Hello and welcome to the City of Denton planning and zoning meeting for
Wednesday November 20th. This is our work session and with a quorum present I
will call us to order at 5 o 7 p.m. Let it be noted that chair Roselle is
absent from tonight's meeting and at this time Commissioner Smith is absent.
To clarify agenda public hearing item B is being pulled from tonight's agenda so
we will not be considering that today. It will be re-noticed and most likely on
the December 11th December 11th meeting. Now let's get into our agenda we don't
have any work session reports so we will go to consent agenda. Any questions on
consent? Yeah so I know on the consent agenda there's the two properties north
of North Lakes. I have a couple of questions about those. Let's take one
at a time because they might be different people. Okay so Haley I think
you've got the first consent. Well they're sort of both the same question so
I'm just gonna have Julie if you wouldn't mind listening in as well and
and both of these questions relate and I think to the the properties and
distances regarding setbacks for these properties and there's a caveat to that
which is in light of last night's vote so this actually might be more of a
question for Cynthia but and what are the distances for this apartment complex
and for the school and I know that unfortunately that's two different
people but that's essentially the same question. What are the what are the
distances to the building especially vis-a-vis the 250 and as of last night 500
but realizing that we have different criteria for when rules are applied so I
mean what are what are the implications of all that together for these two
properties? So both of these flats do reflect compliance with the 250 foot
reverse setback that was in place at the time of their application. Last night's
vote although the ordinance was approved there is a 14-day lag time between
adoption of an ordinance and its effective date so that will go into full
effect 14 days from last night and I believe there was a clause written into
the ordinance for projects that are in the queue currently to remain under the
code that they started under so anything that was currently under review with
staff would be able to stay with the 250 foot reverse setback to the
completion of that project. For the A2 option that was discussed last night or
elsewhere in the code? That was in the ordinance itself. Okay. There was a clause
in there but and Cynthia I don't know if you have anything else to add on that I
think that was the just of that one clause in the ordinance? No, that's correct.
Okay. And do we that the they're with they're outside the 250 for the proposed
plan for construction of these buildings and I mean this is I think especially
Jermaine because we're just we would discuss this last night I know it's 14
days and if it was just something weird like a sign or something where it it's a
rule change but it's inconsequential I'd be I wouldn't be so pushy but we're the
reason there was a rule changes this is a noxious use and so I'm concerned about
residences and children. Certainly and both projects are meeting the 250 foot
reverse setback. For their proposed building constructions? Correct. And are
they outside the 500? I'm not certain on the school the buildings may be on the
school I can let Julie speak to that those are separate applications though
from the plot the plots reflect the 250 foot setback the multifamily I don't
recall the exact numbers off the top of my head they have an agreement with the
operator that was part of their specific use permit last year and their setbacks
are a little bit higher than the 250 I just don't know the exact number I think
it was in the range of three to four hundred feet to the buildings but but
they they meet or exceed the 250 foot requirement. And this is now maybe it's
still following on but this may be a more of a question for does this mean
that we are creating before construction a legally non-conforming structure which
seems like we're trying to minimize that and yet we're we're doing it on purpose
here. Well in the ordinance as Haley mentioned in section three of the
ordinance that was approved last night it does call out those plats that were
submitted before the ordinance was approved and those don't have to comply
with the new setback. And I just want to caution that the gas well ordinance is
not on the agenda for this evening's meeting. Yeah no I'm not I'm not
discussing the the actual ordinance itself I'm this is particularly just the
setbacks and these particular plats but thank you for your caution.
And we don't have any again this I guess a legal question we don't have any
special consideration for the types of use there's no difference in a noxious
use in any other kind of use. Because I'm concerned about future liability issues
to be honest not only the health of the children but then financially liability
issues if we find that we're within the 500 and we knew we did it before we
allowed construction. Again the gas well setback is not on the agenda for this
evening.
It's not germane to this problem even though the setback is from the gas wells.
These plats meet the technical requirements of the code though in
state law does obligate the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve plats that
meet the code. All right thank you. Commissioner Pernau. This is the same line
of questioning I just kind of wanted to verify if you could check before we
present on this one if I remember correctly the we were looking at 250 feet
from the edge of the pad and at the time of the you know the actual active well
and everything was 450 feet when we discussed it that time we talked about
the idea that if they were ever to drill you know if they were ever to like you
know open up close farther on the pad closer to the house closer to the
property is that the well owners would would basically have to submit a request
to the city to get approval on that one correct so so based on and I don't want
to make you know I don't want to make the setbacks the part of the question I
just want to ask so based on what we what we're at right now if they were to
attempt that basically our existing setbacks would would prevent that right
and I believe you're referencing the specific use permit for this site we
looked at the pad site to the east of there that may expand in the future yes
so when and if that pad site is the operator seeks to expand that site they
would have to come in they're located in a floodplain so they have enhanced
scrutiny on that site they would actually require a specific use permit a
watershed protection permit they would have to obtain waivers from all of the
protected use owners that are within their required setback which would be
500 feet in this instance because they're an existing pad in a non
industrial district so everyone within that 500 foot radius would have to sign
a waiver and then they would have to get through those additional steps the the
watershed protection permit SUP and then the gas well site plan process okay thank
you very much anybody else on this one okay thanks
hey Julie I did have a quick question on the high school plot thank you I saw a
note on there that I guess prior to final plant we need an AESA on there is
that correct if they were going to impact the alternate the ESA right now
their plans are not proposing to impact the ESA so that okay so it's not right
now it's going to be out of it if they did okay if their site plan did change
and they they were going to impact it then yes prior to final plot they would
have to get okay but it is not anything that's being done now no that's what I
wanted to clarify thank you anybody else on that one okay items for individual
consideration we do have a general development plan that is recommended for
denial that is Haley again so you don't see these very often but this is a
general development plan which I like to think of kind of the pre-preliminary
plat for larger projects that want to do a little enhanced planning on the front
end so this particular GDP is for the same site that we have the rezoning to
plan development request later this evening this application came in almost
concurrently with that plan development rezoning and it was just a little bit
ahead of the curve and because the site does not have that zoning in place yet
this general development plan cannot be approved until that zoning is approved
if the zoning is approved so this item is before you tonight because of the
shot clock bill that requires that within so many days of it being submitted that
it be brought forward for approval denial so staff is recommending denial
solely because it does not have that zoning in place yet to allow this lot
size and density of housing Commissioner Smith thank you chair if we'd recommend
the denial then does it does this then continue on to to City Council for that
or they have to withdraw and reapply if the zoning does pass those kinds of
things what's the what's the denial process in regards I get the shot clock
reasoning but what's the process from here on out certainly so the GDP is a
planning and zoning Commission approval so if you were tonight it's like yes it
will come back before you the process should ultimately be their zoning goes
through council if it is approved then they would submit this plan back to staff
and say you put it on your next agenda we have 15 days to get it back to you
all for you to reconsider and approve at that time if the zoning is in place not
to belabor why why do we do GPs again this is the first time I've ever seen
one three years up in here so GDP is what do we have them what do we use them
for well it's no longer a process that's in the 2019 code this project came in
under the old code before that October 1st effective date of the 2019 well
they come back up within whenever they get denied and they come back in then
they'll have to come back underneath in the 2019 code then because my
understanding is because the way state law is written they can stay under that
code because they have the opportunity to take whatever time they need to get
the plan into compliance with whatever we the findings were for denial and then
if they meet those they can come back in and continue forward and then the GDP
is just for more advanced pre planning essentially pre essentially it was a
tool in the O2 code like I said pre preliminary plat just to give you know an
additional high-level look at utilities street layout and things like that just
to allow that extra level of planning Haley along that line of thinking so if
they're applying for rezoning for a zoning designation in our new code how
is it that we're then still going to be looking at it from the old code it does
seem like we've this project is being looked at from from both codes and it's
it's confusing to me of how we could be on the old code if we're actually dealing
with a zoning designation that didn't exist in the old code correct and I
certainly understand that their zoning application actually initially came in
for districts under the O2 code it fell within this transitional period where we
could not notice for a rezoning under the code that was no longer in effect
after October 1 so we worked with the applicant to create the best tool to get
them the same end result and that turned out to be the plan development in the new
DDC so there are the overall intent is to comply with the 2019 code there are
certain facets of the O2 code that they are vested in the GDP was already in
process so we elected to allow that to continue forward because like I said
it's essentially a preliminary plat just a little bit less detail but
particularly the tree preservation requirements will be looked at under the
2002 code because chapter 245 of the local government code specifically
allows that to be vested in so based on their date of application they have the
ability to pick and choose essentially components of each code since we were in
that transitional period okay so yeah I guess that's where my question was going
so they can yes certain elements under 245 different pieces can be pulled from
the old code they had the choice between which which of those they wanted to go
with so tree preservation is essentially the only code element that is from the
O2 code everything else they're intending to meet the 2019 code through
the PD process and then like I said the GDP was just their existing application
it was the first thing in the door so under the shot clock bill we needed to
let that continue forward but that process won't exist in the future for
other projects okay I may have more when we revisit this item
Commissioner Beck yeah so can you remind me of the difference between the tree
code in the two different versions I do have some more detail on that in the PD
presentation but essentially everything was different different types of tree
classifications different minimum preservation requirements for the trees
are you gonna go over that I do have more detail on that in the PD presentation
for later so then I'll hold my questions till then okay thank you Haley okay
moving on to our public hearing items our first is a final replat and that is
marked
good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a planner in the development service
department this evening I have for your consideration the replat of the Golden
Triangle edition and I stand for any questions that you have I assume this is
just for redevelopment of them all right I believe so yeah okay thank you oh I'm
sorry Commissioner we're not tearing down them all right no sir okay thanks all righty thank you okay
item B is being pulled as I had said Commissioner Smith for your unification
since you're a little bit late item B of our public hearing is being pulled and
renoticed for our December 11th meeting okay item C is Julie
all right good evening I'm Julie Wyatt and I'm presenting S 19 3 Oxford at
Sherman the request before you is to consider a specific use permit for a
multifamily development the subject property is about 12 acres it is
currently undeveloped and it is situated between loop 288 to the north and
poinsettia Boulevard to the south some background on the property in 2002 the
property was zoned CMG during the citywide rezoning in 2019 it transitioned
to SC due to the submittal timing this is another one of those it's in that
transition between the 2002 code and the 2019 code the property is or the project
is subject to the 2002 Denton development code regulations but
multifamily work dwellings require an SUP in both the CMG which was the previous
zoning and the current zoning of SC so here's the subject property right here
outlined in black you can see that SC zoning just to take a look at what the
surrounding zoning pattern is there's r7 to the south at the townhome
development at r6 just a little further south than that adjacent to it to the
east is an r4 subdivision currently under construction there are there's a
multifamily development in MN to the west of the property and the property
that is kind of to the northwest of the subject site is currently undeveloped
but commercial development will be developed in the near future at that
location the SUP criteria for approval and in the 2002 Denton development code
is in sub chapter 6 I won't read all of these to you they're in your backup as
well as the code we'll just go over some of the highlights of that analysis and
that that criteria for approval in more detail so first of all we always look at
the Denton plan 2030 when we when we start analyzing a proposal in this case
the future land use is community mixed use the intent of that is to provide a
mix of uses more commercial service and then some more high density development
or residential uses and to complement the commercial center so really to to
encourage a diversity of use to to have a more dynamic development pattern in
these areas multifamily is consistent with the future land use map once again
first of all it is a complementary residential use for mixed use districts
it's often found in mixed use districts and within that larger future land use
designation there are variations and in this instance because it's really close
to a residential area a residential use like multifamily would maintain that
residential character along that edge where those where the the residential
of us that that mixed use center I you all seen this slide before the dent plan
2030 also talks about the growth projections for Denton and that by 2030
our our projected population will be a little over 200,000 people in order to
accommodate all those of those residents there will need to be new housing units
and as part of that multifamily multifamily is an appropriate use and
is something we want to see and kind of our urbanized areas and in those
strategic locations next to arterials places like loop 288 where there's
proximity to existing residential also schools and shopping so so this this
this area is really consistent with what the comp plan calls for to look a little
more specifically about what they're proposing want to talk about the site
plan so the the site is kind of a triangular shape if they are proposing
eight three-story buildings and those are outlined in purple the proposal is
oriented toward loop 288 so the main entrance to the development would be off
of loop 288 they are proposing three access points with controlled access the
full in and out access adjacent to loop 288 and then two exit only points one
to the adjacent future commercial development that would be the most
direct access to FM 428 to Sherman Drive and then another exit only point on to
point study up they are proposing a community pool with a clubhouse also
some open space areas one that would include a fire pit and and outdoor
eating also proposing a dog park in this location that would be controlled access
for the dogs excuse me Julie commissioner Bernetta yeah I just have a
question when I'm looking at the aerial map and the you know the notification and
response map it includes the the yellow outline includes that little section that
goes out to Sherman yes the notification got a little overzealous it actually was
over notified okay so yes there the little the notification map included
this little section here which was in addition to the subject property so in
the actual subject property is just that part outlined in yellow okay so we're
voting we're just going on that spot right correct yes sir thank you very
much there is there are additional open a meaningful open space areas one here
adjacent to that single-family neighborhood kind of separating this
residential building from from that that single-family lot and then and then in
this location they're also proposing some one-story garages those are
outlined in yellow and you can see that they're a lot of those are centered on
on adjacent to poinsettia to allow that sort of visual buffer to set those
residential backs that the the taller residential buildings back a little
further from the existing development that the three-story residential buildings
are set back a minimum of 101 feet from the south property line and then about
49 feet from the east property line and the proposal does meet the the minimum
parking regulations the landscape plan shows that they are proposing 163 new
large canopy trees at maturity that would be about 200,000 square feet of
canopy as as part of that they're proposing 47 large canopy trees along
the southern edge and that is in addition to the required 24 street trees
those are actually medium canopy trees those are a little smaller they're
proposing some additional large canopy trees to make sure there's that visual
buffer between the existing residential and the proposal there's also as I
mentioned that open space area adjacent to between the development and that
adjacent single-family lot and that would include a landscape buffer that's
required for the code I'm sure Commissioner back so on that regard and
you can use this map or the other map but I noticed one of the conflicts that
you had was trees and I don't know if you're gonna address that but are there
there's no ways of attaining the standard since I believe you said they
were below the standard for trees no they actually meet not only the 2002
tree code requirements they actually meet the 2019 requirements a lot of the
trees on the site were kind of fence line trees most of them were secondary
trees and they actually meet both both codes on that my mistake thank you but a
lot but tree preservation is important in this line because a lot of their
preserved trees are these fence line trees that are existing right here so
they're maintaining those existing trees to provide that that good buffer between
them and the single-family residential there is a perimeter fence around the
subject property it's going to be a combination if approved of ornamental
metal board-on-board cedar and masonry columns and one place I want you to zoom
into is that the the property line adjacent to poinsettia they are
proposing board-on-board cedar fence with recesses and projections and it's
a little hard to see but the the fence actually kind of goes in and out to
allow landscaping planting areas I mean to break up kind of the monotony of a
really long fence and although we really like that visual interest we do have
concerns about the durability of those materials and so staff is actually
recommending a condition that that fence either be a wrought iron with with a a
evergreen shrub a screening device along that that perimeter or a masonry wall
here are their sample elevations and this this one shows a little bit better
about what they're proposing for that south fence line but they are proposing
three-story buildings with a neutral color palette balconies or patios are in
100% of their units awnings decorative wall lighting and a variety of recesses
and projections are going to provide relief reduce that bulk of those
buildings also the appearance of the stairwells those are their appearance is
minimized from the exterior of those buildings there is if this is approved
there will be another item or another project that will come before you and
that's an alternative development plan because it's under the 2002 code there
is that alternative development plan a provision that if they need a deviation
from one of the subchapter 13 requirements there are two first a
project greater than three acres has to have a public or private street system
the way they're laying out their buildings and proposing they've actually
got tuck under garages and all of their buildings so it kind of breaks up that
long private street system so they would need an alternative development plan to
deviate from that provision and then also the code prohibits garages between
the the buildings and the street in this instance the garage is really work in in
in order to set those residential buildings back to have those one-story
buildings closer to that existing neighborhood so the proposal does meet
the requirements for an ADP it'll come back before you if this is approved by
it by City Council a TIA was submitted and approved as a as a part of this
request as part of it they did provide trip generation there there their
estimates show that there would be about 1,800 trips generated per 24-hour weekday
and that would be 113 in the morning peak and then 133 in the evening peak
they also as part of the TIA looked at sort of the total build out of that
corner once that commercial piece comes in their estimate is that it would be
about 3,600 trips per day Julie on that note I know it it was mentioned in there
that they took into consideration the future commercial development in the
existing homes what about the single-family developments that are
effectively on both sides of the development were those considered at all
I believe it was all considered as part of it they actually sort of melded a lot
of the data because the Harvest Hill all of the data from the Harvest Hill
subdivision and the trips generated from that also the TIA that was prepared for
the palladium development that adjacent multifamily development and sort of took
all of that into consideration when they were developing this got a new
development on the other side of 428 the J the development actually they did
because poinsettia is actually going to punch across FM 428 so if you look at a
map and that is part of their analysis of that of that so this is not a road
yet but it it will if it's not yet we may have really old aerial but I don't
think it's a road yet but this is actually going to punch across and and
part of their analysis of this intersection of poinsettia and FM 428
took into account that that that movement across that intersection and in
fact their their analysis by their analysis they feel that once all of this
is kind of developed that that the the intersection of poinsettia and Sherman FM
428 will meet the warrants for a signal oh there's no question yeah okay so so
it really it was considered as part of it the single-family homes that are
going in on that corner yeah the whole development because this is
actually supposed to be commercial as well so there's gonna be a lot going on
in this in this area completely agree okay thanks but that was a great segue
into talking about intersections so their TIA's it's been a lot of time
talking about those intersections first was well first a little bit of
background so they're given a grade a to F depending on the delay that that
drivers experience at those intersections a being the least amount of delay like
10 seconds or less I believe and then F being a substantial delay 50 seconds or
more so in their analysis of loop FM or loop 288 in FM 428 you know that that
intersection because it's a pretty complicated intersection but it ran the
gamut from a to F the the the straight going traffic on FM 428 was the most
free-flowing but then those those cars exiting the the loop and having any
left-turn movements really had substantial delays I believe up until
four minutes of delays so so that that intersection currently meets the
warrants for signal I talked to engineering it is supposed to be
installed within the next six to eight months they they know that this is a
really tough intersection for those residents in that area and so as an
interim step they're going to be installing for always stops within in
December that I believe the first couple of weeks in December is when they say
they're estimated to be installed so so that is forthcoming and that'll be an
interim step for that signal and then as you mentioned the FM 428 in Poinsettia
that westbound traffic that especially is turning left onto FM 428 Sherman Drive
or at some point what could potentially go straight that is that is those
drivers are experiencing the most difficult turning movement especially in
the morning the evening as it as a interim step the recommendation is to
restripe that road to have a dedicated left turn lane and then sort of a
bifurcate the left turning movements or the right turning movements who would go
north on that road and that will help ease it until until that meets that
warrants for the light and when is that planned June it would be with the
development of the project yeah it would be the design would happen during
platting and development if it was approved Commissioner Beck Sherman 428
is that's a text dot road is that correct I believe I believe it is it is
text dot outside of the loop if it's still text on inside the loop it should
be converting over to the city pretty soon and are we widen widening that to
accommodate all the development on either side that are being proposed
there's not a plan to do that with inside the loop there are also perimeter
street improvements that would be required as if this is approved the
developer would would construct kind of a spur off of the off of the entrance
ramp for loop 288 connecting down to point study a here to provide that sort
of looping circulation pattern so if this was approved there would be a spur
sort of the beginnings of the acts of the frontage roads for loop 288 that
would be constructed in front of the proposed Julie while we're on the
discussion of points Etta it seems to me with that multifamily the palladium that
went in did we not have some kind of restriction there that there would be no
parking on points Etta I don't know if there is a restriction of no parking it
is a gated community there is a they do have a screening wall there I don't know
how I remember the discussion I just don't know necessarily what I'm trying
to recall I believe I think there was on street parking already existing if I'm
trying to I'm trying to recall off memory but what I think we did was we
did not permit them to include off-street parking I'm sorry on street
parking to count towards meeting their parking requirement but we didn't change
anything for point said yeah okay can we maybe Claire can you look that up in
between if you have a minute sure I'm just curious I know there's no signage
there now for on street but you know it's getting really dense in there right
now and filling up fast and so I know that was a conversation we had with the
residents about their concern for people parking on the street guests in these
multifamilies if they can't find guest parking I know the conversation was had
I just don't recall what ended up being approved so what I can find out I
appreciate them thanks all right other infrastructure there is a public water
and sewer available they would have to extend an eight-inch water line along
that north loop 288 the part that they're building that that frontage road
Waterworks Park is pretty near the proposal but it is still about 3,500
linear feet from the subject property and the sidewalks not not always there
so the applicant is proposing some on-site recreational amenities we talked
about on the pool dog park and open space they would have to comply with all park
dedication and development fees when they when they would final plat or and
pull any building permits it is within the Wilson elementary Strickland middle
school and Ryan high school attendance zones according to DISD the amount of
elementary students would would stress the capacity at Wilson elementary but
Strickland and Ryan have the capacity for additional students Wilson elementary
is also being is about to be reconstructed as well so there's a lot
kind of going on in that area so Julie with regard to that because we have this
issue on another development we're going to be talking about about how we don't
have the capacity in the existing zoned elementary school so how does the city
consider that when when examining a project like this we look at all factors
associated with it and it kind of and especially in this one because there are
improvements coming to that Wilson elementary but you know it's one factor
we look at as sort of the myriad of criteria for approval so you know it does
and and when DISD comes to you and says it would stress capacity or for this
other development that we're going to discuss they'd have to be rezoned do you
work in collaboration I mean how how how is DISD gonna accommodate these kids we
do try to work in collaboration with them to let them know what's coming so
that as they plan for the future they can make sure that they have you know
adequate facilities so we're pretty in constant contact with those things get
approved and if things get rolling the communication will be such so things can
be drawn accordingly okay mr. Beck so I'm not exact same same issue it was a
little unclear is are they stressing the existing pre-construction Wilson or the
stressing the post-construction Wilson you know it he wasn't really clear on
which one it was but I know they are right in the middle of the the
reconstruction of the entire building so you know as part of their planning
process they're they're looking at all of them are our properties in those
projects that are coming forward
all right public outreach was done for the proposal it did have the are required
notifications we have received two letters in opposition neither of those
were are within the 200 foot boundary from the subject property and one
letter in favor that is within 200 feet it's about in this location they did
have a neighborhood meeting over in July I wasn't able to attend there was a
conflict but and we did ask him to hold in another neighborhood meeting but they
they did decline to have that Julie did you get any information from them
regarding what was transpired at the meeting there were only five who showed
up and they you know according to the applicant there really wasn't a lot of
concern with it with with the proposal so and that seems to be consistent with
what I've heard because they just haven't heard a lot from from the
residents around there so based upon the criteria for approval staff does
recommend approval our recommendation includes a sort of listing of what the
site plan landscape plan and elevations have that if approved they would they
could build eight three-story buildings with them in any Center and Clubhouse
and the 19 accessory structures that includes both excuse me the garages as
well as some carport some covered parking they're proposing 200 and sorry
I have a typo 248 dwelling units with a density of about 20.15 dwelling units per
acre they they're proposing 460 parking spaces with which those that meets our
parking requirements and the site specifies a total of 67 percent lock
coverage and 33% landscape area and then the open space areas are to include a
minimum of 12 seating spaces Julie sorry can you go yeah actually yeah right
there I'm having a hard time with the line the recommendation line where it
says increases greater than 5% somehow my brain is not that sentence is not
working for me so would you mind explaining that so up to what point so
if there for just for just numbers two through four and and this is because we
want to get some specificity as to what they can and can't do that it would
allow staff to approve increases up to five percent of the the 248 dwelling
units or parking spaces or that lock coverage so there would only be that
that minimum of 5% that staff could approve and then any decrease in that
amount staff could approve but anything over the 5% it would have to go back
through the public hearing process right and that's why that line doesn't make
any sense to me because that's not what it says yeah if I may just add though
that 5% it's still under the maximum that's allowed or minimum depending
which one you're looking at so it's not that we're going above what the code
allows it's just for this development and so commissioner yeah I just agree
very vice-chair we probably change that wording I know that's not what's
codifying at all I just it increases greater than 5% of the amount specified
requirements two through four provided a lot of requirements the DDC I met okay
so that means it technically reads up to us is that it's saying that well if we
increase it by 20% does that make sense yeah I read it over and over again how
many times and it's like yeah I'm not we I will I will make sure that that's a
little clear they also proposing a minimum of eight dogway stations in the
open space areas and then I want to make sure we codified that 71 large and
medium canopy trees along that southern boundary that's a really important edge
Commissioner Smith thank you sir first year first time I think I've ever
really seen before we've we've been codifying kind of the site plan stuff
they've been giving within this is that the unusual that we're doing that I mean
I know this is an SEP it's not really a zoning issue of course but it's more of
an SEP to be able to use in that in that zoning district but codifying hey
give us this this preliminary site plan kind of and we're now codifying what you
give us preliminarily it seems a little weird but well when when these site
plans because they're they're on pretty large pieces of paper and there's a lot
of small writing when they're shrunk down to fit on an ordinance they're
illegible oftentimes so the point is to kind of have a text sort of laying out
just the broad brushstrokes of what they're proposing so that future future
planners and and and development of those in the development services
department can figure out what we what was actually approved okay you guys
didn't include anything on in that recommend or I guess yeah in that
recommendation I don't see anything maybe it's in the slide you're about to
get to which is the landscaping okay yeah so we do recommend approval but we
are proposing some conditions that they that they're that the landscaping is
intended to comply with the DDC and and that they need to comply with the
landscaping and the site plan the parking area light fixtures can be
determined at building permit but we want to make sure that they're at a at
a level that is is provide safety for for the residents of the development
but also that they're that they're not shining on the adjacent residential so
we're we're asking that those be capped at 14 feet and then also the perimeter
fencing materials you can finish your sentence oh just just that recommendation
for the the wrought iron with the screening hedge or the the fencing
materials of the masonry so I saw this in the staff analysis the staff
recommendation you had the site plan requirements and then you had staff
recommends approval ASB with following conditions it's it's just worded weird
Julie just this our staff recommendations these three things plus
the site plan pieces above yes okay thank you yes it's yes thank you yes the
answer is yes we're also proposing the additional condition that within 30 days
of council approval that they do come forward to the planning and zoning
Commission with the ADP to deviate from those two provisions that we talked
about earlier and that and then not withstanding the limited administrative
approvals that 5% the city reserves the right to require approval by ordinance
of any amendments to the SUP the attached site plan the elements described in order
that they do have to comply with the site plan that they're that they're
proposing we have notified of them of the conditions I think they were a little
concerned about the perimeter fence provision that that we recommended but
the applicant will be here tonight to talk to you and to answer any questions
mr. Smith was the concern with the fence materials well I think they were they
really you know they I think they thought a lot about that that board on
board cedar and that this the sort of undulations of it to allow those
landscaping areas and that was something that they really felt felt that they
wanted to do and and and I did get their perspective and we understand but we do
want to make sure that we have durable materials along our rights away and that
that they stay nice for a really long time and so those were conversations we
had throughout the review and so you know I don't know where they'll land but
but that was just something that staff felt pretty strongly about how many feet
of fencing is it that we're talking about that's it's pretty it's pretty long
I'm just looking at it from a cost perspective that we're being wrought
iron and wrought iron and see your board on board isn't too dissimilar but
masonry if they're wanting something that is not transparent at all masonry
goes up quite a bit in cost and so I hate to be I believe that that property
nine was over about a thousand feet so it was it's a long span okay okay thanks
thank you okay thanks Julie if I can just add in we have the ordnance Haley was
gracious enough to pull it the ordinance from palladium there were seven
conditions in total one the site plan required exterior building materials
maintain the muted earth tone 12 foot setback from the property lines six foot
ironically six foot decorative masonry wall with street trees and then here was
no on-street parking for tenants is permitted and then the project should
not be eligible for any on-street parking credits and then there was a
limitation on the connection to the north to the commercial development so
those were the seven conditions that were placed on that property for approval
so they didn't really place the restriction on parking on points that
you drive but it was for the development itself okay so when we say that the
on-street parking was not permitted for tenants that doesn't exclude guests but
but we're but when we're making that count the impact is the calculation in
terms of how many parking spots they are projecting that they won't have on the
property yes yes so all of all of what would have been required is is contained
within the the property or the boundaries of their site okay thank you
right that takes us to our next public hearing which is it's Julie again
all right
all right this is the 1912 Mockingbird single-family residential and the
request before you is to rezone about 2.6 acres from r2 to r4 district the
property is outlined here in yellow it's a flag-shaped piece of property the
surrounding development is existing seeing suburban style single-family
neighborhoods there are a few remaining large parcels nearby you can see
adjacent to the property and north of Audre there's some some large parcels
that still remain and the majority of the trees on site are fence line trees
along the perimeter you kind of see the shadow of them there and then per the
applicant the purpose is to develop nine single-family residential buildings so
this is the current zoning map here you could see the surrounding zoning the
subject property is outlined in black there is r2 on the subject property as
well as north of Audre surrounding the subject property on the east and south
and west is r4 and then as you get closer to the loop toward the east you
could see it gets it gets a little more dense development with r7 and then MN if
the request was approved this would be the zoning map it would extend that
existing r4 to the subject property having having that kind of extension of
it and and the continuation of that r4 district to the north so the the 2019
Denton Development Code has a lot more criteria for approval for a zoning case
than the 2002 Denton Development Code we have the general criteria as well as
then the criteria that are specific to that project type it's all outlined in
your staff report I won't go over every single one we'll just go over the ones
that are the most most pertinent to the request the the general approval
criteria for all applications today we're going to be talking about mostly
number three the consistency with the comprehensive plan and other applicable
plans and then also eight minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property
for the specific zoning criteria for approval we'll be talking about few more
of those and those are outlined there in bold so first when we talked about the
the first general criterion and then the zoning criterion a that has to do with
our comprehensive plan so the subject property has is in an area designated
for low density residential typically we see this it's intended for single
family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre due to the new provisions
within that within the Denton Development Code that minimum lot size
instead of the density that shorthand density that we had in the 2002 code the
minimum lot size for our four which is what they're proposing is 7,000 square
feet which is which is if you just did the gross lot coverage with the with the
or I'm sorry lot size with the with the acreage square footage you would get
about six dwelling units per acre but that wouldn't include all the streets you
would have to do any open space detention so although this is doesn't
precisely conform to that low residential maximum density this does
meet the overall goals of the of the didn't plan 2030 and most importantly is
that it provides that infill development to provide for that compact development
pattern that is part of the vision statement as well as our preferred growth
concept criterion eight talks about minimizing impacts to the surrounding
property the proposed r4 is consistent with the surrounding neighbor existing
neighborhoods in both use because it's a primarily single-family zoning district
as well as development scale so we did an analysis of the surrounding plots and
looked at how those neighborhoods that have developed over the last decades
around the subject property it's here out it's here it has a star on it the
typical lot sizes surrounding the property range anywhere from about six
thousand square feet to about 7,500 square feet so the proposed r4 with the
minimum 7,000 square foot lot size is really consistent with what's around
there and in use they are proposing single-family uses r4 does allow duplexes
in townhomes but those we have to have to acquire an SUP so it would require
additional scrutiny it would require public hearing and approval by City
Council so Julie on that note that's the biggest concern I have with making this
change you know so an SUP doesn't really necessarily keep townhomes or duplexes
from developing I mean it's not a you know a way to not have them in there so
is there any way that we can restrict this development to being single-family
detached have you considered that I mean is I understand that it changes things
to a PD but that's my main concern is that there's really no way to keep those
what what taking it from r2 to r4 does with certain things because general
office is also allowed in r4 within SUP but again it's not it's not a tool to
regulate zoning it's it's I think that what you're just trying to think it
through because we don't have that residential mixed-use overlay provision
in the code anymore it most likely would have to go to a PD which I don't know
would if that whether or not we would actually proceed under this application
or a new probably re-noticed that was just a concern I wanted to bring up and
maybe get yeah your thoughts on and others thoughts on well when staff did
our analysis when you really look and this is this is the surrounding area and
this is it's a little broader view of just the subject property it really is
kind of that north east side of town I mean you could see that r4 is really the
the most consistent and the most the predominant zoning district in that
area so anything that would be developed in this property would be consistent with
what the the surrounding zoning is and what those uses and development scale
would be so this is really close to Commissioner Ellis's question and that
is if they were to go back and seek a special use permit would we then
generally not be in favor because it wouldn't be consistent I mean this is my
this was my concern in reading this is is the use is not limited to the
advertise the mean the advertised use that we're describing for you know that
we're gonna put seven homes in here but we can't control that wait if if they
did want to do one of those uses the duplex or townhome it would be it would
require additional analysis by staff and so at this point I can't tell you if
staff would recommend denial or approval because we want to go through the
criteria for approval especially you know our SUPs have a lot of detail
associated with them and so if they were to come back and want to do one of those
uses we would want to see that level of detail to see what the compatibility
would be with those adjacent properties so until we saw that specific specific
project I don't think I could give you a you know what we would what we would
recommend I mean we when we did look and we looked at this this properties come
back back and forth between various iterations not necessarily with this
applicant but over the course of the last two years a lot just like a lot of
these infill sites there was one iteration of I think townhomes that we
did see and that was something we were not we were not supportive of and we
were clear with that I think that's ultimately what brought it to what you
have here today and again as Julie mentioned we were comfortable allowing it
those uses as an SGP they go to this body obviously if this body recommends
denial then it goes to City Council for ultimate decision but it would require a
super majority at that point can I follow up on that if if they but they
can go back and apply for a PD or something else that would sort of given
the comments of at least some of us here in this meeting error potentially tonight
they could still come back in and have a way of infilling that would be single
family enforced in some way they wouldn't be precluded from developing
would they if we deny if it if it was denied it would go to for denied tonight
it would go to council as a as it did not in a recommendation of denial which
would require a super majority vote and then it would be up to council to decide
whether or not it beats the merits of the criteria for a rezoning I guess what
I'm saying is if they accepted our denial does the developer then have the
opportunity to come back with something else I mean they they could with they
could withdraw their application we saw that with
agave ranch there's a recommendation of a denial they modify their plan and then
and then came back with a different request that's certainly not an option
for them but that's that's up to them okay thank you
Commissioner Anderson thank you would this be no avoid because it right there
it says multifamily dwellings would not be permitted I mean multifamily dwellings
are duplexes and quadplexes am I correct our code actually does separate those
uses so multifamily is is this as a use separate from duplexes we actually have
a duplex use we have a triplex a fourplex and then a a townhome use and
those are separate and have different you specific standards as well as zoning
districts are permitted in or require an SCP or prohibited in because it says you
know you're trying to keep the neighborhoods the same as the other and
I'm looking at the map and everything around it are all single-family dwellings
and I mean I would be for this if it was all single-family dwellings but I do not
like trying to put in town homes or duplexes in a in a little small area
where everything else around it is single-family dwelling and and when we
analyzed it looking at that that are for and requiring that SUP that you know
having that have to go through the additional public hearing process
additional scrutiny that really the use that's permitted by right that they would
be that single-family home it just seems like we're leaving that SUP in there is
like a little loophole that somebody can jump through I mean if we just said hey
this is gonna be no multifamily dwellings I'd have no issue with it but
when you put it you know you're leaving it in there that we require an SUP well
there's a little loophole that says you know what we approve it's not you know
you can come back a little bit a little bit later and sit there and go hey I'd
like to follow the SUP and I'd like for this to be a multifamily dwelling you
know that's kind of not what we really would vote for well I would vote for
well yes they could come back and and and submit an SUP for duplexes or town
homes but once again the multi-family use is is a separate use it is it is
prohibited in r4 it's you couldn't get an SUP for multi-family in r4 it's not
permitted then why would we even have that on there then just just to let
y'all know that it is a prohibited use within r4 I did get a lot of calls from
residents that had concerns that there would be multi-family and so I wanted to
make sure it was really clear that multi-family is not a permitted use in
our floor because I did read some of the comments that people you know are
opposed to that and if I would live there I'd be opposed myself sure okay
thank you if I can just help clarify which Julie get some water I think part
of the confusion we've had multiple projects on mockingbird unfortunately
called mockingbird multi-family and so I think there's a lot of confusion that
this was a multi-family project that was highly contested by a lot of the
residents in the area yeah but I also think some of those comments were that
they didn't want townhomes or duplexes which they do have on that corner of
Audra so that's the most concerning thing here is that we didn't try to maybe
get get them into a PD to be able to put that restriction on it just because of
you know we did that in in most other developments that we've approved along
Audra with you know there's so much going on in that neighborhood so at any
rate we'll keep the discussion rolling because yeah time is of the essence
Commissioner pernetta no I just want to clarify because and find out what I'm
missing because because right now all we're approving is a development that we
single-family if they wanted townhomes or duplexes they would have to come back
for the SCP and we would have to agree to that or is this well tend to this
what's on the table tonight is just a zoning change right right okay that's it
to our for right okay that's what we're considering all right okay zoning
criteria E and F talks about the intensity of development that is not
expected to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding properties or
neighborhood in transportation due to the limited number of homes that could
be constructed if this given the constraints of our for district it would
only create about 90 trips per day and and so that would not trigger a TIA
roadway impact fees would be determined by the number of dwelling units and
projected trip vehicle trips and that that those roadway impact fees are are
used to make improvements related to the mobility plan water and wastewater
because this is an infill area they do have roadway and they have water and
sewer available to the site of course tap and impact fees would be would be
applicable once the property develops and then there are the the property is
located about a mile from Milan Park and once again the park dedication and
development fees would be paid with plotting and building permits public
outreach was done they had a neighborhood meeting that about five
residents came some concerns had to do with the trees on the property and
meeting the tree preservation and then also spacing from any any access facing
from Audra there was notification sent out the newspaper signs posted as well
as the mailings we've received nine responses in opposition for or within
that for a 200-foot boundary and they're they're shown here in red we've received
zero in favor and then zero neutral so based upon the criteria for approval
staff recommends approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions and the
applicant will be here this evening I don't see any more at this time though
thank you thank you Julie you bet yeah I think at this time we're gonna break
for dinner before we hear our last public hearing discussion so I will call
recess at 610
welcome back to our planning in zoning Commission work session we are back from
recess I will call us back to order at 616 and invite Haley up to talk about
our final public hearing item all right good evening this is a plan development
request for a project being called Ryan way the request is to consider rezoning
the subject property that's approximately 36 and a half acres from
residential to or our to district to plan development you can see the site
outlined in yellow on the map it's located on the north side of Ryan Road
just east of Monte Carlo Lane so this is just a quick shot of what our current
map looks like which is r2 and then the proposal for plan development this is
the site layout for the subject property that's kind of the detail plan if you
will and the new plan development regulations so what we have here are a
hundred and fifty four residential lots and five HOA lots the HOA lots are
shown in green on this map there is a plugged gas well within the site it was
plugged last August it's located in this general location as designated by the
star it would be within an HOA lot so that nothing would be constructed over
the top of the well and the property it has several connections where streets
have been stubbed out to it over time as surrounding development occurs so we
have the Ridgemont subdivision here on the south side and then Teasley trails
surrounding it to the north and east Monte Carlo Lane was stubbed out when
Ridgemont developed and then again when Teasley trails develop so that connects
to the north and south this would provide that final missing leg and then
Mizzen Lane was stubbed out when the final phase of Teasley trails developed
and that is coming into the property from the east additionally it would have
a direct connection to Ryan Road here at what's shown on this plan is Street E
as the other component of a plan development in the new code aside from
the map itself is the development standards so those were provided to you
in your backup I'll go through some of the major differences between the
proposed PD and the R4 district that it was based upon so in terms of permitted
uses the proposed PD would only permit single-family detached dwellings and
then all of the accessory and temporary uses that are permitted in our R4
district so this table is just a snapshot of everything in our use table that's
permitted in our force you can see is excluding townhomes duplexes group homes
schools churches wide variety of things also excluding gas wells so it's
important to note that if this is approved that that drill site would
remain plugged there wouldn't be any possibility for future gas well
development within the property looking at the proposed zoning standards so
again it was based on the R4 district so I did a comparison of the differences
between their proposal and the base of R4 the minimum lot area is one of the
larger differences so they are proposing smaller lots than what R4 would
typically permit they're proposing that 10 of the lots or up to 10 of the lots
be as small as 5,000 square feet the remainder of the lots would have a
minimum area of 5,750 square feet R4 as a just citywide is a 7,000 square foot
minimum similar lot width 50 feet they are proposing an increase in minimum
lot depth from 80 feet to 100 feet the setbacks are generally consistent they
did add in an additional minimum garage setback of 20 feet and then for side
yards they are proposing 10 foot as opposed to 20 foot when you're abutting
a street so the corner lots would have a slightly smaller side yard than R4 would
typically have and then again rear yards they are proposing those be larger so
they propose the increase of a 15 foot rear rear yard setback building height
would remain the same at 40 feet building coverage they're proposing 60%
as opposed to 50% so that's a 10% increase street trees they're proposing
the code standard of 1 per 30 linear feet on all of the common area lots and
then to to prevent any inconsistency of trees being kind of clustered together on
lot lines they're proposing that for the residential lots that simply be one
street tree per lot as opposed to 1 per 30 feet in terms of yard trees the 2019
DDC requires one yard tree for single-family residential lots they're
proposing an increase in that so each internal lot would have one additional
yard tree a front yard and a rear yard tree and then corner lots would have
three additional trees beyond the code minimum because they would have two side
yard trees provided on that corner they are proposing a slight change in one of
our site design standards the DDC has a required three foot offset between the
front building wall in the garage they're proposing decreasing that to 12
inches and then for tree preservation as we touched on earlier they they did
apply for their original application at the time when the 02 code was still in
effect so they did gain vesting under state law for that purpose for tree
preservation it's one of the things specifically allowed and the vesting
require regulations in 245 so under the 2002 DDC they would be required to
preserve a minimum of 20% of quality trees and 10% of secondary trees so
secondary trees are things like mesquite hackberry boat arc and then quality
trees is essentially everything else and the minimum size for all of those is 6
inches DBH so everything under 6 inches wouldn't count 2019 DDC again as I
mentioned it created different tree classification so now we have we're
called heritage trees those are the larger trees over 18 inches as well as
any post oak that 6 inches or greater and then quality trees are pretty much
consistent with the old code with the exception that those small post oaks are
pulled out and that's a minimum 30% preservation requirement they the 2019
tree code does allow that if you have quality inherited trees on set you don't
have to preserve any secondary trees so that's another key difference there oh
and then the other item I wanted to point out that didn't make it into the
table is that the DDC requires a minimum of 5% open space when you have more than
10 residential lots they are proposing a minimum of 15% open space throughout the
entire neighborhood so as Julie showed with her items the code now has general
criteria for all applications those were gone through in detail in your backup so
I'll just hit some of the highlights the project was found to be consistent with
all aspects of the 2019 DDC except for the exceptions that we just discussed
which are allowed through the PD process there are no prior approvals or other
agreements that apply to the site no phasing is proposed with this development
the development is not expected to generate adverse environmental or fiscal
impacts and there is adequate infrastructure available to the site so
I'll spend a little more time with each of the PD criteria for approval we'll go
through each of these in turn so criterion one is compliance with the
Denton plan 2030 again this site is in an area designated on the future land use
map as low residential typically that calls for single family development at
a density of one to four dwelling units per acre some of the other criteria that
low density residential looks at though are development contiguous to existing
developed areas to avoid sprawl that's one of the larger tenants of the
comprehensive plans that we fill in all of these kind of vacant places within the
city before sprawling outwards it also calls for new development and
established residential areas to respond to the existing development pattern and
design so we'll look at that a little more in depth as we go through in terms
of how this is consistent but I wanted to focus on density for a second this
development would be at approximately 4.2 dwelling units per acre so it's just
over that fourth four unit per acre threshold however when you look at the
density in this area and I've kind of labeled those numbers for surrounding
subdivisions on the map here you'll see we do have a lot of larger lot
subdivisions in the one to you know the one to two dwelling unit per acre range
west of the site but as you continue down Ryan Road towards Teasley Lane and
towards this area that's designated for community mixed use density is naturally
increased over time with these developments for example the latest phase
of Teasley trails came in at 4.4 dwelling units per acre and then we just had
multifamily approved here at this intersection that's at 20 units per acre
so this tends to follow that natural progression and is generally consistent
with the area I wanted to touch on some other aspects of the Denton plan 2030
that are applicable here the plan features what's called the preferred
growth concept and what this did was encourage kind of clustering walkable
design again trying to deter that sprawl that I just spoke about so this this
does meet a lot of those requirements it is increasing walkability in the area by
providing now sidewalk and street connectivity through these neighborhoods
it is again encouraging walkability close to this community mixed use center
so these residents would have direct paths through these neighborhoods to any
retail that develops here at that intersection and then again the
comprehensive plan one of its main policy goals and actions for residential
areas was infill so it encourages the development of vacant or deteriorated
properties and it encourages that that be consistent in scaling character with
existing neighborhoods so again the density that's proposed here does fall
within what we find in this area already the second criteria is compliance with
the Denton development code so I won't go through this in in detail again but
same table again they're proposing just these specific deviations from the 2019
DDC everything else they would follow so I wanted to touch on the tree
preservation again for just a second the DDC PD procedures if you read through
them do say that there should not be deviations from tree preservation
requirements within a PD however we have the conflicting aspect here of vesting
under state and under chapter 245 of the local government code allowing them to
vest in prior tree code regulations so because of their date of application they
are allowed to vest in the o2 code and they're not proposing to deviate from
the 2002 code just meet that tree preservation requirement instead of 2019
the third criterion is providing greater greater building design amenities and
connectivity one of the the major components to their proposal that was
discussed at the neighborhood meetings was building materials as we've talked
about many times before under House Bill 2439 the city can no longer enforce
those regulations so the developer did indicate to the the residents and it was
in early drafts of their PD documents that they wanted would it willingly
impose a 40% minimum masonry standard on these homes the DDC minimum standard is
25% so it was above and beyond that threshold however we did ask them to
exclude that from the PD regulations because it would not be enforceable by
the city but it is something that they indicated they were willing to impose
through deed restrictions on the property in terms of amenities again open
spaces the main amenity being proposed with this PD they're proposing minimum
15% open space for tree preservation buffering between their neighborhood and
existing neighborhoods and just general community use and enjoyment the DDC
minimum is 5% so they're above and beyond that and then in terms of
connectivity again this would provide that missing link in Monte Carlo to
allow Ridgemont residents and means of accessing Teasley Lane that they've not
previously had and then it would provide connections to Teasley trails at Misen
Lane as well as Monte Carlo the fourth criterion is specific to residential
uses whether there is compatible building use and it's consistent with the
character of the area this is the same use that surrounds the property on all
sides so of course the single-family use would be compatible with other
single-family uses as we looked at earlier it is consistent with the
density of this area and that trend we see from west to east Commissioner
Anderson
correct and that's what they've offered yes and the developer is here this
evening so he can speak to that further if you have other questions trying to
get through this quickly so we can get out there to the meeting in terms of
additional buffering and compatibility with the neighborhood if you look at
their plan they do have those HOA lots all around the perimeter of the site
where they intend to preserve existing trees to provide additional space
between the backyards of these homes and that was a major concern that came up at
the neighborhood meetings that all of the neighbors had requested was that
buffer space there criterion 5 is applicable to non-residential uses so
that's not being considered tonight criterion 6 is the provision of public
facilities I'll try to breeze through these pretty quickly DISD was able to
provide us with their expected student generation rates for McMath Middle
School and Denton High School they indicated they have adequate capacity
this is currently zoned for Ryan Elementary and they indicated that that
school would not have capacity to serve the the expected students from this
development however they indicated it's possible that they can rezone that to
other schools in the area such as Sam Houston Elementary that do have
adequate capacity in terms of fire and law enforcement it is well within the
eight minute or less response time boundary for fire station 6 that's
located on Teasley Lane I did talk to the Denton Police Department and they
were intending to prepare a crime report for you all to see what's actually going
on in this area but due to a change in software they weren't able to get that
to us in time but they indicated that in general with this type of residential
development they would not expect to see a significant or negative impact on
their response times and they wouldn't expect to see any increase in crime or
nuisance from these single-family homes water and wastewater are available to
the site and would be looped throughout their internal street system to connect
to the points that are stubbed out to their site looking at streets again as
I mentioned they would provide connection to all of the street stubs
that have been provided to this property at Mizzen Lane in Monte Carlo Ryan Road
they would have right away dedication requirements there it's not been
determined whether they would have any actual improvements to make to Ryan Road
because we just on November 5th had the bond election where improvements for
Ryan Road to become three lanes were approved and that's now become a CIP
project so it's possible that they would pay roadway impact fees and lose in lieu
of improvements our city engineer indicated construction on Ryan can be
expected to begin as early as 2023 and there was a traffic assessment done for
this that was provided to you all Ryan Road at the intersections here at Monte
Carlo their future Street E and the street through Teasley trails operated
at a level of service C today generally this is not expected to decrease that
level of service at those intersections and once construction to three lanes is
complete on Ryan it's expected to be operational at a level of service a or
B at these intersections this is within 500 feet of Lake Forest Park which meets
the park department's goal of a 10-minute walk to a park from residential
developments they will have park dedication and development fees when they
reach the platting and permitting phases of development notification was sent
about this request just since we've been here this evening I've received one
additional that I'll read into the record at the meeting so I'm actually
since I made this up to 11 responses in opposition four of those are outside that
200 foot buffer that total is still right at 3.9 percent and then we have two
responses in favor so far that's at 15.7 percent so staff is recommending
approval of this request as we found it to comply with our criteria for approval
and if it gets through this hearing tonight its next stop would be City
Council on December 17th thank you Haley okay with that I will close our work
session at 6 33 and we will reconvene as soon as possible in council chambers
good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning Commission
meeting for Wednesday November 20th with a quorum present I will call us to order
at 651 p.m. thank you all for your patience first item on our agenda is to
stand if you are able and give pledge to the u.s. and Texas flags
okay we do have some agenda clarifications for this evening there
are two items being pulled from the agenda tonight item 4b which is the
Denton Grove apartments that is being pulled and will be renoticed and is
planned for our December 11th meeting for consideration also we are pulling
item 4e which is PD 19 3 the development titled Ryan way I believe there's many
of you here to speak on that but that item is being pulled it will be
renoticed and it will be considered here on 12 11 so if you want Scott McDonald
is here if you need further information as to anything with regarding that going
forward so with that we will go to our consent the GDP is being heard under
individual consideration it is not a public hearing item however to clarify
staff is recommending denial for that at this point being pulled is item 4e PD 19
3 so
I'm
,
okay thank you for your patience once again let's move to our consent agenda
commissioner back yeah I'd like to make a motion to pull items 2a and 2b for
individual consideration okay there's a motion on the floor to pull the two
items from the consent agenda to individual consideration is there a
second
Commissioner Cole okay we have a motion on the floor to pull the two items on
consent agenda to individual consideration we will take a vote on the
board
okay that item passes 5 1 so now what we will do is consider a motion for item PP
19 16 that's the preliminary plat Windsor apartments we'll entertain a
motion commissioner back a motion to approve commissioner prunella a second
we have a motion on the floor to approve individual considered Windsor
apartments preliminary plat let's call for a vote on the board that motion
carries five one next is to consider a motion for the preliminary plat Bonnie
Bray high school addition Commissioner Anderson make a motion to approve
Commissioner Smith second we have a motion on the floor for a preliminary
plat approval Bonnie Bray high school addition let's take a vote on the board
that motion carries five one our next item for individual consideration is GDP
19 to a and I will invite Haley up good evening this request is for a general
development plan for the Ryan way edition this request came in concurrently
with the plan development and under state law we are required to bring forward
plat items within a certain time frame however that that kind of puts the cart
in front of the horse here because this property does not have zoning until that
plan development gets through planning and Zoning Commission and City Council so
for that reason alone that it does not meet the zoning requirements that are on
the ground today which is the r2 district staff is recommending denial of
this GDP at this time I'm happy to stand for any questions you only have
Commissioner Smith okay okay I do not see any questions okay at this time we
can open the floor for a motion Commissioner Smith motion to approve the
denial okay we have a motion on the floor to deny so a vote yes would be to
deny the GDP that is the motion on the floor any discussion let's call for a
vote on the board
that motion carries six zero that moves us to our public hearing items public
hearing item 4a fr 1912 Golden Triangle Edition final replant I will open the
public hearing and call up Mark Laird good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a
planner with the Development Service Department this evening I have for your
consideration the final replant of Golden Triangle Edition I stand for any
questions that you may have any questions Commissioners I don't see any
Mark thank you very much thank you Commissioner Pernitta Commissioner Smith
second okay we have a motion on the floor to approve the replant Golden
Triangle Edition any discussion okay let's call for a vote on the board
that motion carries six zero and just as a point of order I had opened the
public hearing for that item but did not close it so I hereby close the public
hearing for item 4a that brings us to item 4c s 193 I will open the public
hearing and invite Julie Wyatt for presentation good evening I'm Julie
Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I'm presenting s 193 Oxford
at Sherman so the request before you is for a specific use permit for
multifamily dwellings the subject property is outlined here in yellow it's
about 12.33 acres it's currently undeveloped it is situated between loop
288 to the north and poinsettia to the south a little background on the subject
property in 2002 it was on CMG during the citywide rezoning this year we
adopted a new development code and zoning districts and so that CMG
transition to SC district that suburban corridor due to the submittal timing the
proposal is subject to the 2002 didn't development code regulations and so it
was reviewed and is being analyzed under that code however just to let you know
multifamily dwellings require a specific use permit in both districts the
criteria for approval are in subchapter 6 of the 2002 didn't development code
there's a long list of the criteria I won't read them all it is all in your
backup but we're gonna go over some some specific parts of that criteria for
approval as we discuss the proposal so the subject property has a future land
use designation of community mixed use that is intended to promote a mix of
uses both commercial as well as the complementary residential uses some
moderate to high density housing to support any retail or service uses in
in those mixed use districts the intent is to encourage a diverse of use
diversity of uses close together to increase vitality and to create a sense
of place and to also encourage multimodal transportation allow people
to walk a multifamily development is consistent with the community mixed use
future land use designation first it provides that complementary residential
use it's often found in mixed use districts and in this case as we look at
that the broader area and how the community mixed use future land use
element fits within this part of Denton this this proposed as multifamily would
provide a residential character on that edge of the community mixed use to be to
be more consistent with the adjacent residential properties Denton plan 2030
also talks about how Denton's gonna grow in 2030 the projected population is
going to be over 200,000 and with that we'll need additional housing units and
multifamily is part of that mix for we'll need about 12,000 new multifamily
units this property and properties like it or are are appropriate for those
strategic locations for multifamily because it's adjacent to an arterial
loop 288 but it's also close to schools to residential areas and other amenities
it encourages that more compact development pattern and prevents a
sprawl now we'll zoom in a little bit closer to what the site plan is
proposing so it's sort of a triangular shaped lot it is the the front entrance
of the proposed multifamily development is oriented toward loop 288 so the full
access entrance is on is going to be on a spur that would be constructed off of
that that that entrance ramp to loop 288 they're proposing eight three-story
buildings three access points with controlled access gates so once again
that that full access point on loop 288 there would be an exit only through the
future commercial that would be that direct point to FM 428 Sherman Drive and
then also an exit only onto point study to the south they are proposing a
community pool in the center of the of the development with a amenity center
clubhouse there's also a proposed outdoor eating area with a fire pit
they're proposing a dog park on the west side here in this location and also
other open space areas one here and one here fencing landscaping and one story
garages would be would be constructed along point said it points idiot and if
this is approved and that would be in this location you can see those orange
boxes those are those one-story garages that would provide a little a more
visually appealing view from that road because it would set the the larger
taller building set back from from points edit points Eddie actually a
hundred and one feet from that roadway it would allow that that development scale
to gradually increase from the road and then if the proposal does meet the the
minimum parking regulations for multifamily they had they provided a
landscape plan as part of this specific use permit as as proposed they would
plant 163 new large canopy trees at maturity that would create about two
hundred thousand square feet of canopy forty seven of those large canopy trees
are proposed for this southern edge once again that's closer to those existing
neighborhoods so we want to make sure that we're really sensitive to that to
that boundary in that edge so they're proposing forty seven large canopy trees
this would be in addition to the twenty four required street trees they're
proposing those to be medium canopy and then they are also proposing an open
space area as well as that the required buffer on the eastern edge of the
property that's adjacent to a single family lot want to make sure that we're
sensitive to that to that compatibility in that location as well we'll zoom in a
little closer first here is that eastern property line buffer that includes a
combination of plantings as well as tree preservation so there's already some
some foliage there to go ahead and start that buffer they're also proposing a
perimeter fence those materials are a combination of ornamental metal board
on board cedar and masonry want to take a little bit harder look at the at the
proposed fencing on on that southern edge they are proposing a that board on
board cedar it would have recesses and projections so it would kind of it would
it would undulate in and then out to allow planting area to allow those trees
to be planted and while you know this this would break up the monotony of the
fence line and would create visual interest staff does have concerns about
the durability of those of that material and so we're recommending a condition
that that they either use a masonry wall or wrought iron with with some sort of
leafy shrub hedge in order to screen provide screening for those cars and that
use here's some sample elevations this this gives you a little bit better
visual of what that proposed fence would look like there's that board on board
cedar fence and they are proposing as I said the three-story buildings with a
neutral color palette balconies or patios on 100% of the dwelling units
awnings decorative wall lighting and a variety of recesses and projections would
provide that changes in relief and reduce the visual bulk of those
buildings also the stairwells would be the visual of the visual impacts of
those stairwells would be minimized as part of the SUP they also would have to
if this was approved obtain approval from this Commission for an alternative
development plan because this was reviewed under the 2002 code that ADP
was a process within that 2002 code there are two provisions and in sub
chapter 13 those site design requirements that based upon their
submittal they they needed flexibility from one would be the private street
system they've got some tuck under garages and their buildings and so it
sort of reduces that that private street system the the street trees and that
that linear cohesive street system and then also where they're proposing those
garages on that south bond boundary once again they are going to be if approved
along poinsettia that allows that that more separation between the taller
three-story buildings and the adjacent residential properties that does not
meet the 2002 didn't development code so they're going to be asking for relief
from that from from the planning and zoning Commission it does meet the
criteria for approval so if this is approved it would come back to you as
part of the review of the the project they did submit a traffic impact analysis
and that was approved through our engineering group they provided trip
generation within that the subject property would generate about 1800
trips per a 24-hour day weekday morning peak would be 113 trips evening peak
would be 133 trips total build out of the property and that would include this
property as well as the commercial on the corner would be 3600 trips per day so
it would be a lot of trips at that corner at the TIA also analyze area
intersections and they give letter grades a to F on the delay that that
motorists experience at those intersections loop 288 and FM 428 is
probably no surprise that at some times and in some directions that intersection
has an F and in particular ramps with left turning movement so if you were
exiting the loop and maybe turning left onto FM 428 to go north that you would
experience a significant delay and that would be an F the the motorists just
staying on FM 428 experience less delay because of they don't have a signal
there this intersection has met the warrants for a signal for quite a while
and that is intended to be installed within the next six to eight months
engineering is aware of the concerns of this intersection is so is an interim
step they are going to be installing always stops pretty soon in December is
what they've what they've told me another intersection that they looked
out was FM 428 and poinsettia that westbound left turn lane left turn when
you think if you're on poinsettia and you're going turning left to get on to
Sherman that that would be the most difficult turning movement and it
creates significant delays that the the analysis of this intersection indicated
that that with with the build out of the area a signal is going to be warranted
in that location in the future now is an interim step the TIA recommended a
restriping of that intersection to allow that protected left to get to allow
some a little more free movement in that intersection there would also be
perimeter street improvements associated with the development if approved they
the developer would would construct a spur off of this loop 288 entrance ramp
that would then connect down to poinsettia providing that that circulation
pattern and it would be 25 feet of pavement that they would construct it
really is the beginning of a frontage road for loop 288 water and wastewater
are available however an extension of an 8-inch waterline would be required with
any improvements on loop 288 Waterworks Park is is is close to the subject
property but it is still 3,500 linear feet from the subject property and the
sidewalks are not great to get there so so the applicant is proposing those
on-site recreational facilities for the residents park dedication and
development fees would be required with development of the site it is near
Wilson Elementary Strickland Middle and Ryan High School according to DISD the
the elementary the number of elementary students generated by this would put it
put a strain on Wilson Elementary it's it's it's being reconstructed right now
but Strickland and Ryan have the capacity for additional students there was public
outreach associated with the proposal they did have a neighborhood meeting in
July 10 on July 10th of this year we did ask them to hold in a second
neighborhood meeting they did decline that and then there was there there was
a newspaper ad placed in in accordance with our regulations as well as postings
on the property and mailed notices we've received two letters in opposition
thus far those aren't within the 200 foot boundary of the subject property
and we've received one letter in favor so in work session we went over the
recommendation and it was a little confusing so I've tried to maybe clarify
it a bit we're gonna do it backwards this time so staff recommends approval
of a specific use permit with the following conditions that the landscape
in the landscaping in the attached landscape plan reflects that intent to
comply with the DDC requirements for the the parking landscaping street trees and
minimum landscaping tree canopy areas and compatible ability buffers minor
alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings may be approved by
city staff provided that the final landscaping as planted complies with the
attached site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations as well as the
DDC parking area light fixtures can be determined at building permit but can't
exceed 14 feet in height we want to make sure the parking lot is well lit so that
it stays safe for the residents of of any community but we want to make sure
that it doesn't shine and become a nuisance on the adjacent residential
properties so we're recommending that height be limited at 14 feet and then
perimeter fencing materials as I said staff has concerns about that board on
board cedar so they would be limited to masonry or wrought iron and any wrought
iron fencing we want to make sure that still there's adequate screening so we're
requesting that that an additional hedge be placed be planted to to make sure
that there's adequate screening the fourth condition that within 30 days of
council approval that ADP for those two deviations would come back before the
the planning and zoning Commission and then notwithstanding the limited
administrative approvals in conditions 1 2 & 3 the city reserves the right to
require approval by ordinance of any amendments to the SUP the attached site
plan and the elements just described in the next section including those
reference it referenced in conditions 1 2 & 3 so the next section would be we're
really outlines kind of it provides a text support to the site plan and a
landscape plan and those elevations as we talked about in work session as as
these site plans are reproduced and shrunk they become really illegible so
this sort of just provides that tech support so as as you know future planners
look at this that they know what what was required so so this does put into
into this recommendation however that staff could approve a reduction in the
number of dwelling units or associated parking lots or lot coverage that that
if the if the project shrunk staff could could recommend or could approve that
but any increases over 5% would have to go back through the public hearing
process so staff could record could approve administratively a 5% increase I
did the math on it it would be 12 dwelling units essentially this this if
approved would give staff that that little bit of flexibility so that if some
things change that they wouldn't have to necessarily go back through the public
hearing process if the intensity of the project did not change but then it lays
out what they're proposing eight three-story buildings the amenity center
and clubhouse and the 19 accessory structures that includes both the
garages and carports 248 dwelling units 460 parking spaces lot coverage of 67%
and then those open spaces with 12 seating areas eight dogway stations 71
large can't large and medium canopy trees on that southern edge we want to
make sure that that we get that codified and then those sample belt building
elevations just with that neutral color palette and just kind of talking through
what those architectural design elements are so that's that is a staff
presentation the applicant is here and I will stand for any question we do have a
question thank you Julie Commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so on page 16 I
think it is the the yeah that's the one so their pool I just forgot to ask you
about this in work session their pool their little green space is in lieu of
the fact that they don't really have a 10-minute walk is that correct well and
and it isn't part of well it does it is for the benefit of their residents right
now there isn't a park within 10 minutes our parks department is actually
updating their parks master plan and that includes a trail system and so that is
part of their goal is to get that 10-minute walk to the park these these
holes where there's not that 10-minute walk to the park those are the areas
that they're going to be looking at adding additional parkland however you
know when as part of their development they are also adding those additional
amenities to provide those recreational activities for their for their
residents and on that same slide when you spoke with the district with the DISD
did they object or they simply said that would stress Wilson they just simply
said they would stress that they didn't provide an objection just that it would
it would stress Wilson elementary okay thank you sure Julie I have a couple of
questions just to clear up so the points that a restriping we talked about a bit
in work session is that something the applicant is going to do it would be
designed and and installed as part of the platting and development and it would
be something the applicant and it at what stage in the development would that
happen the design would happen during the civil engineering the review of the
civil plans for public improvements and then and then in terms of the timing of
the installation it would be either concurrent with or prior to development
of the side it would just depend on how that's structured with their hold
harmless and development agreements okay and then back to what you rewrote up
there can I can we go to that slide please I got close I think so I'm
assuming what you're trying to say is you'll staff will have the ability to
approve up to 5% otherwise is that correct yes okay that's how we have to
restate it then because it still reads greater than 5% which could be anything
yes I apologize nope just wanted to clarify all right staff shall have the
ability to prove up to 5% percent of anything the good thank you Julie I don't
see any questions at this time this is a public hearing I don't have any cards up
here but anyone wishing to speak may do so now anyone wishing to speak on this
item okay seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor to a
motion Commissioner Smith make a motion for to approve with staff recommendations
Commissioner Prunetta second the motion is there any discussion we have a motion
in a second on the floor to approve seeing no discussion I'll call for a
vote on the board that motion carries 6-0 that takes us to our next public
hearing item for DZ 1912 I will open the public hearing and invite Julie Wyatt
back up here for presentation all right this this next item is Z 1912
mockingbird single-family residential the request before you is the applicant
is requesting to rezone approximately 2.6 acres from our 2 district to our 4
district the subject property is outlined in yellow it's this flag shaped
area the surrounding development pattern includes existing suburban style
single-family neighborhoods there are some remaining larger parcels adjacent
to you and nearby you can see across Audre and then adjacent to the subject
property the majority of trees on the site are fence line trees particularly
in the southern edge of the site per the applicant the purpose is to develop 9
single-family residential dwellings the this map here shows the current zoning
map you could see the r2 district the subject property is is outlined in black
and then that that r2 district surrounding it r4 district is to the
west and south and east of the subject property the proposed zoning map would
extend that existing r4 into the subject property continuing that existing zoning
pattern the criteria for approval is in sub chapter 2 of the Denton development
code the 2019 Denton development code there are general and specific criteria
we won't go over all of them we're just going to go over some specific items for
the general we're really going to talk about numbers 3 & 8 talking about the
comprehensive plan and then adverse impacts and then for the specific
criteria we'll go a little more in depth and talk about more of those criteria so
first we're going to talk about general criterion 1 and in zoning criteria a
that that has to do with our comprehensive plan didn't plan 2030 the
site is designated low density residential that is intended for
single-family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre the proposed r
4 district our our 2019 code kind of transitioned from what we what we
typically saw in the 2002 code are just those gross densities for single-family
neighborhoods now gone to a minimum lot size that r4 district permits a minimum
lot size of 7,000 square feet which if you just took the gross square footage
of 7,000 and applied that to the gross square footage of an acre you could get
about six lots into an acre but that wouldn't account for any right-of-way
dedication so you really couldn't get six lots in there but but when just
looking at that gross acreage it doesn't really precisely meet that low density
residential but because the comprehensive plan talks about infill
development and the need to the need to fill in that the interior parts of the
city and to to encourage that compact development pattern and reduce sprawl it
does meet the overall goals of the of the the comprehensive plan general
criterion for is is minimizing adverse impacts on the surrounding property r4
is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods in both use and
development scale it is not anticipated to create adverse impacts we did kind of
an analysis of what was surrounding particularly those areas that had been
platted and developed in the last three decades or so and those lot sizes those
are typically single-family neighborhoods with lot sizes ranging
anywhere from about 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet so so the
minimum lot size in our four of 7,000 square feet is about in the middle of
that so it is consistent with that that development pattern and then also they
are proposing the single-family uses we talked about in work session that there
are additional uses that could be permitted with a specific use permit in
r4 a specific use permit would require an additional application from from the
developer and or the property owner and it would require a recommendation from
the planning and zoning Commission after a public hearing and approval from
council so it would add additional scrutiny for any duplexes or town homes
so but but single-family houses are permitted by right an expansion of the
existing r4 district is really just a logical extension of this existing zoning
pattern as you can see this is that just a zoomed out view of the area you could
see how this r4 is kind of this beige color this really does just extend it
and kind of just just continue that that pattern zoning criterion C is consistent
with consistency with the purpose statement the r4 district is intended to
accommodate a variety of housing types on lots encouraged to design to encourage
walking and to neighborhoods serving retail and other amenities and parks
such as parks and school facilities the request is consistent with the purpose
statement as the applicant has stated the intent is to develop single-family
dwellings once again town homes and duplexes would require the additional
approval from council through the public hearing process and multi-family
dwellings because it was something that came up a lot when when I heard from the
surrounding residents they are not permitted in r4 that that use is not a
permitted use even with an SUP zoning criteria E and F talks about the
intensity of the development and that it's not expected to and create
significantly adverse impacts to surrounding properties or neighborhood we
analyze the the public infrastructure you know this is an infill area so that
there are existing roads and water and wastewater water surrounding the
property as far as from transportation due to the limited number of houses that
they could get on the property with the with the dimensional requirements in the
of our seven it it would generate about 90 trips per day which would not which
would not trigger a TIA however if they if this was approved and they did move
forward with development roadway impact fees would be would be required at
development of the site there's water and wastewater available to the site and
tap and impact fees would once again be be required with development the subject
properties about a mile from Milan Park and Park dedication and development fees
would be paid with the platting and building permits public outreach for the
for the development included the applicant did hold a neighborhood
meeting they had about five residents attend and they talked about things like
tree preservation as well as driveway spacing or I'm sorry access spacing from
the odder intersection there was also staff was placed the newspaper ad in
accordance with our regulations as well as the notices and then that were mailed
to properties within 200 and 500 feet and then there was sign a sign posted on
the property we've received nine responses in opposition for within that
200 foot boundary and you can see them shown here we have not received any in
favor or any neutral so based upon the criteria for approval staff recommends
approval of the request the applicant is here and I'll be happy to stand for any
questions we do have a question Commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so
I'm not sure if this is a city or legal question but if we in can we have
language in a recommendation that discourages anything other than single
family I know the zoning allows for uses other than single family but can we be
on record as saying we discourage that or is that just simply not allowed it's
nothing that we couldn't enforce it would just be a suggestion and there I
don't know that it would really mean any or carry any any weight with respect to
it it's not it's not something that would it would just be I guess text in
there that would wouldn't mean anything other than it's discouraged but they
would still have to go through a public a public hearing process for anything
other than single family so it would come back in front of this board I'm
sorry this Commission for for review and recommendation and ultimately the City
Council it would get noticed just like a rezoning case okay thank you but what we
are voting on tonight is the request is to rezone to our four okay Julie at this
time I don't see any more questions thank you okay do you have several cards
on this item and the first one I have is the applicant I will call up Amy Bissett
good evening commissioners give me just a moment to pull up my presentation it's
brief but I do want to be able to show you a few things
my name is Amy Bissett I am with Northbridge consultants 212 South Elm
Street here in Denton I represent the applicant and the property owner who is
here in the room tonight and can also be available to answer any questions we
also have the engineer in the room as well and as Julie has already shared
with you I'm going to be very brief with this the applicant does intend to
subdivide into nine lots they're generous sized lots currently 7,000
square feet to 8,800 almost 9,000 square feet with a private street that has no
connectivity into the adjacent adjacent neighborhoods and it would be HOA
maintained both the street and the detention pond and common areas and we
did hold two neighborhood meetings including one in October where we had
five neighbors in attendance at that point in time two concept plans were
presented to the neighbors and they did vote essentially and agree on one of the
concept plans which is what the property owner intends to do I will walk you
through it very briefly and point out the reasons that they liked this plan
better than the other one that was presented the first is that the lot
depth of the southern lots lots number five and six on the screen and is 140
feet what that does for the neighbors to the south is provide additional privacy
in that they're essentially one neighbor from their backyard rather than more
than one and you can see where I have kind of darkened the property lines to
the south it is our four just to the south of this this particular neighborhood
to the north and it is r2 above this property and the very intentionally on
this concept plan the access drive as well as the detention pond and the
common areas have been placed to the north in order to provide a buffer to
the residents to the north the the residents prefer preferred private
street versus a public right-of-way in order to minimize traffic and so that's
how the concept plan is being designed currently and then and there was a very
intentional decision to increase both the width and the depth of the lots to
preserve to create an opportunity to preserve the trees along the fence line
on both the eastern side and the southern side of the property and that's
where most of the trees lie a tree preservation plan will be required at
platting and there will be tree preservation required so this just
affords plenty of room to make sure that that privacy is maintained I do want to
point out and as Julie did but I want to kind of put a little bit of perspective
on it you can see the the red star which is where our property is located I want
to kind of give you the perspective of where this is in the city so you've got
mingo Road to the north loop take 288 to the east and McKinney to the south in
terms of the boundaries so you can view this as a segment or a quadrant of the
city and you can see that the majority of what's here today is already zoned are
four in fact I went through and kind of highlighted it for you to see you know
it's it is most certainly the existing development pattern today and while
there is some lower density are to primarily to the north of this property
and this is definitely consistent with the pattern that has developed today and
it is an infill development so developing in a compact way is
consistent with the Denton plan and then I also pulled the the future land use
plan to show that what's designated as low density residential on the future
land use plan encompasses all of that are for today and technically are for
would be considered low density although it's probably at the very top end of
that and our actual density would be about 3.46 units per acre based on the
proposal and I do recognize that there were concerns raised during the work
session today and I want to address those directly I I recognize that the
concern primarily is that the property owner can come in and rezone as are for
today and then come back with a proposal for town homes or duplexes or something
that is a higher density than what's being presented here and the what would
be required for the for the developer or the property owner to do that would be
to come back for a specific use permit which is the exact same process that
we're undergoing tonight for a zoning change comes to public hearing we'd be
back here in front of you being held accountable for the fact that we said
we were gonna put in nine lots and now we're proposing something different you
would look back at us and say we told you we didn't want that and so it is not
only just a public hearing process just like tonight but it's under much more
scrutiny than tonight because in order to apply for a specific use permit we
would have to do a traffic impact analysis and show the impact that we're
having to all of the infrastructure in the in the surrounding area we'd have to
be able to show that our density could be supported in terms of the traffic and
as you can see we've got one way in and out here and low density surrounding us
and the the density and the scale would be looked at the height would be looked
at and I would have to stand up here and justify all of that for you this is a
2.6 acre lot there's really not room here to do anything other than a handful
of single-family lots we do have some conceptual elevations this is what the
property owner and developer envisions just generally speaking in terms of a
range of housing options from 2,000 square feet and up and with that I will
be happy to answer any questions I have one Amy um how would our three change
this I think that it would probably lower the number of lots that the property
owner would like to be able to do and you know this is a very small development
and that just the infrastructure to put in the scroll back up here now you've
got a significant amount of infrastructure here to support nine lots
already with the private drive in and the in the private street and then the
required detention pond and I just don't know financially whether or not it would
work if if the costs associated with providing the access and the drainage
for the development would support the number of lots that are three would
allow but we do have the engineer as well as the property owner here that
might be able to want maybe want to speak to that directly yeah and the reason for
my question is really just neighborhood protection I'm not worried about
necessarily you may be changing your concept but if for some reason the
project didn't make in that it sells and it's in our for designation that's what
we're voting on here so yeah if anyone wants to speak to that that would be
great also I had a question regarding you want with Allison engineering group
and when we first looked at this property and we were considering our four
that was back when we were at the four units per acre density and over to two
point six acres we were looking at ten units and the property owner thought
that ten was gonna be really tough to be able to make a profitable development
out here once we said okay well we're we're no longer density based zoning
we're now going to the minimum lot size I can't get you ten I mean that's what
he wanted me to do he wanted me to get ten because that's what he was hoping
for within our four zoning the best I could get out of here was nine and part
of why we did and Amy touched on this part of why we presented the private
street concept with a slightly smaller road section a more of a fire lane
concept is it allowed the lots to remain larger still doesn't get us a tenth lot
which is what we would have loved to have been able to get but it lets these
lots really feel generously sized so the nine lots in a 2.6 acre tract nine homes
on a 2.6 acre tract is really the it's kind of the least we need to make this
development feasible so that's why we have what we are presenting in front of
you okay thank you yeah there's another question that sure it's for
Commissioner Smith yeah thanks vice chair Jason Amy have we looked on this
problem it's a private street but but for fire and emergency services getting
in and out of there it's a one way in one way out so that gives me with the
appropriate fire turn around we'll turn around there but I didn't know how wide
those those streets were gonna be it's set up for fire lane requirements what
the city didn't fire lane requirements is again we we are not we haven't run
that by for approval yeah we do that at a time of platting right so and not to
think that you guys would just that if that I would hate for the city to come
back and say no those aren't wide enough right and then that ruins
engineering and the plan then the development falls through and now we've
got an r4 zone area we do have we do have a second concept with the 60 foot
right-of-way which is a local street with the very large cul-de-sac at the
end and we're still able to maintain our nine lots it just those the four lots on
the west side there they shrink and so instead of being the the eight thousand I
can't see that far away eighty six hundred square feet they shrink down to
seventy two hundred seventy four hundred square feet and so that's where the
that's where the extra space for the right-of-way there is a plan B exactly
city street full cul-de-sac 60 foot right-of-way something something still
nine lots exactly thank you commissioner Anderson this says private streets are
these gonna be dedicated to the city or who's gonna maintain the streets if it
goes the private street it would be HOA maintained just like the HOA common lot
that has the it's labeled up there detention pond and then just the
landscaping in the common area a lot would all be HOA maintained so there
would be nine owners participants in a homeowners Association but they're built
a city code built a city code okay Amy you might be able to answer the other
question that I had it had to do with there's a structure on the lot like in
that panhandle area does that belong to the house that it sits behind or does
that actually belong on this property
sir can you come to the podium please thank you
believe it's a storage shed that belongs to the property does it belong to your
property so it's not that person that okay that's what I want to know if they
were affected thank you very much okay I don't see any other questions at this
time thank you I do have other cards wishing to speak the first one I have
speaking in opposition is Jose Montoya
haven't lived in the area for over 30 years sir if you could say your name and
address for the record 3,000 eight Beverly right on the corner one up from
the 133 feet that was mentioned earlier thank you on your proposed access I'm
glad to see that you decided to go to Audreau however Audreau is already
narrow what are the plans to widen that would be one the other is there are no
sidewalks so if you're talking about making it user-friendly you'd have to
redo the last part of Mockingbird to Audreau to make it walkable there is a
house across the street from mine Katie corner I'm wondering is that part of the
long-range plan to have that I buy out because then you would increase the size
of your 2.6 to over 3 which means more houses across the street from mine I
already collect cities neighbors trash on my property since I'd have a fence
area they decide to dump their trash there I would like to see it if you're
going to have the same kind of development with only nine lots have it
maintained so it does not deter from the rest of the neighborhood we have
elderly people living in the area who walk and would like to maintain that same
walking area thank you Richard can you address it all future Mockingbird in
that there do you have any of that information or maybe Julie I'm not aware
of any plans right now to improve Mockingbird okay thank you next card I
have speaking in opposition is Teddy Williams I live at 3204 and it's the lane
and bear with me because I've never done this before okay I need to ask you a
question because I'm lost I've been trying to follow this and I've been to
all the meetings and the story has changed why does it need to go from our
two to our four if he only intends to build nine houses I'm trying to
understand that it has to do with parameters in the development code so in
order to build the nine houses it has to be a r4 per the engineer but what about
part of the city well the city follows the development go ahead Julie I think I
can answer that so under current zoning the minimum lot size was would be 16,000
square feet so they're proposing the r4 to to to develop with those 7,000 square
foot lot so it's depending on the lot size
okay so the other thing I need to before I the other thing is I want to know if
everything falls through and he sells and this is our and y'all vote for it to
be an r4 does that mean that townhomes apartments and all that can come in
because that's a major concern the r4 designation does allow duplexes town
homes group home with with a specific use permit that would have to come back
before planning and zoning in City Council
well it'd be a public hearing process okay so right now I guess what I'm
understanding because in all in the other two meetings I've heard two
different things right now he is proposing and you guys would agree to
nine houses am I understanding that correctly what we are considering today
is simply the rezoning of from r2 to r4 that is all that our vote is today what
we're seeing from the applicant is the concept plan that they have in mind to
develop if they get the rezoning a request okay well what earlier gentleman
said was true it's dangerous there's no sidewalks on Audra there's barely there's
no sidewalks where he's proposing to build so it's really not going to be
safe for the children or the elderly okay there's r4 was intended to
encourage walking to parks and retail from what I understand there's no park
some mile away so it'd be really tough for a five-year-old to to walk that far
there's no stores so I'm trying to understand the concept of why it needs
to be r4 it's not safe Mockingbird is dangerous and Audra is dangerous enough
as it is there's no police enforcement people go 40 and 50 miles an hour down a
30 mile an hour street I'm on it every day I see it it and to add if he put in
let's just say nine houses to start with that's probably going to be at least 30
at least 30 cars because they're going to have teenagers at least 30 to 60 more
cars on two streets that are already overused I don't know if I'm saying that
right but it it's just dangerous it's not and if you add more then none of us
are going to be safe and like he said there's elderly there's young kids I
watch the kids standing watch waiting for the buses on the street already people
come flying down that street the stop sign is not even very far from where the
original entrance was intended I don't know where it's going to be now I watch
people slam on their brakes as it is now I can only imagine what it's going to be
like if we have tons more people move in so I don't I mean I just I don't
understand because if our floor was really intended to encourage these
things they don't exist we don't have a school that close we don't have any
retail I don't even I don't understand why it needs to be rezoned it was a I
moved in because it was a quiet safe neighborhood and it seems like it's
going to change and that's pretty scary so I don't know I that's just my thought
and we absolutely appreciate you sharing your comments thank you for listening of
course thank you okay the next card I have speaking in opposition is BJ
Edwards good evening if you could state your name and address yes beat BJ
Edwards $2,000 lane Denton thank you my family has some property adjacent to
this we do oppose the zone change I understand that our for is all that
other base creeping right in and going further north and let's go ahead and
suck that up to R2 is fine the developer the purchaser bought it to
make money to put as many addresses in there as he can whether he stacks them
up or spreads them out and I oppose that and I think I've my family has the
entire East boundary of this development and then some but as the lady was
speaking over here on their drive their approach in and out there's a three-way
stop sign right there that is there's always Rex right there and there's
probably not 200 feet from that driveway to the three-way stop there's just that
one house there on that corner but I oppose it and I'm definitely afraid of
changing the zoning so they can come back later and ask for another one and
end up sticking those apartments in there we've got a quiet neighborhood and
there's no crime to speak of in that area you go down into the R4 areas and
the crime picks up we don't it's quite nice there now I do oppose it in the
tension pond right there I think that is for if we have rain and stuff this has
always been a flood area in the photo if you can see there's a terrace there to
deflect the water from flooding so it doesn't run exactly the way that
detention pond is it'll probably be a continuing problem and the little bit of
trees and stuff that we have there in that fence line we'd sure like to keep
them some of those pecan trees and stuff for 100 plus years old I do oppose it I
know it won't be safe I feel like the crime will go up in that area as far as
foot traffic and stuff we do have a lot of people around there young and old and
they feel pretty safe right now and I'm just afraid it's the more addresses we
stick in there and they they're saying nine now but you know if you have to
guard down that nine could jump into 40 pretty quick when they go to multi
dwellings and that's the whole concept is to get more addresses multi-family
dwellings are not allowed in in our four zoning district well what was it they
could come back later and ask for the what town homes and duplexes are allowed
yeah and how many is there would it only be nine I just feel like if it's done
that's a bait and switch I just don't trust it I do totally oppose I thank you
folks for letting me speak my piece I am worried about the crime I'm worried
about the theft the theft rate will go up the more people you cram into a small
area right now we've got a nice boundary where all those larger lots you're
talking about are still are too but they're being sucked up by our four we'd
like to kind of keep it that way if we can if we have a say so it at all if
we're being if we're being heard I don't know if this is just a formality
and we already know what we're going to do there or not I know how things go
thank you for allowing me to speak if you have any questions for me or I'll
just go sit down I do not see any questions at this moment thank you thank
you for coming out I do have another card here wishing to speak in opposition
Carol Coulter you take your time Carol Coulter I live at 2913 Howard Court which
is about three blocks away from from the site we're talking about and I'm also
here to represent mrs. Victoria Pena whose property is most of the property
on the west side of this side that we've been talking about so I just have to say
that we love our little pasture over there it has been there for a long time
it's got beautiful trees it's got a beautiful view and and I hate to see it
go but I know that it's one of those things that progress comes along I am
opposed because I feel that we do have a big problem on Audra we have a big
problem on mockingbird I've been out gathering signatures for opposition and
I've been almost run over several times just because there's no sidewalk at all
so when you walk along there you take your life in your hands believe me but
it was worth it I was very in impressed to do this and I feel that it's very
important if we're going to have to have houses there I want it to be a as few as
possible and so if we do two to an acre instead of four to an acre I think it
will make the neighborhood much nicer and less dense and I'm not for the
density I am a longtime neighbor I've lived in the neighborhood 30 years and I
know that change is coming but I hope that the change would include lots of
improvements for the road and for the traffic that is this is going to
generate more if we do go to this to the fore then it opens the door I agree with
the gentleman who just spoke it opens the door so that if we talk about town
homes or if we talk about new plexus that's going to be more traffic on on
our road I want to make one more point that has a positive and a negative and
I'd like to congratulate Julie on her work and on how much I have enjoyed
talking with her and learning about this project and how positive she is and her
letter to us and I appreciate that I have one negative and that is the letter
said we are changing the zoning from r2 to r4 now I have a computer and I can get
online and I can go look it up with the city of Denton but there was no
definition in the letter for what that means and many people who don't have an
access to a computer or don't know how to research things might not know so
that would be helpful in the future for that to be clarified because you know we
heard all kinds of things about what a r4 is and so I thought I'd better look it
up okay thank you for listening thank you for coming out to speak I don't have
any more blue cards to speak I have a few cards not wishing to speak but let
me know if you change your mind and you would like to come down to speak you're
more than welcome to do so Raylin Samuelson is in opposition Tim
Randolph is not wanting to speak but is in opposition did he want to speak Tim
did you want to speak I just want to reiterate what BJ said the guy that
used to own this place was like a father to me I know more about this property
than anybody in this room I promise you and I I'm just scared of the traffic and
the coming out of that place right there that stop sign at Mockingbird and Alder
that's just going to be a mess in my opinion but I oppose it very much thank
you thank you mr. Randolph I have another card not wishing to speak but is
in opposition Dolores Montoya and that is all the cards that I have is there
anyone in the audience who did not fill out a card but would like to come down
and speak on this item
you can
name and address it's in the 500 foot buffer of this and also have a property
at 3008 Terry Court I'm in favor for them because if they do a specific use
permit to go higher density with townhomes you heard the opposition it's
gonna be a favorless fight to to grant that so with the HOA maintain when I
houses I believe it's good for the community really do because there's no
ways over there so having that in that area would be nice and that's it thank
you thank you for coming out is there anyone else wishing to speak on this
item anyone else wishing to speak okay seeing none I will close the public
hearing on this item and open the floor for motion or discussion commissioner
Smith thank you best chair I'm gonna make a motion to approve with staff
recommendations right there was our staff members a solid motion to prove
them reason for this I think that the density isn't too indifferent from a lot
of the properties that are surrounding this I don't think that that from
knowing that area as I do driving and living in that area nine houses I don't
think is gonna add traffic burdens that really need to be a warranted and in the
multifamily the duplex triplex anything else in there knowing that we have a
have an SUP that's gonna be available as a as a safeguard against that I can tell
you now that if someone if this project does fall through for whatever reasons
that's if an SUP comes back in front of this Commission or any other Commission
iteration after this they'll be very easy no to throw out there just because
of the surrounding neighborhoods that are there so I think this is safely
changing to a density that is workable and will be permanent so a motion to
approve motion on the floor to approve Commissioner pernetta a second okay we
have a motion on the floor to approve the zoning change to our for is there any
discussion okay well I'm gonna say just a few words because I unfortunately cannot
get on board to do this and it's mainly for neighborhood protection it's not that
I actually really like the concept of the infill as it was presented but
without the neighborhood protection in there that opens the door with a duplex
or townhome or group home possibility with our for it doesn't work for me
because you know I've seen it before we're not voting on a concept plan we're
voting on a zoning change so I will not be able to support this item is there
any more discussion okay let's call for a vote on the board
that motion will carry for two congratulations okay that moves us okay
our last public hearing item has been pulled that leaves us to our planning and
zoning Commission matrix I will turn it over to Richard just wanted to provide
excuse me brief update one City Council last night approved the two text
amendments that we heard at the last meeting one with respect to the criteria
manual language adding that back in as well as the clarification language for
the overlay districts that converted to PD those both are approved 7-0 the gas
well ordinance as we sort of discussed earlier or at least mentioned was was
approved 5-2 so that will be in effect in 14 days from from yesterday and was
that approved with the I'm sorry that was that was that replaced on it or how
was that it was it was presented to them with the three options the initial
option that that council had directed staff to prepare staffs recommendation
and then the planning and zoning Commission recommendation so what they
approved it was with all of staff recommendations so that was option two
which essentially allowed for all non-conforming structures albeit
non-conforming for gas wells or something else if they are destroyed
greater than 50% to go in front of ZBA to ask for the ability to rebuild so
that was approved last night so that will be in effect not just for gas wells
but for all non-conformities and once we get that signed ordinance I'll provide a
copy just so everyone everyone has that I know we had discussed there was a lot
of debate over the last few weeks about additional items to be discussed about
the gas wells there is a as part of the work session on 12-3 council will be
bringing that that will be presented to them and so they will discuss that and
and vote at that point in time whether or not they want to hear or bring back
any further items with respect to gas wells to a work session the only thing
that did get added to that was a setback regarding plugged wells so I don't know
what will come out of that but that will be a discussion on 12-3 so certainly you
can watch that but I will provide an update again on on the the 11th with
respect to what what that outcome was just quickly on the on the matrix I did
provide somewhat of an update on the the removal of that equipment as the
de-energized substation I know Brent our manager from energy to reached out to
TMPA they did not give him a specific date but he is going to continue to ask
well I'll keep that on until we have a a for sure update we do have on the 11th
this next meeting a work session on the notifications in the ETJ will also have
the dual notifications and I don't remember the ladies name tonight but she
raised a great point and so I'd like to also include that as part of that
discussion on notification to probably provide a little bit we try to do some of
a more of a description of what's going on but I think sometimes as planners we
talk planner speak and just sort of plain language is exactly what they're
trying to do in very simple terms so we'll include that as part of that that
work session for the next meeting okay we've got a couple wishing to speak
Commissioner Smith I was gonna mention I was gonna ask about the ETJ I had a
couple phone calls for the item be tonight that were folks who are in the
TJ are never noticed for that because they're in the TJ and so excited to hear
about that so thank you just and just to let you know about that item that you're
getting people need TJ are calling about that so commissioner back thank you I
share yeah no I really encourage you to do the additional language like
we heard tonight I think that'll be really helpful do you think that would
be something that I know we're gonna discuss it but is that something that
we're considering all notifications for the simplified language or just the ETJ
it would for me it would be for all know if all notifications that I would
encourage that and and then do we have any considering the 14-day lag for the
for the new ordinance do we have any idea how many properties might fall under
that or is that really something we need to discuss at a later time in that
window I mean I guess so much how many properties will I think our initial
estimation was yeah how many projects underway that might run that might
overlap that 14-day lag I'm just curious I'm not sure because we just had our
submittals come in yesterday was a deadline I don't think there I'd have to
know that's fine I can provide that I can provide that for the next that
would be helpful thank you anybody else anything for the matrix
Richard if I could um or we could get an update I know we've talked mockingbird
before is there something you can I just don't remember about like a future
mobility on that and all that you know things are happening right there we've
approved a whole lot up and down Audra if this gets approved this is just
another you know so just maybe some kind of an update to what's going on there
obviously I know we're gonna be years away from that but even just what the
future plan is would be yes certainly I'll provide that I know at one point
and I think it was mockingbird but I don't recall it so I don't I didn't want
to speak too much to it but but there were some improvements that they were
doing with respect to the safe route to schools but I'll I'll reach out to CIP
and see if there's anything yeah and then also as a suggestion if possible
maybe on these developments these re zones where staffs recommending approval
and you know that traffic is certainly an issue maybe in the presentation what
the future will be would be great to add to the presentation that just gives a
little bit more knowledge to the people who instead of just saying traffic's
horrible and we all know it's horrible you know whether a TIA was performed or
not you know we got a lot of TIA stuff with regard to the multifamily you know
and that was good information but on these kind of things just even
mentioned in the in the presentation be great okay seeing nothing else I will
say happy Thanksgiving to everybody here in Washington and I will close our
meeting at 812 thank you