>> Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting for Wednesday, July 24, 2024.
This is our work session and with the quorum present, I'll call us to order at 5 p.m.
Let the record show that Commissioner Patrone and Commissioner Cole are absent at this time.
First item on our work session agenda is the clarification of our agenda for tonight's
meeting.
The first being our minutes from June 26th.
Any questions, comments?
Items for individual consideration.
3A, there's Bryce right there.
>> Good evening, commission, assistant planner.
This is a final reply for approximately 36.07 acres, it is one-half mile east of South Bonnie
Bray and on the north side of Roseland Drive.
This final plat will create 125 single family residential lots and seven HOA lots.
It's the sixth phase of the Eagle Creek subdivision.
At this time, the plat does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff does not have any
objection to the requested first extension to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
I'll stand for any questions.
>> Questions for Bryce?
Okay.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
3BPP240003, you are staying right up there.
>> Bryce Bedardsdale, assistant planner.
This is a preliminary plat for Grand Parkside.
It's approximately 19 acres, it's 266 feet east of Country Club Road and on the north
side of Hodson Lane.
In April, we brought 1.3 acres to you guys for a rezone and this was approved unanimously
as well as at council on May 21st.
This is a preliminary plat to work through the organization of approximately 71 lots,
63 of those being single family residential with eight HOA lots.
Currently, this plat does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to
the first extension request to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
I'll stand for any questions.
>> Thanks, Bryce.
Questions?
Okay.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> If you all did not see the email, 3C has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will
not be taking any kind of action there.
3DFP240024, is anyone playing Sean today?
No?
Okay.
Well, I think we've got a similar situation there where we've got an extension.
Okay.
Even if we can just pull it up so we can see it.
Yeah.
Yeah, 24A.
There we go.
>> Yes, this looks -- I don't know about this one, but a final plat, it looks like staff
recommends now, but has no objection to the requested extension.
>> Okay.
August 14th.
I assume someone's going to present it at the meeting tonight?
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> Sure, yeah.
>> Maybe Matt can present it.
>> Oh.
Okay.
Oh, Commissioner Villarreal, I apologize.
>> No worries.
If you could find out before the meeting what number of extension requests this is, I'd
appreciate it.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> That might be on the backup.
I'll check.
Well, it looks like it had an extension approved on June 26th.
So second.
Yeah.
Second.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
You know what, it looks like Sean has 3E2FP240026.
>> All right.
>> There it is.
>> I will stay up here.
Yes, so a final plat.
For a law, what looks like off of Fannin Road, it's not a law, but it is a law.
For a law, what looks like off of Fannin Road, the staff recommends denial, but has no objection
to the request at extension.
>> All right.
14.
Okay.
>> Oh.
>> And there's Sean.
>> Maybe he can speak more to this.
>> We're going to do it.
You got questions there, anyone?
Okay.
Thank you.
>> You've been replaced.
>> Yeah.
3FFP240023.
Matt, that is yours.
>> Sean is going to do that one.
>> Yeah, right.
>> Yes.
I do know about this one.
All right.
Yeah.
So this is a final plat of a 15-acre lot located on the north side of Fishtrap Road, approximately
260 feet west of Greenleaf Circle.
The staff recommends denial because it does not meet the criteria for approval, however,
we have no objection to the request at extension.
This is the second extension request.
The reason for denial is because the civil engineering plans have not been approved for
the project in question related to this plat, however, the applicant is moving forward with
this, and so expect no hiccups there.
>> All right.
Questions?
Okay.
Thank you.
>> Yep.
>> Going to our public hearings.
You saw 4A and 4B are being postponed to August 14th.
Here comes Angie to say something.
>> Hello.
>> Hi.
Yes, these are two public hearings, PD230001 and Z220018, both for Denton 195.
Staff is requesting this item be postponed to a date certain of August 14th, and so the
request will be to open the public hearing and continue the items to that date.
Staff will be conducting a neighborhood meeting with area residents on Tuesday, July 30th
at 630 at the Dean Yarek Center.
Happy to answer any questions you all may have.
>> Thank you.
>> What time is it?
>> 630 p.m.
>> Questions at the moment, Angie?
No?
Okay.
Thank you.
>> Okay.
That would take us to 4C, S230001.
Ashley is making her way up.
Hello.
>> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.
Ashley Eckstead, Associate Planner.
This is S2313301 North Elm Multifamily.
This is a request for a specific use permit to allow for a multifamily use on approximately
2.4 acres of land.
This property is generally located on the south side of North Elm, approximately 560
feet east of Riney Road.
The current zoning is R7, which is shown on the map in brown, and the future land use
is neighborhood mixed use, which is shown on the map in the pink color.
The recommendation is approval, as it does comply with the criteria for approval, and
I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
Questions?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Next, we have 4D CA240001, which is related to 4E Z240009.
>> Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
Angie Mangleris, Development Review Manager.
If it's okay, during the meeting, I'd like to present both of these items back to back.
So this is CA240001 and Z240009.
These are both -- these are two items related to the Dentex property.
Just a little bit of background on this.
This is a 92-acre tract of land located just south of Allred Road, north of Johnson Lane,
and east of John Payne Road.
This is a 92-acre tract of land that was recently annexed into the city limits.
The annexation was approved on July 16th.
Following the annexation, the applicant is seeking to develop the southern 65 acres of
the property as single-family residential, while the north 27 acres will remain a wedding
venue, which is currently in use, but being requested to be rezoned to mixed-use neighborhood
for future development.
The two requests before you tonight do need to be considered in the order in which they'll
be presented.
That's the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which designates this area as rural areas.
The request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to community mixed-use for the northern 27
acres of land and moderate residential for the southern 65 portion.
The subsequent case that we will hear is the proposed zoning case, which is recommending
or requesting mixed-use neighborhood for that northern portion of the site and residential
six for the southern portion of the site.
Staff is recommending approval of both of these requests, as it is consistent with the
overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including growing compactly.
This area is expected to change over the next five years with Hunter and Cole Ranch master
plan communities coming online.
The zoning and future land use framework will provide a transition from the higher intensity
commercial and residential uses, which would be allowed along the 35 corridor as you move
east towards 377.
We start to see more moderate and low residential single family development.
In addition, these areas that you see in green are also currently in the ETJ, but subject
to restrictive covenants.
As we start to see platting in those areas, we would expect them to also annex into the
city and seek a framework similar to what is being presented tonight.
Having said that, happy to answer any questions about either of the two.
There will be a more detailed presentation in open session.
Thanks, Angie.
Questions?
Angie, I know there's ETJ to the east, right?
Yes, ma'am.
Do you know if they were contacted at all, talked with at all?
The applicant has been in contact.
It's a little bit of this particular property, I believe more to the southeast, and I know
they've done some outreach to this owner as well.
They can speak more to their specific outreach efforts.
I do know some of those southeast to the area are generally in support of the request and
may be looking to move forward in a similar fashion sometime in the future.
Okay.
Yeah, and I was out there today.
You can't even get to the site that I saw.
The road is closed.
So I assume it's just being repaved?
All red or?
Yeah, all red.
Yeah, all red is, I mean, it serves as access for both Sagebrook and is ultimately designed
as a primary arterial serving as a larger east-west connection throughout the city.
The entire city would cross over 377 and does connect to Brush Creek Road.
They will be required to make improvements to Johnson Lane.
It is a residential collector and would dedicate that additional right of way necessary.
In addition, the future John Payne Road, a secondary arterial, will be running from the
south to the north as Hunter develops, providing additional access in the area.
So there are some improvements that do need to occur as with any development, but the
infrastructure is there and the roads are reflected on the mobility plan.
Okay.
Thank you.
Anything else?
Scott, did you have?
Oh, Commissioner Packard, do you have your hand up?
I'm sorry.
I thought you were stretching.
Where is the wedding venue located?
Sure.
It is, let's do this.
It is in this northwest corner, and they can speak more to that specifically, but that
is the general area of the wedding venue, and then the residential component is a little
further to the south.
Okay.
So there would be a nice exit out from there.
Yes.
They have access in and out today as it is, and that portion of the site is really not
being proposed to change at this time.
The wedding venue and the single-family use are allowed under MN zoning.
I'll let the applicants speak more to their future plans, but my understanding is that
will remain in operation until we start to see some of the Hunter development come online,
and MN development would be more appropriate at that time.
Okay.
Fair enough.
Thank you.
Scott's going to add a piece.
Just to answer Margie's question, which I'll just tag into that as well, so the woman that
lives in the house today on the homestead will continue to live there and operate the
wedding venue.
She has friends with the adjacent property to the east, which is the Dominguez.
If you recall when we were going through Sagebrook, Dominguez, you remember.
So the Dominguez, they get along very well.
They're going to put a berm and a road, and so they've talked through all of this, and
then that other property that Angie was referring to is also owned by the Dominguez's.
So they own a large swath in there and having similar conversations.
So to answer that question, yes, and then the wedding venue is existing barn, which
they may make some improvements to as they go along here.
But she is the owner and occupies the property and will continue the wedding venue.
That was an important part.
They were looking to do a pre-annexation agreement, and they're just taking their chances with
annexation and going through the process, and everybody seems to be very supportive
as far as just the community.
Yeah, and as I recall, didn't we curb a certain road in there?
Well, funny you should mention that because as you were talking about traffic, we are
continuing to pursue, that will be the new Allred Brush Creek.
So what you see happening on Allred is really a temporary solution.
Bonnie Bray closes, we're closing that rail crossing.
We've had some conversations with John Polster with ITS, as well as the cog.
There is a desire to have Brush Creek to continue all the way through to 35, so they have that
east-west connectivity.
So we're looking to get the rail crossing improved and get that roadway built.
So they will be, all of this property, which I think is important, is going to be on a
six-lane arterial.
Thank you.
Anything else?
No?
Okay, thanks, Angie.
Okay, that is our last public hearing item.
So that will take us to our work session report, which is 2A-PZ24089A, it's a Receiver Report
Holder Discussion Related to Amending the DDC to Establish Community Engagement Incentive
Participation in its Process.
Hello, Keisha.
Good evening, Chair and Commissioner, I'm Keisha Siriano, Assistant Planning Director.
Here to talk to you tonight about community engagement incentives.
We had our initial conversation back on June 12th, in your backup you'll see some comments
and responses from that meeting.
I do have a few comments that I pulled out that will be towards the end of this presentation
just to review what we discussed previously.
So as we discussed previously, you know, community engagement from our developer community is
highly important, both from Planning Zoning Commission, City Council, as well as staff.
Our development code does recommend to the participation process in regards to submitting
a system participation plan, participation report, specific notifications for residents
within 200 feet and 500 feet and holding two neighborhood meetings.
That's all already in our code.
Staff does attend those meetings when we're notified.
But unfortunately, over the last five years, we haven't received any system participation
plan or system participation reports.
And we know, again, as I stated, community engagement, hearing from the community, connecting
with the community, that's something that both the Commission and City Council and staff
want to see more from our developer community.
So this is a staff-initiated amendment.
When we have more community engagement, typically it minimizes some of the delays from project
lines, from projects coming before you, where you have residents that come to you or City
Council complaining about something.
So by adding this optional process, it provides an opportunity for the applicant and the residents
to get together on the front side and kind of work out any of the concerns they have
before being presented to you.
So question that we're going to answer tonight is, how do we incentivize our applicants to
engage with the community?
Yes, we have seen more engagement.
Yes, some of them are having more of those neighborhood meetings, but we would like to
have even more.
And so we just want to figure out if there's a way we can provide some incentives to encourage
them to do so.
So we're recommending to do, to offer community engagement incentives for applicants who enter
into a MOU.
And when we talked in June, we was looking at an agreement.
We've now switched to an MOU.
And what this optional process would do is the developer will work with a neighborhood,
discuss their project as they normally would.
If there's something in their project that the neighborhood would like to see, they would
work out, have meetings and figure out what needs they can work out and put in the MOU.
So some of those examples could be providing affordable housing within the project or providing
job training classes, or even employing some of the residents in the neighborhood, or it
could be design characteristics, open space, allowing some open space, public open space
for residents to be able to use increased screening of buffering from the neighborhood.
Some of the local examples, there was a 380 multifamily project.
The developer worked with the neighborhood.
They wanted more of a modern form house look on the project, and they agreed to it and
did it.
Another project was Woodrow.
They actually offered some scholarships for the neighborhood in exchange for their support
for the project.
So here are the two proposed incentives that we're recommending.
Of course, if this gets approved down the line and there's more incentives that we think
may be needed or may be developed, whoever may ask for them, we can discuss those at
those times.
But the first one is the current submittal and review of the zoning compliance plan as
well as the civil engineering plan.
The other one is the issuance of a clear and gray permit prior to recording of the final
plaque.
So in order to be eligible to receive these incentives, the project has to be a zoning
change request or specific use permit.
If they choose to enter into this optional process, they must submit that MOU with their
application.
The applicant must have those meetings, connect with staff and have those conversations and
send out notifications with at least 51% of the property owners located within 500 feet.
This doesn't negate anyone else that's not a property owner from participating in the
process.
It's just the property owners will have the final say.
And along with the MOU, they would need to supply signatures from 51% of those property
owners located within 500 feet of the project site.
And the MOU would state that they agree with the project and any other quote unquote needs
the neighborhood has asked for would also be in there that they're agreeing to.
Property owners can choose to have a different entity negotiate on their behalf, whether
it's an HOA or someone else.
But in the end, like I said previously, the property owners would be the one to have the
final say.
There are some limitations on this.
So the MOU, we'd be looking for the terms and conditions of what we mentioned, what
those needs are, what the neighborhood is looking for, clearly stated as far as the
timeline as to when the applicant would perform those particular commitments, must not have
any conflict with our regulatory documents for the city.
And it's noted in the code that the city would not enforce this if an applicant decides to
do this.
However, if we do hear that the applicant failed to perform what the community said
they want them to do, then this may impact their ability to apply for incentives in the
future.
So here's just a few of the comments.
Most of them are in your backups, just a few that we pulled from our conversation in June.
So one of the questions, why are we proposing this?
So as we started earlier on, this is an optional process.
We are wanting to increase the engagement in what we have in right now and hoping this
will entice our development community to engage more with their neighborhoods when they're
working on projects.
Process may sound burdensome, but as again, it is optional process, and we know not everybody
will decide to do it, and we also know that not all projects will have an impact to adjacent
neighborhood as well.
Why is staff requiring property owners instead of residents and business owners?
Yes, state law, like property owners typically are able, those are the ones most typically
listen to.
They have the state law backing them as a property owner of that particular neighborhood
living within that neighborhood.
It doesn't negate, as I said earlier, from renters or anyone within that 500 feet that
receives a notice for participating.
They can attend those meetings.
They can express their concerns and ideas regarding the project.
They can speak up and say whether they agree or not as well.
It's just the property owners would have the final say as a property owner within that
500 feet.
Who determines the greatest need?
Again, that's whoever showed up to the meeting, whoever participates, is signed the agreement,
although that's who, and it's no different than what we do now.
There's examples here from St. Mark Catholic Church and Walker Giesling where the residents
took some time.
They had different views and opinions, and the applicant did have to wait and figure
out what it is they want to do with those different opinions happening within the neighborhood.
This could happen here.
It happens now.
It wouldn't be any different.
We did, there's a question about did we reach out to the developers.
We did reach out to a local developer who regularly conducts community engagement with
Denton projects, and she was the one I mentioned earlier who actually worked out at MOU to
have those increased design characteristics on the project, a 380 multifamily project.
This process would enhance what we're already doing.
We would continue to assist in mailing the notifications out to applicants.
Those neighborhood meeting staff will continue to encourage those to happen and continue
to attend as available, continue to share best practices when communicating with our
developers.
There's a flyer when we share this, the last time that was created, just to help our developers
in better communicating with neighborhood residents.
So we're working on a website to post this to as well as with other tips for them, working
on getting a poster front desk and share pre-application meetings.
We did have a developer town hall meeting about a month ago, and this was provided there
and quite a few of the developers did, I did see them pick this up and take that with them.
This includes my presentation and I stand for questions.
Thank you.
Questions?
I mean, I guess I'll start.
So we're saying we're having difficulty having neighborhood engagement or getting these,
I don't remember what you called them, these community engagement things submitted now.
So do we think these incentives are actually going to help with that?
I mean, the incentives, sorry, they don't seem that strong, so help me understand that.
So the process you're talking about is a system translation report and the plan.
Yeah, you're saying we're not really getting that now.
Right.
But we're hoping to do this just to increase the engagement, so it's separate from that,
but that's still going to be in the code, but we're just going to, we are proposing
to add this to the code as another option, as another way to encourage our applicants
to engage with the community.
And if I can add to that, what we've heard is that if they're going to go through this
additional length of time to engage with the community, then what they really see valuable
is that early clearing grade permit prior to the final plat being recorded.
So because that allows them to get a jumpstart, if you will, on construction.
We have some other checks and balances in place that we'll still enforce, but nonetheless
they're really looking for that opportunity for that clearing grade permit prior to then.
Okay, so help me understand that, if you could.
How much time are we talking about?
How difficult is it to record a final plat that's been approved?
So great question.
So a variety of things can come into play in terms of getting signatures or what have
you, but what we've heard in talking with the development community, particularly with
the representative that we've had on several projects, that is one of the things that she
has indicated that would be a significant benefit to be able to have that accomplished.
So because we'll still make sure the tree preservation inspection has been done and
we'll make sure that the watershed inspection has been done, but they feel like if they
could get that clearing grade permit, it just gains them a little more time.
So that combined with then also the opportunity to have a zoning compliance plan in the civil
engineering plans reviewed simultaneously, that will actually save them several weeks
in that process, because typically we recommend they do their zoning compliance plan first,
get that approved.
The more savvy developers can probably get that approved within four weeks.
For some with more complicated sites, it takes a little longer.
And then with the civil engineering plans, that's an even more in-depth review.
So by having those happen simultaneously, they can keep the plans updated between the
two projects or between the two development applications.
So they feel that it will save them several weeks in their overall timeline.
And for them, you know, time is money.
Yeah, I mean, a lot of it seems arduous for staff, like looking at signatures and I'm
just -- I'm trying to wrap my head around it.
I was a little skeptical last time.
So I'm kind of still there because I'm just trying to -- it's just -- I just don't know
that it will do what it is that we want it to do.
I like the handout that you said developers took.
I think that is really good, best practices.
I think that was fantastic.
But I'm just -- I'm struggling a little bit.
And then also, you know, on this draft under limitations where it talks about -- I mean,
we can enforce the MOU.
So if they don't do it, I mean, there's nothing we can do about it as a city.
And then we have here that it may impact their ability for future incentives.
So I mean, what's to say somebody does this, gets their head start on a project, doesn't
go through with it, and then come back and, you know, and does that again?
And I don't know.
That's obviously worst-case scenario.
And I don't know if somebody would go through all of this just to get that.
I don't know.
But --
>> So, you know, what we found -- looking at this that we've proposed and thinking about
past projects where engagement has been done, particularly like on projects that are involving
plan development district requests or specific use permits, you know, much of what the community
and the developer come into agreement with is in all likelihood reflected in the plans
and codified as part of the ordinance.
So anything that's design-related on a project, then that's going to be included, whether
it's in the plans or the written text of the PD and in the SUP ordinance.
So that we will be able to enforce.
But, you know, on a project like the Woodrow Multifamily where the developer proposed to
offer scholarships, you know, we're not enforcing that.
If they end up not holding up their end of the bargain and providing those scholarships,
you know, we're not going to take their CO away and make them tear down their multifamily
development, right?
>> Right, sure.
>> So, you know, there is a component there, good-faith effort, that the developer will
continue to provide the scholarships as they committed to.
If they don't, work will get out on the street and the court of public opinion will probably
make it well-known to us that they did not uphold their end of the bargain and let you
all know as well.
And I think if anything, what is going to result is not getting neighborhood support
on future projects, particularly if the developer is working within that area of the community.
Did you ever think that it could come back as a negative on the city because, you know,
the everyday citizen doesn't necessarily understand that an MOU is not enforceable by the city.
So, you know, does that inadvertently make the city, you know, look really bad and make
us, you know, less trustworthy because, you know, this was approved or talked about before
the project and it doesn't happen and, you know, there could be some misconception there.
Hello, Scott.
>> Hi.
I guess one more piece I wanted to add or suggest in here that I think staff, what staff
is attempting to do is provide tools in the toolbox.
So, just as Carrie had pointed out, just where we can provide those opportunities to have
greater touch points, that's what we wish to do.
So it's not -- it's not that this is the silver bullet that solves everything for everybody.
It's one more tool in our toolbox to allow people an opportunity or encourage those types
of things.
And I don't know what I just said, but I meant Keisha if I said Kira.
They just caught up to me, which is a consultant from Tina, so my apologies.
So that's all that is and again, we hope that it would provide in a better light that the
city is attempting to do something rather than not.
It's just one more piece that we offer.
And I think we'll have any number of things that we'll be bringing forward to the commission
in hopes of trying to streamline, expedite, maybe tighten our rules and reinforce what
council and P and Z is asking us to do, but maybe streamline the process of doing that
as we might make rules more rigid.
So that's all I wanted to say.
Thank you.
>> Okay.
Thank you, Scott.
Commissioner Thacker.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Do we not think maybe something -- there would be some other route that would be more effective,
so instead of maybe the MOA, any new developer sends some representative from the company
or HR PR that comes in and sits through like a quarterly, I don't know, presentation about
the city, about the community that they're in, and that's something we could actually
enforce.
You know, like you need to send this representative, they need to sit through the training, and
then they get a sit and get on something that -- where we get to sort of tailor the presentation,
what they need to know, what we want them to know, and sort of nurture that relationship
from our side instead of, again, trying to not only create an MOA, but issue the MOA,
keep track of the MOA, and then, of course, there's always the --
>> MOU, correct.
>> Or the MOU.
Sorry.
We call it memorandum of agreements at IT.
But it's -- another thing that I think I get concerned with, too, is that what if they
only have a singular project?
Like what if they're only coming in to do one project?
And so they say that they're willing to, you know, provide these scholarships or whatever
else, and the consequence is, you know, maybe that -- I mean, again, I'm really torn here
because it seems like we get to the point where if we wanted to really stick it to them,
you know, we have to follow code, we have to follow the law.
It's not like, again, we can hold our feet to the fire on anything.
So I go back to what Margie said there.
I just think it might be more effective to consider something we can enforce, which is
attending one of these workshops that we do for two or three hours and let the developer
who may not even live here understand where they're building and who they're building
around.
>> And I guess that kind of happens now with, like, a pre -- right, a pre-meeting.
I know those aren't required.
>> Right.
>> But it seems to happen more often than not.
>> Yeah, they happen more often than not because when we do these pre-application conferences,
the applicants wanting to understand what is the process that they need to follow here
in Dutton.
And so that's when staff strongly encourages them.
Once they file their application, you know, staff is typically asking them, did you do
any neighborhood engagement, when did you do it, what was the feedback that was received.
If they let us know when they're planning on doing their neighborhood engagement meeting,
then we do try to be in attendance so we can at least listen to hear what the neighborhood
concerns are.
So we try to do a lot of encouraging on the front end.
Do take our advice.
Those that do not seem to find themselves delayed later in the process, despite, you
know, our efforts to try and educate them better.
So it's, again, like just, you know, Scott pointed out, was just, you know, another tool
in the toolbox to try and help with incentivizing that neighborhood engagement and being able
to communicate to the development community of why it's important to engage with our residents
here in our community.
Anybody else?
Commissioner Pruitt.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for the answers to the questions and the follow-up, I appreciate that.
You know, I'm having a hard time seeing how this is going to have the desired effect,
which I believe would be increased engagement in neighborhoods that are active and things
blow up at the end.
Because the types of developments that would incur the largest time and monetary cost to
go through this process to gain a 51% agreement are the types where we're trying to solve
the problem, I guess.
It's like we're -- I'm concerned that the policy as written puts the most burden on
the developers in the areas that we most want them to increase engagement, right?
I mean, just from a planning perspective, do we -- have we had, like in our area plans,
have we had greater than 51% response and engagement of the community?
I know we've had a lot, but 51%, that's -- it seems to me -- I'll stop after this -- that
as written, this would end up not affecting infill type spots at all, because it's too
hard to do it.
So they'll just say, no, I'm not going to -- like, I'm never going to get to 51%, so
I even try, and it will accelerate things at our rural fringe because, oh, okay, well,
I only have three neighbors.
I can go talk to them on a Sunday afternoon, and I get two of them to sign, and I'm good.
I get my month and a half bonus.
So that's where I'm coming from.
Now, I have those similar thoughts, it seems like a very burdensome, complicated process
that -- and we're saying it's a tool.
I just don't know that it's a tool anyone would use, to be honest with you.
I mean, I think it's -- it would be difficult, either impossible in some situations, as Vice
Chair Pruitt pointed out, of getting 51% of that area to agree, but then, again, going
through all of these steps of filling out the report and then getting the signatures,
and then what it's going to take on staff's end to, I guess, make sure the signatures
are real.
You know, it seems incredibly burdensome, but Commissioner Colt -- oh, sorry.
No, I was just going to say, the signatures part for us -- I mean, we do that every day
with every zoning case that we get, right?
Anytime we get a letter in, we look to see, are they within the notification area so we
can report that to you.
So we already do that.
That's no different.
And, you know, the concern regarding the 51% -- I would not use an area plan as a comparable
example, because an area plan -- I mean, our area plans are 400 acres, if not larger, some
up to 900 acres.
In the case of a development project, though, that's why we put the limitation on a defined
area.
So we set it at 500 feet because of the fact that we sent out the courtesy postcards to
all residents who have utility accounts with us within 500 feet.
So that's a much more defined area, whether that's capturing 100 property owners or five
property owners.
At least it's more of a defined area.
Okay.
And I know, Commissioner Colt, I'll get to you in just one second, I know one of the
questions that we had last time, I think was mine, where it talked about did we talk to
any developers about this?
And I mean, it looks like you talked to a contractor for a developer, someone who helps
a developer, because I know -- I believe I know who the person you have referenced there.
But did we actually talk out -- talk to any developers themselves to see, like, is this
something that -- you know, and even I would be curious as to what she said, if she thought
this was something that people would want to do.
Did you get any --
I had spoken with her.
Okay.
Right.
So I had visited with her, and she actually thought that this was a really good idea and
that her clients would engage in this.
Of course, you know, with her business model, she does a lot of engagement.
That would help her business model, because it would take her to do this.
I mean, I'm pretty convinced --
I don't disagree.
Yeah.
So I'm --
I don't disagree whatsoever.
Smart business owner.
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
I don't disagree at all.
But, you know, we can also -- we interact with developers on a regular basis, and so
we can also ask them this as well within our -- you know, when we're working with them
on other projects, you know, we can always reach out to them and say, hey, what do you
think of this process, and see what they think, especially those that regularly do business
within Denton.
I can think of several that we could reach out to instead of just this one particular
individual that we happen to know, and part of the reason why we reached out to the one
particular individual is because of the success that they had, particularly with that project
that Mia had, that multifamily request over there by Old North, so -- and -- so, yeah,
so -- but we can continue to reach out to others and see how valuable they think it
would be, and whether or not any other clients would really take advantage of it.
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
I concur 100 percent with Commissioner Pruitt's concerns.
I just don't really see much efficacy in this at all.
I just see it as a burdensome process, and I don't -- my attitude hasn't changed towards
it, so just let that be.
Thank you.
Anything else?
I don't know exactly what you were looking for, like, from just comment, more comments,
more --
More comments.
Okay.
We are anticipating to --
Okay.
-- bring this back for public hearing on August 14th in the council, September 17th.
Okay.
But, yes, just more comments and feedback from you all.
And I don't know if you all had an opportunity to look at the draft ordinance.
We did propose the draft ordinance in there, so unlike the last time when we came --
Mm-hmm.
-- before you, we presented a concept.
Mm-hmm.
So, Keisha's worked hard on -- in working with Hillary on getting the ordinance in a
good possible position for moving forward with, so.
So, maybe if -- yeah, we have future comment, we can -- if we come up with more, we can
email you.
Sure thing.
Yeah.
Between now and then.
I mean, you're obviously, I think, getting a lukewarm response from the commission --
[laughter]
-- as you have spoken.
So --
I feel like we might be going down in flames.
Well, so, I mean, yeah, and I don't know -- I really don't know, yeah, what -- I don't
know how you could make the process less burdensome, at least, how we're seeing it.
Maybe if you have a little more outreach and come back with more --
We can do that.
-- information from other people.
I mean, again, I am all for community engagement, 100%.
It makes the projects -- we all know that, that better, you know, and I just don't know
that this is going to do anything to help that.
But thank you --
Thank you.
-- for your work, and we'll see you in a couple of weeks.
Thank you.
That concludes our work session, so I will go ahead and adjourn us at 5.44 p.m., and
we will reconvene in council chambers at 6.30.
Thank you.
Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, July 24th, 2024.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.31 p.m.
Let the record show that Commissioner Padrone is absent tonight.
First item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Honor the Texas Flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one State, under God, one and indivisible.
Thank you.
The first item of business is item two, consider approval of our minutes for June 26th.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Move approval.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Second.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Let's vote, please.
That passes 5-0.
Next we'll go to items for individual consideration, the first one being 3A.
F.R. 240005.
Bryce is here for presentation.
Hello.
Good evening, Chair, Commission.
Bryce VanArtsdale, Assistant Planner.
This is final replat 240005.
It is one-half mile from on the east side of South Bonnie Bray on the north side of Roselon
Drive.
So this plat currently does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff has no objections
to its requested extension to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
I'll stand for any questions.
Awesome.
Thank you, Bryce.
Questions?
Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Move approval.
The extension request to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
Thank you.
Commissioner Thaggard.
Second.
We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of
August 14th, 2024.
Discussion?
Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That'll take us to 3-B, PP240003.
Bryce again.
Hello again.
Bryce VanArtsdale, Assistant Planner.
This is PP240003.
It's a preliminary plat that will create 63 residential lots as well as eight HOA lots.
This preliminary plat was part of a zoning case that was approved by the commission unanimously
back in April and by the City Council in May.
While this plat currently does not meet our criteria for approval, staff has no objection
to the requested extension to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
I'll stand for any questions.
Thank you.
I do not see any questions.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
Thank you, Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of August
14th, 2024.
Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0, taking us to 3-C, FP240025, which has been withdrawn by the
applicant, and that will move us to 3-D, FP240024, and Sean is here for presentation.
Hello.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
So, yes, this is FP24-0024A, which is the Sage Creek Townhomes addition.
Staff is recommending denial at this time because they have not yet met the criteria for approval,
but we have no objection to the request at extension, which would be to a date certain
of August 14th.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Sean.
Questions?
I do not see any.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Cole.
I make a motion to approve the extension to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
Great.
Commissioner Thagard.
Second.
I make a motion first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of
August 14th, 2024.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0, taking us to 3-E, FP240026.
Hello again, Sean.
All right.
Good evening again, Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, here to present FP240026.
Again, this is for the Ascentio Ventures addition.
They have not yet reached a point where we can recommend approval, so we are recommending
denial, but we have no objection to the request at extension, which can be to a date certain
of August 14th.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
I do not see any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you much.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
Commissioner Thagard.
Second.
Got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of August 14th,
2024.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0, taking us to 3-F, FP240023.
And Matt is here for presentation.
Hello?
Hello.
Good evening, Commission.
Matt Bourdine, Assistant Planner, here to present a final plot to create a lot from
a 15-acre track on Fishtrap Road.
This plot does not meet our criteria for approval, so the staff recommends denial.
However, staff has no objection to the requested extension presented.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
Commissioner Thagard.
Second.
Excuse me.
Got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of August 14th,
2024.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to our public hearing items for this evening, the first being 4A and B,
which are related.
4A is PD230001.
4B is Z220018.
I will go ahead and open those public hearings for both item 4A and 4B.
Angie is here.
Hello.
Hi.
Yes, these are two zoning cases related to Denton 195, cases PD230001 and Z220018.
This item was continued at the June 12th meeting.
We are requesting additional continuance of the public hearing for both items to August
14th in order for staff to have an opportunity to conduct a neighborhood meeting with the
residents adjacent to the property in the greater neighborhood.
That meeting will be held next Tuesday, July 30th at 630 p.m. at the Dean Yarek Center.
Okay.
So staff is requesting this be postponed, both items to August 14th, 2024.
So we'll go ahead and look for a motion individually for 4A.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Move to continue public hearing 4A to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
Commissioner Thagard?
A second.
We've got a first and a second to postpone this item to a date certain of August 14th,
2024, leaving the public hearing open.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
We're going to figure out what is causing all of our lower hearing notifications.
While they look into that, we'll go ahead and entertain the postponement of 4B, Z220018.
Commissioner Pruitt?
I move to continue public hearing 4B to a date certain of August 14th, 2024.
Great.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
Okay, we've got a first and a second to postpone this item to a date certain of August 14th,
2024, leaving that public hearing open.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
Our next public hearing item is 4C, S230001.
Ashley is here for presentation and I will open the public hearing.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Ashley Eckstead, Associate Planner.
This is S2313301 North Elm Multifamily.
This is a request for a specific use permit to allow multifamily use on approximately
2.4 acres of land generally located on the south side of North Elm Street east of Riney
Road.
The existing zoning is R7 and the future land use is neighborhood mixed use.
There are several site constraints that do make this site harder to develop.
Elm is a text dot roadway which impacts landscaping.
We're not allowed to have the trees in the right of way and then there's also a utility
easement along the front which is shown here in yellow and we're also not allowed to place
trees within that easement.
There's also several other existing easements on this site which I've also outlined in yellow.
These are drainage easements, utility easements, and an easement for a sanitary sewer line.
The proposed site plan, they are proposing two multifamily buildings that contain 67
residences.
These will be three stories or approximately 40 feet.
Those buildings are outlined in red on the site plan so you can see how they had to work
the shape of the buildings around the existing easements.
There'll be 108 parking spaces and they will also be constructing a left turn lane.
They will have one full access drive which is the southernmost access drive and then
they'll also have one emergency only access drive.
That subdivision variance was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission last October
for one point of full access and then one point of emergency access.
They are proposing landscaping on the site.
They'll have 28% landscape area and 41% tree canopy cover.
They still are placing the street trees along North Elm in areas where they're able to be
along the right of way.
They have large tree species and they're proposing a smaller tree species next to the buildings
before the easement so they could still have trees along the right of way, outside of the
tech stop right of way and outside of the existing easement.
They'll also be providing parking lot landscaping which includes end caps and landscape islands.
They're proposing an eight foot board on board wood fence along the majority of the southern
property line where the sanitary sewer easement runs through.
There is not a fence proposed there and then there's also the drainage easement along the
western property line.
They do have the required landscape buffer which contains trees and large shrubbery and
then there's also additional screening of large shrubbery located within the drainage
easement as approved by tech stop.
It does meet the criteria for approval.
It's consistent with the goals and policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the future
land use map.
It's compatible with the surrounding area and approval of this SUP is not expected to
generate significant adverse environmental infrastructure or fiscal impacts.
Public outreach was done.
We posted an ad in the newspaper and on the website, a sign was posted on the property.
We mailed out notices to everyone within 500 feet.
Earlier today, you did receive a response in opposition and that is one property owner
with the three parcels outlined in red on this map and that does exceed the 20% so it
will require a super majority at council and the applicant also held a neighborhood meeting
on December 30th.
Staff does recommend approval of the SUP with the conditions presented in the backup and
it is tentatively scheduled for city council on August 20th.
I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant is also here for questions.
Thank you Ashley.
My screen see if there's any questions.
Do you know if any neighborhood outreach was done?
From the applicant?
They had a neighborhood meeting.
It was on December 30th of last year.
They had two.
Was it two that I read?
Yes.
Do you know if this person in opposition was one of the attendees?
I do not believe so.
Any questions for staff at this time?
I don't have any cards in front of me wishing to speak on this item but it is a public hearing.
Is there anyone wishing to speak?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion.
I have some kind of discussion.
I'll move approval as presented by staff.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Is there any discussion?
Commissioner Villarreal?
Thank you chair and thank you to the applicant for your work on this and thank you to staff.
I do not believe this fits within the current landscape of the area so I'm going to vote
no.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal, can you give any specifics as to why?
I mean there's definitely multifamily in the area.
Traffic concerns as to additional multifamily being added to the area as well as drainage
concerns.
So as of now I'll be voting no.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you chair.
I think what we have here is some odd shaped lots that got hemmed in by a triangle of roadways,
one of them being a textile roadway and because of that, much of it has remained undeveloped
except for a little strip center on the south side of that triangle and so what has happened
is things have developed around it, right?
So I'm sensitive to the fact that this application does change that block a decent amount but
when you zoom out it doesn't appear to change the, call it half mile shed area around that
very much to me.
You know, I think it would be different if all north of here it was still rural and it's
not.
So I guess those are my thoughts.
Yeah.
I appreciate that.
Yeah and I'll echo similar thoughts.
I think this, for the odd lot that it is, I think it's a very well thought out plan.
I think the way the buildings are situated on Elm makes sense.
We've got multifamily across the street.
We've got larger dense multifamily as we head away from this area.
It's only 67 units.
It's certainly a small scale multifamily which does, I believe, fit with the surrounding
area.
I do appreciate the input from the residents who did share their opinion but I do think
the staff did a great job working with the applicant in presenting a well planned development.
Any other discussion before we take a vote?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote please.
That motion will carry for one.
It will go to council.
What was the date on that?
August 20th is the date for council requiring that super majority, that proper owner remains
in opposition.
That will take us to our last two public hearing items for today.
They are related.
So that is 4D CA240001 and 4EZ240009.
I will go ahead and open both public hearings for those items.
Angie is here for presentation.
She's going ahead and present both of those items in her presentation.
Thank you.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglaris, development review manager.
Here to present CA240001 and Z240009.
This is a comprehensive plan amendment request and zoning change request for DENTEX.
Little bit of background on this property.
This is a 92-acre tract of land.
It was recently annexed into the city limits and annexation was approved on July 16th by
city council.
Prior to annexation, the property had been subject to restrictive covenants which function
much like a non-annexation agreement.
Upon platting, they are required to annex into the city limits.
Once a property is annexed into the city limits, they are automatically assigned a placeholder
designation of rural residential, which is the zoning on the property today.
To the north of the subject property is Allred Road, which is designated on the mobility
plan as a primary arterial roadway, and it's intended to serve as a regional east-west
connection throughout the city.
It does cross over US377 and would tie into Brush Creek Road.
To the south is Johnson Lane.
It is a residential collector, and then running along the western portion of the property
is John Payne Road, which will be extended through Country Lakes, running to the north
with the development of the Hunter Coal Master Plan community, which is immediately to the
west of the subject property and would function as a secondary arterial.
Development in and around the area is varied.
To the north, northwest, and west, you have the Hunter Coal Master Plan community.
The sub-zonings of the Hunter Master Plan community in this region is MR and MN.
As you move south of the subject property, you do have the Country Lakes subdivision.
It is a PD.
It is residential development.
Lots in that plan development range from 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet.
Moving east, you do have the Sage Brook Plan development.
Phase one of that development is starting to see homes being built, and phase two has
been recently final plotted and is coming online.
Further to the southeast, you have additional properties that are subject to those restrictive
covenants.
They are currently in the ETJ of the city.
Upon annexation, they would be part of the city limits.
Then further to the northeast, I do want to point out we do have our regional park that
would be developing in the future as well.
The zoning in the area is varied.
This particular piece of property is situated along major arterials and is approximately
3,500 feet away from both 35 and US 377.
Going into the request more specifically, first I'm going to go over the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment request.
These two requests do build upon one another, so the Comprehensive Plan request approval
of that would be needed to support the zoning request.
We'll get into that as we move through the presentation.
As I mentioned, this is a 92-acre tract of land.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Rezoning Amendment is to facilitate
the development of a residential subdivision on approximately 65 acres situated on the southern
portion of the property and designate the northern 27 acres as MN for future either
higher density residential development or commercial.
The existing future land use is rural areas.
The proposed future land use is community mixed use along the northern 27 acres and
moderate residential along the southern portion of the property.
Property is currently developed with a single-family residence.
It also in the northwest corner houses a wedding venue that is operating and is intended to
be, to continue for the foreseeable future.
There is existing FEMA flood plan and unassessed ESA that runs east to west along the southern
portion of the site.
The Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the request is moderate residential and community
mixed use.
Moderate residential future land use category is intended to accommodate single-family detached
neighborhoods, predominantly also contemplates some low-rise multifamily dwellings and town
homes and may also include some neighborhood serving commercial.
Community mixed use is intended to provide a mix of uses, but predominantly in these
cases commercial uses are predominant with residential being secondary to that.
These proposed future land use designations do fit into the overall character of the area
and help establish a transition from higher intensity uses that we would see along the
35 corridor and the Hunter development to the west as you move to the east closer to
US 377 where there are more moderate residential developments.
Then again from the north the property would naturally transition from the Hunter property
to the north of the subject property and then moving south toward that country like development
having the community use option in there and then transitioning to the moderate residential
before going down to where the country likes development is.
The two land uses are intended to help facilitate that natural transition of intensity moving
from the highway towards where we have more of our residential areas.
The proposed amendments do meet the goals of the comprehensive plan, there are a few
that I want to point out.
This does assist in our goal to grow compactly.
This is in what we affectionately call one of the donut holes of the city.
We've had an area of the city that has not been annexed in yet and was assigned to the
designation of rural residential while we worked through the comprehensive plan.
Now that the property has been annexed and the city does have some zoning authority on
the property, it's appropriate to evaluate the comp plan and how this property develops
in the future.
The community mixed use and moderate residential designations do help provide that transition
zone as I talked about and also provide a little bit of additional buffering from those
existing single family uses to the higher intensity uses we expect to see with the Hunter
development.
It is also supportive of our housing goals to develop a diverse housing stock as well
as the land preservation plan.
As I said there is unassessed ESA on the site, however after that field assessment should
the ESA be confirmed, the applicant would be required to protect and mitigate appropriately
in accordance with the requirements of the DDC.
This does meet our criteria for approval both generally and specific to comprehensive plan
amendment requests, there are a few things I wanted to draw your attention to.
To meet the criteria for comprehensive plan amendment, the application is required to
meet one of several criteria, the one that this one particularly meets is events and
trends have changed since the adoption of the comprehensive plan.
As I said this property had been subject to restrictive covenants, was in the ETJ, however
they have now annexed into the city and have changed the findings of fact on that particular
piece of property, it is now part of the city limits.
In addition we've sent infrastructure extended to the area to make it accessible to this
particular site, more specifically Sagebrook, as I said they are starting to see homes,
the infrastructure is there for them to be able to connect to Hunter and Cole, both of
our master plan communities are also beginning to come online, have started to plot the first
phases of their development and will be developing adjacent to the property in the near future.
There's no conflict with the goals of the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, we do find
that it would further support our housing goals and help create that area of transition
from 35 moving east, community mixed use and moderate residential typically come with zoning
districts that further our goals of the comprehensive plan specific to our land use and help add
to the existing land use pattern and really start to establish that framework as we see
this area of the city develop.
That is the comprehensive plan amendment request, going to go right into the zoning change request,
so building upon what we just talked about, this would be the zoning change request for
the particular piece of property.
This image here does show the existing zoning in the area, the property is zoned RR, I've
added this map because it helps show that the sub-districts of the Hunter Cole property,
so you can see to the north there is some MR and MN as well as to the west we do have
more MR, again to the south and to the east we have some moderate residential in our existing
PDs and then we do have areas that are not within the city.
So the specific request here is from rural residential to mixed use neighborhood on approximately
27 acres and residential 6 on approximately 65 acres, as I've said the property is currently
developed and there is existing FEMA flood plan which runs along the southern portion.
So if the comprehensive plan amendment is approved, the zoning request would be in line
with this comprehensive plan amendment, moderate residential is intended to accommodate our
single family detached neighborhoods, it does also support some multi-family and town homes
and neighborhood mixed use is intended to apply to areas where the predominant use is
commercial but does envision a variety of housing types and is intended to serve as
a transitional area.
Both MN and R6 do support the goals of these future land use designations and would help
to serve as a transition before more intensive commercial uses along the highway as you move
west towards US 377, further as the hunter development does come online, the MN zoning
district would be consistent with the MR and MN that is surrounding it and the moderate
residential is compatible with the country lakes development further to the south.
This does meet the general criteria of approval for zoning change request as well as our area.
Specifically we do find that the zoning request is consistent with the land use goals, the
housing goals and the land preservation goals of the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan.
Both MN and R6 zoning districts are compatible and support the moderate residential and community
mixed use future land use designations.
In the next five years this region of the city is expected to continue to see growth
with I-35 expansion project beginning, the hunter ranch project starting to develop and
sage brick continuing to develop out along with the regional park in the area expected
to start construction and would bring additional attraction to the area.
The zoning is not expected to generate any significant environmental impact nor impact
to adverse impact to infrastructure or fiscal.
We did conduct notification in accordance with state law and our code of ordinances.
Mailings were sent out.
This was posted in the paper as well as signs on the property.
The applicant did not conduct a neighborhood meeting but did reach out and connect with
neighboring property owners individually.
The applicant's hearing can speak to that more specifically but at this time we received
no letters in favor or in opposition of the project.
We are recommending approval of both the comprehensive plan amendment and the zoning change request
as they both meet the general criteria for approval as well as the specific criteria
for approval for both the comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning change request.
The next step in this process would be city council which is tentatively slated for August
20th and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
The applicant is also here and can answer any questions you have of them.
Thank you Angie.
Any questions right now?
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you Chair.
Angie, thank you for the great overview on that.
I heard several things, one the desire in the comprehensive plan to grow compactly as
well as this concept of transition areas and I'm thinking back to the item that we just
heard about a smaller multifamily along Elm.
Help me understand how this is compact when it's very near to the southern border of our
city.
Sure and we do recognize that it is near the southern border however it is immediately
adjacent to some of the higher intensity based districts of the Hunter Cole development.
It is situated along a primary arterial which will eventually be a six lane roadway as well
as a secondary providing access and connectivity to the area and it is filling in one of those
what we call donut holes of the city rather than continuing to sprawl out.
So this has been kind of a carve out or a notch that hasn't quite made it into city
limits yet but is coming online and is providing a bit of that transition from the Hunter zoning
that we will expect to see to the established uses that are in the area and kind of filling
in that pocket so to speak.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Thank you Chair.
Thank you Angie, I have a quick question for the applicant.
I think the applicant is actually going to come up and have a presentation.
I've got a card here so we'll pause that question.
Anything else for Angie?
So I've got actually two applicant cards.
I've got Alan Hughes and Thomas Fletcher so I don't know how you're sharing that but come
on down and your time will begin.
Good evening.
Hello.
How are you doing?
If you'll state your name.
My name is Alan Hughes and this is my sister Jan.
Hi.
We are the owners along with our parents of Dentex Land, Cattle and Energy LP.
We've owned this track for 30 years.
She currently operates a farm there, JM Prosperity Farm and Rustic Barn Venue.
It's a wedding venue and we've been lifelong residents of Denton County and have seen the
tremendous growth firsthand of what's going on.
Over the last 10 years as development has started to move closer and closer to the farm
and as our parents have aged, we have discussed more about the future of the farm knowing
that at some point it would make sense to develop it into something more.
With Country Lakes North, now at our south property line and Sage Brook moving closer
from the east, we believe now is the right time to position our property to develop in
a manner that will make our family legacy proud.
In meeting with the City and discussing the development options and the process, it was
determined that annexation would be required prior to development.
The thought of annexation brought a lot of questions and concerns.
We've had several meetings with the City discuss these concerns, which included my sister's
ability to continue to operate the venue and live on the property and the uncertainty of
the zoning process.
In hearing that my sister and her business wouldn't be impacted and staff would be supportive
of zoning that is compatible with Country Lakes, Sage Brook and the adjacent portion
of Hunter Ranch, it alleviated some of our concerns and so we decided to annex into the
city so we could start this zoning process.
As mentioned by staff, the annexation was finalized last week on July 16th.
Our requests before you tonight are compatible with the surrounding zoning districts, therefore
we request your support.
Our consultant, Thomas Fletcher, is here to assist in answering any questions and provide
additional information regarding the request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Good evening, commissioners, Thomas Fletcher with Killing Horn, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco,
Texas.
Appreciate the opportunity to speak with you tonight.
I've been working with the U's for some time and as they mentioned, we've had numerous
meetings with the city just to kind of get them familiar.
They're landowners, they're not developers and they wanted to make sure that they were
understanding of the process and making the decision to move forward with the annexation
and now the comp plan amendment and the zoning change request.
So I've got a couple of things I want to go over.
First of all, I want to thank Angie.
She's been working with us for some time now and she did a very thorough presentation so
I'm going to keep my presentation brief and then stand for questions.
I did want to share this one slide.
What we did is we showed the proposed zoning map along with the mobility plan so that it
gives you, you know, I think it gives you a real picture of what this area is going
to evolve into with the all red, Brush Creek Road is a future primary arterial, with John
Payne north of Johnson Road is a secondary arterial and with Interstate 35W, with frontage
roads, with the overpass, with the off ramp.
So this will be a full interchange once that tech stop project is completed in the near
future.
You can see the proposed portion of the zoning that's MN.
It's going to be located at the southeast corner of two arterials.
One will be a future six lane, the other will be a future four lane and then the residential
on the south, which is R6, would be located adjacent to the northern portion of Country
Lakes North and then also as Sagebrook continues to grow to the, you know, back to the west,
to the eastern boundary, you can kind of see how all of this will eventually kind of somewhat
connect together.
The Sagebrook development, if you look at their lot sizes, they are R6 in nature.
They're roughly 6,000 or over square feet in size.
The Country Lakes North phase 5B, which is the section that is closest to the property,
if you look at the lot sizes in that plat, you have 50 by 110, you have 55 by 110, 60
by 110.
Most of the lots in that section are anywhere from 5,500 square feet up to about 6,500 square
feet.
And there are some corner lots that are larger in size.
So when you look at our request for R6, that is a minimum 6,000 square foot lot.
So it is compatible with both Country Lakes and with Sagebrook.
Some of the lots in Country Lakes actually fall into the R7 criteria.
Actually that's really what I wanted to point out, I think Angie kind of covered all the
other aspects and I'm happy to answer questions.
I know Commissioner Villareal, you mentioned that you had a question, so I'm happy to take
questions.
Thank you.
I will go ahead and call on Commissioner Villareal.
Thank you, Chair.
Of course.
Thank you so much for the presentation.
Just a quick question.
I know during our work session they mentioned that you had conversations with the property
owner to the east.
Did y'all have a lot of conversations with the property owners in Country Lakes at all?
So when we first started looking at Country Lakes, as this project has developed, they're
in the process of building houses, so there's houses in various stages.
So what we did is once the annexation was completed, we had put together a letter that
kind of outlined our request.
So it stated that our request was for a comp plan amendment, a zoning change request.
It would be for R6, which is compatible with both Country Lakes North and with Sagebrook.
And just kind of went through the process.
We included in the letter that there would be the P&Z hearing tonight.
We included that the City Council was scheduled for August 20th.
I provided my email address, my phone number.
We went out, me and one of my assistants went out last Wednesday, the day after the City
Council meeting where the annexation was completed.
We took about 60 letters because that's how many lots we counted were within the 500 foot
courtesy notification.
We ended up passing out 37.
The others were either vacant lots, houses in construction or homes that were available.
Out of all the letters that we passed out, there was one homeowner that was outside that
we spoke with and kind of explained to her.
I think she was trying to, when she saw me walking up, she was trying to get in her garage
and get away from me because I think because the subdivision is so new, she thought, "Well,
I thought you were here to sell me a security system or shutters or something."
So she was the only, and she actually backs to Johnson Lane.
She was the only neighbor that we actually spoke with.
I've not received any emails or any phone calls from the letter, but that was the notification
we did and we told them that we would be happy within the letter.
We provided a copy of the letter and then the zoning map, the proposed zoning map, we
provided a copy of that to city staff, but it did say that we're happy to meet with any
of them up until the city council meeting if they have questions.
Did that property owner on Johnson, did they have any concerns about the project at all?
How was the conversation?
They told me that they picked the house and they picked the house back into Johnson because
they enjoyed the ability to sit on the back porch and watch the horses.
So they were somewhat disappointed that development was coming.
They assumed that at some point development would come, but that was her honest, candid
reaction is that they had chosen that particular lot because it did back to the property and
they were able to sit out and watch the horses.
She said she would look at the information, let me know if she had any additional questions
and I haven't heard any follow up.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Yeah, absolutely.
Thank you.
Any other questions right now for Mr. Pledger?
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
I do have another card wishing to speak and that is Angela Dominguez.
Hello.
Hello, how are you?
Good.
If you'll state your name, your time will begin.
Good evening.
I'm Angela Dominguez and I reside at 6250 Allred Road.
My husband and I first met the Hughes in 1998 when we bought 35 acres next to them.
We have known them to be wonderful neighbors and stewards of the land ever since.
Anne and Alan were kind enough to share their ideas for their properties next chapter with
us and as a neighbor and civil engineer I found it to be a very thoughtful concept and
legacy to their family and a proposed addition to the city of Denton.
I wholeheartedly support their land use and zoning request.
Thank you.
Thanks for coming out.
I don't have any other cards in front of me but this is a public hearing.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak on either of these items?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing for 4D and 4E and I will open the floor for
discussion or a motion.
We would have to take these one at a time.
The first one being the comprehensive plan amendment, that would be 4D.
Commissioner Cole?
I make a motion to approve.
I think we all know what that's going to look like in 10 years and I think it's going to
tie in with everything else that's going to be there.
Thank you.
Commissioner Thagger?
I second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second.
Item 4D.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, I'll just say I think the applicant and staff have worked really well together
to try to think about what this will become.
My opposition to this land use amendment or the future land use map here is really just
an extension of my long-term opposition to the expansion of Hickory Creek Road and the
extension of that through Alred and now South of St. Derek, so thank you.
Thank you.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any other discussion?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
Let's see.
That is going to fail 3-2.
So in taking up 4E then, we actually cannot, correct?
We would need that to have passed.
Oh, is it?
I thought we needed 4 as well.
We're going to pause here for a little ... No, that's okay.
I appreciate you looking it up.
Okay.
We're going to go ahead and take a recess at 716 while we continue for a little bit of
legal update.
Thank you for your patience.
I will call us back to order at 725 after our recess.
We did need to take some time to confirm with legal if a simple majority would constitute
an approval.
Our vote for item 4D was 3-2.
So it has been stated that yes, a simple majority would make that an approved item 3-2.
So that will take us then to 4E, Z240009.
Before I look for a motion, Commissioner Thagard, I see you on the board wishing to speak.
Did you want to do that before this item?
Yeah.
I just wanted to, and I think you guys have already answered the question, so I'm just
asking once more, sorry.
All red is going to be a major artery, is that correct, eventually?
That's the plan?
Yep.
Go ahead, Angie.
Okay.
2022 mobility plan designates roadways, both current and future classifications.
All red brush creek are proposed to align, providing east-west connection as a primary
arterial, which has ultimately six travel lanes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
So we are on item 4E, Z240009, as far as looking for a motion.
Commissioner Cole?
I make a motion to approve.
Okay.
We've got a motion for approval.
Commissioner Thagard?
I second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
I do see Mr. Fletcher in front of me.
Were you wishing to speak before we take up this vote?
Please come on down.
Thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak one more time before y'all vote.
I did want to say, just providing a little bit more history, the discussions with the
city have been ongoing for about three years now with regard to development of this property.
These landowners who are Denton County residents, who have been lifelong residents, lived in
the county, had the advantages of living in the county, went through multiple meetings
with the city to understand the process.
Their biggest concerns was wanting to be treated fairly.
They see developers coming in around them, developers such as Hunter and Cole Ranch and
those developments, Sagebrook, Country Lakes to the south.
So it took a leap of faith for them to get to the point where they decided that they
would annex.
So I do want to share that.
I understand that you, Commissioner Pruitt, may have feelings about certain things with
regard to development, but what we are asking is consistent with the developments that are
coming in around them.
They have annexed, they're in the city now, so there's no turning back from that.
We talked to the city about development agreements and development agreements are something that
just generally do not occur.
There's concerns about contract zoning and all of that.
So I would, you know, we've met with the neighbors, we passed out flyers to the neighbors to the
south, we're compatible with them.
So I do want to point that out again, just because the owners here that are before you,
they're now within the city.
They took that leap of faith and they're just asking for a fair treatment to be able to
develop their land compatible with the surrounding land uses.
And this is a big vote.
It impacts their lives.
So I did want to get up and make that statement.
Thank you.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval of item 4E, further discussion.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to move to divide the question to separate out the recommendation of the
rezoning of the proposed MN portion from the rezoning of the proposed R6 portion.
The reason I'd like to do this is that I recognize the applicant, as the representative just
stated, has been through this process for several years.
I don't really want to throw wrenches and things, but I can get behind some of this,
but not all of it.
And so maybe this is a path forward where we can move forward.
Go ahead, Angie, go ahead.
Understanding that this is a possible motion, I wanted to provide a little bit of context
to why MN was targeted for this property.
Not only does it match what is to the north and west of the subject property, as mentioned,
the owner has a single family home as well as the residential ... I'm sorry, single family
home is a residential ... single family home as well as the wedding venue on the property.
While both of those uses are allowed in our additional modifications to them, we'll trigger
platting per just our standards.
And so we sat and kind of did a strategy table and sketched out what the property could look
like under RR if they wanted to add a structure to the wedding venue, and then they would
have to plat the wedding venue and the residential home on separate structures and maintain that
five acres and the access.
And so I did just want to point out the potential challenge that the existing RR could have
for the current uses.
They are legal nonconforming, but as we know, once you start making modifications and expansions,
you lose that legal nonconforming status.
The MN zoning district does provide the flexibility to allow them to operate that use and stay
within the realms of the code.
I just wanted to provide that little bit of context as to how we got there.
I know it wasn't in the backup, but it wasn't necessarily germane to the conversation, so
that's all.
Appreciate that.
In response to splitting this up, I mean, I can't get on board with that.
What's presented before us makes sense with what is happening in this area with the future
of the roadways, with the density that is already there, with Sage Brook that is in
process of being built, with Country Lakes that's already being built, with the entire
master plan in and all around it with the support of the neighbor next door.
It makes sense for what this area is going to be.
It will be compact.
It's not compact right now, but it will be.
Everything about this, to me, makes sense for the area.
Go ahead, Commissioner Prout.
Just to be clear, I'm in support of the MN portion and not of the R6 portion.
I understood that.
Is there any other discussion?
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Okay.
Seeing none, let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion will carry, as we understand, 3-2, going to council on August 20th.
Okay.
That will take us to our planning and zoning matrix, and I will turn it over to Tina.
Thank you, Chair Ellis.
With respect to the matrix, while the commission did not add anything in its prior meeting,
we did try to update some of the timeframes on the remaining items to be able to deliver
to you.
In particularly, a discussion regarding impacts of subdividing commercial lots and the potential
for tree preservation laws, so we're anticipating bringing that back, hopefully, late August,
mid-September on that item, and I think we're going to dovetail in there since we've got
some members that are new to the commission, just a presentation on our tree preservation
ordinance as well, just to consider a boot camp opportunity, and then also the LSR explaining
the practices and legal limitations related to state law changes and roadways.
I know Hillary is working on that and is looking at delivering that in the fall as well.
Those are the timeframes we updated, as well as I should make note, the comp plan.
We are looking to provide an update.
We've got that tentatively scheduled sometime in August or September, so we were hoping
to get that to you sooner, but with all the area plan work and trying to get projects
across the finish line for adoption, not to mention all the public hearings that we've
been working through lately, that one, unfortunately, has gotten a little delayed.
Also just want to give you a quick update on the design downtown denton plan, so that's
slated to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission in August at your meeting on August
14th.
In terms of City Council actions since your last regular meeting in June, so we've had
several.
If you recall, the specific use permit that Ashley worked on with Advanced Microbial Solutions,
we had two properties out there, those were both approved.
The Walker Giesling case that Mia had presented to the commission, and I think you all had
continued it for an additional meeting discussion to allow for some additional neighborhood
engagement that was south of 380, east of Giesling Road.
That was also approved.
Happy to report the razor ranch ordinance consolidation was also approved, so I know
the team greatly appreciate that.
Erin had a DATCU drive-through modification, the specific use permit amendment, I'm thinking
that one was on Teasley Lane, okay, great, I didn't write location down, so my apologies,
so that was also approved.
Very much happy to report that the Southeast Denton Area Plan was approved last night,
so as you're well aware of, that was a huge undertaking, which thank you for all of your
participation and your support throughout that project, because I know we came to you
many times to provide project updates and to receive your feedback, so thank you.
Julie and Mia are super happy, so short-term rentals, that one continues to live on, so
that went to council last night, it resulted in a 3-3 tie vote, so that will go back to
council on August 6th, so hopefully we'll get some resolution on that at that time,
and then lastly, we had the sub-chapter one, the conflicts with the criteria manuals, the
DDC amendment that Angie's been working on, and so that was also approved, so that concludes
my report.
Thank you.
Thank you, Tina.
Anything else for the matrix?
Sorry.
Thank you, Chair.
Something for the matrix?
Yes.
Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Villara.
I just had a question on when do y'all decide to have, I guess, long-form conversations
with the community and developers on certain projects, I guess in particular with the short-term
rental conversation, I know we had to push it back to have that additional conversation
with the real estate community, I guess what leads to that decision prior to it coming
before council, and why, I guess, wasn't that had prior to the first vote?
So if I'm under...
I'm gonna paraphrase and see if I got your question correct.
So are you asking why did we not meet with the Realtors Association before we considered
SDRs?
I guess, yeah, that's one of my main questions since they are one of the stakeholders in
the conversation.
You know, honestly, I don't think we really thought of it.
I mean, we tried to...we did the public engagement per the Development Code Review Committee's
request and so we did the developer town halls as well as we did the online survey, we did
press releases, we utilized a variety of tools in order to be able to get the word out.
So why we did not get traction with them sooner than later, I don't know, I mean, we tried
to take into consideration all interested participants, but it was just one that did
not come to the forefront, so hopefully somebody would have picked up on it if folks were interested
in what was happening with short-term rentals, because again, we did...normally on code amendments
we're not doing press releases and things of that nature, but between all of our efforts
on the engagement, we were trying to reach out to people as best as we could.
Gotcha.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
And I think I can add a little bit more to that.
That vocal group of realtors was not present in those meetings in general that they had
in the entire outreach.
It came up at the council meeting, which is when council then postponed it so that a meeting
could be had, but that's when it kind of came up that, "Oh, I guess we should have this,"
but that was the first time that I believe staff and council at that point had heard
from that group, so that's why it was done in between the two council meetings that they've
heard it so far, so hopefully that shed a little bit of clarity on it.
Yes, and I guess my question is, is there a list of stakeholders you usually go to when
projects of that nature would impact that community, or it just depends on who's in
charge at that point?
Well, or we collectively get together and we try to come up with who all the potential
stakeholders would be.
We even followed up with other communities to find out what stakeholders that they were
experiencing, and typically it was residents within the community and then the operators.
So in other communities that we were working with, Realtors Association hadn't come up,
so but it did here in Denton, and so hence why council directed us to continue the public
hearing.
We did have the meeting with them and they did provide written correspondence.
Their concern is regulation of property and any regulation and removal of any property
owner's potential private property rights.
They were also not in support of the thousand unit cap and the 100 foot minimum separation,
and so some of them had also expressed concern related to even the cap that we have, no more
than two units if you have a triplex or a fourplex.
So I would encourage you to listen and watch the planning or the city council meeting from
last night, and you know, they expressed their comments at that meeting as well, and you
could listen to the council discussion on that as well.
Gotcha.
Thank you.
When is council hearing that again?
So that comes back on August 6th.
Okay.
Thank you.
Anything else for the matrix?
Any concluding items?
Okay.
I will go ahead and adjourn us at 7.40 p.m.
Thank you very much, everyone.