close the public hearing and open the floor, motion or discussion.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Villarreal?
Second.
Okay, we've got a first and a second discussion.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
I just have a few thoughts about this.
I appreciate everybody's work over the last two and a half years or since February, so
I guess two years exactly since it went under contract according to statements at the council
meeting in October of '22.
I want this development to happen.
I think staff, I think the developer, I think the neighborhood association have done an
amazing job to come up with a great plan.
At the same time, I consider my duty here to consider what is best for the city long
term, what is best from a planning practice.
I have over one bookshelf of books, not a tall, just one line that I've read to try
to educate myself on that.
I just want to share a few quotes from some things that explain my reticence to making
this a PD.
One other thing, I did go back over the last two years and looked at the rezonings that
we have done to a zoning classification that would allow multi-family.
There had been four that we approved that were straight zonings, two of them were denied
by council.
There had been 10 SUPs, I believe, split between SC and R7.
There have been three PDs and four PD amendments, so that's kind of the data that I'm working
from.
APA Texas says, "Plan developments should be used for unique developments, not routinely."
As a senior fellow at the Mercatus Institute wrote, "A survey of Texas cities shows planned
development zoning is used frequently.
A number of forces have generated this demand.
Neighborhood organizations are becoming stronger participants in the development decision making
process.
Neighborhood associations are insisting that negotiated concessions be made enforceable
by recording them in the PD ordinance.
Developers have found planned development zoning a successful strategy for gaining approval.
Developers freely negotiate restrictions and concessions to win approval.
Planners have promoted the use of planned development districts as a means of adding
regulations that they have not been successful in getting approved as general ordinance amendments.
All of the forces have resulted in the growing ad hoc use of planned development zoning.
Overuse of planned development zoning should be guarded against.
PD zoning should not be used to correct deficiencies of a standard district, nor should PDs be used
as a means of legislatively granting a variance.
Instead, PDs should be reserved to accommodate innovation and to respond to unique site conditions
in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan."
A shorter one from Donald Elliott, who is actually the senior consultant at Clarion,
who incidentally was the office that consulted on our 2019 code.
It says, "PD zoning was originally created to address innovative developments where the
applicant would give increased quality in return for flexibility.
As PDs moved from being the exception for innovative development to a form of zoning
used regularly and for not so innovative projects, cities woke up to a problem.
If you are not careful, PDs can become a zoning narcotic.
I have worked with several cities that became addicted to negotiating zoning, negotiated
zoning and begged for the cure.
The problem is that once you start using PDs, you have trouble drawing the line between
what should and should not be negotiated.
At their worst, and this really happens, they are used because it is easier to negotiate
case-by-case deals than to fix problems with the underlining Euclidean zoning ordinance.
Planners may know that the setbacks are wrong or that the parking standards are too low
or too high, but there is no political will to fix the problems in the zoning ordinance."
Our DDC says simply, "The purpose of rezoning to a PD are to ensure compatibility between
development to achieve greater flexibility than allowed by the strict application of
the DDC and/or to encourage unique and innovative land use concepts while providing greater
benefit to the city and ensuring efficient provision of services and utilities."
So that's a mouthful.
I thank you for your patience.
It's just an uncomfortable situation for me because, again, I view my role here as doing
what I can to create the best city for my children.
Locking Denton in many, many PDs going forward because we feel the need to do that is not
a recipe for success in my view.
With that said, like I said, I fully appreciate the Neighborhood Association, the developer,
and staff because you've done a great job.
Thank you.
I guess with that I'll just say that, well, I agree with some of the things that you read.
In this situation, I think when we do have existing neighborhoods and they can come together
and create a development together, I think can be a unique and wonderful thing.
It doesn't just have to be some kind of unique piece of land, for instance.
It could be just the unique thing of an existing community that comes together and would like
some say in what they're going to be looking at.
I don't think that says that it's a problem in our development code.
I think we've worked really hard to create our current development code that does work.
While I appreciate the pause, I'm not sure I agree with it in this scenario, but I do
appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Before we go ahead and vote, I do have just a quick question.
Amy, maybe you can answer this.
How is the gate going to work?
I just thought of the question.
I would have asked it earlier if it came to me.
That wrought iron fence section has a gate now.
Yes, it does.
That has a lock on it.
Yes.
Because I saw it.
I was at the property yesterday.
How is that working for, you're saying there's going to be pedestrian access so that neighborhood
could come into the development?
Yes.
Is that going to be a one-way working thing?
It is.
What we've talked about is them having some sort of key card access where they can come
through, but nobody can get back onto their side.
The way that we've situated the secured gates for the multifamily piece, they're just outside
of that so that they can come straight down into the commercial.
How does that work with, I guess, who accesses the gate now?
The HOA has complete control over that gate today.
We have none.
Or the developer has none.
Okay.
And it worked for it made that way.
Okay.
Good.
That was the answer I was looking for.
Thank you.
I figured you would have thought of that.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Yeah.
I certainly appreciate this getting reworked.
I didn't have a problem, obviously we on the commission didn't have a problem the first
time it came around, but obviously other things changed.
So I think coming together the way this has come together and getting the HOA support
I think is a terrific thing.
So thank you very much.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Is there any further discussion?
Comments?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That will pass 4-1.
That will take us to our next public hearing.
I'll go ahead and just pause a couple of seconds because I figure the room's going to clear
before our next one.
So I'll go ahead and let that happen and we'll make way for 5B which is SD 230002.
Ashley's here for presentation.
I'll go ahead and open the public hearing.
Good evening chair, members of the commission, Ashley Eckstead, assistant planner.
This is SD 230002.
This is the special sign district for James Wood Auto Park.
So just some history of the debt and sign code and why we have it.
Signs are needed as part of the urban built environment.
They provide directions for residents and visitors and communicate messages for commerce.
However, they can create nuisances such as visual clutter, glare for property owners
and distract drivers.
So our sign regulations do aim to balance a property owner's needs with the community's
aesthetic and safety goals.
However, not all situations can be anticipated so the sign code does allow for deviations
provided that the sign package is superior and comprehensive.
So some background on James Wood Auto Park, it is a 54 acre auto dealership with frontage
on two roadways that's 35E which is a freeway and state school which is a primary arterial.
They also have eight driveway connections throughout the site.
There's five along 35E which connects to the parts and service departments and their sales
buildings.
And then there's also three along state school which connects to the truck sales, body shop
and the pre-owned sales building.
They have eight structures, parking, covered and uncovered automotive sales display areas.
And due to the size of the campus and the arrangement of the facilities, they do rely
upon signage to effectively direct motorists to their locations.
TxDOT did acquire the front portion of this property for the I-35E widening project so
the applicant is asking to replace the signs.
So since these signs were installed in the past, we do know what they look like installed
and these are two photos of the signs installed previously before they were removed by TxDOT
and these signs did predate the sign code.
The applicant is not requesting to reinstall the large disco ball that you see in the photo
here.
So this is their sign plan and the signs are shown in the general location of where they're
being proposed.
There will be four new ground signs and then it also includes two existing signs.
And the brand signs, those are going to be 47 feet tall and then the traffic control
sign, the certified service sign will be eight feet tall.
So in summary of the sign district, for the maximum effective area for signs along 35E
is 250 square feet.
The three ground signs will be 226.3 square feet, so they will be 23.7 square feet less
than permitted and the traffic control will be 15.6 square feet, which is 234 square feet
less than permitted.
So the effective area of all four signs is less than would be permitted under our sign
code.
The height, so on 35E they can be 40 feet.
The three ground signs will be 47 feet, which is seven feet taller than permitted.
The traffic control sign will only be eight feet, so it is 32 feet shorter than permitted.
We are adjusting the way that the setbacks are calculated in the sign district.
So generally, they are calculated 20 feet from the curb line.
Since this property was acquired by TextDOT and we don't have the final plans for the
TextDOT expansion, we wanted to ensure that the signs would not become non-conforming
once TextDOT was finished doing their work.
So they do meet the 20 feet from the curb line, however, we are changing that requirement
so that it's measured from the property line in the future.
So they would need to be a minimum of 10 feet for ground sign one and three in the traffic
control one, and a minimum of 8.7 feet for ground sign two.
Lastly, the number of signs, that is based off the feet of frontage, and then they cannot
be more than 60 feet from one another.
So along 35E, they could have a maximum of three signs, and of State School Road they
could have a maximum of two.
So along 35E, they are proposing five signs, and then the ground sign three and the traffic
control sign would only be 22 feet apart instead of 60 feet apart, and along State School they
are only keeping the one existing sign, so they will have one less than they are permitted
along State School.
So the comprehensive sign package and the compatibility, they would not be able to install
any new ground signs without going through the public hearing process again.
They have presented a unified sign package, which reduces the visual clutter through consistency
and uniformity, and as discussed earlier, the signs all do have a smaller effective
area than would be permitted under the sign plan, and they would not obstruct the view
of the drivers.
The scale of the property is large and complex, so the numerous signs are needed to direct
traffic, and the colors of the signs in these photos, you can see the colors of the signs
do align with the colors of the buildings for each of the brands, so they are compatible
with the building architecture and provide clear directions throughout the site.
We did public outreach and newspaper ad, signs were posted on the property, and we mailed
out notices.
We did not receive any responses in opposition or in favor.
Staff does recommend approval of the CRUST, as it complies with the criteria for approval
of the Denton Code of Ordinances for the creation of a special sign district, and I'm happy
to answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Ashley.
Any questions at the moment?
Okay.
I don't have any cards in front of me, but this is a public hearing.
Come on up.
Thanks, Ashley.
Good evening.
>> Good evening.
I am Rick Ferraro with Ginza Architects representing the applicant, and I'll be happy to answer
any questions, but I think staff's done a really good job explaining this one.
>> Yeah, I think they have too.
Where's the disco ball?
Where is it going?
I've got to ask.
I won't lie.
I've missed it.
That corner has not looked right to me.
>> The owner had considered putting the disco ball back and ultimately decided that in the
best interest of getting this passed easily that it would be best to not bring it before
you.
>> So iconic.
But anyway, yes, I'm happy that signs are going back up.
That is a big piece of property that has not had signs for a very long time, so yeah, it
is difficult.
Is there any questions here?
Good.
Thank you for being here.
This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak?
Okay.
With that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or
discussion.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> I move approval and for the record, I would have supported this with the disco ball.
>> Commissioner Cole.
>> Second.
>> We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to our planning and zoning matrix, and I will turn the floor over to
Tina.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Chair Ellis.
For the matrix, so we get to remove two items off your matrix that we've completed, so that
is the discussion regarding the appropriate terminology for the different types of housing
units.
Since we addressed that at the commission's prior meeting, but since it was coupled with
the affordable housing toolkit presentation you received tonight, so hence why we left
that on there temporarily, but both of those items will come off.
There were no additional requests from the commission's last meeting, so we've not added
anything to the matrix.
Just for your benefit, since our last planning and zoning commission meeting, we did have
the 314 Marietta street historic landmark designation request that the commission had considered
previously and recommended approval of, so City Council did end up approving that item.
There was some discussion regarding whether or not the designation applied to just the
750 square foot structure versus the entire structure given the proposed building addition
that will eventually be made on the property, but otherwise that item was approved.
As it relates to our area plans, so just want to give a quick update on the southeast area
plan.
We have a steering committee meeting with that group that's this Thursday at five o'clock,
pending quorum is made, so fingers crossed on that one, but that is this Thursday, so
we'll be having that.
You also should have on your calendars next Wednesday, February 21st, is a special call
planning and zoning commission meeting that's at five o'clock.
Your packet, I believe, was sent out today.
I'm getting a favor or not from Kathy, so check your email for that, and included with
that is the existing conditions information that we will be presenting to you next week,
so in the event you want to be able to review that in advance, I know we made the commitment
to try and get you those materials a week in advance of when we do those meetings.
So again, looking forward to that conversation because the existing conditions conversation
that we have will help prepare and tee up our discussion that we have with council in
March when we do the joint meeting with them for this project, and that concludes my update.
Okay.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
I hate to be the stickler on this for the last seven years, but once again, whenever
we have projects that we think could be possibly contentious or lengthy, if we can just be
mindful of other items that are on the agenda, just agenda organization, James Wood could
have easily gone as A, and then A could have been B. Don't think you need to sit there
for all of it.
Now, thankfully, it wasn't a very long item, but we have seen items that have gone very
long, and it may have, from a staff perspective, whenever the agenda was getting built, it
may have been, hey, everyone seems on board, it shouldn't be too big of a deal, and really,
I kind of feel weird by even picking the fight tonight because it wasn't that long of a deal,
but it was another example.
Just a quick reminder, let's be efficient in our agenda building.
If anybody can get in and out of here for the quick something quick, we don't think
signed ordinance is going to get really hotly picked on, and we know something in the past
has been.
Let's put that guy last.
Sure thing.
That's fair.
Thank you.
Is there anything to add to the matrix or any concluding items?
Okay.
Well, with that, I'll just say Happy Valentine's Day.
Thank you for being here and taking the time to do that.
And I will adjourn this at 747 p.m.
Thank you.
See you next week.