>> Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting for Wednesday, September 11th, 2024.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.05 p.m.
For the record, let it show that Commissioner Padrone is absent at this time.
With our work session, our first item on the agenda is citizen comment on consent agenda.
Is there anyone wishing to speak on consent?
Okay.
We'll go ahead and move to clarification on tonight's agenda.
The first one being our minutes from August 28th.
Any questions for staff on that?
Okay.
How about on the consent agenda?
I did have a question, and she -- might as well -- yeah, I mean, you're the first one
on here.
Because it has to do with a couple on here, but it's more of a general question, if you
don't mind.
>> Yeah.
Absolutely.
>> So on this -- it has to just do with consistency, and when we have gas well in the vicinity
of a residential neighborhood.
>> Yes.
>> So on this plat for Glenwood Meadows, we don't have the asterisks on the lots.
We do have the note, I noticed, but we don't have the asterisks on the lots, and we don't
have a gas well vicinity map like we do in 3E.
So I'm trying to understand why that is, why we do it inconsistently like that.
>> Sure.
>> Can you help me with that?
>> So for this one, we do ask that they identify or note the plat -- the lots within the vicinity
of the gas well.
>> I saw it on the notes.
>> Sure, and they did identify them on the notes.
>> So we just don't have a -- this is how we should do it?
>> They are in addition to that required too.
We have a standard form that needs to be provided to individuals who may be purchasing lots
within those areas, and they are covering the bases with that.
I felt comfortable with the note and that it does meet the intent of the DDC.
>> And I'm not questioning you, I'm questioning the process and why we do it differently.
>> I was going to say we have no standard regarding that.
>> Okay.
That's what I wanted to know.
>> We have so many plots that are reviewed and so many reviewers.
We have checklists and we use the DDC to ensure notations are -- the required notations are
on the plat.
>> Okay.
>> But each reviewer might have a little bit of a different perspective on how it's noted
and just looking to see, okay, is it noted?
How is it done?
Are we able to confirm that, yes, it's complying with the ordinance requirement?
>> I thought a while back that we -- and maybe it just wasn't put into play.
I thought we talked about they should all have an asterisk on them.
But anyway, I wish they did, because it speaks a lot clearer, a lot of people don't read
notes.
I mean, hopefully they do when, you know, they're looking at this plat in better detail.
But, okay, that is for my question as to why they're different.
>> Great.
>> Thank you very much.
Any other questions on consent?
Okay.
Items for individual consideration is -- first one is 4AFP240032.
That is Erin.
Hello.
>> Hello.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
This is a final plat for the RYAL development edition.
They previously were requesting an extension request, their first extension, but they managed
to satisfy all the comments between when your packet went out and this.
So we are actually recommending approval tonight of this plot.
But I'll stand for any questions.
>> Did that actually come out in e-mail to us?
>> We did not send an e-mail, no.
>> Okay.
So we didn't see the -- so what was the change?
What is different than what we have in our backup NWINE?
>> All of the -- in the staff analysis, all of the conditions that they had not met, they
met all of those.
I can -- for the main presentation, I can detail those if you'd like.
But they just -- they met all of the criteria for plat approval.
>> Okay.
Questions on that?
>> Could I ask a follow-up question?
Did anything graphically change on the document?
>> No.
It was more labeling things and making sure like all -- maybe all easements are shown or
all -- one of the things they added was you can see these overhead electric markers, essentially.
It's just the zone that they need to work in or that they cannot develop in, they added
those because they weren't previously shown, and that's one of our checklist requirements
to add just mainly checklist things.
>> Okay.
Okay.
But nothing's substantive.
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
Okay.
4B is FP240033.
>> Hello, Angie Manglaris, development review manager.
This is FP240033.
This is Stella Hills, phase 2A.
This is approximately located 1,500 feet south of East McKinney Street into the east of Laney
Circle.
This is a 21-acre tract of land.
The purpose of the final plat is to develop -- or to plat 85 single-family lots as well
as establish right-of-way and necessary easements.
This is part of the overall Stella Hills development, which is zoned residential 6.
At this time, the applicant has not met all the criteria for approval.
There's still some details to be met.
So staff is recommending denial.
However, staff has no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to October
9th.
This would be their first extension request.
Happy to answer any questions you all may have.
>> Thank you, Angie.
Questions?
Okay.
Thank you.
Last individual consideration item is FP240034, that is yours as well.
>> Yes.
This is Stella Hills, phase 2B.
This is approximately 15 acres.
It would establish 52 single-family lots and open space lot as well as associated rights
of way and easements necessary for the development of a single-family residential neighborhood.
Again, there are a few remaining comments.
Staff is recommending denial, but has no objection to the extension request, which could be granted
to October 9th and would also be their first request for this item.
Happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
We've got two public hearings tonight.
First being 5A PD240002.
Ashley is here for a brief presentation here in work session.
Hi.
>> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Ashley Eckstead, associate planner.
This is PD242, Jefferson North Elm.
This is a request to rezone from a residential 2 zoning district to a planned development
with mixed-use neighborhood and public facilities-based zoning districts to facilitate the development
of a multi-family and park dedication.
This site is generally located on the northwest corner of North Elm Street and North Locust
Street.
The multi-family portion will include four buildings, approximately 54 feet tall, containing
450 dwelling units on 15.76 acres.
The park portion will be 10.2 acres and include tree preservation and a trail.
There is currently an existing farmhouse on the site that will be removed and an Evers
Memorial and educational area will be created in that location.
The existing zoning is R2 shown here and the future land use is neighborhood mixed-use.
Staff does recommend approval and I have a longer presentation for the public hearing
and happy to answer any questions.
>> Great.
Thank you.
What questions?
Well, Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Will staff be going over the potential historical nature of the Evers Farmhouse during the public
hearing?
>> I am going to discuss what the conclusions were -- what conclusions we came to on that,
which was that it had lost its historical integrity.
>> Got it.
Is that because there was too many renovations done?
>> Exactly.
Yes.
>> Okay.
And you'll be going over that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
Any other questions?
Okay.
Thank you.
Next will be 5BZ240002, Aaron's item.
>> Okay.
This is Mockingbird Lane rezoning.
So this is approximately 2.6 acres that they are requesting to rezone from R2 to R4, generally
located south of Audre Lane and east of Mockingbird Lane, and this property is undeveloped and
has been undeveloped since roughly its annexation in 1960.
Staff is recommending approval tonight.
Here are the two zoning maps.
You can see here of what they're currently and what they're requesting, and I will stand
for any questions you have right now.
I'll have a longer presentation later tonight.
>> Questions?
My hope is that you all had a chance to look at past meetings.
This came before us three different times for a similar -- similar and not so similar
request.
So, yeah, it's interesting that it's here again.
Neighborhood meeting was not held, correct, for this?
>> Correct.
The applicant's not proposing any site plan right now.
They have no development plans.
So they chose not to have a neighborhood meeting, but they did meet directly with some of the
adjacent neighbors.
>> Okay.
Will they be here this evening?
>> They will be.
>> Okay.
Any questions?
Commissioner Villarreal?
>> Do you know, at least from your perspective, I don't know if you've had conversations
with them about this, but why did they decide not to do a public meeting considering the
contentious nature of previous P&Z meetings around this?
>> I did tell him about that.
I suggested to do a public meeting, and he's here tonight to speak to why he didn't feel
that was necessary.
I think because they don't have a site plan, it's a little difficult or there's less to
present with a public meeting if you don't have a site plan proposed already.
>> Gotcha.
Thank you.
I'll ask him during session.
>> And I assume he knows the history of what's been -- I mean, I know you weren't here, so
I know you have a long history with it, but --
>> I do not believe he's watched the previous meetings.
I could be wrong about that, but he's aware that this has gone before you before.
>> Okay.
Anything else?
Commissioner Thacker?
>> Thank you, Chair.
I'm looking in the backup appeal 1.1, and it says that there have not been significant
changes in the area to warrant a zoning change, only that this property is catching up with
rezoning in accordance to the surrounding residential areas.
>> I go back to kind of what Margie was saying, if there haven't been that many changes made,
then why are we discussing this for the fourth time?
>> So the property is undeveloped, and it has been since the '60s.
And so staff has received several requests for this rezoning in the past.
The applicant could speak to why they're requesting it now, I suppose.
And the changes in the area -- I do have this map to kind of show -- when it was initially
zoned, I mean, there hasn't been one significant change to warrant this, but you can kind of
see the development pattern here, and it is a bit splotchy in the area.
And so that's -- what you read in the backup is kind of explaining this, the splotchy development
pattern and how it's developed over time.
>> If I could add something.
So the applicant also has a one-year limitation that they have to satisfy.
So they've done that since the last action that was considered on the property, at least
by the Planning and Zoning Commission, was November of 2020.
So when we have cases, even if they were denied, they have to wait one year, or the exception
to the one-year requirement is if there was a significant change in conditions that would
warrant bringing the case back sooner than later.
>> And I believe this case in 20 -- let's see, it was 2019, then it didn't go to council,
then it came back to P&Z and was denied.
And then I think it went to council, and then it was remanded back to P&Z and denied, and
then it never did anything.
I think at that time they had a 20% opposition in the neighborhood, I think, from what I
remember.
And maybe that's why they never -- because they never took it back to council then after
the denial from P&Z.
Yeah, and that was -- and they did have a site plan.
It was an R4 request with, at that time we called them overlays, but basically it -- yeah,
that attached that particular site plan to that zoning request that was denied.
You know, my big issue with this piece of land is, you know, we're trying to make it
akin to R4, like that south street behind maybe what's across Mockingbird, but when
you go to this area and when you look at it, it just sits amongst all these larger parcels
that have been there, and it's an odd -- it is an odd lot.
There's no doubt about that.
You know, it's certainly changed ownership many times.
I know the current owner has had it on the market as well for over a year, so -- okay,
I don't have any other questions.
Anybody else?
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay, that is our agenda review for this evening, so that'll take us to our work session report,
which is 3A PZ 24184.
Receive a report.
Hold a discussion regarding tree preservation, landscaping, and protection, and preservation
of environmentally sensitive area requirements for new development.
Hi, Chrissy.
Hi.
Hi, Chrissy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and tonight I'm going to start
off this presentation, and then I'm going to hand it over to my coworkers.
So tonight we're going to be presenting on the environmentally sensitive areas and the
review of that tree preservation requirements, landscape and landscape code.
Is that better?
Yeah, somehow it's a little echoing.
I'm not sure why.
Okay.
Maybe -- oh, no, I just made it worse.
Okay.
And then Jimmy will have more fun because he's super tall.
Okay.
Is this better now?
Okay.
Yeah, I think so.
Thank you.
So transitioning into the environmentally sensitive areas presentation.
Some of you have seen some of this information before.
Just want to go back over it for everybody's sake.
So there are benefits that these environmentally sensitive areas offer to the community and
to landowners, including the stabilization of the banks and the streams, preventing those
streams from down cutting.
The economic values, including the sequestration and -- of pollutants of concern, and carbon
sequestration that especially trees offer.
There are four different environmentally sensitive areas identified in the development code.
So the development code is setting that standard into which ones we are regulating.
First of all is undeveloped flood plains or flood plains are generally in their natural
state.
We have riparian buffers or land that is immediately adjacent to the waterways, those vegetative
buffers.
Water-related habitats include water-related -- sorry, wetlands, Corps of Engineers and
Waters of the U.S. wetlands, and bottomland harvest forests, and then crust timbers uplands,
which are oak dominated savannas.
The -- historically, the city had adopted this official ESA map.
This was created in the early 2000s, and when it was adopted, it was more of a placeholder.
Here's in general where we believe that these environmentally sensitive areas may exist.
This information is updated by private landowners when those landowners are coming and seeking
development of their property.
That triggers for us to require this ESA field assessment.
Somebody walks the site and identifies -- confirms the presence, the location, and the extent
of these environmentally sensitive areas on that private property at that time.
You can find all of the information and the current status of this map on the interactive
map.
I'm going to introduce to you the development impact area at this time.
I'm going to insert here on this because I want to share with you how our development
impact area definition interacts with how our site plans are designed -- how it interplays
with the site plans in the environmentally sensitive areas.
So the development impact area states that any man-made changes or improvements are unimproved
to the unimproved real estate, including construction of alterations of that land, roads, parking,
grading, anything that essentially is a land disturbance goes into this development impact
area as it's defined.
So in this example, I have a site plan here that's showing you a development impact area
in the brownish color, and that bluish area is the environmentally sensitive area.
As you can see, this property owner has designed their site layout to avoid developments impacts
to the environmentally sensitive area.
So in general, we're applying this requirement to all land within the city -- Floodplain
and the ETJ -- and each one of those environmentally sensitive areas do have their own unique classifications
and protection requirements.
And I review each of these developments at the final plat as the final time that I'm
looking at it to confirm that the project is proposing a site plan that meets those
criteria for approval.
I'm working with them throughout the life of the projects from the very beginning and
talking to them about how to comply.
And there are instances where property owners identify for various reasons that they're
not going to be able to meet that criteria for approval.
They are seeking that flexible and discretionary approval for mitigation to offset for a deviation
from those protection and preservation requirements of environmentally sensitive areas.
This project type, the developer offers up a mitigation plan, and then it goes through
an approval process that is very similar to the zoning procedure, where there's two public
hearings, one at this body and one at the city council, where you're making a recommendation
to the city council, who is the final authority on approval of those environmental -- alternative
and environmentally sensitive area plans.
There is a criteria for approval for those type of projects, including to either restore
the functions or continue to offer some type of benefit that the disturbed, environmentally
sensitive area offered prior to that land disturbance.
And in this example we have here, the property owner, they identified that they would need
to make some encroachments in order to construct their outfalls to the center line of the channel,
and the mitigation plan is to establish native vegetation within those areas where they had
disturbed.
Lastly, just to let everybody know that there is a website and document that we put together
several years ago.
We called it ESA primer.
It's not a criteria manual, and it's not a standard, but it's rather just a guidance
document to provide information about all the complexities of the environmentally sensitive
area and our code and how to comply.
And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jimmy Holtford.
Thank you.
Hopefully that still works.
All right.
So probably you all have never met me.
My name is Jimmy Holtford.
I'm one of the landscape planners I'll be presenting tonight, and my topic of discussion
is about tree preservation.
So there are two standards that we try to adhere to when new developments come in, specifically
when you see like a planned development or a specific use permit or SUP.
The minimum preservation that we're aiming for when development initially comes in is
30% of quality and heritage trees.
If they cannot meet that minimum preservation, they are allowed to drop down to 20% with
higher mitigation requirements for those quality and heritage trees.
There's also another preservation standard for secondary trees.
If they have just secondary trees on site, they can do a minimum preservation of 20%
as well on that.
So tonight you'll have a couple of plants that will be presented that talk about mitigation
on those.
And so at the very end of a project, say it switches hands from one owner to another,
that future owner is going to be aware of that mitigation that was owed when they decided
to purchase the property.
So we'll start talking about tree definition types.
So the first one is heritage, and heritage are all quality trees with the DBH greater
than 18 inches, and any post oak trees that are six inches and greater.
So then that transitions into smaller trees, which are quality.
Those are healthy non-secondary trees, except post oaks, because they all fall within the
heritage.
They measure between six and 18 inches.
And then finally we have secondary trees, which are your healthy ash, your boat arks
or Osage orange, hackberries and cottonwood trees with the DBH of six inches or greater.
Then we have some non-protected trees.
Those are your trees, you go onto site, they're already dead or they're diseased from various
insects or maybe fungal issues.
Trees that could pose an imminent danger, maybe they got struck by lightning all of
a sudden, or maybe a windstorm came and they started leaning over.
And then you have your crepe murals, ornamental pears, which are typically Bradford pears.
Your mesquite and honey locusts, they would be non-protected unless they fall within a
preserved habitat or conservation easement.
And then any trees listed within Texas Department of Agriculture or TDAs, noxious and invasive
plant list.
Finally, we have landmark trees.
So this is actually a picture of one of our five landmark trees within the city.
It's a 40 plus inch post oak.
And landmark trees are just really large trees or trees that are designated within Texas
Big Tree Registry or that have some kind of historical significance within the city.
So when someone submits a tree preservation plan on a new development, they're going to
have to identify where the fencing is going to be installed around the trees.
So this is an example of how it should look.
If you don't see it like this, let us know.
But it should go all the way out to at least the drip line of the tree or critical root
zone.
And so you can see where the red is showing how far the drip line is of these two trees
that are being protected.
So tree replacement on a site.
Since they are having to remove trees, they are required to meet these minimum requirements.
So the ratio is start off for heritage quality and secondary is just showing how those ratios
are adjusted based on the different tree types.
And then you have your first ratio, which starts at the 30%.
And then if you drop down to 20%, you can see what the ratios are reduced to.
Now replacement totals are reduced to 50 and 40%.
50 is for residential, 40 is for non-residential.
And that's because the state requirements.
Then we have tree credits.
So again, you have all the different tree types, your heritage, your quality of secondary
landmark.
And then asterisks next to secondary because it has specific requirements since it may
have to have additional requirements associated with that credit.
If there are no heritage quality trees on there, you may be restricted by getting credits
for those.
Then we also have cluster credits, which allows for additional preservation for trees that
are close together on a development.
And then we give credits for street trees and all additional landscaping that is required
on a new development if their DBH is two inches or greater.
So this is an example of what the property boundary would look like on a site in red.
So this is the New Denton High School site.
And then in the hatched yellow area is showing where the DIA or development impact area,
I roughly drew on there showing how that doesn't always line up with the property boundary.
And it shows in the bottom how the DIA actually avoided the environmentally sensitive areas.
So we have goals for canopy coverage.
That's why we're doing all of the tree assessments.
So for 2020 Urban Forestry Master Plan, the goal for 2040 is to get to 40%.
So we get there by making sure we have diverse, healthy, and equitable canopy distribution
across the city, not just focusing on the east or the west side.
So tree canopy goals are achieved by two things.
One is preservation.
And second is making sure that on all new developments, they meet the landscape requirements
that we have, which includes the planting of trees.
And that leads into landscaping, which will be presented by Nellie.
Hi, everyone.
My name is Nellie.
I'm the other landscape planner, and I'll be going over the landscape requirements today.
So to start off, landscape requirements from multifamily and non-residential are required
to provide a total of at least 30 points from the following chart shown on the right, which
is our landscape area point system.
And just a quick summary, two elements are required from section A, and two elements
are also required from section B, and then the rest of the points can come from section
C. And in addition to those landscape point system, multifamily and non-residential are
required to meet the minimum landscape area and tree canopy percentage per zoning district,
which is the chart shown on the right.
And I'll go over an example of how we exactly calculate those numbers.
So in this project, the zoning district was C, suburban corridor, and the minimum requirement
for landscape was 20% and tree canopy was 30%.
And you'll see in highlight in yellow is the areas that we would calculate in square feet,
and take that against the development impact area square feet that is shown in blue.
And as you can see, they provided 35% of landscape area there.
And for tree canopy, the applicant provides a tree canopy calculation table where it is
based on the square footage on our approved landscape plan list.
And you'll see there that the applicant has provided 59% meeting the 30% tree canopy area
there.
We also provide city resources to developers as our landscape plan checklist, in addition
to our approved plan list as well.
So this is information public for the developers to create their landscape plans.
And then for landscaping for residential, they do meet different requirements than multifamily
and non-residential.
So these are the four minimums quickly to go over them.
All single-family duplex and townhome lots must contain a minimum of one large shade
tree per dwelling.
All triplex and fourplex lots must contain a minimum of one large shade tree.
And at least 30% of the front yard shall be landscaped and 20% of the rear yard shall
be landscaped.
And with all the plantings that need to be installed, we do have standards for those
plantings.
And so one of them is the 90% of plantings shall be from the approved landscape plan
list, which was shown as a city resource that we provide to developers.
If 20 or more trees are planted, no one species of trees may exceed 30% of that total new
trees.
One example for that is if there's 100 total trees to be planted on a site, 30 of those
can only be burr oaks, like they can't be more than another-- more to simple math right
there.
And at least 50% of trees planted must be native, indigenous, or adapted, as indicated
on the plan list.
And one more other requirement, we also require buffer requirements here.
So all developments are required to install a buffer, as specified in the table shown
on the right.
An example for that is if a multifamily is the developing use, you would go down where
developing use is, following the row right there, and if it's being built adjacent to
a commercial and institutional, you'll see that the minimum is 20 points required and
a minimum width of 10 feet.
And in the following slide, I'll show the buffer requirements point chart.
So this is how the developers create their buffer elements from here.
And you'll see in the buffer chart, there's different points that they can meet to meet
that requirement.
And the other notion for this is that the entire buffer area shall be landscaped with
ground cover other than turf grass.
So that's a good point there.
And then lastly, we have street trees.
And for street trees, we required a couple of things there, one of them being that they
should be within the street right away or within 10 feet of the right away from there.
At least one street tree is required for every 30 feet of street frontage.
And trees shall not be planted further apart than 50 feet and no closer than 25 feet apart.
We want to make sure these trees grow as spaciously as they can.
And if the requirements can't be met, we do offer an alternative landscape plan, which
allows a reduction in the count, configuration, or require landscape materials when the site
or development are contradicting there.
So some items that can be towards this is natural conditions, unique lot size or configuration,
the presence of existing utility or easements that they just can't meet.
So we offer this option for them to go through.
And then lastly, on those approved landscape plans, we do complete landscape final inspections.
So before issuing the COs, we require an inspection, as you can see here.
This is from one of our projects that we had done recently at the ERA apartments.
The first inspection, we denied it as there was dead trees there and dead shrubs.
And we want to make sure that it looks beautiful here.
And in the second inspection, you'll see they've replanted all new species.
And it looks wonderful and great and thriving now.
So this is how we're going to make it look beautiful here.
And any questions for me?
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
Going back to one of the earlier slides where you had the stratification of trees, you had
the heritage trees, you had the secondary trees.
And then you had a single line that was mesquite and honey locust.
And then the line beneath that, you had invasive trees.
So why are mesquite and honey locusts in a different, I mean, those should be under the
lowest stratification of trees because they are invasive here.
Any rancher in this town is going to tell you those are no bueno.
I mean, they're just not.
So they're considered not protected unless they fall within the preserved habitat of
a conservation or conservation easement.
So if they're within those areas, say you have a conservation easement that is supposed
to be undisturbed, we don't want people going in there essentially.
So we're trying to keep that habitat as is.
So that's why it's designated for those trees to remain in that undisturbed habitat area.
But everything else would be considered nonprotected.
You know, I may come from a different perspective as far as mesquite and honey locusts.
I mean, if you let them be, they're going to take over.
I mean, we went through this song and dance about six years ago.
And there were some on the commission that wanted to protect mesquite and honey locust.
And I remember Richard Kanoni brought a honey locust limb, and it looked like a medieval
weapon with all the-- I mean, if you let mesquite and honey locust stay, they're going to take
over.
And you're not going to have a single piece.
I'm glad they're not in the protected deal, but letting them be, that's a whole different
ball game.
Any rancher around here is going to tell you, because that's what you fight.
You're fighting the battle of mesquite and honey locust.
So you should-- I mean, it doesn't matter if it's in the Easter or whatever.
You should be able to-- because you're going to lose your property to those two particular
trees, if a honey locust is a tree, but why not just take them out?
I can add a little color if you like to that, if you want.
So in this example here where I was showing, this is the development impact areas in the
brown, and the blue would be the riparian buffer, right?
So we're trying to protect, ultimately, the waterway itself.
That's what we're really focused on.
And so let's say in this example, there were honey locusts and mesquites that are dominating
the space.
At this time, our code doesn't require-- so all it requires is that you set that land
aside.
It doesn't require that you tackle invasive species.
Private would be another big issue out there.
There's no difference between private and these two.
Totally agree.
So if a landowner wishes to tackle some of those things and wishes to eradicate some
of those invasive species, I'm all about providing that support and providing the information
that's needed in order to provide that support to them to help get it there and restore the
land properly.
You can't just go out and just tear out all the vegetation because you're going to create
other problems.
So we do want to provide some guidance, and we want to help to make that happen in a way
that would result in the best environment possible.
I totally understand that.
And if you went back to where those mesquites and honey locusts were, if you went back 20-something
years, they're not there.
Right.
I mean, every landowner in this county is fighting the mesquite and honey locust war
daily.
Right.
That's what ranchers are doing.
They're clearing this stuff out 24/7.
And whether it's part of a ... We can call it an easter.
We can call it ... It's a creek.
Yes.
It's a creek fundamentally, and it is the only way our wildlife gets to move up and
down out of development freely, is that creek.
And we should be able to clear out mesquite and honey locusts without even going to anybody
or doing anything.
Yeah.
I mean, it should be just by right.
Unfortunately, sometimes we do see that when property owners are trying to tackle this,
they are causing damage.
So that's where staff is just trying to provide the right guidance to that property owner
that we aren't resulting in.
Example, sometimes a landowner will clear everything, and what comes back is Johnson
grass.
Absolutely.
And that's what we're trying to avoid.
And so we're trying to just help in a partnership with the landowner to understand why and how.
And you can bail Johnson grass and feed your livestock off of it.
That's just ... Yeah.
Yes.
Right.
Any other questions?
Yep.
Commissioner Prout.
Thank you, Chair.
I'll go in order of the presentation.
My recollection of the timeline of the DDC and then the wildlife corridor plan and that
sort of thing is roughly in that order, right?
As far as the inclusion ... The wildlife corridor map was added to the comp plan after the 2019
DDC and these ESA declarations were instantiated, is that correct?
Okay.
So you're looking for the timeline of things and ... Okay.
So the ESA code was added to the DDC in 2020, sorry, 2002, sorry, I got my numbers mixed
up, in 2002.
And that was a big update that happened in 2002.
Everything was pretty much kept the same.
Some modifications were made to the ESA code back in, I believe it was 2018, 2017, 2018,
2018 timeframe.
And then, I'm not sure when the comp plan was last updated, are you aware, Tina?
March of 2022.
Okay.
And so the code update in 2019 didn't make any changes to the ESA code.
So then the comp plan update added a request to identify these wildlife corridors.
Map identified an estimation of where wildlife corridors might be occurring.
And essentially, what we're doing is just following where we think wildlife might go.
And we've created that map, but no code or other supporting documentation has come with
that map.
Okay.
No, that helps.
Thank you.
So perhaps as a lay environmental person, not coming steeped with knowledge, do we have
ways, and I guess maybe it's the alt ESA is the way, but if an applicant, say for instance,
a hypothetical/example, right, in this example you have up here, the ESA certainly narrows
down toward the south, right?
If it were along a wildlife corridor and after it went further south, it widened out again,
right?
Would there be benefits to doing restoration to connect those better?
How do we try to encourage that sort of thing?
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
And I actually kind of blends your question with his question and the why of protecting
this vegetation and why staff gives input on when you're going to clear your land, not
for ag purposes, but for other purposes that are non-ag, seeking a clearing grade permit
and then walking through with a property owner.
How could you clear some of these invasive plants and issues?
So then the end result is that we're continuing to provide both protection of the waterway
and provide that habitat and the continuation of habitat.
And the way that the researchers have explained it to us is that wildlife is traversing from
one high quality habitat to the other and those corridors are helping just provide that
transportation between the higher quality habitats.
Okay.
Thank you.
And then hopefully I won't offend anybody, but I've heard some in the community that
are skeptical of the alternate ESA plan process.
Some of that I think is perhaps because it sounds similar to the older alternate development
plan process that we used to have.
And sometimes it's met with opinions that, oh, well, this must be worse rather than better.
Can you speak to, like, does staff always have a higher bar for improving those ESAs
with an alt ESA than it would with a standard ESA?
Does that make sense?
Yeah, yeah, I understand where you're going with it.
So we do have the criteria for approval.
I've summarized this in the most simple terms possible, but you can go to the development
code and read specifically all the criteria for approval.
Not every development meets those criteria, every single one of those criteria for approval
and not all projects are the same because not all requests are the same.
There's such a variety of ways that the developers both seeking your requests, but also seeking
that deviation that started the request, right?
So sorry, I went backwards on that thought.
But essentially what I'm trying to say is that what I do on my end when these projects
start is we're identifying those deviations, then we're working with that developer to
try to find the best possible outcome for the city because we're looking for, again,
what is that benefit that the ESAs are offering to the community as a whole and how can we
ensure that we're getting either equitable or something that would be exchangeable for
the deviation from the protection requirements that are in place.
Okay, thank you.
And now just a couple, make sure my mind is calibrated questions factually.
On the, earlier on you had a chart about the monetary benefits of ESAs and there was one
that said avoided runoff.
That seems like a very low number to me because I know how much drainage infrastructure costs.
Can you speak to what that avoided runoff bucket includes as far as the but for argument?
Which one?
Just the bottom pie chart.
The bottom type, oh.
You know, I read these papers back in 2019.
I haven't read them since, so honestly I do not remember, but also keep in mind that,
you know, these are economic values that I actually haven't gone back to look at in quite
a while.
If there's new numbers out there, I'm sure there's some really great research at this
time.
We were just pulling this together to kind of help explain, you know, what we were trying
to talk about in the primer.
Okay, thank you.
In the next, sorry, just a quick question on the, I think perhaps, and I don't want
to speak out of turn, but one of the reasons this came before us is when we're looking
at that development impact area map, if you want to pull up that, I think it was the Denton
High School, right, map.
I think one of the questions was, if you have a development, ignoring the fact that it's
this high school for now, that has a smaller impact area like this does than the total
land area, is that land owner, you know, and say the majority, if not all of the 30% preserved
trees are not in the impact area, right?
Is that land owner then allowed to subdivide, you know, within the lot size requirements
and that sort of thing later, and then develop the previously unimpacted area and preserve
only 30% of that 30%?
Does that make sense?
Am I explaining that correctly?
30% of the 30%.
So if you start in time A, and you develop the high school, and you save 30% of the trees,
right?
Within the DIA?
Oh, okay, maybe that's my misconception.
So in this map...
The property in red?
Yeah.
Okay.
In the property in red, would the trees preserved outside of the DIA contribute to the 30% tree
preservation requirement?
Not within the...
No.
Okay.
They don't fall within the DIA.
So, the preservation only accounts for the area within the yellow.
Got it.
So, say someone wants to say that ESA goes away in the future, and there are trees there,
then they have to figure out how to preserve 30% of those trees within the property that's
outside of the DIA.
Okay.
Thank you.
So it's not 30 of 30.
Right.
It's just 30.
Okay.
Can I just interrupt you for a minute?
Yeah, please do.
Yeah, just to my brain.
So, dealing with the DIA is what you're dealing with when you're talking about tree preservation
and it has to fall within the DIA.
That's correct.
So, then the question was, so if that ESA went away and that area was going to get developed,
then it's a new look then?
That's correct.
They are only going to be focused on developing of that portion of the site, so they would
draw their DIA showing that portion, and then they have to figure out a way to save 30%.
Of that?
Of that.
That wasn't impacted in the first place?
That's correct.
Okay.
Sorry, Eric.
Yeah, thank you.
And then, if you want to go forward to the replacement slide ratio, I was just confused
by the four-inch colon one tree, what is that nomenclature?
So you have one tree that you're actually wanting to remove that's considered secondary.
Regardless of what the DVH or diameter breast height is of that tree, you have to replace
it with a four-inch caliber of trees.
Okay.
Well, like one four-inch tree per one secondary tree removed?
Well, our replacement requirements is a minimum of two-inch caliber.
So you could replace with two.
Say you want to remove a 16-inch secondary tree, our requirements are you could replace
with two two-inch caliber trees.
Okay.
Got it.
So regardless of the size of the secondary tree you're removing, you only have to replace
it with a total of four inches DVH.
Four inches total.
That's correct.
Got it.
Okay.
I think that answers all of that.
And then last but not least, I've always had a question about the tree canopy calculation.
At what state of growth of the tree is that assumed?
So that is assumed a mature canopy for those trees.
And on the proof plant list, it says on the left side, mature size canopy, that states
the large and the square feet of each tree species.
Okay.
Thank you.
Of course.
That's all.
Thank you.
Sure.
Other questions?
I'm just curious related to, do we still have a tree fund?
No.
Sorry, y'all.
The answer is yes.
We still do.
Do we still have people like contributing to it?
Is that still an option?
That is an option.
And yes, we have had recent projects actually contribute to it.
Okay.
What are we doing with the tree fund?
Now it's a question that would be deferred to Haywood Morgan, because he's the one who
handles the mitigation, unless Hayley has something different to say.
Well this has been, we've kind of discussed this before.
The man who could have answered that question perfectly left the room, unfortunately.
Gary was here earlier.
My understanding is parks, they have an ordinance that limits them to certain things that they
can do with that money.
And I believe it has to be for tree replacement projects on city property.
So it could be right-of-way trees for streets that we maintain or trees within parks.
I believe it could also be used for like purchase of land if the intent of the land was preserving
the trees that are on it.
Okay.
So there's all parameters that are attached to the fund.
Do we have regular workings of using the tree fund?
That I'm not sure of, but we can certainly find out and get that information for you.
Okay.
Yeah, I'm just wondering how often, and maybe you have the answer, maybe you have the answer.
How often are people opting for that?
So because state law requires that we give credit for trees planted as long as they meet
that minimum size, a fair number of developments can offset their mitigation that's owed with
the plantings that they're required to do for landscaping.
Some of them, if they have extra room on site, will opt to even do additional tree plantings
beyond that just so they don't pay into the tree fund.
But I don't have an estimate, but I would say a fair number of projects do end up with
some remaining balance that gets contributed into the tree fund that they can't plant on
site.
It probably sounds like we need a work session on tree funds.
I'll write that in.
Thank you.
Other questions?
Yeah.
Go ahead.
It's more of a comment, I guess, concerning the tree fund.
If my imagination is not true, please ignore it.
But I wonder whether allowing or encouraging development projects to provide off-site plantings
in nearby neighborhoods so that people can see the benefit of that tree mitigation money
coincident with the project, as opposed to four years later when Parks has the capacity
to go do some plantings.
I wonder if that would help people weigh the good with the bad with projects that come
through.
I do have one more question, probably yours, because we touched on it a little bit, because
I assume this has to do with what I put on the matrix of this work session.
We're counting it into the subdividing of commercial lots.
Pick a commercial lot in your brain of what we have in the city.
Do we get better tree preservation if we develop that all together as one, and you're dealing
with that development impact there as one, versus if we have a commercial plot and we're
carving it out and subdividing it?
I was going to say, I think it probably depends on the type of development situation that
it is and what we're dealing with, with the property.
And the buffer requirements.
We're very careful to watch where the development impact area is, where the tree preservation
is going to be.
As Jimmy said, if you're within the development impact area, we're trying to encourage people
to preserve it 30%.
They can drop it down to 20% provided they do the mitigation, as he explained.
But if you have a phase development, and I develop the area over on the right, and that's
my development impact area, and I don't touch the area on the left, and then I come in and
I develop the area on the left, and that's where I'm drawing my development impact area,
then we're evaluating the trees there.
If somebody tried to develop an area where we had already identified trees that are supposed
to be preserved, then that's where the notes on the plat come in to help us with ensuring
that those trees are protected so that subsequent property owners understand that that grove
of trees is protected.
So if subsequent development was happening on the site, then we would note where those
trees are that are being preserved, and then again, do the math calculations, but it still
comes out, to Jimmy's point earlier, it's still hopefully at 30% of tree preservation,
but they do have that ability to be at that 20%, but then again, we're mitigating that
delta.
So to their points earlier, a lot of times what we're finding is because state law allows
for trees planted to be calculated towards that mitigation, then we're getting the trees
added back on the site.
I don't know if you have anything else to add.
I'm just going to add to it, so in your example of like if it's a multi-lot commercial development
like say a razor wrench, bad example because they predate the tree code, but if something
like that were to happen today, we do our best to encourage developers to look at their
site comprehensively, do the tree survey up front, and account for that preservation with
all of the intended lots on there.
We do on occasion have people that insist, "No, I just want to worry about phase one,"
then they end up saddling a later phase with more difficult conditions because the trees
weren't looked at comprehensively.
But we do our best to do that, and to Tina's point, that's the purpose of the Platte note
so that we know in the future which lots contain the preserved trees so that we can always
hold them accountable to those original conditions that we documented.
And in the end, if you do the math and work it out, once we know what the total is on
site at the beginning of the project, the minimum 20% number is always going to be the
same regardless of how they work that out because we can always go back to that original
and say, "No, your 20% of the original 100 inches is always 20 inches," no matter which
lots those trees land on within the development and how those might get subdivided over time.
Okay.
Yeah, and that does help because that was going to be my question if you do try to ask
them to look at the entire...
We do our best to encourage the good behavior where we can.
I can see that.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Yeah.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
I think, as you can tell, our tree preservation requirements, they're complex.
Our landscaping a little bit easier for being able to implement and count the points right.
But one of the things that our team does an excellent job with, with the development community,
especially in that first pre-application conference that we have with the development community,
we are bringing to their attention our tree preservation requirements and we're...
As well as our ESA requirements, we're also having conversations with them regarding if
properties are shown on the land preservation plan map and what that means for them, right?
So we're very proactive on the front end.
We try to encourage the development community to look at our tree preservation ordinance
requirements holistically, get that under control on the front end of the project, because
if they think that they can defer all of the...
Trying to figure out tree preservation on the back end, that's where they run into problems.
So we are very proactive in our education efforts with the development community and
in that regard, because we understand the complexity of our ordinance.
We know that our ordinance requirements are more restrictive than many other communities
that they've probably worked within, and we know where the challenges are.
So we're very fortunate that we have the teams that we do that are subject matter experts
in their field and being able to communicate to the development community.
Here's what our requirements are.
Here are some effective ways for you to be able to achieve.
Here's where we've seen success on some other properties.
These successful examples might actually be a good thing for your property that you might
wanna explore.
So we, again, I can't emphasize enough on how much of the education aspect that we do
throughout the development review process.
And then I believe it was Jimmy who touched on this is one of the things that we do is
part of that review is a lot of times people think I'm gonna come in, I get my plan approved.
I'm done with that.
I move on to the next step.
I get that set of plans approved, check that box and I go on to the next step and get that
set of plans approved.
When it comes to the tree preservation plan, one of the things that we do is we keep that
plan status open throughout basically the duration of the review process because we
realize as tweaks get made to the zoning compliance plan and as adjustments get made to the civil
engineering plans that there potentially could be some impacts to the tree preservation aspect.
So we're trying to keep that tree preservation plan as a living document, no pun intended,
but a living document through that review process, if you will, because of the complexity
of our tree preservation ordinance and to continue to ensure that the preservation requirements
are being met.
- Thank you.
Commissioner Brewer.
- Thank you, Chair.
I do have one additional question which wasn't really touched on in the presentation.
So if we need to delay this, let me know.
A couple of times there've been concerns in the community when a property that might be
a very old residential property that has a residential use, but it might be on a large
strangely shaped lot that could be redeveloped in the future changes ownership and then many
trees are removed because of the ability that state law allows in my understanding to remove
trees if it's a single family home use on a property, right?
And the concerns I've heard is that when that happens, it looks like a way to get an end
run around the preservation requirements, does that make sense?
- I've seen that and I just, my question would be, have we carefully considered whether the
requirements that we have do as good of a job as we can at trying to prevent that given
the limitations that we have legally?
- You know, that's a great question.
So the challenge with state law is one, we have to follow it, right?
And it's very favorable towards property owners and it has specific requirements in there
when it comes to addressing trees.
So it is when we ensure that we follow state law requirements and our ordinance, some might
think that that's a workaround to the code, but if we know that they have plans for development,
we try to get in front of that and I guess Haley, I don't know if you have anything else
to add on that front or if I summarize that correctly, okay, so.
- Very good, thank you all for the presentation, it was great, yeah, very informative, much
appreciated.
Okay, with that, I'll go ahead and adjourn us at 6.10 PM and we will reconvene in council
chambers for our regular meeting at 6.30.
- Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for Wednesday, September 11th, 2024.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.38 PM, let the record show that
Commissioner Pedrone is absent tonight.
First item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the US 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, first item for our consideration tonight is the approval of our minutes for
August 28th meeting.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- Move approval.
- Commissioner Cole.
- Second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second to approve our minutes from August 28th, 2024.
Any discussion?
Okay, let's vote please.
That motion carries five zero.
That will take us to our consent agenda this evening.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- Move approval.
- Commissioner Thaggard.
- Second.
- We've got a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda discussion.
Let's vote please.
That motion carries five zero.
That will take us to our items for individual consideration.
This being 4A, FP 240032 and Erin is here for presentation.
Hi.
- Hello.
- Good evening, Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
This is FP 24-0032.
This is the Ryle Development Corporation or addition final plat and this was previously
in your packet for their first extension request.
Since the packet went out, they were able to satisfy all of their outstanding comments.
They were primarily labeling, showing easements, checklist items.
The face of the plat did not change too much and this was also emailed out to you between
work session and now to review.
We are recommending approval but I'll stand for any questions.
- Thanks, Erin.
Any questions?
Okay.
I don't see any.
Thank you so much.
Chair can entertain a motion or discussion at this time.
Commissioner Pruitt.
- I'll move approval of the updated plat that was just sent to us.
- Great.
Commissioner Thaggard.
- Second.
- Second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to 4-B, FP 24-0033.
Angie is here for presentation.
Hello.
- Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
Angie Manglars, Development Review Manager.
This is a final plat for Estella Hills, Phase 2A.
It is approximately a 21-acre site located approximately 1,500 feet south of East McKinney
into the east of Laney Circle.
The purpose of this final plat is to establish 85 single-family residential lots as well
as to establish streets and easements necessary for the development of a single-family residential
neighborhood.
It is part of the overall Estella Hills development, which is zoned Residential 6.
At this time, the proposed plat does not meet our criteria for approval.
Staff is recommending denial.
However, staff has no objection to the requested extension to a date certain of October 9th.
This will be their first extension request for this phase.
Happy to answer any questions you all may have.
- Great.
Thank you, Angie.
Do not see any questions.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of October 9th, 2024.
- Great.
Commissioner Thaggard.
- Second.
- Second to grant the extension request to a date certain of October 9th, 2024.
Seeing no discussion, let's go ahead and vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to 4C, FP 240034.
Angie here again for presentation.
- Thank you, Chair.
Angie Manglars, Development Review Manager.
This is the final plat for Stella Hills, phase 2B.
This is a approximately 15-acre site.
It is situated just south of East McKinney Street to the east of Laney Circle.
The purpose of this phase of the final plat is to establish 52 single-family residential
lots, one open-space lot, as well as associated rights of way and easements necessary for
development of a single-family residential neighborhood.
Staff is recommending denial as there are still some comments to be addressed.
However, has no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to October
9th.
Commissioner, any questions you all may have?
- Thanks, Angie.
I do not have any questions.
Thank you so much.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- I move approval of the extension request to a date certain of October 9th, 2024.
- Commissioner Thaggard.
- Second.
- We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of
October 9th, 2024.
Discussion?
Let's vote, please.
- That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to our public hearings for tonight, our first being 5-A, PD240002.
I will go ahead and open the public hearing, and Ashley is here for presentation.
Hello.
- Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Ashley Eckstead, Associate Planner.
This is PD242, Jefferson North Elm.
This is a request to rezone from a residential two-zoning district to a planned development
with mixed-use neighborhood and public facilities-based zoning districts to facilitate the development
of 450 multifamily dwellings and park dedication.
The existing zoning is R2, shown on the map on the left, and the future land use is neighborhood
mixed-use, shown on the map on the right.
Just to do a general overview of the proposed site, there will be two sub-districts, sub-district
A, which will have an MN-based zoning, and that will be the multifamily use.
That will be 15.76 acres, and then sub-district B will have the PF-based zoning and the park
dedication, and that will be 10.2 acres.
The overall tree canopy will be over 47%, landscape area 61%, open space at 41%, and
they are currently showing 52% tree preservation.
The PD does allow for a minimum 40% tree preservation to allow for any improvements that are finalized
within the park, but the intent is to not remove any additional trees.
The multifamily buildings will be clustered on the east side of the property.
As you can see, the extent of the existing trees are on the west property.
To go over the development plan for sub-district A, which is the MN base in the multifamily
units, there will be 450 residences within four buildings with an approximately 45-foot
height.
Those are outlined here on the screen in red.
They are mostly situated along Elm and Locust.
There is one building internal to the site.
There will be 765 vehicle parking spaces and 40 bicycle parking spaces.
There is internal pedestrian paths and bike lanes throughout the site, including three
individual entrances into the park, and those are circled on the plan in blue.
There's also several connections to the perimeter street sidewalk, which they will also be constructing,
and they will be a 10-foot wide side pass along North Locust and North Elm Street.
There will be two entrances outlined here in green.
The one on Elm will be right in, right out, and the entrance off of Locust will have a
left turn lane installed.
They'll also be dedicating 55 feet of right-of-way on their portion, which will involve a second
through lane southbound.
Amenities within the multifamily development are clubhouse, outdoor pool, trail, and outdoor
seating.
The landscaping plan for Sub-District A, they will have 39% landscape area and 43% tree
canopy cover.
There is detention pond landscaping, which is outlined on the plan in green, and that
includes trees that are suited to that environment as well as a pond mix of native grasses.
They'll also have street trees placed in the right-of-way between the side path and the
street pavement, and those are outlined here on the plan in red.
There was one location along Elm where existing utilities prevented the placement of street
trees, and those have been relocated to other areas of the site.
They also have parking lot landscaping, end caps, medians, and islands, and some of those
are outlined here on the plan in yellow.
Additionally, they'll have landscape burns in the 20-foot public utility easement that's
required along text-dot roadways, and there's also a butterfly garden, which is outlined
on the plan in blue.
To go over the elevations, this is one of the buildings.
This is the building that's at the intersection of Locust and Elm.
As discussed, there will be four stories, approximately 54 feet tall, and some of them
will have garages, as shown on the plan here.
The park dedication, Sub-District B, this will have the PF base zoning and 10.2 acres.
The overall landscape area for this Sub-District is 94%, and tree canopy, 52%.
There will be several trails throughout the park, as well as the tree preservation.
There is currently an existing house on this site.
At the beginning stages of review of this project, keeping the home was considered.
However, staff has walked the property with the applicant and determined that it would
be financially infeasible for the city to bring the house up to the current standards
for public use.
Additionally, there's been several changes over the years in addition to the house, and
the house no longer has historical integrity.
A letter was included in the backup from the original owners of this home that detailed
all those changes, such as moving doors, moving windows, addition of a second story, and an
addition of additional rooms.
This plan is currently conceptual, and this will be finalized with the park development
agreement.
That park development agreement will go to the Parks Board and City Council for approval.
The developer is willing to do additional public engagement for the park improvements,
and they actually have already begun that at their last neighborhood meeting.
The parking will be at Evers Park, which is on the opposite side of Windsor.
There has been discussions to install a hawk signal across Windsor, which is outlined on
the plan here in blue.
There's also an existing trail along Evers Park, and that trail would continue through
this property.
This does meet the criteria for approval.
It would allow for the development of the property with land uses consistent with the
neighborhood mixed use future land use.
It also minimizes adverse environmental impacts by dedicating a park and exceeding the minimum
tree preservation requirements, and it also provides a greater level of community amenities
and connectivity than would otherwise be required.
As stated, the future land use is neighborhood mixed use, and this applies to areas where
the predominant use is residential, and also a diverse mix of housing types and densities
may be accommodated.
These areas should also raise a standard of design to increase connectivity and mobility
options and create a sense of place within the neighborhood.
There are other policies and goals of the comprehensive plan that this development would
achieve.
It will be 50% affordable and 50% market rate, which meets the comprehensive plan goals of
developing a housing stock that meets the needs of all of our residents and expanding
the availability of affordable housing choices.
Other goals within the comp plans are encouraging more dense development, coordinating the acquisition
of parks with goals of mobility and environmental conservation objectives, and ensuring the
protection of Denton's tree canopy.
There are competing interests within the comprehensive plan on this project.
The comprehensive plan calls for land and tree preservation, and then also development
scale to fit in with the surrounding area.
The density and scale are concentrated on the eastern portion of this property and clustered
to achieve that land and tree preservation with a smaller development footprint.
Those building heights and scale could be considered out of character with the surrounding
existing development.
However, a larger development footprint would come at a cost of less land and tree preservation.
The preferred land preservation and wildlife corridor map is shown here, and it's just
noted that this property is not identified on either of those maps.
Additionally, I've included the tree preservation plan here to show the quantity of trees that
are being protected on this property.
Public outreach was done, an ad was posted in the newspaper and on the website, and signs
were posted on the property.
We mailed out notices to everyone within 500 feet.
Within 200 feet, we received six responses in opposition for 5.03%, which are shown here
on this map in red, and one response in favor, 5.41%, which is shown here on this map in
green.
The applicant held four neighborhood meetings beginning in December of last year.
Staff does recommend approval of the request as it seeks to achieve the preservation of
land and trees while clustering the development on the balance of the property, and it does
comply with the criteria for approval.
This is tentatively scheduled for City Council on October 15th, 2024.
Happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is also here with the presentation.
Thank you very much, Ashley.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ashley, for the presentation.
Could you explain, I know the letter said they moved doors and windows around, but perhaps
could you explain like percentage, what percentage is the original building?
Our historic preservation officer toured the home, and she did not let me know what percentage
the original building was, but she did state that the cost to bring it back to its original
state would be prohibitive to accomplish with what was left of the structure that is there
now.
Gotcha.
And I guess, traditionally, what wouldn't be the deciding factor on declaring this a
historical building, and in this case, we're not declaring it a historical building.
So I'm going to help with this one.
So within the debt and development code, there are, I believe it's 13 criteria for evaluation
of structures if they are designated, and so typically, property owners come forth and
would request designation of their property, and we would evaluate it in accordance with
that.
But in this case, that did not occur.
Gotcha.
Thank you.
Anything else?
We've got Ashley up here right now.
Okay.
We may call you back.
Thank you.
I do have some cards wishing to speak on this item, the first being the applicant, so I'll
go ahead and invite Amy Bissett up.
Hello.
Good evening, commissioners.
Amy Bissett, 97 Land, 109 North Elm, 76201.
And I do have a brief presentation, but I'm going to leave a lot of this presentation
to my client.
I do want to start by sharing perhaps a couple of personal thoughts about why I took this
project.
18 years ago, I was a staff member with Keep Denton Beautiful, and I drove by this site
every day going to work, and I fell in love with it.
The beautiful trees, the post oaks, the hill, the history of Evers Farm, and having the
privilege of being a part of the parks management team at that time, I began to advocate for
the city to look at acquiring the property for permanent preservation.
Over the course of the next 10 years, while I worked for the city, I continued to look
at funding options and explore ways to acquire the property to bring it into permanent preservation.
Unfortunately, the parks department, their strategic priorities are to place parks where
their currently residents don't have access within walking distance to park amenities
and recreational activities.
In this area, we have Evers Park, and it's not too far but distance to North Lakes Park.
Just in terms of funding priorities, it didn't make sense to acquire the property at that
time.
However, over the course of 18 years, I've continued to watch it, and over the last few
years, as a zoning consultant, I have spoken with numerous developers, engineers, and brokers
who have looked at this site.
To be perfectly honest, I was not willing to touch it with a 10-foot pole until JPI
came along and showed me a site where they were looking at preserving as much of this
property as possible.
I want you to consider for a moment what they're actually doing here.
They're buying 25 acres of property for a development project, and they are donating
over 10 acres of that property to the city for permanent public use.
That's 40% of their site, 40% of the land cost that they are willing to give away in
order to preserve this property.
Furthermore, I did witness extensive conversations and site visits between JPI and the city regarding
the historic value of the home on site.
We all made a lot of effort to look at the potential for saving it and restoring it back
to its original condition, and ultimately, with it being on the property that is being
dedicated to the city and the Parks Department, the ongoing maintenance of that was problematic
in addition to the fact that the historic value had been compromised through multiple
renovations over the years.
I just want to say that I have personally watched and advocated for the preservation
of this property for literally 18 years now, and not a single preservation opportunity
has come forward before now.
I believe genuinely that this plan development has the greatest potential to preserve as
much of this site as possible.
Because of that, I'm here representing it today.
I do want to walk you through a few details of the plan development and the specific standards
associated with it.
The purpose of this plan development is to facilitate a clustered multifamily development
on 15.76 acres while preserving 10.2 acres of open space and existing trees.
I do want to note here that the park dedication ordinance would require a dedication of 2.4
acres, so they are proposing four times the required amount of park dedication.
We have written a definition of this land use in the plan development, calling it clustered
multifamily development.
That definition is a multifamily development in which density is allowed to be concentrated
in exchange for the permanent protection of open space.
The purpose is to protect sensitive lands and common open space areas.
I wrote the PD standards, and I can tell you that they include enhancements to required
open space, required amenities, required tree preservation and required landscape requirements.
They promote the protection and enhancement of natural resources.
There is some height relief written into the PD standards, specifically to be sensitive
to the surrounding context, and obviously there's dedication of significant public parkland,
and the construction of park amenities is provided for by the developer as well.
The Denton 2040 Comp Plan, simply put, addresses the opportunity to encourage long-term sustainability
by promoting compact, purposeful growth.
I believe that this project meets multiple objectives within the Comp Plan, including
conservation development, which is a concept that is discussed throughout the Comp Plan
where it is intended to encourage clustering to, in return, preserve open space.
Also, this discourages urban sprawl.
It encourages infill and compact development, which is the preferred growth pattern within
the Comp Plan, and encourages a broad array of housing choices.
Housing choice and affordability, I do want to point out that within the last few weeks,
you all had a work session on incentives for affordable housing, and one of those contemplated
incentives was a density bonus, which is similar to what we're proposing here in exchange for
preservation of open space.
With that, I'm going to turn it over to Rich Darrow with JPI.
JPI did facilitate their own neighborhood meetings, so I'm going to let them go through
the details of how those went, as well as the details of their plans.
Thank you.
Thanks, Amy.
You're good.
20 minutes total, that is fine.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Yes.
Hi.
Good evening.
Thank you, everyone, for letting us come before you tonight.
My name is Rich Darrow.
I work for JPI.
Our address is 9001 Cypress Waters Boulevard in Irving, Texas, 75019.
Thank you, Ashley, for your presentation.
Thank you, Amy, for stepping up and discussing the property, as well.
I'll go through ... I know I'm short on time, so I'll go through briefly who we are, and
then I'll get into the plan and everything that we've done since, really, last October.
So who JPI is ... We've been around since 1989.
We have developed in 141 different cities, created 114,000 homes in across 373 different
communities.
We are the number one fastest growing developer in the nation.
We're the number eight largest developer in the nation.
We're the number two fastest growing builder in the nation, and number 11 largest builder
in the nation.
And that is all based off of just DFW, and then we also have an office in California,
and that is just off two markets, so everything that we're competing with is our national
brands, and we are just ... We're local developers.
We're the market leader.
Everywhere we go, we want to be the nicest product with the highest rent.
Everything that we do is class A. We're always looking at the next trends, whatever we can
do to make the apartment the most appealing for the new renters.
We're also a one-stop shop.
We find the site, we plan the site, we develop it.
We construct the building and we manage it.
So we're a one-stop shop.
Everything is at JPI, which is also good for the city and good for control of the development.
Here's a little bit of examples of what we do.
So this is main leasing center.
This is what you walk into, double volume ceilings.
Community areas, also enough room to also have the leasing agents lease out.
Here's more community areas overlooking a courtyard and pool.
City of the Art Fitness Center, you have everything you can do in the fitness center, from free
weights to cardio to CrossFit stuff.
And then we even go above and beyond on the mail rooms.
We also see this as a gathering area.
A big thing for our communities is to have community.
We want our residents to come together, to be together, and have a sense of community
within our developments.
And so our property management team, onsite property management team also has programmed
events within the leasing centers and within the pool areas throughout the year.
This is an example of one of our units.
So I'll get into the project.
I know Ashley showed a 2D image, but here's a 3D image of our elevations.
This is the third iteration of elevations we've had after multiple neighborhood meetings.
Now we'll get into the site location.
So Amy touched on it a bit.
We first found the site in October.
Again, it's 25 acres, and I saw this as an opportunity.
I spoke with the sellers, and they saw this as an opportunity as well.
We weren't the only developers looking at this site, and they also had single family
developers and bill torrent developers looking at this site, where they would go across the
entire piece of land and wreck all of the trees, and they saw our plan, and they liked
our plan, and they thought that had the best chance to move forward because we were consolidating
the density to the southeast.
As Ashley did a good job of mentioning, it's zoned R2.
You could have 70 houses with no preservation.
Future land use is neighborhood mixed use, which allows for multifamily.
And then here's the project again.
Amy went over this, but again, it's 25 acres, 450 units consolidated in the southeast.
You have 10.2 acres that will be dedicated to parks, and then that will go through its
own public hearing with a developer's agreement post-zoning.
Within that 10 and a half acres of park land, we have a tree grove, we'll have a little
meadow where there isn't any trees, and we'll have a trail around it, and we'll also have
the Avers Memorial Park.
All in all, this development will have 3,500 feet of meandering trails just within this
portion itself, and then that doesn't include 2,800 feet of trails that we're installing
both across the city land on the northeast, and then along Elm and Locust to our east
and south.
We're preserving 52% of the trees, which is well over the required preservation of trees.
Multifamily developers have to preserve 25%.
Single-family developers have to preserve 20%, and we are at 52%.
All of the improvements to the park will be on our dollar in collaboration with the Parks
Department, but that is what the developer's agreement will be for, so we can work through
the details of what this concept will be.
We've had a neighborhood meeting, the fourth neighborhood meeting we discussed with the
neighbors about the Avers Memorial Park, and we've had multiple neighbors reach out to
us post-meeting with ideas of what to do with that park, because we're not the most creative
when it comes to something like that, so we've received some ideas of what to do.
What we proposed was a shade structure with a manicured lawn and then a plaque that will
commemorate the Avers family, what that land was, and it'll be a nice little gathering
area for the community.
This is something we received from a neighbor over the weekend, actually, and this is one
of her ideas for commemorating the Avers family.
To the bottom left of the picture, this is Franklin Court in Philadelphia.
This is actually Benjamin Franklin's old house, and the city had wrecked it, and then they
decided to put a ghost house there so people can still gather in that area and play in
the courtyard and have another gathering space.
On the right side of the page is in South Carolina.
It's a whole plantation memorial, and this is one of the original houses on the plantation.
What that is is it's showing the footprint of the house, and then if you look through
that picture frame, it'll show the house through engraving on glass, so you can kind of see
what the structure of the house is.
That's just one of the ideas, we're open to anything.
More on the trail connectivity.
This touches on the 10-foot sidewalk along the entire boundary of the property.
And then addressing the city need.
The city did a study in February of 2024 that put together a strategic toolkit in order to
help developers build moderately priced homes, because obviously in the past few years we've
had a lack of moderately priced homes being built.
The big boom in the last few years has been houses from 300,000 and up, and most of them
really are at 400,000, and 300,000 is just the marketing price.
According to the housing needs assessment done in '21, which is what this study took
into account, the city can anticipate demand for approximately 4,300 moderately priced
units between 2021 and 2030.
More key takeaways is public-private partnerships and cities working with developers for incentives
and grants and infill zoning changes, and then public-private partnership including
partnering with the Denton Housing Authority.
So our project fits into this because we've actually partnered with the Denton Housing
Authority.
This would be the third deal we're working with the Denton Housing Authority.
We already have executed a memorandum of understanding with them, which is essentially like an LOI
for buying a piece of property or a house.
So we've already partnered with them and come to an agreement to have the 50% market
rate units.
So this will still be our Class A product market rate product, but we'll, because of
our partnership with the Denton Housing Authority, we'll have 40% of the units serving 80% AMI,
which is 80% of area median income.
So 40% of those units will serve the people that are making that and then 10% of the units
will be serving 50% of the area median income.
So the goal here is to keep your teachers in town, your police in town, your firefighters
in town, your nurses in town, but also post-grants because you get a lot of young professionals
when they graduate UNT they want to stay in Denton and it's hard for them to find somewhere
to live that they can afford.
Now I'll go into the neighborhood outreach.
We've had four neighborhood meetings in total.
The first one was in December of 2023.
We presented our first plan.
We heard concerns about the site layout, about the house not being preserved and overall
kind of what our architecture looked like.
So we heard that.
We took all that into account.
We then went back to the drawing board with the site plan and elevations and then had
a second neighborhood meeting.
And that second neighborhood meeting is when we moved everything to the southeast where
the least amount of trees were away from the property because our plan at that point was
to preserve the Evers farmhouse.
And then at that meeting as well we showed another rendering of what our elevations looked
like.
We still had work to do there, but then we decided we needed a third neighborhood meeting.
But before that third neighborhood meeting and because of the result of the second neighborhood
meeting we had, I actually had a sidewalk with the previous owner, Mike Reed, because
I wanted to see since we're preserving this house I wanted to know what we're getting
into.
And I walked the house with him.
He walked me through all the additions that had been done to the house, some by him himself,
some by his wife's grandparents.
And I know Jordan you had brought up kind of what the percentage was of the house.
I don't have percentages exactly, but I know originally it was a four bedroom house and
since then two rooms have been attached, a second story has been attached, and the wraparound
porch is not original either.
So you're looking at quite a bit.
And in order to preserve that house, after doing a sidewalk with city staff, parks, and
Cameron Robertson, the historic preservation officer, was determined in a collaboration
effort with them that it's kind of you're doing more harm than good by saving that house.
Because when it comes to that house you have to take off all of the additions that have
been done in order to bring it back to its original state, in order for it to be historic.
And then on top of that you also have to bring it up to modern codes, which modern electrical,
fire lanes, more parking, more driveways.
So in making the footprint of the house smaller, you're actually making it larger and eating
more into the trees.
So we decided that the best way of preserving the history of the family was to have a park.
And so that's why we're open to ideas with neighbors and in collaboration with parks department
and the city to figure out the best plan of action, which is why that'll be hammered out
through a developer's agreement, which will also be going to a public hearing.
I mentioned the sidewalk with staff already, and then we had the third neighborhood meeting
to update the neighbors on how the house was no longer going to be there.
The first two meetings we had about 40, 50 people there.
The third meeting we only had six people there.
So obviously didn't get much feedback there, but we told them everything that we did to
get to that point.
And then we had a fourth neighborhood meeting and the fourth neighborhood meeting, there
was a larger turnout around 30 to 40 people.
And we relate again that the existing home would not be pursued for preservation for
everything that I just said.
And then we asked all the attendees to give input on what they would like that gathering
area to look like.
And like I said before, we've received some suggestions already and we're willing to continue
to work with the neighbors and parks department in order to figure out something that's best
for the city, best for the neighborhood, and best for the entire area.
And then here's another picture of our rendering.
And that is the end of the presentation.
I respectfully request your support tonight and thank you for your time.
I'm here for any questions.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Thank you, Sharon.
Thank you for the presentation.
So I know there have been parks that have incorporated historic homes into the park
layout.
Has that been a consideration to incorporate the historic aspects of this home, removing
the additions and just incorporating what was originally there as a part of the park
perhaps?
Actually, what we've suggested to the neighbors and what we have been talking about, our original
idea was with that shade structure to use materials from the house to build this shade
structure.
So you could still have, in a sense, the integrity of the house or the footprint of the house,
but it would be built with obviously modern materials but as many materials as we could
save from the original house.
So there's no way for us to preserve the historic original building, the aspects from the historic
original building, and make that a part of the park so folks can come view it, come look
at the house, anything like there's parks that include those historic homes, those log
cabin type.
Right.
So in order to do that, you would have to take off all the additions.
I think that's where the cost prohibition came in.
I assume that was the discussion.
Yes.
I mean, that's also not our expertise, but that's why we were dedicating it to the city
so that that could be something they could work on, which is why we had the sidewalks
with them so they could see what they were getting into as well.
And that's when it was decided it's more harm than good in order to save it.
So we would rather take those materials that we could save.
So in that case, they would have to, even if it's just part of a park, they would have
to add the, they would have to modernize it, is that correct?
Yeah, for safety reasons.
For safety.
Okay.
Right.
If you're offering it to the public to view, you'd have to, that's where the code comes
in and all of that, because you can't, you'd have to do that for liability and safety.
And if the public were to come view it and have it essentially be a statue, you'd have
to have huge fences up around it and yeah, I would kind of take away from the whole serenity
in the area.
Okay.
I think Tina has something to add to your question as well.
Yes.
And in addition to what Chair Ellis said, so having worked with our parks director and
many other parks directors, one of the challenges that you have when you have potential structures
like this being incorporated within a park, the public is very hard on structures.
That's why you see structures in our parks built of much solid more, or solid materials
such as masonry or CMU block a lot of times and steel and things of that nature.
And so our staff, you know, as the applicant said, you know, our staff did evaluate the
structure.
There are opportunities for preservation associated with it as part of the park improvements.
And again, you know, we concur with the applicant that based upon our assessment as well, the
historical integrity of the home is no longer present in a manner also where the city would
consider being able to restore that property or excuse me, restore that structure.
And again, having to modernize that structure and then making that structure durable for
public use, because again, the public is very hard on structures of that nature.
It was not in the best interest of the city.
Got it.
Thank you.
Sure.
Thank you.
Any other questions at this time for the applicant?
Okay, we may have questions for you later, but thank you very much for the presentation.
Appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
I do have cards wishing to speak on this item.
First I have is Kim Spivey.
Hi there.
If you'll come down and state your name, your four minutes will begin.
My name is Kim Spivey and I live in that area.
I've lived there for about 20 years, driving by it every day on my way to and from work.
I am not in love with having more apartments in Denton.
I started going to the meetings and listening to what they had to say, and I am in favor
of this project because of the tree preservation.
A single family builder would just mow down all the trees, so I feel like this is a much
better plan overall than the alternatives, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.
Thank you.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Next card I have is Charles Lee.
You'll come forward and state your name.
Your time will begin.
Hi.
Good evening.
My name is Charles Lee.
I'm saying this is the first time I live over there, and it's the first time I've heard
of it.
I never got no notice.
You said 500 feet.
That's like nothing because I never got heard of anything about this, and I think it's a
terrible plan.
You put 450 more people over in that area.
You know how much traffic that's going to cause around in that area, and that area is
completely surrounded by single family homes, all the way around it, and it'll stick out
like if we have sore thumb, and you're just going to cause nothing but traffic.
I really don't like it at all.
This is the whole thing about the ... I spoke about this last week with this historical
code that you have, so people get a 25% basement where you have to take these houses that have
no historical value, but then we get some slick lawyer and some sick suit that's going
to come up with some rude story to make this house historical when it really has no historical
value, and you slap a 25% abatement on the property taxes, but then you have a house
over here who really does have historical value, but it's not going to make any money,
so let's just tear that down and just slap it around and get some slick developer that
doesn't even live in that area that's going to develop it, and you're going to put 450
more people in here so the town can make some more money, that they can spend it, and they're
raising up all our property taxes.
I'm telling you, I'm not liking this at all.
We need to really clean shop here.
We need to get rid of all these people on this board, because they're not representing
the interests of the people that live here at all.
This house is historic.
It needs to be historic, and there's nothing but single-family houses to be able to go
in there or to just leave it as a blank area, and what else do I have to say?
Pretty much, that's all I have to say, because this whole historic thing is a bunch of nonsense,
because you make stuff and all these historic labels on these houses, and they're not historic,
but then we got this one house that is historic, but they forget about all about it.
It's just a whole ruse, and I'm not buying it at all.
Next card I have is a group wishing to speak.
The name I have on it is Jacob Light.
Do we all come up here, or is it just one of you?
You can come up.
Yeah, everybody can come up.
Are you all wanting to speak?
Or is one person speaking for the group?
Can we all speak?
Is it four minutes still?
No, no, the group, I think we'll have 10, so whoever wants to go first, just state your
name and your time will begin.
Hello, my name's Larry Bell.
And if you could talk on the microphone, yeah, just for television.
Hello, my name's Larry Bell.
Thank you.
I'm a recent resident of Dension.
I live on Gable, and I want to thank the Commission for allowing us the opportunity to speak,
discuss our concerns, and possibly consider our concerns.
One of the major concerns I have, and I have not seen addressed, is the increase in population
density for that area.
If we're going to take 26 acres, prune it down to 10 less, 15, you're going to take
450 apartments with one, two, or three bedrooms, you're looking at an increase of 1,000 people
in that 10-acre land, 10-acre plot.
The average density right now for Dension is approximately 1,450 people per square mile.
So, you're taking a fraction of an acre and increasing the density almost two-thirds.
You're going from 1,450 to 1,000 in 10 acres, I'm sorry, 15 acres.
I have not seen how that's a benefit.
I've not seen how that's addressed.
I'm not seeing how that's going to work out financially for the city or for the residents
and their quality of life.
If there are options out there for it, I'd like to see it.
If there are other discussions, I've not heard them.
As I say, we recently moved to Denton in July.
We also didn't receive any information about this concept.
There's no prior notice to us, and I think that something needs further discussion and
evaluation above and beyond the side of the land, the preservation of the house, and the
trees.
The density impact on that local area in that small region is going to be catastrophic unless
it's addressed and rectified or recognized.
Thank you.
Hi.
Hello.
My name is Cody Temple, actually Larry's neighbor, representing a new homeowner within 500 feet
of this project.
I did receive a card a few days before the first meeting saying that would be impacted
within 500 feet.
So, he representing concern and opposition to this project following a lot of his same
concerns, but population density and it's something I want to talk about is visual pollution.
This emphasizing just looking at the quick rendering of what this is going to look like.
This to the city of Denton is going to be considered a skyscraper.
This thing is absolutely massive and absolutely will stick out like a sore thumb.
This thing is going to be absolutely huge, giant tower.
You're stacking a thousand people on a very small area with residential housing completely
surrounding it.
I mean, I moved to Denton three months ago.
This is my first home with the intention to start a family.
I went to school at University of North Texas from 2015, 2019, came back to Denton with
the sole purpose of having a small town vibes with big city amenities in at the same time.
But the area that I moved to is a more quieter area and this is completely going back to
where I moved from originally, which is downtown Dallas.
I mean, these apartments, they're calling it mixed use facilities.
It's an apartment complex and with that, a lot of people in a very small area and I don't
have numbers to back it up, but obviously we know when you stack a lot of people on
top of each other, I mean, crime is going to increase and there's already a lot of foot
traffic there and people that are moving to Denton, the houses are around this area.
This is not going to be attractive for them to come here.
I think it's also going to affect the future of Denton in a way of people moving here with
the purpose of owning a house and starting a family.
Thank you.
Last but not least, hi, my name is Jacob White.
I'm also new to the area and that's kind of something I wanted to point out here.
As well as the increase in traffic patterns and the density and stuff like that, that
I know may or may not be being addressed.
My wife and I bought a house in Gable Court right adjacent to where the apartment complex
is going to go back in April.
We just heard Larry bought a house, we heard Cody bought a house, there's a little bit
of a consistency there.
I know that the goal of this is to drive, I guess to build housing, build attainable
housing in the area to kind of retain citizens and keep people in Denton proper.
I think even the threat of this coming is doing the quite opposite of that.
Our house sold very soon after having this issue first taking place.
Our neighbor's household, I can think of three if not four houses in our little cul-de-sac
of 10 houses that sold very, very soon after hearing that this was even going to potentially
be coming.
We moved to the area, we were local.
My wife and I are from Fort Worth, Texas and wife is getting her PhD at UNT, so we wanted
to be kind of local in the area.
We found Gable Court, a little cul-de-sac, quiet little cul-de-sac and absolutely fell
in love with it, unbeknownst to us, didn't know this was going to happen, looked across
the street.
We've got an 11 month old, which I know you've all been hearing her tonight, so I apologize.
She's very excited to talk about government.
As soon as we moved in, one of the other things that we loved is just the piece of land right
across with cows and trees and things like that, things for us to, just beautiful things
to see.
The fact that this is a potential thing that might be happening is just causing a little
bit of concern.
A couple of weeks after moving in, without this apartment complex and without the increase
of people moving, we're already having people walk through our neighborhood, cut through
our neighborhood.
I've had people in my garage scoping out things.
I've had Cody the other day, I know he's walking his dog around and he's finding sleeping bags
and bathing items and stuff like that around the house.
Just as a husband and someone who's on the road a lot and a dad, a little bit nervous
with bringing 500 to 1,000 more people into the area.
Not only is it maybe not the prettiest thing in the world to look at, but now you're increasing
the foot traffic.
I think the attainable housing thing is also another thing that concerns me.
I think that's maybe a valiant effort, but it's a little bit kind of a wordplay.
I don't think that attainable housing is necessarily for first responders or maybe teachers.
I know that was the other example that was put out there, but I've got a family full
of first responders.
When starting pay is at $80,000 to $90,000, I don't think that necessarily classifies
for the 50% annual median income and stuff like that.
I don't think that's ... I know it's been consistently like, "Hey, this is who's going
to be moving to the area."
I don't really think that's who it's going to be.
Just having a house here and having this capacity going to go right across our street, just
a little bit nervous with the security and the traffic and everything that else goes
with that.
Yeah, thank you for your time and I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you for being here.
The next card I have is Anne Howlington.
Hi.
You'll state your name, your time will begin.
Good evening, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thank you for having this public hearing tonight.
My name is Anne Howlington and I am a long-time resident of the city of Denton.
I lived in the house on the property and raised my family there between 1988 and 1999.
We know the Jefferson North Elm project plan is to construct multi-family townhomes on
the southeast portion of the property at 2900 North Elm and to donate the rest of the land
to the city of Denton for a park.
We are not here to express opposition to this plan for zoning, yet I along with my family,
my friends, concerned citizens and interested organizations would like to propose a plan
for the park in sub-district B.
In your exhibition 10 related to this, note seven does state park dedication lot design
is conceptual in nature and will be finalized through the development agreement process.
We want to ensure that part of this process includes a meeting where we can propose our
ideas.
We will propose that the historic Evers country home, a large portion of which was constructed
over a hundred years ago, be preserved, not restored, but preserved with the additions
rather than removed and used for a horticultural native plant education center.
Here meetings, classes, workshops and demonstrations related to gardening and history could take
place.
The house with its historic water tower, windmill and barn could also serve as examples of early
20th century farm life.
Though still a concept, the park area on exhibit 11 shows these as being removed.
We would also like to see the creation of a community garden where citizens of Denton
could grow fruits, vegetables, plants and flowers in designated areas.
There are abundant sunny and shaded areas on the property for this.
We are discussing these ideas with some groups who do this type of work in the Denton city
and county area.
The Denton County Master Gardener Association is interested in supporting this idea.
We have also communicated with the Texas Native Plant Society's Trinity Forks chapter, the
Texas Master Naturalist Elm Fort chapter and the Petal Project.
These groups are all interested in learning more about the use of the property and its
existing structures, considering how the park might benefit their missions.
I have something here to give you, I am presenting each of you with a spreadsheet containing
186 names with 157 from Denton city residents who signed a petition supporting the effort
to help us convince the Denton city council to repurpose the Ebers Farm as a community
garden and education center.
Could someone pass these out?
You can go ahead and give them right there to Kathy, thank you.
These also include comments which are not always exactly what I would think, but we
gave them an opportunity to make comments on this.
In closing, we respectfully ask to schedule a meeting with the Denton Parks and Recreation
Department to further discuss this proposal for the parks development, including the fate
of the original home to provide, in keeping with their mission, educational opportunities
that support good stewardship of the environment.
If possible, we would like to visit the park area of the property to assess the feasibility
of using the land and its current structures.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for being here.
The next card I have is Jennifer Lane.
I don't have any other cards wishing to speak, but is there anyone who would like to speak
who did not fill out a card?
Hi there.
If you'll give us your name, your time will begin.
Hi.
My name is Erin Elise, and I live in McKamey Evers, just off North Locust, and I'm a longtime
employee of the University of North Texas at the Mechanical and Energy Engineering Department,
and I have driven by this property every day going to work.
I would like to voice my support for JP and this building of the apartment complex.
I think it is the best use of this property that will preserve the most amount of the
land and the trees.
Sorry, nurse, speaker.
I think that if we move with a residential neighborhood going in there, it's going to
end up being what is what was built at the end of North Locust, which was very disappointing
to see the quality of those homes, and the fact that some have already caught fire since
their construction, and to have the thought that that's going to go in there is very disappointing
compared to what they have presented in to preserve.
I would like to say thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this?
Yes, come on down and you can fill out a card after.
Hi, Doc, how are you?
Hi.
My name is Dr. Sean Treat.
I did fill out a card probably for the wrong thing.
You know, I do have your card.
Did you mean it to me on this item?
I did.
Okay.
Very good.
Perfect.
I already said my name.
The clock started.
Who's on the ticker?
You go right ahead.
I also live in the neighborhood.
I drive by at Evers Park not just once a day, like two or three times a day because I'm
stupid like that.
One of the things that interests me about this, I've been going to the meetings since
the beginning and seeing it kind of progress and been going honestly to other community
meetings and seeing other things happening in other areas, right?
This plan sticks out to me.
I want to be in support of it because this is a unique partnership that I feel like kind
of hits all the right notes.
The fact that they're giving 50% back, 50% back, right?
And I understand the apartments are going to go up and go tall and we see the photos
and it looks a little grotesque.
I mean, I grew up on a farm myself and I see it go up and it's going to be tall, but think
about what's on the other side of that.
There's a park.
It'll be connected.
Also just on the other side of the North Branch Library, there's a huge green space and so
the possibility for connectivity to the city for bike trails, for walking, this is something
that I feel like is a very unique opportunity to think about in terms of creating a certain
attitude towards partnerships that I feel like is something that the city and this,
this council here can help encourage.
I've spoken recently with some very good friends about their concerns, about the romantic attachment
to the farm and the cattle.
I totally get that.
I love driving by and seeing the cattle.
Maybe we can have some cattle on the place.
I don't know.
But here's the point, like the decision that's going on tonight is what we're talking about
is to help rezone this so that they build it higher so that we have that green space.
That's the question here.
Now what happens with that green space once it goes to the city?
That's the other piece that I've seen that's very encouraging.
I think a citizen advisory council, this garden idea, I love this and that comes from the
community and that's the kind of partnerships I think that Denton needs to think about for
smart growth because we are growing.
We don't have a chance for my new neighbors that are coming.
Welcome.
Glad to see you here.
It took you this long to get here, but now you're going to be here for a bit, right?
But this is one of the things that comes with this price.
We are growing.
We've outgrown our projected growth for 10 years within seven years.
And we don't have enough affordable housing.
We've got to be doing some aggressive things, thinking about some progressive ways, some
interesting ways to grow it so that we can do it smart and we can do it with partnerships
and people that come in with the attitude towards, hey, we want to work with our community.
We want to work with the historic preservation officers.
And that to me is a model to follow.
So thank you.
Those are my thoughts.
I support the project.
Thank you so much, Dr. Trink.
Anyone else wishing to speak on this who has not already?
I do have a card.
I'll just read for the record they are not wishing to speak but are in support, and that
is Brenda Stevens.
I think before I close the public hearing, I have a question for probably the applicant.
And it has to do with the park and the partnership, or maybe that is the question for you.
I'm not sure.
But there's nothing in this PD as it's written now on the portion that would be the multifamily.
Well, actually, no, the PD as a whole, the PD standards.
There's nothing written about how that park is going to be developed, right?
It has the minimum, which is essentially the trail, the Evers Memorial, and benches and
things like that throughout the park.
So it has that minimum, but everything else, essentially, that can be worked through.
It can be worked through with parks and the developer through additional public engagement,
and then it will go to the parks board, and then it will go to city council.
So there's only the bare minimum that's in there right now, and anything else that comes
up could be added.
And I guess why I'm asking that is just because of things we heard tonight that we do want
community involvement, but how do we make sure that the community gets involved in it,
and that it just doesn't become something that the city just develops and takes before
council and it gets approved, and there actually isn't any collaboration, and we can't get
these great ideas.
So that's where my question is coming from.
Tina, would you speak?
So I'll answer that, and not to rat him out, but he's sitting in the back row up there
at the top at that desk.
I do see.
So that's Gary Pack and our parks director, and I'm sure Gary has heard the message this
evening of the strong interest for community engagement.
From what I know with Gary, and you can either shake your head yes or no to tell me if I'm
wrong, but what I've learned with Gary and his team is that they are very collaborative
when they've done parks projects.
They do seek public feedback related to that, and Gary, I don't know if you want to expand
on some of the methods that you've done on some other parks where you've engaged the
public.
Hi, Gary.
Good evening, Gary Pack, and Director of Parks and Recreation.
When we go through the development process for a park property, we typically have at
least two meetings with the public.
One at the very beginning, we'll develop a concept, just get some ideas on paper, share
with the community, get more feedback, go back, sharpen the pencil, move things around,
add, delete, and then come back when that's done, get their final feedback.
Then we take it to park board, get them to approve it.
We go to them twice, and then we'll take it to city council for official adoption.
Then we'll move into construction drawings, and then construction at some point in time,
pending funding availability.
That's our standard process that we follow with park development.
Right, so I mean, I'm looking at this as a little bit more unique of a piece, I guess,
because then what you're saying is you're basically going to come up with a concept
and then bring that out to the public to look at it.
So that's not really collaboration.
I mean, it is, but it isn't.
Well, the concept is just to have something to talk about, saying here's the property.
It's a pencil sketch, for the most part, with lines on an aerial, saying that we could do
a trail here, we could put a parking lot here, a playground here, and then use that to create
the discussion.
What's feasible, I see.
Okay.
Thank you.
I think we might have a question for you.
Commissioner Thacker?
Thank you, Chair.
My question is for the developer representative.
Oh, it's not for Gary?
No.
Okay.
Sorry.
Gary, thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
I'll let you off the hook, Gary.
Okay.
Yeah, go ahead.
It seems based on your presentation that you all have obviously done a lot of projects
particularly in the area.
Have you all acquired a property of this likeness?
And if you have, can you tell us where it is so that we might look how this all played
out in that particular scenario?
This is actually the first property we've done like this with this much park land, which
is why I've been so trying to collaborate with the neighbors as much as possible because
we need the ideas, too, since this is the first time we're doing it.
But also, that's answering your question and going to answer your question at the same
time.
Cool.
For parks, in order to dedicate it to the city, obviously the PD will say that nothing
can go there as far as nothing can be built there.
But as far as dedicating it to the city, part of that process is the developers agreement.
So if we want to dedicate it to parks department, we can only do that with the developers agreement.
So that can't really start until post-zoning, which is why the plan right now is conceptual.
And we're happy to, obviously, the ideas tonight have been great and the other ideas that we've
heard from neighbors have been great, and we want to collaborate and we want to have
as many meetings as possible.
So we're happy to put in a minimal amount of meetings in the PD to meet with neighbors
in order to get those ideas.
Obviously, not everyone's idea is going to be able to go into it, but we at least want
to collaborate as much as possible and kind of, I don't want to say be hands off on it,
but allow the city and the neighbors to kind of tell us what they want it to be.
- I have two more questions, sorry.
I noticed in the backup that it said that you all were planning on or had projected
that you would be maintaining up to 52% of the trees that are currently there.
Do you all have any plans to plant more trees?
- Yeah, there's trees being planted throughout the development.
And then also that's another thing that's great about the developers agreement is we
can, and I've talked to Sean about this as well, we can plant more trees within the park
too and get an arborist or a tree, Haywood, I forget his last name, but he's a city tree
guy.
But we can get him out there and kind of tell us where we would be able to plant trees that
will still survive and yeah, go through that whole process.
- And finally, I know that because this is kind of a smaller niche little area, obviously
one of the big concerns is safety and security.
What type of safety and security systems do you all have for that particular property?
So do you have someone that works the nights and kind of rotates through?
Do you have particular cameras, lighting that's like making sure that not only the property
itself is safe, but their community around it is safe as well?
- Yes, so cameras on the property, lights on the property.
We have a security person there at all hours, but I would say one of the biggest things
for safety too is no one really ever thinks about it, but whenever you apply for an apartment,
you have to go through a background check, a credit check, and an income verification
check.
So you actually know more about the renter coming into your building than you do about
your neighbor that you're buying a house next to.
So there is a lot of background checks that go into it because obviously we don't want
the apartment to go downhill either.
We don't want crime in the apartment either.
So we have to do the background checks and then the income verification then decides
which tranche they fit into.
Are they the market rate renter, are they 80% renter, are they the 50% renter, and then
the credit check.
Are they going to be able to make their payments?
Because obviously we want people to make their payments.
And sorry, I'm going to talk a little longer because I'm thinking of the AMIs and that
kind of segues into one of the comments earlier about service workers and firefighters and
policemen making about 80 grand a year, that actually fits into the 80% because 80% AMI
is roughly around 80 to $85,000 a year, so they would fit into that.
And then the 50% is kind of more your teachers and people making about 50, 55,000 a year.
So it's still not low, low, low income.
It's just low salary or a new job or teacher, nurses.
So I know I added to that answer, but I wanted to get that out there too.
Thank you.
Commissioner Pruitt, is that for the applicant?
Yeah.
Thank you.
Okay.
Sorry.
All of my questions are actually for staff, so if you want.
Okay.
Very good.
We'll hold off on that just a second.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
For answering the questions.
I have not closed the public hearing.
I'm about to, but is there anyone else wishing to speak who has not already spoken?
Okay.
Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and I will open the floor for
discussion or a motion.
So Commissioner Pruitt, I will call back on you and probably ...
Thank you.
Yeah.
Have Ashley come forward?
Probably Ashley.
Okay.
At least for the first couple.
Okay.
First of all, I want to thank staff.
In my opinion, the vast majority of projects that come before us, especially for zoning
changes, have some conflicting portions of the comprehensive plan.
And almost all the time, that question is answered by there are no conflicting sections.
So I want to thank staff and give you your due credit for admitting it.
I think that helps this board focus on the trade-offs that we are making, as opposed
to being confused and not knowing what to focus on.
So thank you for that.
As I'm thinking about this area, there's a library across the street.
There's a elementary school to the north.
There's a middle school just east of the library.
The strip to the south along Elman Locust, I think, is one of the corridors of that MN-zoned
area that could grow into a neighborhood shop kind of thing.
Is there any other infill property that has those characteristics that you can think of?
It just seems very unique to me in its placement and its ability to be that type of place.
I can't think of any off the top of my head.
It does seem unique.
Everything about this property that I say seems unique.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head that is similar to this.
Okay.
Thank you.
The fiscal impact study, and if we don't know, that's okay, we can move forward.
I don't fully understand the agreements that get made when there are projects with some
affordability or public-private partnership with DHA or another entity.
Are the proposed, if it does go forward with the 80% and the 50% units, and that involves
some partnership with DHA, does that fiscal impact summary comprehend whatever tax abatements
would occur?
It does not.
I would like to take that into consideration.
Okay.
Thank you.
The internal circulation patterns, as I look at the site plan, I don't see the fence that's
proposed completely encircling the area, but I also don't see anything specifically called
out as a public access easement.
What I'm asking, I guess, is are we sure that there's going to be a convenient path if someone
does choose to ride a bicycle or walk through this property to access the 10 acres that's
being donated in order to get there without walking around the entire circumference of
the block?
Are you saying to walk through the multifamily development?
Yeah, like from the library to go have lunch over there or something.
That will not be for public access.
Okay.
In order, if you're coming from the library in order to get to the park from there, you
would cross locus and then walk on the side path to the park, but the multifamily development
in itself is not open for public access.
Okay.
I think one for traffic and one for parks, if Gary is still here.
Gary is still here.
Gary's up front, so I'll ask that first.
I know several comments were made about a 10 minute walk to a park.
Obviously, the history of this property was probably before you came to the city yourself.
It strikes me as if we're going to add 450 homes here, in some sense, that's putting
450 more homes immediately next to a park.
While you might not be doing that by buying parkland, you're doing it by getting it developed
and bringing homes closer to the park.
Is that a reasonable way to think about it?
Is that a benefit as far as when we do our surveys to understand how many of our residents
have good access to a park?
That increases our public access to the park percentage across the city just by infill.
That does occur.
Obviously, the other way is for us to buy property and develop a park where there is
no park in one of our hot spots where we're trying to fill in that, so yes, that is accurate.
Would it be fair to say that the price of land to create a park immediately near 450
homes would be rather high due to the types of places that that multifamily is developed?
A neighborhood park of a couple acres is roughly $1.5 million at this point in time.
That can vary.
If you put a splash pad in, it's going to be a lot more, probably add another million
dollars to it from that perspective.
So they are costly even though they're small.
Thank you.
In traffic, I guess I'm confused at the purpose of the second southbound lane because as I
look at the development plan which shows that lane, basically the southbound traffic starts
as one lane, widens into two, and then as you get down to the next intersection, both
lanes are forced to merge into a single lane to turn right on that little go-between between
Elm and Locust.
Help me understand how that second lane helps the flow and people's everyday lives.
The southbound lane on, good evening Chair and Commissioners, Farhan Butt, Deputy Director,
Transportation Services Division.
So southbound lane on North Locust.
Yes, that's correct.
So this will be on North Locust will have full access.
So that full access means that there will be left turns, there will be right turns as
well and there will be traffic coming out and going again.
So that southbound lane will facilitate any traffic increase or growth because of this
development.
Okay, so if I'm imagining I'm living there and I'm coming out eastward and I turn right
to go south on Locust, then it would essentially allow more ease of access so that I don't
have to wait quite as long with other traffic coming southbound?
Absolutely.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's all.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Any questions?
We can continue discussion or we can entertain our motion.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Yeah, I'll move approval.
I think when we talk about infill, this is what it means.
It doesn't mean that everybody gets the type of candy they want from the candy store, but
it means that our town gets to put more kids, more people next to the great amenities like
the park and the library that we've already invested millions of dollars in.
Right?
Yeah.
So I'll move approval.
Thank you.
I'll go ahead and second.
I think this is a difficult piece of property to have this discussion because of its history,
because of what it means and what it has meant.
I think that was illustrated by many people, including the applicant, in sharing what this
property has meant.
I think a great deal of thought has gone into this.
Neighborhood engagement has gone into this.
This property can be developed right now, so it's not that it's unzoned now.
I think what this plan gives is that significant preservation on the site.
It gives that community engagement to work with the city on what this parkland is going
to be so that we can preserve the history that we can preserve.
We may not have everything that we want, like the house that is open to the public.
That just may not be feasible, it just can't be done, but what can we do to preserve that
history the best we can and offer that to the community going forward?
It does seem to just work with housing options, with the tiered rent idea and giving people
the opportunity to live so close to downtown and be able to walk to the library and walk
to schools and walk to what our great city has to offer downtown.
It just gives that option that there are just not very many to offer in the area.
I will happily second.
We've got a first and a second for approval, so we can certainly open the floor for more
discussion or a vote.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, 97 Land Company and the applicant for everything you're doing to reach an agreement
with the community.
I really appreciate the park idea, the amount of land you all are dedicating for Parkland.
I would like us to try to incorporate some of the Evers Farm community garden ideas that
have come forward from the neighborhood, from the folks here in Denton.
I think that would be the best way to pursue this.
I would like to see perhaps a way for us to include some of the structure at the very
least.
This is a very difficult vote.
I do appreciate the amount of work you all did to reach where we're at currently, but
at this current point, I'm going to vote now.
Thank you.
Commissioner Thagard.
Thank you, Chair.
I wanted to echo what you said, Chair, and just kind of there's a lot of different people
that could develop this land a completely different way.
I feel like, no offense to JPI, this is like the devil we know versus the devil we don't.
I am one of the people that can honestly say I don't want any more apartments either.
I think in this particular situation, we have an investor that's not only investing in the
property itself, but also in our opinion and in our community and in terms of the gardens
or even our parks department, what they may have to offer in terms of, like you said,
Chair, preserving the things that we do love about the city.
So, yeah, I'm voting in favor.
Thank you.
Commissioner Cool.
Thank you, Chair.
I really appreciate with the applicant 97 land, you always do a great job.
Great job outreach, great job working with staff, great job staff.
This is a unique piece of property.
I never thought in my life here that I would see four apartment complexes cross-race play
little league baseball.
The fear is, okay, if we don't go for the apartments, they're going to put two homes
per acre and level everything.
I doubt it.
I don't think they will.
You hear that a lot and I've been on this dais for, what, six years.
There's always, I'm going to build up this beautiful Dairy Queen hot fudge sundae and
it's going to have a massive, beautiful cherry on top, but don't look over here.
I believe in people's property rights as strong as anyone, but I also know they're not going
to put single family homes there, it's not going to do it.
The applicant should be able to develop that property.
I just, in my heart of hearts, cannot go for this apartment.
If we gave every property owner a dent in carte blanche, then every square foot of this
town is going to be an apartment complex.
Why?
Because that's the money.
That's the money.
Let everything else be damned, you know.
I've seen a lot of change here.
I've had my heart broken a thousand times seeing things that are gone.
You know, I tore around there.
There are ways to do, I'm for developing that property.
That's fine, but for apartment complexes, it's a bridge too far for me.
And I think this threat of two homes per acre is a threat.
It makes you go, "Oh, well, I better go to this because they're going to do this."
I've heard it 100 times in six years up here.
So I can't support this.
And I would love to see it develop sometime, but for apartment complexes, I can't do it.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Is there any further discussion?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion will carry with a majority of three, two, and it will move forward then
to city council on October 15th.
Okay.
That will take us to our final public hearing this evening.
That is 5BZ240002.
I will go ahead and open the public hearing, and Erin is here for presentation.
Yeah, if you'll just give it a minute to while we let the chambers empty.
Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
This is Z24-0002, Mockingbird Lane rezoning.
So this is a request to rezone approximately 2.6 acres from R2 to R4.
The property is located generally south of Audre Lane and east of Mockingbird, and is
undeveloped and has been undeveloped since annexation in 1960.
And before I get into the previous actions taken, here is the current zoning and the
requested zoning.
And some of the differences here, the current zoning, R2, has a lot size of 16,000 square
feet, and the requested zoning has a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet.
And some of the different uses allowed, predominantly both of these zoning districts are for single
family uses.
The R4 district would allow, with a specific use permit, town homes, duplexes, administrative,
professional, and government offices, and bed and breakfasts.
Again, those are with specific use permits, none of those would be permitted by right.
So this request has come before this body before, under a different applicant and owner.
In 2019, they did come before you with the same rezoning request, just exactly how you
see it today, except they had a proposed site plan with it.
Then it did come back with several reiterations of overlay districts, restricting to single
family and then restricting the number of lots, taking out the duplexes in town homes.
But ultimately, it never went to council for final approval, given some of the discussions
that were had with the Planning and Zoning Commission and neighbors' comments.
So staff did review this request, independent from the past, based on our development code,
the criteria for all applications, as well as the rezoning criteria, and found that it
is consistent with the goals and policies of the future land use map from the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan, as well as the proposed zoning purpose statement for R4.
No development is planned at this time, and when they come back for development, they
will be required to comply with all DDC and other criteria, and this rezoning is not expected
to generate significant adverse environmental infrastructure or fiscal impacts.
The purpose statement of the proposed zoning district, R4, is shown here, and this request
is consistent with the purpose statement, as the area is already residential and serves
as a transition area between higher density residential and mixed use areas closer to
the loop and 380, and transitions between that towards residential areas downtown.
This also would maintain the existing character of residential in the area with the surrounding
zoning of R4 to the south, and then further to the east and west.
As for consistency with the future land use map, the site is designated low residential,
and this is intended for predominantly single-family neighborhoods with lot sizes up to five units
per acre gross density, and for distinct subdivision-style development.
The proposed R4 district would allow 7,000-square-foot lots, which would equate to about six units
per acre; however, this does not take into account any of the land area that would be
needed for access.
The panhandle portion of this lot would likely not have any residential lots on it due to
the shape, and then for any access down south to reach any of the proposed lots.
If you factor that area out of this, the max units they could probably fit on this property
would be around 11, which would be closer to 4.23 units per acre gross density, which
does fit with the low residential criteria there.
This map is just to show the future land use map compared to what is current and what is
requested.
As you can see, there already is R2, R3, and R4 in this area, and all of these could be
consistent with the future land use designation of low residential.
The request does meet several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including infill
development.
Infill development has slightly different definitions than the Comprehensive Plan and
the DDC, but generally it's development of vacant land surrounded by existing development,
and this property does have existing development on all sides of it, even if it varies in the
density of development, all sides are developed.
Since the Comprehensive Plan specifically calls out that the city should take every
opportunity to ensure that as gaps in the neighborhood fabric occur, infill development
is encouraged, complementing the scale and character of the neighborhood.
As I previously stated, this property has been undeveloped roughly since its annexation
in 1960.
This proposal also is consistent with compact growth goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
As shown in the graphic, the site is already served by public water and sewer.
Audra as well as Mockingbird are collectors that would serve the property, and the star
that you see to the west of the property is Audra Oaks Park, and that is within 1,000
feet path of travel from this site, well within the Parks Department 10-minute walk goal for
properties.
And this would be, as infill would be, complies with the Comprehensive Plan to grow resourcefully
with staged continuous and compatible growth.
So this proposal also minimizes adverse impacts as well as it doesn't precisely match the
growth or the current density of all the surrounding properties.
The area is predominantly this similar R4 zoning density.
And you can see the properties that are circled in red, so immediately to the south those
are currently zoned R4 and have just over 7,000 square foot lot sizes consistent with
most of the surrounding area.
And then even the properties to the north, so the one single property that I circled
north of this subject site.
I wanted to point out that this property is just over 13,000 square feet, which would
not be consistent with R2 zoning today if they were to redevelop or plat, that would
not meet current R2 standards.
So it would be difficult for some of these areas to develop under the current, to redevelop
under the current R2 standards given the lot size that this has or the lot shape.
And rezoning would facilitate harmonious development with the properties to the south as well as
the general area.
So this slide just shows some of the development patterns that have occurred since annexation.
A lot of the development began in the '80s and you can see the splotchy sort of pattern
of development and why it's expected future and future infill projects like this and this
one as well, why we are seeing this more today and these requests are coming before you.
So staff did notify residents and owners within 500 feet of the property and a sign was posted
on the property on August 29th.
Staff did receive five responses in opposition totaling 38.92% of the property within 200
feet.
And the applicant did have conversations with some of the adjacent residents and he is here
to answer any questions if you have questions for him.
And with that staff is recommending approval of the zoning change to R4 zoning district
as it complies with the Denton Development Code criteria for general applications and
for rezoning.
And the next step would be City Council on October 15th and I'll stand for any questions.
>> Thank you very much, Erin.
Any questions right now for Erin?
Thank you very much.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any cards wishing to speak, but is there -- yep, come on up to the podium.
If you'll state your name, your time will begin.
>> Good afternoon, you got me up past my bed time.
My name is B.J.
Edwards.
I've been a resident here in Denton off and on since '63, not that I really am that old.
My family has the property, all the property on the east side of this development, the
proposed development, and I'm here to 100% oppose the zone change from 2 to 4.
They've tried to do this.
This is the fourth time I've come here and probably about four years over the same thing.
With I think what I've learned here is the way it's zoned now, they can put five or six
homes in that 2.6 acres the way it is.
There's things to be considered about the traffic we have now on Mockingbird at Audra,
which is I think less than 100 feet away.
It's a three-way intersection there.
School buses and stuff, it's always a problem.
And if you put multi-drillings in there, like an apartment building or whatever they want
to call it, that's going to create a lot more traffic there, and there's no sidewalks to
support it.
We've got more than 20% of the bounding property there, and we do oppose.
I know when it was here before this board once before, it didn't fit the criteria.
And I wonder what might have changed to make it fit the criteria now.
That's the last of the houses there with the big lots, and you can see straight to the
south that they have all those packed in there.
That's the last of them.
We have one right beside of it.
And all those houses you pointed out on the north side originally was part of that lot.
That man died, the inheritors started selling off pieces, and so that's what happened with
that one little sliver that lets them in from the west, the mockingbird.
That part didn't get sold.
But anyways, I just come before here and I oppose it, and those are my reasons.
It's the last little green belt we got over there.
Those aren't new homes around there.
Those are older homes.
The one I have, I think, was built in the '40s, the '50s, and the '60s.
It's one of those like you were talking about, the Evers House, I hate to see leave, because
Evers is part of Denton's history.
I hate to see us lose Denton history, but we are.
We're losing razor, we're losing bass, we're losing coal.
We're losing a lot of good, and I hate to see that go, but that's different.
This doesn't relate to history or historical.
If you saw how the house was built, you'd think it was historical, because that's back
when they had a basic house and then when they could afford it, they'd had a bathroom
or they'd had a laundry room.
It's built in sections.
But anyways, I do oppose this, don't change, because we don't have much crime there now.
Enough of it moved out there.
When we revamped that nursing home for the homeless people, now we have trash where they're
coming from downtown.
They got them out of downtown, they take them out there, so they go back and forth.
And that'll just add to more traffic, it'll add to the theft.
The economy's getting worse and the theft's gonna get worse.
So I'm opposed to cramming in more addresses in that very small spot.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Appreciate you being here past the best time.
Any questions for me?
Do we have any questions?
Thank you for your time.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
I don't have any other cards in front of me, but is there anyone else wishing to speak?
Yeah, sure.
Come on down.
You take your time.
Hi there, if you'll give us your name, your time will begin.
I'm Melody Ostrom.
I live, my driveway is right across the street from that property.
And there's a house right next to it and a house right next to that that has a lot, chickens.
And I just can't imagine the traffic there would be terrible.
And there's a great, I don't even know how they'd configure that lot.
When you go across the street, there's a great big lump that goes all the way across that
street.
They'd have to completely reconfigure it.
And I'm opposed to it.
I wouldn't like it at all, especially being right across the street from me, because I
live on the corner of Auburn and Marketport.
In my driveway, it's right across the street from that sign that says zoning.
So I'm very opposed to it.
Thank you for letting us know your thoughts.
Appreciate that.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
Okay.
I do have one card that I'll read into the record.
In opposition, not wishing to speak, and that is Shannon Koch.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this item, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing
and open the floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Is the applicant here today?
Yes.
I have a few questions for the applicant.
Thank you for being here.
Yes, sir.
I guess my question is with the past contention this property's had before this commission
and in front of city council, why wasn't there a public meeting held openly for what the
public to have these conversations, have these tough conversations and hash it out before
getting here?
Yeah, absolutely.
It's a great question.
This project is one a little bit outside of the normal for me personally.
I'm a local resident.
I live here in Denton.
In fact, my personal residence is less than half of a mile away from this specific location.
This is a zoning without any development plans.
There is no significant volume of trees or anything.
Being a person that comes from a rural community myself, seeing a spot like this, I absolutely
understand it's ... I would always love to keep things as rural as possible.
My client specifically had purchased this land hoping to someday develop it.
They did not find the opportunity to where it was feasible for them and for their business.
Whenever they had asked me to bring it forward for a rezoning opportunity, it was with no
intention of development, only to resell, no loss of trees, no land clearing proposals
or anything of the nature, and it was conducive with everything else going on around it.
I was not personally aware of past specific issues with this land, other than what was
given to me from the investor who owns the land right now.
He had said that from his purchase of this property that the last owners had brought
it forth for a rezone, but with a application for development on it as well, and that they
had seemed to have given up in the middle of the process.
I saw that at one point they did bring that forward, but in this case we're looking to
just simply bring the zoning and to match it with everything else.
Now I will say my client is not a local resident of Denton.
He was looking to, as an investor, even match the zoning to the north and east of the property.
Whether off of McKinney, similar to that of Good Lane and Bayfield Drive, or there was
a higher density housing multifamily home right there, I had personally advised him
that in this area of town it would be much better for the local community to have it
more as an R4 than pushing forward towards something like an R7 or anything similar to
it.
And so this is where we're at right now, but I'm happy to answer any other questions
of residents or the commission.
Thank you.
Appreciate that, and I appreciate you not coming up with us with an R7.
Yeah.
All right.
You know.
Doin' my part.
Yeah, I didn't see any other questions.
Thank you very much for being here.
Could I actually speak to one of the comments made also by one of the residents?
Yeah, go ahead.
I'll let you do that.
Sure.
We did do a traffic analysis report, because like I said, I personally live less than half
of a mile away from this location and drive through it almost on a daily basis.
The traffic analysis report, if a purchaser of this property from my client were to develop
according to the housing density with all of the surrounding R4, the increase of traffic
there in that area, given that there needs to be a public access road built into it from
that panhandle shape, as Aaron mentioned, the density of homes would not really allow
for any significant impact on the local community as far as traffic there on Audre Lane or on
Mockingbird.
But yeah, I just wanted to make sure that the local community even knew that was taken
into account.
We did do a traffic analysis report as requested and it was very nominal impact on the area.
Thank you for sharing that.
Appreciate it.
Commissioner Perrett.
A question for staff.
Help me understand when we have sort of a small flag lot subdivision potential, if you
will, as that goes through the development process, assuming it already had the zoning
that they wanted to apply for, how would the proportionality of street improvements apply?
I guess I'm thinking if this was the same acreage but it fronted Mockingbird Street,
then my understanding of our zoning ordinance is that it would require adding sidewalks
along that side of Mockingbird Street, for instance, or at least dedication of the land
and some amount of that.
Would that also be true when it's a flag lot subdivision or not?
I'm not sure I know the answer to that one.
Haley, keep me honest.
So the proportionality comes into play typically with the permanent roadway improvements.
So given that this property has frontage on Mockingbird, if we needed to have right of
way dedication and street improvements, then we would evaluate those improvements in accordance
with what's being proposed associated with the development to ensure the proportionality
pencils out.
The interior streets, like the local residential streets, that's the responsibility of the
developer at that time.
And so that proportionality assessment is not done because those are the local streets.
That just kicks in on the perimeter roadway improvements.
Okay.
Thank you for that.
That helps me understand.
I am sensitive to the history of this area of town, be it that there were policy decisions
and opportunities of where property and buildings were available to be able to build the...
Or renovate the shelter out on Loop 288.
I'm also sensitive to the fact that we're then putting a population out there who largely
right now have to walk across Audra that has no sidewalks and then down Mockingbird which
has no sidewalks until you get to Paisley.
So yeah.
That's for him.
Thank you.
Erin, while you're up there, can you put, oh, maybe you didn't have the proposed zoning
in your...
Proposed zoning?
Yeah.
This one?
Yeah.
This is going to be the fourth time that I have seen this request, and there's really
not a whole lot different.
This just doesn't have the overlay component that the other couple of times had.
When we talk about trying to continue the zoning, we're not really continuing our four
zoning here.
We're sticking our four zoning in the middle of R2 zoning.
That's really what we're doing.
This piece of property is surrounded by R2.
This property has sold multiple times.
All of the listings that I researched today, they all say, "Come build your home.
Nice home site that you can still find in Denton where you can build your home and still
have some room."
When this was brought before us, at best an engineer got up here and said they could put
maybe nine homes.
They had said then they would love to get 10, but he couldn't figure out a way to get
10, so he could put nine.
Again, even with that, it's not compatible with what it is.
It doesn't continue any kind of zoning on the property of the south or the property
to the cross-mockingbird.
It doesn't do that.
I don't feel that our role is to help a property owner make a profit on their investment.
I just don't think that's a consideration, and I feel like that's what this request feels
like.
Knowing it actually has been on the market for over a year and it hasn't sold yet.
Knowing that this is a straight zoning request of R4 without any kind of plan or protection
in place.
Townhomes and duplexes are allowed in R4.
Yes, they need an SUP, but an SUP doesn't mean that that's a zoning stop.
That doesn't mean that that couldn't happen.
If we change it to R4, the next owner, maybe they buy it then, and they come up here and
they ask for an SUP.
That certainly doesn't fit.
That's how you're going to make your money on that, is if you can put some duplexes or
townhomes in there.
That's what they're doing on Bayfield down at the end of Audra, but that's not what this
piece of property is.
There's no significant changes since we heard this last in 2020.
Mockingbird's still a mess.
It still doesn't have sidewalks like you pointed out.
It's still very narrow.
It's still heavily congested at school time when a bus is trying to get through there.
If you're trying to get your car through there or your kids are trying to walk and maneuver,
it's bad.
Mockingbird is bad.
We've talked about that for years and years.
Unfortunately, it's down the list on our road improvements.
Anyway, I just wanted to give you history because I think I'm the only one sitting up
here who has heard this item.
Maybe Commissioner Cole was on it then, I'm not sure, but anyway, I just wanted to share
my thoughts as to where my brain is thinking.
Commissioner Villarreal, I see you on the board.
Yes, for a motion.
I move denial for a lot of the reasons already stated today from the lack of knowledge as
to what is going to be put here, to the lack of community meeting to discuss what could
be put here, and of course, the fact that we're shoving this in to an R2 area.
With all that being said, I am moving denial of this request.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for denial.
Is there any discussion?
Commissioner Pruitt?
I'll just say, I understand the history, I did go back and look at some of those meetings.
Some of them I watched and may have called into, I don't remember exactly, so if you're
interested, you can go back to the 29th, anyway.
I'll just say, I do commend the request for a straight zoning.
I know that we always feel happy and fuzzy with the cherry on top when we get a plan
that looks like a finished building, but there is value to having clear, simple regulations
behind what somebody can do with their property as opposed to something that was created.
We've seen PDs and PD amendments from the '80s, and it's like a crooked, photocopied,
purple print, whatever they used to call those things, stuff.
Anyway, so in general, I'm for straight zonings in places that need to kind of breathe, but
I also think Chair's comments about why now are very cogent.
Thank you for that.
Sure.
Thank you.
All right, first and a second for denial.
Is there any further discussion?
Okay, we'll go ahead and vote, and it would be a yes to deny or a no for yes, okay.
That motion is going to carry 5-0.
That will bring us to our planning and zoning matrix, and I will turn it over to Tina.
Thank you, Chair.
Not much to report this evening.
I think we did go ahead and update the matrix and added just a past tense date related to
the comp plan action items to document that we did that as well, and we'll go ahead and
Chair Ellis, if you feel like our presentation this evening during work session addressed
to your item on the matrix, we'll go ahead and remove that.
Sure, sounds good.
Thank you for doing that.
You're welcome.
In terms of council action on any cases that the commission may have seen, let's see, since
your last meeting on the 28th of August, council has not had any meetings, so I have nothing
to report on that front.
We do have several items that are slated to go on the 17th if you're keeping track, so
we've got a busy meeting there and then through the end of the year with projects, but otherwise
nothing else to report.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anything else to add to the matrix?
No?
Tina, it's not really a matrix item, I guess, so maybe it falls into concluding items, but
just bringing up my point again about platting standard, I don't know if I can get maybe
a little, we could get a workup of your answer to why we don't do things the same.
I know you mentioned something about different people looking at it, but I'm still a little
bit fuzzy on why we don't do gas well designations on subdivision plots the same.
I don't understand.
So if we could get some kind of note that just clarifies that with more understanding,
or better yet, how about a process for doing it all the same, even better?
And then if we could get a presentation on the tree fund, I would love that.
I don't know how everybody else feels about that, but I know that's something that we
have discussed in the past.
It's been a long time since we've discussed that, certainly before our tree code was redone,
I know.
So I think to just kind of get an update on how that's done, where those are going, and
how often it's used, and that would be fantastic.
Sure thing.
We can, we'll look into your first request item, and I understand your sensitivity associated
with that, and we can definitely look at something for gas wells.
It's just like, you know, I have a preference for property lines being shown a certain way
on plots and would love every engineer who does work within our community to draw them
the way that I would like them to, but I know in that scenario, with the volume of work,
that's not reasonable.
But I think with respect to the gas well notations, we can definitely look at something that's
a little more standardized, given the unique aspect associated with those gas wells, and
then definitely we can get a presentation on Tree Fund.
We'll call on our friend, Mr. Packin, to have his staff help us out on that.
Sure.
Great.
Okay.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
I really appreciate those two requests, and if it makes sense, along with the Tree Fund,
I would appreciate some guidance from staff and maybe feedback from this body as far as
if there are ways to make sure impacts to specific neighborhoods with development, if
there are Tree Fund dollars that they get used there quickly.
And then on the question of the gas wells, I appreciate that.
There was a question a couple of years ago, or maybe a year and a half ago, about impact
when there is a gas well outside of city limits that then puts city limits property within
500 feet or 1250, depending on the consideration of whether it's a reverse setback or a forward
setback.
I don't recall a conclusion or resolution to that item of discussion.
It was something at council, and then we mentioned it here.
If there already was a resolution, I don't think we need to add anything to the plat
thing, but if there wasn't, I'd appreciate an update maybe along with that, since it
still deals with gas wells.
What we could do is we could do a presentation to the commission for your benefit, because
not every day you see requests that have gas wells involved, but what we can do is do a
presentation and, to your point, address that reverse gas well setback and how that comes
into play.
We can address it for both properties that are within the city limits, and then if the
gas well is outside the city limits, how that might impact, because I think there's been
some determinations made on how that applies, but we can bring you a primer presentation
on that if that works.
Thank you.
Okay.
See nothing else there.
I'll go ahead and adjourn this at 8.36 p.m.
Thank you very much, everyone.