Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission's work
session at 5 p.m., or 5.01 p.m. I will call this meeting to order with the Quorum President.
I'll let the record show that Commissioner Padron is not yet here.
She is on her way.
We will start with any citizen comments on the consent agenda items.
I don't see any clarification for items on the agenda.
We do have a full work session scheduled this afternoon, so we're going to go briefly over
these until we get to the public hearings.
Anybody have any questions on the minutes or the consent agenda item?
And there's two minutes because of the revision.
Thank you, Commissioner McDuff, for catching that last time.
On the items for individual consideration, the first three, A, B, and C, are requested
for extension.
Is there any questions on those?
We'll see the presentation in the regular session.
Okay.
If no questions at this time, I do want to cover item 4D, FP250023, just because it's
a little bit different in that it's not a blanket approval or denial or extension.
Good evening, Commission.
Angie Manglars, Development Review Manager.
This is a final plot for Phase 1A of the Coal Ranch Master Plan Community.
This final plot is situated approximately 2,800 feet west of Underwood Road, just north
of FM2499.
It is 155 acres, and the purpose of the final plot is to establish approximately 417 single-family
lots along with common open-space lots and dedicate rights of way and easements necessary
to serve the development.
At this point in time, they're not quite at full approval.
Staff is recommending a conditional approval contingent upon compliance with the Denton
Development Code, Section 8.3.2.8, which requires that final approval of civil engineering plans
prior to the final plot being approved and being able to be filed.
They've satisfied all of the other final plot comments that staff has had.
The plot will come back before you all should it receive that conditional approval to remove
that condition, so that it could then be filed at the county.
So this doesn't allow them to file the plot.
It does allow them to continue to progress forward, but the plot will come back before
you all once those conditions have been satisfied for final approval and filing at the county.
Any questions on this item?
Seeing none, thank you.
Thank you.
It brings us to our public hearings, Commissioner McDade.
We're going to go to 5A, so if you'd like to recuse, you can step in the back room.
This is item 5A, PDA 250003A for the Gateway of Denton Signs.
You don't look quite like Mia.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.
Haley Zygurski, Assistant Planning Director, filling in for Mia Hines this evening.
So the request before you this evening is approval of a PD amendment to incorporate
special sign standards for the Vintage Travel Plaza, which is located at the southeast corner
of Vintage and I-35W.
The development came before you all a couple of years ago for site plan approval for a
travel center that includes a convenience store fueling station, car wash, and a couple
of restaurants within the development.
So they have now completed their civil engineering plans, their final plat, and realized that
they need to deviate from the city's sign code.
So the request before you is for establishing those sign standards to allow the pole sign
that you see here on the screen to be slightly larger and taller than what would be incorporated
or what would be allowed normally under the sign code.
In exchange, they are offering to impose limitations in terms of the number of signs that can be
on site overall.
So all of that detail we can get into in the regular meeting, but staff is recommending
approval of this as it complies with not only the criteria for a special sign district,
but also plan development amendments and all other applications under the DVC.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Any other questions, especially of facts that weren't included in the agenda sheet?
Commissioner Dyer, you look like you have something.
I do.
Okay.
So I'm just looking, you know, at where this travel station is going to be and the sign
and I get why they want to have it because this is set back off of Interstate 35W.
But I also know that Interstate 35W is about to, you know, at some point get frontage roads
and the 288 loop is going to come down to the west and go in 2449.
So I don't know if, you know, there's plans for 2449 to get because right now it's just
a two lane, if that's going to get increased to a four lane down the road, like the placement
of this sign, will this be impacted by all of that future road improvement?
Sure.
It's my understanding through the applicant working through the civil engineering plan
and plat review process that all of that right of way that's needed for those roads is accounted
for.
So this development should not be impacted by either the I-35 project or future loop
288.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Okay.
Thank you.
That brings us to item 5B, excuse me, S25-0002 for Palladium Denton West.
Hello, Sean.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
Let me go ahead and open up my item here, which I'm hoping is here.
Let's see.
Thank you.
I believe you.
See here?
Oh, there it is.
No?
There we are.
Thank you.
There we are.
All right.
So this item is S25-0002, the Palladium Denton West project.
This is a request for a specific use permit to allow for a multifamily use on approximately
4.1 acres of land on the east side of Fall Meadow Street, right near the intersection
of Garden View Circle and Fall Meadow Street.
We are recommending approval.
This does comply with our future land use map and meets the criteria for approval.
And we will, of course, get into that in more detail in our work session presentation.
And we'll remind you, your primary decision-making criteria will be those within the code for
SUPs.
However, I do want to take a minute because this is the first presentation, sorry, this
is the first project that's going to take advantage of our Chapter 212 Incentives for
Affordable Housing.
And so I want to briefly address what they're doing with that and how this meets those requirements,
just so you have that background and you have that understanding as we discuss their site
plan and their landscape plan later, because there will be some modifications to both of
those based on their taking advantage of these incentives.
So as some of you all may remember, back in 2024, this proposal came before you all and
then went to City Council and was approved to have a number of possible flexibility incentives
built into our development code in order to encourage affordable housing.
So essentially based on the amount of affordable housing and the amount of affordable housing
at certain levels, which you can see different levels there on the table, three to four to
five, six to seven, eight to nine, incentives, flexibility could be allowed for a project,
depending on how much they're providing.
So that would be areas in which they would not be required to meet the standard requirements
that any other development would, based on providing that additional affordable housing.
This project is proposing to provide affordable housing that would meet that first tier, three
or fewer.
And I have provided the percentages there in green that they are providing in terms
of housing at the extremely low, very low and low income moderate levels.
As you can see, they're exceeding the percentage for all of those.
Based on that, they will be taking advantage of three incentives, the parking reduction,
a landscape point reduction and a height increase.
And I will flag those as I'm going through my presentation later so that you can see
exactly how those worked out.
But all three of those are options they're able to take advantage of because they're
providing affordable housing.
Again, as I noted, housing affordability is not one of the criteria that we evaluate SUPs
on.
But just so you have that understanding when these come in, that's why they were granted
the ability to have some of that flexibility in their plans.
With that, that's my work session announcement.
Happy to answer any questions you all have.
Any questions?
I don't see any.
Thank you very much, Shawn.
Thank you.
It's exciting to see from planning to a project planned within less than a year, I think.
So, good job.
Hold on just a second, Julie.
Given the fact that Commissioner Padrone is not here yet, I'm going to motion that we
table item 3A and do 3B first, if that's okay, if there's no objection, and do the annexation
work session.
Would that be okay?
Yeah, that's fine.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think she'll be here soon; she's on her way, so.
Okay, good evening, everyone.
Angie Manglaris, Development Review Manager.
And today, in continuing with our boot camp series, we will be covering annexations and
what that process looks like.
So as part of our boot camp today, I'm going to go over a couple of key definitions, a
little bit about state law.
We'll talk about the City of Denton's annexation history, review annexation procedures and
non-annexation agreements, and then we'll kind of walk through an example for what it
looks like from going from a non-annexation agreement to inside the city limits.
So first, annexation is the means by which cities expand their boundaries.
We are allowed to annex from our extraterritorial jurisdiction.
I have a map that shows that on the next slide, but the ETJ is the unincorporated area contiguous
to municipal boundaries.
The area of the ETJ depends on the municipality's population.
So the City of Denton, we are over 100,000 in our population, and so our ETJ extends
out five miles from our city boundaries.
That ETJ doesn't get any bigger.
What we have is what we got, but that's kind of setting that stage.
So this map here shows the city limits in green, ETJ Division 1 in the mustardy yellow,
and ETJ Division 2 in the pinkish purple.
So the city maintains an ILA with Denton County that establishes ETJ Divisions 1 and 2 and
spells out those requirements.
So in ETJ Division 1, which is the area in yellow, we are able to apply the DDC subdivision
requirements as well as some of our civil engineering plan requirements when it comes
to reviewing infrastructure that may be tying into our water and wastewater.
In ETJ Division 2, really, development and subdivision of land are all subject to the
Denton County and state law requirements.
This chart kind of helps explain the differences in some of the key topics that you all see
on a daily basis and where it varies from city limits to ETJ Division 1 and ETJ Division
2.
So you'll see in city limits, we have zoning authority, we have subdivision regulations,
we have tree preservation requirements and gas well requirements.
When you go to ETJ Division 1, we're really just looking at those subdivision requirements
where we have authority and then in ETJ Division 2, we don't really review anything.
State annexation law has changed a lot over the years and it continues to change.
I'm not going to go through all of these in depth, but a couple of things I want to highlight.
So over the years, cities' abilities to annex, especially involuntarily, have gradually been
reduced.
And so in 2007, it was required that cities be able to offer development agreements in
lieu of annexing properties that they were wanting to acquire, and that's where our non-annexation
agreements really started to come from, and we'll talk more about those in a minute.
And as time has gone on, in 2019, cities' ability to involuntarily annex property was
really, really restricted.
So when we see most of our annexations today, they're coming from properties that may have
had a non-annexation agreement on them.
And then before we go any further, it's always kind of helpful to see a history of annexation
over time, so we're going to kind of walk through the city of Denton's annexation history
from 1945 to today, and so you'll see that the city limits is in gray, and then as we
expand area, you'll see it come online in a lighter green.
So you can see there's some growth in the '60s where we start to annex, but in the '70s
and the '80s, you'll see significant growth, as well as some strip annexations, starting
to add some property along the northern perimeters, and then areas like ropes and ranch come online,
along with some additional annexations where you have landmark today and further up to
the north, and then starting to fill in sort of what we call donut holes from then to now.
That's kind of a brief time lapse.
We can, if you want, later on go through those bit by bit if you want to see in more detail.
Or we could do it now.
So anyway, the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 43 does spell out procedures for municipal
annexation, including regulations.
You do have to provide for continuity of use for the use that is on that property at the
time.
You do have to outline when annexing a property annexation plan, including specific timeline
requirements.
Property that is annexed into the city does have to be a minimum 1,000 feet in width,
and the maximum amount that a city can annex each year is 10% of its total land area.
In addition, annexations do have to come with provision of service, and so we have what's
called a municipal service agreement that we enter into with the property owner when
annexing.
In addition to all of that, the City of Denton's city charter and the Denton Development Code
spell out steps in the annexation process, and that includes providing that municipal
services agreement, noticing of the annexation, conducting public hearings and ordinance readings,
and then providing for an effective date for that annexation.
And we're going to go through an example that will kind of explain how that all works.
So as I mentioned earlier, state law does require that the cities offer owners of property
that the city wants to annex a non-annexation agreement.
If the property meets any of these uses, so agricultural, wildlife management, timber
use, the city also offered non-annexation agreements to areas that were used for single-family
residential.
And so these were initially offered to landowners between 2010 and 2016.
Those initial non-annexation agreements were valid through August of 2020.
At that time, extensions were offered, and those are valid through August of 2040.
Non-annexation agreements require that the property be used for single-family residential
or agricultural, wildlife timber-related uses.
The City of Denton regulations do apply to proposed developments on non-annexation properties.
So development applications and building permits do need to be submitted through the City of
Denton for review.
So that is a little different than the other properties we talked about in our ETJ.
Land may be subdivided for non-annexation agreements, however, it needs to maintain
a minimum five acres in size.
So we talked a lot about kind of how those processes work.
It does help a little bit with the annexations, because there's a lot going on to kind of
see it in real time.
So we'll walk through an example.
So this right here is our little, we call them donut holes, right?
It's surrounded by city limits.
But this particular little piece has not yet been annexed.
It's still located in the city's ETJ.
This particular piece of property has been used for agricultural reasons for the last
30 years.
This landowner chose to enter into a non-annexation agreement with the city in 2010.
And since 2010, all of the areas around this non-annexation agreement property have been
developed with higher intensity residential and commercial uses.
So now it's time to retire, sell the property, interested in selling it for development,
and come to the city and want to talk about how can I do that.
So first thing we're going to do is say, what does the non-annexation agreement say?
In this case, it says that the non-annexation agreement is valid provided that this property
continues to be used for farm and ranch-related uses or single-family detached dwellings provided
those are five acres and greater.
So in this case, the non-annexation agreement's not going to allow for the development this
property owner wants.
They'd like a little bit higher residential density, so they're going to begin the process
of annexing into the city.
So here that really begins with the municipal services agreement.
This is the first step in the annexation process.
The Texas Local Government Code does state that if a municipality is to annex property,
it does first need to negotiate and enter into a written service agreement that provides
for services to the area to be annexed.
So the city of Denton has a standard municipal services agreement that does negotiate and
provide for the provision of streets, water, wastewater, police, fire, really any service
that any landowner inside the city of Denton receives, those annexing into the city must
also receive.
And then as part of that step, the MSA ordinance will adopt an annexation schedule that will
outline the process going forward from the adoption of the municipal services agreement
to being annexed into the city.
So once that municipal services agreement is adopted, city council will hold a public
hearing regarding the annexation, and then following that public hearing, the first reading
of the annexation ordinance is read into the record at city council.
Once that has occurred, the entire annexation ordinance is then published in the Denton
Record Chronicle.
And per the city charter, the annexation can't be acted on for 30 days following publication.
So roughly 30 days, but usually a little bit longer, the second reading of the annexation
ordinance occurs, and at that time, city council can take action and approve or deny that annexation
ordinance.
But all of those steps need to occur first, including that 30-day waiting period prior
to city council being able to act on the annexation ordinance.
So now you're in the city.
What now?
What happens next?
So annexation ordinances are typically effective immediately after adoption, and annexed properties
are automatically assigned a placeholder designation of rural residential.
So this is not necessarily their initial zoning, but we do have to provide a placeholder zoning
designation once a property comes into the city.
We use rural residential.
So after that has occurred, the properties in the city limits, it's at that time that
they can then pursue your typical rezoning and development procedures, which is typically
where you all will come in.
So they've been answered to the city, they have a placeholder designation, typically
if we were following this example, they'd be pursuing a zoning designation that would
allow them the type of development they're wanting to see, and would come before this
body to get that approval.
That's annexation.
Kind of in a nutshell, I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have.
Any questions?
Commissioner Riggs.
So in the annexation, is there a certain timeline which services have to be provided?
That's a great question.
Our municipal services agreements do not spell out a specific timeline in which they have
to be provided.
I got a couple questions.
One, it was new to me the word salad about our not being initial zoning per state law.
I've always heard that it's a placeholder.
Does that mean that while we show that on the map, they're not bound to the zoning limitations
in that zone?
Explain to me what that means.
Do you have a better way to explain initial versus placeholder?
It is a little word salady to your point, and it does follow state law language.
Right.
I mean, we would enforce the rural residential zoning that's on the property, so even though
it's viewed as a placeholder, those are the rules that one has to follow.
Okay.
Yeah.
Anything else to add, Haley?
Okay.
It's more of a definitional difference between initial and placeholder, but functionally
it's...
Functionally, if they didn't, for whatever reason, pursue rezoning, we would look at
what our R allows and enforce that, which isn't that much different than the NAA.
Okay.
In some communities, that initial placeholder zoning is actually referred to as agriculture.
Our zoning ordinance, I think, used to have the agricultural reference, but then we removed
it with the adoption of the 2019 code.
Am I correct?
I'm getting some affirmative head nods from the Peanut Gallery, so they predate me.
Okay.
Thank you.
And then secondly, I may be totally wrong on this.
Is there, in the non-annexation agreements, is there a date on termination at which annexation
happens regardless of whether the property has been developed?
How does that happen?
Because they go for a certain term, right?
It would be when those terms expire.
In the case of the 2020 annexation expirations, we allowed landowners to elect to continue
that agreement rather than being annexed into the city.
And some of it's still being worked out, but typically, yeah, we offer the extension or
we did in the past.
I don't know what we'll do in 2040, but...
But for the majority of those agreements at termination, it's the city's option whether
to offer another non-annexation agreement or whether to annex that property?
It would be discussed at that time.
That's what occurred in 2020, was council provided direction to allow those extensions.
So that's how we got there, yes.
And when we look at existing non-annexation agreements, is that primarily property that
the city was thinking about annexing in the past when annexation was a little bit more
easy from a state law perspective, and for various reasons, they elected to do a non-annexation
agreement instead?
To the best of my knowledge, that's accurate.
So we did have to offer those non-annexation agreements to properties we were interested
in annexing rather than just doing so.
And a lot of them, if I can get to our more current map, are kind of between 20...
Right around 2005 is a good example.
They fall in these kind of little donut holes, it's not terribly clear here, but some along
like Bonnie Bray or even further up north where you just have these pockets or areas
of the city where they're surrounded by city limits, but you still have ETJ in that area.
So that's where many of those fall.
Out west of 35, there's a handful as well.
Okay.
Any other questions?
Commissioner McDade, sorry.
I was wondering when you say the municipal service agreements that you have, do you automatically
start or at some date start bringing in city services such as water lines and wastewater
and things like that?
That's part of it?
Yeah.
So some are effective pretty quickly, things like being able to access a library as a resident.
Annexations are effective immediately.
The other ones that, no, there's not a built in timeline for when those services do need
to be extended.
In the cases of many of the non-annexation agreements that we do see choosing to come
into the city, it is for development purposes.
And so that does tend to move rather relatively quickly because they're interested in making
sure they have services for that development purpose.
But there's no set timeline of like now we bring in the water.
Thank you.
Anything else from the commission?
No?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
It's great to see one of these and learn a few new things.
Thank you.
And I have to apologize to Julie.
I apparently did not flip over to the last page and I skipped over our last public hearing,
which is very important as all of them are, item 5C, Z250007.
So let's go through that before we go to our other work session.
My apologies.
That is okay.
I'm Julie Wyatt and I'm presenting Z250007.
I have a full presentation for the regular meeting, but just as a summary, the request
is to rezone the property from R2 district to mixed use neighborhood district.
It's about 1.09 acres and the property is located on the north side of West University,
on the west side of town and you can kind of see the location here outlined in yellow.
The purpose is to reestablish a previous retail use in an existing commercial building.
That retail use was actually -- it's funny that Angie talked about annexation today because
the retail use was established prior to the property being annexed and the property was
annexed in 1974 as part of a strip annexation down university.
So that retail use was established in the early '70s.
It ceased in 2023 and so the property owner would like to bring back that commercial use.
The proposal is consistent with the future land use map as well as the overall goals
of the comprehensive plan and so staff is recommending approval as it complies with
the criteria.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
The applicant will be here this evening as well.
>> Any questions?
I guess I just have one probably brief.
It's not terribly often that we see a new zoning request for MN along a seven lane,
60 mile an hour highway.
Can you explain to me why MN instead of SC for instance?
>> So that is something we actually talked about in staff and MN in this case allows
the property to develop in a manner that would be a little more compatible with the adjacent
residential because you can see maybe on your screen that there are homes behind it.
And so we want to make sure that there's compatible uses adjacent to the property.
And that development scale in MN, the permitted uses is more consistent with what we see.
You may also, if you've looked up and down University, this pattern is actually repeated
several times.
There are other parts of the city that where a residential neighborhood, the gateway to
that neighborhood is off of University.
And so instead of having that SC zoning with more of those auto oriented uses, instead
the city has zoned those areas in MN to provide just a little bit better gateway for those
neighborhoods.
Ector Street is probably one of those that is most familiar to the commission.
So that's why.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> You bet.
Any other questions?
Yeah, Commissioner McDuff.
>> Just a comment, Ms. Julia, I'm glad to see this done, when I'm driving to Decatur,
I often look to my right and think, what are we doing with this?
And over time, so this is pleasing to me.
>> Thank you.
>> Certainly.
Any other questions?
Seeing none.
I'm glad to see you at the public hearing.
Now we can go to the work session item 3A.
Receive a report, hold discussion and give staff direction regarding the Southeast Denton
residential and height overlay districts.
>> All right.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt.
And I am presenting the Southeast Denton, our work session on what we've been working
on for the implementation of the Southeast Denton area plan.
So this is the residential and height overlay districts.
The purpose, this is going to kind of follow what you saw with Mia's presentation most
recently.
The purpose is to introduce these overlay districts that we've been working on, the
residential and the height.
And then also get your feedback to see if we're, you believe we're on the right track,
if there's anything we've missed.
So we're first going to just have a quick recap on the area plan.
Another quick recap on overlay districts.
What we've heard from the community regarding overlay conditions and then what the existing
conditions are.
And then we'll get into the nitty gritty on the overlay districts and then finally discussion.
So first just to recap, I know you all have heard this before, but the Southeast Denton
area plan was adopted last July.
By the numbers, we had over 40 community engagement activities and that created six goals for
Southeast Denton.
The one that is most related to what we're talking about tonight is the strength in neighborhoods
and housing affordability.
And then in the plan, we have 53 implementation action steps.
So we have a lot to accomplish with the plan.
And this is related to two, action 4.1.1, the create the residential overlay district
and then the height overlay district.
As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, an overlay really is just sits on top of the
zone, the base zoning.
It can amend some of the permitted uses or development standards in that base zoning
district or it can augment those standards.
So it really just is how it structured.
And these are often a tool used to implement area plans.
So what we're talking about today is embedded within the Southeast Denton community.
The area in yellow is the residential overlay district.
That is a really large part of the Southeast Denton community and that really encompasses
those residential neighborhoods.
And then we're talking about the height limitation overlay district and that is in blue.
And that is the area between the DCTA and those residential neighborhoods, making sure
that development is compatible and complements the residential area as well in terms of scale.
Also very tiny on the screen is just to show you where the live work overlay is and how
these all coordinate together.
Residential architecture in Southeast Denton.
So this is kind of where we started with this.
So we adopted the area plan and then we did a windshield survey of Southeast Denton to
really see what kind of residential architecture is within the community.
And overwhelmingly, the single family homes are one story.
There are some two stories, but overwhelmingly they're one story.
And there are really five architectural styles you see in Southeast Denton.
You see vernacular architecture, that's kind of traditional home.
You see bungalows, craftsmen, ranch styles, and then postmodern, which is really referential
to all those other styles.
So that is really what we see in Southeast Denton and some of those architectural forms
are the kinds of things that we want to pull forward in that overlay district.
So after we did the windshield survey, then we went out to the community and we asked
them at our block party in March, look, here's the kinds of things that we see in Southeast
Denton.
Is this what you want to see more of?
And so we asked about the scale.
So the building heights, 88% believe that one story homes fit within Southeast Denton.
77% believe that two story homes fit.
It goes down substantially with the three story, that 37%.
So that gives us a clue that we probably need to have something about that in the overlay
district.
85% believe that front porches or stoops fit within Southeast Denton.
That really refers back to that bungalow and craftsmen architecture, right?
And then also 76% believe that larger windows are appropriate.
87% believe that hip roofs, and it shows you it's kind of that pyramid of a roof, fit.
As well as 71% believe gabled roofs fit, once again, back to that traditional architectural
forms.
And we also just talked to him about how the buildings were placed on the lot.
94% of community members feel that front facing garages are fit and appropriate for Southeast
Denton.
63% believe detached garages fit, and we see a lot of detached garages in Southeast Denton.
63% believe that houses could be located closer to the street on a shallower lot.
And also 63% believe in ADU should not have additional parking.
So that's what we heard from the community.
We also looked at existing conditions.
Southeast Denton has some of our most historic neighborhoods within Denton.
And they are honored with the sign toppers.
So if you've driven through Southeast Denton, you really can locate yourself by looking
at the street signs.
But we have Solomon Hill, New Quaker, Freedman Town, and Fred Moore School.
Those were platted in the '20s and '30s.
And those houses were constructed during that time.
Lincoln Park, which is yellow on the map, that was platted in the 1960s.
That's where you're bringing in that ranch style homes, right?
And then Willow Creek in green, the darker green, that's the '60s to '80s.
Once again, having those ranch style homes.
Also you get that postmodern architecture in as well.
So Southeast Denton is really dynamic in that the neighborhoods grew over time.
And the architecture reflects the styles at those decades.
So we want to make sure that we honor that.
And then we also have current zoning.
The primary zoning in Southeast Denton is R3, R4, and R7.
R3 and R4 are really kind of our suburban single-family residential zoning.
And you can see the primary zoning in R4 in Southeast Denton is that beige color, the R4.
So when we were crafting our proposed language, we really had a framework that we were looking
at.
First of all, the residents communicated that they wanted to preserve their existing neighborhood
character, that look and feel of Southeast Denton.
So that was paramount and most important in our minds.
They were also -- the community members really weren't looking for changes in use.
They like the single-family neighborhoods.
So the overlay conditions don't have anything to do with use.
They really are mostly related to design and scale.
And then we look to that action 4.1.1, the objectives within it.
First to maintain that scaling character, second to foster community investment, and
then third to create livable and inclusive neighborhoods.
So that was all in our mind.
And we were balancing all of these items, thinking we want to make sure that the overlay
conditions are not so restrictive that it prevents people from maintaining their home
or adding on an addition or building in an infill lot.
We also want to make sure that they're not too permissive where then we get development
that is not compatible.
And we want to make sure that we create dynamic places, those livable and inclusive neighborhoods,
and that the regulations are straightforward and easy to apply.
So with all that, we'll get started.
So first we're going to talk about the residential overlay district, and that's that area in
yellow just to remind you.
Okay.
So the applicability.
This would apply to any new primary or accessory structure.
And when we're talking about accessory structure, you're talking about maybe a garage that's
detached or an accessory dwelling unit or a shed.
So this would apply to all new accessory and primary structures.
Expansions under 50%.
The proposal would be that they would comply with the height and the roof form regulations,
and we'll talk about that in a minute, and expansions over 50% that they would comply
with all of those standards.
That's the proposal.
The dimensional standards, we're not proposing any changes to the minimum lot area.
So that would remain consistent with the base zoning.
We are proposing a change to that minimum front yard setback.
We did an analysis, and over 300 lots in Southeast Denton are less than 7,000 square feet.
And the minimum lot size in our four district is 7,000 square feet.
So you could see that there's a little bit of a mismatch there.
So we are proposing to reduce that front yard setback so that it's a little more consistent
with our seven for those lots less than 7,000 square feet.
That way somebody can build a home that would meet their family's needs.
So instead of the 20 foot setback, it would be 10 feet.
And building height in all of our residential districts citywide is 40 feet.
And that's that R3, R4, and R7.
There's a little bit of MN in this area, and so that would go up to 65 feet if it's not
adjacent to single family.
If it's adjacent to single family, it would be capped at 40 feet.
We are proposing to limit that height.
And so that for primary structures, so that would be the house, we are proposing to limit
it to 30 feet.
That would allow a two story home with a pretty pitched roof.
So still giving the community members flexibility, but also making sure that it isn't out of
scale with the adjacent properties.
Because remember, the majority of homes in Southeastern are that single story.
And then limiting the accessory structure height to 20 feet.
And that would allow about one and a half stories.
So we are also proposing to modify how that height is measured a little bit from the code.
Under our current development code for a structure with a pitched roof, that height is measured
from the finished grade to the midpoint of that pitched roof, the gable.
We are proposing that be modified so that the height would be measured from the finished
grade to the top portion of the roof.
So that we're very clear on what heights would be permitted in Southeastern.
We're also proposing some changes to the design standards.
And they're related to the front entry, the windows and doors, the roof forms, and then
the building mass and architecture.
So for front entries, while the Denton Development Code requires that single family homes face
the street and be connected to the street, it doesn't require any specific treatment
to that.
We are proposing, given the tradition of the bungalow and craftsman architecture in Southeast
Denton, that either a front porch or a stoop would be required on any new residential development.
We want to make sure that they're kind of usable.
So we're proposing a minimum width of that front porch of 25% of the ground floor front
facade width and then a minimum depth of four feet.
And then we want those columns, the covered porch, the columns to be a decorative feature.
Or the stoop to be 24 square feet in minimum size, once again usable.
It should be elevated seven inches above the finished grade.
So it could either be, we want to make sure that if the accessibility, it could either
be, you know, a slope or it could be a step.
We're also proposing some changes to the minimum requirements in Denton for transparency or
windows.
The Denton Development, sorry, windows or doors, the Denton Development Code requires
15% of the front facade have occupied at least 15% of that area by windows and doors.
We are proposing to up that so that those windows would be oversized in Southeast Denton
to 25% of the front facade.
And then the Denton Development Code requires that there be trim or the windows be recessed.
We're proposing to get a little more granular on that requiring three and a half inches,
inch wide trim around the windows.
Once again, harkening back to that craftsman or bungalow architecture.
Roof form, currently the Denton Development Code allows a variety of roof forms.
You can have, you could have the gabled or, or, or hipped.
You could also have a flat roof or a mansard roof or, or a shed roof, other similar forms.
We're proposing that only hipped or gabled roofs or a combination thereof would be allowed
in Southeast Denton.
But again, it's just more consistent with that look and feel.
And then finally, building mass and form, this might get a little complicated.
So I'll try to, I'll try to, if you have any questions, let me know.
So under our current code, we have a list of architectural features that when you build
a single family home in the city of Denton, you have to pick from that list, you have
to pick three items.
And now those items are listed here in this column.
We are proposing, because the other overlay conditions really require some of these things
on this list already, that we have lengthened that list and said you, you would only have
to provide two because you are, you're doing some of these things.
So, so we are proposing that each property owner for, for new developments would have
either dormers, a projection, which would be like a bay window or a bump out window.
Split garage doors, where our column or post would divide that single car garage, those
single car garage doors, providing a little more interest if it's a front facing garage.
A railings or a low wall enclosing the front porch or the stoop, and then multi-pane or
mission style windows, once again, keeping with that, that historic character of southeastern.
Any questions on that or should I?
Sorry, just for clarification, there's lots of terminology.
When you say multi-pane, that's not dual pane windows, that's X number of lights that are
separated by millwork, is that correct?
Yes.
So, it would be like a window like here.
Got it.
Thank you.
You got it.
I have a question since you stopped and asked if there's any questions, if you can go back
to that screen, no, the one before, yes.
So right now, you are requiring only three of those building mass informed, those little
options.
You're proposing to increase the number of options, but reduce the number that they have
to do.
Does that still require three?
Well, that's because in like the front entry, we're already requiring a front porch with
those decorative columns or that treatment, so one of the items is a covered front porch.
We're already either requiring that or that stoop, so because it's already being required,
we felt like we're already getting some of that architectural interest.
Now, if the commission feels like that is an insufficient number, that's the kind of
feedback we need to get.
I mean, personally, I feel you've given them more options, still require them to do three.
That's just personal.
I guess, Julie, can you clarify, so the fact that we're already requiring the stoop or
I'm sorry, the front porch, so there's one item and then we're proposing that you have
to then choose two out of the list on the right, so as a result, we're still getting
the three that would normally show up under the current standards.
So really, it's not a difference.
It's just we've said one of those items is going to have to be a porch or a stoop.
No choice on that one, and then you get the flexibility to choose from the other two items.
So again, hence why we're still getting the three.
Yes.
Okay.
All right.
Can I ask for clarification on that?
So are you saying the items in blue are essentially required?
Right here?
Uh-huh.
Well, the gables would already be required if they choose it.
They would already be on the house if they chose a gable roof because remember, the overlay
conditions are requiring either a hip or a gabled roof.
We are not, with the requirement for a front porch, a recessed entry would not be allowed
in Southeastern for new construction.
The covered front porch, that's where we're talking about that stoop or the porch.
A cupola, they could provide that if that's something that they would want to.
It's not something we see often in Southeast Denton.
So it felt like it wasn't something that we wanted to encourage.
Architecture pillars or posts, that would be required if you're going to do a front
porch instead of the stoop.
So those things are already kind of included within that overlay, which I think Tina said
much better than me.
So some of them are required.
Some of them are like the cupola would not.
But to me, you've taken out cupolas, you have the roof and the front porch, they're doing
that and obviously the pillar comes with the front porch.
Dormers are staying, the bay window is staying, you've added three more.
That's why I feel like they've now got one, two, three, four, five things to pick from.
I feel like do three.
I mean, that's just, if we're trying to enhance and stay with the bungalow, the craftsman,
the ranch style, that's what's going to do it.
That's what's going to create the charm of the community.
I have another question, too, if we're ready to move on.
Sure.
Yeah, go ahead.
At the event that you held to get the citizen feedback, how much participation did you get?
So for the block party, we had over 100 participants come to the block party.
So we had quite a few at the block party.
We were recently, and we'll go over this in just a minute, we were recently in Juneteenth.
We did not get a lot of feedback at Juneteenth.
We went to Sedna on Monday night, we got some feedback.
And then Mia and I are going to be doing some additional outreach, going to doing some pop
up events, going to Project Hope.
So making sure that we validate the information and that we got it right.
We want to make sure we got it right.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah, go ahead.
So I understand that the feedback was limited based on the participation of the last two
events.
But what was the feedback that you received, even though it was, you know, a smaller number?
So the block party, what we did is ask questions based upon the existing architectural forms.
What kinds of things do you want to see more of?
This language is now based upon the results of that survey.
We are talking to the community about those results now and saying, hey, here's what we're
proposing.
Does this -- is this what we heard?
Do we hear it correctly?
That's that part we're in right now is we heard those survey results in terms of what
kind of -- what kind of architectural features would you like to see more of?
What kind of building scale?
And now we're crafting that language and we're going back to the community now saying, like,
here's what we heard.
Does this language adequately capture it?
So that's the conversations that are happening at the events, like the Juneteenth event?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
I think we'll probably end up coming back to this slide, but let's go ahead and move
forward to that.
All right.
The next one's easy.
I promise.
So the height overlay is really that area in blue, and once again, that's making sure
we have appropriate transitions.
And it really is just related to those dimensional standards.
So there's two zoning districts within that area in blue, the PF, which is public facilities,
that's the City of Denton or county property, and then MN.
PF allows 100 feet, base zoning, MN allows 65 -- up to 65 feet if you're not adjacent
to single-family zoning or single-family home.
The proposed overlay district would take that down to 40 feet, and that would allow a more
gentle change in scale from the single-family residential to the DCTA area, balancing those
needs of those -- of the property owners, the neighborhood, and the kinds of development
that you would see around a train station.
We're also not proposing to change how those heights are measured, because we anticipate
more commercial development in this location or one of those uses that would typically
be found in MN.
We kept that measurement consistent with how we typically measure commercial heights in
the City of Denton.
So we asked -- we talked about engagement.
We did -- we had the survey results, those boards that we had at the block party in March,
and then we were just at Juneteenth.
We went to Sedna on Monday night, talked to the folks there.
We're also scheduling intercept surveys at the MLK Junior Center, Recreational Center,
talking about -- talking to parents as they're picking up their kiddos, Project HOPE and
American Legion Hall.
Online surveys with Spanish translations, as y'all who went through the journey with
us know that Southeast Denton is -- the demographics are changing, and that we want to make sure
we capture voices from all community members, and so we want to make sure we have those
Spanish translations.
And then also talk to property owners within that height overlay district.
We want to hear from them as well.
So with all of that -- I was just going to ask if I can interject something.
Can you back to your slide on the height overlay district?
So the other -- Julie, correct me if I'm wrong.
One of the reasons why we settled on the 40 feet is also because with the new development
that has happened in that area, it meets this requirement, so we wanted to make sure that
we did not make that development nonconforming.
Thank you.
Yes.
So with that, we've got our questions.
It was in your backup.
We could go one by one or answer questions as they come, and we're going to take notes.
It's a lot of information.
I think we'll go one by one once we're ready for direction and feedback.
Are there any clarification, factual questions that we need in general about the content
before we get there, Commissioner Dyer?
I have a few questions.
Okay.
So looking at the roof height and the max height of the houses, yes.
So I noticed that for the max height of the building, for R3, R4, and R7, it was the 40
feet, and now you're reducing that to 30 feet.
And overwhelmingly, from the community responses that you included in the agenda, obviously
a strong amount, it looks like there was 43 people or targets, 27 of the 43 said no to
the three stories.
Like they want to keep it single story, which was overwhelming at the 88%, and the two stories
at 77%.
So if you're looking at a two-story structure that can only go 30 feet high from the base
up to the highest point of the roof, what are the ceiling heights looking like on a
first floor and a second floor home?
So I talk with our building inspections folks because they review a lot of these single
family and I'm like, I want to make sure I don't kind of that balancing app.
We don't want to prevent somebody from building a home that meets the needs for their family.
And I said, on your deepest pitched roofs, two story, what are your typical building
heights?
And they said about 25 feet.
So we felt comfortable in going the 30.
So once again, allowing that two story home with a pitched roof, but not going so far
that somebody could build a three story home, because you could get a three story home in
a 40 foot tall house.
Okay, then my next question is, and since we're on this screen, you have the minimum
front yard setback.
So from the front of the house to the street, and on lots smaller than 7,000 feet, you know,
R3, R4, it was 20 feet, and now you're reducing that to 10 feet.
And that was one of the things in this residential survey is that, do you want the house closer
to the street?
And it says only 63%, only 22 of the 30, like only 35 people, you know, responded to that
particular question.
And so it's barely more than half like, to me, that's really super close.
And I know you're trying to maximize the most amount of square footage of a house on a 7,000
square foot lot.
But if you're having, and I don't even know what the back of it is, because it doesn't
really say, you just talk about the front of the yard.
Like what is the max from the back of a house to the back property line, like 10 feet, like
that provides a family, you know, if the family's buying it, hardly any yard because you're going
to have developers that are going to go 10 feet to 10 feet.
So if we're, if, you know, when you were looking at the goals, some of the goals, I feel like
that doesn't really match up with one of the goals on there.
So that was one.
And I can save my questions or I can just get all my questions out of the way, whatever
the, if the rest of that.
No, that's fine.
Do you have any other just, just clarification questions before we really get into details
of direction of height?
The rafters in the brackets, I thought it was very interesting.
How did you show them rafters versus brackets?
Because of a huge majority when it says exposed rack rafters or brackets, 91% they did not
want that.
So what are, you know, when I'm kind of curious what your definition of that was, if it's
what I'm thinking of a definition.
So I was curious about that too.
And so you can see that when you, like, for instance, this is a really good example.
This is a bracket on a craftsman style home.
So that we asked, is that what you want to see more of?
The community was not in favor of that.
So here's, here's some additional brackets on a, on a rant style home.
And we kind of tried to tease out some of those, those design features that are typically
found in these architectural styles.
Did they say why?
I mean, I just find that interesting.
If you're trying to stick with the, the design of what's already in there and try to match
it and enhance it.
I, I just, I, I found that very interesting, which is why I was curious if they, you know,
if it, how it was being communicated of what that looked like.
Julie, if memory serves me correctly on our boards that we had at the block party, our
boards showed images of existing residential structures that were in Southeast Denton that
illustrated that.
Cause I, I can think of, I think I was at that board and I would like point it out and
explain to people, but we, we had pictures of homes in Southeast Denton that illustrated
what those exposed rafters look like in one of the photos that I recall actually shows
a series of rafters down the entire length of, of the, of the home underneath what that
would be, what the Eve.
So it's, you know, while on that craftsman that Julie pointed out in the middle, I guess
the fourth image down next one over.
Yeah.
You know, some might say that might be attractive the way those three rafters are exposed, but
I recall one of, one of our other photos though, showed more of the side and when you see all
of those rafters, it kind of reminds you probably more of a dated, a very dated structure and,
and people were not, were not liking that, that, that feature.
So did the community just kind of say we want more clean lines in the facades of the houses?
They didn't give further explanation, it just wasn't something that they were interested
in seeing more of.
You know, our boards had a series of images on them and then we gave people dots and told
them, I can't remember if they were green and red dots or what colors we use, but use
this color dot of the images that you like and put dots, this color dots on what you
don't like.
And so when doing these visual preference exercises, I mean, we, we worked to have multiple
different images there to give people a choice to understand what they liked and didn't like.
So that's the total dots on this document that you have.
Okay.
That makes sense.
Yeah.
We were trying to make, you know, when doing a block party event and having that number
of people in attendance, it's trying to use engagement methods that help achieve us being
able to get the feedback in the community using some simple techniques.
Visual preference boards are a good way to help the community understand, especially
when we're talking technical terms from an architectural standpoint.
So that's why we provided those images.
We had staff there to be able to help explain them and then ask them to tell us what you
like and don't like in those particular exercises it was, it was with the dots.
Very interesting that the having a front porch or a stoop that garnered the most amount of
dots at 62.
People really liked that aspect.
So, okay.
Commissioner Riggs.
So, so kind of following up to Commissioner Dyer's comment on that, since so many of them
did respond and with 85% that they wanted a covered front porch, why is that not just
a requirement?
Because we say you have to have a stoop or a porch but not necessarily covered.
You know, it's and we could certainly make modifications to that.
Really just trying to make sure that that homes have that, that, that relationship to
the street, the, that usable front porch or front entryway where, where, where it creates
that dynamic front, front engagement.
So you know, our boards did have a stoop as well as a front porch and so we are just trying
to capture as much flexibility and, and again, that's where we're looking at balancing because
we want to make sure that there's flexibility so that it can accommodate different tastes
or different price points and, and so trying to, trying to have that flexibility but still
get the intent of what that is.
Yeah, I think I need to clarify my question.
So I think, so the way, the way you presented it in your presentation, it was a stoop or
a covered front porch and I'm assuming a stoop is basically just a front porch without a
cover.
Correct.
Okay.
So, so I guess, but in the survey it says covered front porch or stoop.
So I'm looking at it thinking the way that that's where it is, whether it's a porch
or stoop to be covered.
And so I guess maybe that's just my naivete on reading it.
So thank you.
So I've got sort of a general question and then I want to make sure we get through the
detailed questions.
I'm trying to understand the, as you talked at the beginning, balancing the different
priority or goals, right, of on the one hand, the preserving the neighborhood character,
which I feel like we need to define about 18 times every time we say it, as far as whether
it's building centric or community people centric, because those are two different things,
as well as being livable and inclusive and remaining affordable, right?
And then I see that almost all of the suggestions are very well thought out methods of maintaining
new builds, having architectural similarity with some of the different styles in the neighborhood,
but they are, they're not zero cost, right?
So I guess my question is, did the community have any feedback about, yes, we want these
things even though we understand they cost more?
So we really didn't get into cost, but affordability is one part of it and on one of our boards
we talked about, asked the community, hey, would you like to see twin homes in southeastern?
And that's essentially a duplex that is cut, that the lot line cuts that house in half.
It's been a really well used intervention in places like Dallas and Fort Worth.
So you could own your home fee simple, but you kind of get the benefit of the more affordable
and the community did not like them.
So it really didn't come into play, that affordability aspect, because we tried to add some of that
in to see where it was and the community just wasn't interested in that at this time.
Okay.
Can you go back to the list of questions?
You bet.
Got to make our way through them before we finish here.
Yeah, why don't we do that?
Let's take two minutes, try to grab food quickly and then those of us who are not chewing can
offer some directions on one through six as we continue before we reconvene.
So two minute recess, we'll be back at 6.11 p.m. at 6.09 now.
Good afternoon.
At 6.15 p.m. we will reconvene the work session of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
I think Tina Ferguson has a couple of comments and then we'll continue through the questions.
Thank you, Chair.
So during the break I was talking with staff.
So we realize this is an extensive amount of information that we're presenting to you
this evening and I know we have six questions to be able to get through.
Given the fact that we also still have additional public engagement scheduled, if the commission
feels comfortable waiting to provide feedback on these questions until after we've done
that additional engagement, that's an available option for you all.
So just kind of reading the tea leaves from the level of questions that were being asked
earlier, if there's some hesitancy on making decisions related to certain requirements
associated with new single-family residences being built within this area, again, we're
happy to go get that additional public feedback and then we could bring this back at your
meeting in July.
Thank you.
Yeah, I think that would be helpful.
There have been a couple of comments to that direction already.
However, I would like to give everybody an opportunity to say kind of where they are.
I think given the limited time, this may go smoother if we just have person by person
instead of question by question since it's a little bit, hey, let's go get some more
feedback and then come back and make some final determinations.
It looks like Commissioner McDuff, do you have your thoughts collected yet that you would
like to offer anything?
You can just kind of go down the road.
I was kind of focused on that carbon that we were eating, carbohydrate, where my thoughts
were, Eric, but anyway, one, I appreciate all this.
I'd love to see continued feedback in public engagement and Ms. Tina, I do not have an
issue with waiting after we have some more public engagement.
I appreciate all these.
I believe the question or the requirements, the two versus, or rather the three versus
the two, I think that they were included in the information prior that we received to
answer that question.
So I think if we see also this in, we received the slide deck in the mail, I think that in
our email that would be useful too and then we could study it at our leisure.
Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Riggs.
So I do think the additional feedback would be helpful, but I can kind of tell you where
I stand based on reading through the packet and kind of your questions here.
So number one, I'm in agreement with that.
Number two, I do share concerns as Commissioner Dyer about if we reduce that front setback
that we end up having a lot, nothing but house essentially.
So maybe ways we can not have that happen.
Requirement minimum port sizes for porches or stoops, I think that's a good idea.
Does Commissioner Kerr with design centers?
I guess I need more time on that one.
And then number five, the height, you made a comment during your presentation that it
was one and a half stories, but they can get two full stories in with, and maybe I misheard
you too.
No, it's a good question.
The primary structure as proposed would be 30 feet, which would allow for two stories.
The accessory structure is 20 feet, which would be about one and a half stories.
So it would require the accessory structures to be physically smaller.
Okay, then I'm in agreement with that.
And then I think feedback we can comment on, I can comment on six once we have more feedback,
I think.
That's kind of my thoughts.
Commissioner McDade.
In general, I would like to hear some additional feedback from the neighborhood based on what
you're proposing and what you're coming up with.
I'm a little bit confused about the options that they get to pick and choose.
I think that it may just be me and the way the chart is set up, and maybe you can maybe
do a little better job when you go back to the neighborhood and say, based on everything
you said and what you did, this is what we came up with, but when you have those other
things over there, it does get a little bit confusing because it looks like, are you requiring
more in Southeast End than you require anywhere else?
I think your meeting in the park, I forgot where you all called it, with the DOT meeting,
I loved it.
It was great.
You know, if you could go do something like that, I'm not saying doing another one of
those.
I know that was a lot, but that was certainly very informative, and the community really
appreciated and loved participating in it because they felt like they were being part
of the plan, but certainly would like to hear back from the community on what you came up
with, actually.
Thank you.
You bet.
Commissioner Pedron?
My apologies.
I'm in favor of waiting to get some more engagement to see if the community provides an additional
comment.
However, I think for the majority of the proposal, I am in agreement.
I'll kind of follow Commissioner Riggs and go through.
Question one, I would say that I'm in agreement with question one.
I am a little hesitant with the setbacks size.
I would like to, I'm not sure if the community was specifically given what that could look
like and what their feedback is.
So some more questions on that.
Okay.
Yes, I agree with the minimum sizes for porches and stoops, and I also am supportive of getting
the option whether to have a covered porch or a stoop and how that can be a communal
space for someone's home.
Let's see, does the commission concur?
I think that what has been proposed was good to kind of keep in order with what is already
existing within the community.
Not entirely confident in agreeing with that one just yet, but I do think that the due
diligence was taken to kind of meet more of that visual standard.
I would like to know though what the community thinks about affordability, because I think
it was briefly touched upon during the conversation that those conversations haven't necessarily
really taken place with affordability, and I think it could definitely sway what their
preferences may or may not be.
Height limitations, I would agree with that, and then are there any items, again going
back to affordability being a big one, because if it's the option of having a home, being
able to afford a home with all the restrictions or not, then I wonder what they would choose.
I think that there was some conversation regarding the two requirements over the three requirements.
I'm in favor of keeping it to two additional requirements, since the stoop or the porch
is already considered a required feature, again based on affordability and then just
flexibility and just taste and opinion.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Dyer.
I'm in agreement with what my fellow commissioners have said about, it would be really nice to
get just a little bit more feedback on some of the things that we had questions about.
There's probably more questions on the same things from the community, and definitely
with the affordability factor, I'll kind of skip down to number six.
When you're looking at that one overlay area that allows for MN and PF, does that mean
apartments?
How does the community feel about multi-family living in those communities, especially since
it sounds like most of it is single-family?
I loved your new terminology, you're going to have to share that with me again so I can
put it into my memory bank instead of calling it a duplex, what was it called, a split?
A twin home.
I'm going to use that, a twin home instead of a duplex, but what about two-story town
homes?
Would that fit in the height requirements?
Would it allow for the affordability where I know it's not a twin home, it's not a duplex
and they're all attached, but you can build super cute looking town homes that are the
bungalow, the craftsman, like you can have the developers create that facade to make
it look like it fits in, like it's a 1960s, 1930s style deal, so that's why I skipped
to number six, because that was kind of my question is, are we going to allow apartments
or multi-family apartments, you know, axed out of, you know, out of this plan?
But if you go back to the questions, sorry, yes, I mean, yes, I concur with number one,
I don't really concur with number two.
I feel like once the community understands that they could have 10 feet in the front
and 10 feet in the back, I think they're going to be like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa," you know,
it just makes for a really super big house on a smaller lot, and one of the dots that
was kind of a negative was having, you know, the houses close to your neighbors, so those
bigger houses, more people saw that as a negative, so I feel like that, if people really understood
all of that, and maybe they did and they're okay with it, yes, require minimum sizes on
porch and stoops, and I did like all, you know, the bigger windows and, you know, all
the different moldings and stuff in it, and then the proposed height limitations, yes,
as long as we're not looking at like, you know, super small ceiling heights on first
story and second story, you know, on the first and second story floors of a second story
house.
Right.
If that makes sense.
Yes.
We can verify that again.
Okay.
Just make sure.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I'll be, hopefully, brief.
I think I'll lump together a lot of the aesthetic suggestions as great ideas to make the buildings
fit in with the existing neighborhood that costs money, and so we just need to be very
clear with the community that, hey, look, if this is the way we want it to look, then
you're going to see a different type of income individual buying new houses in this neighborhood.
Okay.
And if that's not your desire, then here are a menu of other things that we can still
get the increased quality and architecture that you seek while allowing or encouraging
more affordable options, right?
Maybe that's not the twin home if they don't like that.
Maybe it's townhomes, maybe it's smaller lots, maybe it's, I don't know.
You guys are more creative than I am, excuse me.
And then just a couple kind of where I am comments outside of that.
The height measuring and 20 versus 30 feet and what that means, it feels very confusing
to me.
Is there a reason why we can't just say two stories on the main house and whatever it
is on accessory structures?
I'm worried when we have restrictive height limits that it's going to encourage non-ideal
architecture, which is what we're trying to get away from it, if that makes sense.
And then lastly, on the height overlay, and this is probably a discussion that all of
us will be a little bit more aware of when it comes back after some feedback, I'm concerned
if we message it to the community as we're going to put a 40 foot height limit here and
then SB 840 comes in and once we get all this stuff implemented three or four years from
now, we can't enforce that and it's 45 feet.
That's a messaging problem, if you will.
So I don't know if 45 feet is a bad goal now, but we need to be clear with the community
through this process.
Okay.
Good.
Thank you.
Commissioner MacDuff.
I feel like my comments were intellectually sound as the rest of you all, but I will say
from all this material, what I had circled was on the building heights and the folks
not wanting the three stories, concerned about that, out of everything.
It seems to be one of the biggest concerns with the community.
I don't know if we had talked about the price points, Ms. Julie, as you said, the price
points, so the affordability, but this that was shared was the stories, three stories.
Okay.
Yeah.
And that kind of go along with Commissioner MacDuff, that's why I asked about the apartments
because if they don't want three stories, I'm going to assume they don't want apartments.
So remember, the overlay would not change as proposed, doesn't make any changes to the
permitted uses.
So in that residential area, it's already zoned, the R4 and R3, there's a little bit
of R7 on the south side, you can see right here, that would require a specific use permit
for multifamily, but multifamily, oh, there's a little bit of R4 here on Prairie as well.
R4 and R3 don't permit multifamily, so it would not introduce that use.
Right.
And just kind of piggyback on that.
Because again, one of the clear messages that we heard from the community when we did this
area plan is they want to keep their existing neighborhood the way it is today, right?
So they're concerned about new construction coming in and being disruptive to the neighborhood.
So that's why we were very specific to not change the base zoning to make sure that the
townhome and the multifamily would not be able to be developed.
I believe townhomes, are they allowed in R7 by right?
R7, R4, they require specific use permit.
Okay.
So that limited area of R7 is, I would say, is more on the fringe of the neighborhood.
So to Julie's point, we would not be changing any of that.
So any of this conversation about increasing allowing townhome development or multifamily
more interior to the neighborhood, in my opinion, that's not on the table for discussion because
the neighborhood specifically told us they were not interested in that.
Just following back up on the comment about the front yard setback, so I guess there's
a maximum building size that can go on the lot.
Correct.
Maybe when you go back out to the community, you can kind of show what that would end up
looking like.
Okay.
Because otherwise, to Commissioner Dyer's point and what I was saying earlier, the thought
is then you could have a lot with this all house, but that's really not the case.
So how much of a backyard would that be and that kinds of things?
Okay.
Mr. Dyer.
Are you thinking kind of like where you have like a 7,000 square foot lot, kind of like
a pre-plat, like a pre-survey, and then you kind of show like how a house could sit on
it?
What the maximum could be on that lot?
Yeah.
Essentially, what's the maximum square footage that the house could occupy?
Like a house with the front porch and a garage and all that stuff and how that would sit
and then do those dots and see one where the setbacks are what they are zoned for now and
one for the zone with the 10 foot and the 10 foot and see where those dots land.
Well, and I guess I just want to make sure that we're clear.
So I know I've heard you say a couple of times the concern regarding somebody building a
house 10 foot to 10 foot, but to that point, that building envelope pad, they're not going
to be able to maximize that entire building envelope pad.
So if somebody wanted to build a house that went that full distance, in all likelihood,
the entire house is not going to be able to do that because of that maximum lot coverage
that comes into play.
So that's going to restrict that compared to what we see maybe in some other neighborhoods
that are being done where builders are truly trying to maximize that building footprint.
So if we also need to look at the lot coverage and make sure the lot coverage percentage
still tries to address the concern that you have about maximizing that building envelope,
I think that's something that we can definitely take a look at also in seeing how we can prevent
that or minimize that concern.
And lastly, I would say there are, I believe, two houses that are under construction or
probably nearing completion that are on McKinney that are some would say on the north end of
the Southeast Denton neighborhood.
Take a look at those structures because that's what the community is concerned about is those
two houses that are new construction, how they have maximized building footprint, but
especially the scale and the overall massing of the structures taking advantage of, you
know, our 40 foot height dimension on a gable roof is to the midline, right?
It's not to the ridge.
So trying to mitigate those kinds of concerns that we're seeing there because if that type
of housing were to start to be built in Southeast Denton, I know the community would be very
concerned about that and concerned about the disruptive nature of it, given the context
of the rest of the neighborhood.
That's good info.
Commissioner McDade.
Was there a Southeast Denton neighborhood committee who approved or worked with the city on putting
this plan together?
The area plan?
Was there a designated committee?
So we had a steering committee, and we also spent a lot of time within the community.
So that steering committee validated the information that we received from the community throughout
the planning process.
So have you taken your recommendations back to that specific committee?
No, but we could certainly as part of our online survey, we could certainly provide
it to them to see if they had any additional feedback.
Sure.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Great idea.
Okay.
You're good.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'm sorry we ran over, but I think this was very helpful.
It was.
Yeah.
I'm looking forward to seeing what this becomes, so thank you.
Okay.
Yes.
So just to confirm, so we will do the additional public engagement, and then we will bring
this back either at your July meeting or depending upon the events that are scheduled, maybe
in August at the latest.
Okay.
And with that, at 636, we will adjourn the work session and reconvene in council chambers.
Good evening, at 642 PM on this Wednesday, June 25th, I will call our regular meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton to order.
Our first order of business is to stand and say pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas
flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I, the member of the Texas flag, pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one nation
indivisible.
Our next item of business is item 2A, PZ25011, approval of the minutes for both May 28th
and June 11th.
Is there a motion or any discussion?
Commissioner Riggs.
I have a motion to approve.
Commissioner Pedrone.
I second.
Okay.
Seeing no questions, let's vote on board.
That item passes 6-0.
Our next item is item 3A, the Consent Agenda, FP25-0018A.
Commissioner Pedrone.
I move approval.
Commissioner Riggs.
I second.
And seeing no questions, let's vote on the board.
And the Consent Agenda passes 6-0.
It moves us to items for individual figure consideration.
Item 4A, FP25-0021.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
This is 4A, FP25-0021.
This is a final plat for Red Bird Ridge Phase 2.
At this time, they are not meeting our criteria for approval, but they've requested an extension
which would be granted to July 23rd, 2025, and staff has no objection with that request.
I'll stand for any questions.
Commissioner Pedrone.
I move to approve the extension to date certain of July 23rd, 2025.
Sorry.
Commissioner McDade.
I'll second the motion.
Good.
Seeing no questions, call for a vote on the board.
Motion to continue passes 6-0.
It moves us to item 4B, FR25-0017.
Good evening, Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
This is 4B.
This is a final replat of Red Bird Ridge Phase 1.
So this property is just south of the property that we just voted on.
This is just a replat to adjust some lot lines and some right of way that they've needed
to change since extending onto Phase 2.
So at this time, it's not meeting our criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to
the request extension to date certain of July 23rd, 2025.
Commissioner Riggs.
Make a motion to extend to July 23rd, 2025.
Commissioner Dyer.
I second that.
Thank you.
Seeing no questions, call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0.
Next item is item 4C, FP25-0022, and I believe, Commissioner McDade, you'd like to recuse?
All right, good evening, Commission, Matt Bodine, here to present a proposed final plot
of Rose-Lana Village Edition, this applies to create a lot of record and establish easements
associated with the proposed multi-family development.
At the time, this plot doesn't meet our criteria for approval.
However, staff has no objection to their extension request to a date certain of July 23rd, 2025.
Thank you, Matt.
Any questions or a motion?
Commissioner Riggs.
I make a motion to extend to a date certain July 23rd, 2025.
And Commissioner McDuff.
I'd like to second Commissioner Riggs' motion to extend the date to a date certain of July
23rd, 2025.
Thank you.
Seeing no questions, let's vote on the board.
That item passes 5-1-0, brings us to 5-0-1, sorry.
Brings us to item 4-D, Matt, if you could get, thank you, yeah.
This is FP25-0023.
Correct.
I'll wait just a moment.
Okay, good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
Angie Mangleris, development review manager, here to present FP25-0023.
This is a final plot for phase 1A of the Coal Ranch Master Plan community.
The subject property is located just north of FM2499, about 2,800 feet west of Underwood
Road.
The purpose of this final plot is to plot phase 1 of the Coal Ranch development, which
includes 417 lots for residential development, along with some open space and to dedicate
rights of way to serve the development.
At this time, the plot does not meet all of our criteria for approval.
However, staff is recommending approval of this final plot with the condition that compliance
with Denton Development Code, Section 8.3.2.A, which requires the approval of civil engineering
plans be achieved prior to the final plot being approved and being released for construction
of phase 1.
I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have.
So this first phase that is going to be developed, will the 288 loop when it comes out to 2449,
will that come out west of this location?
Yes, it is, roughly speaking, it is to the west of it.
It's not shown within these boundaries, but it's not within the site boundaries.
So will the traffic be impacted greatly with the addition of these homes in this first
phase on 2449?
Because obviously it's going to be some time until the loop gets extended that way.
Sure, I mean there would be some additional traffic that comes with homes, but as part
of the CEPs and phase 1 as an entirety, Coal Ranch has been working in coordination with
the city to confirm that they're meeting all of our requirements.
Thank you.
Any other questions or a motion?
Commissioner Riggs?
I make a motion to approve.
Commissioner McDuff, can we, yeah, there's a staff recommended condition, does your motion
include that?
Yes.
Okay.
Commissioner McDuff?
Yes, I'd like to second that emotion please, and that was recommending approval of the
final plan with the following condition from the staff.
Seeing no questions, let's vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0.
That brings us to our public hearing portion of our meeting, Item 5A, PDA 25-0003A.
Let the record show that Commissioner McDuff is recusing for this item.
You would think I would have this down, because two weeks ago I was in Scotland, but I don't,
so my apologies.
Commissioner McDate?
All right.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Haley Zuckerski, Assistant Planning Director,
filling in this evening for Mia Hines.
The request before you is PDA 25-3, Gateway of Denton Signs.
So as I stated, the request is for establishing special sign standards within the Plan Development
District that covers the southeast corner of Vintage Boulevard and I-35W.
Some of you may remember in June of 2024, there was a detailed site plan adopted for
this site for a travel plaza that includes a gas station, convenience store, two restaurants
and a car wash.
The subject property is outlined in black there on the map.
You can see it's adjacent to the current on and off ramp for Vintage at I-35.
The subject property is a total of just over 4.29 acres.
As I mentioned, it sits right next to the jug handle design entrance and exit to I-35.
It has frontage on Vintage Boulevard.
If you can tell from its current location, it is kind of tucked behind the multifamily
development that's recently been built here just to the south for northbound traffic on
I-35.
That plays a factor in the request this evening.
So before we move on, since the sign code is something that's new to some of you all
and possibly to the public, I wanted to just give a brief explanation of the purpose of
our sign code.
So it is intended to help kind of manage the built environment in terms of limiting nuisances
and visual clutter and balancing the aesthetics of our community with safety features, but
at the same time providing for effective communication of messages and advertising for the businesses
in town.
So some of the things that the sign code regulates are the number of signs, the height of signs,
the size of those, and a lot of that varies by zoning district as well as by the type
of street that you're on.
So for example, I-35 would typically allow a taller sign than, say, a collector street
within the city.
But the overall goal is just limiting that visual clutter but ensuring that businesses
are able to deliver those commercial messages to the public so that people know where to
go to find the businesses they're looking for.
All situations cannot be anticipated by our sign code.
So it does have two options for people to deviate from it that don't require going to
the Board of Adjustment for a variance, and that is if you're part of a plan development,
then it calls for those sign standards to be adopted into your PD if you're deviating
from the sign code, or you can go through a special sign district creation process.
And it's a very similar dual public hearing process to the PD amendment.
So for an applicant, those two processes look roughly the same.
Tonight, we're going the PD route.
So the request before you all, just to go over their site plan briefly, the sign package
includes a very specific number of signs.
It limits them to two new ground signs that are locations A and B. So A is the pole sign,
which is the sign that is exceeding both the height and the size of our sign code.
You can see that would advertise for three businesses as well as containing the fuel
prices for the business.
The other ground sign or monument sign is sign B. That would again be a multi-tenant
sign with fuel pricing located on the entrance off of Vintage Boulevard.
The sign package includes a variety of wall signs for the buildings themselves.
The other ground signs that this is imposing a limit to the number of are those directional
signs.
So you can see it allows for two each of the following ground signs to advertise for one
of the drive-through businesses on site as well as the car wash to help traffic navigate
to those entrances and exits to the drive-throughs and the car wash itself.
So a quick summary of how this compares to the city standard sign code.
In terms of the types of permitted signs, it does not limit that.
It imposes limits on the number of ground signs, as I mentioned, but it allows for any
type of wall attached or temporary or wind device type signs as allowed by the city standard
code.
In terms of the maximum effective area, the most significant change with this is again
that pole sign is 216 square feet larger than what would be permitted by the standard sign
code.
The other monument sign on Vintage is actually 86 square feet less than what they would have
been allowed.
So there are some trade-offs with this as well.
Our sign code is actually silent to directional signs, so people are allowed essentially as
many of those as they want.
We do try to keep the size of them limited, but with this they are imposing a self-imposed
maximum of five square feet and 12 square feet on those signs to help ensure that there's
not too much visual clutter.
So should the site develop with other businesses in the future, the sign face could change,
but those sizes would still have to be adhered to.
For the height of the signs, again the pole sign is the one that is deviating from the
sign code.
It's 20 feet higher than what would typically be allowed.
Again, that's due to that location on I-35.
If you've driven down there, you know once you get out of the main lanes that it's kind
of elevated for the ramp.
So that elevation combined with the new multifamily that's 45 feet height imposes visibility restrictions
for this particular corner.
Again, limiting the height of those directional signs on site to three and five feet.
They are imposing setbacks for the signs.
Those are 20 feet from the property line for the two, the pole sign and the monument sign,
and one foot off of the internal drive aisles at a minimum for those directional signs.
And then they are imposing limitations to only four directional signs.
Again, our sign code doesn't speak to that, so they would typically be allowed more of
those as long as they were staying in correct locations on site.
They are adhering to the sign code in terms of the number of signs allowed on I-35 and
vintage.
So for this case, there were actually three sets of criteria for approval.
So you notice your staff analysis was a little lengthier than normal because we had the sign
code standards as well as our normal standards in the DDC.
In terms of what the sign code calls for when someone is seeking to deviate through either
a PD or a special sign district, it looks for is there something superior than what
our code would have offered.
So in this case, again, they are imposing limits on themselves in that they cannot deviate
from the number of ground signs on the size of those without going back through this public
hearing process.
But their sign package also ensures that they have consistency in design throughout the
site so that you'll notice the materials used on that monument sign match the buildings
and things of that nature to ensure that consistency and uniformity in the look of the site.
The sign code also calls for us to confirm that what they're asking for is necessary.
It's not just for a financial benefit and then it doesn't violate the spirit and intent
of the sign code.
Again, this is just primarily driven by the need to improve visibility for that pole sign
as the major driving factor that led them down this path because as you can see here,
the line of sight for someone at the point about a half mile from the exit for vintage
where you would want to be getting over and knowing what business you're going to, this
sign and this corner are actually blocked from view by the multifamily that's been developed
given the elevation of the roadway compared to this site as well as the height of those
new buildings.
So that again is the need for the ask for the larger sign.
And then there's a number of factors in the sign code in terms of the scale, color and
design of the signs.
Again, they are complying with those and creating that thematic elements to the site while still
allowing for multiple tenants and brands to be advertised.
We also analyzed all of the criteria in the Denton Development Code for general applications
and plan development amendments.
We found that it complies with those as well.
What they're seeking is appropriate for the site given the context on the highway intersection
with the major arterial roadway.
Their sign package would allow for consistency with the already approved site plan for the
site in terms of the types of businesses and how people would navigate through the site.
And they are imposing those additional restrictions to ensure that there is a superior layout
to what we could achieve for the site otherwise because they are imposing those limitations
on the number of ground signs.
Public outreach was conducted for this case.
We have not received any responses in favor or opposition to date.
And staff is recommending approval as we found it complied with all criteria in the sign
code and the DDC.
The next step for this case would be a public hearing at City Council on July 15th.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Haley.
I will open the public hearing at this time.
Are there any factual questions from the commission before we hear?
Okay.
Thank you, Haley.
This is a public hearing.
So I don't have any cards already filled out requesting to speak, but you are welcome to
come down and state your name and address and share your thoughts on this item if anyone
has any.
Not seeing any movement.
I will close the public hearing.
Open the floor for discussion or questions from the commission.
I guess, Haley, I have one.
Just wanted to hear from the public first if there was anybody.
I completely understand the need for it given the current topology and the setback from
where the access road will be in the future.
What I'm wondering is it seems a little bit like -- am I correct to think this is about
the scale of like the travel stop at 77 and 35 up north of town?
It's more of a travel center height sign?
Yes, I believe so.
Okay.
You know, this area is going to see a lot of change over the next 20 years, and it may
look strange if this is codified so tightly that as things fill in and redevelop, they
don't have the flexibility to modify and lower the sign and make it fit a little bit better
once the access road is complete and they have better visibility, if that makes sense
from a directional perspective.
So I guess my question after all that is do the conditions placed on the PD prevent them
from rebuilding a sign that is less tall, for instance, in the future?
No, it's just establishing that maximum so they couldn't exceed 60 feet in the future.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions on the commission?
Seeing none, I open the floor for a motion, if anyone.
Commissioner Riggs?
Make a motion to approve.
And Commissioner Padron?
I second.
Okay.
Seeing no questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes 5-0-1.
Haley, if you could get Commissioner McDade again, I'd appreciate it.
That brings us to our second public hearing of the night, which is item 5B, S25-0002.
Welcome, Sean.
Good evening, Chair.
Members of the commission.
Let's give Commissioner McDade a minute or two to get back in here.
And I'll go ahead and open the public hearing for this item 5B at this time.
Thank you, sir.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, here to present S25-0002, the Palladium Denton West
Development.
This is a request for a specific use permit to allow a multifamily use on approximately
4 acres of land, generally on the east side of Fall Meadows Street.
The current zoning is R7, which does allow a multifamily with a specific use permit.
A current land use is moderate density residential, and so what you all will be determining tonight
is whether this proposal meets the criteria for approval for a specific use permit in
the moderate density designation.
So as you can see the proposed site plan, this proposal would include 120 residences,
and it would be able to go up to three stories, so a height of approximately 47 feet.
Now as we discussed in the work session, we do have our Chapter 212 provisions, which
allow a multifamily development that is providing affordable housing at the sufficient rate
to take advantage of flexibility on certain items on their site plan.
This is one of those items.
So rather than being held to the 40 foot height limit, normally in R7, they will be going
up to the 47 foot height, because that is one of the incentives that is allowed based
on the affordability they're providing if they're approved.
The site is proposing to have 169 parking spaces, and I do want to point out the applicant
is specifically limiting themselves to only one row of parking in front, rather than two
to be more compatible with the neighborhood.
We had that discussion, and they were open to that.
One of the things that allows them to work on the site is that the second incentive they're
taking advantage of is a reduction in parking to a rate of one vehicle space per unit for
those affordable housing, and then they are providing two vehicle spaces per unit for
the remaining market rate housing units.
So again, that's one of the incentives that allows it and it helps to allow the site to
work and to provide less parking in that front side to be more compatible with the neighborhood.
They're providing more open space than are required 8% minimum.
They do have those two full access drives, and they are constructing a 10 foot wide sidewalk
along their frontage.
And as you can see, I've highlighted those incentives that they're taking advantage of
there.
That's the next one in the landscape area.
Now it's also important with a specific use permit, we have these because a use is allowed,
but we're looking at does it fit where it's proposed.
And so the applicant has included a number of elements to help mitigate potential concerns,
aesthetic issues, and better fit with the neighborhood.
One of those is the context sensitive 70 foot setback.
So this building being very tall is set back farther from the street than many buildings
in the area in order to avoid it being visually imposing on the street.
However, it's also not set back so far that it's going to look like it's on an island.
That was a discussion we had and the developer agreed that bringing it forward would make
sense to better align with the setbacks along the street to the south.
As you can see on the side of the screen there, I've identified the sidewalk connections.
So the developer is providing more sidewalk connections than are specifically required
because that better fits with the pattern of sidewalk connections along the entire street,
better fits with the neighborhood.
And lastly, the building design.
So while this is a tall building, it does not have a flat roof and it is designed to
be broken up with architectural elements to give that visual appearance of a series of
smaller buildings.
So again, number of elements to help better fit with the neighborhood, mitigate potential
aesthetic concerns.
Moving on to the landscape plan.
This does meet and slightly exceed our minimum landscape and tree canopy standards.
We have those street trees along the frontage there.
We'll note you'll see the areas outlined in yellow, maybe a little hard to see, but this
site has a number of easements on it that made site design somewhat more challenging.
Because of that, the applicant is taking advantage of two types of flexibility in their landscape
design.
One of those is our third affordability incentive, which allowed them to reduce their parking
landscape from two five-point elements to one five-point element.
So they're going to have somewhat fewer parking end caps than will normally be required.
The other flexibility they're taking advantage of is our alternative landscape plan, where
you're allowed to relocate or propose some different designs than are normally required
because of constraints on the site, but you do have to go above and beyond as part of
that alternative.
So in this case, they had a limited amount of space along their right of way to fit in
all of the screening that was required.
Adding more trees in there, given the space, would have been unhealthy for the street trees
that were already required.
So instead, as a second right of way screening element, along with the evergreen shrubbery
that will be provided, they're also providing a series of taller shrubs that will grow more
towards the height of an ornamental tree, provide that additional screening, that aesthetic
appearance, while still allowing space for everything to grow and thrive.
In line with going above and beyond, they have also agreed to make all of the landscaping
along that right of way frontage non-turf.
So it's not just going to be yard, it's going to be decorative shrubs and grasses.
I also do want to point out that we're getting some of those end caps that are not required,
but they're being provided anyway.
In the area outlined in the light green, along directly in front of the building, that is
being provided as decorative shrubbery and grasses, although not required.
So again, fitting better with the neighborhood where you'd expect to see landscaping along
the front of your building.
As always, we look at our approval criteria for an SUP.
This proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the Denton 2040 Comprehensive
Plan, with our future land use map, so the overall moderate density residential area.
That area will continue to be in line with the recommended density, even with the addition
of this housing.
It also calls for us to look at other applicable plans, and this is where I do want to mention
something we don't always talk about, but the City of Denton did an affordable housing
needs analysis.
What that identified was there are certain areas where we want to target incentives to
encourage affordable housing, because those areas are more stable, more desirable.
You see more investment in that area, and it's harder to get affordable housing.
This is one of those areas.
So the one time when we can think a little bit more about the affordability element in
making our decision is that this is something that's encouraged.
Our Comprehensive Plan in SUP Chapter 7 encourages us to avoid clustering affordable housing
just in certain areas.
We don't want to have a socioeconomic segregation, as it says.
This allows us to open up affordable housing in an area where it might not otherwise be
available normally.
However I do also want to point out that this is not out of step with what is surrounding
it in development.
This area is entirely either multifamily, higher density duplexes, quadplexes for multiple
blocks in every direction, except to the north, which is a drainage area.
So it is not inconsistent with the current development pattern to have another multifamily
development.
I wanted to identify the improved walkability, which is something that our Comprehensive
Plan encourages.
So because of the robust sidewalk network already existing, residents here would be
able to within a 10-minute walk reach Evers Park Elementary School and Evers Park and
within a 20-minute walk reach our North Branch Library.
So some improvements in walkability just by putting these residents in a place where they
can connect to that existing infrastructure.
The specific use permit is not expected to generate significant adverse impacts, and
utilities and infrastructure are available to serve the subject property.
We did do our standard outreach, and we did receive one letter in response on behalf of
nine properties, four of which were within the 200-foot limit in objection.
The applicant did hold two neighborhood meetings.
I was able to attend the second one.
There was no significant opposition expressed.
There were questions about the process and the levels of affordability.
So with that, staff is recommending approval of the SUP with the conditions presented in
your backup, and I will happily stand for any questions.
Thank you, Sean.
Sorry to interrupt the flow, but we're going to take a brief recess before we come back
for Commissioner questions, so just three or four minutes at 7.15 p.m.
Good evening.
At 7.22 p.m. we will reconvene after recess on the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
We just got the overview from Sean Jacobson, thank you, of this project.
Are there any questions of the Commission for Staff?
Commissioner Briggs?
So I do have a question.
I noticed that as part of this approval, there's talk of encroachment into the drainage easement.
Can you kind of talk about that a little bit?
Yeah, absolutely.
So there is a pre-existing, a fairly large, and I'll go back to this, drainage pipe running
along the east and south sides of the properties, fairly large pipe.
Because of that, we did want to make sure that we have that within an easement.
The concern was that normally our easements would not allow parking spaces over those.
In this case, we were able to have the discussion with the drainage department, with those involved,
and they were comfortable with the fact that as long as the language was written, so that
if they need to go in work, they can go in and do whatever work they need to do, and
they are not responsible to put anything back or pay for that.
That is responsibility of the developer.
They were comfortable with allowing that encroachment, which then did allow, it would have been a
significant loss of parking and landscaping if nothing had been allowed to be in that
area.
Okay.
So, and I noticed the note on the plat, too, so that's good, but I just wanted to verify
that the city wouldn't be on the hook for repaving the parking lot or something.
Absolutely, and in fact, they will have to come back and complete an encroachment agreement,
so that will be very much buttoned up.
Okay.
Commissioner Pedro.
Thank you.
Sean, you mentioned that there was some residential comment based on the project and there's
a little bit of opposition with it, or?
As far as I'm not aware of any actual opposition, there were some questions about what the level
of affordability was, about the process involved, about incentives, but I don't recall any opposition
in the meeting that I was in being expressed at the project.
Could we possibly like explore that a little bit more as far as what the affordability would
mean in this instance, like how is that being defined?
Absolutely.
Yeah, let me just, I have a slide for that.
So as you can see here on that first column there, percentage, well, second column, percentage
of units affordable.
So 7.5% of the 120 units will be at the extremely low income affordability level, 27.5% at the
very low affordability level, and 32.5% at the low income moderate level.
So overall, that will be 67.5% or 81 of the 120 units will be affordable at either, at
one of those three levels.
Okay, I don't see any more questions for staff at this time.
At this time, I'll invite the applicant up, Maxwell Fisher, I believe, if you'd like to
come up.
Chair, commissioners, my name is Maxwell Fisher with Zonedev 2502 Grandview Drive, Richardson,
Texas, 75080 representing Palladium USA Development.
We just have two representatives from Palladium here to answer any questions that I can't
answer.
A little bit about Palladium, Palladium is an international development company, however,
their U.S. headquarters is in Dallas.
So you get the quality of international developer, but you get the advantage of having a local
developer in terms of management.
So not only does Palladium develop properties, but they're also a long-term manager.
They have in-house management.
Most multi-family developers usually do that third party for their management.
Palladium is in-house.
On top of that, they also are long-term owners.
The structures of their financial deals is such that they own the properties for decades
to come.
So what you see, what you get in the beginning is what you'll have for a long period of
time.
That's the structure of the community versus selling off to another larger holder.
Sean did a great job of going over the projects.
I won't belabor with a lot of the details, but I will go over some of the things that
maybe he didn't mention in detail, but we will have several amenities with this development.
We have an interior courtyard that will have a pool, a playground, a gazebo, a grill area.
And then we also have a dog park, it will be a true dog park with some agility elements
for the dogs and a shaded area there.
And then inside we have a playground, fitness center, play room, a club room, and bike parking
as well.
And I'll show you a few of these pictures.
This is from one of their Palladium Redberg development.
Their children's room actually has an interactive floor.
It lights up when you jump on the floor, so kind of an interesting feature that you don't
always see in a multifamily development, there's playground equipment.
Here's some of their common amenity spaces on the inside, their business center, fitness
center, club room, and the residents are able to use these and reserve these areas when
they need to.
Here's a large swimming pool they have in their development.
Also this is in Dallas, some of the other conference rooms and fitness rooms from some
of their developments.
Another thing that they do that a lot of multifamily developers do not is they are truly a fixture
of the community.
They partner with Operation Community Care by providing financial literacy classes, job
skills training, resume building, even help with home ownership classes as someone transitions
out of their apartment if they want to be a homeowner someday.
After school programs, crime watch, there's actually a pantry they have on site, and so
if someone is in a pinch, they can come down and grab something off the shelf.
This doesn't happen a lot, but once in a while it's a very good feature to have.
We reached out to the community.
We had two community meetings in January and February at Denton Public Library.
A few people attended those meetings.
We also went door to door and passed out flyers to property owners within the 200 foot area
or in that median area, walked the neighborhood.
There was an opposition, I think.
We noticed that there was a landlord that owned several of the homes or the duplexes,
and so it wasn't really the homeowners or even the renters who were opposed to the request.
It was literally someone who owns and manages the development, so a lot of times there may
be competition reasons there from a rental standpoint as opposed to really being opposed
to the project.
We had a lot of support or no objection to this project as we engaged the neighbors.
Here's a look at the developments.
It's a 3D rendering.
Staff showed you how it will look along Fall Meadow, the 10 foot sidewalk, and we're also
expanding Fall Meadow as well.
Staff had a good recommendation of providing a massing study that shows how the three-story
building will look amid the two-story building and one and two-story duplexes on the west
side.
Thought it sits really well on the property and on the street.
I'll summarize, Polanium does deliver best-in-class communities, several communities in DFW, both
market-rate and affordable.
They're a long-term owner and will be a community member in Denton as opposed to just being
a merchant builder.
Multifamily is compatible with the zoning and the multifamily and duplex medium densities
around us.
It's a well-designed neighborhood and pedestrian friendly.
Staff had some good recommendations on connecting our pedestrians to the 10 foot sidewalk on
the street as well.
So this will provide much needed workforce housing in Denton.
We'd ask you to follow staff's recommendation and also council's resolution of support
that was approved on February 2025 and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Any questions from the commission?
Commissioner MacDuff?
Just to comment, I'm pleased that this is closer to downtown Denton than the heart of
the city.
Commissioner Pedrone?
How often are the literacy classes provided?
I could ask Kim Parker to address that.
I know it's not, I don't think it's very often, but it's sort of as needed and they partner
with, I don't want to speak to that exactly, but thank you, Kim.
Hi, Kim Parker with Palladium.
We use Regions Bank, who's one of our lenders, who offers free financial literacy classes
to our residents.
We have classes scheduled every month for different topics, so we may have a meeting
on how to repair your credit or how to save for a home or how to budget, basic budgeting
expenses, at least once a month at every property.
That's awesome.
What's the normal or average turnout for the classes?
We'll get anywhere from, let's say, five to maybe 12 people that will show up.
It's all in how we market it.
First of all, we have to make sure that people know about it, but we're really thrilled that
we can lean upon one of our financial partners to do this for our residents so they're not
just lending money for the development, they're also enhancing the lives of our residents,
which is really important.
Awesome.
Thank you.
Commissioner Dyer?
You showed some pictures of a kids' space, a room for kids, and exercise room and all
that.
Where is that located on the site plan?
It's actually in the building.
The interior spaces are in the building.
They'll be located on the western section of the building in the middle.
You see the main entrance.
The double doors there?
Yeah, where the ADA spaces are, and then head east into the main building there in that
area.
Okay.
Thank you.
I do have a question.
You mentioned that there was a council resolution of support.
Is this a tax credit financed project with a non-profit partner, or is this a for-profit
that's still on the tax rolls once it gets ...
It is a tax credit deal.
Okay.
I don't know if it's ... Yeah, answer that Mark.
It's a for-profit development.
We will be paying full property taxes, but it will be financing the development with
9% housing tax credits.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions for the applicant at this time?
Can I piggyback on to your question?
Yes, please do.
Was that a unanimous vote by the city council?
Yeah.
I don't recall.
I think that vote was at least a year ago.
Does staff have record of that?
I do not, but I would encourage you to focus on the merits of the land use request that's
this evening.
Okay.
This is a public hearing.
I will reopen the public hearing since we were at recess.
I do have one card, so I will invite that person up to speak at this time.
That is Prudence Sanchez, I believe.
Please come forward and state your name and address, and you'll have four minutes.
Yes.
My name is Prudence Sanchez.
I live at 711 Jackson Street here in Den.
I own property on Fall Meadow and Garden View, so I take objection to Mr. Maxwell's portrayal
of the battle landlord not wanting competition.
I'm familiar with that area.
I am not opposed to development of that space that they would like to develop.
I believe that 120 units is far too many for the congestion that's already there for the
little narrow streets that are already there, that people are already parking alongside
for the children that are walking on the little narrow sidewalks.
I believe it's going to cause drainage problems because it's going to take away a lot of the
green space that allows the water to go into the ground and into the drainage ditch that's
along that property.
I'm concerned about traffic.
I'm concerned about being able to come in and out, especially evacuation, if needed.
I am a landowner, I'm a property manager.
I support a landowner being able to use their property to the best use.
I, however, feel like 120 units are way too much.
They are correct when they say that there are lots of multi-family there already.
That's true.
Kingswood Apartments, Den North Apartments, and my concern is we're going to start looking
like cement city really close to UNT, so I just hope that this development doesn't cause
a lot of problems.
I hope the children stay safe in the neighborhood.
That's been an area that has been known in the past for high crime because of the amount
of units that are there.
I believe in the last few years it's gotten better, and those are just the concerns that
I have.
I'm not afraid of competition.
I'm not afraid of a person using their land, so I do take issue with that statement.
That's not what us landlords and property owners are concerned about.
Thank you.
Commissioner Patron?
Was there a traffic impact study?
Just to kind of touch upon the comments.
Chair, may I address a few of the questions?
I have some slides that will help address those as well.
Sure.
Yeah, here's our traffic impact analysis.
We did a full analysis, and we'll have approximately 850 trips per day, usually under the threshold
of even requiring a TIA.
It's usually around 1,000, and we'll have no more than about 45 turns at peak hour,
so it's fairly minimal.
The transportation department looked at it, and they were fine understanding it's had
a dead end, but we have two points of access, and that was appropriate.
And then parking, we basically did a parking demand analysis.
We took a count of the number of cars at 2 a.m. during the week from a few of our properties,
and this shows exactly what we need.
Sorry, that's bad coloring there.
We'll fix that.
Essentially, we need 0.68 cars per bedroom, which would require 155 cars, and we have
169 spaces, so we know exactly what we need, and so we won't be, you know, congesting
the streets.
We'll be parking totally on-site, so hopefully that addresses your question.
The landscaping, I mean, staff did an excellent job of helping us navigate the landscaping
centers.
This is not going to be all paving.
It's well-landscaped.
It's well-treated.
I mean, you all know as well, Denton's landscaping code is not on the wider end.
It's more robust than a lot of cities, so we're forced to do that, and we will.
We're happy to do it, so we think we're going to be a great addition to the neighborhood.
Those apartments there are older.
They're more several, a couple generations older.
They're actually not that dense.
They're only two-story, but they're also totally full, so there's a need for this
housing, and we'd like to bring it to the city, so thank you.
Any other questions?
Commissioner?
You talked about the parking, and that there'll be plenty of spaces for the tenants.
What about the people that visit them?
Where will they be able to park?
Yeah, so the important thing is to identify peak demand, and so even though there are
not guests in the middle of the night, some of the residents are gone during the day,
so true peak hour is at night, and so a lot of the residents are gone maybe when there's
some visitors, so we've accounted for, let's say, some of the residents are not there in
the afternoon or in the morning when there's a visitor.
That compensates and allows that guest parking.
I think you mentioned in your presentation that one of those streets, you'll be improving
and widening slightly.
Will that allow more street parking for the rest of the neighborhood?
I'm not aware of street parking, something we're proposing or allowed on that street,
but we are widening the street, in addition to the 10-foot sidewalk that we're also going
to be building.
I'm not sure the parking is ... Yeah, if there's a staff member that can address that.
We wouldn't want to congest the street.
So parking is allowed on city streets unless it is signed to no parking.
This is a public hearing, so if you haven't filled out a card, you're welcome to come
down and share your thoughts or questions.
If you have any, not seeing any motion, I will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or questions of staff as we deliberate.
Commissioner Pedron, you're on the board.
Are you ... Okay.
Seems quiet.
I'll offer a couple thoughts to get the ball rolling here.
I think that this is a unique area that has access to a couple schools within half a mile
and a library and other sorts of things.
I'm glad that the street grid here is still somewhat intact so that there is that walkable
and bikeable access to those amenities.
I guess I do have one question for staff.
Could you just give an overview specifically to the public comment that was made about
drainage on what our process is for requiring drainage during construction and after construction
and what nearby residents should do if they notice something that has gotten worse during
that period?
Does that make sense?
I can definitely speak to the fact that, obviously, this will have to go through civil engineering
plan review and studies will have to be submitted showing that this will have no negative impacts
so we cannot have flows increased to surrounding properties.
We also can't have flows significantly redirected on surrounding properties.
That's something that will have to be studied robustly and established.
In addition, before you can begin construction, we always have to have a review by our folks
and watershed to make sure that erosion control is in place, that we're not going to be creating
issues mid project.
Certainly if there is a problem, residents are more than welcome to reach out whether
that would be 311, whether that would be to the -- we have inspectors for our public works
projects.
Certainly happy to assist with that if there is a concern.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Commissioner -- I'm sorry.
I'm heading off.
I'm bad with names, too.
It's fine.
Yes.
So I just have a comment and it's not a question, but I do feel like this is a good use of that
space and I do think it's something that's needed and meets the zoning, so I'm in support
of it.
Okay.
I guess your comment about being close into schools made me also think that this is also
close to a grocery store and so I appreciate being closer to the -- not right on downtown
but closer in.
Yeah.
Yeah, and I'm just -- I'm thankful for all the creativity that went into this project
between staff and the applicant, you know, things that I see when I look at it are okay,
maybe people don't like the way a square looks, but with current fire codes that's the only
way you get multiple bedroom units, essentially, is to have corners, exterior corners.
So I see a lot of reasons why this design coalesced to this, so good job.
I'll just remind the commission that if you are having questions or misgivings, you know,
it helps our staff to explain those concerns so that we can either find a resolution to
them here on the dais or they can take direction for future projects and things, but I'll open
the floor for a motion, so there's no other questions.
Commissioner Riggs.
I make a motion to approve.
Commissioner MacDuff.
A motion to second.
Can I clarify, Commissioner Riggs, there are some staff conditions listed?
Absolutely, yes, with staff recommend.
Okay.
And Commissioner MacDuff, your second still stands.
Yes, a motion to approve with staff recommendations.
Okay.
Thank you.
Not seeing any more questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0.
That brings us to our last public hearing of the night, item 5C, Z25-0007, and I want
to thank the members of the public who have been patient tonight with us.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt, I'm presenting Z25-0007 to you tonight.
So the request before you is to rezone approximately 1.09 acres from Residential 2 District to
Mixed Use Neighborhood District.
The property is currently developed, it's three tracks, or three lots, two of those
lots are developed with a commercial building and a parking area, and then the third lot
is not developed.
The purpose is to reestablish a previously open retail use on the property, it was established
in the early 1970s, that operation ceased in 2023.
The property is located in the west part of town on the north side of 380 West University,
as shown on your screen.
So before I get into the nitty-gritty of the rezoning, I just want to take a brief moment
to talk about the history of the property.
I won't read the slide, I just want to hit some highlights.
As I mentioned, the commercial use opened prior to annexation, so sometime in the early
'70s, and then the property was annexed into the city in 1974.
The area in red was rezoned in '76.
So as we talked about earlier in the work session, when this property was annexed, it
annexed with that placeholder zoning of agriculture.
It was rezoned in '76 for that general retail to address that nonconformity, because the
existing commercial use was there.
The area in yellow was zoned with a planned development subsequent to that, for mini storage,
but that was never developed.
There were a couple of COs that were issued for the property for that commercial use retail
restaurant bar.
And then in 2002, the city adopted a new development code, the Denton Development Code, and the
entire city was rezoned, and at that time, the property was rezoned from general retail
to neighborhood residential two.
Neighborhood residential two is one of our low-density single-family residential neighborhoods
that did not permit the use, but the 2002 Denton Development Code had a special provision
called a special exception.
That didn't make the use nonconforming.
It allowed the use to continue, and that if something happened to the building, if it
burned or if they wanted to expand it, they could do that under that special exception
provision.
In 2019, we updated our Denton Development Code, the zoning then transitioned to R2.
The special exception provision was removed from our regulations, and so that thus made
the building and that use nonconforming.
It was a nonconforming use.
It was still open as a retail and restaurant establishment.
It continued on until about 2023 is what we can determine, and at that point, that use
went away.
The building was sold, and so that is where it lands us to today.
So sorry for that brief interlude into the history, but I wanted to make sure that we
went over that briefly.
So now the current request is to rezone the property from that R2 to the mixed use neighborhood
MN.
Sorry, my label is incorrect on this map.
So the map on the left, that is the current zoning.
That shows that yellow, that R2.
The map on the right has the purple shading on the subject property.
It has an incorrect label that should be MN.
That is the proposed zoning.
R2, as I mentioned earlier, is intended for single-family residential, more suburban type
development to protect single-family neighborhoods.
MN district is a little different.
It's intended to provide a bridge between kind of single-family areas and maybe more
high-density areas or high-impact areas, kind of between that bridge between those residential
areas and the mixed use or larger mixed use and commercial properties.
The criteria for approval is in subchapter 2 of the Denton Development Code.
And I won't read all of them to you.
Staff has analyzed the project and has determined it meets the criteria for approval.
In particular, it is the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose statement of
MN.
It's generally consistent with the future land use and overall goals of the comprehensive
plan.
Any redevelopment of the property would have to comply with the Denton Development Code
regulations.
So currently, the property owner is not attending to redevelop the property, but if it did happen,
all code requirements would be required.
And that would be in addition to drainage, floodplain, and ESA requirements.
And then we don't anticipate the zoning to generate significant adverse impacts to compatibility
infrastructure and fiscal impacts.
And we'll go over these just briefly.
So first of all, the comprehensive plan.
The future land use designation for the property is moderate residential.
Typically for moderate residential, we want to see more moderate densities and residential
development.
So we have between 5 and 12 dwelling units per acre is what we want to see.
But it does allow for commercial uses because we do want to have commercial uses near areas
of residential areas and areas with density to provide that necessary shopping and services
for community members.
So it is consistent with that as it does provide that commercial opportunity near an area of
residential development.
It is also, it's also consistent and that it does provide that transition.
So it provides that buffer between the residential properties to the north and then the high
speed high traffic roadway that is West University to the south.
We also looked at the preferred land preservation plan that's within our comprehensive plan.
And I do want to point to the map on the lower map on your screen.
That does show that the property is within that preferred land preservation plan.
And you can see that blue shading.
And that really is due to floodplain on the property.
As I mentioned in the backup, there is floodplain on the site.
It does encumber quite a bit of the property.
In fact, it covers the entire eastern lot and then a large portion of that western lot
including clipping the building.
That would prevent a lot of redevelopment potential for the property.
And we'll talk about that in just a minute.
But in terms of the land preservation plan, given the surrounding development, that much
of this floodplain corridor is already developed, we don't anticipate that this could serve
as something like a wildlife corridor.
I would also mention that any development of the property would require an ESA field
assessment to determine if there are any environmentally sensitive areas on the property.
And that would be required before any redevelopment.
If they did want to impact that ESA, if that ESA is present, they would have to get approval
of an alternative ESA plan.
So we also look at impacts.
In addition to the comprehensive plan, we want to see what's on the ground and see how
their requests could impact the surrounding properties.
So in terms of the zoning and those impacts, MN District is one of those districts that
limits more auto-oriented uses.
It's intended to be a little bit smaller, walkable type zoning district.
And so it would require approval of an SUP for something like drive-through restaurants,
automotive fuel sales, and bars.
So those types of uses that could create more of those larger impacts to the surrounding
property.
MN also would require a buffer and 40% tree canopy for any redevelopment of the site.
So once again, if the property owner did decide to redevelop the site, there would be those
protections within MN that would make it more compatible with the surrounding residential.
That smaller property size, you know, it's one acre, and the floodplain really do limit
the amount of development intensity on the property.
It's pretty encumbered by that floodplain, and you can see that on the map.
And then finally, right now, the building is not being used.
It is vacant, and rezoning could allow the building to be reused to keep that maintenance
on the property and activate that space.
In terms of infrastructure impacts, TIA was not required because it did not meet the threshold
for the number of trips per day.
So they anticipate there will be 462 trips per day, which is less than 1,000 for the
threshold.
Afternoon, they anticipate will be the peak, and there is adequate capacity on West University.
And then water, wastewater, right now, all of the properties, this subject site, as well
as the properties to the north, do have well and septic systems.
However, with the development that's going on in the area, in fact, just to the west
of the property, there's a new subdivision coming in.
Water, these types of infrastructure are coming to the area, and so the property owner could
tie on potentially in the future.
Notification was sent out.
At this time, we have not received any notices or any written responses.
The applicant did hold two virtual neighborhood meetings last week.
And there were several residents of the properties to the north did call in, and they did have
concerns about the, currently the property is being used as a bus stop for students,
and there were concerns about the use and students at the bus stop.
And so, and unfortunately, there's not a lot of options because the property provides that
turnaround for the bus that I think makes it convenient for, this is Chrome ISD.
So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the zoning change.
If it moves forward tonight, the tentative council date is July 15th, and I will be happy
to answer any questions, and the applicant is here.
Any questions for staff?
Commissioner Riggs.
I do have a question.
You talked about floodplain a little bit, but it's zone X, right?
So it's not, I don't know, does the city regulate zone X, or?
Yes.
There would have to be, and it's in my backup notes, there are provisions that they would
have to do if they decided to redevelop.
They may have to elevate the property over 18 inches over base flood elevation, or floodproof
the property.
So there are some things that they may have to do in order to reconstruct a new building.
The existing building could stay.
Any expansions, any reconstruction would require some additional work.
I guess I have one just out of curiosity.
You mentioned, it sounded like the history of this property is it was in use until sometime
in 2022?
I believe, yes, 2022, 2023, sometime around there.
Yes, I guess I'm just curious.
My understanding of the parking requirements that we have is that they vest for up to two
years and then you have to basically meet the current codes parking requirement if you
want to resume a previous use.
So is there sufficient parking meeting our standards of surface quality and that sort
of thing here?
We would have to look to see if this goes forward, then they'll have to come in with
a plan for us to look at in order to verify.
Is there maybe additional parking needed, we just have to take a look and see.
Okay.
So at this time, it's just the straight zoning because we're not at that phase yet.
Correct.
Understood.
Any other questions?
Not seeing any.
I'll invite the applicant up before I open the public hearing, Ms. Amy Bissett.
You'll have 10 minutes if you'd like it, but often you're more efficient than that.
Okay.
I'll do my best.
Amy Bissett, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201.
Let me get my presentation open real quick.
So this is a zoning change, as you know, from R2 to a little over one acre.
And I want to provide a little bit of context about just from the applicant's side, from
my client's side about what has occurred here.
So they purchased this property in 2023.
When they purchased it, they applied for a zoning verification letter from the city.
They received a letter that stated that this is a legal nonconforming use, the retail use
that was there at that point in time.
I can't trace exactly when the location was, the actual business closed operations, but
they received a zoning verification letter.
They believed when they purchased the property that they would be allowed to continue the
operation as it existed that day.
They're not developers.
They're not real estate investors.
They saw it as a business opportunity.
They wanted to be able to purchase the property, continue to operate the business and use that
as income for their family.
So because they are not real estate developers, they knew they needed a TABC license and they
pursued that and received it.
They hired a general contractor who began construction on a slight expansion and some
remodeling.
That general contractor did not pull a permit.
My client didn't really understand that there was a permit that needed to be pulled that
wasn't pulled at the time.
The city identified that work was going without a permit and issued a stop work order.
At that point in time, the city wanted to seek solutions, obviously, how do we help
you become conforming here?
You need a building permit.
So the contractor applied for a building permit and when the permit was under review, it was
determined that the changes to the existing building warranted an expansion of the legal
nonconforming use, which is not permitted under the DDC today.
With that, my client was stuck with a building that is, Commissioner McDuff, I heard you
say you drive by it all the time during work session, it's in disrepair, it's in very
bad shape.
I've been out there several times.
The contractor started demolition and now it's sitting vacant.
It has been sitting vacant since February of 2024.
My client is frustrated and concerned because their intention all along was to operate a
business that was already in use when they purchased the property and they just made
some mistakes in how they went about trying to renovate it.
So that's how I got involved essentially is just we met with the city to determine what
are our options in terms of bringing them into conformance so that they can continue
with their construction, get a building permit and get open and operating again.
So I just wanted to provide that context from the perspective of the property owner today.
So as Julie mentioned, under the current R2 zoning, you have a vacant commercial building
sitting there today, which means it cannot reopen and come into use for anything at this
point in time.
The legal nonconforming status has expired and the property is going to sit vacant until
a zoning change is made at this point in time.
There's really no other option other than tearing it down and building a home there,
which right on 380 we all know is not really compatible at this time.
So we are proposing mixed use neighborhood, Commissioner Prude, I heard your question
in a work session about why MN versus SC and I feel like Julie adequately addressed that.
We wanted something that is more compatible in scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
I do want to share a little bit of history with the neighborhood.
So Denton Estates, which I've outlined here, was platted in 1969 and at the time all of
it was in the ETJ.
You can see kind of the shaded area to the north is still in the ETJ today.
It's outside of the city limits.
So now part of the neighborhood is in the city limits and part of it is outside of the
city limits.
So all of the neighborhood is on well and septic today.
I do want to mention here that we've had some meetings with the flood payment plan manager
with the City of Denton and a floodplain development permit will be required for the footprint
expansion to the east, which is a small amount of square footage, does encroach slightly
into the floodplain and a permit will be required for that.
We're already aware of working with the floodplain manager on that.
Here are some renderings of what they had originally envisioned and got started with
before the stop work order was issued.
We did have a couple of neighborhood meetings last week and had three property owners in
attendance and we have three here to speak tonight and I want to share with you what
concerns I heard in the meetings last week, but then also make you aware that you'll call
three different names tonight, Chair Pruitt, one of them will come up in a company, another
one who will need translation assistance.
What we heard was that their kids go to Crum ISD and Crum used to route through the neighborhood
and pick up all the kids, but the roads have become in disrepair to a point that the school
district will no longer pick up the kids at their homes.
So right now the Crum school district utilizes the parking lot of this property to pick up
the kids.
The neighbors are concerned about that.
The intention here is for this to be a liquor store and so I understand their concern.
We have started exploring some conversations with the city about how can we relocate that
bus stop to the other side of my property owner's property, which is in the floodplain,
but maybe there's an opportunity to put some gravel in that's permeable where we can pull
it away from the intersection that it's currently at.
The other main concern that we heard is their desire to connect to city water as well as
to have some road improvements and we are aware that there's a new water line that was
just constructed on that side of the road for Legends Ranch and we're taking a look
at potential opportunities there, I think Julie mentioned the opportunity to connect
with city services in the future.
So we're looking at ways that we can continue to help the neighborhood as we work through
this process.
The next step, assuming the zoning change is approved by city council next month, we
would require a floodplain development permit, a building permit as well.
My client has engaged an architect to put together building plans and be able to go
pull a building permit so that they can recommence construction and their TABC permit they do
already have which is part of the confusion about why they thought they were allowed to
continue the use when they purchased the property and with that I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much.
Any questions for the applicant from the commission?
Thank you for addressing the comments in the work session.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing and we'll open the public hearing at this time.
As I call these three names, feel free to come up in whatever combination is helpful
for translation.
The first card I have is Letitia Compensato, yes, if you'd like to come up forward and
speak.
Very good.
If you can state your name and address and then you'll...
My name is Letitia Compensato, my address is 1256 Willow Lane, Tanton, Texas, 76207.
I've been living in Denton State for 27 years so she pretty much knows the entire story
of the neighborhood.
Okay.
Sorry, just a second, I will say because there's translation going on I'm going to wave the
standard four minute limitation because I want to make sure that you're not rushed.
But for the purposes of the record, we need the name and address of the translator as
well.
Okay, my address too?
Yes.
My name is Julia Camposano, my address is 1175 Willow Lane, Denton, Texas, 76207.
Thank you.
When you translate back into English, especially if you could make sure you're close enough
to the microphone since we're recording just for future reference.
Thank you.
That's great.
Thank you.
I oppose the type of business which we were told that it's a liquor store and for the
safety of our children.
It's a family neighborhood and it's not proper that there is like children all the way from
pre K to high school.
And she feels like before providing a permit, we have to have the main services from the
city, which is water and sewer, which we don't have right now.
The basics, 27 years living there without city water.
There has been times that there has been five days without water, a week, and with children.
I'm happy and grateful that you all have the time to listen to what I have to say because
I've been living there in Denton States.
Because living here and not having the basic services, it's hard.
It's hard for the families, for the kids, for the safety of our children.
There are some people, there are some neighbors that they don't understand that we must keep
our properties clean and how do I say, like looking good.
She has been given evidence to the city almost every year complaining and letting the city
what's going on with the neighborhood.
It's been going on for years, but it seems they don't care.
Because she's in pretty much the main flood zone and there's a ditch there.
All the water that comes, I'm going to say from crumb that comes down, goes through that
property.
All the main mobile home park, I'm going to say cut it in the middle, where she was pointing
all the floods and all the water comes through there.
So it affects everyone in the neighborhood.
It's embarrassing how the roads look right now, even though we pay taxes.
She pays thousands every year and ... Where's the money going to?
Because we don't ever get any kind of help from city or Denton County.
Now bringing a liquor business, it's not good for us as families and a lot of Hispanic people
that live there.
I don't think it's a good option and I don't think the neighbors agree with this.
If it's a convenience store, then yes, for liquor, no, I oppose and I think everyone
opposes.
Like I said, feel free to have a little bit of extra time because of the translation.
How is possible they want to get a permit for a commercial building when we don't even
have the basic from the city or the county?
That's what I wanted to communicate, y'all.
Okay, this is my turn now.
Any questions from the commission of the speaker, yeah, Commissioner McDade?
Do you own your property there?
Yes.
Thank you.
Yeah, if you'd like to go next, is this Julia or Salda?
Yes, it's Julia.
Okay, Julia.
Well, good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Julia Camposano.
I live in 1175 Cottonwood Lane.
I've been living there since I'm going to say 2004.
I opposed to this change mainly because of the safety of our children.
There's about 35 to 40 kids that the Chrome ISD picks up every morning and drops them
in the afternoon.
I try to fight with them in the past because this has been going on for years.
They refuse to pick up our kids from each house because of the condition of our roads.
We all agree to have a specific spot for our children, and that way the buses don't get
damaged because that's what we were told.
It's been behind the parking lot where that business is or was.
By the time I've been living there, that business was more like a convenience store.
It was only open at night and weekends, so it was not a whole day thing.
Another concern that I have, I requested with the Texas Department of Transportation a report
of all the car accidents that happened there because it's a pretty dangerous area.
I'm going to say two to three accidents per year happened there, including fatalities.
I even try to get a stop light for our children because the kids that live in Willow Lane,
they can drop off the bus and just walk back to their houses, but the other kids that live
on Cottonwood Lane, they have to walk on the bridge across front of that building to go
to their homes.
Well, I never got any response from the Texas Department of Transportation.
All they did, they choose to install reflectors on the bridge, and that was it.
The property maintenance, the grass right now, the property is up to here right now.
I don't know who's in charge, if it's any owner, but there is no proper maintenance
for that property.
Another concern is, just like she said before, we have no city services.
Even though there's another neighborhood next to us that it's mobile homes and they have
city water, we are the only ones that don't have any city water.
Like she said before, especially during wintertime, there has been four or five days without water.
We also brought this to the city attention, but what we were told is it's a private property,
so everyone is responsible for their own piece of land, including the roads.
Another concern that we have is our taxes may go up if this goes through, because if
it becomes commercial and residential, it may affect our taxes, and I don't think it's
fair because we don't even get any city services.
So that's why I oppose.
Thank you.
Any questions of the speaker?
Yeah, Commissioner Padrone.
When you're talking about the kids having to cross the bridge, are you talking about
the walkway that's on day 80 and not the little footbridge?
Yes.
So they're crossing on the sidewalk on 380.
Okay.
Thank you.
Like some kids will have to walk, like me, either my dad or me go pick up from the bus
stop.
But some other kids are like, I'm going to say the teenagers, they do have to walk through
the sidewalk, and they hold their little sisters or brothers.
Okay, Commissioner McDade.
Excuse me.
We have enough.
One more question.
I'm sorry.
You own your land in this area that you're speaking of.
You do own the property?
Yes.
And also, who do you pay your city taxes to?
Do you pay them to the city of Denton?
Yes, every year.
But your kids attend Crum School?
Yes.
Thank you.
The last card I have is for Rosalba Camposano Chavez.
I hope I got that correct.
If not, you'll have to educate me.
Please state your name and address, and you'll have four minutes.
My name is Rosalba Camposano Chavez.
I own 1175 Cottonwood Lane and 1195 Cottonwood Lane, Denton, Texas, 76207.
I oppose for the same reason, for the safety of our children, mainly because it's the best
spot for our children.
I don't think it's safe for them to be walking on the side of the ... For the Willow Lane,
for the kids that live on the Willow Lane, there's no problem because they can just walk
on the road to their homes.
However, for our kids that live on Cottonwood Lane, they'll have to walk on the side of
the 380 highway, which we all know it's known for accidents and traffic.
Also I wouldn't want for our taxes to go up, especially we don't have roads, we don't have
city water and all that.
I personally, my two lots that I own, I pay taxes for Crum.
I pay for city and I pay for county, for Denton, sorry, I'm nervous.
That's the main concern why, and also because it's the type of business that they're wanting
to open, which I don't think it's safe for the neighborhood.
In fact, the neighborhood already is not really that safe, to be honest, and adding that type
of business to it, it will just make it not the best for us.
I think it will add more homeless and all that type of stuff that will make it less
safety for our children, and also because of the flood zone.
It gets pretty flooded when it rains, and I think that would also affect him as if he
wants to open that type of business, I don't think it will be the best for him.
And also, like she said, the maintenance right now, the grass is up to here, so if he could
change that, that would be great.
But the main concern is for the safety of our children, and that is why I oppose.
I guess I have a question.
It seems like the safety of the children and the community there is a common thread.
From your perspective, is that mostly connected to the bus situation?
Is that the safety you're mainly talking about?
Yeah, and also people there, I mean some people don't listen there, especially because nobody
tells them anything.
Pretty much it's the neighborhood where everybody does whatever they want to do, to be honest.
And they're always speeding and stuff like that.
If you're adding a liquor store to people who are already speeding at night, all night
long you can hear it.
And if you're going to add a liquor store there, it's only going to make it worse.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the commission?
Yeah, Commissioner MacDuff?
I have a list here of concerns.
Sorry, are these questions for the speaker or more general for staff?
Or just, I just want to let the public speaker know if they can sit down.
Yes, I have a list of concerns here and taking them into account, but I'm going to ask again.
It seems like that the main concern is for the kids' safety, overwhelming.
And is the secondary concern perhaps, or is it a liquor store and before we had a convenience
store attached or somewhere in that shopping center to buy things?
Yeah, before it was like a store and kind of like a bar, but there wasn't really that
many like customers there, like mainly it was open during the weekends, like it was
calm, like there was nothing, but just, I think that a liquor store would be different.
Commissioner Padron?
I think this is more for staff than our member of the public.
Thank you.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, so regardless of the type of business, because of the state
of the building, it's out of compliance with the zoning, so even if they wanted to change
the type of business, regardless, it would have to be rezoned for any business to operate.
Am I getting that correct or?
You're absolutely correct.
Okay.
So they are proposing just to rezone, so any use that would be permitted in the MN district,
if approved, could be developed on the site.
So right now, if the property owner changed their mind and said, "I want to bring back
a convenience store or modified grocery store," this zoning would still have to go through?
Correct.
Okay.
Correct.
Commissioner Dyer?
I guess maybe that's kind of the same exact question, is that we're just doing the zoning.
We're not approving to have it to be a liquor store.
Once this is approved, then the property owner has to come back to the city and ask to be
able to operate a liquor store out of there, and then the citizens would have to come back
and say, do they get a chance to say, "We don't want that," or is all of this information
kind of noted for the future?
So we don't have a separate use in our use tables for liquor store.
It would be retail sales.
So if this is approved, because MN allows for retail sales, then that use would be permitted.
All that they would have to do is demonstrate that they have sufficient parking and get
a CO, a certificate of occupancy, if the zoning were approved, and there wouldn't be an additional
public hearing.
So it is possible that if we approve this, then the property owner could do whatever
they want and the city would not necessarily take into account the community's concerns.
That is possible.
Any use in MN could be developed, yes.
Okay.
Julie, you mentioned in the slide, I think, that a bar would require an SUP in MN.
Correct.
Can you explain for us the difference between a bar and a liquor store from a classification
perspective?
Hailey may correct me, but a bar would allow on-site consumption, whereas a package sales
retail it would.
Correct.
I'll help you out.
So yes, Julie is correct that a bar is on-site consumption.
So that means you're purchasing it on the site and drinking it there.
With a liquor store, it's retail sales or package sales.
So from what I understand, it is illegal to consume the alcoholic beverages on the property
for where it's sold.
Okay.
I think the other thing is, to Julie's point, the liquor store is considered retail sales,
and I believe there's provisions in the state law that basically address that.
We have to treat liquor stores, since they are a retail function, similar to how we would
treat other retail stores, we cannot make a distinction.
Our rules, as I understand them, for businesses that provide alcoholic beverages, they follow
the state requirements because of when we adopted those requirements for our city.
So for retail sales of liquor stores, even for bars also, there are minimum separation
distances from protected land uses, such as churches and schools, but from residential
neighborhoods, there are not.
And just a second, I'll have more to say about this in a minute, but I want to get the factual
knowledge of what's there.
I really don't want this to turn into another green tree estates type thing, and I want
to help us separate out the different things that are going on here.
My question is, does staff have any information on what the water and septic situation is?
They don't look like one or two acre lots to me, so is it a communal system, or is it
every individual system where they all just built before the county even started looking
at that?
Help us understand that, just so that we can get some information on the table.
There are, according to our data, there are wells and septic systems on each lot.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Riggs?
You'll get it here in a minute.
So right now, it's currently zoned R2.
Could they actually build a single family on the lot the way it is now, they'd have
to tear this building down?
It would have to stay out of the flood zone or the floodplain, but yes, there could be
potentially.
That doesn't leave a lot of room.
So essentially, if the zoning doesn't get changed, then this just stays a vacant building
that's in disrepair.
That's what it sounds like to me, anyway.
And then this used to be the Porkies, right?
I believe so.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thanks.
Any other questions or discussion for the commission?
I was about to close the public hearing.
I see your hand.
This isn't really a forum where we go back and forth like that.
The one procedure that we have for coming back up is if the applicant would like a short
time for rebuttal, then the original commenters are able to speak on those items only.
Just one water well for the entire committee.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
Any other questions or discussion?
I'm very torn on this one because it's in the flood zone.
It's not going to become a house.
And I feel bad for the applicant who, for whatever reason, I don't know if they didn't
do their homework or check in the zoning when they were purchasing it, but you've got a
whole neighborhood, a whole community of families and kids and yes, as a mom of three grown
kids, when they were little, I don't know that I would want to have lived next door
or had a liquor store come right there at the entrance.
But I feel for the applicant who obviously has an investment and wants to see a return,
so how do you, how does we as a commission vote to approve the zoning change, but also
know that that could entail, because we know the intent of what they're going to do and
we can't really ask them to do something else.
And once the change is made, they're going to conform to what now the new zoning is.
And so it's not like the staff can't really say no.
So I'm very, I'm conflicted on this one.
Commissioner.
So I don't know if the appropriate staff is here, but has any CDBG been considered or
talked about out here for?
So when you say has any CDBG been considered?
Like for to actually install water lines and sewer lines, I know it used to be CDBG funding
for those types of improvements, particularly for neighborhoods like this.
You know, that's a great question.
I don't know if it has in the past or not, from what I understand in that the roads have
been considered as private roads and the city has not, has determined it has not had a responsibility
for maintenance, but you know, one thing that we can commit to is go back and investigate
that further and look into that to see if there's a responsibility.
I think as Julie pointed out previously, especially with the history of the annexation, when this
property was initially developed or the neighborhood was initially developed, and Julie correct
me if I'm wrong, but you know, it, it was within the county, right?
And so the roads were not constructed to any city standards at the time because it was
out in the county.
And then we, the city eventually did some strip annexation.
So only a limited number of properties were brought into the city.
The remaining balance of the neighborhood is predominantly within, within the county.
So this property or this neighborhood in general, obviously has some challenges based upon what's
been presented and the commitment that we, at least as the planning staff can make is,
is trying to get with our colleagues to do some further investigation as to what options
there may be to be able to identify how the roads could get repaired.
And then also what options there may be for improving access to water and utilities for
the area.
So as everybody keeps thinking, I guess I'll, I'll share my thoughts, but I'm, I'm happily
to be interrupted if somebody says I know, you know, zoning helps us.
It was designed to prevent, you know, broad egregious malfeasance of, of polluting areas
back before we had pollution controls, et cetera.
And now it saddens me when I hear just the layers of information and what you know, whether
you know or not the, the motions you have to go through to, to keep a business open
that you just bought, right?
And so, you know, when I look at this case, I see it's really just the land use, right?
The question is, does a commercial building, a budding 380 make sense more than a home,
right?
From a land land use zoning perspective, there's certainly a lot of details here.
I'll just say that to the question of what happens, how do we get this neighborhood to,
to have better services in the future?
You know, cities, including Denton, have really forgotten how to make incremental small improvements
to things.
We, we do $30 million road projects.
We don't send a guy out with a truck to make the road not have holes in it anymore.
And so places like this get left behind.
At the same time, because of the current structure, it's, it's less likely in my mind that the
neighborhood will be helped out with those services if this business is shuttered because
of zoning and somebody's dreams are, are shuffled away.
So any other questions, comments?
I think I'm a little torn on this one, but you know, I also kind of go, the zoning seems
to make sense.
If I'm not thinking about what specifically is planned there, the zoning makes sense and
people who own the property do have property rights to, to develop it.
And I understand it's being used as a bus stop and I would hope that they could figure
something out to, to still allow that to happen or maybe use the different side, maybe the
other side of, on a cottonwood or something like that, maybe make something adequate.
Yeah, I guess, it's not really a question, but obviously there's no, nothing binding
in any, any of this, but it would be really nice if the owner, as they work through this
process would try to be communicative with Chrome ISD and find a solution to that.
Because that really seems like the, the most near term concern.
Yeah.
Sure.
You all, those of you who have been here a while as you see me here frequently, I represent
zoning cases almost exclusively in the city of Denton and I can tell you that I can commit
to continuing the conversations with my client and with the city to try to solve some of
these issues for the neighborhood.
My heart goes out to them as well.
I hear their concerns.
I think that their concerns are separate from the zoning change at hand here today and,
but I, I commit to maintaining a relationship with the neighborhood and seeking solutions
on behalf of the neighborhood.
Any other thoughts or questions or emotion?
Senator Dyer?
Well I'm just looking up here and it looks like as you get closer to 380s, some of those
property owners do pay city taxes, but as you get farther north into the community,
they're just paying the county and the school district.
So I think this is a tough one because you're finding, you know, some of it is city taxable
area and kind of going back to the, you know, everybody's property rights.
Commissioner Padron?
Again, no, I just wanted to say that I'm also very conflicted with this one as well.
I do feel though that there are some separate issues that are at hand and there are multiple
entities that frankly need to be at the table to find solutions to better the situation
in a wide variety of ways, whether that's roads, whether it's roads, safety for children
walking on 380 basically and, you know, just improvement of infrastructure.
But I guess going back to the key thing is the focus of not necessarily what the business
is but for the business to be able to operate and what that could look like.
I don't know, this one's really hard for me, but I appreciate the public comment.
It's not easy to come up and talk about, you know, your feelings and your situations and
advocate for yourself whether, you know, you're the property owner or you're a community that's
being impacted, but I really appreciate all the comment that was given and bringing light
to what is being experienced and if anything being able to continue to bring this conversation
to the forefront to see how we as a community can find solutions for this community.
Commissioner McDade.
Thank you.
I also want to thank the families for being brave enough to come here and speak before
all of us, I know how intimidating that can be.
I hear your concerns and I feel your concerns.
Perhaps maybe with this zoning change for the owner, it can also bring some improvements
to your neighborhood and your community and I know staff is listening and they're taking
notes and we'll keep talking to them about helping and assisting you to bring about changes
that are possible.
You know, we know that we and them can't do everything, but now that the staff knows and
hears what your issues and concerns are and you're paying city taxes, I think that they'll
be looked at.
However, I do feel that any improvements that the new owner plans to do there will still
require some city input as far as permits and you all should stay up to date and informed
on those things as they move forward also, but thank you very much for coming.
Thank you.
Before I ask for a motion, I see our assistant planning director, Keisha Siriano here.
If you would be able to provide the residents with the information about the neighborhood
information that you've explained to us over the last couple of months, I think that might
be a good first step.
Any other statements or a motion?
With that, I will move to approve the zoning request from R2 to MN.
And Commissioner MacDuff?
Yes, I will second that motion that's in line with the criteria of the debt and development
code and for approval of all applications and for approval of a zoning change.
If I may, also want to tack on with that motion to investigate these issues that have arisen
this evening.
Thank you.
Yeah, I think while they're separate issues, these types of things are sure to come up
at council again if it moves to that.
I will mention that I will close the public hearing if that wasn't stated before.
My apologies for not saying that earlier.
Seeing no additional questions or requests to speak, I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes 6-0.
That brings us to, yes, please.
Ms. Bissett, could you please let them know when this item is slated to go to city council
or staff can also after the meeting.
Thank you.
Okay.
No, that's fine.
That brings us to item 6-A, hold a discussion regarding the planning and zoning project
matrix.
Do you have any updates for us?
Thank you, Chair Pruitt.
So a few updates for the commission's benefit.
So as it relates to the matrix itself, so we did add the last item on the front page,
public engagement techniques that staff performs as requested by Commissioner McDuff.
So we will get that scheduled for a future date.
So wanted to make note that we added that.
In terms of items that council has taken action on that you have seen previously or considered
previously since your last planning and zoning commission meeting, if you recall, there were
a couple of mobility plan amendments that you all recently considered.
One was with respect to, was kind of a combination effort related to Corbin Road, Underwood Road
and Springside.
So that was presented to council and council did approve that mobility plan amendment.
The other was the removal of the collector street west of I-35 north and south of 380
north of Jim Crystal.
It was a future collector roadway does not exist today.
So that item was also approved by council to remove that from the mobility plan.
A couple other items to make note, one of the things that we will add to your matrix
or just to your next agenda is we are anticipating doing the legislative update for the commission
at your meeting in July, provided our work session schedule permits since we continued
a few items but nonetheless just want to share with you bills that we were monitoring and
their potential impact to the city because we anticipate we will have to make some development
code amendments as a result of those bills being passed.
So we'll give more detail and update when we're posted for that discussion.
And then also a friendly reminder to make sure you have on your calendars.
We will have another CIAC meeting in July that dates July 23rd.
So I would anticipate likely a 4 p.m. start.
So if you can make sure that that is on your calendars and accept Kathy's meeting invites
if you will or at least let us know if you're going to attend or if you're not able to attend
so we can ensure that we have quorum.
But this will be a report that has to be given to the CIAC.
So we will have that forthcoming.
And that concludes my report.
>> Thank you, any items to add to the matrix from the commission?
I don't necessarily think this needs to go on the matrix but could staff, could you explain
what our procedures are for members of the public that want to come and speak that need
translation assistance just for future reference?
>> Sure thing so I believe it's actually posted on our agenda.
If not, my understanding is that the request needs to be made through the city secretary's
office at least three days in advance of the meeting so that we can make sure that we are
able to arrange for the appropriate translation services.
Anything else to add Kathy?
Did I get that correct?
>> If they are requesting translation services, is there a specific location that they search
to find?
If somebody needs translation services, how would they find to request it?
>> Thank you, I appreciate you asking that and I should have specified that request needs
to be through the city secretary's office.
The city secretary's office makes the arrangements for the translation services.
>> Yeah, I guess just follow up if we can double check and make sure the standard agenda
forms have that information in them.
I see visual representation.
>> Last page, because I was looking at the front page of the agenda.
So at the very end of the agenda in all capital letters, it does mention that the city of
Denton's designated public meeting facilities are accessible in accordance with Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The city will provide accommodations such as sign language interpreters for the hearing
impaired if requested at least 48 hours in advance of the schedule meeting, please call
the city secretary's office at 940-349-8309 or use telecommunication devices for the deaf
by calling 1-800-RELAY-TX so that reasonable accommodations can be arranged.
So while it does not specifically address translation services, we do provide and work
on that assistance, so hopefully again contacting the city secretary's office for that service
and then they will make sure they coordinate with us.
>> Very good.
All right.
It sounds like no matrix additions.
Are there any concluding items, anyone?
Thank you, everybody, for a little bit longer night, but I think there were lots of things
to consider, so thank you for your time.
With that, I will adjourn the planning and zoning meeting on June the 25th.