- Good afternoon at 5.03 this afternoon,
July 23rd, 2025.
With the quorum present,
I will convene our work session
of the Denton Planning and Zoning Commission.
Our first item is citizen comments
on the consent agenda items.
So these are items three on the main agenda.
Is there anybody seeing none?
Move on to clarification of agenda items
on our evening's agenda.
Sorry.
It's a couple of individual consideration items.
So, 4A, FP250020A, Matt?
- I'm scared since the last time I was up here,
I led Julie wrong.
- Good evening, Matt Burdeen.
Here presenting a final plat
for an approximately nine and a half acre track
located about the corner of Hickory Creek Road
and Teasley Lane.
At this time, this plat does not meet
our criteria for approval,
but staff has no objection to their requested extension.
This is the second extension requests
associated with this project.
Here to answer any questions.
- I don't see any.
Thank you, Matt.
Brings us to 4BZCP25-0013.
Good afternoon, Mia.
- Good afternoon, Chair, members of the commission.
Mia Hines, senior planner.
This item stated in the caption
is a zoning compliance plan within Razor Ranch
for hospital services.
This site is approximately just over three acres
located west of Heritage Trail,
approximately 265 feet north of Panhandle Street.
Staff is recommending approval of this request
as it does meet all of the criteria for approval
as stated in the Razor Ranch overlay ordinance.
And I'd be happy to answer
any questions you have at this time.
I do have a more detailed presentation
to sort of walk you through the site
and what they're proposing,
but I'll be happy to answer any questions
that you have at this time.
I don't see.
Oh, yes.
Sorry.
No, okay.
I don't see any.
Thank you, Mia.
- Thank you.
- And did anybody on the commission
have any questions for the consent agenda?
I skipped over that, but there are any?
No, okay.
So that brings us to our public hearings.
First one is 5A, AESA25-0001A.
- So Chair, staff will ask that you open the public hearing
and continue this item to a date certain of August 13th,
please.
- Yeah, we can do that.
Next one is 5B, Z25-0004.
- You're gonna see a lot of me tonight.
So, yes.
Oops.
Here we go.
- Good evening.
Here to present, it's the Springside Industrial
rezoning change case.
The property in question is located on the west side
of I-35, kind of at the corner of Springside and Corbin Road.
Should sound a little familiar as there was
a recent mobility plan amendment in the general area.
The applicant is proposing to rezone this property
from RR to Heavy Industrial.
Staff found this to be consistent
with the comprehensive plan,
as well as furthering the goals of that plan,
as well as recommending approval
to do the significant growth in the area.
Staff has received public comments
from neighboring property owners
that are included in that backup.
Ultimately, staff is recommending approval,
but here to answer any questions,
and then there's a longer presentation
during the public meeting.
- Yes, I wanted to mention, really just to point out
that there was some interest, seemed to be some interest
from a gentleman, Kevin McKinney.
He was at the last hearing.
And wondering if we saw at the bottom the PS on his letter.
- Yes.
- That says that he has been omitted from mailings
from zoning change.
So perhaps we should check that out.
- So yeah, I can help shed some light on that.
So Mr. McKinney's property in question is in the ETJ.
So it's not actually in city limits.
And city requirements is we send the letters
and postcards to property owners in city limits.
So that's why he did not receive a letter or postcard.
We do, I mean, that is why we use our other means,
such as a website, a newspaper, to help spread the word,
not just to those immediate property owners,
but also generally.
- So just making sure, is he aware of that,
the reason he's not receiving the mailing?
- Yes, yeah.
So yeah, staff, we did reach out to him
and explain the situation,
and invited him to come and speak,
come to this meeting as well.
- Okay, thanks, Matt.
- Okay, any other questions?
Don't see any, thanks, Matt.
You're up again for the match show.
S25-0004.
All right.
So this case is for a specific use permit
to allow for the boarding house use
in the mixed-use neighborhood zoning district.
The property in question is near UNT
at the corner of Frye and Oak Street.
It is a developed lot,
as you can see in the picture here.
And at this time, the applicant
is not proposing any site changes,
simply wanting to change the use.
In addition to just the general specific use permit,
staff is proposing the additional conditions
that there be no more than nine bedrooms,
and no less than 10 parking spaces.
This is to maintain consistency of the site
reflecting what is currently there,
existing on the property.
You did find it consistent with the comprehensive plan,
as well as the current zoning,
and staff is recommending approval of the SUP.
- Okay, any questions on this item?
Okay, thank you, Matt.
Brings us to our work session reports.
Item 3A, PZ25-0-146.
Downtown actions.
Is this the first action that we have
from the downtown plan that we're doing?
- No, thankfully we've actually knocked out a couple already,
so the expansion of the Terge district
was a big early win there
to help make all the other things possible.
- Very good.
- But this is one of the first that I've gotten to work on,
which I'm very excited about.
So Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner,
and past Deputy Project Manager
for the Designed Downtown Denton Plan.
I'm here to share with y'all a work session
on expanding opportunity in southern downtown.
So just to give y'all kind of the agenda
we're gonna work through,
we're gonna look at the Designed Downtown Denton Plan,
briefly the engagement that went into that,
some history and recent changes
in the area that we're discussing, southern downtown,
the recommendation that the Designed Downtown Denton Plan
had for this area, staff's analysis,
the neighborhood feedback we received,
and then the questions that we provided to you
in your backup, and just to remind you,
you should have all four of those in your AIS.
I am gonna be coming back to discuss those,
so if you wanna have them pulled up
and be thinking about them as we go through
the presentation, that'd be wonderful.
On the topic of questions, given the time constraints
and what we need to get through,
I am gonna ask that as you have questions,
maybe just take notes of those,
and we will have an opportunity to ask those
kind of midway through the presentation
before we get into the analysis, and then at the end.
So I will give you that opportunity,
but if you can hang on to those points,
I would be grateful, and we will try to be efficient.
So, big picture here, the area that we're talking about
is the area outlined in gold there south of the square.
It's about 64 acres, 153 lots.
The primary zoning there today
is MN Mixed Use Neighborhood.
We have a few public facilities lots owned by government,
one or two small R7 lots.
And the Designed Downtown Denton proposed change
that we'll be considering is that all of the MN lots
in that area be zoned MD.
That is not necessarily staff's recommendation,
but that's the point we're starting from,
the Designed Downtown Denton plan suggested that we study.
So, big picture question.
The Designed Downtown Denton plan,
that's gonna be familiar to, well, definitely to the Chair,
but possibly not to everyone else.
So we wanna take a step back.
That's the long-term plan for our downtown
that we spent much of 2023 and 2024 creating.
A lot of that time went into community engagements.
We had about 40 events in which we went to the public
and in various ways asked them what they wanted to see
in downtown so that this was not going to be a staff plan.
This was not gonna be a consultant plan.
This was gonna be a community plan.
One of the big things that we asked them over and over was,
what do you as residents and business owners
want to see for the future of downtown?
One of the things they came back to us and said was,
we wanna see more businesses
and more focus south of the square.
It feels like there's not a lot of life there.
We'd like to see more attention there.
We wanna see less vacant lots, empty businesses.
So in response to that,
response to the community's concern and their request,
the plan recommended that we work towards
a future southern downtown.
So new housing, shops, restaurants in that area
centered around a future public park.
So that was the vision that was put forward
in response to the community's desire.
Now, one of the things we look at is,
what are some of the challenges facing us
in getting to that?
And so we wanna take a step back
and specifically look at the zoning history.
Now, I gave y'all a more extensive kind of history
of downtown zoning in your backup,
but we wanna focus in here and just kind of recap
for just this southern downtown area,
what's happened there recently in the realm of zoning.
Prior to 2019, we had the downtown
commercial general zoning.
That was our most intensive downtown zoning.
And that covered a pretty large area from many blocks
north of the square, all the way down to Eagle, all DCG.
In 2019, we adopted the new Denton Development Code,
new at the time.
With that, we brought in a whole new slate
of zoning districts and every lot in the city moved
to one of the new zoning districts.
Generally, we said, what's the closest district
to what you had before, you move to that.
There was an exception.
In the area that we're looking at,
in the downtown area with DCG,
at the time we felt that the MD,
that most intensive zoning should be limited
to the boundaries of what was called the DTIP,
the Downtown Implementation Plan.
So it was an area that was more limited
around kind of that core oak hickory
kind of down towards the train station.
It was limited, which meant that we had a lot of lots
that were outside of that area
that had been previously zoned DCG, including in this area.
Those lots, rather than becoming MD mixed use downtown,
instead became mixed use neighborhood,
which is, it does limit owners' flexibility
for what they can do in their property more
than what's permitted in MD.
So it does make it potentially more difficult
to reuse or redevelop your property.
So that is one of the challenges we're looking at
as we try to move towards that future southern downtown.
Keep in mind, right now, that area,
previously DCG, Downtown Commercial General,
it became mixed use neighborhood
rather than mixed use downtown.
Now, the good news is, we've also had a change recently
that was very helpful in moving towards
the southern downtown vision,
which is the city completed the PEC-4 project
to remove a huge area of land from the floodplain.
So all that area outlined in gold,
not in the floodplain anymore,
which means that for the first time in decades,
new buildings can be built there.
Existing buildings can be expanded and replaced.
This is a unique opportunity for growth and redevelopment
that we wanna build on, we wanna take advantage of that.
So given that fact, the challenge,
and the opportunity that we have now,
what's the next step to move towards that vision
of a southern downtown?
Well, design downtown debt and plan recommendation 3D
suggested, as I noted, that we extend,
we consider extending MD zoning into that entire gold areas,
that all those MN lots would get the MD zone
and that they did not yet in 2019.
The purpose would be to expand that opportunity
and flexibility for downtown style development
throughout that area, remove some of those roadblocks.
So that's what we're considering.
As we consider that, it's important to know
where that area is right now.
So as you can see there, that's our current land use map.
In red, you see we have a lot of commercial uses.
They're often older, and in many cases,
they haven't received a lot of investment,
most likely because they're in the floodplain.
You have a fair bit of multifamily in that lighter yellow.
We do have some single-family residential
on the east and west edges.
We'll talk about them more as we go along.
There's a lot of vacant lots,
so those dark gray over on the right side there.
It's also important to note
that there's a lot of smaller lots in here,
which are harder because you've got limited real estate there.
Under MN zoning, it's harder to adaptively reuse
or develop under MN because it does have
those higher landscape standards,
and it fully enforces all of our parking minimums.
So given that, what are the potential advantages
of moving to the MD zoning in this area?
Bottom line, it allows property owners
to use more of their lots, to fully use their right
to develop their property.
So for instance, you have a higher lot coverage permitted.
You have a lower landscaping requirement
and tree canopy requirement.
So it gives them more flexibility to use their lot.
It allows those smaller lots to be developed.
It enables taller development,
which means if you can go higher on a smaller lot,
that gives you more flexibility, more opportunity.
It makes it easier to develop some of those commercial uses
that were pretty typical in downtown Denton.
So bars and craft breweries,
that's something Dentonites enjoy.
Easy to develop in MD, harder to develop in MN.
So again, giving them, those property owners,
the opportunity to do what their fellow property owners
to the north can do much more easily.
Big one is parking flexibility.
So in MD, commercial businesses are not required
to meet a minimum parking.
Instead, they can decide what makes sense for them.
Similarly, for residential uses under 10 units,
there's that greater parking flexibility,
which means on a smaller lot, you have more opportunity.
So if you've had a business, a building
that's been there for years, a commercial building,
it may not have enough space
to meet our current parking regulations.
It's a great building, you can't do anything with it.
This would give more opportunity
to adaptively reuse those buildings
because you could use a smaller amount of parking.
At the same time, there are potential concerns with this.
And so we wanna identify some ways
that those can be mitigated
with code provisions we already have.
One concern would be height.
Maybe concerned about having a taller building developed
near smaller neighborhood home.
We have our height transition buffer,
which means there is a distance
within which you can't go any higher
with a commercial building than the highest permitted height
in the adjacent residential zoning district.
Essentially, you can't go any higher than you would be
if you were under the residential rules you're adjacent to.
We also have our use buffer.
So any commercial or multifamily use
has to provide a buffer between their use
and any adjacent single family home.
So fencing, landscaping, et cetera.
It's all there is that protection.
Nonconformity protections.
It is true that there are some commercial uses
that will not be allowed in MD,
including minor automotive use.
However, we have our nonconformity protections.
If you have that use now,
you can continue right on doing that
as long as it's an uninterrupted use
and you continue operating as you did before.
Single family residential.
That is not a permitted use in MD zoning,
mostly because when we put that in place,
there weren't any single family residences near we looked at.
So staff's recommendation would be
that we write the ordinance to ensure
that no single family home would be made nonconforming.
They'd be completely legal.
You could continue to invest in it.
No change for any single family residential
that's affected by this potential change.
So given all that, I wanna pause
and answer any questions you have
on what we've discussed so far
before we get into analysis and recommendations.
- Questions?
Commissioner Riggs.
- So I have a question on the single family.
So we talked about how it's nonconforming,
but all the other nonconforming instances
we're not concerned about.
So we're talking about doing a specific ordinance
for single family.
So I was kind of wondering, what's the difference there?
- Yeah, so in part, we can see we're looking at,
there are quite a number of single family residential uses.
The instances of the other are somewhat more limited,
but we're also looking at what do we want to see
in the future of a downtown area?
And staff believes that some single family uses
can continue to be appropriate.
It is not necessarily fitting
with the vision of Design Downtown Denton
to have automotive uses continue to be a large presence
in our downtown area.
I think that's primary difference.
- I was gonna say, and I would add,
with the single family residential,
because typically they're primary residents,
we want them to have the ability
to be able to reinvest in their properties.
So that way, if they need to be able to obtain financing
from the bank, they can be able to do so.
Sean is right, with the automotive use,
it's a little bit different situation
because they're not consistent with the longer term vision.
We still do allow our nonconforming uses
to continue operating.
So with the change in zoning,
they would not be forced to close their doors at all.
We are actually fairly generous
with our nonconforming regulations for businesses
being able to continue operate.
- Yeah, actually, on that note,
we have, I think, major automotive repair
has not been a conforming use
for about two or three decades,
and we still have about four or five of those in the area.
- Okay, Commissioner McDuff?
- Yes, I just wanna, this is an overarching comment.
Sean, how will this plan impact the rest of downtown proper?
How do you see that related to the square?
And I know you're a downtown person,
that's where your service is,
that's where your recreation is,
but I am a former resident of this area.
I had an old home on Stroud that served me well.
I'm very familiar with all of this,
but I wanna know your perspective
on how this relates to the rest of the downtown development.
- Yeah, absolutely, thank you.
So we see this as really an opportunity
to bring the benefits that you have
if you're close to the square to the rest of downtown.
So for many of the areas that aren't right in that core,
it's a long walk to get to a restaurant, a shop,
for many of the things that are enjoyable to do,
that's a lot of distance.
There's a lot of things
that aren't necessarily closely available,
and that leads to vacancies.
No one wants to live across from a vacant building,
and so it can also contribute to other problems
we're all aware of.
Whereas if we can bring more thriving,
more life to this area,
I believe that benefits the whole of downtown,
more opportunities, more things available.
The other thing is having more people living in this area
benefits our businesses throughout this area,
and I've had this discussion literally the other day
with one of our business owners.
She said the thing we need most
is for more people to be living down here
because those are the people that will come visit us
Monday through Wednesday, not just on the weekends,
they'll come and patronize our businesses.
There's a big opportunity here
to make all of our businesses more successful
and to benefit all of the residents
because more variety of businesses are available
that everyone can take advantage of
because we have enough people to actually support them,
so I hope that's helpful.
- And may I continue on here?
I will say that I drive through there from time to time
and reminisce and look at where my old house,
the vacant lot, the city bought my home.
I am horrified of the state of the neighborhood,
so I am so glad to see this.
I appreciate it.
- Yes, ma'am.
- Any other questions, Commissioner Dyer?
- Just a couple.
One, have you looked into any of the other communities
similar to the size of Denton
that maybe have the same issue
where there's a lot of vacant buildings
and kind of took a key off of them,
and when you were looking at doing this,
and was it successful for them
to kind of revitalize that area
and then to piggyback off of that,
if all of this gets approved,
is there a plan to do some sort of incentive
to draw businesses or builders
to build the new multifamily
or single-family homes in this area or businesses?
- Yeah, so just a big picture.
As part of the overall design downtown Denton plan process,
our consultants as well as us looked at a whole range
of communities across the country
and including places they had worked directly
to look at what has been successful
and looking at absolutely examples of situations
where zoning, looking at things that were making it harder
to develop lots in zoning,
where removing that created more opportunity.
But also, you're absolutely right, this is just step one.
So within the plan, there are many steps after this
as they become a possibility, as our budget allows it,
as development interest allows it,
where we wanna do other things
to encourage that development to come in.
We actually already have some other things in the works
in terms of making it easier to develop townhomes.
That's gonna be a big thing, hopefully,
by the end of the year, as well as just looking at in general,
what are other things that we can get out of the way
as the city that may be hindered?
And at the same time, looking at some design standards
we wanna put in so that as that arrives,
it looks the way that our community expects it
to look, so this is absolutely just that step one.
But if we can get this, that begins to get the ball rolling.
So thank you.
- Okay, I guess one question.
Mostly I wanna confirm because I thought
I remembered something and then when I went back
to research, I didn't find it.
(laughs)
And that is traditionally our MD zoned buildings
that were built a long time ago had no setback
right up to the right of way.
That's sort of a different type of feeling
from a streetscape perspective
than the 10 foot setback for MN.
I thought we had a requirement that MD
did not be set back too far, but then when I looked,
all I found was the same, you can't be more
than 15 feet back that MN has.
Is that, am I correct in that or?
- You're slightly stretching my memory.
So I will have to check and get back to you on that.
But I do know that it is accurate
that we do not have the setback.
- Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- Which at that point, it really gives the property owner
some freedom to decide what makes sense.
- Right, yeah.
- But I can definitely get back to you on that.
- Okay, yeah, no, I just, I obviously we have more work
to do in this area as well, but I just wondered
whether there was any thought on setting requirements
to have more of a consistent streetscape
in the future based on build two lines
or anything like that.
- That is something that we have
in our Denton Square District standards.
So it's certainly something that we've thought about
and that city council has felt appropriate to implement.
So that certainly could be something
that we would look at in the future.
- I was just saying, if memory serves me correctly,
I know in the design downtown Denton plan,
we had some streetscape drawings that focused on,
particularly the public realm when you look at minimum width
needed for an amenity zone, but also movement of pedestrians
and then placement of building.
But to Sean's point, if we do not have a maximum setback
to establish an MD, that could be something that's looked
at at a future date for the district.
- Okay, thanks.
I don't see any other questions, so.
- All right, carry on. - Carry on, lovely.
So again, reminding us of the overall picture here,
that area in goal.
I have divided it up into about five areas
'cause it's a big area.
Wanna be able to kind of break it down and talk about those.
So we're gonna go through each one of those briefly
and kind of touch on the different factors.
Right now, I'm showing the downtown,
design downtown Denton plan's recommendation
that all of it be MD, and as I said,
that's not necessarily the recommendation
that staff landed on, but as you can see,
that's our starting point, we'll go from there.
And for each of those areas, we're gonna talk through
kind of a description of the area,
the analysis and staff's recommendations.
When we get done, we'll come to those questions for y'all.
So area one, that's that, kind of that core area
in the middle, primarily along Elm and Locust Street.
Uses there are entirely commercial and multifamily.
Almost all of these lots were recently removed
from the floodplain.
All of them were zoned DCG prior to 2019.
You're looking at a lot of lots
that have older commercial buildings or are vacant.
We have big opportunities there for reuse, redevelopment.
The challenge and the opportunity is to do that,
having those lower minimum parking,
having those greater commercial uses,
not having the open space requirement that right now,
any multifamily would have to provide 8% of their lot
as open space.
That's not really how we do downtown.
We wanna have more clustered areas,
not every lot trying to fit that in.
So the opportunity to have greater flexibility
to pursue downtown style development in this area
could really encourage the reuse and redevelopment
that we expect to come no matter what,
to go in that direction of the vision of the downtown plan.
We'll see a minimal negative impact here
because the area is surrounded by streets.
It's not adjacent any neighborhoods.
So this is one where staff is definitely recommending
the expansion of the MD zoning into this area.
Makes a lot of sense from our perspective.
Area two, in some ways similar,
a lot of commercial and some multifamily.
This is where we do get some of those single family
residences along the east side there.
We do again expect redevelopment along South Elm Street.
And MD would provide that opportunity for that redevelopment
to create a more walkable mixed use area.
So buildings that are fronting the street,
less large parking lots,
something that's more akin to what
the downtown plan envisions.
Also, what is proposed here would provide
a consistent depth of MD zoning off South Elm Street.
So if you talk to developers, they're looking,
they're gonna buy it.
They want a certain depth consistently with zoning.
This removes one roadblock.
So if those property owners do want to sell their property
for new development there,
we've taken one step out of the way for them.
So again, staff would recommend that we rezone
the MN properties in this area to MD
with that ordinance language,
keeping single family residential conforming
so that those owners can continue to invest
in their properties for the length of time
they want to continue to do that.
Area three, so this is going over to the east side.
Again, you do have a mix of commercial,
residential, multifamily.
This is the area that has the most vacant,
developable lots, a lot of dark gray,
a lot of opportunity for something to come in.
At the same time, you also have some challenges here.
There's a lot of streets going through this area.
There's a number of drainage channels
and city-owned drainage lots.
So the available real estate is limited,
which means that that flexibility provided by MD
is even more important to be able to develop in this area.
So to have things like townhomes,
multifamily mixed use in this area,
MD is gonna be very helpful to make that possible
given how divided up and chopped up the real estate is here.
There's also an opportunity to improve the pedestrian
experience because you have some pretty extensive areas
that do not have sidewalks right now.
That's really not gonna come in unless we have development.
So again, staff is recommending that for this area,
all MN lots move to MD with that language
protecting existing single-family residential.
Area four, and this is the first one
we're gonna see a change.
So that's in that kind of northwest corner there.
Four lots of that are the county historic park.
And then we have 11 lots south of West Sycamore Street.
This area has not been removed from the floodplain.
Most of these lots were not previously zoned DCG.
They were downtown residential.
Those 11 lots south of Sycamore form the north boundary
of the Stroud neighborhood.
And in many ways, it provides a buffer
between that neighborhood
and the denser commercial uses across the street.
Staff also sees that really functioning
as a downtown mixed use area right now.
Along that row, you have commercial, multifamily,
single-family, institutional,
pretty much every use we have is in there.
And therefore we see less of a reason to rezone that area
because it's essentially functioning
the way we would wanna see a side street,
downtown street functioning.
It's difficult to justify rezoning there.
It's not along one of those main corridors.
And there's a lot of good use going on there now.
So staff would recommend, our recommendation lease
would be to maintain the MN zoning in that area.
The last area is area five.
So that's southeast corner.
As many of you may be familiar,
that's an area that was recently pretty much fully developed
out with a bank and commercial uses.
It is under a specific use permit
that would remain in place regardless of any zoning change.
And in order to do an expansion on that,
you would have to go back and amend the specific use permit.
Moreover, this was a very recent build out.
So again, staff sees it unlikely
that the property owners there would be looking
to make any significant changes in the near future.
It's outside of that floodplain removal area.
It's outside of the area
that the design downtown debt and plan foresaw
is kind of that core southern downtown.
It's really more oriented towards Carroll and Eagle.
And so it's just difficult to make a case
for the value of necessity
or necessity of rezoning that area at this time.
Staff is recommending maintaining MN zoning in that area.
Community feedback, so obviously very important.
We sent out hundreds postcards.
So everyone within all property owners within the area,
all property owners within 200 feet,
all residents within 500 feet,
we made sure to have two meetings
on different days of the week.
We did get 16 community members.
We had residents, homeowners, property owners,
commercial institutional tenants.
And you can see on there the various symbols.
So we have people that own property,
people that live there,
homeowners in the Stroud neighborhood actually.
So broad spectrum, if a small number.
We presented our analysis to them,
our recommendation and gave them a lot of time
to give feedback both on what we were recommending changing
and what we were recommending keeping the same.
They had some great discussion about some of their concerns,
some of the things that might worry them,
things they were really excited about.
And at the end of it,
unanimous support for staff's recommendation
across the board.
Everyone was supportive of it,
no matter what their background,
where they came from on it, all in favor.
So with that staff's final recommendations
would be what you're seeing there.
That MD zoning be expanded,
the MN lots for areas one, two, and three.
That MN zoning be maintained in areas four and five.
And that the proposed expansion of MD zoning
include language to keep existing
single-family residential dwellings
in the rezoned areas as conforming.
So given that, we have our four questions.
To you all, do you concur with our recommendation
for the areas to expand MD zoning in one through three?
Do you concur with our recommendation
that areas four and five be maintained as MN?
Do you concur with our recommendation
regarding protecting those single-family uses?
And do you have any other specific thoughts
or concerns about the proposed expansion of MD zoning?
Just briefly to let you know,
next steps, if non-support would be coming back to you
with a public hearing and then going to city council
with a public hearing and hopefully completing this
by late summer, early fall, if possible.
But primary reason we're here
is to get your feedback on those questions.
So I will hand that off to you
and answer any questions you have
and then look forward to your feedback.
- Sorry, just one point of clarification.
The number of definitions in our code for conforming
and non-conforming and legally non-conforming
and sometimes gets me confused.
My understanding is that by allowing
or by including language or that recommendation
to include language, making those existing residences
conforming that if there was a damage to the property,
for instance, that destroyed more than 50%
of the livability of the home or something,
they would still be allowed to rebuild.
Is that the lion's share of what that does
or are there any other main things?
- That is a key part of it.
As Tina pointed out, it's also important
for being able to reinvest in the home.
It's also important if you want it to be able
to expand the home, if you're wanting to build onto it.
So all of those things would be protected by that language.
- All right, any other questions?
So be thinking of those four things.
Areas one, two, three, yes, sorry, Tina.
- No, I was just gonna ask for benefit
of us receiving your direction.
Maybe we take the questions one by one
if that's okay with you.
- Yeah, so before we go specific for answering the questions,
are there any other, 'cause there's a lot of maps and things,
any other questions that the commission had?
Yeah, Commissioner McDonough.
- Where is the park that we talk about, the proposed park?
- So I should note that we have a concept plan,
but that is something, there is no set location for the park.
It is a concept that within that area,
generally in the central part of it,
at some point there would be a park.
It's not a set by any means of where that would be
because that's still property that would need to be acquired
in order to create that.
- So you're thinking of pocket park?
- What the plan recommends
is actually a fairly substantial park, multiple blocks.
Now, again, we don't know how that will play out,
but that is the concept proposed by the plan.
- Okay.
- Yes, for the benefit of the commission,
one of the things that the Design Downtown Denton Plan
really focused on is what are actions
that we, the city, could take
that would help with revitalization
and in attracting infill development to the downtown area.
So that's why you see, you would find in the plan
a series of policy recommended actions
and then like improvement actions
that we, the city, could take.
We really focused on how can we leverage our actions
to be able to attract that private investment.
The park in Southern Downtown was something
that really resonated with the community
and received a lot of positive feedback.
To Sean's point, that park has some flexibility
in its location.
In the plan, it's situated between Elm and Locus.
It could slide north or south.
It could possibly shift east or west,
but we would try to work to keep it,
ideally, in that Elm-Locust area
because it has the ability to benefit properties
on both sides, given the significance of Elm and Locus
for bringing people to downtown.
But then also when we think about future development,
as properties develop adjacent to Elm and Locus,
they could be able to take advantage of that amenity.
And typically what we find is developments
are likely going to have higher price points associated
with them, especially with the property value improvements,
when they are adjacent to public amenities,
such as an open space.
Additionally, with us providing that future part,
then it allows for property owners to be able
to maximize their development rights on their property
without necessarily providing that open space amenity,
especially if they were to do a residential project.
But again, I wanna emphasize, our goal was in the plan
with the recommended actions, what are actions
that we, the city, could take to be able to leverage
our public dollar to try and get it go much farther
to be able to attract that investment?
When you're working on redevelopment of areas,
you have to have three things.
You have to have willing property owners
that are either wanting to do the work themselves
and invest in their property or be willing to sell
to someone who is willing to build
in accordance with the vision.
You also have to have market support
to be able to attract that development.
And then you also have to have
that financial capital in place.
So we're trying to address the regulatory aspects,
those things that we can to remove some of those barriers
to hopefully be supportive of property owners
and/or future owners within downtown,
but then also hopefully would have market support
to be able to help have these projects come to fruition.
And then again, those willing property owners
or that financial capital in order to be able
to make those projects occur,
whether they be small scale infill development
or larger scale developments that could occur.
- Okay, any other question?
Yeah, Commissioner Dyer.
Sir, so I have one.
If you can go to the southern portion,
you mentioned there's a few lots that the city owns.
Yeah, this works well.
I think the city owns those PFs zoned lots
on either side of Wainwright
and then on the west of Locust Street, right?
- Yes, the ones that are in blue are generally city owned.
- Yeah, and the recommendation for the rezoning
is to leave those as PF
as opposed to transitioning them to MD, is that correct?
- For the time being, yes,
partly because a number of those
are actually contain active infrastructure
in our drainage lots.
So we're recommending leaving those as they are for now,
certain that they are city owned.
- Yeah, so I'm familiar.
I mean, the one on the east side of Wainwright
and then certainly that large block east of there,
there's open ditches, right?
But the ones on the west side of Wainwright,
I thought had been all,
I mean, there would be an easement there obviously,
but I thought that it had been covered up.
- Yeah, there are some,
one or two of those lots
that may potentially be developable
and certainly would be open to considering
whether we'd wanna look at zoning those as MD as well.
That's, I think there's potentially an opportunity there
and we just need to look at what the plans are
if there is a department that has a particular plan
for that lot, whether that fits with their intentions.
But there is the potential there
and one or more of those lots
may be something that we would in fact wanna have ready
for future private development.
- Yeah, okay. - Thank you.
- Okay, so one more question, Commissioner Riggs.
- So that could be way off wrong, Commissioner Pruitt,
but I believe those lots east of Wainwright
have major drainage infrastructure underground.
- Yeah, oh, you mean, you said east, do you mean west?
- Yes, I'm sorry, west.
- Correct. - Yeah.
- Yeah, yeah, yeah.
They definitely have the huge boxes under there.
And I'm no building official.
I don't know what use you could put over there.
Most things are accomplishable with enough money, right?
- There you go. - But okay, thank you.
- I did have one other question.
And I know this may not be something
really exactly pertaining to this,
but I do remember back in the day,
there being some concerns
of having these multi-story buildings
with essentially zero lot lines and fire response.
And basically the fire department being able
to put the outriggers out necessary
in order to get up to those higher stories.
I assume all that will go through just the typical--
- Absolutely, absolutely. - Development.
- Yep, no doubt.
- Okay, Commissioner Dyer.
- Just one last question.
I'm just kind of noticing the notes
that were taken from some of the meetings.
And there was a concern about if you rezone this
to mixed use, if that would bring in vape shops.
And so is that something that the city
as well is concerned about?
Or is there no way to prevent that with the Sony?
Like is it pretty much everything is available?
- So one of the challenges with vape shops
is that nearly everyone we have is actually
just classified as retail.
As long as 51% of what's in that store is something other,
can come in and that's gonna be permitted
in any downtown zoning district we have.
- So there's no way to regulate that
is kind of what you're saying.
- At this time, it is difficult.
I mean, it is true that smoke shop is permitted use in MD,
but it's really not necessary to have that use
to be able to get a vape shop
if you just keep it below 50%.
- Okay.
- For clarification, those uses are permitted now
in the MN zoned properties, correct?
- Yeah, the retail use is permitted regardless
and they are there.
- Okay.
Okay, so let's work through the four questions.
First, areas one through three
on the central and eastern portion.
Are there any thoughts of supporting
or concerns of supporting the expansion
of the MD zoned area within that?
- I concur.
- Okay.
- Agree with that.
- I'm for it.
- Okay, yeah, sounds good to me.
- Okay.
- Then number two is the area four and five
that Sean talked about.
The proposal is to leave those as MN as they are today.
Any questions or concerns, direction on that?
- I concur with that too.
- Okay.
- I do as well.
- Leave it.
- Okay, I concur.
My only comment there is just,
let's be a little bit forward thinking.
The Sycamore Street, I think on the south side,
unless the plan has changed since I've thought of that,
there's an active side path project funded through DCTA
and county funds and stuff.
So some of that area will change
just from an infrastructure perspective.
I think it's perfectly appropriate to have MN there.
But let's just keep all those moving pieces in our mind.
- Absolutely.
I'm in.
Yeah.
- And just to that point,
I will note that on the corner of Elm and Sycamore,
we do have that MD zoning where is that vacant lot
and we definitely do expect and look forward
to development there.
- Okay, yeah.
All right.
Item three, do we concur with staff's recommendation
that we should include the specific language
keeping single family residential dwellings conforming?
I believe all of those within the area
were in area three, is that correct?
- There are also some in area two.
- Okay, okay.
So do we concur with that?
- I concur.
- Okay.
- Yes, yeah.
- Yeah, yeah, that's great for me, I concur.
And number four is they're being nice to us.
What other thoughts do we have
as we look forward to the growth of our downtown
and our city in this area?
Commissioner Riggs.
- So one of the things that I'm not very clear on
and hopefully you can expand on it,
but I know with the MD zoning,
so there's not all the parking requirements.
If this develops and it revitalizes and that's great,
what kind of concerns are there about lack of parking
and that type of?
- Yeah, absolutely, great question.
So one important thing to note is that for multifamily,
that requirement is still in place
once you get above 10 units.
So one of the things that tends to drive
a lot of parking needs, that is still in place.
If we do and we look forward to and hope to see
some great commercial mixed use developments,
the design downtown plan also anticipates
looking for opportunities to work with future developers
to bring in a parking garage that could potentially be
a public-private partnership.
Exactly how that will work out,
obviously we don't know now,
but that's something that the plan absolutely recommends
that we look for an opportunity to include
in the future development.
So hopefully as we see those successful things coming in,
we'll have that opportunity to have that discussion about,
hey, where can we get a public lot,
not a public lot, a public structure
will be an efficient use of space,
hopefully that would be part of something else
attached to a multifamily where we would share some levels.
Exactly what it would look like again, not sure,
but we definitely are gonna be looking now
for those opportunities to provide that parking
in a more efficient way than the lots we have now.
- So to expand on that,
'cause every time I've ever heard a plan
that's gonna include a parking garage,
it seems that the parking garage is the last,
very last thing or it just never happens.
Is there a way in this that we can ensure that
or is this too early of a stage?
- This is gonna be a little early.
So this is really gonna be a step one.
We absolutely have other steps.
I mean, one of the things we'll wanna look at
is whether we continue to allow parking lots
as a principal use in this area.
So there's definitely gonna be a number of things
we wanna look at, things Chair has brought up
that absolutely this needs to be just step one.
We're looking forward to coming back to with many more.
So great ideas, we'll stay on it.
- If I could add to that,
some communities that I've worked in
have actually had opportunities
to do kind of a public-private partnership option
in a community that I used to work in
where we did quite a bit of downtown revitalization.
As an effort, we had a need for some additional parking
in the downtown area,
particularly for our police force that we had.
But we, the city had owned some property
and were able to work with a developer
of a multifamily development
who was able to provide us the ground floor
of their parking garage facility
so that we would have the ability to secure
some police vehicles at that time.
But it was an example of a public-private partnership
that we've done with that.
Another project I can think of in that same downtown area,
actually two projects I can think of now.
The city was a partner in those projects
and worked with the developers
so that the structure parking that they were providing
for their multifamily development,
the city was able to have the ground floor
be available for public parking and was signed as such
so that it was open and available to the public.
So there are a variety of opportunities
that could come about for us to be able to help address
that need should that need arise,
especially if we're starting to see investment
within an area.
Because if we have an opportunity to do some sort
of public-private partnership opportunity,
then that helps both meet developer needs
but also meet the city's needs
without the potential for us just going
and building a parking structure, right?
So, but I think your point's well taken.
- Absolutely.
We are also in the midst of finalizing
a city-wide parking study that will include recommendations
that apply to this area,
which may at some point in the future
involve some more management of downtown parking
in a more central way.
So hopefully moving in a lot of good directions
on that front.
- Commissioner Dyer.
- I would just like to encourage staff
that once all of this is no longer just a concept plan
and a thought, where you're actually out there
trying to get developers to come
and you're seeking them and inviting them
to start developing this area
to really look at the whole townhouse development.
I think that would be a great opportunity
where you're not doing the apartments, the multifamily,
'cause sometimes that has that negative connotation.
But you're really allowing for affordable housing
and sometimes your townhouses are your,
are somebody's first step into home ownership.
And it's helping those single individuals
or maybe newly married people or even older people
that might be empty nesters that no longer want the care
of a single family residence,
but they've raised their kids and now they want to
live the high life in downtown.
I think that there's some really cool things
that you can do, so I would really encourage
to bring that to this area more so than maybe apartments
since there's a lot of apartments in Denton.
- Thank you, absolutely.
And one of the things I actually said
in one of our community meetings was that
if you're wanting to do townhomes,
that is one of the things that's going to benefit most
from this and from some of the other things we're working on
because that would be that under that parking cap.
So there's potentially gonna be a lot more freedom in this
to be able to develop townhomes.
And with some of the other things working on right now,
other members of staff are bringing forward
to remove some of the real challenges
we've had to townhome development in our code so far.
We are absolutely in support of that.
I'm really excited to make that much more easy
to develop in this area.
- Well, it's very interesting, you know,
having lived in other states and one in particular,
townhouses was that first step because in that area,
the cost of housing was so costly, it was so high
that that was really the first opportunity
that young people could get to be able to own a house.
And it's just, it's gonna be balancing it
to making sure that, 'cause you know,
there are luxury townhouses out there.
So you don't want to have the developer
who's putting in these, you know,
townhouses that cost six, seven, $800,000
'cause that kind of defeats the purpose
of making this an opportunity for young people
to purchase their first home.
- Thank you.
- Well, in fact, we already had one property owner
who mentioned like, if this goes through,
she's really interested in bringing in townhomes
on her property, so.
- Sean, could you address the residential goal that--
- Yeah, absolutely.
- In the design downtown plan 'cause several
of the commissioners may not be familiar with that.
- Yeah, definitely.
So one of the things that in the plan,
we actually set a goal of adding an additional 1,500 units
of housing to downtown.
In talking with our consultants,
they said we had a strangely low amount of residential
in our downtown, and they could look at,
without us doing anything, a significant increase
that the market would bring in.
So we wanted to even go above and beyond that
and set that goal of 1,500.
And our policy and project recommendation within that
are targeted very much towards that goal
of bringing a significant increase in available housing
to make downtown more affordable for everyone.
So absolutely, that's a key part of it.
- Commissioner McDuff, did you have any?
- I believe we've covered everything.
I was just looking through the comments,
and Commissioner Lisa, I'm glad you talked
about the townhomes.
I think that's good for all groups, for all demographics,
and brings that density and the services to downtown.
There are some comments here about the need
for a grocery store, I'm sure you've seen that.
We all know that, about that,
and the need to protect the trees.
And of course, we're serious about that,
the landscaping and the sidewalks.
- Absolutely, absolutely.
Well, and with our design downtown, Denton Plan,
some of the other policy recommendations relate
to specifically looking at setting those strong
right-of-way streetscaping standards
to really make sure that as this area redevelops,
it is something that is high quality,
pursuing what we call our chill streets policy,
of prioritizing certain areas as really pedestrian-friendly
and making them as green and shaded as we can.
So, yes, the plan would agree with you.
- Okay.
Just have a few things.
I don't know how to evaluate, real-time,
whether those lots west of Wainwright have value
other than open space, based on the infrastructure
that's underneath them.
I just ask that somebody who does understand
that would think about this,
so that we don't have to do this twice.
(laughing)
If in fact, those are developable.
You know, there may be some opportunities
that are synergistic with our affordable housing toolkit,
where a public-private partnership where we own the land
and that sort of thing could be an opportunity there.
The absolutely support staff thinking through
from a streetscape perspective what controls are wise
in this area, just to, you know.
Denton loves unique and varied things, and that's great.
But there's a difference between unique and varied
as you walk along East Hickory Street,
where the buildings are still kind of in a similar place
versus unique and varied, where it looks like
one of them was forgotten and there's some, you know,
tall weeds in between you and the building or something.
Appropriate, but just, we should think through that.
Along with that, you mentioned street trees.
I wonder whether the way we handle street trees
in this area should be somewhat unique
just because of how there's a text-out street,
but we're doing a take-back program and, you know,
there's probably some on-street parking
and it's likely that those
future projects to update infrastructure
won't coincide always with a development project.
There's a lot of things to think through there.
Let's just make sure that the end goal in mind
is a nice tree-lined street with, you know,
an extension of what people love, essentially.
And then on the parking comments, you know,
I think, thank you for staff for providing that.
Certainly open to hear proposals in the future.
I know we can't determine what's gonna happen.
If something like that does happen,
I would just ask that we evaluate it from a,
you know, cost understanding of what those amenities
are costing us either in whatever it would be, right,
as you negotiate those partnerships.
And I look forward to combining that
with the parking management discussions in this area
and other areas that are high demand.
And then the last thing is I would just,
I think the 2024 International Code Council adoption process
may be starting soon with HABSCO,
with the health and building standards.
It'd be interesting to see if there's anything
that they could do to remove some barriers
to what we want to see in this area as well,
given the constraints.
- Absolutely, discussions we can have.
- Anything else?
All right, thank you, John.
Excited to see what happens over the next 20 years.
Yeah, yeah, let's take just, we'll say five minutes
instead of two minutes this time to grab some dinner.
And then, yeah, and then we can listen to the legalese
on our remaining work session item here.
So at 6.02 p.m., we will recess for five minutes.
Thank you.
And with the quorum present at 6.12 p.m.,
we will reconvene the work session
of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Brings us to our second work session item,
item 3B, PZ25147.
Good evening, we've just got a brief recap
for you all of some of the bigger ticket items
coming out of the 89th legislative session,
in particular those that will affect
land use and development.
So just to give you an overview of kind of how
the legislative process works for the city of Denton,
each year the city manager's office works
with our legislative consultant, who is down in Austin,
to make sure that we're tracking bills
that could impact the city, registering support
and opposition where appropriate to those bills.
And this year there was really a focus
on kind of building relationships with our legislators
to try to make sure that we could have influence
where possible on some of the bills
as they worked their way through the process.
And as part of that, you may have seen
they provided regular updates to city council
on kind of what was tracking and where certain bills
were at that council had identified as higher priorities.
Just looking at some of the numbers,
it was a very busy legislative session.
Over 8,000 bills were filed between the House and the Senate.
Just over 1,200 of those made it through
to the governor's desk.
It was actually a fairly low passage rate
when comparing that to past years at 13.8%.
I believe Christy Fogle identified
that was the lowest since 1991.
She was the member of the city manager's staff
who did all the hard work this year keeping track
of all of these bills and routing them to us for review.
There were 711 in particular that were identified
that could have an impact on the city
that Christy and the other members
of the city management team diligently spread out
among city staff to make sure that the relevant departments
were looking at those providing responses
so that we could then register our stance on those bills.
160 of those went to committee hearings
and 32 we actually as a city registered a position
on those when they made it to their committee.
24 opposition and eight were in support.
Not specific to anything, planning and zoning
just so you're aware, some of the kind of emergency items
that the governor had called on the legislator
to focus on this year.
Tax relief was a big topic.
Property tax relief in particular.
Investment in the city's water or the state's water supply
in terms of infrastructure improvements and funding
for statewide for projects related to water supply
and water conservation and flood mitigation
were all important topics.
Teacher pay and education in general was a pretty big topic.
There were bills as you can see here,
HB2 that related to investment in public schooling,
particular teacher pay for longer tenured teachers
I believe was a primary focus of that.
Career training was a big focus.
There was actually a Texas cyber command established
that will be in San Antonio that will focus
on cyber security for the state.
And so that there were some bills related
to how do we encourage people to go into those pathways
and career training for those fields.
You've probably seen on the news
the education savings account bill was a hot topic this year.
Bail reform actually had several bills associated with it.
And then as I mentioned that cyber command for the state
was a pretty big topic as well.
Some of the notable items that would have a more impact
on municipalities across the state.
SB3 was related to THC product sales
so that one could obviously impact sales tax
in some cities especially.
There were bills related to immigration enforcement
and just state level finance that will have impacts
to cities as well as some changes to the lottery
and how that will be regulated.
More particular for the city,
the two that were not municipal focus per se
but will have a significant impact were HB1522
which amended the Texas Open Meetings Act.
So instead of having 72 hours notice,
it will now be three business days for agenda posting.
So you will find after September one council agendas,
your agendas, they'll all start coming out
a little earlier than they were in the past
to make sure that we meet that three business day standard.
And then there was another bill related
to local government employee severance pay
that will obviously be impactful
to municipalities across the city.
So focusing in on the ones that you all may see,
code amendments or other changes
and our processes related to.
Again, the first one on the slide
is just that three business days.
For you all, it looks like that's probably going
to be a one business day change
since your meeting is midweek.
But for the Development Code Review Committee
and ZBA and some of those others,
that will be a big change in the agenda posting timelines
to make sure that those Monday meetings
have their agendas posted three business days in advance.
HB24 and a couple of others focused on public notification,
particular to zoning and public hearing items.
HB24 introduced a new set of rules for comprehensive
zoning ordinance changes.
It defines that with a rather specific subset of things
that relate to either a city-wide adjustment to the code
or the zoning map or changes that are specific
to allowing more housing to be developed.
So those will have different notification standards,
different protest thresholds applied to them.
For some zoning changes, the protest threshold
is increased to 60% instead of 20%
in terms of what would trigger a possible change
at the council level vote.
But at the same time, it amends that super majority vote,
so it's not as applicable to all zoning changes
as it has been in the past.
HB4506 is an optional notification change.
It allows cities to create
a electronic opt-in notification process
that people could use to either receive email
or text updates.
In lieu of the mailed notices,
the tricky part of that is that it still mandates
that we meet the mailed notification timeline
if we don't get a delivery receipt
for that electronic notice.
So it's possibly not something that many cities
will look to actually opt into
since the timing of it would require that electronic notice
to go out significantly in advance
so that we know whether or not we get a read receipt
basically prior to the mailed notice date.
So good intent, but maybe not something
that will see a lot of impact across the state.
But that one did get enough votes
to become effective immediately
should cities want to opt into that
and create a system for it.
And then SB617 is not one that I anticipate
will see any changes by,
but if in the event we do seek to create
another municipal-controlled homeless facility
or facility to house individuals
experiencing homelessness,
there are new, very enhanced
public notification requirements for that.
With respect to land use,
we had a handful of bills
that you all likely will see DDC amendments coming forward
to make sure that we address and are in line with.
SB1567 preempt cities from regulating
the number of unrelated persons within a dwelling unit.
That bill was bracketed to be specific
primarily to college towns,
so Denton falls within that
given the population of our universities.
So we currently do have a standard in the code
that speaks to the maximum number of persons
that can occupy a dwelling, and we will need
to remove that in the future.
So you'll see amendments coming forward for that.
HB 2464 addresses home occupations.
Significantly preempt cities from regulating
what it defines as no impact home-based businesses,
and it offers suggestions as to what those would be
so the businesses that don't basically have
any visual effect from the road or create traffic
or anything of that nature specifies
that cities cannot regulate those businesses.
So we do have a fairly hefty set of home occupation rules
in our DDC that we are currently looking at,
and we'll be bringing forward amendments to.
HB 2844 is a preemption on the city's ability
to regulate food trucks and small food businesses.
The wording on this one has been very tricky
for us to piecemeal.
Tina and Angie and I actually got to sit in
on a session about it this week
with some of the state-level authorities
who were speaking to how the Department of State,
dishes, I can't remember what it stands for,
basically the State Health Department,
and how they will be rolling out rules
to help implement that bill, and it sounds like
we may still have some limited zoning authority under it,
so we're still examining that
and how the food truck regulations
that we had discussed with Council earlier this year
may or may not be able to actually be brought forward now.
And then finally, the last of the land use category
were the impacts that we discussed briefly
at your CIA AC meeting.
So SB 1883 speaks to cities not being able
to adjust impact fees more than every three years,
and also removed language that said
that planning and zoning commissions may serve as the CIA AC.
So with that language now gone from the state regulations,
our charter controls and states
that planning and zoning commission members
can only serve on the planning and zoning commission,
so hence that upcoming work session
to see how council wants to address CIA AC moving forward.
And housing was a major theme for the legislature this year,
so there are a handful of bills
that made it through related to that.
Only one of them will be a near-term impact
on the city of Denton as it stands today
due to our population.
So SB 785 speaks to cities
having to allow HUD code manufactured housing by right
in at least one residential district.
It also imposes limitations on when a city
can require specific use permits for those.
This bill has an effective date of September 1st of next year,
so we have time to analyze this and see
what our plan will be for amending
the Denton Development Code for that.
The other three bills that you see on your screen here
all had brackets where they are only applicable
to cities with 150,000 persons or more
based on the latest census.
We fall just under that.
I think we were in the 138 range at the 2020 census,
so even though we know we're probably over that in real time,
the census hasn't caught up with it yet,
so we have until 2030 on these bills.
But barring any other change from the legislatures
in the next two sessions,
these could be impactful come 2030.
SB 15 speaks to lot sizes
and says that cities essentially can't require by zoning
that lots be larger than 3,000 square feet
for new developments that are five acres or larger.
So us having a lot of vacant land
with rural residential zoning or lower density zoning on it,
that could be a significant change
if this bill's still in effect in 2030.
It also speaks to existing small lots
and limits cities' abilities to enforce setbacks,
parking requirements, building bulk and height,
and things of that nature
for any lots less than 4,000 square feet.
So some of our neighboring cities
will see significant impacts from that.
And then the next two on your screen
both relate to multifamily and mixed-use development.
SB 840 requires that cities allow mixed-use residential
and multifamily in any district
that allows office, commercial, retail, warehouse,
or mixed-use development.
So again, that could have a very significant impact
if it's still in place in 2030
when this bill would become applicable to Denton.
And SB 2477 was kind of a companion to SB 840.
It was reliant upon that.
But it further addresses office building conversions
to multifamily or mixed-use.
And finally, City of Denton was very happy to see
that we were deemed the official Halloween capital of Texas.
So with our second annual 31 days of Denton Halloween
this year, we can celebrate that even further.
So the next steps for this,
as you saw several of the bills
do have September 1 effective dates.
Knowing that we probably won't get through
a dual public hearing process before then,
we will do our best to ensure
that we're not violating state law
should we not have DDC updates in place by that date.
But staff is working on analyzing all of those bills
and crafting some code amendments
that you all and city council will see in the coming months.
And I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
(clears throat)
- Commissioner MacGuff.
- I think that was the most thorough and the fastest
and the quickest of any summary I've ever seen
in Denton, Texas.
Very thorough, I appreciate that, Haley.
- Welcome.
- Yeah.
- So Haley specifically addressed the Senate bill 15
and Senate bill 840.
So we worked hard also to write even letters
at the last minute to requesting that to be vetoed
because we know it potentially has significant implications.
Several of our neighboring cities,
we've been working with them
as they work through the implications of that bill.
So also hopefully maybe we can learn from them
in what they're rolling out hopefully before September 1
so that we can have some lessons learned from them.
And then as we prepare for the year 2030.
The other thing I think is gonna be interesting to see
on that is typically the census data doesn't come out
for at least a year.
So it might be more like 2031.
We also have two legislative sessions
that will happen between now and then.
So that could also have some further implications on that.
But I know in working with the team,
I realize I won't be here,
but I know when working with our team,
we've been very diligent and concerned regarding
the implications on Denton
and how can we better position ourselves?
- So I for one am,
I don't remember the number now anymore,
but the bill about the unrelated persons
living in a dwelling unit, that sort of thing.
I understand that there's a desire
to not have constraints placed on the city.
At the same time I recall past DCRC meetings
where there was consensus that we didn't like
the historical vestiges of those types of policies.
So I welcome that and other amendments as we move forward.
I would just say,
I guess we can all thank COVID
for meaning that we weren't over 150,000
in the spring of 2020 when all of our students went home.
But certainly there's uncertainty
with upcoming legislative sessions.
If I've learned much about the process of code changes,
it always takes us about one or two more years
than we think it should.
And so I would encourage us to start having
the conversations about what do we envision
the future of Denton being,
assuming that that will take place in 2030 or 2031.
Because through engagement and discussion
with council and this body,
I think we can have a more productive result
of thinking about how do we want to move toward
what we're gonna be forced to in some ways anyway,
instead of missing things
because we have to do it really quickly
because we're procrastinating.
- Sure.
- Any other questions?
Commissioner McDuff?
- Yes, I just think this fits on our matrix,
but would this go in a work session?
Haley, how do you envision our updates
on the implementation of these bills?
Would this be in this kind of body
and this group, the work session for?
- I would anticipate for the bills
that we know we have September 1 compliance dates
coming up for that we would move those probably
through the public hearing process directly
through you all and then city council.
So you would see it during a work session
and a public hearing process in the coming meeting.
But unless there's some significant policy direction
that's needed on those items,
I don't anticipate we would have like a dedicated
work session just to those code updates
prior to noticing for a public hearing.
- So we might see those in August.
- Probably later in the reason being
is based upon our evaluation of the bills
where we do need to make some adjustments.
As Haley pointed out, in all likelihood,
we would not have them accomplished by September 1.
Some of them where there's changes that are occurring,
we can go ahead and absorb kind of in our current
operational aspects.
So for example, the unrelated persons,
when it comes to into effect until we're successful
and being able to get the code amendment,
we would just acknowledge that we're not going
to violate state law.
And we've done that previously,
I think in two prior legislative sessions
or actually it was 2019, we had done that.
The other thing is something that's also important to note,
as we've evaluated the code amendments that are needed,
we're also having taken consideration HB 24
and some of the better direction that we have
as it relates to being able to amend
particularly the comprehensive zoning ordinance
as a result of the CUNHA decision
that came about with the city of Austin.
So that decision from a legal standpoint
made it much more challenging for us to be able
to effectively keep our ordinances updated
because of potential public notification requirements
associated with it.
So with the adoption of House Bill 24
and its effective date of September 1st,
with that definition of what's considered
a comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment,
it allows us, it gives us some direction
where we can try and take advantage
of some of the opportunities that are within that bill.
So we've been throughout this legislative session,
especially the last couple months, evaluating that bill,
how does it work with us or against us?
How do the other bills work against us?
Or if there's an opportunity for waiting
until after September 1st.
And so, so far we believe that we're in a decent position
with the bills that are gonna be effective September 1st,
at least from a zoning and land use standpoint,
we will be okay with being able to modify our ordinance
after September 1.
We'll just have to be careful on,
if we had issues related to unrelated persons,
being able to address that accordingly,
not violating the state statute,
and then the home occupations as Haley spoke to.
Anything else?
Thank you very much, Haley.
All 8,713 bills, right?
- Thankfully we didn't have to read all of them.
(laughing)
- Very good.
Okay, at 6.31, we will adjourn our work session
and we will be in council chambers for the regular session
in five, eight minutes or so.
Thank you.
- Good evening.
At 6.42 PM on July 23rd, 2025,
we will call the regular meeting
of the Denton Planning and Zoning Commission to order
with the quorum present.
Our first item of business is to stand
and say the Pledge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flag.
- I pledge allegiance to the Republic
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
- Honor of the Texas flag,
I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state,
under God, one indivisible.
- That brings us to item two A,
approval of both the June 25th
Capital Improvement Advisory Committee minutes
as well as the June 25th Planning and Zoning minutes.
Commissioner Dyer.
- I make a motion that we approve the minutes
for both meetings.
- Commissioner Riggs.
- Second.
- And let's vote on the board.
- Thank you.
- That brings us to our consent agenda.
Any questions or discussion
on the consent agenda this evening?
We'll take a motion if, Commissioner Riggs.
- Make a motion to approve the consent agenda.
- Commissioner MacDuff.
- I'll second that motion to approve the consent agenda.
- Very good, seeing no discussion,
we'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion passes four zero.
That brings us to item four A,
FB250020A.
- Good evening, Commission,
Matt Bodine, Assistant Planner,
here to present a final plot of
lot one block A luxury storage condominiums,
which is approximately located on the south side
of Hickory Creek Road, about 610 feet west of Teasley Lane.
This final plot does not meet our criteria for approval,
so staff cannot recommend approval at this time.
However, we have no objection to their requested extension
to a date certain of August 13th, 2025.
- Okay.
Commissioner Riggs.
- Make a motion to extend to a date certain
of August 13th, 2025.
- And Commissioner MacDuff.
- I will second that motion to approve the extension
to a date certain of August 13th, 2025.
- Seeing no discussion, we'll call for a vote on the board.
Item passes four zero.
- That brings us to 4B, ZCP25-0013.
- Good evening, Chair, Members of the Commission,
Mia Hines, Senior Planner.
This item, as stated in the caption,
is a zoning compliance plan for a hospital services
development in Razor Ranch.
Typically, zoning compliance plans do not come
before this body, however, it is written
in the Razor Ranch overlay ordinance
that site plans for the development of properties
south of West University Road must come
before this body for approval.
That is why we are here before you this evening.
As far as the details of the site,
we're looking at a just over three-acre property
located west of Heritage Trail,
approximately 265 feet north of Panhandle Street.
Surrounding this site, working clockwise,
starting at the north, are multifamily developments.
There is a park internal to Razor,
sort of located northeast.
Just to the east, there is additional multifamily.
Located to the south is a hotel.
And then to the southwest is sort of
an indoor recreation facility, that's that Andy Bees.
And then to the west is the hotel and convention center
over there in Razor.
As for the zoning on the site, it is located
within the South Mixed Use District One sub-area of Razor.
And that area does permit a variety of uses,
including residential commercial services,
retail and restaurant, and of course, hospital services,
the proposed use for this item this evening.
As far as what this site is supposed to comply with,
we are looking at Exhibit C2 and D2
from the Razor Ranch Overlay District.
Those have been provided for you in your backup.
And when we are assessing the site plan package,
we are looking at the site plan,
how the buildings and things are laid out,
the landscape plan, as well as four-sided building
elevations to ensure that they are in compliance
with what the Razor calls for.
We review it up against this set of criteria
to make sure that it complies.
And just as far as details on the site,
they are proposing a one building, approximately two,
or two stories, approximately 63,000 square feet
with 40 patient beds.
They do have a patient rehab courtyard proposed,
a sort of outdoor seating area for patients
and the employees of this facility.
With this development, they are proposing 82
vehicular parking spaces and six bicycle parking spaces.
They are proposing two drive connections.
Both are to the sort of internal circulatory system
of Razor Ranch, not to public streets,
but they are public access easements,
so they are meeting their access requirements there.
And they are also proposing to connect
to existing pedestrian stubs or sidewalks
that are around this property as per the requirement.
As for landscaping, they are meeting that requirement,
proposing a total of 27% of landscape area coverage,
as well as a 53% tree canopy area coverage.
And street trees and things are planned
on the site accordingly.
Here are the conceptual elevations as proposed.
I just, the pool set is included in your backup,
but I just wanted to point out two of the elevations here.
That east elevation is what would be facing our public,
the one public right of way that is adjacent to this street,
that's Heritage Trail.
And then the north elevation is what you'd see
as you're sort of coming south into the Razor Ranch area,
which is where typically most people are coming from
within this development.
So again, staff is recommending approval of this site plan
as it does meet the criteria for approval
and the Razor Ranch overlay ordinance.
And at this time,
I will take any questions or comments that you have.
- Any questions?
Commissioner Dyer.
- I apologize if you said this while I was coughing.
What kind of health services, you said 40 beds,
is it like a same day surgery place?
What services are they providing?
- It's rehab services intended.
So it's, I don't believe surgeries are performed
at this facility.
I think it's more for patients who are recovering
over a course of a certain amount of time.
It's not long-term rehab.
So this isn't a living facility.
They're recovering at this facility.
- I believe there's like a 55 and older
apartment complex nearby.
- Yes.
- So is this kind of something that the neighbors
are looking forward to,
just to have medical facilities so close?
- We didn't do public engagement for this development.
It's not required for site plans.
This is a permitted use.
I know that this area,
I'm gonna go back to the site plan for a second,
'cause there are a few different medical office buildings
in this area that are of use.
And I'm sure that the residents in that area
would enjoy that facility.
- Well, and the main hospital is just south of this too
as well, correct?
- Correct.
- Okay.
- Cooks also.
- Okay, thank you.
- Any other questions?
Okay.
Open the floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Dyer.
- I make a motion that we go ahead
and approve on the site plan.
- Commissioner Riggs.
- Second.
- Seeing no further discussion,
I call for a vote on the board.
- Second.
- That item passes four zero.
Brings us to our public hearings.
Our first public hearing this evening
is item 5A, AESA 25-0001A.
I will open the public hearing at this time.
Staff is requesting that this be postponed
to the August 13th planning and zoning meeting,
which will be in three weeks.
I think I'm doing the math here.
So if anybody from the public was coming expecting that,
that will be occurring in three weeks from today.
But we'll need a motion to continue to that date certain.
Commissioner Dyer.
- I go ahead and make a motion that we postpone this
to the August 13th date.
- And Commissioner Riggs.
- Second.
- With a first and a second and no discussion,
I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes four zero.
We will see that again in a few weeks.
Brings us to 5B, Z25-0004.
- Good evening, Matt.
- Good evening, Commission.
Matt Bodine, Assistant Planner here to present
the rezoning case called Springside Industrial.
So the property in question is about 22 acres
of primarily open pasture land located west of I-35
at the corner of Springside Road and Corbin Road.
The request today here is to rezone that property
from RR to the HI District.
Oops, sorry.
This is the site I want.
This property is surrounded
by a variety of zoning districts.
So to the south, we see that rural residential district
with, and then east and west to it,
is properties outside of city limits
under non-annexation agreements.
And then north of it is more heavy industrial
zoning district types.
Also note that this area
went through a recent mobility plan amendment
to change Springside and Corbin Road to Collectors,
recognizing the coming influx
of residential and industrial traffic coming to this area.
So this rezoning request was reviewed
against our general approval criteria,
as well as the zoning change criteria for approval.
About the proposed HI zoning district,
the purpose of this district is to allow
for a variety of industrial uses in that area,
primarily west of I-35 up to and around the Denton Airport.
This is the applicant's purpose for the rezoning
is consistent with the statement
of providing industrial uses,
as well as this proposed zoning district
is complicit, or matches the zoning
in the surrounding area to the north.
In addition, the comprehensive plan designates
the future land use for this property
as industrial commerce, which is,
in which we would expect mainly light
and heavy industrial uses.
In addition, staff sees that this rezoning
furthers the economic goal to ensure adequate land
for future economic growth,
particularly those non-residential land uses
to contribute to the growth and welfare of the city.
This area west of I-35 and between the Denton Airport
is primarily the industrial sector of the city,
and it has seen substantial growth over the last decade.
And that growth does continue to this day
with several projects in the area,
as you can see in that south map,
currently active, as well as interests from developers
to develop those adjacent heavy industrial zone properties.
The public was notified according to the city requirements,
including mailings and notices to those properties
within city limits.
Staff has received four total responses on opposition.
One came in just moments ago earlier today.
Of those, two were for property owners in city limits
and two were within the ETJ.
Staff is recommending approval of this requested rezoning
as it is compliant with the criteria for approval
found in the Denton Development Code.
But here to answer any questions.
- Any questions from staff before?
Commissioner McTuff?
- Yes, again, one of my continuing concerns
is that we've done public outreach around a holiday.
This one was done around July 4th.
So I'm just wondering how much of a feedback did we get?
There's a few letters in here,
but I continue to have that concern
that people aren't worried about these kinds of things
or not aware of around a holiday.
- Gotcha.
Noted, oops.
- Noted.
- Just in response to that,
the property signs do stay up past the holiday time.
So, but that is noted.
- Commissioner Dyer?
- So when you were talking about the current zoning
and the request for this zoning,
right now, this property has the heavy industrial
to the north, but it and all around it on the south
is rural residential.
But you also talked about that there should be
some sort of transition of zoning where,
and you mentioned it very quickly,
and it was like one of the last sentences on a slide,
and I don't know if you can go back to that slide
and find it, but,
right there.
- This one.
- At the very last line, it talks about
that the code requires substantial buffering
for industrial adjacent to residential uses in districts.
So right now, you've got heavy industrial
butted up right against the rural residential.
Like, what is the plan if we make this heavy industrial,
you still are surrounded by rural residential.
So what is the plan for that buffering
so that keep moving this heavy industrial south,
south, south, south, south?
- Yes.
So I can speak generally to what the code requires
as there is no site plan associated with zoning districts.
But in the heavy industrial zoning districts,
there is a 200 foot building setback
when that use is next to residential zoning,
such as rural residential.
And then there's also substantial landscape buffering
that's generally required when next to residential uses.
Some of those requirements include like fencing,
trees, shrubbery, as well as a minimum distance.
- But it just doesn't seem like
you've got one extreme type of zoning
against a totally different type of zoning
where normally you would kind of ease out of it.
You'd have the heavy industrial to a light industrial
to more commercial retail to your residential.
And I feel like, and I don't know,
maybe you can give me the history
of where the heavy industrial
to the north of this particular property,
how long has that zoning been there
neighboring the rural residential?
'Cause you showed the map from 2015,
so it's been there since at least then, correct?
- The, I can't speak to the zoning change
for that piece of property.
I can speak to a little bit more to staff's decision
with regards to the future land use plan,
but unless Tina wants.
- Maybe I can help address the question.
So your observation regarding the transitional zoning,
I can see why you say that
because sometimes in certain areas of the city,
we might have those transitions.
I think the challenge we have here
is we have an area of the city
that has been experiencing a fair amount of change,
particularly with respect to more industrial development.
We still have some rural residential properties
that are within that area.
So right now we're in this challenge position
of you have kind of two significant differences
in land uses.
Matt spoke to the requirements
that are in debt and development code.
When we have industrial properties
that are developing adjacent to residential properties,
there is a higher level of screening
and buffering requirements that come into play
compared to if an industrial use
was say next to a retail development, right?
So we do not have a zoning compliance plan
at this time submitted for review, as he noted,
but so that's where we rely
on our debt and development code
where we've adopted these standards.
And head of said,
these are the minimum standard requirements
for doing quality development
where we have this type of land use
being adjacent to this other type of land use.
So the code has it,
the debt and development code has built within it,
those standards to be able to provide those protections
when you have those differing land uses.
With respect to the HIs zoning to the North,
thank you, Haley.
So she just sent me some information.
Let me make sure I grabbed that date correctly.
That heavy industrial zoning to the North
has been in place since at least 2002.
So it has been there for quite some time.
The, you know, I think the challenge you have here
is when we have areas that are evolving
and experiencing amount of development,
the way that they are,
there is a lot of uncomfortable change that is happening.
The future land use map
of the debt in 2040 comprehensive plan
also acknowledges this area as Matt noted as industrial.
So these requests for rezoning to rezone properties
to heavy industrial and light industrial
are consistent with that future land use plan
that was adopted as part of our
debt in 2040 comprehensive plan.
So those are the criteria that we're using
when we have to evaluate these zoning change requests.
State law says if you're gonna have zoning,
the zoning should be consistent
with your comprehensive plan.
So that's why you have our analysis saying
that this is consistent with the requirements
provided for in the debt and development code
in our comprehensive plan.
- So question on the future on land use map
and the comprehensive plan.
I'm assuming that all goes through like P and Z
or city council and there's feedback from the community.
Like, do y'all take that into a,
I know you guys take that into account,
but how do we figure this out
because we are experiencing some growth
and balancing the need for that
with also the need for the current, you know,
rural residents, homeowners in that zoning
so that they don't feel like they're, you know,
being overtaken by having a type of neighborhood
that maybe, you know, especially if the property's
been in their ownership for a long time or family ownership.
- Yeah.
- I was gonna say, do you want me to address that
or did you have something else you wanna offer?
- I don't wanna get too far ahead of ourselves.
I wanna hear from, there's a few members of the public
who wanna speak in the public hearing.
I really just wanted to make sure we get any confusions
or statements of fact out there
so that the public can understand things
before they have a chance to make their comments.
- Oh yeah, absolutely.
- No worries.
I just, I don't wanna get cart before the horse, if you will.
If that's okay, I think those are very good things
that I hope you bring up once the public hearing is concluded
and we can just talk through those, is that?
- Okay, yeah, that's fine.
- Okay, I do have one question, Matt,
just so everybody understands,
'cause there's non-annexation agreements
left and right of here in county land.
Do the DDC requirements for buffering
and setback from a land use instead of a zone
apply to land that is not within the city
but is abutting a property or does it only apply
to land that is within the city abutting a property?
- I have to defer.
Typically, we only see this city and city land.
I'm not entirely sure what's common practice
when it's city against county.
- We can look into that if there's significant follow-up.
- Let's see if we can research that
and then after the public hearing,
provide that information.
- That's perfectly fine.
I just think that may be a question here, okay.
Any other, okay.
Thank you, Matt.
With that, I will open the public hearing.
I do have two cards of people willing
or asking to speak.
First, I will call Barbara Whiteward.
Quitward, my apologies.
- Can you get that picture back up of the property
that he's working to do the--
- Yeah, Matt, could you just get the map
of the property there?
And Barbara.
- Barbara Whiteward, out of the 4085 Corbin Road.
And my property is butted up to his property.
And yes, yes.
(speaking faintly)
- Matt, can you lower the microphone
so she can speak directly into it?
We're recording and videoing
and so if I could have you speak in the microphone,
that'd be really helpful.
- Okay.
I'm Barbara Whitworth and I live at 4085 Corbin Road.
My husband is 80.
I am 75.
We built the house in 1995.
This was our forever home.
When we first built the house,
it was quiet out there.
Well, it still is.
It's very nice out there, it's quiet.
We go outside and we can see the stars shine.
If something big like this is built directly
in front of us, all we're gonna see is their lights,
their noise, their pollution in front of my house.
Nathan does not live out there.
They just bought the property
to turn around and make money off of it.
I've been out there since 1981.
We bought the property in '81.
Excuse me.
We don't wanna move.
My husband is not able to move.
I don't wanna sell my property.
I invite y'all to come out there and just look.
It's nice and quiet out there.
It's just nice out there.
And if something massive is built directly in front of us,
it's gonna ruin everything out there.
And there's a lot of us that live out there.
And I don't know, it's just been the whole thought
of something massive being built in front of my house
that I can't even see to the north of me.
And like I said, if you look, my house is right there on,
I mean, just butts up to the back of his property.
And we are opposing, opposing, opposing.
And we would appreciate it if y'all would oppose it also.
Thank you very much.
- Thank you.
I also have a card from Ms. Kelly Holtzclaw.
(laughing)
Please state your name and address
and then you'll have four minutes.
- My name's Kelly Holtzclaw and I live at 2161 Underwood Road
which is the weird Oklahoma looking shape thing there.
And I've lived out there my entire life.
So since '77, because my grandfather owned
all of that property and it was a dairy farm.
Sometime in the '60s, I couldn't,
the records don't go back that far.
So yeah, we don't want heavy industrial.
And I meant just basically looking up
what heavy industrial is saying that, oops, sorry,
that it's a designated area for industrial activities
like manufacturing, processing
that may have significant environmental impacts
like noise, dust, odor, vibration and traffic.
Typically located away from residential areas
to mitigate potential negative impacts.
So yeah, we oppose.
And so my neighbor that's just north
in that other little purple square,
he did not get a letter.
My dad, that's the other square south of me,
he did not get a letter.
So I had my dad email, I know Kevin emailed
and with there being four or five responses that came in,
that's pretty much the entire surrounding area.
And the letter that we received says that
if, sorry, I'm like nervous.
If written opposition to the request exceeds 20%,
a three fourth vote of the city council
is required to approve the request.
So basically we would need to count the individuals
that it impacts and the responses
and that's definitely more than 20%.
So yeah, sorry, we don't want it to be heavy industrial
that he's on the property since the beginning of this year.
And we've been, I've been out there for 48 years.
It's just, and other people have been out there
at least 30 years plus.
So it's, we oppose, that's all I really wanna say.
Don't want heavy industrial, oh, I'm sorry.
The heavy industrial that's above Springside,
that's mostly field right now.
There is Fastenal and the Target Distribution Center
and Tetra Pak, Peterbilt, all of those
and all the other industrial buildings built out there
all around the corner there, that's enough.
We wanna keep our little piece in quiet.
And that's also where the planning and zoning of the,
they wanted to increase Underwood Road
all the way up to Airport Road.
And that got shut down because it would impact
the environment and they would have to build
a bridge over the creek.
So we have a buffer and that's good.
So if it just stays where it is, that'd be great.
That's all.
- Thank you. - Thank you.
- I do have one card filing support for it.
I don't have any other cards to speak
but this is a public hearing
so anyone is welcome to come down and share your thoughts.
Certainly, yeah.
Come forward, name and address.
- Hello, my name is Nathan Toon, 3201 Carmel Street,
Denton, Texas.
I am the applicant and one of the property owners.
A couple of things I just wanted to say
and first of all, I've become friendly with these people,
these people own property next to us.
It's certainly not my intent to do anything
that would negatively impact them,
their lifestyle or their property value.
I think Matt did a great job of explaining the situation
in terms of the future land use,
the existing growth in the area, the likely uses
for property in this area.
I think that oddly enough, me and the two people that spoke,
we had the only properties that were forcibly annexed
into the city 15 years ago.
And so we're just trying to play by the rules of the game
that we have to play by being in the city.
A couple of items that I heard in comment
from commissioners and neighbors.
I think Matt Bodine's staff report is very thorough
and I noticed and I've known this to be true in the past
that rural residential, it used to be called RD5X,
it technically is, it's a placeholder zoning.
It's for properties that get annexed into the city
that are not consistent with the future land use
and are currently a residential.
And so, there was discussion about buffers
and things like that.
I view my property as having no zoning currently
because it's rural residential, formerly known as RD5X.
And considering that all of the properties adjacent,
I shouldn't say all, but the property to the west of me,
to the east of me, and a lot of the property in the area
is in the county, there are no zoning restrictions
on those properties, currently one of the neighbors
who wrote a letter in opposition has a big,
frankly has a big warehouse on his property
that he used to run his business out of.
He happens to be a good friend of mine.
He spoke out in opposition of this zoning case
and I don't take that personal, hold it against him.
He happened to be playing in the group with me one day,
the only day I made my only hole in one on the golf course,
so we're friends.
So, do not hold that against him.
Another property directly to the west of me,
they're operating a water well drilling company.
They've got drilling rigs, they've got things
that would never pass mustard in the city of Denton
or in any zoning ordinance.
And so, I would, I don't know exactly the right words,
the right way to say this, but by being in the city,
considering that we have no city services,
we have no water, we have no sewer,
we have no electric, we're trying to play by the rules
of the city of Denton in spite of that.
And we could probably build a lot bigger, a lot worse
with no setbacks, with no landscaping,
if we were in the county, just like all of our neighbors.
And so, again, we're not trying to put anybody out,
we don't have any development plan proposed,
there's no site plan, there's no project proposed.
We're just trying to simply provide
a shovel-ready site in some senses that, you know,
if in the future we have a buyer that wants to build
something here that wants to bring jobs
to the city of Denton, we could, you know,
cut out a part of the process for them
and make it a more streamlined process
and one that, you know, ultimately benefits
the city of Denton, thank you.
- Thank you, this is a public hearing,
anyone else like to speak, feel free to come down,
state your name and address and you'll have four minutes.
- Hello, hello, my name is Kurt Van Zandt,
I live at 410 West Highland Street, Denton, Texas, 76201.
I only really just heard about this here
in this meeting today, I'm here on behalf
of a different part of your agenda.
I can't help but notice that it does seem like
I heard my friend Nathan here say that he was
one of the owners and I see these folks behind me
saying that they are family owners of property.
Now, what I'm seeing here is maybe a development
type agenda for, what it looks, the 2040 plan,
are there any plans to mitigate light pollution,
dust pollution, air pollution in this part of town
in the year 2040 as we continue to grow
and we allow things to develop in places
that were normally perfectly good land?
I do not see any, I'm very curious if there are any plans
to mitigate the kind of almost certain pollution
that would come from this kind of rezoning.
Thank you.
- Sure.
Okay, any other public wishing to speak?
I don't see any at the time.
I have a couple follow-up questions for staff.
I will close the public hearing at this point.
So Matt, just for the benefit of the public,
could you explain the 20% rule in a little bit
how that is calculated with the map that you had?
And yeah.
- Yes, so when, so by state law,
we're required to notice within 200 feet
of the property being rezoned
and that 200 foot boundary is outlined
in red on this map by letter.
When we receive, when the property owners
within that 200 feet within city limits
indicate support or opposition,
we take note of how much land in this case.
And so, I guess, and is in support or opposition.
And so when more than 20% of that land
in city limits is in opposition,
it would require a three fourths approval
by city council in order for the rezoning to pass.
For this particular project or this particular case,
the number of residents who have written in opposition
the total land area within the city limits is 37%.
So that three fourths or super majority does apply here.
- Okay, and it looks like some of that is within the ETJ.
Some of that 37%.
- No, so only the hash mark is just made for benefit here
of letting people know whose property is, have indicated.
The property in the ETJ is not included in that calculation.
- Okay.
- Right, I was gonna add it.
And I think the key point that needs to be understood is,
so we follow the public hearing notification requirements
that are provided for in the state statute
as Matt hadn't mentioned.
The state statute is specific to us notifying
based upon the approved municipal tax rules.
So if you're within the city limits,
then you're on the municipal tax rules.
If you're out in the ETJ,
then you're not on the municipal tax rules.
And so hence why property owners do not receive
a written letter from us when they're in the ETJ.
That's also why their property does not apply
towards the 20% rule that Matt had mentioned.
And keep in mind that 20% rule affects the vote
at city council.
It does not affect the vote
for the planning and zoning commission.
They're not bound by that requirement
as provided for in the state statute.
- Okay, thank you.
Any other questions from the commission?
I guess I have one more.
As you showed, the properties to the east and west of here
are in the ETJ with a non-annexation agreement.
Most of those non-annexation agreements
have as a function of that agreement,
the requirement that they be annexed
for future development, if I'm not mistaken.
Activity for future development
would void the non-annexation agreement, in other words.
So do we know if that's the case for these properties,
or is it a different situation than typical?
- No, I believe that is still the case here.
If they want to develop anything more
than a single-family house, for example,
then they would be required for their agreement
to annex into the city.
- Okay, thank you.
- Typically, our non-annexation agreements,
they read very similarly, so Matt is correct,
that they're restricted to being operated
for single-family residential purposes.
The one thing I would add is
it does allow for agricultural uses,
but if somebody wants to subdivide their property
in Haley and Angie Correctment Farm,
five acres or larger, then it would trigger annexation.
Also, a change in land use.
So if they want to use that property
different than single-family residential
or agricultural purposes,
then it would also trigger annexation.
Keep in mind, those agreements were put in place
to be able to essentially allow those property owners
to be able to continue using their land
for single-family or agricultural purposes
at the time those agreements were entered into,
with the understanding that the city would agree
not to annex those properties.
So it's kind of a nutshell as to why we have
those non-annexation agreements in place.
But they are very specific that at such point in time,
those uses change or someone wants to subdivide the land
so the lots are larger, five acres or larger,
then that's going to trigger annexation.
And then we would work with those property owners
through the annexation process.
- Thank you.
Commissioner Riggs.
- So I just wanted to follow up on that.
One of the things that we heard tonight was that
there's a drilling, a well drilling operation
going on in one, and then a warehouse or something,
some kind of business.
Would that change it from single-family use?
- So I think it probably depends upon the conditions
as to which were established at the time.
Like I said, it's typical for non-annexation agreements
to be able to be limited to single-family residential
and the agriculture.
I guess we would have to look up the specific properties
and the scenarios in place to be able to understand better
how they may have been able to allow to operate.
You know, I don't know the age of the development out there.
Maybe some of the residents can speak to that
if you were interested in finding out.
They may have a better length of time understanding
of how long that warehouse that might be out there
because it could be that that warehouse was developed
if the property was in the county a long time ago
and predate some of our non-annexation agreements
or could have not had a non-annexation agreement in place
at such a point in time when the property developed.
I was getting a little bit of an affirmative head nod
from one of the residents, but so.
- Okay.
Thank you, Matt.
I guess, Mr. Kelly Holtzclaw,
do you have some information that could inform?
Yeah.
- So the warehouse that he's talking about, that's--
- Sorry, into the microphone.
We have too many tall people here tonight.
- Okay, the warehouse that he's referring to
on Kevin McKinney's property,
that's been there for a very long time.
He did extend it when he bought the property
from Mike Riley back in 2013, I believe.
I'm glad I looked up these dates.
But it was, the original building was built
somewhere back in the '90s.
And then the water well drilling equipment
that is out there, it is equipment.
And they live there, so I'm not sure where else
they would need to store their equipment.
So, yeah.
All right.
- Thank you. - Thank you.
- Any other questions from the commission?
Thoughts?
Commissioner--
- I think we were, Commissioner Dyer
was talking about a buffer.
Some kind of an additional buffer.
Did we get an answer on that?
- Yeah. - Yes.
So I just preface that these discussions of buffers
are very general, 'cause we don't have a site plan.
All of those details are affirmed
with when zoning compliance review is done.
But for when a property is adjacent
to those outside of city limits in the county,
those county uses are not considered
when determining a buffer.
That is consistent with how it's applied
to other standards such as gas wells and reverse setbacks.
- Did that, but?
- So no information.
We don't have anything to guide us.
- Yeah, I asked generally, yeah.
- Okay. - Okay.
Commissioner Dyer.
- Okay, so the applicant has said that he has no plans
to necessarily sell the property or develop the property.
This is just for the future potential
that if a buyer came that it would already be zoned
and ready to go, that's what I'm understanding, number one.
So here is my question is, one, to create more of a buffer,
could it instead be zoned to light industrial?
Or two, could it be sold to a residential developer
to build one or three?
I don't know, Ian, you may have this in here
and I just didn't notice.
How many acres is the total parcel here?
- It's just under 22.
- So could you potentially build one to three
to five acre residential homes there
that would be more in line
with the current rural residential?
- I mean, I can at least speak to the residential aspect.
I guess the staff would have difficulty
approving or recommending approval
as it would go against the future land use plan.
And that is our guiding document
with how this area should grow.
- Yeah. - Okay.
- Matt, did you want to address the buffering requirements,
which by the way, great response on that, so.
- Do you want to address the buffering requirements?
She had asked about the,
if it were zoned to light industrial,
would there be different buffering requirements
that might come into play
versus the heavy industrial zoning?
- The use buffering, I guess,
regards to landscaping would still generally be the same.
I have to look real quick whether there's a zoning specific.
There is not.
- Correct, it's based on land use.
So.
- And Matt, I think the last thing that we heard was,
you know, if you could describe the types of controls
that we put on the land uses for lighting
and that sort of thing, even behind the buffer,
so that we understand what the requirements would be
if future development were to take place.
- Yeah, I can speak generally to,
we do have exterior lighting standards that apply
as such that your lighting,
I guess any lighting generated on site,
it's foot candle,
which is a measurement of how bright it is.
That is not too extreme onto neighboring property,
so it's very limited in that way.
Other aspects with regards to,
I guess, to traffic is assessed
at time of plan review through
traffic impact analysis if required.
And the site plan to ensure that,
that there's no negative impacts on surrounding property.
- Okay.
Any other questions?
One other thing, I guess,
we hear a lot about continuous
or contiguous staged growth
within our comp plan and that sort of thing.
It doesn't look to me like the majority
of the large HI zoned land north of,
sorry, of Springside is not yet developed.
And so I guess from a,
as we move forward implementing
the future land use map and things grow and develop,
is there a concern or anything from staff
on whether we're getting too far ahead
of how much land is necessary
or is there a lot of activity
that just isn't in the ground yet
and it's in the planning stage
within the vacant land that's already zoned HI in this area?
Does that make sense?
- I think so, so I guess with regards to what's in the work,
there are some projects being actively in the planning stage.
As in the bottom map on the,
what is that, the left side.
That's just like immediately around,
those are just some of the other icons
that indicate different projects,
either completed or in planning stage currently
and then there's more in the general area.
As that speaks to that part of the question.
- Yeah, thank you.
I appreciate you re-highlighting this.
So yeah, I mean, okay.
Thank you.
- Can I answer? - Yeah.
- Just to add to Matt's response.
So I think that the challenge you have
is an area of town that is experiencing development,
particularly that is more industrial
and distribution in nature.
With your question regarding are we getting too far out
or beyond development that's happening
when thinking about continuous stage growth.
In this area with the activity that we're having,
I think that that's less of a concern
compared to sometimes we get requests in
where it's truly much more leapfrog development
that's farther out.
And my apologies for that technical term of leapfrog,
but I don't have a better term to describe it right now.
But it's sometimes we have situations
where we have an area that's developing
or has been developed in function within our community.
And then we have someone who's trying to do development
several miles out from that point
where there are potentially no services
or very limited services in the area.
So when we talk about leapfrog development,
we're talking about development that's several miles out
from other areas that have experienced development.
So I don't believe we have this situation here.
I think what we truly have is we have an area
that's evolved where people have lived for many, many years
and surrounding property owners have either developed
their property or sold it in accordance with zoning
that aligns with our comprehensive plan.
And so now we're having this tension potentially
between the residential land uses
and the industrial development that's happening in that area.
We typically rely upon our debt and development code
and the standards that we have in there
that address these types of situations
to make sure that we have appropriate buffers
that are in place to be able to help mitigate
any potential negative implications
that could potentially be associated with a development.
So we, the city have said these standards
that we've adopted in our debt and development code
are most appropriate as the minimum baseline standard
for doing quality development within our community.
So that's what we as staff would be enforcing
should this zoning request ultimately be approved.
So absent a zoning compliance plan,
it's difficult for us to speak with more certain
other than to say, we know what's in the debt
and development code from a buffering requirement
and would address that.
Pollution, I think there was a comment made related to that
whether it's lighting or dust or noise,
we do have performance standards
in the debt and development code
and our code of ordinances that helps address
those types of concerns to be able to mitigate
those impacts on any property,
whether regardless of what that use may be.
So I don't know if that helps provide some information
to the commission for your consideration this evening.
- Commissioner Dyer.
- So to piggyback on to that,
as we're looking at this,
obviously like when we're looking at plats
and things like that,
if they meet all the requirements,
we basically approve it.
If this meets the requirements for the development
on the debt and development code,
are we, is it kind of the same protocol
where you just approve it and,
or because there's this particular applicant
is not looking to develop it himself,
he's not selling it right now to a developer,
it's just kind of future.
Are we kind of putting the cart before the horse
in approving this?
Do we wait down the road
if he and his partners decide to develop it,
or if he has an interested buyer
and they need to get the zoning done
to make that deal go?
Is that a more appropriate time
to approve this zoning change?
- So I think that's a great question.
So the challenge we have with zoning sometimes,
it is, I mean, it's speculative, right?
So property owner has a property,
they desire to be able to do something with it someday.
It may not be tomorrow, it might be a year from now,
it could be five years from now.
And that's the challenge with zoning, right?
So it's, hence why we've got criteria
within our development code for when we evaluate the request
to see, okay, does it meet the criteria
that we've provided for, most notably consistency
with our comprehensive plan.
So with zoning, state law says
that if we're going to practice zoning,
that our zoning should be consistent
with our comprehensive plan.
And so that's why you have the recommendation
that you do from staff from that perspective.
You as the commission are also able to take
into consideration the public testimony.
But I would caution you that if you were to consider zoning
that is different than the comprehensive plan,
then that potentially has implications,
particularly where the property owner is involved.
So that's why I mentioned, you know,
we rely upon the development standards
that we have in our debt and development code
and our development process.
And, you know, so if, in order for somebody
to be able to design their site plan
or their zoning compliance plan
and their subsequent engineering plans,
they need to know what zoning entitlements they have in place
in order to be able to design accordingly.
Whether or not they have someone at the table right now
or someone later, you know, the commission can decide
whether or not it's appropriate to consider granting
or to recommend approval of the zoning.
If you feel it's not appropriate at this time,
then I would encourage you to include in your comments
why you believe it's not appropriate
to rezone the property at this time
so council can benefit from those comments.
So it is, sorry, I had one other thought and I lost it.
But so, but I guess my other point being is,
you know, the commission has the challenge
of weighing property owner rights
with a property owner who is interested
in potentially developing their property someday
with and evaluating that based upon
the city's adopted policies.
You also have the opportunity to take into consideration
the public comment that's received.
I think one of the challenges you have to evaluate is,
is it appropriate to rezone this property at this time
to be able to allow for future development
or if the zoning should be considered at a future date.
So it's, so I think that that's the challenge
that you have before us.
- Yeah.
- Tina, I completely agree with all your remarks
but want to add just a little button on it
from a legal perspective
because you did ask a legal question.
You asked in regard to plats,
you understand that you have a ministerial duty
that if it meets all the check boxes,
you have a duty to approve.
And so I interpreted your question to be,
what level of discretion do I have
with regards to a zoning request?
And basically all of the discretion that Tina pointed out.
Some of the criteria for approval that are listed
in your staff analysis report are subjective
and that's why your deliberate deliberation
and expertise are so valuable to this board.
- Commissioner Riggs.
- So I don't really have a question.
It's more of just a general comment discussion.
I do have a hard time with this one
because we do have a future land use
that's supposed to guide how DITN develops
and that is this is an industrial area.
However, I do also recognize
that we have large acre lots of single family residential
that's there that has been there for a long time.
And I'm kind of not necessarily bothered
but it kind of do go,
if there's not a buyer or a potential plan,
why are we zoning it right now?
And I'm sure part of that is
because it makes the property more attractive
to a potential buyer
if you say it already has zoning entitlements.
So just put that out there.
I'm kind of torn on this one.
- Yeah, I guess I would say as you're deliberating,
one, if there's additional information
that would help you get more comfortable,
let's make sure we make those requests.
Also, as we consider whether it makes sense
at the right time,
if you're concerned that the answer is no,
then I think staff needs to understand one,
what is the timing trigger that you're looking for
and/or if you think that's not impending,
why would you think that the future land use map
is contrary to what we should be doing here, right?
I mean, as I look at this area,
TxDOT's about to spend,
it was 650 million,
so it's probably up to 950 million now
on building the Western extension of Loop 288.
This area's gonna change a lot,
and so from my perspective,
unless there's a swift regional downtrend economically,
whether it's this property
or the property to the west of here
that's already zoned, HI, or that sort of thing,
not immediately to the west,
but on the west side of the ETJ pocket,
this is gonna change a lot
within the next five to 10 years.
You can look, 10 years ago,
a lot of these warehouses in the vicinity weren't there,
so that kind of tells you what interests
and investments are going in.
At the same time, I think that,
regardless of whether this is zoned HI or not,
it's not the best available, developable land
within the nearby couple miles of here that's zoned HI.
Access is a problem to 35W
because of the donut hole of the ETJ
and that sort of thing.
Corbin doesn't, it's gravel part of the way here.
So I don't know, and I guess I would imagine,
and staff correct me if I'm wrong on this,
but the property to the north,
sort of northwest of Corbin and Springside there
seems to be encumbered by a fair amount of ESA probably,
and so that may be one reason
why that parcel hasn't developed as of now,
but there's other land up by Jim Crystal and whatnot
that is not yet accounted for.
So I guess those are some of my thoughts,
but again, this area is changing.
So the question is,
how do we trust the requirements
within the development code for buffering
and that sort of thing as those changes happen
while also being sensitive to our community, right?
So those thoughts.
Commissioner Dyer?
- You just knew, I just was, yeah.
Looking at what's on the screen right now
with the current aerial site location
and seeing that there is still some buildable space there,
seeing that the applicant himself has no plans
to develop this area, does not have a potential buyer
for this area, I'm going to be a no vote
on approving this zoning change in the future.
If he and his partners plan on developing it
or have a buyer, that might be different.
This is where it's hard sitting up here in this position
is that I do feel for the property owners in opposition
because I get it, you bought beautiful piece of land.
So long ago or it was in your family
and it's hard when we are in a community
that is one of the fastest growing in the state of Texas.
And I would encourage the city,
even though we do have the comprehensive plan
and this has been earmarked for a lovely place
to grow the industrial portion of the city,
that maybe there is a happy medium
for some of these property owners that don't want to move
and maybe a light industrial is on the southern portion
of where the current industrial, the heavy industrial is now
might be a better future zoning area.
- Yeah, yeah, we closed the public hearing.
Are there, is there any questions that you have or no?
Okay, Commissioner Riggs.
- Yeah, so I agree the public hearing is closed.
And to your point, Commissioner Dyer,
that's kind of where I'm torn
because we talk about property rights
and of course the existing residents out there
they obviously have property rights,
but so does the gentleman who owns the property now.
And you know, he's bought the property,
he's trying to get it zoned to what the future land use is.
And so it's kind of like as we see that area develop,
that's kind of how the town has decided to develop.
And so it's kind of where I have a hard time with it,
but I'm still not decided.
- I guess I do have one question for the applicant.
If you had an option to continue this to a future date,
is that something that you'd be able to provide
any additional information to the public
or is that something you're interested in
or would you rather just have an up, down vote
and move forward in the process?
Yes, feel free.
- So the question was if I'd be willing to postpone
the hearing for a future date, uncertain?
- Yeah, just what would your,
given the development interest that you're having
and that sort of thing, what?
- Well, the one thing I did want to clarify
was I never said I didn't have a potential buyer.
I just said that I don't have a site plan
that is being contemplated.
- Sure, okay.
- So I think that's a big difference.
I mean, I feel like, you know,
I have, like Commissioner Riggs said,
I have the same rights that my neighbors have
as far as property rights go.
I don't know if you guys picked up on it
in my, in what I said earlier in that.
- Sorry, Nathan.
- I just had to answer the question.
- Yeah, I'd rather just keep it on point, so.
- I would say generally, I mean,
unless there was some kind of refund
or there was, you know, some sort of financial benefit,
I would not be interested in postponing
and I'm aware that I do need a super majority
at the city council anyways.
- Okay, thank you.
- Thank you.
- Tina.
- So just thinking through the item being presented
before you this evening,
and I don't know if the applicant would be interested
in this or not, given that the request is for HI zoning,
but if there is any interest by the applicant
or even the commission for that matter,
if you feel that a planned development district
might be a more appropriate solution
with some potential standards in place
that might help be able to mitigate
the adjoining residential property owners concerns,
that could be an option for your consideration.
It would necessitate the applicant working
with the residents and negotiating
what those additional development standards
would be needed that might not be able to be achieved
under the current zoning to try and see
if there's an opportunity to strike
maybe a more appropriate balance
between what's being requested
and the adjoining property owners concerns.
So, you know, if the commission were interested
in something like that,
I think it would be appropriate to hear from the applicant
to see if the applicant would entertain that
or if they wanna stay
with their current zoning request as well.
- I guess I'll extend that question to you, Nathan.
Is that something you'd be interested
or are you really just interested in the HI street zoning?
- I would say like the prolific professor,
a real estate professor at North Texas,
John Bain always said it depends.
I think that's a pretty broad question
to ask me in this forum
without having any time to consider the consequences.
However, if there was any, from my perspective,
if there was any willingness
to negotiate a plan development,
and maybe I should preface this by saying,
you know, I have extensive experience rezoning properties
not only in this city,
but at least probably a dozen cities across the Metroplex.
So, you know, I've seen, you know,
a lot of times the PD is,
it's basically a shakedown of the developer.
And so unless there was some willingness by the city
to provide services, which we currently do not have,
we have no water, we have no sewer.
I know for sure, you know,
if I was to try to develop this property,
the city would want me to expand roads
and do a lot of infrastructure.
Unless there was a negotiation
or there was some kind of give and take,
I don't see any benefit
to taking that approach at this time.
Given that staff has supported
or recommended approval of this zoning case,
it is consistent. - Thank you.
Thank you, Nathan.
I have a question for legal.
It's been a while since we had one of these.
I know we had an update on the legislative bills.
And I think within the last couple of sessions,
there have been some bills that expanded
property owners' rights to seek de-annexation
in certain conditions where they're not receiving services
and that sort of thing.
So I wanna make sure that the commission is aware
of the potential futures of,
and the residents nearby, that if,
I guess the one question would be,
is my understanding correct?
Are there ways that property owners within the city
could de-annex and then not be beholden
to our zoning requirements and buffer requirements
and continue to seek development of that land at that point?
- That is an extremely broad question
that implicates bills that aren't actually effective yet,
as well as some bills from the last legislative session
to my understanding are still being actively litigated.
I would be irresponsible to prognosticate from the dais,
and it could be inadvertently giving legal advice
that is completely inaccurate.
- Okay, thank you.
Yeah, I'm no friend of PD's.
When they're not necessary,
especially in a quickly changing area like this,
because they're gonna lock things in agreements
that we made with property owners
who a lot of these lots are probably gonna change hands
in the next 10 years, right?
It's just kind of the reality of it.
But I guess any other discussion or questions
or emotion at this point?
- I think I would agree with you
that PD probably isn't best
because it's gonna end up being some kind of industrial,
and I think that's not what the residents want.
So I don't think that there's maybe an agreement
that can be made, so.
- And I'll just remind the commission
that the way this works, since we have an even number
of commissioners present this evening,
if there is a motion that results in a tie vote,
then that comes back as an item
for individual consideration at our next meeting.
And so, so be that way, as it may.
Yeah, Commissioner.
- Mcduff.
- I'm gonna make a motion to move our vote along,
although I too have concerns.
And so I'm gonna recommend approval of this request.
- Okay, thank you.
And Commissioner Riggs.
- I second it.
- Yeah, I'm real sensitive to change.
And I understand the result that we have
being on the outskirts of a broad region
means that the industrial growth here
has been 15 times what you would expect it to be
if we were not attached to the edge of a larger region, right?
And so it feels fast, and it is fast.
I, as staff mentioned, you know, we have to,
to some extent, the provisions within our code
for dark sky lighting, for the setbacks,
for the enhanced buffering, that it would not hold a,
or put development out there in a way
that's insensitive to nearby residents.
So I think I'll support this, but I understand the challenges
and there's more to this process.
So anything else for Commissioner Dyer or, okay.
Seeing, yes, Commissioner Mcduff.
- I did wanna make some additions here,
some other comments.
I do understand that we, I do appreciate the hole in one,
we're trying to get that for you,
but we also have some property owners too,
that we're concerned about in the property rights,
but also the environmental, these sensitive areas
and the traffic and the pollution.
And I'd like to make sure those thoughts
are conveyed to the council.
- Yeah, okay.
Thank you.
Seeing no other discussion,
I'll call for a vote on the board.
Thank you, that passes three, one.
Do we have a date on when that will be going to council, Matt?
- The next earliest available date is August 19th.
- Okay, so it should be noticed for that
between now and then if it happens at August 19th, okay.
Thank you.
Okay, that brings us to, sorry.
Commissioner Mcduff, do you, no.
Okay, that brings us to item 5C, S25-0004.
- Thank you.
All right.
Good evening again, commission,
Matt Burdine, Assistant Planner,
here to present the 1305 Oak Boarding House
specific use permit case.
So this requested specific use permit
is associated with a 0.4 acre lot
located well within city limits
at the corner of Oak and Fry Street.
It is currently a developed piece of property
with a fairly large residential building on it
with parking, landscaping,
as well as curb cups onto Fry Street.
It's surrounded by a large mix of uses,
in particular, multifamily dwellings
as well as commercial uses.
The current zoning mixed use neighborhood
within the Fry Street overlay district
and within that district, a boarding house
requires a specific use permit,
hence the request before you today.
This request was reviewed against our general
and specific use permit criteria for approval.
So a little bit more about the SUP
as well as the boarding house.
So the development code defines a boarding house
as a building for non-transit lodging
of more than four but less than 20 persons
that may provide meals,
provided that any cooking is done
within a central kitchen.
As stated in MN district,
this use would require a specific use permit,
which goes before you and then city council.
So this specific use permit being proposed
with the additional conditions
that there's no more than nine bedrooms
and no less than 10 parking spaces.
This is to just maintain consistency
of the site as it's developed right now,
as well as maintain compliance with the development code.
And it is important to note that at this time,
the applicant has not indicated any proposed site changes,
mainly just a change in the use of the property.
So this was reviewed against the comprehensive plan
and the future land use designation
of neighborhood university compatibility area.
This designation applies to those areas near our universities
and which encourages those building forms
and land uses that can serve both established neighborhoods
as well as those universities.
And staff found that the boarding house use
does that as well.
Staff did find that this particular use
in this location advances the goal to grow compactly
as it would be an adaptive reuse of the already developed site
that has existing utilities, city services,
and public amenities that it can take advantage
of and also found it to be consistent
with those goals and requirements
of the freshly-overlaid district
and the Oak Gateway area plan.
So this request was notified according to the city limits.
Staff has shown the map with the 200-foot buffer
and then the 500-foot buffer.
Staff has not received any written opinions
from members of the community.
And at this time, we are recommending approval
of the requested specific use permit
as it is compliant with the criteria for approval.
Here to answer any questions,
and then the applicant is here as well.
- Okay, any questions from the commission?
No, okay, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing
at this time.
We do have one person wishing to speak, Kim McKibbin.
If you could come down and state your name and address
and you'll have four minutes.
- You're right, you've had some tall ones.
My name is Kim McKibbin.
I own the property located at 1306 West Hickory Street,
which is somewhat adjacent to the student center.
I have questions about the purpose of the boarding house,
who, is it open to the public?
What are the restrictions or whatever it is
for individuals to live there?
Will they be paying appropriate rent for a two-bedroom room?
Which is, I understand what that's been planned
is for 18 individuals.
So, as a local person on that corner,
our local business, during the Oak Street development plan,
we were asked to remove our garbage collections
from the street.
And fortunately, the student center was willing
to come together so that everyone on that basic corner
shared one dumpster.
I'd like to know that that's going to be considered
because right now I pay $86 for one-fifth of that dumpster
every month, which is kind of extreme.
But I don't wanna lose it
'cause I have no other alternative for do that.
Also, parking is very, very difficult in that area.
And since I do run a business,
I'm concerned about people coming into park
who are going in and out of the coffee shop.
I own Ora Coffee, which is at that address.
The thing that I'm concerned about is if these people,
do they have restrictions or could anyone walk up
and ask to be admitted to this boarding house?
I've got a little bit of an idea what's happening.
Also, the parking, there are nine spaces there
that are currently leased out to different people
by the facility.
One of them is a handicap parking spot
and I'm pleased for that.
There are three reserved spaces for the workers
in the building and then there's two more spaces,
which I guess is the only way they're getting 16,
which I've always thought were utilized by Zebra Head
for their staff.
So I need more information
than really what I've gotten so far.
I did talk to Mr. Stevens.
Unfortunately, I interrupted his vacation
and called him on the phone.
We've worked really well with this group before,
just seeking some information
because I'm getting questions from the other people
and I'm the only one that basically owns the building
that they're in right there and running the stuff.
So I need more information.
I do have concerns about what the rules are,
how people are gonna be treated.
I wanna make sure that it is fair for the people
that are in the boarding house
and that the church gets whatever it wants out of it as well
within reasons.
I just need more information.
- Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any more cards yet,
but anybody, if you wish, can come down to speak.
Yes.
If you can state your name and address.
- I'm Brandon Bell.
I'm at 318 East Lloyd Street in Crum, Texas.
And I'm the campus minister
for the Christian Campus Community.
We, totally valid questions, Kim.
Kim's a great neighbor.
And we do plan on continuing to share the garbage space.
That should not be a problem.
Yes, our parking space is limited,
considering the two directly behind Zebra Head
are for Zebra Head employees.
And, but at any given time, our lot's full
based on our events and activities,
based on our students that buy a pass for the semester.
And so I know we have people
come in and out of our lot constantly
that are going to Chipotle, Zebra Head, Auro,
all the different restaurants and shops on our block.
The only towing we do is typically at random
with on the road towing.
They look for our sticker for our registration
for our parking pass.
And if it doesn't have that pass,
they typically check with me to see,
hey, is that somebody I know?
Or, you know, are they just running next door?
It's not a big deal.
But anyway, so our parking lot does get used
by a lot of the business traffic.
And unfortunately, like she said, it's extremely limited.
So, but we do have the correct amount of spaces
for the specific use permit.
Just for clarification, basically give you kind of an idea
where we're coming from, for my role as a campus minister,
there's very little education that's available
at a Christian college, at a seminary.
They don't have very many college specific ministry tracks.
And so for people to get the experience that I've got,
it takes a lot of hands on.
And so we see a really strong need
for more of a residential apprenticeship type of program.
And so we're actually partnering with E3 Partners,
which is a missions organization that's highly skilled
at helping train people in ministry.
And so together with them,
we're going to be vetting students that are applying
to be in these kinds of roles.
So it will be very, very, very selective.
It's not just open for anybody that wants a place to stay.
It'll be very, very selective for that program.
Now, having the specific use permit would allow us
for those students who, you know,
one of the big issues we've got right now,
we've got so many international students
that are really, really, really struggling
to find anywhere they can afford
and be somewhat close to campus.
And so it's really a burden on me to go,
hey, we've got these nine bedrooms upstairs
that are primarily offices, you know, game rooms,
storage for furniture for students.
And so to be able to provide maybe a temporary place,
'cause we had a lot of students in transition
and still be in compliance with the city
with code for a building,
will be an added bonus having this permit.
But primarily it is for a very high level
kind of apprenticeship program.
For those that want to go into campus ministry
and it gives them the hands-on experience
and allows our building to be used in a very hospitable way
and not just like a church building for college students
as it kind of currently is limited.
- Okay. - Thank you.
- Thank you.
This is a public hearing, anyone else?
If you would like to speak, you may come down.
- I'm not seeing anybody.
I'll close the public hearing.
Open the floor for discussion.
More questions if there are any.
I'll just offer,
you know, this is a unique area of town,
but when we go back in history,
boarding houses used to be extremely common, right?
It was the typical entry-level housing option
for people coming into a big city
as they moved to the city to get a job.
And in many cases, we've cut that lowest rung
of the ladder off.
Obviously the specific use of this area,
you know, it's gonna vary, but I think,
you know, I've seen firsthand the need
for international students and that sort of thing.
I also think that, you know, as this property
gets used in the future, the more it ends up being used
for residential activities and the less
for large event type of activities,
that's honestly a little bit less taxing
on the parking situation and that sort of thing
from my perspective.
'Cause many of the perspective tenants
would be at a stage of life
where maybe they're taking classes also at the university
and, you know, it's all 250 feet away.
So, Commissioner Riggs, though,
did you have a question or comment?
- Just had more of a comment.
This is a, I remember back in the day
when this was a frat house.
This is a much better use of the property.
I have to say that.
I can remember seeing people jump off that building, so yeah.
- Trip down history lane.
Okay.
Any, open the floor for a motion
or if there's any other questions, certainly.
- Go ahead.
- Commissioner Riggs.
- I make a motion to approve the SUP.
- Commissioner McDuff.
- I second the motion to approve the SUP.
- With additions.
- Yes, with the staff recommended conditions.
- Yes. - Yes.
- Staff recommended additions.
- We have a motion to approve
with staff recommended conditions and a second.
Seeing no more discussion, we'll call for a vote on board.
That item passes four zero, thank you.
That's our last public hearing of the evening.
Brings us to item 6A,
Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix.
- Thank you, Chair.
So as it relates to the matrix document itself,
there were no changes made to it
as there were no requests at the last meeting.
In terms of city council action on development projects
that the commission has considered in the past,
since your last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting,
if you recall, we had the Gateway of Denton
Plan Development District Amendment
that was really geared towards signage,
allowing for a taller pole sign
and some directional signage that Haley presented
and council did approve that.
Also, if you recall,
the fall meadow multifamily specific use permit
that was done that took advantage of the two,
what we call the 2.12 sub-chapter provisions
to be able to assist with affordable housing projects.
That was also approved by city council.
So this is my final report
to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
So I just wanted to take an opportunity, if I could,
just to say thank you to the commission for your support
during my time here at the City of Denton.
And this includes past commissioners too,
because I know right now the most senior person
is Chair Pruitt and he was here when I got here.
So, but the additions to the commission
have been absolutely wonderful.
I wanna compliment you all in your thorough deliberation.
You had a case this evening was very challenging.
You've had some cases here not too long ago
that were also very challenging,
but I commend you in your deliberation.
You're very thoughtful as you consider each of these requests
given the fact that they do affect property owner rights
and they take into consideration
nearby resident concerns as well.
And that's hard, especially when you're receiving comments
of concern from residents and property owners.
So know that I leave you with a very competent staff.
Haley will be the interim director following my departure.
Without Haley, I would not have been able
to be successful in this role.
She is super solid, she is a rock star.
She will lead you as well as Angie
and the rest of the planning team.
So when I say that I leave you in very competent hands,
trust me that I do.
Also, I would like to address, during my time here,
the Planning and Zoning Commission
has had some significant accomplishments
outside the typical consideration
of the plats that are on your agenda,
the challenging zoning cases,
the occasional zoning compliance plan,
alternate ESA plan and other variances.
I know Chair Pruitt, sorry, I wanna call you Eric,
but I know Chair Pruitt would know some of these
more significant accomplishments that we've had
as 'cause a couple of these things might predate some
others on the commission.
But one is when I first started here,
we were in the middle of adopting,
trying to adopt the update
to the City of Denton's Comprehensive Plan.
So they put it on pause to allow me to get here
and help the staff get it across the finish line.
So we did that.
Simultaneously, we also did the mobility plan
to be able to better address the mobility concerns.
We know we have mobility challenges within our community
and we've had the opportunity to get our updated mobility
plan in place to be able to address those mobility
challenges, also taking consideration,
pedestrian and bicycle needs,
in addition to just the vehicles within our community.
But we did that in tandem with updating
the Comprehensive Plan.
That Comprehensive Plan will help hopefully guide us
for the next probably 15 years.
We should update it every five to 10 years.
So when we have better financial resources,
know that Haley, that needs to be an item on the list.
So we've also had the opportunity,
one of the projects that I'm most proud of
for our community was the adoption
of the Southeast Denton Area Plan.
That plan was significantly needed for our community.
We were dealing with planning issues
that stemmed from actions taken 100 years ago
that none of us were here for.
And having to build trust with the community.
I told my team if there's one thing that we are going to do,
it is build trust with the residents of Southeast Denton.
And I think we did a tremendous effort.
We tried to build trust with residents
throughout the community, I should add.
But in particular, just given the historical past
that was still hanging over us,
it was very important that we do that plan.
We now have a vision in place that was developed
by the community, by the residents themselves.
And that's very significant for us as we move forward.
Our Design Downtown Denton Plan was another major plan
that we undertook and helps provide us a path
for investing in our downtown for the next 15 to 20 years.
I did not have this one on the list,
but I do need to acknowledge the Northeast Denton Plan,
despite the challenges that we had working through that.
The commission was very steadfast in trying to help figure out
what was the best possible options for Northeast Denton
before we put that particular project on pause.
So I commend the commissioners who are around this dais
when we were having those conversations.
Short-term rentals, that was one of the most
complicated zoning cases that the commission
has had to work through.
Again, I know some of that predates you all,
but if you kept up with that,
I think Angie, that was our longest running zoning case.
So Angie holds the title for that one.
I would add also public engagement.
In addition to my staff attending the neighborhood meetings
that are associated with zoning entitlement cases,
as it relates to probably within the last two years,
if I had to count,
we have probably done over 100 public engagement events
related to the planning efforts within the community.
I know we did at least 40 with the Downtown Denton Plan.
We also did over 40 with Southeast Denton.
When I think about what we did for short-term rentals
and some of the other projects
that we've got going on in Southeast Denton,
we did the block party,
all the engagement that we've been doing on,
we call it the said low and the said row.
So the Southeast Denton live work overlay
and the residential overlay that's currently in process.
And you've challenged us to do more
before we bring back final recommendations to you.
But the fact that our team has done
that amount of engagement,
we have not done that level of engagement
probably in the history of Denton
compared to what we've accomplished
within the last two years.
And so I share all that because these successes
are not necessarily related to me.
Sorry, I'm gonna get emotional 'cause I love my team.
They are related to the successes of my team.
They are amazing people.
And they are all about trying to make Denton
something better than it is today.
And they are very committed to the city
and I commend them because they have done
just tremendous work.
So my apologies for getting a little emotional.
They know I love them dearly.
I will miss working with them.
I will miss working with all of you.
So thank you for that.
- Tina, I'll start this off by saying the feeling is mutual.
I remember being here when you came in
to observe a meeting over in one of those seats.
And you're like, "Okay, who are these people?"
With Scott.
And we've done a lot in the last four, four and a half years.
I remember several times you mentioning
a former chair of another commission
that you worked with that would say a few things.
And one of the things you repeated
was that he viewed essentially what you see
on the corridor of the freeway
as you're entering the town as the window dressing
of here's who we are, right?
Just because the volume of people
that come through on the freeway dwarfs everything else.
It kind of makes me scared
at what you're gonna tell other people about us.
(laughing)
Hopefully it's all good.
But I'm glad for your opportunities
and wish you the best
as you work through serving a different family
and your own family a little bit more, hopefully.
I didn't have the benefit of working with Richard
before you for very long.
But I know when he left,
there was a lot of similar feelings
because he helped usher really the city
through the 2019 code update.
And that was a huge effort.
And I thank you especially for the staff
and getting everybody on board.
When I look at our staff, newer commissioners,
just understand that one of those little special things
that people don't understand what makes Denton unique
is that especially in the planning department,
everybody's there because they love the city, right?
Which is not the case everywhere.
And so we get not only competent professionals
who continue to develop their craft,
but we get people who care.
And that comes from them aspiring
to those types of positions,
but it also comes with supportive management from above.
And I thank you for continuing that tradition.
- The one thing I would like to add is,
and sorry, I was getting emotional
'cause my team, they just bring me wheat to the knees
on a regular basis.
But I really wish for this commission
and I look forward to seeing the continued successes
that you all have here for the city of Denton
in working alongside the staff.
I would say, I told you earlier,
they're extremely competent.
Trust them in the professional advice
that they're giving you to help you
through these challenging decisions.
They are all rock stars.
They are so super knowledgeable
when it comes to planning related issues
and they truly understand our community.
And to your point, we've had the opportunity,
I have some of my staff who have been here 10 years
when I think of Haley and Sean and Julie.
And then I know Angie's close behind with her experience
and her longevity here in Denton.
You know, we decided to grow some of our talent from within.
And so you see that with Erin and Bryce and Nellie
and Jimmy and Matt that we've added to our team.
You know, Mia and the growth that she's had
and Cameron doing double duty
or probably triple duty
as our historic preservation officer.
In addition to working on the Hunter Ranch
or landmark projects now,
they've all had just tremendous growth.
But the fact that we've made the decision
to help grow the team from within,
we've had the opportunity to promote four people
in the time that I've been here
as a result of their commitments
and the growth that they've had.
And to me, that's truly a compliment to their efforts
and the work that they've done here for the city
and the professional growth that they've had.
So again, I wish you all continued success.
I know this commission will do great things
and it's been my pleasure being able
to serve alongside this commission
as well as some of our prior commissioners as well
and including city council
because they've provided the support
that we've needed in our city management team
to be able to do some of the successes that we've had.
So thank you.
- Just quickly.
- Yeah, Commissioner McDuff.
- Just quickly, I know we all wanna give you
some good words here, Tina,
to leave the great city of Denton.
But I just wanna thank you personally for welcoming me.
This was not something that I campaigned for or asked about,
but my friend that was our mayor pro tem
had just insisted that my name be put forward.
And I love him dearly.
He's been so good to me.
But I was just really impressed with your acumen
and education and training
and commitment to learning and sharing.
You spent a lot of time with me at the beginning.
I just appreciated that so much.
And your extreme sense of professionalism,
professionalism, and we just wanna make sure
that you know we wish you good luck and Godspeed.
- Commissioner Laird.
- I would also like to thank you
for your service to the city.
Coming from having served on another PNZ
in another smaller community,
while I had a little bit of background,
you were definitely there to kinda help usher me in
and give me the city of Denton rope
so that I knew what I was doing here.
So thank you for that and for your patience.
Going to miss you a whole bunch,
but I wish you the best of luck in your new role.
And I'm sure being closer to home will be.
So you'll be so excited for that.
- Commissioner Rees.
- I know, I guess I get to be the last one.
So like you said, Tina,
obviously Eric is the most tenured here.
I think I've known you now for seven months maybe.
And having a municipal background,
I've worked with a lot of planners,
and particularly being an engineer,
I can tell you I always don't see eye to eye with planners.
But I have been truly impressed with your level of knowledge
and your professionalism.
And I think you've been a true asset to the city of Denton.
I can see that you've been a true asset to your team.
Just whenever you look at how teams function,
you can see that your team is a good team.
And that says a lot to you as a leader,
and also says a lot to you as how you grow your team.
And so, yeah, Denton's gonna miss you,
'cause you are truly an asset.
Richardson is far better for having you.
But I just wanted to say that,
and I think we all agree that we need
to give you a round of applause.
(audience applauds)
- All right, with that, anything to add to the matrix
from commissioners?
Not seeing anything?
Brings us to concluding items.
Any concluding items?
I will mention one thing,
but I'm gonna look at the calendar
so I don't say the wrong day.
I believe, yes.
Given our work session several weeks ago
on the Southeast Denton actions that are going forward,
the Southeast Denton Neighborhood Association
does have a regular meeting once a month
on the last Monday at 6 p.m.
At the Recreation Center.
I can't remember which one, what it's called.
MLK Recreation Center down there on Moore Street.
So be aware that it's 6 p.m.
That's an opportunity.
Our staff who are great often attend
just to give some direction,
or if there's something going on.
- And Eric, repeat that again.
The last Monday of the month?
- That's correct.
Last Monday of the month at 6 p.m.
So it'll be on the 28th this month.
- Can I add one thing?
- Yeah.
- I realized I forgot to give a shout out
to the lady who hides just on the other side of the dais.
So Cathy, Cathy has been a tremendous support for me
in the Planning and Zoning Commission as well.
So I wanna thank her.
She keeps me honest and helps keep our team
functioning very well to make sure we get
all of our agendas pulled together.
I know she's been patient sometimes
when we've been kind of bringing up the rear end
on getting our agenda packets done.
So I wanna acknowledge Cathy
in all of the wonderful things she does
to be able to help keep the planning team
also functioning very, very well.
So thank you for that as well.
- No other concluding items.
Thank you all.
We'll do it again next month at 8.32 p.m.
We will adjourn this meeting with no objection.