>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission
meeting for Wednesday, December 11th, 2024.
This is our work session and with the quorum present, I'll call us to order at 5 p.m.
I'll let the record show that Commissioner Villarreal is absent at this time.
Before we get into things, I would like to welcome our new commissioner, Commissioner
Prado-Cadillo is here.
Thank you for serving your time, it's nice to have you here.
Work session, citizen comment on consent agenda is our first item.
Anyone here on consent agenda who wanted to speak?
Okay.
We will move on to clarification for our agenda this evening.
The first being the minutes from November 13th.
Any questions, comments there?
Okay.
How about on consent agenda from the commission?
Anything there?
Okay.
We've got several public hearings this evening, the first being 4A, AESA, 240004.
I will invite Christy up for a summary hearing work session and she can get to any questions
anyone might have.
Okay, 4A, 4A is AESA, 24 for Harris Ranch ESA mitigation plan.
I am Christy Upton, environmental compliance coordinator and tonight I'll be presenting
this plan.
The request is the approval of this alternative ESA plan.
The plan is to remove 1.92 acres of water-related habitat and restore and expand the functions
of this ESA in a planned detention basin.
Harris Ranch is an 84-acre site, it's located on I-35 North, close to loop 288.
This was a property that was annexed in 2001, I'm sorry, '21 and zoned at that time.
The planned development is an industrial warehouse and the supporting infrastructure for that
industrial warehouse.
And earlier this year, the applicant sought a ESA field assessment.
This is a process by which we establish the location, or the presence, the location and
the extent of these environmentally sensitive areas.
In this case, the applicant identified and staff concurred with the applicant that there's
1.92 acres of water-related habitat or emergent wetlands that were caused by the construction
of the detention basins as the water backed up, these emergent wetlands appeared.
And in order to construct the property and to design the detention basin appropriately
to serve the development for the future, they will need to remove that 1.92 acres of emergent
wetlands.
In exchange for that, the applicant is proposing a 5-acre detention basin of which all of that
detention basin will be designed in a manner to promote a restoration of what was removed
and create habitat within the detention basins.
What's unique in this design is that the applicant is proposing a variety of different habitat
types, which increases the overall diversity, and will be creating other structures to improve
pollution prevention, capturing that pollution or those pollutants before they enter the
drainage detention area, and then also creating a perpetual maintenance plan that will help
to maintain and continue on the ecological functions once they are established.
The applicant, our staff made notifications in accordance with the alternative ESA plan
procedure and we've received three responses in favor at 41%.
The applicant did send out notifications to the neighbors requesting a neighborhood meeting.
They did request that the neighbors respond with a RSVP and receiving no responses, the
applicant canceled the meeting.
Staff is recommending this project to be an approval as it meets all the conditions for
approval and is a complete application.
Some of the highlights are too, that our staff is recommending in the ordinance for you to
adopt is improvements that are to commence prior to the issuance of the first building
permit, vegetation to be established and accepted by environmental services, and then the perpetual
maintenance plan that's listed in the plan, the alternative ESA plan be transferred over
to a maintenance plan that will be adopted or filed with the city regarding the detention
basin so that it's all tied together in one place and that the property owner maintains
responsibility of the feature and for the future.
Any questions on this one?
>> Thank you.
Thanks, Christy.
Questions on this?
>> Commissioner Perdomo.
>> Can you describe a little bit more in detail what the perpetual maintenance plan would
include?
>> So some of the design elements will be to establish a native vegetation, the establishment
of the native vegetation, you plant it, you can't just walk away in an urbanized environment.
You do need some type of perpetual maintenance in order to continue to get the right kind
of grasses to grow.
So the applicant has proposed mowing, which helps to keep it from one particular grass,
from dominating the space to also occasionally they will need to dredge the detention basin.
That's just a nature of urbanized waterways.
And I think those were the two main points that they had listed.
>> Any other questions for Christy?
Commissioner Pruitt.
>> Thank you, Chair.
If this is better held for the applicant later, that's fine.
If they'll be here later tonight.
But this seems a little bit atypical from many of the altissas that we see, which are
usually sort of a funnel structure or something, and in this case it's kind of structures around
and within a non-natural structure.
Is there sort of examples or best practices or just here's how you do this that we've
seen?
This is new to me and I think it's new to Denton, does that make sense?
>> It's kind of a newer concept for this body, however, a very similar structure was installed
in the past, it's been several years now, behind the academy on Razor Ranch.
If you've ever been down Bonnie Bray and you've seen that big detention basin behind
academy, that was actually designed in a very similar manner.
And that design, they got from the integrated storm water management program.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Thanks, Christy.
Anything else?
Commissioner Thacker.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I was reading over the approvals that were given or the votes in favor.
Is it typical for the votes in favor to come from landowners exclusively that don't actually
habitat or live on the land that they are making these decisions about?
Because I'm looking at them and it looks like they live in Gainesville and Frisco, so the
immediate, you know, I guess consequence of this, they really wouldn't have anything to
do with it because they're probably living in a cozy little house in Frisco that doesn't
have a bunch of wildlife that's going to get displaced by this happening, so I'm just -- I'm
wondering if that's typical.
Thank you, Chair.
>> Mm-hmm.
Of course.
>> Do you want to try to handle some of that?
>> So that's a great question, because whether it's an ALT ESA plan or a zoning change, when
you have property owners who own property within the notification area, they do have
the ability to be able to submit their response letters regardless of where they live, because
they do have a private property ownership responsibility.
>> Okay.
Thanks.
>> Yeah.
And I guess just to add to that, if they're not within that boundary, they just couldn't
be counted as a percentage as far as, you know, requiring a super majority if there
was opposition or that kind of thing.
That does have to, you know, that would count for only those who would live in that 200-foot
buffer area.
>> Okay.
>> Mm-hmm.
But, yeah, pretty much anyone can respond, yeah.
Anything else right now, Christy?
Okay.
Well, you're up here for the next one.
So that is 4B, AESA 240003.
>> Okay.
Tonight I'll be presenting AESA 243, it's an ecological mitigation plan at Landmark,
and this property was formerly known as Hunter Ranch.
This alternative plan is intended to address the future environmentally-sensitive area
impacts for the remainder of the 3,000-plus acres of the Landmark development, again formerly
known as Hunter Ranch.
This plan is unique to Denton and the ESA program, because as this plan progresses,
it will address all 78 impacts that the applicant is proposing instead of trying to address
each one of those impacts at each phase of development.
The purpose of this plan is to create a standard first for restoring the temporary disturbances
of the environmentally-sensitive areas, and then to define how to address the permanent
removals by creating a mitigation area, and then work within that area at a rate of one
to one by ESA type.
And we'll get into more details about that during this presentation.
This is a master plan community.
There was an ordinance that was passed in 2020 that created the standards for this master
plan community.
This plan that we are discussing tonight does not propose any changes to that MPC, including
it is not a discussion of any changes to zoning or other land development standards.
This is simply a process by which the applicant is seeking for approval to create a standard
impacting those environmentally-sensitive areas in order to develop the property.
The MPC is similar to the Denton Development Code, with standards to protect and preserve
the ESAs.
There are some minor differences, which those nuances I'm not going to get into in this
presentation, but would be ready to answer your questions.
The plan is to address the environmentally-sensitive areas where the deviations from the MPC are
sought.
And then I do want to mention that there is a fourth type of ESA with protection requirements
as described in the MPC, the upland habitat.
This habitat will be preserved at the rate that was negotiated and provided in the MPC,
and is not part of the request and the discussion tonight.
To set the stage for this project, the applicant went through a series of environmentally-sensitive
area field assessments to establish the president's location and extent of these ESAs.
During the work session here, I want to describe a little bit more detail what these environmentally-sensitive
areas are that are here on this slide.
There's undeveloped floodplain, which is defined by the Federal Emergency Management 1% floodplain.
The riparian buffer is a different type of ESA, is defined in the MPC as a distance from
the centerline of the channel outwards.
That distance is set by the drainage area.
In other words, the smaller streams, the streams that are receiving the less water, there's
going to be a smaller buffer that's going to be protecting them.
And those streams that are receiving a lot more water because there's a lot more watershed
coming to that point is going to have a larger buffer of 100 feet instead of 50 feet.
The water-related habitats are emergent wetlands, deep water habitats, and other types or similar
type of habitats that are really more defined regarding the topography and the land which
it lies within.
Think of areas where it holds water temporarily after rain events that are -- they're allowing
vegetation of certain types to grow within those habitat areas.
You can see from the summary of the type of ESAs here that we identified how much ESA
was identified on the property.
Looking at the map, I wanted to point this out.
The ESAs overlap.
So as we were talking about these floodplain areas, then you have the riparian buffers are
often nested within that by the definition of the ESA type.
Those riparian buffers are just going to be a distance from the center line in the stream.
So the floodplain is often wider, but not always.
And then there's going to be water-related habitats nested within that floodplain area
and within the riparian zones.
And broken down by the ESA type, where there are 580 acres of ESAs.
But when we consider it by the land that's occupied by the ESA, there's 399 acres of
ESA occupied, or 399 acres of land that is occupied by the ESA.
And we're going to come back to that concept later, so that's why I wanted to stress it
here.
The applicant then considered the existing ESAs in that land development.
And per the applicant, most of the ESAs were avoided by designing the site around those
ESAs.
Most of them will remain in their current state, but up to 9% of each one of the ESAs
will have to be permanently removed in order for there to be construction of those of different
structures in order to support the development.
For example, to create connections on the property highlighted in this, the zone zoomed
in area, necessitates constructing roadway crossings and installing all the supporting
structures around the bridge with grading and the necessary construction traffic.
Some of that construction traffic is permitted in the MPC, and these would be temporary disturbances.
Staff asked that the applicant include a description of how those temporary disturbances would be
restored in the future, or post construction, just so that we could have this all in one
place.
The applicant then accounted for all the rest of the permanent disturbances that are not
allowed by this MPC, and estimates there would be 40 acres of permanently removed ESAs by
type.
There's 3,000 acres of this property, and it is not possible to estimate all of the
impacts, and so the applicant has done a good job of coming up with a number, but the actual
impact will be measured at the civil plans or other land disturbance applications.
I'm going to describe the temporary impacts.
These are areas where the applicant is proposing temporary disturbances.
This would be things like grading, construction traffic, things like maybe to install the
bridge, you're going to have to take the construction traffic outside that bridge in order to build
all the infrastructure for it, and the goal is to put back or improve the current conditions
within that location at a one-to-one mitigation.
The limits of the construction activity will be the limits of the restoration activity.
Before I get into describing this, I want to point out the map.
If you will look here, following my pointer here, this location is at the northwest corner
of about 1.6 miles north of Robson Ranch Road, and is just east of Robson Ranch development.
This location was selected by the applicant as a mitigation area.
The plan is to -- the 40 acres of ESAs that were impacted, they will, by ESA type, will
be then transferred to this mitigation area, and an improvement to the ESAs that currently
exist will be performed.
That improvement will include -- the improvements will include grading to improve the banks
and other areas within those locations, and then installation of shrubs, grasses, flowering
plants, and will result in an uplifted, environmentally sensitive area within that mitigation area.
In order to create a standard by which to track all of this, staff is requesting to
establish a identification and tracking system.
The first step will be to delineate the development impact area, then identify those permanent
and nonpermanent environmentally sensitive area impacts, and propose the institute restoration
for each one of these projects.
Then the applicant will record the location of the mitigation area that was identified
to -- for the offset, that one-to-one mitigation, and create a reference between a plat that
locates that -- the mitigation area that was set aside, and then create a record that ties
both the mitigation area and the impact together.
We feel like this would create the best procedure in order for us to have a record of the activities
and to create enforceability in the future.
And then environmental services will perform a final inspection and approve of those mitigation
projects.
As a result, it goes along with the mitigation tracking system, the applicant has proposed
to keep a spreadsheet, and staff is requesting that this spreadsheet be -- this spreadsheet
that you're looking at be the standard by which that is tracked.
Notifications were made.
I'm sorry about the highlight.
The -- again, staff follow the procedure for the notifications, and there were 15 responses
in favor -- I mean, in opposition, and one response in favor.
And the applicant did not hold any neighborhood meetings, nor did the applicant report of
any discussions with any neighboring properties.
Staff is recommending approval of this plan because it is a complete application, and
we have confirmed the information is accurate.
The highlights of the conditions that staff is proposing is to identify those temporary
land disturbances and the permanent removals, and to address those in accordance with the
plan, that the plantings in accordance with this plan will be commenced while constructing
the corresponding phase of that development.
The final ratio of mitigation will be one to one by ESA type, and the mitigation area
and ESAs will be noted on the related plats so that they're tied together, and the property
owner will retain responsibility of that mitigation area, and then a couple of other components
that we feel would bolster the plan.
And with that, I will stand with for any questions.
>> Thanks, Kristy.
What a unique way to handle a complicated issue.
I think my first question to you is, do we have enough staff to keep up with us?
I mean, it's a lot, so how is that going to be done?
>> I think we will have to play it by ear.
We do anticipate that the tracking system will help with keeping track of, you know,
the progression of things, and we can evaluate as we move forward.
>> So will there be one person on this, or are you all sharing -- I don't even know how
many actually over there are you in environmental services?
Probably not that many.
>> I do have backup.
I do have backup.
>> Okay.
>> Yes, yes.
>> That will help in maintaining the spreadsheet and --
>> Correct.
>> Because, yeah, that -- I think it's a great way, again, to handle, you know, all that's
going on in this massive development, but that was certainly a concern that I have.
What else from anybody for Christie right now?
Commissioner Perot.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Just a couple things kind of related to that, but not in magnitude of work, more in procedure.
So thank you for going through that procedure of how we want to track those things.
The language that I see in the proposal is sort of our standard three-year maintenance
period and then an inspection.
And I'm wondering how that works with a MPC sort of thing that will be built out over
20 years plus.
Help me understand, do we have the hooks we need, and if so, where are they, to make sure
that when, for instance, phase 3 happens and the mitigation for that is included in an
already partially constructed mitigating feature, can we then go back and re-inspect that, even
though we already inspected it for phase 1, if it was partially built then, does that
make sense?
>> Mm-hmm.
Yes, that makes sense.
So we're avoiding the word banking because that is a term from the U.S. Corps of Engineers
and staff is not comfortable with that because this is not the same thing, right?
But essentially we're banking here.
So the mitigation part of the project, the applicant is proposing to create credit when
they can and then they will take from that credit later for the debit of ESA types as
they work through it.
So for example, in this part of the property, the applicant has told me that they anticipate
maybe we start here at this location and they do 12 acres of ESA improvements in this area
right here.
So that would be 12 acres by ESA type, right?
And then let's say on phase 1, there was only 5 acres of impact and you've already performed
12 acres of improvement.
So that 3-year period passes, we say yes, we agree that this is established per the
plan that you have outlined.
So those 12 acres would be accepted.
That's why I created this complicated tracking spreadsheet so that when those 12 acres have
been improved, we would have a record of those 12 acres within this system so that they could
take credit for that at a later date.
So my understanding correctly if I say that the accounting for have you done the mitigation
necessary for this phase of development is triggered by the civil engineering plans and
that process, but the inspection for mitigation efforts is triggered and tracked by when that
mitigation was put in the ground, is that accurate?
Thank you.
Just trying to get my head around this.
And lastly, I get nervous, but I'm not that nervous.
When I see such a large land area and I understand efficiencies of location and that sort of thing
to be able to kind of group the mitigation efforts within a certain contiguous area,
do we feel confident that putting the mitigations in the proposed area puts the benefits from
those mitigations in the places where we will most need them as far as water quality, et
cetera?
Does that make sense?
Yes.
Because I don't know how to evaluate where ideally these things should go from an ecological
perspective.
The applicant is here tonight and can explain the choice in the location of the mitigation
area.
Okay.
Thank you.
Great.
Any other questions right now for Kristi?
Okay.
I'm sure we'll come up with them and we'll talk to you at the regular meeting.
Thank you.
Okay.
Our next public hearing summary will be for C, Z240010, and that is Bryce's project.
Hello.
Good evening, Chair, Commissioner.
This is Z2410.
It is a request to rezone approximately 16 acres from rural residential to a light industrial
zoning district.
This property was annexed in 2010 and given the placeholder zoning of rural residential,
and they are now requesting to be rezoned to a light industrial zoning district in order
to develop both a commercial and an industrial use on the property.
This property is currently undeveloped pasture land, which is just to the east of Mosh Branch
Road, and the future land use map is light industrial all throughout the area, which
meets the designation that they are requesting.
I do have a full presentation that I will give in the meeting, but I will stand for
any questions.
Questions for Bryce?
I just got one quick one, and if the applicant's here and you don't have this response, they
might, but in the backup, you said they didn't have a neighborhood meeting, but they talked
to surrounding neighbors.
Do you know what the response was from those neighbors?
They reported only positive things from the neighbors.
With the notification as well, I'm sure you saw we had four people that we mailed out
to, and I believe two of those property owners were city of Denton or city of Denton adjacent,
so there was two private property owners.
Great.
Thanks for your time.
Thank you.
Okay.
Okay, that takes us to 4DZ240012, and we will summarize that project for us.
Are there any questions?
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.
This item is Z24-0012, and it's a request to rezone a property from rural residential
and residential two to the suburban corridor district.
The property is approximately .684 acres, located just west of Teasley Lane, 170 feet
north of Leatherwood Lane.
The property is currently developed with a house and some accessory structures for that
house, and staff is recommending approval on this one.
I did want to provide you, usually we don't bore you a little bit too much with the details
of the background of the application, but this recommendation of approval is not inconsistent
with the moderate residential future lane use designation.
So I did want to explain the background of this application and explain how we got here.
So we initially started talking with this applicant.
They approached us with a preapplication conference in 2022 to do some indoor/outdoor recreation
type of use on this lot.
I believe one of the property owners was a coach, and they wanted to be able to do some
practice facility or facilitate some practices on their lot.
But at that time, they wanted to rezone it to commercial also, and we let them know that
that was not supported by the comp plan, as it was a moderate residential future lane
use designation.
But they didn't apply for anything more further at that time, and we did have some sort of
ongoing discussions.
They'd check in every once in a while to see the appropriateness of commercial uses on
that site.
In the meantime, Teasley Lane was being widened.
At that time, it was a two-lane arterial just with a center divided turn lane.
At this time, it is a six-lane arterial with a median and a designated left turn lanes at
certain areas.
They did come forward with an annexation application in May of this year, and that was completed
in November of this year.
And during that time, again, still having the conversations about the commercial appropriateness
or if commercial was appropriate for this site, and with the increase or with the expansion
of Teasley Lane, that became more ideal or more appropriate with that expansion.
But we still recognized that a commercial zoning was not in accordance with the moderate
residential future lane use, which was still in place at that time.
And so when they talked about potentially pursuing a commercial rezoning, again, we
did lay out the whole process of how that would usually go, a comprehensive plan amendment,
and then you submit your rezoning -- could submit your rezoning request to be in line
or with the zoning district in line with that future lane use map designation if your comprehensive
plan amendment was approved.
But this property is only .684 acres, and so we did request that they try to potentially
work with their neighbors, try to bring them in on this request so that we have a broader
look or that we're looking at a broader area when we're looking at a comprehensive plan
amendment.
At that time, they did reach out to their neighbors and they weren't interested in joining
an application.
They weren't necessarily opposed to a commercial lane use.
They just weren't interested in joining this process.
And so with that, the applicant decided to just move forward with their zoning change
application.
And once we started reviewing their zoning request to SC, staff again looked at the future
lane use map and realized how odd it would be if an SC zoning were in between two -- are
two zonings.
And again, SC is not in line with the moderate residential future lane use designation.
And so we asked that the applicant consider R7, as that might be in line with some of
the indoor/outdoor recreation facilities that they were initially trying to do.
At that point, the applicant said that that would not be feasible for them, that the SC
district would be preferred.
And so they pushed forward or requested that we move forward with that request for SC.
And ultimately, staff is supporting the SC designation as we do feel that commercial
is appropriate for this corridor.
And ultimately, we kind of questioned whether or not with the expansion of TZ lane and some
of the existing uses that are within this moderate residential future lane use designation,
whether or not a moderate residential is an appropriate future lane use designation for
this site.
So long walk.
We are recommending approval to the SC.
I do have a bit of a more detailed presentation to go over in the regular session, but I'd
be happy to answer any questions about this case if you have them at this time.
>> I do.
How did you get from June of 2024 to December of '24 and your yes to SC when you recommended
R7?
>> So, yes, so -- >> Nothing changed unceasingly between June
and December.
>> I understand.
Yes.
And it's still -- so it's still -- R7 was -- because the rest of the neighboring property
owners weren't interested in coming on board and making this a more comprehensive request
for this approach.
The look of R2 or SC between two R2 properties is what we call -- or appears -- looks like
what we call spot zoning, which is where -- >> Exactly what it is.
100%.
Define definition.
Perfect.
>> A commercial zoning, yes, in between -- or around -- surrounded by some residential zonings
or different zoning districts surrounded by a different -- a different zoning district
that's not necessarily complementary.
And so the R7 district is a bit -- while it's a bit more intense of a residential district,
it is still a residential district, and that could potentially get them what they wanted.
Ultimately, although SC is not in line with the future land use map designation, it steers
a little bit away from spot zoning because it still does achieve some of the goals of
our comprehensive plan.
And one of the required -- or one of the -- one of the definition criteria for spot zoning
is that if it's -- if these zoning change does not meet your future land use designation
and it does not further any other goals of your comprehensive plan, then it's considered
spot zoning.
In this case, we don't find that to be it as it does further some of those other goals.
>> I think for me, it's just -- it's also not a corridor.
You know, it's a small dead end street going into county property.
It's got a lot of residential, you know, next to it, basically.
I mean, while you've got the multifamily, you've got a church, you've got, you know,
some acreage properties, you've got some county properties, and then you've got Old Alton
right there, which is a neighborhood.
You know, it just doesn't seem very corridor, which seems like it should be on, you know,
two main roads, not just one, you know, like suburban corridors up at Hickory Creek and
Teasley.
That's suburban corridor, I believe, right, where we've got Sprouts and Kroger and all
that.
You know, two major roads that go somewhere, you know, this is the curve of a major road.
So I'm just -- I'm struggling because it's -- it very much feels like spot zoning.
It also -- SC feels inappropriate to me for what is around it, and that doesn't seem to
define, you know, when you look up our definition of suburban corridor, which I did look up
so I could have it.
Right here for you.
Oh, good.
Yeah, okay.
You've got it right there.
This -- the second bullet point, SC is intended to provide moderate to high-intensity commercial
office and retail uses along high-traffic corridors.
So, yeah.
Permit?
Yeah, sure.
Tina would like to add something.
So Mia didn't come out and say this, but -- directly, but this one actually was a challenging one
for us to work through because what we have is -- and I know she has a slide on this later
in her presentation, so I'm not trying to steal her thunder on this.
But we struggled with this because also in looking at the area, the land uses that are
within this area, looking at the changes to Teasley, also the fact that we have a very
large public high school on the other side of the street, we really question whether
or not that moderate residential land use designation is most appropriate.
When we also look at the size of this parcel as well as the ones immediately to the north
and south of it, we really question whether or not those properties would even develop
with -- as residential uses.
When we read this moderate residential description, it's very heavily focused on residential uses.
I feel like it does open the door slightly when it recognizes that the category can accommodate
some neighborhood scale commercial uses along certain key corridors.
Teasley is -- we look at it as it's a major regional corridor now because it's providing
connectivity not only for persons who reside within Denton but also Corinth in getting them
access to 35.
But, you know, we feel like this description slightly opens the door in those commercial
uses, but we also feel like it kind of swings back and hits on the other side where -- because
it's very specific in terms of that neighborhood commercial being at arterials and collector
street corners, and we don't necessarily have that here.
If the shadings were reversed on this -- on the future land use map where on the east side
of Teasley right now, it's all community mixed use designation, whereas on the west side,
it's the moderate residential.
If those were flipped, this would be a much different conversation, right?
Because we would be saying, well, the SC zoning is consistent with the community mixed use.
We have community mixed use designation on the east side of Teasley, and we have a large
public high school that's there now.
And so we feel like even with the expansions that have occurred with the high school over
time coupled with the changes in Teasley, the other commercial uses that are in this
area, particularly to the south, not to mention we do have land in the ETJ that we have no
land use authority over.
This was one that we really struggled through and really questioned whether or not our future
land use map is correct in this area.
To put the burden on the applicant, and again, of a six-tenths of an acre site to do also
a quarter study, we felt like that wasn't as appropriate and proportional to the request.
And so in this case, we really looked hard as is it appropriate to deviate from the future
land use map recommendation, and in the end, that's how we landed on yes.
And we even looked at our criteria.
This request meets majority of the criteria in the DDC.
One of our criteria does acknowledge that if a request is zoning is not consistent with
the future land use map designation, does it further other goals?
And we felt that this did.
So hence, we spent a lot of brain hours on this one, trying to understand and trying
to find a path forward for this applicant in terms of what is the most appropriate zoning.
Again, the likelihood of residential uses occurring on this property as well as the
ones to the north and immediately to the south we think are very small because typically
you don't have a townhome development trying to go in and on a site less than an acre or
a multifamily development is in all likelihood not feasible on an acre site.
Those types of developments, especially now given the configuration of Teasley being six
lane divided, are just not going to happen.
So I could be wrong, but based on my experience and just seeing what's there, it is hence
why we really question even if the future land use map is correct in this area.
Thank you for that and I look forward to more discussion when we get more detail into it
in the regular meeting.
Does anyone have any specific questions right now for Mia?
Commissioner Prout?
I guess just briefly for the history so that we better understand, are there other commercial
zoning districts that staff considered other than R7 that would be better than SC and is
there a reason why that didn't move forward or was that just not a discussion that really
took place?
We did.
So in thinking of what might be able to fit, get them their use and then fit into the moderate
residential land use, MN we thought about, ultimately the location here on Teasley doesn't
it being six lane is more auto oriented, you don't really want those buildings pushed up
to Teasley Lane, so some of the design standards there kick in and if this site were to redevelop
it wouldn't be ideal to have that there.
So we did consider Teasley as a corridor like Tina said and having that suburban corridor
and those design standards that come with that, those land uses that are permitted,
we figured that would be the route to go.
Thank you Chair.
I mean I'm just spit balling here, I'm looking at the property right now on my computer screen.
In the new zoning, I mean what do you even see going there?
So a small drive through potentially, or a small restaurant, it would be a small, a small
establishment and not because, most likely a neighborhood serving retail or commercial
restaurant type of use and because the property is .684 acres and I think you can do a lot,
they still have to meet parking requirements, there's some tree canopy on this area that
they probably have to account for, so there are other requirements that kick in further
than just the property being small that it would most likely be a neighborhood serving
commercial type.
I don't think we would see a big box store or anything like that here.
Okay, thanks.
Anything else?
Okay, thanks Mio.
Okay, that takes us, well I don't think we have to go through items for individuals consideration
right here.
That is my last meeting.
Okay, that will take us then to our work session reports.
Do we want to break and get food before we get into this?
My thinking is we might want to do that so we can then just dedicate the rest of the
meeting to our work session reports.
So let's go ahead and recess at 548, grab your food and we'll meet right back here just
as soon as we can.
Thank you for allowing us that short break.
I will call us back to order at 558 p.m. and we'll get into our work session reports,
the first being 3A, PZ24234, receive a report, hold a discussion regarding residential development
and rental housing in the city of Denton.
We'll turn it over to Haley.
I'm Haley Zagorski, assistant planning director here to discuss some multifamily and single-family
housing data with you all.
So this request stemmed from two different components.
First if you recall back in August we had a couple of multifamily cases and following
the discussion of those there was a regarding just the number and volume of multifamily
projects that are currently in development.
And then when those cases proceeded to council in September similarly we had some questions
arise about just multifamily data in general, how close we are to hitting the numbers in
the comprehensive plan that were at our targets for 2040 and how our current rental housing
rate could be expected to change in the future.
So and to make the most efficient use of everyone's time we decided to bundle all of this together
give as much of a comprehensive overview as we could to you all and then be able to forward
that on to city council to help address their questions.
So tonight we'll start by looking at just some overall population growth data, the city's
housing composition and then dive into multifamily and single-family projects that are currently
in the queue and then try to tie all of that together and compare our current growth to
those demands that we see in the comprehensive plan and see what conclusions we can draw
from that.
Before we jump in I do want to make a couple of notes about the data.
All the permit and project numbers that you'll see are very fluid.
Those change permits sometimes on a daily basis, the project certainly on a weekly or
monthly basis.
As new things are submitted things get finalized, things are withdrawn.
Also I wanted to point out that the population and housing estimates that you'll see if you
were to look at other sources may be drastically different.
Those tend to vary depending on what source you go to.
So I did want to note that we normally rely upon the certified housing totals that come
out from Denton County Appraisal District on an annual basis as well as the American
Community Survey which is done by the US Census Bureau.
With the American Community Survey I do want to note if you like to dive into data they
have a great resource online for that.
But note that as you get annually further out from a census year they do note that their
data becomes less precise because it is just annual estimates.
And then I also wanted to note that not all sources track different housing types the
same way.
For example the DDC would define multifamilies anything five units or more on a single parcel
so that's how our project data is typically presented.
But if you look at the city's permit data you'll see that everything three units or
more on a single lot is multifamilies so triplex and fourplex get bundled into that within
our permitting software because of how the International Building Code defines that use.
And so you'll see a similar kind of variance in how that's presented across data sources
so I just wanted to note that for everyone's benefit before we start.
So starting with population if you were to look in the Denton 2040 plan you would find
this table in subchapter one.
So this 2020 population was from the census that year.
We were just under one hundred and forty thousand people.
They projected a three percent annual growth rate.
That growth rate is the same growth rate that was in our 2030 plan.
They just carried that forward and based on that estimated a total of about two hundred
and twenty nine thousand people in Denton by 2040.
So I wanted to start this assessment by looking at where we are today.
So the American Community Survey estimates that our 2023 population was one hundred and
fifty eight thousand or just over that.
That's actually a 13 percent increase since 2020 at that number at one hundred and thirty
nine thousand.
So given that I'm looking at an annual basis that would be a four point four percent annual
growth rate so quite a bit higher than what we accounted for in the comprehensive plan.
So if you apply that four point four percent growth rate that would put our 2040 population
at three hundred and thirty one thousand people roughly so a seventy seventy three percent
change from what we anticipated in the comp plan.
That is a pretty significant change and like I said the data varies so widely by source
and projections vary by source.
So reality is likely somewhere in between those numbers.
But just know those are the two data points that will be going by for a lot of this analysis.
So then looking at those housing demands in the comp plan again we have this table that
breaks it down into single family detached units and other category that lumps everything
from town homes through fourplexes as well as other things like manufactured housing
together and then we have the multifamily category of five or more units on a lot.
So based on that three percent growth and the amount of our housing units in 2019 that
fell into each category we have an estimate that we would need 19,000 or just under 20,000
single family detached units by 2040 and just over 11,000 multifamily units by that time.
Again if you apply that four percent growth rate I wanted to see where those numbers would
fall to see how those demands might increase if our population keeps going as it is currently.
So that would put us at a need of 34,000 single family detached units by 2040 and an additional
19,449 multifamily units by that time.
I do want to note here that that other category just for the sake of analysis and trying to
compare equitably across data sources I did take the liberty of breaking those numbers
down into equal parts of town home duplex, triplex and fourplex so that I could account
for each of our various project types and lump those accordingly with either single
family or multifamily.
And within that category you'll see the COMP plan called for roughly 6,000 additional units
by 2040 with the higher growth rate that number would increase to just over 10,000.
So another important component if you're looking at anything in Denton is our student population
because we all know that has a significant impact on our housing across the city as it
would in any college town.
So looking at our three universities here in town you can see 13 percent is the overall
growth rate for those from 2019 to 2023.
TWU did have a slight decrease but you can see there was still a pretty significant increase
between 2022 and 2023 in the number of students that were enrolled.
I'll note that we don't know from this data how many of those students are commuters,
how many may attend classes online versus those that live here in Denton.
But another data source we have housing related is our 2021 needs assessment and as part of
that assessment they found that we had approximately 9,000 on campus beds at UNT and TWU.
So if you look at those numbers that leaves anywhere from 45 to 50,000 students roughly
who would either need to commute or would be looking for off campus housing.
So our private market is significantly supplementing the student population in terms of housing.
So moving on to look at how our current housing situation breaks down based on Denton County
Appraisal District certified totals.
You can see at our starting year in 2020 for the comp plan we had 85 percent of our housing
Denton County counted as single family, 2 percent roughly was duplexes and 12 and a
half percent multifamily.
Those numbers have stayed relatively steady.
You can see the slight decrease in the single family composition down to 80 percent in 2023.
Multifamily increasing to 14 percent and duplexes with a similar roughly 2 percent increase.
So for those who are visual I just wanted to chart that out so you can see it has been
a relatively steady increase across all categories.
No major jumps in any of those throughout that four year period.
If you look at the total of those in each category breaking it down single family we
had a 10 percent increase or a 3,000 unit increase over that period.
Multifamily did increase 37 percent with an additional 1,700 units added.
And duplexes is the anomaly, the number is so low that the even slight increase in doubling
of those makes it look like we had 125 percent increase but really it was 1,000 units.
So looking at the rental composition which was one of those council inquiries that we
were trying to address with this, you can see our renter occupied units has stayed relatively
steady.
Again from the American Community Survey we're able to go back to 2010 as their earliest
set that's available online.
We were at 54 percent renter occupied units and that's any type of housing unit.
They don't break that down by multifamily, single family.
And we've decreased slightly to 52 percent in 2023.
So again staying relatively constant.
I did want to compare how Denton compares to other college towns across Texas.
So you'll see we're on par with many of them actually towards the lower end of the spectrum.
So the ranges from 71 percent rental housing in San Marcos down to 49 percent in Waco.
So we're on the lower end of that spectrum when you look across all of those college
towns of course taking out the big players like Austin and Houston that just wouldn't
be comparable.
Okay so now to address more directly the question that you all presented which was how many
multifamily projects and what unit count do we have in the queue.
So again starting back at 2020 we know we were at 4500 units today or in 2023 DCAD tells
us we had 6200 units on the ground.
So this map shows you what is currently somewhere in the queue that could come online in the
next couple of years.
So if you look at it the teal dots on the map represent those projects that are in review
that have some level of approval.
So they may have an SUP or a PD approved that might actually be further in the process and
have civil engineering plans or zoning compliance plan approval.
But there are 40 projects that fall into that category.
And then the purple dots are again under review but those are ones that don't yet have an
approval so they might be coming up in the pipeline for P&Z and council consideration
or just if they are by right they could be with staff for review right now.
And then the kind of peach color dots are those that are actually under construction.
So we have 19 multifamily projects in the city that have been released to go to construction.
So combining those that are in review that's an additional 8000 units that could come online
if those come to fruition.
In construction we have a total of 4062 units at this time.
So when you look at what's on the ground that increased between 2020 and 2023 and then add
to it those new units that's a total of 13800 units that could be added to the city's housing
stock which would be a 300% increase from that 2020 starting point.
So looking at going back to the comprehensive plan to those needs I want to set the stage
for the various data points we have that tell us how many multifamily units we might need
by 2040.
Again the comprehensive plan at that 3% growth put us at just over 11,000 multifamily.
If you add the triplex and fourplex to that, that gets us up to 14,000.
If you apply the higher growth rate that we're currently at we could potentially need 24,680
multifamily units added to our housing stock by 2040.
Again that other data source that we have that's very valuable for this is that 2021
needs assessment that looked at the city's housing stock and it broke it down into rental
units and ownership units for their analysis.
So they estimated that we would need roughly 25,000 rental units added to our housing supply
by 2040 to meet the needs of our residents.
And again that doesn't look at what portion of those may be single family or accessory
dwelling units or other things but it thought it was interesting to note that our higher
growth rate does put us on par with what the housing needs assessment called for as well
with that being about 25,000 units total.
So switching gears slightly, single family.
We prepared our GIS team prepared a similar map for you all.
On this one the yellow dots represent single family projects that are under construction.
There's a total of 7,041 lots that have been released to go to construction.
Those could take several years of course to actually have houses built on them but those
are lots that we know are in the supply chain.
And then in the development review process somewhere we have an additional 19 projects
that accounts for 2,600 units and those are the blue dots on this map.
So again looking at that total increase from the 2020 base that DCAD showed us we had 31,800
single family units.
We know as of 2023 we were at 36,000 and then you add to it those that are in queue today
and that would be just under 14,000 units that we could be adding above and beyond that
2020 baseline.
And just to set the stage again for what those needs were before we try to compare all of
this the comprehensive plan called for if you add in the town home and duplex to the
single family detached a total of 22,800 units needed to be added by 2040 at the higher growth
rate that would go up to just under 40,000 units that could be needed.
And again to see how that compares to our needs assessment we are maybe on the low end
of the spectrum on our estimates with this because our needs assessment actually called
for us to need 50,000 additional units available for ownership by 2040.
So trying to tie all of that together and see how our current development workload is
meeting those demands.
For multifamily the new units we've added since 2020 as we just saw was just under 14,000.
If you look back to those total projections of what we would need that would meet 90%
of the need identified in the comprehensive plan.
52% of the need if we were to keep going at the current 4% growth rate that we're seeing
and 55% of what was called for in the housing needs assessment for rental stock.
Single family similarly were just under 14,000 units that we've projected to have added since
2020.
That would meet 61% of the comp plan's goal for 2040, 41% if you apply the higher growth
rate but only 28% if you're looking at the housing needs assessment call for additional
ownership units.
So keeping in mind we're only four years into that 20 year horizon.
We certainly seem on track to meet or exceed the needs identified by these various plans.
So we wanted to end with what conclusions can we draw from this?
What does all of this mean especially for you all as you consider development applications?
Obviously we're growing and our student populations are continuing to grow at both of our major
-- at all of our universities actually now that we have NCTC in our downtown.
And we know that student population growth continues to have a huge effect on our housing
stock.
So as I mentioned the housing needs assessment indicated that our -- we had 9,000 on campus
beds so the rest of those students would be presumably looking for housing in Denton unless
they're commuters.
They additionally estimated that 75% of our rental housing supply at that time was taken
up by students.
So just keeping that in mind what we do know is our rental housing rate is comparable to
other cities that have major universities.
But we may be needing additional units available for students near those universities as we
continue to grow to ensure that they're not maybe taking up other housing elsewhere that
could be available for ownership or other opportunities.
Keep in mind the growth rate projections do vary widely by source.
So all of this is just projections.
Who knows where we'll end up it's likely to be different from everything that we've looked
at here.
But just trying to give you all an idea of where we stand.
We know that based on our comprehensive plan, the housing needs assessment and our current
development trends we should be on track to generally meet the housing needs that we anticipate.
But like I mentioned the critical part may be the location of those -- the housing supply
that infill and student housing availability near the universities again might be critical
to ensuring that the rest of our neighborhoods and locations on the periphery of the city
are available for other residents who are not students of the universities.
So what can we do as we move forward with additional projects?
Obviously continuing to be thoughtful in our consideration of these, keeping in mind those
housing needs and also ensuring that we have a diverse housing stock.
So we obviously don't want everything to fall strictly in the single family or multi-family
category, we want to make sure we provide for those middle housing types as well that
meet different needs for different individuals.
When we are looking at additional multi-family cases, since we seem to be further ahead on
that goal than the single family goal, it will be important to ensure consistency with
our comprehensive plan, but also ensure that the location it's going is conducive to actual
neighborhood development.
That it's not out of place for the character of the area and that could support additional
neighborhoods being developed around it in the future perhaps.
Obviously it will be important to continue to monitor our growth and our housing availability,
especially with that needs assessment in mind.
We may want to look at updating both the housing needs assessment and the comp plan again within
the next five years if our growth continues to outpace what we were projecting in both
of those plans.
And then for development purposes, it will be important for us to look at ways to incentivize
and remove barriers to infill and encourage increased housing near our universities.
These two points obviously may require policy and code changes.
So we will likely be bringing forward to you all discussions to think about potential updates
to the development code, perhaps the comprehensive plan, as well as working internally and with
city council to see if there are incentives we can offer through perhaps our impact fees
or other economic development tools to help incentivize that.
To ensure that we're not having too much sprawl on the periphery where we do have those environmental
assets that we want to ensure we protect as well to make sure we're balancing all those
goals.
So with that, I will stand for any questions and hope I can answer them.
>> It's a great presentation, thank you.
Are you sharing that with council?
>> Our plan is to forward this to them.
Obviously the video link will be available, but share this with them as a Friday report
probably in the coming week.
>> It's good and they should have that, yeah.
I think one thing that you could probably add to that, keep an eye on, is just to make
the delineation of really what are the university housing needs versus everything else because
that is very different.
And yes, clearly with the universities growing and their lack of housing on campus, it's
either commuters or they're renters and are we serving those needs, which are again completely
separate than a family who needs to be in a rental property and of course location is
everything there.
Thank you for putting this together.
What questions does anyone have for Haley?
Commissioner Pruitt?
>> Thank you, Chair, and thank you again for putting this together.
Brief question, the map that you had of single-family locations, did that and the numbers, did that
include nearby muds or is it only City of Denton properties?
>> I believe this, yes, it does, based on the large yellow dot out to the west.
It includes those municipal utility districts that we have permitting authority over.
>> Okay, very good.
Thank you.
>> Yes.
>> It's very helpful.
Thank you.
I'll just point out that I wasn't able to pull City of Denton data, so this is Denton County,
so take it with many grains of salt.
But in the last four years, the median home price has gone up about 35% and the median
income has gone up about 12%, so I look forward to some of the variety of housing types that
will allow us to have that flexible housing that could move between ownership or rental
as the market needs in the future, as opposed to being stuck as much, if that makes sense.
>> Thank you.
Anything else?
Thank you so much.
>> You're welcome.
>> That was great.
Are you staying up here for 3B?
>> I am not.
I'll hand that one over to Tina.
>> Okay, so we'll hand that to Tina.
It's 3B-PZ24240, Receiver Report, Hold Discussion Regarding Notice of Possible Quorum Eligibility
Events.
>> Thank you.
We just wanted to put this on your agenda because we realized there might be some questions
associated with this.
We could have just sent the information out in an email, but we wanted to give you the
benefit, like I said, if you had any questions.
So basically what we included in your AIS is the various events that are available for
Notice of Possible Quorum.
You'll see in that list, neighborhood meetings are not one of them.
So we know that you all get invited to neighborhood meetings from time to time, so if you choose
to attend, and there are multiple commissioners that are there, we need for you to pay attention
to the number of commissioners that might be in attendance at that meeting, because
if we achieve four commissioners, then we have a quorum and we're in violation of the
Texas Open Meetings Act.
So we would ask for you to talk amongst yourselves as to who's going to leave.
If staff happens to be there and we happen to catch somebody coming in the door, we'll
try and do our best from that standpoint, but just wanted you to be cognizant of that.
We've gone, our team went back and reviewed the statute from time to time just to make
sure we're operating in compliance, but that is one of the things that we did notice is
neighborhood meetings does not fall into one of those four categories under that Notice
of Possible Quorum.
So just ask that you keep that in mind, please.
Awesome.
Okay.
Thank you.
Great.
I'll go ahead and adjourn our work session at 620, and we will reconvene at 630 in council
chambers.
Thank you.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, December 11th, 2024.
With the quorum present, I'll call us to order at 637 p.m., and please let the record show
that Commissioner Villarreal is absent.
First item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible.
Thank you.
Our first item of business is consider approval of our meeting minutes from November 13th.
Commissioner Perderon?
Move to approve.
Commissioner Thacker?
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to our consent agenda this evening.
Commissioner Perderon?
Move to approve.
Commissioner Perot?
Second.
We've got a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to our public hearings this evening.
Our first is 4A, AESA 240004.
Christy is here for presentation, and I will open the public hearing.
Hi, Christy.
Christy Upton, environmental compliance coordinator.
And tonight I will be presenting AESA 240004.
This is an alternative ESA plan for Harris Ranch, and it is in the...
Christy, can you bring your mic closer, just so you're a little bit louder?
Is that better?
Yeah.
Okay.
It is better.
Thank you.
Do you want me to start over?
No, that's okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
The request is to approve this alternative ESA plan.
The proposed plan is to remove 1.92 acres of water-related habitat and restore and expand
the functions of that ESA in a planned detention basis.
Harris Ranch is an 84-acre site.
It's located on I-35 North and South of Loop 288.
In 2021, there was an annexation and a zoning action taken on this property.
The planned development is industrial warehousing and it's supporting infrastructure.
In order to establish the president's location and extent of these environmentally sensitive
areas, ESA field assessment was performed by the applicant and identified 1.92 acres
of water-related habitat, specifically emergent wetlands.
The applicant is proposing to remove all of those emergent wetlands in order to construct
a detention basin.
This mitigation project to offset for the removal of those emergent wetlands is a five-acre
site of constructing a detention basin.
The detention basin is uniquely designed in order to add a variety of habitat depths and
add a wide variety of plants that can inhabit the variety of habitat depths.
With that, there will be pollution capturing structures and a perpetual maintenance plan
specifically to uplift and to maintain the ecological functionality of that detention
basin design.
Notifications were made by staff in accordance with the AESA procedure and we received three
responses in favor of the project.
The applicant did advertise a neighborhood meeting, however there were no RSVPs and so
the applicant canceled the meeting.
Staff is recommending approval of this project as it is a complete application.
We have added some conditions to the proposed ordinance for the adoption of this plan.
The highlights of being that the improvements be commenced prior to the issuance of the
first building permit, the vegetation be established and monitored until acceptance by environmental
services and that the perpetual maintenance plan be filed with the City of Ditton and
that the property owner retains all responsibilities.
And with that I will stand for questions.
Thank you Christy.
Any questions at this time for Christy?
Okay, just stand by because they may come up.
I do have one card in front of me to speak.
It is the applicant.
I'll call Amy Bissett.
Hi Amy.
Good evening Chair Ellis and Commissioners.
I'm going to take one second here to pull up my presentation.
Amy Bissett, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201 just for the record.
Thank you.
There we go.
Alright so before we get started I do want to, I watched the work session and I want
to open by addressing some of the questions that came up in work session specifically
and then I'll go through the handful of slides that I have.
Commissioner Thagard, I would like to start with your question related to the surrounding
property owners who've registered in support of the project and how they don't live onsite.
When public notifications go out they are mailed both to the property owner as well
as any utility addresses, so any tenants that may be on the sites as well.
If there are residences there then everybody's notified equally and has an opportunity to
register their opposition or support.
In this particular case the surrounding properties are largely undeveloped and unoccupied at
this point in time which is why you heard primarily from property owners that aren't
living onsite today.
I'll go into a little more detail on that a little bit when I talk about neighborhood
engagement.
Commissioner Pruitt you made a comment that this is kind of an atypical approach to an
alternative ESA plan and we approached the city from the very beginning and worked hand
in hand with Christy, we brought her out onsite and we really looked for an innovative solution
and she pointed us to the razor ranch detention pond that was designed in a similar fashion
and so we looked to that as a good example in order to try to put together a solid plan
for this particular mitigation.
Commissioner Padrone I'm going to walk you through the maintenance plan with a couple
of slides here in just a moment.
Just to start with these are the mapped environmentally sensitive areas that are on the site today.
This was done through a field assessment.
As Christy mentioned they're identified as emergent wetlands.
What you see here these two existing ponds were manmade.
They were actually fracking ponds when these gas wells went in and there was really no
intentionality behind that design.
What we're really proposing to do here is to remove the fracking ponds and put in a
well designed detention pond that has features that wouldn't otherwise be a component of
detention so it functions as a detention pond but around the edges has a variety of depths
and opportunities for more habitat than exists out there today.
Our proposed ESA plan does increase water related habitat from 1.92 acres to 5 acres
on the site so we're more than doubling the area.
We're also proposing a varied water depth which creates an environment to support and
attract more diverse habitat than is there today.
We're proposing some infrastructure that, as Christy mentioned, captures pollutants
and therefore increases the water quality as the water leaves the site.
It respects the existing topography and surrounding ESAs so that it provides continued connectivity
of the stream system that's there today and protects the overall waterway.
Christy did catch me right before this meeting and mentioned that there was some conversation
that took place about the wildlife corridor designation.
I looked that up briefly before coming up here and it's actually mapped under wildlife
corridors but it's mapped as a green space.
It's not designated as a wildlife corridor and when you look at the map for the green
space it's identical to the map of the environmentally sensitive areas so it's basically just another
map layer saying this is green space because it's an ESA so in effect we would be widening
that green space from 1.92 acres to five acres.
Commissioner Pedrone this is the table that's in the AESA plan regarding perpetual maintenance
activity.
I've got two slides here that outlines them.
I'm not going to read this in detail but I did want to show you the level of detail
that has gone into the perpetual maintenance plan.
What's unique about this particular alternative ESA plan is because it also functioned as
a detention pond the city requires operations and maintenance manuals be reviewed and approved
by the city for detention and drainage facilities and so this will be memorialized within that
maintenance agreement in addition to the normal reporting requirements for an alternative
ESA plan which requires annual reporting of the progress and whether or not the actual
plantings are thriving or taking establishment and at the end of that three-year term there
is a city inspection that is determined whether or not there's been an 85 percent success
rate of a minimum of establishing the plants at that point in time and if it has not been
reached then a mitigation plan has to be created in collaboration with the city to remedy that
problem and as Christy mentioned we did try to have a neighborhood meeting but received
no RSVPs however I do want to point out that we've had meetings with the Harris family
to the north of us we've had meetings with Billingsley who owns the property to the south
of us we've had meetings with Orson Holdings who owns the Baker track to the west of us
and we've had meetings with Williams communication who has a small lease on the south side of
our site as well so we have had engagement with our neighbors it just wasn't in a in
a neighborhood typical neighborhood meeting we just went face to face and sat down with
each of them and that is all I have but I do want to introduce Drew Fagan with Urban
Logistics Realty he is the developer on the site and let him say a few words thank you.
Good evening Drew Fagan to Harpers Ferry Richardson Texas seven five zero eight zero as Amy said
I'm the developer for Urban Logistics Realty we are a small six person local DFW development
shop we are hopeful to call Harris Ranch our second project in Denton our first project
was the four building project on the south side of town on the old Acme brick plant it
sits on thirty five yeah and so one just wanted to say thank you all tonight for your consideration
it's been a pleasure working with Christy hand-in-hand to figure out a plan that would
work for this property I'm here tonight for any questions you may have as well as Kimley
horn the engineer of record if there's anything you need answered we are happy to help thank
you thank you Mr. Fagan any questions Commissioner Perot thank you chair yeah I'm not sure who
can best speak to it but there was talk I think in the work session about some sort
of dredging plan for continual maintenance or am I correct or am I misremembering which
item that was on we have a couple of years tonight sorry it was brought up a dredging
plan was brought up and Drew and I went through the maintenance plan and didn't identify dredging
as one of the solutions however if it's something that is required of us we would certainly
do that so and what was established as a part of maintenance was mowing edging leaf removal
fertilizer tree removal trash removal invasive species management and ground disturbing activity
where the maintenance activities know that that sounds great I think the lighter touch
we can take here while still meeting flood mitigation and and the ESA restoration the
better just because there may be environments there that you don't want to disturb so much
right because there are various levels of depth in their dredging it would could potentially
disturb some of that you're correct thank you thank you thank you Amy while you're up
there you said you had an engagement with your neighbors what was the what was the exchange
do they understand what's happening they do understand what's happening there they we
talked about the alternative ESA plan but we also talked about the development as a
whole and coordinating infrastructure between the various owners because on all sides of
us it's developers who are in the process of working through approval processes like
we are and we're remaining in contact with all of them and continue to coordinate such
items as alignment of collector roads off-site sewer infrastructure trading easements that
sort of thing but they didn't have any issues with it thank you thank you anything else
pressure Thacker I mean just as a matter of discussion I'm going to bring back up what
we discussed in workshop which is the again I think you've said it was a very creative
way of looking at how we can mitigate anything in this particular project and it looks like
a lot of what could I guess be considered really complicated math and one of the things
that we brought up was the fact that do we as a city have enough staff to be able to
maintain you know these sums of columns acreage you know making sure that the Commissioner
Thacker and I think you're talking about the other AESA this one figure seven we're doing
I pulled it I pulled it from Harris ranch oh are you on the are you on 4b I think so
okay 0003b exhibit to stuff analysis no we're on four oh my bad save that for later when
you mentioned numbers it's like I think you're looking at a different one okay anything else
for Amy at this time commissioner for John Amy I just want to thank you for your presentation
I think specifically addressing our questions and I do feel like there's intentionality
with this plan as well with being cognizant of the area and respectful of what exists
in ways that we can make it even better moving forward so I just want to thank you for that
thank you I don't have any other cards in front of me on this item but this is a public
hearing is there anyone wishing to speak on this item okay seeing none I'll go ahead and
close the public hearing and I will open the floor for discussion or motion Commissioner
Pruitt I'll move approval Commissioner Perdomo I'll second okay we've got a first and a second
for approval any discussion okay let's vote on the board please that motion carries five
is zero that will move us to 4b a ESA 240003 that public hearing was open at our November
13th meeting and has been left open and Christy is here for presentation of this item thank
you Christy Upton and tonight I'll be presenting a ESA 24 3b an ecological mitigation plan
at Landmark which was formerly known as Hunter Ranch this alternative ESA plan is intended
to address all future environmentally sensitive area impacts across the remainder of the over
3,000 acres of Landmark development this plan is unique to Denton and the ESA protection
program as the plan is to address all 78 impacts across the property instead of addressing
each impact individually at each phase of development the purpose of this plan is to
create a standard first for the rest for restoring sorry the temporary disturbed ESAs then to
define how to address permanent removals by creating a dedicated mitigation area and the
work within that area at a rate of one to one by ESA type we'll get into more details
on that in the presentation first a little bit more about Landmark development it is
a master plan development the ordinance created the ordinance creating this development standards
for this property were adopted in 2020 this plan does not propose any changes to the MPC
including no changes to zoning or other land development design standards this is strictly
to address the environmentally sensitive areas which was a project type listed in the MPC
the MPC is similar to the Denton development code with some with standards to protect and
preserve environmentally sensitive areas with some minor modifications that were made in
the MPC this plan is also going to address the this plan is to just address the environmentally
sensitive areas where there is deviations in those requirements to protect and preserve
the environmentally sensitive areas I do want to mention before I go on that there is a
fourth type of environmentally sensitive area with protection requirements as described
in the MPC and this is the cross timbers upland habitat this habitat type will preserve will
be preserved at the rate negotiated and provided in the MPC and is not part of the presentation
tonight to set the stage for this project the applicant
went through a series of environmentally sensitive area field assessments to establish the presence
location and extent of each type of ESA this type of project is where the applicant collects
field information then provides that information to staff and staff reviews the information
and upon concurrent updates the environmentally sensitive areas map to demonstrate where those
environmentally sensitive areas actually are on the property you can see a summary of the
ESA types that were found on the property in the table listed here and then I want to
point your attention to the map and I want to point out how the environmentally sensitive
areas overlap these are environmentally sensitive areas that are part of this presentation are
the type of areas that protect and preserve the waterway itself that is the focus of and
their the reason for these environmentally sensitive areas and the reason why the city
of Denton protects them for example by nature of the and I want to point out the way that
these overlap by the nature of the definition of the environmentally sensitive areas a waterway
can be protected both by the wider floodplain and the riparian buffers that are immediate
to the waterway and then within those floodplains there are water related habitats nested within
it similarly to Harris Ranch many of these water related habitats are emergent wetlands
they're also the applicant found some deep water habitats within on the property I also
want to point something else out to you when we look at these environmentally sensitive
areas by ESA type there's a and you add up the acres here on this table we come up to
580 ESA's are acres of ESA but when you over look at the overlay of those ESA's there's
399 acres of land that's overlaid with ESA's this is going to come up again in the presentation
further into the presentation the applicant consider the ESA types in developing a land
plan so the applicant took what was confirmed as environmental sensitive areas and overlaid
their land plan on that and then per the applicant most of the environmentally sensitive areas
were identified to remain in its current state in other words up to nine percent of each
ESA type will be removed for construction activities the other remaining environmentally
sensitive areas will remain in their current state for example to create connections on
the property as highlighted here let's see I'll try to pull the laser pointer out highlighted
here and this blow up of the map or highlight of the map there's a necessity to construct
roadway crossings and install all the supporting structures around bridges and roadways with
grading and necessary construction traffic so some of these areas will have to be impacted
in order to make those connections from one side of the stream to the other the applicant
then accounted for those impacts to the ESA's that are not permitted by the MPC the applicant
estimates that there will be 40 acres of permanently removed ESA by type the other impacts are
temporary impacts as in grading and other activities that will go on around the bridge
in order to construct a bridge so that's a temporary impact and then there are 40 acres
of permanently removed ESA's the bridge itself culverts and other structures in order to
support those roadways and other infrastructure to support the development.
This is a 3000 acre development and what is proposed tonight is only an estimate all the
actual impacts the final number of permanent impacts will be measured at the civil plans
or other permissions for land development.
Those temporary construction activities are those areas where the again where those ESA's
will be temporarily disturbed.
The intent is to restore those temporary impacts with a list the list of grasses and flowering
plants that are this is an example of some of those and other plant material is in your
backup material.
Now the permanent removals those roads and bridges and culverts riprap other other structures
that the applicant is proposing to build will be mitigated for through a mitigation area
and plan.
Before I go any further I want to point out this I wanted to intentionally point out this
map so this right here this small inset map is showing you the outline of the landmark
development as a whole the 3000 acres within that 3000 acre area there is this corner of
the property it is about 1.6 miles north of Robson Ranch Road and just east of Robson
Ranch development.
This right here is a blow up or expansion of that mitigation area to help visualize
it.
Now within that existing each one of these colors here is an existing ESA so in green
we have the existing undeveloped foot plane and blue we have existing riparian buffers
and here we have existing water related habitats in this teal color.
The applicant's intent is to restore or not to restore to mitigate for the areas that
are permanently impacted by making improvements to these existing ESA's at a mitigation rate
of one ESA removed one acre of ESA removed to one acre of ESA mitigated.
Notice that these ESA's again can overlap so that if you broke it out there is going
to be one acre of ESA type that will then be mitigated at one ESA type overlaid on top
of each other.
This will be done in tiered development phases so there will be sections of mitigation that
will be performed at a time.
The in kind mitigation projects will include grading to improve stream banks, create pocket
wetlands and then to plant shrubs, grasses, flowering plants and create other opportunities
for habitat within the area.
Due to the complexity, scope and flexibility of this plan each one of these approvals for
each phase of the project that is built into this plan staff is proposing a procedure to
identify the ESA impacts to the approval of the mitigation.
This procedure will help us create from the approval staff's approval of the mitigation
of the impacts to staff's approval of the mitigation that was offset the impact.
To quickly summarize the first step is to delineate the development impact area or the
limits of all the land disturbances necessary to construct the development phase and that
will define the permitted and non-permitted ESA impacts then in turn that will inform
the necessary restoration and mitigation activities.
Once all of this has been identified the new in kind mitigation area will be recorded on
a plat that's corresponding to the plat for the phase of the development where the ESA
encroachment occurs.
It's a lot to unpack there but what we're trying to say is that there will be a plat
for the phase of that development and there will be a corresponding plat for the mitigation
area and there will be notes on each one of those plat to tie the two together permanently
so that in the future that land that was offered up as mitigation will permanently be recorded
and ensures future enforceability of that mitigation land.
The applicant is also proposing to track all of this work through a spreadsheet.
Staff is proposing to adopt the spreadsheet seen here in order to keep track of all the
information.
Notifications were made in accordance with the alternative ESA plan procedure and we
have as of this evening received 15 responses in opposition and one in favor of the project.
The applicant did not hold any neighborhood meetings however then the applicant did catch
me in the hallway prior to this public hearing and informed me that there was a meeting that
was held.
It was at the request of Robeson Ranch and the applicant did present information about
the Hunter Ranch development.
I did watch that presentation and I did not see any information about environmentally
sensitive areas specifically speaking to this plan and thus it was not included in the backup
materials.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed plan as it is a complete application and staff
has confirmed that the information is accurate.
Staff is proposing a number of conditions to be included in that ordinance and I'm going
to hit some of the highlights in those conditions.
The first is that these temporary land disturbances and permanent removals are to be identified
and addressed according to this plan.
The plantings for this plan will commence while construction of the corresponding phase
of the development.
That the final ratio of the mitigation will be a one to one by ESA type of what was removed.
The mitigation area and ESA impacts be noted on all the related plots and that the property
owner retain responsibility of the mitigation area.
There's a number of other smaller details that staff has requested to be included in
the ordinance.
With that I will stand for any questions.
Questions for Commissioner Pruitt.
Just one thing if you could explain to us, frequently we have mitigation areas and we
compare land areas.
Is there also some intrinsic value to riparian and water-based habitat ESAs based on the
amount of water flow that's expected through that region?
Staff environmental services staff does not address water quantity.
The value of the environmentally sensitive areas is and the value is placed upon the
functionality of those environmentally sensitive areas mainly to address water quality and
to provide habitat and to uplift generally the waterway itself as it flows downstream
towards Lake Louisville, which is our drinking water supply.
Yeah, so I understand that, I understand how that's evaluated.
I'm not a hydrology water quality expert, so I'm just looking to understand if I have
two identical ESAs on two tributaries and one carries a volume of 1x of water and one
carries a volume of 3x of water, would we expect the one in the 3x area to have more
of an impact on water quality?
Yes, because the higher volume of water typically, I would say yes and no.
It really kind of depends on the velocity of the water, and with a higher volume you're
going to also have a higher velocity, which can impact the stream banks, cause it to carry
more sediment downstream, which again it leads to impacts to the lake.
So more opportunity for improving water, but also more careful design needed to make sure
that it provides those benefits.
Can you rephrase that?
Sorry, it sounds like we're saying that an ESA in an area of larger water flow, if it's
properly designed so that it manages water speed, etc., has the possibility of providing
a greater benefit toward water quality than one in a low flow area, just because more
water is flowing through it, however, there's some caveats in saying that while that's possible,
you have to make sure you're designing it and maintaining it such that it actually provides
those benefits.
Am I hearing that correctly?
I would generally concur.
Okay, thank you.
Anything else for Christy at this time?
Commissioner Thacker?
Thank you, Chair.
I checked my item number twice.
I wanted to ask about the tracking spreadsheet that was in Figure 7.
Would you say that this is unique to a project, that you normally don't come up with a formulaic
system like this?
Is this something you did unique to this project?
This was a new concept that we created out of the need for it.
Right.
And this is about 3,000 acres, you said?
The development is, yes.
Are we setting a precedence for the type of or the amount of staff that's going to be
required and the type of record keeping and documentation that's going to be required
for a project like this?
Right now, it seems like a singular project, but what happens if we're trying to operate
three of these at a time?
I was just wondering, what are your thoughts on setting a precedence like this, and do
you think it's something that's sustainable?
It is sustainable.
Staff is prepared to evaluate our staff time as we progress through these projects.
It's impossible right now to project what kind of staff time this would demand.
Most of these projects are kind of a slow fire, if you will, is it slowly builds towards
something, so there's really not a lot of our time after the approval until acceptance.
A little bit of managing, you know, we go out there, we take a look, but it's not onerous
on staff after the approval.
Just for clarification, so you mentioned that they're going to be in charge of keeping up
to date, keeping that spreadsheet up to date, right?
Yes.
So staff is just going to like spot check, audit occasionally, do lock-throughs?
Exactly.
Okay.
And then just for clarification, because I'm trying to understand, so you mentioned the
difference between like the actual land area and then the protected ESA, so 580 to 399.
So when they're doing the one-to-one, are they doing it based on ESA or on the land
area, on the acre?
By ESA type.
Okay.
So it would be, so if they're doing one-to-one, so if one acre is impacted with more than
one ESA, it's going to be mitigated multiple times on that same acre, is that right?
And so if you kind of imagine there's different layers here, and if my hand was one acre each,
right?
So there would be two acres of ESA type that would be impacted.
Then the applicant is committed to going over here, and these two acres in the mitigation
area would be restored.
There's complications with, you could be overlapped and like a staggered or converse that they
could be staggered over here.
And so that's why we, as staff, have strictly stuck to this is a one-to-one by ESA type.
Okay.
And then they will also repair everything that's disturbed, just on that last slide
that you put.
Anything of the, it was only, I think we only said one-to-one, but it didn't say anything
about the spots that were disturbed.
Those are all going to be put back.
You're talking about the temporary?
Uh-huh.
Yes, the temporary disturbance.
Yes.
Temporary disturbance is the plan is to restore those areas at one-to-one.
Okay.
The same.
Okay.
Thank you.
Anything else for Christy at this time?
Okay.
Thank you.
I do have a couple of cards in front of me.
The first one is Katrina Thomas.
That was the last one, actually.
Oh.
It's on top of the thing.
If you'll give us your name, your time will be in.
My name's Katrina Thomas.
I live at 6408 Roaring Creek in the Carnegie Ridge Subdivision.
We are at the extreme south of this on the east side of I-35W.
I'm mainly here.
I don't know how many of my neighbors are here as well, but I'm mainly here because
when we purchased the property, we knew there was going to be land development behind us
to the north.
We were told that the green belt would stay, so we do have a green belt.
Up until last year, we had an alligator in it, but she decided she wanted to brave 35
and got creamed by a semi, so we don't have our gator anymore, unfortunately.
For many years, we had a gator.
She actually made the news.
We want to make sure that the land's not completely torn up back there.
It sounds like, if I saw everything correctly on the slides, our little strip isn't going
to be impacted.
It looks like it's only further north or over behind ropes and ranch, which is awesome
for us, but I'm still here to speak on it.
I appreciate that, and I'll bring Christy back up, and she can speak a little bit to
that specifically.
Christy, can you go back to the maps and stuff really quick?
I just want to make sure I didn't miss something.
So you had that one.
We live ...
Is this one out?
We live right here.
Okay.
So is it still on?
It's not still on.
How do you put it on a pointer?
Oh, sorry.
All right, so Carnegie Ridge is this subdivision right here, basically, if you guys can see
that.
The wet area I'm concerned with is right here, all of this and down here.
Like I said, I don't know how many of our other homeowners are here, but I'm the big
mouth, so I'm the one that's here.
Do we know, is that section going to be immediately impacted, or do you know?
Yep.
Go ahead, Christy.
Staff does not have any information on timing of any of these projects.
I do believe that the impacts to this waterway is a construction of a berm, which will result
in an on-channel detention basin.
So that's the extent of what the applicant has provided to us.
The applicant is here tonight if this body would like to ask more questions about that
particular part of the property.
Okay.
Appreciate that.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I don't have a card from the applicant, but do you want to come up and address that at
all?
We'll come up to you.
Hi.
Thank you.
I don't have a card.
Thank you.
Good evening, Kimberly Cole, Hillwood Properties, Vice President of Development.
I am the commercial project manager lead for Landmark and our development.
To answer the lady's question related to development and development timeline, at this time, we
do not have any immediate plans to do any development on the east side today.
Our first phases of construction that are being completed by our Hillwood Communities
Division is, if you show me how to point, is there a way to point?
Can we go back to the computer?
No, that's perfect.
Okay.
How do we show that?
Thanks.
Technical genius.
I love it.
Our first phase of single family that's being conducted by our Hillwood Communities Team
is occurring right here on the west side of 35, approximately in this location.
There'll be about 700 home sites that they will develop in their first phase, give or
take.
And the rest of the development is still to be determined.
Thank you very much for addressing that.
Appreciate it.
While you had your card, is there any, you don't have a presentation, correct?
You're just here for questions.
Excellent.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Okay.
The next card I have is Richard Emery.
Richard Emery, Argyle, Texas, 76226, zip code, which is actually in Denton.
But I don't know if I'm at the right place to get an answer to my question.
I've been in Argyle for 41 years, basically except for Ropes and Ranch Road, which is
now four lanes instead of two.
All the roads in Argyle are exactly as they were 41 years ago.
The difference is now we have thousands of more cars here than we used to, and many of
the intersections are woefully inadequate even now in the morning and evening, with
long lines trying to get through 407 and under 35 West at Ropes and Ranch Road.
I'd like to know what kind of plans they have to handle the traffic, and if there's any
connection between planning zoning and those that plan on the roads.
That's my question.
Thank you.
Can you answer that question, or are you the wrong people?
I'm going to let Tina take a stab at it, but probably not.
So if I understood your question is, you're interested in what improvements will be made
to roads just because given the existing challenges you have with your current roadway systems?
That is correct.
And the growth it has.
And the growth in the area.
So as the landmark development occurs, and as Christy pointed out, it's over 3,000 acres
in area, there will be various new roadways that are constructed as well as existing roadways
that will probably have improvements that are done to them.
Those roadway improvements will be done over time as the various phases of development
occur.
So we're going to build 700 homes, but 1,400 cars on Robeson Ranch Road going under 35,
all before any improvements are made.
So with their various phases of development, we evaluate roadway improvements that have
to be done, and also the proportionality of roadways that have to be done associated with
their development.
We also have a master operating agreement with Hillwood that also lays out all of their
infrastructure responsibilities that they will be constructing over time with their
development.
So over time as phases development happening, there will be roadway improvements that will
occur as to the exact timing of that.
I don't have that answer because it will be as they bring in each phase of development,
we evaluate it at each time and also in accordance with that operating agreement.
Is there anywhere where the public can see what these roadways are going to be?
We could probably get with someone in transportation, right?
Right.
Or if you want to get with us after the meeting, or I've got various staff here that can connect
with you before you leave because I know we've got a couple other items on the agenda.
If you want to give us your contact information or anybody else who might be interested, share
your contact information with my team members.
I've got several sprinkled in the back there, but they can connect with you and then get
your contact information.
We'll be happy to share with you what we have on those approved plans.
I don't have any other cards in front of me on this item, but this is a public hearing.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
Yeah.
Come on down.
Sure.
You can fill out a card later.
Okay.
If you'll just give us your name, your time will begin.
Okay.
Bill Cook, 4205 Inverness Way, 76210.
The mitigation plan on this is really complex, hard to understand.
Reading it initially, you'd think a one-to-one improvement ratio, they're going to change
40 acres of ESA land and improve 40 acres of non-ESA land, but from what it sounds like
in the language, they're going to improve 40 acres of already established ESA land.
Is that right?
Does anyone know?
Yeah.
That is right, and Christine knows.
That is correct.
The establishment of the mitigation area, if I may pull that up again.
The area that is colored, all the greens and blues here in the teal, those are existing
ESAs.
That is correct.
They would be set aside and protected under typical conditions, and the plan is to uplift
the conditions within that existing ESA area.
That improving ESA land, that doesn't make any sense to me.
Is there a specific question we can have Christine address?
How is ESA land improved from where it currently is?
Because generally, when I hear land being improved, it gets paved over.
I think it's a little bit out of their expertise.
That's what we're here for, so we can help educate.
Tina?
Yeah, go ahead.
You're right.
Normally, in construction and development, when we talk about improvements, it's typically
probably a roadway infrastructure, utilities, land development.
In this case, the term improvement is typically what you would think of if we are making something
better.
Christy, correct me if I'm wrong, but what their plan is doing is taking existing ESA
area up in that northwest portion of their development, and they're going to make that
existing ESA even better because of the various additional items that they are trying to avoid
using the word improvements, but additional activities that they would be taking in terms
of environmental enhancements that they're making to that area.
Christy, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm going to let the applicant continue on with this conversation.
The consultant put together this plan, and I think he could best speak to what his intentions
are.
Great.
Thank you.
Good evening, Chair and commissioners.
My name is Chris Hamilton.
I'm with Westwood Professional Services, 9800 Tillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas, 76177.
The term improvement on the mitigation area is part of the ESA process, is we evaluate
those based on a functional assessment.
As Christy noted in her report, those were low-quality ESAs.
They'd been impacted by cattle grazing and past improvements from agriculture, and the
intent is to come in and plant high-quality trees and native grasses.
An area that's a monoculture that has invasive plants, invasive trees, we remove those and
come back in with high-quality trees and shrubs and new grasses.
The improvement is that on a functional level, if this thing's a 10, we're going to take
it to a 20, because of the improvements on the natural level.
There's no improvements from a concrete or drainage thing, but improvements from an ecological
standpoint of implementing restoration mitigation activities in these areas, if that makes sense.
Did that address your question?
We can't have the back and forth going on.
You can have a few more seconds at the microphone if you would like, and then we're going to
open it up for someone else.
Yeah, my thoughts are an ESA will naturally improve itself if left alone, as nature does.
Trees grow naturally, grasses grow naturally.
I think a true mitigation plan would be to take 40 acres of currently non-ESA land and
improve those 40 acres, so it is an actual one-to-one replacement, not this other type
of improvement to already nice ESA land.
Yep.
Thank you.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
You're Mr. Cook, right?
Yeah.
You know what?
You did fill a card out.
The secretary had it, so I do have it in front now, so you're good.
Yeah.
Because I don't think you filled it out for another room.
Yeah.
No, it was correct.
I do have a card from Logan Mayfield, not wishing to speak, but is in opposition.
But did Logan want to speak now?
No?
Okay.
Hi.
Logan Mayfield, 5900 Harvey Gapolin.
I don't know if anybody else from my neighborhood is here.
Generally, as long as the ESA development isn't gonna be impacted, I don't have a problem.
I think my primary concern is the sheer degree that this plan is, and then just ensuring
that we're holding the developers accountable to everything that they promised.
But that's all I have.
Okay.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and coming here.
It is a large project.
That is absolutely true, and it is detailed very explicitly what the developer is responsible
for, and that's at various levels in the project and various level of departments and staff
that are responsible for it, this just being a very small piece of the large project.
The large project we're not discussing, that's been done.
This is now a little piece of that already approved project that is being addressed here
tonight.
And I thought there was gonna be one more question I was gonna ask you, Christy, with
what somebody said.
It may come to me.
I might bring you back up here.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this?
I don't have any more cards, but you're welcome to come up and speak while the public hearing
is open if you would like.
Sure, sure.
My name is Herschel Phillips, I live at Robson Ranch, 76207.
My area of concern is selfish.
It's right next to my house.
So Christy, thank you for sending the document to me.
Up there on the left-hand side, the farthest left about midway is what I think is called
Graveyard Branch.
Is that correct?
No?
Correct.
There's a...
This right here?
We can get you this mouse right here, and you can move the mouse to help point.
It's really right there, because there is a detention pond right there on Robson Ranch,
and I live right next to that.
So Mr. Pruitt, your comment about how much water comes from Robson Ranch, that's probably
the lowest spot at Robson Ranch.
All those streets, all those concretes, all those storm sewers, all...
Many of them flow right there.
I have videos of water not very far from my house.
I moved there on purpose because of all those woods behind it.
Agreed, they're not pretty trees.
They're not nice trees.
They're mosquitos and boat arcs and whatever, but the deer that live back there don't care.
We're not going to stop this building because I've got deer back there, but every day I
get the opportunity to see all of that beauty, but I am concerned about the water and what's
going to happen in this area where you're going to put a road, because that's designated
as a four, I believe, and there's supposedly, I assume, residential homes going to be built
there.
There's a Robson Ranch fence, and then there's the Hunter Ranch barbwire fence.
I don't know what's going to happen there.
You're going to have to build houses on fill.
That's going to create another big waterway coming off of Robson and coming off of Hunter
to feed into this same area that doesn't exist today.
It's all natural.
That's kind of my concern.
I know that I'm not going to win a fight here, but I am concerned about how much water is
coming out of that area, which is a natural flow for Robson, and it comes right down the
street.
If you like the videos, I'll be happy to give them to you and send them to you.
If you give me your card, I can send them out.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
Appreciate that.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
Okay, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing.
I'm going to open the floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Pruitt.
You know, if it's ... Sorry, I collect myself.
My apologies.
It's okay.
It's very hard to evaluate a huge area like this, because this is atypical from a typical
alt ESA that we get.
If there's more color that the applicant can provide, then I'm happy to listen.
What it looks to me like is that 10% of the existing ESAs on this large tract of land,
mostly in areas of high land value because of transportation corridors and the zoning,
are being removed as ESAs so that they're buildable, and then improvements are being
made on a minor tributary compared to those others that is conveying water from residential
developments of streets and that sort of thing.
I understand that that needs to be filtered.
It's important, but it seems like it's moving filtering capacity from areas that are coming
from industrial sites to areas that are intended as residential.
Help me understand how putting these improvements in this area on the southern portion of the
property is better than having them distributed through the major tributaries.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, if you can and have a response to that, that would be fantastic.
Thank you.
Just a couple of clarifications.
The proposed mitigation is actually on the northwest corner of the property.
All the drainage ...
Yeah, my apologies.
Just for background, we're used to thinking of hunter and coal as one large thing.
I think we're on the same page of where it is, but yeah, thank you.
The reason we picked this location within Hunter Ranch, excuse me, landmark, was that
the majority of the property drains through this area.
We could focus our mitigation efforts in the area where majority of the drainage is going
to this area.
We're also picking up the drainage from Robeson Ranch so we can mitigate for some of that
drainage also.
A lot of the other things too, like ESAs that are throughout the ranch are going to stay
in place.
Because ESAs, although they're not getting improved, will still provide benefits as far
as water quality improvements.
There's a lot of benefits to this area when you look at it holistically.
Hay Creek Creeks are going to remain in place, Graveyard Branch relatively remain in place
also.
Work Branch, where we're focused on mitigation, the improvements will be there in an area
where it prevents habitat fragmentation.
I think one of your questions were, "Why don't we take these and spread them out through
the Hunter Ranch development?"
You have more of a synergistic effect to having this in a concentrated area.
You have 50 plus acres of mitigation versus 51 acre mitigation areas where you can really
concentrate that effort and try to create a real mitigation area that has a real effect
on the watershed.
I understand conglomeration benefits.
From my understanding, hydrology, the water is moving eastward in this corridor, is that
correct?
Absolutely.
It looks like the ESA improvements are moving up toward the headwaters that are receiving
water from Robson Ranch as well as other properties to the west of here, whereas all of the improvements
upon the Hunter Ranch area are not going to go through those improved areas.
Correct.
There's going to be some areas on the Hunter Ranch that are not going to flow through the
mitigation area.
We looked at areas like along Hickory Creek, I assume you can see that pointer.
Those areas were really good quality ESAs, and we felt like we would almost impact them
more by going there and trying to do mitigation in those areas.
Well, this area in the northwest where the mitigation was selected, it's already low
quality.
We feel like we get the biggest improvement for restoration and mitigation in that area.
It does get a lot of drainage from Robson Ranch, but it also takes a lot of development
from Hunter Ranch and focuses that area that we can almost scrub that water before it leaves
that property, flows through Coal, which they're going to have preservation there, and then
it goes back through Hickory Creek, which is already a highly functioning mitigation
area before it goes on to Lake Louisville.
Okay.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Appreciate that.
Any other questions?
We're here for discussion or motion.
I know this is a complex issue.
This is a major development, alternative ESAs being one of them.
As I said in work session, I think it's a very creative way to handle this.
I don't know that we could take it a little bit at a time as each phase of development
happened.
I think that would be an impossible task to do.
I think having a master plan of an alt ESA in a master plan community such as this is
the right way to go.
Me not being an environmental expert, I certainly have to look to staff and the engineers on
the project who have presented this in such a way that they see it as a good thing for
the land that will be disturbed with this project.
I'll go ahead and move approval as it has been presented tonight with all the conditions
that certainly have been placed on this.
Commissioner Thaggard.
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Commissioner Perrett.
Thank you, Chair.
I really appreciate that because I agree.
It's different.
We don't have any other 3,300 acre parcels in the city, right?
With all the other alt ESA plans, it's easy for me to see how the end result after the
mitigation is better than before.
With this one, I see it and it's different, but maybe I'm just a slow learner.
I'm not convinced that it's better yet.
I'm not going to be supporting this, but I completely understand.
I think council will have some more expertise to dig into this as we go forward.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
There's a first and a second for approval on table.
Is there any other discussion?
Commissioner Perderm.
I just want to thank all the comments that were made today, especially by you, Charles,
and then Commissioner Perd as well.
Just to give my reflections, I agree with Commissioner Perd on this one.
Just because it is unknown and it is newer to propose a plan like this, I fall in the
same mindset that being convinced that it's still a better plan moving forward, so that's
where my thoughts are with that and not supporting moving forward.
Do we have any idea of what would be better than what was presented here?
This is an approved council plan, ESA disturbance being something that they knew was going to
be part of it.
This as an option being something that also was approved as part of the master plan.
If not this, that has been reviewed by our environmental services staff, and obviously
in depth by the engineers on the project with regard to environmental impact.
What else can they offer?
If I could ask a question, I think there's a comment made by a member of the public as
far as accountability.
I think Commissioner Prado-Carrillo also mentioned something about spot checking the tracking
sheet.
The instances that the tracking sheet is spot checked and the improvements haven't been
made or there is not an alignment with the plans moving forward, what is the plan for
accountability if some of these improvements aren't being made or the plan that's being
proposed isn't exactly followed.
For me, just a little bit more clarity with that, I think.
It's possible that Christine has some clarity on that because there has to be accountability
in this.
In everything we do as a city, that's why we put things in ordinance.
How is accountability being undertaken if they are not doing what they're supposed to
be doing, what happens?
I only gave the highlights of the conditions of the ordinance, but staff has thought about
this.
We also share in the desire to have an end result that is what was put in this plan.
A couple of things that I have added to the conditions, I as in staff as a whole, apologize
for that, staff is recommending that the final ratio be one-to-one by ESA type that was removed.
What is the expansion of that condition in the ordinance is that staff would not approve
the final civil plan or land development applications until we have insured that we are securing
that one-to-one by ESA type mitigation.
There would be a give and take over time, might be a little bit more in one area or
one part of the project, and a little bit more in another part of the project.
That final, put a bow on it, there will be a one-to-one mitigation.
Otherwise staff would not approve of the plan or that the ordinance would be enforced in
other manners.
We would have to look to legal for some creative ways to enforce that.
Other areas in which staff carefully crafted the ordinance conditions is the inclusion
of this platting requirement.
There will be a requirement to plat that land and file that with the county.
In that platting there will be a record of the reason that that mitigation land exists.
If I could just add to Christy's comments, I thought she did a nice job explaining that.
This is really no different than all of the other development plans that we review for
compliance with our city's ordinances and requirements.
We have the responsibility of ensuring the enforcement.
We have many projects that have follow-up enforcement that we are involved in.
This is no different from that.
I recognize this plan concept is a little different.
This is the first time we've had anything proposed of this nature, but our environmental
services team has worked really hard and has the education and qualifications also to be
able to understand what's being put forth before us this evening.
Just like we have civil engineers who review civil engineer plans to ensure compliance,
here we have a team who are experts in this field and have put forth conditions and a
process to ensure that that compliance is maintained over time.
Thanks for adding that, Tina.
Appreciate it.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Yeah.
Just for benefit of staff, I want to clarify, I don't have any concerns with enforcement
or tracking.
I fully expect that depending on the speed of this development, that will be a challenge,
but I also have full confidence in our city manager's organization to go resource the
teams effectively if that needs to be done.
My concern really is just that I'm not convinced that this is better than the existing situation,
if that makes sense.
I could be convinced of that, right?
Perhaps the filtering on the western side of this property provides a very vital mitigation
service to slow the effluent going into the southern part of Coal Ranch and with the combination
of the development there, that's really the most important thing in this whole area.
But that's not the message I heard.
The message I heard was there's some ESAs here which happen to be in high land value
areas with high value zoning, and some of those because of the development concerns
are going to be removed and then we'll improve some areas over here.
To me, that just doesn't convince me that it's better.
Thank you.
Commissioner Prado, could I go?
I was the gentleman that spoke that said we're taking ESAs and then we're just going to make
them better.
I completely understand what you all are saying, so planting new species or protecting all
of that sounds really good.
Is there, would there be an opportunity, because is it 40 acres that are permanently going
to be, I think it was 40 acres, right, out of 3,000 or so?
Is there an opportunity to convert other acres, other land, to ESAs by planting different
species?
Could you offset some of that to not completely lose those 40 acres?
To answer your question, I think I heard it as why not do it everywhere else, and I think
that's kind of your question as well.
Am I understanding your question correctly?
Not everywhere.
I'm thinking if we're losing 40 acres, is there a way to at least gain half of that
elsewhere other than already bringing this other, the plan that you guys already have?
Got you.
If we have 3,000, almost 300, 200 acres of that, a third will remain an open space.
This section of the ESA doesn't count the other upland ESAs that we've talked about
in the MPC that's upward of, I don't have the exact stat on me, but I know pilot knob
for sure is over 50 acres of preservation.
I think Chris tried to handle it and explain it a little bit, but he's way smarter than
Mace.
I'll put simple terms.
The way I interpret it is that we're getting more benefit.
We're not taking away these other ESAs where we're draining into.
We're not going to not put drainage and other code pieces in place.
We're going to follow the code.
Where the benefit comes from is when you conglomerate these things, they actually perform better.
That's the bottom line, and so we would prefer that we would have a high functioning, better
ESA than several different disparate ESAs.
Does that make sense?
Does that answer your question?
Yes, I just don't understand why you couldn't designate other acres in other places and
also grow those into ESAs so that you're not completely losing just 40 acres.
That was my question, but I understand what you're saying.
I do know that y'all are in different phases.
Absolutely.
It's over time, and it's going to happen over the course of 20 years and all of those things.
Hopefully I answered your question.
Yes.
At least I tried to.
Chris is way smarter than me.
I already said it, so maybe you should come back up here.
No, you're good.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Commissioner Pratt.
Just a procedural question for legal, probably.
I understand that when we have a zoning request, if this commission votes it down, or sorry,
recommends denial, then council requires a super majority to approve.
Is that also true for alt ESAs or is our function as a body with alt ESAs purely recommendation
body?
Does that make sense?
I don't know.
The code has an answer.
I'm so excited.
And therefore you're doing it.
Indeed.
So if this body does not recommend approval, ends up recommending denial, then our DDC
establishes that the alternative plan only becomes effective by a three quarters vote
of all members of council.
Thank you.
Any other discussion?
We've got a first and a second for approval.
I think what we have to understand here is again, this is a massive project.
We don't have anything else like it, as Commissioner Pratt said.
There is zero infrastructure here.
Everything has to be done here for this to get developed.
And it's also approved as an MPC by council.
So this is a step in their project for putting their infrastructure in and for getting this
project to completion.
That's what this is.
We're not here to talk about should the project be there or not.
We're not here to talk about really other green space.
There's plenty of green space, honestly, within the project.
That's what's already done by council.
So again, this is a step to them getting their project completed.
And if there was a better way to do it, it would be my thinking that our environmental
staff and the engineers on their staff would have put forward a better project or a better
request before us.
So my reason for voting approval.
And with that, we can go ahead and vote on the board.
Let's see.
That motion will pass for one.
Our next public hearing is 4CZ240010.
Bryce is here for presentation and I will open the public hearing.
Good evening, commission.
Bryce Vanderstel.
Hang on just one second, Bryce, I'm sorry.
Oh, I apologize.
Yes.
We'll go ahead.
What is it?
Michael or Christy.
I don't know if Christy's still here.
This is scheduled for December 17th consideration by council, correct?
Okay.
So if there's anybody that's interested in the council discussion related to this item,
that meeting is on again, December 17th.
The public hearings typically start at 630.
Thank you, Tina.
Sorry, Bryce.
No worries.
The floor is yours.
Thank you.
Bryce Vanderstel, assistant planner.
Good evening, commission.
This is Z2410.
Good evening, commission.
This is a request to rezone approximately 16 acres from a rural residential zoning district
to a light industrial zoning district.
The subject property is located east of Mosh Branch Road on the south side of Farm to Market
1173.
Currently, the site is an undeveloped pasture land.
It was assigned a rural residential zoning upon annexation in 2010, and the intent is
to rezone this to a light industrial zoning district in order to develop the property
with both commercial and industrial uses.
Looking at the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan as well as the future land use map, the surrounding
area is light industrial, and the light industrial zoning district, according to the Denton 2040
comprehensive plan, seeks the primary uses such as a light manufacturing, some assembly,
as well as supporting uses such as offices, retail.
This proposal does meet the criteria for approval such as the goals and policies set out in
the future land use map as well as the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, and it's not expected
to generate any adverse fiscal, environmental, or infrastructural impacts.
We did notice this project in accordance with the state rule as our 500 foot courtesy notices
that are standard with the city of Denton, and we did not receive any in favor or in
opposition.
The applicant did not conduct a neighborhood meeting, however, he did reach out to each
individual property owner, and there was largely positive feedback.
Staff does recommend approval of this request as it meets the criteria for approval set
out in the Denton development code and the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan.
I'll stand for any questions.
Thank you, Bryce.
Any questions at this moment for Bryce?
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any cards in front of me on this item.
Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item?
Okay.
With that, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion
or a motion.
Commissioner Perdera.
I move to approve.
Commissioner Fager.
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval discussion.
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to 4-D, Z240012.
I will open the public hearing, and Mia is here for presentation.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, Senior Planner.
This item, Z240012, is a rezoning request for 5702 Teasley Lane.
The request is to rezone property from Rural Residential and Residential 2 to the Suburban
Corridor Zoning District.
The property is approximately .684 acres located west of Teasley Lane, approximately 170 feet
north of Leatherwood Lane.
The property is currently developed with a house and accessory structures, and the purpose
for this request stated by the applicant was to allow for more commercial uses, a bit consistent
with the surrounding context.
As I stated in the work session, a little bit of background on the application and how
we sort of got to the recommendation that we have today.
We did have a pre-application conference with this applicant in 2022, initial discussions
about sort of an indoor-outdoor recreation center, and at that time, we stated that commercial
zoning district would not be consistent with the moderate residential future land use map
designation, and so between that time and the time that they submitted for an annexation
for the back piece earlier this year, we were having sort of regular conversations about
the potential for commercial uses on that subject property.
Additionally, in that time, Teasley Lane, which this property fronts onto, was widened
from a two-lane corridor to a two-lane thoroughfare to a six-lane divided thoroughfare with designated
left-turn lanes in some areas.
Once they submitted the annexation, we started talking a little bit more seriously about
the zoning application and that process and what we would have to go forward for an SC
zoning district to be aligned with the comprehensive land use map in this area, and ultimately,
at that time, staff recommended a more comprehensive request, recommended they talk to their neighbors,
the property owners talk to their neighbors, try to bring them into this request, so that
we weren't asking a .684-acre property to do a whole study of the Teasley Lane corridor.
At that time, the neighbors weren't interested in joining that application, and so the property
owners were ready to move forward with their zoning change request, and so they submitted
that in June of 2024.
We talked to them a little bit more about potentially a zoning district that might seem
less spot-zoning, like we said in work session, that R7 zoning district, and ultimately, that
did not meet the applicant's goals and what they were trying to accomplish as a commercial
district for this property.
Staff is recommending ... I'll get to the recommendation here in a second, but we ultimately
landed on SC, and staff is recommending approval of that.
A little bit more about that comprehensive plan alignment and the moderate residential
future land use designation.
That designation is typically primarily focused towards allowing for a variety of residential
land uses at higher densities.
It does allow for ... Or it is applied at certain corridors and recognize that neighborhood
scale commercial uses at arterials and collector street corners could be appropriate.
Really what we have here is this property fronting on an arterial, not necessarily an
arterial and collector street corner, so again, that SC district, as defined or as described
as a moderate to high-intensity commercial district along high-traffic corridors, fits
in sort of with Teasley Lane, but not necessarily with the moderate residential future land
use designation that's here.
But the DDC does provide for the approval criteria with the comprehensive plan alignment
to state that basically the comprehensive plan future land use map is not the only criteria
to judge it by.
There are other goals in the comprehensive plan that the zoning request should be measured
up against.
One of the ones we wanted to mention is that grow with balance goal, the goal to establish
land uses and designations that respond to the growing needs and character specifications
of a community.
We sort of already talked about Teasley Lane as a corridor and as a sort of main entrance
points into and out of the city from 35 for the southern portion of the city.
Additionally, Teasley Lane is a text-dot facility and it was widened by text-dot, although
we don't like to plan retroactively necessarily and respond to text-dot.
Sometimes we end up in those situations.
So here we have a property that because of those changes makes sense for suburban corridor
and we want to take advantage of the fact that Teasley has already been widened, that
infrastructure has already been improved.
One of the other things that we considered or looked at, jumping back to the reason that
we were sort of recommended R7 at one point, is the spot zoning issue and having SC sort
of adjacent to R2 on both the north and south side of the property.
But even with spot zoning, there are other considerations.
So like I said, with the SC zoning district still meeting those other goals of the comprehensive
plan, that's not too much of a concern here.
Again, those other considerations, the Teasley Lane expansion, the subject properties and
surrounding properties are unlikely to develop or redevelop with residential uses.
There's properties in the ETJ that are also under the moderate residential future land
use designation that are large lot single-family homes that we don't see necessarily going
anywhere between now and 2040.
So again, that moderate residential land use designation is a bit questionable in this
area.
Is that truly how this area is going to develop or is that truly how we want this area to
develop with this corridor?
Additionally, we do have the community mixed use land use designation on the east side
of Teasley Lane in this area.
So again, some community mixed use, that commercial corridor sort of makes sense here, but that
property is currently developed with Geier High School.
So like Tina sort of mentioned in the work session, if these were flipped, we wouldn't
even be having this sort of discussion.
And then again, we are questioning whether or not the, or we are wanting to reevaluate
the moderate residential future land use on the west side.
Here's just some pictures to sort of explain what I discussed throughout this whole presentation.
Teasley Lane as of 2022 was a two-lane with a center left lane that you could turn either
way.
Currently, in 2024, it's a six-lane with that median in the middle and then those designated
sort of diesel left turn lanes at certain specific locations.
A little bit more about the existing infrastructure or development that we see in this area.
Within that corridor along Teasley, like I said, we have Geier High School on the east
side of Teasley and then there are some commercial uses along the south side of Teasley.
There's some industrial uses there also.
There's a park or an open space lot there.
There's a substation, some religious facility.
So again, given those uses that exist today, is that area or is this area on the west side
really a, is it going to develop according with the moderate residential future land
use designation?
The size of the current property, the size of those parcels that front along the ETJ
corridor, the large single-family lots in the ETJ are all planning to that question.
And is this moderate residential future land use designation appropriate?
So we did review this request up against the criteria for approval.
We do concur or find that it is consistent with other goals of the comprehensive plan.
We find that the proposal is consistent with the zoning district purpose statement and
response to changes in the area, specifically we mentioned Teasley and some of those existing
land uses that are around there.
Given the size of the subject property, the zoning and potential scale of development
is not expected to generate significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties.
Again, being less than an acre, I believe was a question in the work session.
We don't anticipate large, intense developments on this particular lot.
And so really what we would be getting with the SC district are some of those neighborhood
services uses that this corridor could use.
And then finally, zoning is not expected to have adverse, this zoning is not expected
to have adverse impacts on surrounding properties.
We still have the landscape buffers and the other things that are built into the DDC that
they would have to adhere by should this property redevelop.
And the existing structure being a single family residence, it's very small, you might
get an office space or a small retail space or something like that in that existing structure.
So we did send out notifications, public notifications per the DDC and state law.
As of the, since the publication of this backup, we did receive one response in opposition
and it was the property owner for this church down here to the south of Leatherwood who
stated just some general concerns about the expanse of commercial uses that are allowed
in SC and they're maybe not being complimentary to the student population of Geyer High School
or the fact that there is a church there.
I will say some of the uses that were mentioned of concern kind of take care of themselves
because that school is there and because that church is there.
So the state does require 300 or 500, I believe, spacing distance from some of the uses that
were mentioned in that area.
So by default, they're kind of already not going to be permitted even though they are
allowed in SC.
But that applicant or that respondent also stated that in general, they aren't opposed
to commercial uses on this plot.
I believe they also, they mentioned a drive-through might be nice there.
So ultimately, staff does recommend approval of the zoning change request to the suburban
corridor zoning district.
And that concludes my presentation.
I will gladly answer any questions you have this time.
Thank you very much, Mia.
Any questions for staff at this moment?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
This is a public hearing.
I do have a card in front of me.
It is from Raymond Castro who is speaking on behalf of a group I believe.
Come on down.
If you'll state your name.
Your time will begin.
Hi.
Yes.
Okay.
My name is Raymond Castro.
I'm the pastor of the Hickory Creek Baptist Church, 5724 Teasley Lane.
I have two of our members with me.
We have over 500 members.
What my concern is, I attended an informal hearing several months ago, and my question
was to the owners of the property, what their intentions were, and they couldn't give me
an answer.
I don't have a problem with progress being made.
We weren't in objection to apartments that were built next to our church.
I just would like to know what the property is going to be used for.
Maybe you could help me with that.
I've asked several people.
No one's given me an adequate answer.
Another thing, with our church and the cemetery next to our church, we have landmark status.
Our property, our church was established in 1855.
We're a landmark here in the city of Denton.
The Historical Society has entrusted us to preserve and to protect our rich heritage
that we have.
And so I'm just very concerned about anything that would come around us.
Also I'm concerned about Geyer High School being directly across the property.
We've had a number of incidents with the students where they've come over to our property and
they've did some damage to our property and also the cemetery.
And I know students are easily influenced, and that's why I'd like to know what would
potentially be built on this property and if it was just zoned commercially.
I think my biggest problem is I just don't give people blank checks with my signature
on there without knowing what it was going to be spent for.
And that's my question.
Thank you.
And I can answer that question.
This is just a straight zoning case.
That's what we term it.
It's just a request to rezone the property to suburban corridor.
There is no project attached to it.
That is something that can be done.
It's called a straight zoning request.
That is what is before us.
So no, unfortunately, there is no definite use proposed.
Okay.
And I would like to mention this is a very serious problem that I see whatever it's used
for.
There's hardly any parking there, whatever they open it up for.
It's a very limited space.
And so I don't know what they're going to use it for.
So anyway, that's it.
I thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
Thank you very much.
Tina you can have the floor.
Yes.
Go ahead.
So it's staff's understanding that in communications with the applicant that they were interested
in possibly some sort of administrative office within that existing residential structure,
but also some sort of maybe outdoor recreational use.
That's what was communicated to us initially.
I do believe the applicant is in the audience if the chair would like to receive any confirmation
or questions of that.
So with that, I mean, I just I have caution with that because with the straight zoning
case, it's not like we can tie any kind of projects that we can hear about a project,
but there's nothing about this that we're hearing today that is, you know, that can,
you know, that can't be, you know, a definite, you know, determined thing.
So I'm completely understand.
We have no development plans also that have been submitted to us to indicate otherwise.
So but I just I noticed the applicant was in the audience, so when to be able to recognize
him, Commissioner Thacker, do you have a question for staff or no, or because it's still a
public hearing.
I'm going to continue to just to subside some of the fears.
Can I ask what are some of the things that are non-negotiables that cannot be built there?
Maybe just to subside some of his hesitation.
I do have the the land use table in my back up here.
So again, we can't because this is a straight zoning case, we can't tack on any conditions
or any extra prohibitions or anything like that.
But I don't know if it's going to show and I'm just speaking in reference to its vicinity
to the school.
Oh, OK.
So I could speak to a little, which is one example, specifically the the T.A.B.C.
I believe requirement and don't quote me on this because I did not pull it up exactly,
but I believe it's 300 feet from property line to property line of a of the property
trying to sell alcoholic sales in a school district.
So I think with Teasley, Teasley Lane may be 150 feet wide.
So that's they're pretty they're within 300 feet there.
And I did want to speak to one of the other concerns that the pastor stated there about
the parking.
Once we if we were to get a certificate of occupancy application of some sort for a change
of use that was commercial, we would ensure that they were meeting our parking or could
meet our minimum parking standards also.
So even though the existing structure, I believe they have some covered parking and maybe two
or three spaces for it's a personal residence.
So it's a driveway.
If they needed to expand that or stripe that for the purposes of using this facility, this
this building, that current building as a commercial property, they would have to meet
those minimum parking requirements.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any other cards in front of me.
But is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
Okay, with that, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Perot.
Thank you, Chair.
I try to keep this simple because I've gone off the rails before with this.
Would the GO zoning designation be considered equal or lesser intensive than the SC?
And would that be supported and amicable for the applicant and staff?
I'm just trying to read between the lines here.
So no, GO would not be less intensive.
We consider that a more intensive zoning district because of the various uses allowed in that
district.
And industrial uses that are allowed in GO.
Okay.
Thank you.
The floor is open for a motion or discussion.
Yeah, I'll just, oh, all kinds of things happening.
Commissioner Perot.
Sorry.
That's okay.
Happy to have as much discussion as we want.
I don't want to shut anything down, but I'll go ahead and move approval.
I think, you know, yeah, it's a little odd, but there are a lot of times when we let the
specifics of the future land use map wag the dog a little bit and those borders are fuzzy
for a reason, right?
We let tech stock come in here or they came in.
We didn't really have much say because we had approved a lot of suburban development
in this area.
They came in and built a highway, right?
So automatically the types of uses that make sense along that highway are much more restricted,
right?
And in my view, you know, it seems like it's fine.
You know, there's community mixed use across the street.
There's community mixed use about 800 or 1,000 feet south of here.
To me, anyway, the fact that it borders houses to the north and south that are also adjacent
to the highway doesn't provide a concern wherein if it were not adjacent to a highway,
that would concern me.
Does that make sense?
So thank you.
Of course.
Commissioner Fagard.
I second approval.
Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval.
Commissioner Prado, you are up to speak next.
I was just going to say it just makes me nervous because it's right in front of the high school
and Teasley is really hard to cross.
I know there's apartments.
I drop my kid off every day in the morning and students don't know how to use the light,
you know, or when to cross.
And so I know that it's not it shouldn't be tied to what kind of development is going
to happen there.
But I would just say to the applicant, to me, it makes me nervous.
If it's like an office building, that's great because you're not going to have kids going
over there, right?
But if it's a Starbucks and you have kids trying to skip class and go get something,
that would make me nervous just because Teasley has a history of us losing kids, trying to
cross that road.
So I'm not in opposition to it.
I just want to say that because it's a concern, right?
Just to keep in mind.
Yeah.
Thank you.
And I'll just say my things.
I mean, I've struggled this one from the beginning.
I've been trying to talk with staff and here's why.
Number one, absolute spot zoning, 100%.
That is exactly what we're doing if we do this.
That is what it like.
Look at the proposed zoning map.
That is like the definition of spot zoning.
Secondly, I just feel like we're doing this out of order.
You said in your presentation that you recommended R7 because at least it kind of sort of fit
with the comprehensive plan and what's already in the area.
And then a few months later, you're on board with SC.
To me, that feels wrong because we didn't do a deep dive study here.
We talk all the time about engagement.
We like preach engagement all the time up here about getting the neighborhood involved
and speaking to what's happening around there.
And it just feels wrong to go in and spot zone this piece of property when we haven't
done true engagement with neighbors who are already there in a residential neighborhood,
with a landmark established church, with even people in our ETJ, which we said is important
to engage with them who are living there, even with the multi-family people behind,
which is also in the county.
But also, it just feels wrong to me now.
Should the comprehensive plan be changed?
To me, and I know this area well because I travel it often, it doesn't feel like Suburban
Corridor.
It's on a turn of teesley that it certainly doesn't warrant certain businesses that are
allowed in SC.
Number one, this particular lot wouldn't warrant that at all because it's too small, but just
because of the traffic of the high school, because of the curvature of the road, it's
not the same thing that is further down as you're heading out of Denton and into Corinth,
where there's those other industrial things, and I think a sports court and whatnot.
It doesn't have that feel at all.
That little curve on Teesley absolutely feels industrial to me.
This part feels absolutely residential.
We've got the front part of Geyer across the street.
We've got next to them on that same side is that beautiful acreage property.
We talk about if this was on the other side of the road, it's not.
We could say, "Oh, well, if it was, it would be this."
Well, it's not.
We got to deal with the reality that's in place already, and just for me, this is just
feeling out of order.
How I understand where staff's mind eventually got to this, and I understand you wanted to
support this.
For me, this is like doing all of the steps that we're not supposed to be doing.
I guess for me, I can't do that, so that's my piece.
Is there any other discussion?
Okay, we can go ahead and vote then.
That motion will carry for one.
All right, that takes us to items for individual consideration, which feels a little bit weird
for me.
I guess I'll just turn that over to someone else.
Well, thank you.
I'll take lead on this for you.
I'm actually going to join Haley down here in a moment, but we do have a short presentation,
and we would like to recognize our chair, who has provided wonderful leadership as chair,
at least during these past three years that I've been here, but actually has served on
the commission for eight years.
All of those years have been in holdover status.
I think when I joined the city, I was told we're going to be losing our chair soon, and
you didn't go anywhere.
We appreciate you sticking around, but I'm going to turn it over to Haley.
She's put some fun facts together, but do want to say thank you for all your years of
service, your leadership to the commission.
I think some of the data that Haley is going to present, you'll find very interesting,
and some of it's fun.
I'm scared.
I know how you can pull data together, Haley.
Oh, my gosh.
But then, I know, given that multifamily presentation, which, by the way, that was all hers.
She did a fabulous job with that this evening in work session.
Yeah, I completely agree.
It was fantastic.
But once she finishes, I will ask that you also join me along with Haley in front of
the podium this evening, and then I think also there may be some other commissioners
and guests in the audience who may also want to address you as well.
Thank you.
Yes.
In keeping with the theme of data this evening, I thought we'd take a look back through the
years first.
Also pulled some of our fun memories to look back on the various hairstyles and things
that we have seen from you.
Mercy.
There's a lot of hairstyles.
But no, we truly wanted to recognize your guidance on some of these really huge accomplishments
that we've had in your time on the commission.
Citywide rezoning and DDC update was a huge undertaking that you were invaluable to on
PNZ and DCRC.
We've had the square district, multiple area plans, significant updates to the comprehensive
plan and the mobility plans, all of those things.
You've left your mark on them.
We greatly appreciate those.
So we just wanted to take a moment and recognize that while we laugh at the history of eight
years worth of planning in Denton.
And then, as I said, couldn't get by with a little bit of data, so we went back and
did some counting.
So you have joined us at 183 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings in your time here,
73 Development Code Review Committee meetings.
We counted 996 projects prior to this evening that you had voted on, 6,904 lots that have
been platted.
Many of those flats signed by you and now in county records forever.
And total impact on 1,400, 546 acres of land across the city, which our GIS team graciously
mapped for me here.
And then we had a little fun, so some of the things that you've survived.
We've had some significant meetings with this commission and the longest I could find
on record in your tenure was nine hours long back in 2019.
And for whatever reason, we put eight zoning cases and the tree code update on the same
agenda and you sat through it with us from 2 p.m. until almost midnight.
I remember that.
We'd be remiss not to note the year of virtual meetings that we all suffered through and
eventually got to come back together in person.
And then just for fun, counted the faces that have sat at the dais with you.
So you've had three administrative staff representatives in your time, five people, including myself
and Tina, sitting in the planning director spot, six city attorney liaisons, including
Hillary.
Eighteen fellow commissioners, some of whom decided to rejoin us this evening.
So with that, if you'd like to come down, we do have a couple of small tokens of appreciation
for you.
OK, in true technical format, since we are streaming our broadcasting, I do need for
us to speak into the mic.
So, of course, yes, so for your your office or your home or wherever your heart desires,
we have a copy of your area of influence map signed by the planning team.
And then you also get your certificate of appreciation denoting your time with us.
So thank you very much.
I didn't know if there were any other people in the audience who were wanting to address
Commissioner Ellis by any chance.
Remember, you have to state your name and address for the record.
We're taking a picture here, which I prefer to go back up there so I can like tower over
you.
So about eight and a half years ago, none of us in our household was that tuned in to
city happenings.
And I won't go into details, but a big one happened near our where we live and we all
felt similarly about it, but we figured it's just how it goes.
Margie Ellis, Margie Ellis started watching city politics, started watching P&Z, started
watching city council, and next thing I know, she wasn't just going to sit around and deal
with things.
She was going to go and make a difference, and that is exactly what you have done.
I couldn't be prouder of you.
I know your daughters are that way.
We've missed you a bit, but you know, if you have to sacrifice a little bit of something
in your life and your love, and if it gives back to the community, which you have done,
so sacrifice, we are all very proud and happy that we made for you, and we look forward
to the future.
But well done.
Thank you.
Love you.
Andrew.
Hi.
Good evening.
My name is Andrew Rozell, 3600 Falcon Court, Denton, Texas.
This is my first time standing here, which feels awkward.
I just want to say thank you, Margie, thank you for serving as my vice chair for the time
you did.
I had the privilege of that 2019 meeting with you.
I was chairing that, and it was late night, but on behalf of the 18 other commissioners
you served with, eight years is a long ride.
So like your husband said, thank you for the sacrifice.
It's meaningful to Denton.
We appreciate it as citizens.
It's not always the funnest job, and sometimes it might be thankless.
So thank you for all your service.
I really appreciate it.
It's good to see you.
Thank you so much.
Jason Cole, 4726 West University Drive, and this is the first time I have been up here
on this.
Wow.
This is amazing.
But Margie, thank you so much for your eight years.
And personally, I came here with zero knowledge, and I mean, I've done a lot of things, but
I didn't know about planning and development.
And I had you sitting right next to me, and you were just such an amazing resource.
You took me under your wing, and I couldn't have had a better mentor.
I've learned so much from you and look forward to the future.
And thank you so much for just giving your all for the city of Denton, and that's the
main thing.
But, secondary, thank you for being such an amazing friend.
I love you.
Thank you for serving Denton.
Thank you.
Oh my God.
It looks more fun down here.
Eric Pruitt, 921 Oakland.
Yeah, Margie.
It's been a blast, so I can't thank you enough.
I've learned a ton from you, sorry it has to come to an end, but we will see what happens
in the future.
I'll say that I take heart in the fact that even when you and I do differ in position,
we both, I think, I'll look to staff here, try our best to explain why.
And it's that getting those ideas out into the open that I think is an invaluable resource
of this body, so that whatever council decides to do from year to year, they understand what
their body that they appointed is telling them.
So thank you.
I do have a card and a couple of little things in here from the commission and others, so
thank you.
Thank you.
Kimberly Thacker, 3311 Montecito.
I know it's only been a year, but I just want to tell you from the bottom of my heart how
much I appreciate just what an incredible mentor you have been taking every single inane text
that I have at the weirdest hour, asking if we're allowed to do something or not, because
I got the Catholic guilt about everything, and you telling me whether or not it's permitted.
I also just want to speak to what a model you are to how city commissions can work when
we listen to one another, and when we consider everyone's opinions, and when we put ego aside
for what's best for this city.
And I think that you could be an example, not just to the people on this panel, but
to everyone that serves this city, and I'm incredibly appreciative of you.
Thanks.
Oh my gosh.
Are you saying something?
This is my first meeting, so I'm staying up here.
Your time starts now.
Yes.
Lillian, Prado Carrillo.
I just want to say thank you.
I mean, I echo everything that Kim just said, just the way you carry yourself, your professionalism,
and the first time that we talked on the phone, and just the few times that we've talked.
I mean, I know that I'm going to keep calling you, so I hope you don't mind that.
Please do.
Yeah.
And I'm so bummed that we only got to share one meeting, but I'm really happy that I got
to sit here for your last one.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for being here.
That's awesome.
There you go.
Desiree Padram.
I just want to say thank you as well for welcoming me to Planning and Zoning.
I was really, really nervous my first day, and I wasn't really sure what I was looking
into.
And sometimes you enter spaces, and you're not received very well, or you're not welcomed,
or you're not explained, or acclimated to the setting, especially with the roles and
the responsibilities that we have with this particular commission.
And you were so welcoming, and you were so guiding, and you were so understanding throughout
this whole process, and it's sad to lose you in this position, and I'll echo the comments
that were made about that mentorship.
And for me, it was silent mentorship, just watching and listening and learning.
And so for it, selfishly, I'm sad to see that go, but I want to thank you from the sincerest
point of my heart for welcoming me, as you did to PNC.
Thank you.
Thank you for being here.
Oh, my gosh, so much emotion, y'all.
So I'll say a few things.
I wrote some things down, because I don't want to forget to say things that I want to
say.
You know, when I first, when I knew this was happening, it was like, it's such a struggle
to try to put into words all these years of service and what to say, but gosh, I couldn't
fathom in 2016 that in 2024 I would still be sitting up here.
That was not even a thing then.
It's like, oh, two-year term, yeah.
But I would certainly like to thank the several city councils that have entrusted me in this
position for as long as I have been here, and to thank the fellow commissioners over
the years who've entrusted me first as their vice chair with Chair Rozelle, and then as
their chair for several years.
I've had great support from friends and family.
You know, my husband, my daughter who's at home, I believe watching on TV, you know,
they have watched countless PNZ meetings over the years and have been just, you know, beyond
loving and supportive of me giving time and being able to be here so many years.
I have no idea what Wednesdays are going to be now, but you know, I've learned so much,
and I've served just alongside just remarkable people over the years.
City staff has been beyond amazing, you know, with knowledge and patience as we discuss,
you know, the many different items that come before us.
You know, I'm proud of so many of the accomplishments, Haley, you know, you put them on record there,
and I had very similar things to what you did, you know, I'm super proud of the adoption
of the new development code and the establishment of DCRC and the approval of several small
area plans and the updates to the mobility plan and the tree code even if they kept us
here until 1 o'clock in the morning.
You know, we've had more efficient process flow, enhanced notification system that has
just improved engagement and communication with our citizens, you know, it takes such
hard work and focus and expertise and collaboration to run our city.
Serving in this role is just one way that we citizens can have an impact and, you know,
and improve in the city we live in and that we love.
So I want to thank past commissioners, my fellow commissioners who are sitting with
me on the dais right now, and the future commissioners that one day will serve their time sitting
up here.
It truly has been an honor to serve and lead this group for so long, it really has, so
thank you very much.
I think we still have more things on the agenda, so gone.
It is our planning and zoning matrix, so Tina, you have the floor.
Thank you.
So just a couple of items, I believe we did make one change to your matrix report, I believe
it's at the very end or on the back page about the request related to the smaller drainage
studies being completed in relation to that stormwater master plan, so Commissioner Pruitt,
we received that request from you, so if we did not summarize that correctly, please let
us know.
But I think we got that one correct.
There's actually been a couple of council meetings since the commission last met in
November, so just wanted to share with you action.
Let's see, we had a handful of public hearings on November 19th agenda.
So we had an amendment to the mobility plan related to, this one was Underwood Road and
then also AMEX Road if you recall, so we had a reclassification of Underwood and then removal
of a portion of AMEX, so that was approved.
We also had a mobility plan amendment regarding the classification associated with Hummingbird
Lane in a change in classification from second arterial to collector, so that was also approved.
And then let's see, those were not us.
Then we also had a change in zoning from a rural residential designation to public facilities.
This was approximately 40 acres of land south of Jim Crystal in approximately 850 feet west
of Tom Cole Road.
This was at the Denton Energy Center, Matt's zoning case, so that was also approved.
And then, oh, and then we had an annexation associated with the property that Mia presented
this evening on the zoning case with Teasley, so that property, if you recall, Mia's presentation
had a sliver on the back end that they annexed into the city.
So that was council's actions that affect our planning and zoning items.
And then last week on December 3rd, I think we had a handful of items as well.
We had a change in zoning classification from general office to highway corridor on approximately
three-tenths of an acre.
If you recall, this was on the west side of 35E, about 1,500 feet north of Schuyler Road
or Schuyler Street, and that was approved 6-1.
We also had another zoning change for roughly 10 and a half acres of land from R6 to public
facilities.
This was the DISD transportation facility project on Mills Road, so that was also approved
7-0.
The next one we had was a change in zoning, let's see, for 3.185 acres of land zone mixed
use neighborhood with the overlay conditions.
This was the Pickleball project that Angie had presented, so that was approved 7-0.
And then we also had a zoning change from rural residential one and rural residential
to a plan development with a base zoning of R4.
This was the reserves at Brush Creek project that Angie presented off of 377 north of Brush
Creek Road, and that was approved 5-2.
And I believe that took care of all of our zoning actions.
I do have one smiley face on my agenda as well.
So as you know, we worked really hard on the design downtown debt and plan, and one of
the recommendations associated with that has been expansion of the TURS district.
Our economic development team has been working through the various phases, and in each step
along the way, that has been approved, so we're getting closer to getting that completed.
I believe maybe there's one remaining step at council's meeting next week, but that was
one of the first recommended action items that we had out of the design downtown debt
and plan.
So Commissioner Perot, I don't know if you're counting our progress on our action items,
but we at least are hopefully almost accomplishing one.
So, and that concludes my report, so thank you.
Thank you, Tina.
Is there anything to add to the matrix?
Any concluding items?
All right.
I just want to thank you all again.
It truly has been a sincere honor, a pleasure.
Vice Chair, I leave it in your hands.
At 846, I will adjourn our meeting.
That is a wrap.