Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for Wednesday, March 4th.
This is our work session and with the quorum present I will call us to order at 501.
Let the record show that Chair Rosell and Commissioners Anderson and Preneta are currently
absent.
We don't have any work session reports today so we can move right into the agenda.
Item one, clarification of agenda items listed on today's meeting agenda.
Items in the public hearing 5A and 5C are being postponed.
That will move us to discussion of our first agenda item which are the meetings for February
19th.
Any discussion, questions on that?
Okay.
How about consent?
Commissioner Beck.
Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to ask some questions about items 3C and 3D.
3C and 3D?
Yes ma'am.
Okay.
3C is Cindy.
I don't see Cindy here, I don't think.
Can we maybe do D first since Haley's here?
Is that okay?
Yeah.
Even if there's C maybe it's --
A question's up.
Maybe I can answer.
Yeah.
And we've got it here if I need to pull it up.
Okay.
Let's see.
Okay.
So the Eagle Cove.
Yes, oh yes.
So my problem is, what you have right there on the map and what concerns me is the riparian
drainage and the green corridor leading back in all along the concrete there and the drainages.
Yeah, you all have learned a little bit about what some of my major concerns are and that
is going to be flooding, drainage, causing property issues and then also the sort of
destruction of the riparian habitat and green corridors going along through there.
So what -- looking at that, I'm concerned that, you know, we basically are building on all
sides of that creek and that thing's going to flood.
And so I'm curious about the hydrological reports on that.
So this -- I don't believe this is floodplain.
It is a drainage easement with riparian buffer and upland habitat in it.
So they are preserving in all of the space, of course, maintaining all of the riparian
buffer.
The only encroachments that they will need an alternative ESA for are where the roads
will cross.
Otherwise, they are preserving the entirety of the riparian buffer, all of the ESA on
site except for the two roadways.
So if there is floodplain, I don't believe there is, if there were floodplain within
that riparian corridor, it would be included in this.
And then outside of that, they have set aside these other areas adjacent to there as preserved
habitat to maintain in their natural condition as well.
But certainly any lots that if it were floodplain, I don't believe it is, would have to have
their finished floor elevation established.
So those homes would meet the engineering requirements for being elevated sufficiently
to not flood in the anticipated 100-year event.
So if we build that up to prevent the property flood damage to the houses that are being
proposed to go in there, though aren't we then altering the hydrology of the actual
drainage itself, which means we are going to have erosion issues and we are right up
against, and we have ESA and we are right up against all that concrete just to itself
where we have a unique environment all up along that corridor that we are going to cram
everything right up against it just because this feels like we are doing one-time building
and permanent damage to something that we can't get back and something that is distinct
and unique to Denton in this environment and I am very highly concerned about all, I mean
most of the items tonight, I am going to just show my cards, are all in this section and
it is going to be the same question over and over again.
We have got drainage issues, we have got flooding issues, we have got riparian issues, we have
got green corridors, we have got animal corridors, we are proposing to, there are several unique
species to North Texas, plants that live in this area and we are proposing to tear this
up and even if we don't quote unquote hit the actual riparian areas like technically
right along the floodplains of the creek, we are still damaging the hydrology such that
we are going to degrade and destroy what we are technically leaving behind because we
are concreting the surrounding materials over, so this is me sort of yelling at the room
and not you Haley, so I would like to be, can we maybe tell me what sort of protections
are in place to protect this, these kinds of things from happening?
Well it is not an engineer but they do meet all of the technical requirements, I mean
they are meeting all of the technical requirements from our engineering review at this point.
As I said they are not, the only encroachments they are proposing are where the roadways
would cross, the homes and all of the lots are outside of any environmentally sensitive
area and then in addition to that they are proposing the additional preserved habitat
to provide that extra natural buffer on either side of the ESA.
The encroachments that they are proposing will be coming back before you all and the
City Council in the form of an alternative ESA plan, so there would be more opportunity
at that time I would say for any potential protections that you would think might be
necessary at the point of those encroachments but they are meeting all of the technical
standards and providing the appropriate easements to ensure that nothing disturbs this area
beyond these two areas.
On the southern border where we are up against the even more riparian and high canopy green
corridor there, all that property is either going to flood south into the actual creek
or into this drainage in the center of the picture and you are not going to be able to
construct those homes, definitely along the southern border without disruption and I don't
see how lot 10 in the middle of the picture, some of these other lots are not going to
end up causing permanent and consistent damage to these corridors.
Commissioner, can I just caution you that what we are dealing with here is a preliminary
plot so not whether or not the land can be developed or not, so if it is specific to
the preliminary plot, if you would like to ask Haley a question that would be fantastic,
but what we are dealing with is the plot that is in front of us.
I appreciate the caution.
Thank you, chair.
If I can just add a little bit more to that.
Approval of this preliminary plot for the most part does not give the ability to get
a permit to build anything.
All this does is allow you to go to step B, which is the engineering to see if this initial
preliminary layout actually works.
So that will be all brought back and those answers will be available when we look at
this as part of that final plan.
And just to tag on to that, there is a note on the plat that specifically references if
by some chance their alternative ESA plan is not approved, this plat would basically
become null and void.
They would have to start over.
So that extra level of scrutiny will be provided.
This just to Richard's point gives them the ability to get there, to even do the engineering
work.
Do we have a feel -- hmm.
So the roads are punching through the duchess in this preliminary plat, is that correct?
Correct.
Duchess on the north would be the primary access.
And then they are lining up with the -- they're basically a mirror image of the development
across the street on duchess.
They're connecting to all of the existing drives there.
There were how -- I forgot the number.
How many units?
I believe it's 56 total.
Yeah, 56 residential lots and three HOA open space lots.
I mean, even in the information sheet, they're acknowledging that there are issues that have
to be resolved.
So yeah, I guess I don't have any more questions, but I'm likely to ask that this not be because
of consent.
Anybody else with questions on this one?
Haley, I had one.
I noticed with the open space lots that there's no note of who's maintaining those.
I know they're tree preserves.
Typically we mention something about -- Those will in the future be dedicated to the HOA.
We don't ask for the HOA documents to be provided until they get to the final plat stage.
Okay.
Very good.
Thank you.
Why don't we go back up to see -- I saw Cindy come in.
Cindy Commissioner Beck had a few questions on item C for consent.
Apologies for my readiness.
Oh, no.
Thank you.
I was waiting for a revised plat to come in so I could print it out.
The plat before you is a final plat.
It was determined that -- Cindy, I don't think this is the one we're
actually talking about.
Oh, I'm sorry.
That's okay.
We're on consent still.
Okay.
So we're on --
Country Club.
Okay.
Yes.
So my concern on this one was what's the development on the -- do we know the plans for the southern
half not in the -- where they're proposing homes, but what's the expectation for that
on the other side of the drainage?
Parkland.
That's going to be maintained as parkland?
Yes.
And we have assurances that that's going to be the case?
Yes, we do.
It's going to be dedicated to the city.
The city is going to put -- extend one of their trails through it.
And looking at the topography, that's -- we're basically mostly flowing south into the creek
or into the southeast drainage.
Okay.
I think that's all my questions.
Thank you, Cindy.
Sure.
Okay.
Thank you, Cindy.
Okay.
Moving on to items for individual consideration, we have 4A.
That is Haley.
All right.
This is a final plan for the Denton County Emergency Operations Center.
You all may remember this came before you pretty recently for a preliminary plan and
an alternative development plan.
So this is the final plan for their single lot.
At this time, there are a couple of outstanding items.
So staff is recommending denial for the reasons outlined in your backup, but the applicant
has requested the 30-day extension, which in this case, unfortunately, we don't have
a meeting quite 30 days out, so it will only push them to the March 18th meeting.
They are aware of that and confident that they can work through the outstanding issues
in that time.
So they've requested that extension.
Okay.
Very good.
Senator Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
There's no, I mean, there's nothing, there's no shot clock issues or anything that we have
to worry about by giving them an extension.
Is there?
No, the shot clock bill does allow for them to request a one-time 30-day, no more than
30-day extension.
Anybody else on this one?
Okay.
All right.
Thanks.
I'm going to hop back a minute to consent.
Can I bring Cindy back up?
Did she just walk out?
Yeah.
Okay.
She just put a new plat on our desk with regard to North Point.
There was one item that was removed out of the general notes on there, and it's item
9.
That's the change that she put in front of us.
That change, that line item contradicted something that's in their deed restrictions.
I had emailed Cindy earlier, and she did talk to several engineers in the city, and it was
the consensus to remove note 9.
So that's what's in front of us at the moment.
That was the change there.
Does anyone have questions on that?
Okay.
Then let's hop back into the agenda.
Julie is waiting for our item B.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt.
This is FP24, Townsend Green.
It's the first phase of a preliminary plat that you saw last summer.
It's 187 residential lots with some common open space lots, and I will -- oh, they did
-- it is a shot clock item.
We're still working through some issues, and particularly regarding engineering items and
some amendments to their tree preservation plan.
And so they have requested a 30-day extension like the previous plat.
It would have to come back before you on the March 18th meeting.
So they're working through those issues.
They feel like they can get them addressed prior to that meeting.
And they understand, too, that it's really not a true 30 days.
Yes.
Okay.
Any questions?
Okay.
Thanks, Julie.
Item C, FP205, and that is Sean Jacobson.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
This is a request for a final plat at the lots 1 and 2, block 1 of the HSW West Park
addition, approximately 41.6785-acre site adjacent to Western Boulevard.
They are -- we are recommending denial, and they are requesting an extension similar to
what you've heard, what would be to the next Planning, Zoning Commission meeting.
They're just needing to lock down some details with their CEP, their civil engineering plans.
They believe they can complete that.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't have, like, a deal breaker problem with this, I just was curious what changes
-- I was a little unclear about the changes to the ESA and was wondering if you could
just explain, you know, from my edification, what the changes to the ESA were in this region.
So staff actually went on site, or either staff or third party, a review was performed
of the ESA to determine whether it was still a viable ESA or not.
And when they reviewed that, it was determined that it had been developed to the extent that
it was no longer an ESA in the area that's actually being developed on.
And so therefore, they were able to move forward in that area.
So it was reviewed.
It no longer had the characteristics necessary to maintain the ESA in that location.
So it was sort of de-designated as an ESA?
Yes.
Okay.
Okay, I'll follow that up later.
Thank you.
Yeah.
If there's anything you want me to look into, I'll do it.
Thank you, Sean.
Any other questions?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Okay, that moves us to our public hearings.
So item A, staff's requesting it to be postponed to 3/18.
That moves us to item B, Z-21A, and that's Cindy not here yet?
Again?
Okay.
Do we want to maybe jump to our next one?
Item B is being postponed, 3/18.
You're up.
Good evening.
Let me get my presentation up.
All right, so what I'm presenting to you tonight is CA-19-1, Canopy Trails.
This is a project type that you haven't seen before in a while.
It's been several years since this has come before, something like this has come before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, but this is a comprehensive plan amendment, excuse me,
on about 98 acres to modify the future land use designation on the property.
It's outlined there in yellow, from business innovation to regional mixed use.
Just to orient you, it is bound by Shady Oaks and then Loop 288.
So it's situated on the southeast side of town.
So some just general comments regarding comprehensive plans and what the request is.
So Denton Plan 2030 was adopted in 2015.
As part of the plan, there was a future land use map, and it identifies the locations for
the future land use designations, the things like business innovation or regional mixed
use.
The future land use map, FLUME, guides zoning decisions.
So for instance, in business innovation, you typically see zoning districts like General
Office or Light Industrial.
So there's often zoning districts that more typically align with any given future land
use designation.
A best planning practice really is that the zoning should be consistent with the comprehensive
plan overall goals, as well as the future land use map.
Now, that's something you haven't often seen as the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The 2002 code, if you recall, had limited criteria for approval for zoning cases, and
it also provided an alternative path for cases that didn't meet that future land use map.
So it kind of gave that other route that those cases would take.
We recently adopted a new code, the 2019 code, and it has a lot more robust criteria for
approval.
The staff reports have gotten a lot longer because there's just a lot more criteria
for approval.
And at this time, we're really implementing that best practice, that zoning should follow
the future land use map.
So that's why you're seeing that today, this additional criteria for approval, and
this really is the best practice that we should be looking at.
Provides a little extra scrutiny on these projects.
Make sure that we're giving it the full analysis.
Instances where the future land use map may -- there are instances where the future land
use map may require a limited amendment.
It's often to address a specific area or circumstance, like the character of an area has changed,
maybe a policy has gone in a different direction.
And so the development code outlines the process and the criteria for approval for that.
It's in section 2.7.1, and really it is to allow for that flexibility in response to
those changing circumstances.
So that's why we're here today.
And now we'll get into the nitty-gritty.
So first we want to talk about the existing conditions of the property, because remember,
the comprehensive plan is the 30,000 -- 30,000-foot view of the property.
So we just want to kind of look at the general area.
And the subject property is once again outlined in yellow.
We have the major corridors in red.
You've got loop 288, which is a major commercial corridor in the city of Denton.
And then that has come online or is -- parts of it are nearing completion or under construction
is Mayhill.
And I know we've talked a lot about Mayhill at our P&Z Commission meetings.
And that -- this is a roadway that's going to take travelers from DFW Airport all the
way through Denton.
So it is a regional corridor.
It's a major road that is now coming online.
The surrounding development of the property is -- has really trended toward retail or
office -- some office employment and some high-density residential, a long loop, especially
you can see that retail gravitating toward the loop 288 frontage.
So the current future land use map does show the property as business innovation.
This is intended for large tracts of land where -- that are appropriate for well-planned,
larger-scale office and employment parks with those supporting uses, such as retail, hotels
and residential.
The typical zoning districts, as I said before, that we often see are general office and light
industrial, which is what's on the property right now.
As we were analyzing this project and as we were talking through it, we did look at the
historical context.
We wanted to see how we arrived at this -- at this place.
So we started with the 1974 plan, and it is -- so the future land use map is here.
The property is kind of where that blue star is.
Then the major defining feature of this area, which was really very rural at the time, was
the water -- or the power and water treatment plants right here.
And we can look at an aerial from 1972 and see how -- what that area looked like.
Here you have the power and water plants here, but then there just wasn't a whole lot around
there.
So they had designated the area as industrial.
It was outside of town.
They'd already had that major feature, so it did make sense at the time to put those
industrial uses there.
Then we skipped to the 1999 plan, and this -- this brought in a new future land use type,
regional mixed use, and it's a little blurry, so I apologize for the quality.
But my -- the property that we're talking about tonight is about where the blue star
is, and once again, we've got that regional mixed use.
It's taking in what -- you know, Golden Triangle Ball and the other commercial development
along Loop 288.
So it is -- that commercial development is moving forward, is moving north along Loop
288.
That employment center, so that industrial future land use transitioned to employment
center, and it shrunk to allow for that commercial development that was moving to the north.
And you can see the city had changed a little bit.
The property is in the blue star here.
We've got them all here.
Commercial development just emerging along I-35 and starting to move north on Loop 288.
And then Denton Plan 2030.
So it kind of looks like some blobs.
I'm sorry.
We can talk through it.
But the subject property, once again, is here, the blue -- that blue star.
The employment center kind of takes in what was -- what was -- or I'm sorry, the business
innovation takes in that area that was once employment center.
So this really was just a continuation of that 1999 plan.
It really kind of looked at what was on the ground at the time and just moved that forward.
You could see that the area in blue, that's the -- that's the power plant and the water
treatment plant, really did just move forward what was -- what was in place from 1999.
And you can see the current aerials now, as that commercial development has continued
to move for -- move north, it really -- the loop is filling up.
There's not a lot of large tracts of land that front Loop 288 anymore, and really the
subject property is kind of the last in this general area.
So they are proposing to revise the future land use map to -- to regional mixed use.
This is intended for areas that serve as regional destinations within Denton.
Development can include the moderate to high-density residential, commercial office and entertainment
uses, except for industrial.
And it should be at the highest levels of scale and density within the city.
Typical districts we see in that is the mixed use regional, the MR, and highway corridor.
General criteria for approval for all projects is in section 2.4.5E.
And we won't go over each one of those, but what we're going to talk about -- we'll talk
about that criteria as we discuss the case.
So really what I want to talk about -- highlight it at this moment -- is does it comply with
the -- with the overall goals of the comprehensive plan?
So is their proposal -- does it meet that vision and the overall goal of the comp plan?
So we look through those goals and particularly along those land use goals, because that's
really what this is centered on.
And I want to talk about three in particular.
So land use one, grow compactly.
This segment of Loop 288 is a regional corridor.
It connects I-35 to Highway 380.
So it is a regional corridor within the city and within the general area.
Development favors commercial mixed use.
We have retail, restaurant, office, and high-density residential that really has developed over
time in this area.
The request to change this future land use does support this trend.
It provides a basis for zoning decisions that would encourage the infill development in
this area and provide that variety of commercial residential uses that have already developed
on Loop 288.
>> Excuse me, Julie.
Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So since we're going over the history and the development of the region, can you enlighten
us as to why this particular property -- if we're building in from McKinney in the north
and we're going up from the mall in the south, why is this particular property sort of left
fallow other than the Shady Apes Road itself?
>> I can't speak to necessarily why it hasn't developed at this time.
It may mean that -- it may be that the zoning wasn't in place to encourage that type of
development, or it just hasn't reached there yet.
Because really you often -- or what you want to see is stage development.
You want to see that development emanate out, and I think you hit it on the head that especially
in -- at key intersections and key districts, you often see that intersection or that district
develop first, and then growth to emanate out from there.
It just hasn't reached this section or this property until now.
>> So to what extent is -- in our future land use and the historical future land use map
as it's developed has these sort of green corridors that emanate from MLK up along Pecan
Creek from downtown, you know, we already have an issue where we've cemented over all
this stuff downtown itself, and we're relying on Quaker Town Park to kind of serve a role.
To what extent is that historically a factor in the development of this region?
>> Well, let me get -- I think I have an overall -- I don't know if green corridors have factored
into this.
North of Shady Oaks, there is a substantial amount of flood plains, so that of course
really is restricted in development.
So that area just north of Shady Oaks would be difficult to develop due to the drainage
patterns in that area.
We do designate in our comprehensive plan, so I skipped ahead a little bit, and you can
see the green areas are park areas that we have designated in our comprehensive plan,
and actually our parks department is updating their master plan right now.
So they're very focused on those green corridors and how to get -- how to get hikers or bikers
or pedestrians across the city trying to even keep them off of roadways and through flood
plains, which are really good kind of highways for pedestrian activity.
So it's on the city's radar to really kind of update that trail plan, and I don't know
if it affected this area per se.
>> So do we have an idea for the relationship of development along green corridors, how
often that ends up precluding or changing the future land use when we begin to drop
these sort of regional multi-use activities along those regions?
So I'm just sort of trying to get at the historical perspective on this one.
>> I'm not sure I understand your question.
>> So if -- when we've allowed development along these sort of regions, do we then see
later maintenance of our green corridors, our flood plains, our parks, our trails, or
do we just see sort of industrial mix -- light industrial mix use or -- I mean, is that vision
maintained or do we just end up developing over top of it is what my real question is?
>> Well, you know, comprehensive plans do look at all of those factors.
They look at not only the natural environment, but parkland and where development should
go.
So I think that's something that we look at as we're comprehensive planning.
And we're undertaking an update to our comprehensive plan, so I think it's all of those factors
are going to go into that assessment.
>> I think just to add a kind of short answer, mixed use I think definitely lends itself
more towards preservation and allowing for that open space as opposed to industrial commercial.
Just the fact that you have -- not necessarily related to the comp plan or even the zoning
relief, but there is an ESA, right, upland habitat on the area, and so the big difference
is if you're nonresidential, you can remove 70% of that ESA versus the opposite where
you're limited now to 50.
>> Thank you both.
>> So the second land use goal -- or I'm sorry, the second one we're going to talk about today,
land use three, grow our assets, the request would permit a variety of commercial and higher
density residential uses and design with commercial development standards to further strengthen
the commercial character of that loop 288 corridor.
And finally land use six, grow with balance.
Regional mixed use support zoning districts which once again permit that wide variety
of commercial uses.
It would provide flexibility for development to respond to changing conditions and economic
trends.
Our MR zoning district allows for a lot of uses, not only the higher density residential
but those commercial and office and employment type uses.
So it would allow some -- it would allow that flexibility as the property moves forward
with development.
There's also specific criteria for approval for comprehensive plan amendments.
There's two sections of the specific criteria for approval.
The first section that they have to meet any one of the four criteria, the two that I'm
going to talk about today are the events, trends or facts after the adoption of the
comp plan that change the original findings or the character of the area.
And there are also other criteria for approval.
They're in your backup and we're going to touch on them as we continue talking through
the project.
So when we talk about the events, trends or facts, really a huge change that has happened
in this area is mobility.
Loop 28 corridor has of course been a major corridor and arterial through the city for
a very long time but may hill is now coming online as an expanded and improved roadway
that is providing additional connections into our city.
So this really is changing the face of the southeast Denton area.
So mobility improvements are one change.
Also expansion of office employment.
If you've driven in the area lately, you know that Denton County is expanding their
facilities at the area of Shady Oaks or Morse and Loop 288.
So there's going to provide a lot more employment in the area, expand that daytime population.
Prior to 2015, I know we talked about the historical background, but prior to 2015,
the surrounding zoning, which was ECI, employment center commercial or employment center industrial
and ECC employment center commercial.
And that future land use that we have now really is it wasn't just a continuation of
what existing zoning was on the ground and what had been done prior.
So that really did inform that comprehensive plan at the time.
And current trends or in the current development really is moving away from that industrial
type development in this area and it's moving from that industrial employment to the commercial
and the higher density housing.
Additional review standards, does it provide a substantial benefit to the city?
This would encourage additional mixed use development near an expanding government center
and also an existing commercial district.
Is it compatible with the land use goals and avoid isolated uses?
Regional mixed use is a future land use and then the associated zoning districts would
be consistent with the existing land uses as that commercial center.
Did it significantly alter acceptable existing land use patterns?
This is not anticipated to result in undesirable land use patterns.
Once again, it really is just a continuation of that existing development pattern.
And would there be adverse impacts to public services?
This is an urban area.
It's served by existing transportation networks as well as ones that the city has invested
in.
And so there won't be adverse impacts there.
Does the development pattern contained in the existing plan provide adequate and appropriate
optional sites for the use or change being proposed in the amendment?
So this was interesting to analyze and look at.
We looked at the city as a whole and the future land use map as a whole and where we had regional
mixed use.
So we really have three regional centers in the city.
We have Razor Ranch, you're all familiar with.
It's on the north side of town.
It's at I-35 and University.
We have, I kind of covered it up there, sorry.
We have the Denton Enterprise Airport.
That's a transportation hub.
It serves air travel and employment uses.
And then we have Loop 288.
This is really our legacy regional commercial center.
This is our shopping mall, the triangle mall, and then all of those additional ancillary
commercial uses that came in.
All of these areas, the Razor Ranch and the Denton Enterprise Airport, they have a lot
of room to grow, but the Loop 288 is starting to get squeezed.
It really has developed.
And this property is kind of one of those last big tracks along Loop 288.
So this is a high visibility area that makes sense for mixed use residents, or mixed use,
regional mixed use, sorry.
It would also allow for infill development in an already urbanized area.
The site conditions that would make development under the current plan inappropriate.
And these could be due to topography, utility corridors and easements, drainage patterns,
noise, odors, environmental contamination.
And while areas dedicated to employment centers are needed, GEO and LI districts, they restrict
the residential uses, and so they would limit the necessary component to support existing
and future commercial and employment development in this area.
And then areas adjacent to Loop 288 are just more suited to commercial and high density
residential mixed use.
They're compatible with the existing commercial development and residential development.
They have high visibility, high traffic volumes, you know, cars go up and down Loop 288.
And it's also at a signalized intersection.
So it really does make sense in this location.
There was a newspaper ad placed as well as mailed notices.
We haven't received any responses.
And so based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request,
and I will stand for any questions.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Julie, whenever we're looking at this project, obviously, this is a precursor to the zoning
changes coming next, right?
Yep.
We're looking at this project, rough estimates, and if you want to bring it back in public,
how much of this takes a really viable land of the business innovation section for the
flume, and what other areas do we have where we really still could have business innovation
occurring?
That's the biggest question I have, because this is the main arterial 288 there, but we're
going to have commercial centers, employment centers there.
By losing this chunk of land here along there, we can obviously see there's a lot of business
innovation surrounding it, but other areas up there, I guess you have it there.
So the only other big business innovation areas then are a little bit out on what, 380
right there, and then out the west side of 35, north of 380 as well.
So we really start taking away any type of employment centers really even close to the
center of the city.
Now, there's still some down there, I guess, that's still along the, above that dark pink
patch there, is that business innovation?
Right here?
Yeah.
Well, this is adjacent to the subject property.
There still would be a remainder of business innovation along Shady Oaks.
This really just is going to take just that little portion adjacent to the highway.
So west of the subject site would still have business innovation all the way to Woodrow.
All right.
Thank you.
You bet.
Any other questions for Julie?
Julie, for all of our knowledge, can you just maybe in a nutshell let us know why you suggested
that they do this prior to their zoning?
Is there a way you can kind of wrap that up?
You bet.
I don't want to jump in here, but, you know, it really is a planning best practice to have
a zoning case be consistent with the future land use map.
It adds that additional layer of analysis and scrutiny on the project, makes sure that
it meets all the criteria for approval, and, you know, the 2019 code does have those more
robust criteria for approval on all zoning cases.
And so especially -- it may not be appropriate in all rezoning cases, but especially something
with the acreage of something like 98 acres, it really was just following those best planning
practices.
So you'll probably be seeing more of them, I suspect, as we move forward.
I think for us when we looked at -- when we kind of talked through the zoning change with
the applicant, it made sense given the visibility of that corner, how it's developed to the
south and for the most part to the east.
But when we got into really looking at is it consistent with the comp plan, while we've
brought other ones forward where they weren't consistent, I would say the lion's share of
those have been those areas that have annexed, that just received the RR, residential rural
land use, and I think when we ultimately come back in a few months with the comp plan update,
I think that's more of a broader -- I think we've talked about that even as a commission.
How do we adequately address these?
We've looked at that.
Are they really rural areas or are they just holding patterns?
And so that's been a little bit of an easier argument to make, particularly residential
or residential.
We talk about mixed use that allows for that residential component.
Business innovation really doesn't lend itself to that.
And so it was really a struggle for us to make the argument or support the zoning change
without a land use plan amendment.
It's still always difficult for me coming from a different state that mandates that
the comp plan and zoning be consistent.
You're prohibited from approving a zoning that's inconsistent with the comp plan.
In fact, if it is inconsistent, the rules -- you cannot enforce those land development
regulations, whatever regulations are governed by the comp plan, not saying that that's where
we need to go, but I still struggle with that internally, just having worked for 20 years
in that environment.
But I think it's just a different -- with the new DDC, we're just looking at things,
I think, much more objectively and kind of a long-term and how should this grow and just
really supporting that.
So is the comp plan being looked at as a whole right now?
We are in the process.
We had an RFP that was issued in the process of looking at analyzing the responses, and
ultimately we'll be going forward to counsel with a recommendation for selection of a consultant
for an update of the comp plan.
It's sort of in two phases.
The first phase is really just sort of an evaluation and appraisal report of what have
we done, what have we accomplished, what didn't we accomplish, and why, and what's changed.
I think a lot of things have changed since our comp plan was initially adopted.
Not saying it was bad, but I think we got out of a huge recession.
I don't think anyone's expected the growth that we've seen, and I don't know that it's
necessarily caught up, particularly in those rural areas.
Even the last zoning where it was in the Argyle ISD, there you have areas completely surrounded
by rural with a mixed use land use that really, did that really make sense from a land use
perspective?
And so it's really kind of taking a hard look at all of those land uses, but that definitely
will be many public meetings on it and many opportunities here to discuss that.
So when we do these individually like these, it just makes that process probably easier
as we update these along with that.
Thank you.
Commissioner Becker.
So following up from that, so if we have a comprehensive plan that we're trying to sort
of keep a consistent development plan going through these different regions as our community
changes over time, if we're hitting these parcels up higgledy-piggledy one at a time,
that feels like it's punctate, it's one-off, it's not a consistent smooth gradient change
across the whole region, it is altering a use parcel by parcel by parcel.
And I understand that's sort of the nature of the beast somewhat because who owns the
parcels and what not is not under the control of the city per se.
And the second follow-up question is going to relate, across the street behind the government
area you have that mixed use green corridor that has developed, what was that before and
how did that green corridor across the 28 become green and open space?
This here?
Yes.
That's floodplain.
That's just listed as floodplain.
All of this area, so you can see those are in the floodplain, so that would of course
restrict development on that property.
So then we have in the comprehensive roll-out and development, we then have these competing
interests of floodplain issues, green corridor issues, riparian issues, consistent development
issues, and I guess how are we, if we're going from government, riparian to government, how
I guess I'll just say that having an inconsistent use here has coincidentally, maybe accidentally
protected a continuity through this region that would otherwise not be there because
if a mixed commercial use could have been successfully put in this region, it would
have been put in this region.
It's a highly desirable major arterial through 288.
And so is it really that we're expanding just the consistent plan right there or is
it that by having an accidental inappropriate use we've actually kept a corridor that should
be maintained as a corridor?
And I guess it's not really a question, but it feels like that failure to develop feels
like that was a benefit to the community rather than the sort of changes that we might be
proposing.
Any other questions on this?
Okay, we're going to move to the zoning discussion, right?
I promise I'll try not to be redundant, maybe a little.
All right.
So this is the zoning case that follows it.
So the previous presentation was for the comp plan.
They're following this up with a proposed zoning.
They're requesting to rezone the whole 98 acres from light industrial and general office
to mixed use regional MR.
Current zoning is shown here.
The light industrial is to the west and then the general office is closer to the hard corner.
And they are proposing the MR and you can see, I think this map shows it pretty well.
The MR really is an existing -- is an extension of that existing zoning pattern along loop
288.
You've got that consistent purple.
General criteria for approval.
We'll touch on them as we talk about the project and the specific criteria for approval for
zoning.
So dent plan 2030.
Right now the future land use is business innovation.
They are of course requesting that concurrent request to amend the future land use.
MR could kind of comply with business innovation because of the supporting uses, but really
the more consistent and the better way to approach it is to be consistent with that
future land use map.
So that's the purpose of the request.
I won't go over all of these again, but the same land use goals that we talked about in
the comprehensive plan amendment apply to the zoning plan.
The idea of growing compactly to encourage infill development in areas where there already
are existing roadway systems.
So we prevent sprawl into outlying areas.
So we want to make sure we encourage that infill development.
It's one of our goals.
We want to make sure that we grow our assets.
Loop 288 is one of our -- like I said, a legacy commercial corridor.
We want to make sure that we grow it and maintain it.
So this would allow for that.
And then grow for balance.
Once again, MR allows that variety of uses so the development could respond to any changing
conditions or economic trends.
This map just kind of shows what -- broadly what the surrounding uses are.
Yellow, you have your public facilities.
There's a substation that's being constructed here.
Here's that water, waste water, and power plants that have been there for quite a while.
The green shows residential developments.
The blue is kind of office developments, and then red you see commercial.
So the criteria, does it -- do the permitted uses in MR district, are they consistent with
the surrounding development in both use and scale?
Yes.
The typical uses we find on Loop 288 are the offices, the restaurants, retail, and those
uses permitted in MR are consistent with that.
Would it complement -- MR complements this mix of uses and intensities?
And it would be a logical extension of the zoning to the south.
MR is -- or MR in this location is consistent with the purpose statement because it -- the
applicant, first of all, has stated the intent to develop the mix of uses -- a mix of uses
on site, including typical commercial, like restaurant retail, but also entertainment
office and higher density retail -- or residential.
Would it create adverse impacts to the surrounding properties or neighborhood?
The applicant has done a transportation analysis to determine what -- at full about build out
what they think they would like to build out on the site, how many trips that would generate.
So just as -- the numbers they looked at would be 1,000 multifamily dwellings, 259,000 square
feet of shopping, 150,000 square feet of office.
By the ITE manual, this would generate about 19,000 trips within a 24-hour period.
A TIA will be required.
And they have actually already begun talks with engineering, begun the scoping, the limits
of that TIA, what intersections they're going to be looking at, and what interventions would
be required in order to accommodate for these trips.
Just to let you know what the existing conditions are, Shady Oaks is a secondary arterial.
It has four travel lanes and at the intersection it actually widens out.
I believe there are two lanes that turn left onto loop 288, so provides additional capacity
in that area.
And the loop 288 is six lanes, travel lanes, of course, it has the necessary deceleration
lanes where it's needed or protected left turns.
And the intersection of Shady Oaks and loop 288, Moore Street to the east, is the signalized
intersection.
Public water and wastewater are available to the site.
Of course, tap and impact pack fees would be required not only for water and wastewater
but also for roadways.
Public outreach was done.
We haven't received any responses in opposition or in favor.
And so staff recommends approval of the request as it meets the criteria for approval.
And I'll stand for any questions on this one.
Questions?
Commissioner Brack.
Thank you, Chair.
So speaking of the traffic impact analysis, so if we had continued business corridor light
industrial in that area, there would be substantially lower traffic impact going through Shady Oaks
turning at those corridors.
Do we have an idea of the, you know, what 1,000 homes and sort of businesses would have
on the characteristics of especially 288 and Shady Oaks right there?
I wasn't clear if maybe if you could help me understand what -- I mean, I know we're
a little way cart in front of the horse there, but I mean --
Homes?
Like single-family homes?
That's what I thought I read on your slide, 1,000 homes.
Multifamily.
Oh, 1,000 multifamily.
Well, does she still have 800 cars or whatever that's going to be for that multifamily unit?
I could look up before the public hearing what the trips would be for a distribution.
But just remember, this isn't for a specific site plan.
So GEO and LI permit a variety of uses.
It wouldn't necessarily be a distribution center that might produce less traffic, although
it could produce additional truck traffic which could be conflicting with the passenger
cars you typically see on loop 288.
But so, you know, in GEO, it could develop with commercial uses which typically generate
more traffic than would a residential use.
So part of the reason I ask is a couple of meetings ago we were talking about the development
there along Dutchess and the traffic impact and one of our concerns was putting a light
there.
What's the impact?
Will cars slow the flow along 288?
Are people even going to be able -- and we talked about, you know, an entrance lane but
not an exit lane and some other traffic impacts and those on steroids would be coming in if
we put a lot of development in there whereas light industrial wouldn't have that and these
potential impacts are going to be gestalt and impacting each other and there's going
to be a cumulative effect on multiple developments degrading the traffic flow in that region
which won't happen from the government use to the east which will be lighter.
If this remained commercial, light industrial, it would be lighter.
You wouldn't see the kinds of traffic impacts.
So I would actually kind of like if you could ballpark that sort of traffic impact for this
kind of development.
Thank you.
>> Commissioner Bruneau.
>> And I kind of want to kind of echo that because I spent a lot of time in that area.
The traffic at a lot of times a day is terrible already and dropping that kind of, you know,
basically that many family dwellings as well as shopping and everything right there where
it's empty.
Off the top of my head I know that the exit out from the kind of elections building government
complex and everything on Carina.
Actually you can come out from that area and then, you know, go across and turn.
It's extremely dangerous for people coming out there, you know.
And one of the things I'd like to find out is what we have in plans for traffic mitigation
because we'd most likely need a light there or we need to cut off that full exit out,
you know, onto I guess the southbound side of it from Carina because I just can't see
any more traffic into there without it becoming incredibly more dangerous.
>> Well, there is a light here at this location so --
>> Well, I mean, yeah, up there on Morse but, like, yeah, I'm talking about the one right
below it because I often see people kind of doing, you know, white knuckle, you know.
>> And at this stage they haven't done the analysis to figure out where their access
points would be so, you know, all we can look at is what those existing conditions are in
the roadway network right now.
>> Any other questions?
Julie, I have one and I don't know if you have the answer for it.
West of this property, there's a radioactive thing going on.
Do we have an update on where that cleanup is?
I mean, I know it's been quite a legal mess from what I've read.
>> I do.
>> Yeah.
I love that.
>> So -- and thank you.
Yes.
So I did speak with a representative from the Texas Department of Health today.
And yes, there -- let me see if I can get to the property.
Yeah, this shows it.
Okay.
So we're talking about this side here which is about -- I measured it.
It's about 2,000 feet from the western boundary of the subject property.
There is radioactive contamination.
There was, I think, a medical use in this building right here.
According to the Texas Department of Health, they do monitor it.
The cleanup has not been done yet.
But they are pushing that it will be cleaned up at some point in the future.
The contamination is contained inside the building.
And they have not found any evidence of any contamination outside of the property.
And so, you know, if you're not on that property or inside the building, according to the representative
I spoke with today, it would not -- there's not any contamination outside of that.
>> Okay.
Do you know how often they monitor it?
Did they happen to tell you?
>> They did not tell me that.
>> But just on a consistent basis to make sure that that is nothing.
And that's mainly what I wanted to know.
Has there been any seeping out?
Okay.
Thank you for getting that information.
>> Sure.
You bet.
>> Just one quick question following that up.
Thank you, Chair.
Do we -- and this is just an education question.
Do we know what kind of radiologicals were in that facility?
>> I do not know that.
>> Okay.
Sort of -- I mean, did you run across half-life terminology in when you looked up the stuff?
>> No.
>> I don't expect you to be an expert on this.
But you might have run across it in your research.
>> I didn't.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Commissioner Cole.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Isn't that a pharmaceutical grade plant or --
>> It was medical.
>> Medical.
>> Yeah.
>> That's what I read.
I looked up some articles in the Ditmecker Chronicle, and that was my understanding.
>> Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
>> You bet.
>> Okay.
So we'll come back to our public hearing B, I think, if Cindy is here.
>> Okay, Z21 is a
request for approval -- it's not widening out -- there, Z20-0001.
This is a request for approval to rezone 3.46 acres from Residential 2, our two-zoning district,
to the mixed-use and zoning district.
The site is located at the -- along the I-35 service road on the north side and approximately
196 feet northwest of Thunderbird Drive.
To give you a bit of context, this is University right here, and we've got Razor Ranch right
here.
This is a comparison of the current zoning map and the proposed zoning map.
As you can see, the site is zone R2 right now, and it's surrounded by R7, R3, and R6
to the east and the south, and then north, it's got the MN zoning district.
If this is approved, the zoning map reflects the MN zoning district, which would be an
extension of the MN zoning district that is located to the north of the site.
Here we have the concept plan.
It has been a bit refined since the one was drawn that is in your packet.
The concept plan indicates that 50 feet of right-of-way will be taken from the site by
text up when the I-35 widens.
This plan is actually a reflection of two neighborhood meetings that the applicant had
with the surrounding neighborhood.
The neighborhood did not want to have buildings adjacent directly to their property.
They wanted to have a buffer of the parking lot between the buildings.
So we have the parking area here between the building and the residential.
We also have an EMS access gate only here at Colonial.
The neighborhood was concerned about traffic along Colonial, therefore the applicant has
offered to gate Colonial and have it available only for EMS access.
The main access to the site will be from the I-35 service road.
We have general criteria for approval, which I went through in your packet.
I'm going to focus on the zoning criteria for approval in section 272D.
The first is related to the Denton plan.
The site is designated as low residential and it has been this type of low density residential
for many years.
Low density residential is intended for residential neighbors with a density between one to four
dwelling units per acre.
Now the site does not comply with this low residential designation.
If you look at the schematic drawing which I will get to later on for the I-35, the service
road directly adjacent to the residences to the southeast eliminates a buffer.
There used to be a significant buffer here along the I-35 between the residences and
the highway.
That has pretty much disappeared at this point and it's going -- the highway is going to
get even closer once they expand it to the full potential.
It's highly unlikely that large lot single family homes are going to develop along the
I-35 right of way.
For this reason, the MN zoning district that is requested is a better fit for this area.
It will provide a transition and a buffer between the surrounding single family to the
east and the I-35 area and it will just be a better fit for this area.
Criteria two, consistent with relevant small area plans.
Well, there are no small area plans for this location.
Criteria three, consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed district.
The MN district is created to support compatibility between higher density mixed use areas and
residential and commercial areas.
The applicant is proposing an office use and he's proposing some low intensity neighborhood
retail restaurant in the row of offices along the front, specifically these two right here.
The remaining will be offices.
Criteria four, there have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant
a zoning change.
As I mentioned before, I-35, there are plans in place to expand I-35 to its full capacity.
As you can see by the schematic that I took from text.site, the right of way line will
just travel right along here, along the backyards of these homes and then dip down and take
part of this property and all of the remaining property along I-35.
This will bring the service road very close to the area and as I noted earlier, this would
not be appropriate for large scale, large lot residential housing.
The intensity of new development permitted by the requesting zoning district is not expected
to create significantly adverse effects to the surrounding areas.
In working with the neighborhood, the applicant has ensured that there will be low impact
to the area.
With regards to the streets, the applicant's proposal to date Colonial and limit access
to emergency medical services only will help with the impacts on the properties along Colonial.
The site will only be accessed from the I-35 service road.
For water and waste water, it is available in Colonial right now.
No extension of the water or sewer will be required for this.
Parks, this is not a residential use and proximity to parks is not required.
Schools, the subject site is not residential and will not impact the student population.
And fire station, the subject property is approximately 1.2 miles from fire station
number five on Windsor which is within the eight miles or less response time boundary.
Now the applicant in working with the property owners has also proposed an overlay district.
He worked with the applicant on various restrictions on use and the applicant will present that
to you.
I did not have this information when your staff report was written.
We did notify within 200 and 500 feet and we received back notices in response that are
in support of this request as long as the conditions of approval that the applicant
will be presenting are part of the approval.
Now I'm having printer problems.
That's why I wasn't here when you first got to my case.
However, I do have them to give to you.
I just need to access a printer that will print them out properly.
What is it that you have to give to us, Cindy?
Pardon me?
What do you have to give to us?
The responses?
Yes.
I see.
Okay.
Staff is recommending approval of this request.
It conforms with the criteria in section 2.4.5E and section 2.7.2D of the Denton Development
Code.
That concludes my presentation.
So Cindy, I have a question.
Yes.
So the request is a zoning change to MN.
Yes.
But there's really no way to guarantee the neighborhood these protections that you pointed
out, correct?
Like that Colonial would just be the crash gate and that the parking would be such.
I mean, it's a concept plan, so there's not really a guarantee to the neighborhood that
we can do this.
We don't have an instrument to really condition an MN zoning.
The only thing that we can do is approve the restrictions, the overlay restrictions, approve
the zoning for the overlay restrictions that would memorialize the use restrictions and
the gated accesses in that as well.
But we don't have that ability, do we?
In the old DDC, we used to have the mixed use overlay district.
If you recall, prior to maybe a year ago, there were a number of overlay districts that
were put in place, and I think that was a previous determination from legal that council
could -- has the ability to -- I forget the case that that was based off of, but has the
ability to put an overlay zone, further restricting property.
We're not necessarily recommending it.
Certainly if it's something that's being asked to do, it's something council could consider.
But I mean, for us, as the recommending body, I mean, we're really just approving the zoning
change or not the -- because the only way to really do this is a PD from the way I understand
the way our code is, correct?
I think the only way for us to say -- Unless council wanted to kind of, I guess,
step out and authorize the -- Right, and the applicant was informed that
the PD would be the best way to do this, and they wanted to try the overlay.
Okay.
I guess I'm just confused.
So council would have to initialize an overlay?
Correct.
So possibly we could recommend approval if --
Probably consider an overlay restriction.
Okay.
It's very, very strange.
Okay.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
So my first related question is, it falls directly from Commissioner Ellis's, and can we make
that sort of recommendation going forward to council?
Can we say, you know, approve with the condition that council does it with an overlay?
Is that something that -- I haven't heard us do that before, but I've not been here
that long, so -- Commissioner Beck, you could make a recommendation
for the zoning change with the conditions, but has the developer provided those conditions?
Yes.
He will provide them.
That's what the recommendation would be, identifying those specific conditions.
And they're attached -- there's a copy attached to the responses, too.
I just need to get those printed out.
Okay.
And then council, then, in order to have an instrument to -- that we could enforce those
would have to be the initialization of an overlay.
Is that -- am I understanding that correctly?
Right.
It would be something called conditional zoning, where you just attach conditions to the rezoning.
Yeah.
Like we've done before.
Okay.
We used to have -- prior to the 2002 code, we had -- the way we indicated conditional
zoning is we'd have, for example, SF for single family and then a little C next to it to indicate
there were overlay conditions.
Right.
And I definitely understand the past.
I thought we were moving all of that into PDs.
And so I didn't think we had a mechanism for conditional zoning.
So I guess if we still do, that's my confusion, then.
Correct.
There is a new zoning district in the DDC called PD, plan development, but there's also
this what I would like to call common law authority under just our zoning enabling act
that would allow -- So not necessarily built into our code, but that is a --
Right.
That's --
If you so choose to make those conditions part of your recommendation.
Understood.
Okay.
Commissioner Beck.
So a different question.
Can we go back to the concept plan figure?
Sure.
So -- and this is about some of the issues that you brought up with the expansion of
I-35.
I actually don't have a problem with the overall idea of making this MN, but I worry, can we
have that much -- that little of an easement of a buffer between 35 and the building?
I mean, it feels like it's real tight, and I wasn't sure we were allowed to do something
like that, are we?
Well, it's TechStat that's doing it.
Well, so we can do it now based on the conditions now, but I mean, it's foolish of us not to
consider what they've told us they're going to do.
Oh, sure.
And we have -- if you recall, in the landscaping ordinance, we do have a point system, and
part of the point system is a front buffer that they can add 10 feet.
So I mean, is the idea that that's going to be frontage road, or -- I mean, how long do
you understand --
That's going to be service road.
Okay.
I think it's important to note that this is just a concept plan.
They still need to comply with setback requirements.
There's minimum easement requirements.
So that will all get factored in after that right-of-way dedication at that time.
So that's actually why I asked this question, because if the concept plan ends up having
to move back 10 feet, then the parking has to move back 10 feet, the road has to move
back 10 feet, the second row of buildings has to be moved back 10 feet if they're going
to keep something like this layout, and then that gets into this agreement that they discussed
with the neighbors about the buffer parking.
And so I'm concerned that -- I mean, it kind of follows this idea of what can we enforce
if TextDOT ends up causing a thing that dominoes this all backwards.
That's my concern.
I can tell you, I don't believe that we've looked at this plan for compliance with the
zoning regulations.
No.
It's a concept plan.
However, I do know that TextDOT has this in the schematic, and this is how it is shown.
All right.
Thank you.
Sure.
That's why I put it in your packet.
I think the amendment is fine.
I just -- I worry -- we'll see what they can plait and what they can't, I guess.
Any other questions for Cindy?
Okay.
Thank you, Cindy.
You're welcome.
Okay.
I think that gets us through our agenda, so I will close our work session at 618.
We will reconvene at 630 in council chambers.
Good evening.
Thank you for your patience.
Welcome to the City of Denton's planning and zoning meeting for Wednesday, March 4th, 2020.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 646 p.m. Let the record show Chair
Rozell and Commissioner Anderson are absent.
Our first item of business is to stand if able, give the pledge to the U.S. and Texas
flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Okay, before we move through our first item on the agenda for vote, I wanted to clear
up some public hearing items.
Public hearing 5A, as noted on the agenda, will be postponed to 318.
Public hearing item C, that is PD194, villas at Eagle Ridge, I will be looking for a motion
to postpone that to a date certain of March 18th.
Public hearing item D, CA190001, I will be looking for a motion to postpone that to April
8th.
Public hearing E, Z2000002, I will be looking for a motion to postpone that to April 8th.
I wanted to say that up front, so if anyone is in the audience wishing to speak on those
items, they will be looking to be postponed this evening.
Our next order of business would be to consider the approval of the planning and zoning minutes
for February 19th, and the chair will entertain a motion.
Commissioner Smith?
Move to approve.
Commissioner Prunetta?
Second.
Commissioner Prunetta, first and a second for approval, any discussion?
Seeing none, let's call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries 5-0.
Next is our consent agenda.
Chair, Commissioner Beck?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I'd like to make a motion to pull item 3D for individual consideration.
Motion on the floor is to pull item D out of consent for individual consideration.
Commissioner Prunetta?
Second.
Got a first and a second to remove item D from consent agenda to individual consideration.
Any discussion?
Let's call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries 4-1.
Okay, so we've got listed then for consent, looking for a motion, consent A through C.
Commissioner Smith?
Move to approve.
Commissioner Prunetta?
Second.
Got a first and a second to approve consent agenda items A through C. Any discussion?
Let's call for a vote on the board, please.
Motion carries 5-0.
That will move us to that pulled item D. Chair's looking for a motion for item D.
Individual consideration item.
Commissioner Beck?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I motion to deny.
I have grave concerns about the ESA and drainage in Green Corp can't be concerns for this region.
I don't think that they've suitably been addressed by the backup material.
Motion on the floor is to deny the preliminary plat PP190038A.
Commissioner Prunetta?
Second.
Okay.
The motion on the floor.
If I may, under House Bill 3167, there needs to be findings, specific findings, referencing
code sections for both approval and denial of a plat, and so if that is being made, I
would just recommend, and perhaps Cynthia, City Attorney, can provide additional commentary,
but I believe we would have to have a specific reference to a code section for that denial.
That is correct.
I concur.
So the mover, Commissioner Beck, you have to identify specific findings supporting your
motion for denial, this item?
I don't have the ordinances in front of me, and I don't have the specific item numbers,
so I won't be able to cite chapter and verse on that at the moment.
So with that, we do not.
Motion is withdrawn.
Okay, looking for a motion.
Commissioner Smith?
To approve.
Motion to approve.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
Got a first and a second to approve preliminary plat, PP190038A.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote on the board.
3-2, that is a denial of the preliminary plat.
No, my motion was to approve.
Motion was withdrawn, and then I made a motion to approve.
Four votes are needed in order to make a motion.
Got you.
Okay.
Understood.
Okay, that moves us to item 4A on our agenda.
That is FP20003.
I will invite Haley Zygursky down.
Good evening.
This request is a final plat of one lot for the Denton County Emergency Operations Center.
The property is located at the intersection of Karina and Kimberly Drive.
At this time, staff is recommending denial for the reasons that are outlined in your
backup.
However, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension.
Since there's not a meeting that's 30 days out, that would put them back on the March
18th agenda.
And I'm happy to stand for any questions.
I don't see any, Haley.
Thank you.
Chair will entertain a motion for this item.
Commissioner Smith?
I make a motion to approve the extension to March 18th, 2020.
Commissioner Preneta?
I second the motion.
I've got a first and a second to approve the postponement to a date certain, Commissioner
Smith.
Is that correct?
March 18th.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
That moves us to item B, FP 2000-004.
Bring up Julie Wyatt for that one.
The request before you is for a final plot for a residential subdivision of 187 lots
for the phase one of the Townsend Green subdivision.
They currently don't meet the requirements, as noted in your backup, and so staff is recommending
denial.
The applicant, however, has requested a 30-day extension to the March 18th planning and zoning
commission meeting.
Thank you, Julie.
Commissioner Smith?
I make a motion to approve the extension to March 18th, 2020.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second to postpone this item to a date certain of 3/18.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
That brings us to item C, FP 2000-005, and Sean Jacobson will present this item.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.
Similarly, this is a presentation of a requested final plot, lots one and two of the HSW West
Park addition.
This has not met all of the criteria for approval as outlined in your backup.
Staff is recommending denial.
The applicant has requested an extension to March 18th.
Thank you, Sean.
Chair will entertain a motion on this item.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of March 18th, 2020.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
We've got a first and a second for postponement of this item to a date certain of 3/18.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
That moves us into our public hearing section for today's meeting.
As stated, and it is posted on the agenda, item A is being postponed to March 18th.
That will bring us to item B, Z20-0001A, and Cindy Jackson will present this item.
Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners.
Item B, Z20-0001A, is a request to rezone 3.46 acres from residential 2R2 Zoning District
to the Misuse Zoning District MN.
The property is located on the northeast side of I-35, approximately 196 feet northwest of
Thunderbird Drive, which is located here.
And I want to point out, just for context, University Drive is located right down here.
Here you see a comparison of the current zoning map.
The site is surrounded by R7, R3, and R6 to the south and the east and to the north MN.
The proposed zoning map, as you can see, if this is approved, will be an extension of
the MN Zoning District located to the north.
Here's the concept plan that the applicant has provided.
It is a result of two neighborhood meetings with the surrounding neighborhood.
It reflects their desire to have a parking lot as a buffer between the offices and the
residential properties and a crash, excuse me, an emergency access gate at Colonial that
will have EMS access only.
It shows the text out right of way that will be taken from the site, approximately 50 feet
of right of way.
The only access to the site would be from the I-35 service road.
We have general approval criteria for all applications that I went through in your backup
from Section 245E, and we have zoning criteria for approval from Section 272D, and that's
what I will focus on.
The first criteria is the Denton Plan 2030.
The site is designated as low residential, which is intended for residential neighborhoods
with a density of between one to four dwelling units per acre.
The site does not, the request does not comply with this R2 zoning requirement.
If you looked in your backup, you will note that there were two previous requests to rezone
this property, one in 1973 and one in 1993 to office.
These were both denied at the time.
That was appropriate, given the facts of the site.
There was an extensive buffer between the I-35 and the residential area, however, with
the plans to widen the highway to the full extent of right of way and beyond, the expectation
that the site will zone as R2 large lot single family at this point, it is small, it's not
an ideal location to have large lot single family neighborhood.
For this reason, the MN zoning district would be a good alternative for this site.
It will provide a buffer to the surrounding neighborhoods from the I-35 freeway.
Criteria two, consistent with relevant small area plans, there are none for this area.
Criteria three, consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district.
The proposed rezoning is MN and the MN zoning, as I noted previously, is consistent with
the purpose statement.
The applicant intends to develop garden offices and neighborhood retail uses such as small
restaurants.
This will provide a good buffer area between the surrounding single family and the noise
of the highway.
Criteria four, is there having or will be a significant change to warrant the zoning
change?
As mentioned previously, here you can see on the schematic for I-35, this is the subject
site, and you can see that I-35, when expanded, will actually take approximately 50 feet right
away from this, bringing the service road closer to the neighborhood, closer to whatever
will develop on this site.
When the future land use plan was contemplated for this site, we knew that I-35 would be
expanding at some point, but we did not know it would be so soon.
And now we do know that it is coming and the proposed low intensity residential is not
appropriate.
The intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district is not expected
to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding areas.
With regards to streets, the applicant's proposal to gate Colonial and limit access to EMS services
only will lessen traffic along Colonial.
The site will only be accessed on I-35.
There would be minimal impacts to the surrounding street network.
Water and waste water, public water and waste water, is available from Colonial Drive.
There is capacity in the system and there's no need to extend the utilities to the site.
With regards to parks, the proposed use of the site is non-residential and as such, park
proximity is not a condition of approval.
With regards to schools, the subject site is not residential and will not impact the
student population.
Regards to access to fire stations, the subject property is 1.2 miles from fire station number
five on West Windsor Drive within the eight minute or less response time.
The applicant in meeting last week met with the neighborhood again and in working with
the neighborhood, crafted a set of overlay restrictions which restricts use.
I gave you a copy along with the notifications.
It was the lot final sheet on the notifications that I gave you.
The applicant will go into this proposal more.
Notifications were sent out within 200 and 500 feet, a newspaper ad was placed and signs
were posted on the site.
We received four responses in favor of the request.
Three of those responses said their support was conditioned on the approval of the overlay
restrictions that were crafted at the meeting last week.
And two neighborhood meetings were held.
Staff recommends approval of this request as it conforms with the criteria in section
2.45E and section 272D of the Denton Development Code for approval of a zoning change.
That completes my presentation.
And the applicant is present to answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Cindy.
I will open the public hearing for this item.
And Commissioner Beck, Cindy, I believe Commissioner Beck does have a question for you.
>> Yes, thank you.
Did I understand earlier, maybe I'm mixing up your reports, that they had proposed restaurant
in one of the plans?
Do I remember that correctly, or is this- >> They are proposing both offices and
small scale neighborhood retail and restaurant.
And per the overlay district conditions, those commercial and
restaurant uses would only be permitted in these two buildings.
They're restricted from buildings along the residential area.
>> So then, for the conditions that you handed out to us,
staff is okay with these conditions, because I noticed a number of them preclude taverns,
food courts, food processing, and I wonder- >> Commissioner Beck, why don't we hold off
on just a minute since Cindy didn't have those on her presentation, but I do believe the
applicant does.
>> Okay, sure.
>> So why don't we hold back discussion on that?
>> I'd be happy to, thank you, Chair.
>> Any other questions for Cindy?
Okay, thanks, Cindy.
Okay, this is a public hearing.
I do have cards for people to speak.
And the first one will be the applicant, Mr. Lee Allison.
>> Good evening, thank you.
>> Thanks.
>> Let me figure out how to get out of this without closing Julie's program in open arms.
There we go.
I'm in the upper right hand corner.
Super, thank you.
Technologically passed me 20 years ago, so I'm still trying to catch up.
I'm Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group, here to represent the applicant.
We have two members of the applicant's three member team with us this evening, as well
as Greg Johnson, who's with the property owner.
This is known as Corsi 2001, we're naming it the Placid Thunderbird.
We're asking for a rezone from R2 to MN, and we have some proposed limitations.
As I believe Ms. Kirchhoff presented earlier, that even though the overlay conditions in
the code have gone away, there's case law that allows for some conditions to be applied
with this, and we've worked those with the neighbors.
It does not, R2 doesn't allow for office or retail.
That's primarily what our client wants to do.
They are medical doctors.
They plan on building their own office there, and probably offices for other medical doctors.
To be able to accomplish that, we needed to go to an MN mixed use, which allows this and
also allows some general retail and other items.
We had two neighborhood meetings.
The first one was December 19th of 2019.
This was before we even made an application.
We had prepared a concept plan.
We met with the neighbors, primarily to get feedback from them to see what their interests
and concerns may be.
I'm not sure that's the best time of year to have a neighborhood meeting.
I'm afraid some of our announcements might have gone all the way to the North Pole and
not to some of the neighbors, but we did mail them out to 500 feet.
We indicated in that meeting that we would be making an application, and we'd have another
neighborhood meeting to go over our application and what we were presenting and discuss it
further with them.
We did that on February 27th, which was just last week.
One of the concerns that came up was drainage.
I know this is small and difficult to see, but there's a, if you can follow my arrow,
there's a property owner here that they also own this vacant lot.
When this area was developed, it was graded in such a way that this just dumps straight
onto them, goes across the vacant lot and into their backyard and onto the next neighbor
and possibly helps keep their pool full.
I'm not for sure, but it's a real issue.
We pointed out that we are not a contributor to that drainage problem.
For the city codes through the reviews, we will not contribute to it or add to it in
any way, but we would bring it to the city's attention, and we're doing that this evening.
We did look at the area and interestingly found, and we have a suggested option to fix
this for consideration, not for P&Z tonight, but we say we'd bring it to everybody's attention.
There's actually two sidewalk easements indicated by the city website, one along here and one
along this backside, and of course no sidewalks.
We looked at the drainage systems and thought that they could put a sidewalk with a curb
or a flume here, capture this flow, take it out to the street, and stop it from going
this direction.
We have not looked at it in detail.
We're not recommending this as a solution, but we think there is a way to accomplish
this, bring it to the city's attention.
I believe the property owner may be here tonight and speak to how much frustration they've
had trying to get it solved.
At the first meeting, this is the concept plan we had.
The only reason this concept plan was prepared was twofold.
One is for us to do due diligence to see if something could be accomplished like the client
desires and also to help us communicate to the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting
because when you see something like this, it's easier to say, "This is what we do and
don't like or don't want."
At the second neighborhood meeting, we came back with this.
We think it better depicts what's being taken by TxDOT.
I know the buildings are close to the front, but according to the zoning ordinance, our
understanding is you only require a 10-foot front yard.
We laid buildings out.
The buildings got a little smaller along the front because when we did a parking check,
we really couldn't fit as big of buildings as we'd first imagined.
This is closer to what can be done, but it's really not intended to be an attachment or
a part of an ordinance.
It was to help us to find those kind of limitations that we may want to put on this place.
As you can imagine today, these doctors know they want to build one office and they kind
of know what kind of a surrounding they want, but there's no way they can go to the high
level of detail that a PD requires.
The thing to do for them, they thought, was to add some restrictions to this after visiting
with the neighbors.
One thing about this is because of the noise issues, we feel like these buildings along
the front and even the offices in the back will help provide some noise buffer against
the highway that's there today and that's being expanded and widened.
Our understanding is neighbors have been told that TxDOT is not going to build a sound wall
along here, but they're not through with design yet, and I don't think that chapter is closed.
The limitations we're proposing, the general ones, is that the uses adjacent to the eastern
and southern boundary shall be restricted to medical offices, medical clinics, professional
offices, and residential.
All is allowed within MN.
The parking on the east side shall be between the offices and the east boundary to buffer
the existing residential to the east.
We specifically talked about that in the first and second meetings because we said, would
you rather have the buildings back up against your fences or would you rather have the parking
there?
And we were told, keep the parking where it is.
The medical offices, medical clinics, residents, and professional offices along the east and
south side shall be limited to one story.
They didn't even want a two-story house looking back down into their backyard, so this complied
with that.
We talked about having those on the front be limited to one story, but really, by the
timeline of sight, when you look over the top of the one story adjacent to your site,
you're not going to see the second story on the building next door, so we didn't put that
limit.
I'm not sure what will go there, but just by the nature of the site, we don't see anything
tall there.
Access from Colonial Drive shall be restricted to emergency access only.
I will say this is a qualified statement.
Our client, our applicant, we're more than willing to have that restricted for emergency
only, but we have not verified with the emergency services or the traffic engineer that this
can absolutely be done.
We just said we would put it in there, and we're willing to live by that if the city
can say that that can be limited.
We also put some limitations on the uses, specifically no multi-family dwellings, no
chapter house would be like a sorority or fraternity house, no community homes, no dormitories,
no homeless shelters, no bar, tavern, or lounge.
Now, that doesn't mean a restaurant couldn't have a bar in it, but it couldn't be specifically
for a bar as defined in the Denton Development Code.
No mobile food courts, no hotels, I mean, technically this site might be big enough
for a hotel if they came in and took the whole thing.
No automotive fuel sales, so you're not going to get a convenience store with gas pumps
out front.
No food processing, primarily we don't want a rendering plant there, but it doesn't mean
you can't have a bakery, that's not food processing.
And I'm here for questions, I appreciate your time and your professionalism and integrity.
I hope I covered some of the things Cindy didn't maybe, and I'd be glad to respond to
any questions you have now or later after the public hearing, I'm not sure of the appropriate
time.
Thank you, Mr. Allison.
I actually do have a question.
You have a question?
Yes.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Cindy, can I actually ask a question for you in regards to Mr. Allison's presentation?
Two things, first one, in this zoning, what buffering would we have between the residential,
what buffering is required by the zoning between the residential and the commercial uses?
I can look that up for you, I don't have it off the top of my head, I just need to get
rid of my clothes.
Okay, I'm going to ask this other question, are liquor stores allowed in the MN?
Pardon me?
Are liquor stores allowed in the mixed use area?
Liquor stores are classified as retail, so what they have to do is they have to require
with the TABC rules for distances from various uses.
Various uses being schools, churches, those kinds of things, which none are in that area,
not close enough.
So yes, technically a liquor store could be included within this.
As long as there's no church there that I am not aware of.
Understood.
Okay, all right, thank you, appreciate it.
And I did want to point out that I did verify with the fire department about the gated access
and they are good with the gated access as long as the gated is a certain width.
Good, good.
All right, Mr. Allison, can I speak to you and maybe you can speak on behalf of the applicant?
Would you care if we added liquor stores as being a limitation on that or Cindy, you maybe
may have to come back down and speak to it, but since it's a retail use, taking liquor
stores out of there as well?
Just falling into the same idea of bar, taverns, lounges, those kinds of ideas?
That would be okay.
Okay, thank you.
Good feedback I'm getting.
Also, I understand that Greg Johnson was listed on our applicant list, so he needs to speak
as part of the applicant, not as a lady.
Fine, I guess.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Greg Johnson, 319 West Oak Street.
I just thought I would give you a little bit of color of the site outside of the engineering
piece.
So, I represent the Porter family, the Porter family owns the land, we've had that land
for sale for about six years, we've had seven hotel offers, we've had a variety of uses
that were interested, as many of you know, the Porter family, very benevolent, very involved
family in the community, and they weren't even willing to go down the path of trying
to get an approval for a hotel, because they didn't think that would be a good use that
close to the neighborhood.
When the doctors contacted our firm, they actually contacted us about a different site
that we weren't able to meet their needs with.
So maybe to clarify a little bit of what Ms. Jackson said, there is no plan to do retail
or restaurant.
Essentially, they're buying three and a half acres, they're going to go build their own
building first, and probably one other building for another medical office tenant, not knowing
what they'll do with the rest of the land down the road.
So the idea would be as additional users come, they would try to figure out how to develop
it out.
So this will most likely be an office development, it's mid-block on a one-way access road,
drivers don't go there, restaurants don't go there, I mean Cracker Barrel is like the
one restaurant in the world that will go on a one-way access road.
And my advice to them was, since you don't know what's ever going to happen with the
front up there, they were very fine with agreeing to one-story office-only uses abutting the
residential homes.
If you look at that site after the TxDOT right-of-way taking, there's actually not much room to build
anything up there, so I would be surprised if retail or restaurant would ever go, but
if it did, you'd have to park it, so it presents a real challenge of being able to fit.
I asked them, or somebody asked at the neighborhood meeting, "Well, why don't you just restrict
the whole site to office?"
Well, there's a lot of sites in the city that 10 years ago, 15 years ago, we would've said
nothing will ever go there but a single-family home, and as our city has grown, well it does
front I-35 with 120,000 cars a day.
So there's not many up there that far north yet, but they're coming.
So I would just say my advice to them was, you're going single-story medical office and
office-only adjacent to residential, leaves you a small piece up in the front that could
be, who knows, some sort of a residential, what I call residential services, right, veterinarian,
Edward Jones person, whatever, sorry.
So I just wanted to offer a little bit of color on that, that they're not intending
to do retail or restaurant.
I don't see it ever happening there, but there could be a small cafe or something that will
go on that northern side at some point down the road.
So not knowing what would ever happen, they didn't want to limit themselves to office
only.
Any questions?
Yes, Mr. Johnson.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
So this is probably more of a city.
There's nothing about the overlay conditions that the applicant gave us that would preclude
the development of light eateries in those first two, in that first line right off the
highway.
Is there something?
There's nothing in the conditions that would preclude that.
That would be okay.
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear the first part.
So the parts of the property adjacent to where the highway is, there's nothing in these conditions
that would preclude the eatery or light retail or any of the things that he just discussed.
I was just concerned, like the applicant mentioned earlier, bar tavern preclude wouldn't preclude
a restaurant.
No, wouldn't preclude a restaurant.
That was my only question.
Thank you, Cindy.
Sure.
And just real quick, in response to your question about the buffers, there's a minimum 15-foot
buffer required between commercial and single family.
But no actual structure, no shrubbery?
Well, again, we've got the point system.
And so they have a list of things they can go through to get a total of the required
points for the buffer.
Mr. Alison, can I ask you a question?
Just in your experience in engineering, you've presented up in front of this commission that
it seems like most of the developments you bring, you recommend as an engineer some sort
of buffer when there is commercial budding residential.
I know that's not binding, and even the plan you gave us is conceptual because it's a zoning
issue, but would you see that possibly there would be some sort of actual physical buffering,
whether it's shrubbery or it's masonry, whatever it is, between the parking lot and the residential,
or is the parking lot just going to butt up against their wooden fences?
A couple of things.
According to the code, as Cindy mentioned, there will be a buffer along here and one
here.
I believe the minimum width is 10 feet, but there's a number of shrubs, et cetera, and
trees that have to go in there.
One of the issues with this one is a power line along here, so there are a list of trees
that can go adjacent to a power line, but not the real tall ones.
We'd mentioned to one of the neighbors about fences, but they said they don't have a fence,
and we certainly would put a fence in that area, which gives us so many points towards
our buffering, so it works to our advantage.
I do want to mention that, as Mr. Beck had asked about restaurants, about the only two
buildings that could be restaurant, retail, commercial, or at least is this area here.
Because of the limitations, all of these buildings on the east and south adjacent to these residential
homes are limited to the office-type uses, and even then, a medical office is going to
have to have a buffer, just like a restaurant, or not a liquor store.
Apparently, we're getting rid of that, but any other thing, I hope I didn't prolong the
answer here, but anything else?
Mr. Ellison, can you put the slide for the limitations, the proposed limitations, up
there, please?
These are the general, and these are the identified uses that are prohibited.
Everything else in MN is still allowed there.
Okay.
Thank you.
I don't see any other questions at this time.
Okay.
Thank you.
I do have some other cards.
People wishing to speak.
I have Craig Williams will be speaking in support.
Good evening.
You'll state your name and address, and your time will begin.
It's Craig Williams, 2119 Glen Garden Street.
Thank you.
I am in support of this.
If you'll move closer to the mic, please.
Thank you.
I am in support of this, provided that these limitations are met and agreed upon.
I did want to bring up, I was going to bring up the drainage again.
I'm the house with the pool that doesn't get filled, which it did, in a way, and saved
me on the water bill.
Ever since the development north of us had gone in, and in fact, I came down and spoke
to this meeting in 2008 when the land adjacent to that was made in an MN, what is now MN,
proposed, or had, I guess, objections and wanted to bring up the drainage on that.
We should probably put in a very small berm, like very small, that lasted a few years,
and that is since gone.
The easement that was spoken about earlier was where that berm was.
That berm is gone, so now whenever it rains, you know how around here it's feast or famine,
so when we have some pretty good rains and it tends to flow into the Scots, which is
the neighbors of the ones directly north of me, flows through their backyard, under their
fence, into my backyard, and then I think it goes down my driveway back to the street.
What I took from the meeting was that the developers, you know, they're not, you know,
they can't be wrong, they're not responsible for the drainage, so I understand that, but
I wanted to bring this up to your attention again that we've been having this issue since
2008, roughly, and I've, you know, in that meantime I have spent a couple thousand dollars
to raise my patio, I've spent a couple thousand dollars to put a French drain into my backyard
so that I could drain the excess water out into the street, but they're still pooling
and washing and it's, you know, it washes around my pool, it washes it out, and I've
had to, you know, I've had to, some expenditure to put dirt back under there and pack it in,
so that's really what I wanted to bring forward today.
You know, I appreciate the developer, they've been very nice and accommodating as much as
they can.
I understand I would wish that nothing would ever go on this land, but that's a pipe dream.
I've lived in this house since 2002, and to think that I would have gone until 2020 before
something was developed back there, I wouldn't have taken that bet.
I have some pictures to show, if you want to look at them, but if you understand the,
you know, what we're trying to talk about with the drainage.
I think in the meeting back in 2008, they, I don't know if it was this or the city council
meeting, I can't remember, but they had engineers, you know, we had the city engineers out and
they said, "Oh no, it drains to the road," and maybe the, you know, the topographical
maps show that, but it does not.
You know, so I, you know, if you ever need to see that picture's evidence of the fact
that it does not drain, you know, maybe some of it does, but a lot of it goes into our
backyards.
But if anything can be done on that, because once this is developed, it's done, you know,
and if there's something that can be done before that, that would be appreciated.
All right, that's all I have.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
We do have a question for you.
Commissioner Beck.
This is in relationship, thank you, Chair, to what the speaker was just saying.
If this is not the appropriate venue for this developer to address the drainage issue, maybe
Richard could suggest the appropriate venue that the speaker could use to direct his concerns
about drainage?
I think offline we'll have staff get in contact with you, and we'll look at that.
Of course, we'll look at it when this, if it is approved, then we'll come in for platting.
But I think in the meantime, what we can do is just find out what's going on and get you
an answer.
Thank you, Richard.
Thank you.
I do have another card wishing to speak, Rose Scott, and is undecided, according to the
author of this card.
If you'll state your name and address, your time will begin.
Rose Scott, 2123 Glen Garden, and I have lived in that house since 1981.
We never had water problems until the development in 2008.
We have had many email exchanges and conversations with Denton City engineers, and nothing has
been done.
Well, that's not true.
They put in a little thing about 12 inches tall called environmental netting that was
up there, and they dug a little trench about as deep as this pencil, and within a very
short amount of time, that little ditch was filled, the environmental netting stayed there
until it rotted, and in the meantime, water was running down that property and into our,
running down the vacant lot, which is ours.
It's a maintained lot, but there's no structure on it.
We have folders of information and discussions with city managers.
We've been through several.
We're still there, they're gone, and in the meantime, this last week, we were sweeping
water out of our garage.
Now, my brother came, has an engineering firm in Dallas, came with another engineer that
he calls his dirt doctor.
I'm not sure what his engineering degree is, but he's a dirt doctor according to them,
and when he saw what the city had done to correct this, he laughed and said, "Is this
a joke?"
I said, "Well, it evidently was cheap.
It's ineffectual, but it didn't cost the city much money."
In fact, thank you, Mr. Allison, for having spoken to this drainage issue because that's
the most conversation about it I've ever heard, and he's not even a city employee.
With the overlay, as we have discussed, I would think that this is probably as wise
a usage as we're going to get from this property behind us.
Our four concerns were initially that drainage, light pollution, noise pollution, and privacy
concerns, as long as they're not putting up a post with stadium lighting up there.
It's probably going to be all right as we're talking about the businesses that abut us
would be probably eight to five days a week, which is probably about as good as we're going
to get.
As I said, with the overlay of restrictions, this is probably going to be fine.
I like the idea of the buffer in the back for both the noise and the privacy.
We appreciate your hearing our concerns, and I thank you for it.
Thank you for coming to speak.
Next person is Jennifer Walters.
Ms. Walters, I bet you know the drill of what you need to do next.
I do, thank you.
You know, when you're 25 and you fall, you just jump right up and, hey, you don't think
about it.
But when you're my age and you fall, it's like, oh my God, never going to move again.
My name is Jennifer Walters.
I live at 2105 Colonial, and our house is right next to where this property is.
Before we bought this house about 30 years ago, I did my homework, and it was listed
as a residential property next to ours, and so we felt confident at that time that some
really nice neighborhood would be going in there.
30-some years later, we have come to the realization that that is not going to happen.
There's probably not going to be any homes there, and so we didn't receive a notice for
the first neighborhood meeting, but we did attend the one last week, and it was very
well put together.
The presentation was very well done, and we were pleased to see that it was going to be
the medical buildings and that they were limited to those that use right next to our house.
And so we figured, as has been stated, that that's probably the best we're going to get.
I think it's a good use next to the residential area there, and so we were in favor of the
proposal with those conditions that have been noted.
And I'll stand for any questions.
I do not see any.
Okay.
Thank you for coming to speak to us.
Thanks.
I don't have any other cards wishing to speak, but this is a public hearing, so if you are
wishing to speak, you can come up to the mic.
I do have one other card in my hand, not wishing to speak, but is in support, and that's Brian
Paffem at 2111 Glenn Garden is in support as presented in the concept plan.
Okay.
Anybody else wishing to speak?
Seeing none.
I'll close the public hearing on this item and entertain motion or discussion.
Commissioner Smith.
I make a motion to approve with the applicant's recommendations and limitations, but only
adding at the very end, and I'm going to list this out loud for the record, the specific
limitations of not allowing and prohibiting multifamily dwelling, chapter house, community
home, dormitory, homeless shelter, bar, tavern, lounges, mobile food courts, hotels, automotive
fuel sales, food processing, and then adding liquor stores as my motion.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Okay, so we have a motion and a second to approve the zoning request with the conditions
presented adding liquor stores to specific limitations.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries 5-0.
Congratulations.
That will move us to public hearing item C, PD190004.
The applicant has requested a postponement to a date certain of 3 and 18.
Chair will entertain a motion for that.
Commissioner Smith.
Do we need to open the public hearing or we just make the motion?
We do not.
Okay, good.
Yes, I'll make a motion to postpone to date certain of March 18th, 2020.
Mr. Pernetta.
I second the motion.
We've got a first and a second to postpone this item to a date certain March 18th.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
That takes us to our next public hearing item CA190001.
That applicant has requested a motion to postpone to a date certain of April 8th.
Commissioner Smith.
Motion to postpone to a date certain of April 8th.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Got a first and a second to postpone this item to April 8th.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries 5-0.
Public hearing item Z20002.
That applicant has requested a motion to postpone to April 8th.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to postpone to a date certain of April 8th.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Got a first and a second to postpone this item to April 8th.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to our planning and zoning commission project matrix.
At this time, I guess I'll turn it over to Richard to start.
I don't have anything to add at this point to the updates with respect to the matrix.
I just did want to provide a quick update with respect to last night's city council
meeting relative to the applications that were recommended by the body here.
The alternate ESA, if you recall, for Fisher 59, that was approved last night.
As was the ESA language, the ESA plat where those -- we had removed the language where
those were sort of decoupled, that was approved last night.
Those were the two rezonings, the first being the rezoning for the Yale law office to correct
that parking lot.
So now that that rezoning is done, the next phase will be for them to plat that property.
So we'll probably be seeing that -- actually, maybe not, it'll probably be a minor plat.
So maybe or may not see that minor plat, but then they will still have to meet the code
standards for -- to come into compliance with the development standards with respect to
parking lot.
The other rezoning that was approved was the Cambridge brook rezoning that rezoned out
of the PD to R6 just off of Bonnie Bray, and so it was also approved last night.
Commissioner Beck.
Yes, thank you.
Richard, so the public has come to me and had questions about exemptions of our residential
code for wildflower development, as well as food vegetation, and they were unsure of what
we allow and what mechanisms we have for approving alternatives to code enforcement for wildflowers
and for food vegetation, and so, A, could you maybe quickly say what we're allowed to
do, and then, B, I'd like to maybe explore maybe a staff report or something, if the
Dias approves of getting that on the matrix, of looking into what sort of mechanisms would
allow those.
Just offhand, I do know as part of the -- now, with respect to an individual single-family
home, I've got to look into it with respect to the wildflower.
I do know when we updated the landscape and tree preservation standards, because we are
a monarch butterfly city, we do allow -- that was something, if you recall, we put into
the landscape table to allow for that, which obviously would include wildflowers.
I have to look at just how that applies to an individual lot that's not necessarily going
through a landscape approval.
I need to look into that and make sure that there isn't a disconnect between that and
what's in the property maintenance standards that's not part of the development code.
The other was the food production.
I do know that when we had the discussion as part of the DDC update, there was a use
that we have in the table, and I'll provide a written response to everybody, but just
sort of off the top of my head, we had a discussion about what is an urban farm, and there was
a number of concerns that this would prohibit individuals from having a garden, and we made
it very clear that that was not -- that would not prohibit somebody from planting tomatoes,
whatever it is that they wish to plant, but again, I'll provide a written response.
I could probably do that sooner than later, and if not and if there's something missing
or we identify a lapse, we will be coming back in the next month, month and a half,
with some work sessions on some updates to the DDC, and so these updates are really -- it's
almost been in effect for a year, and so now we're sort of -- there's going to be some
cleanup items, so if this is something we need to address as part of that, we can certainly
include that, but I'll provide it.
To provide some clarity into the public questions that I received, they were specifically, I
think, wanting to replace landscaping, vegetation with -- I'm using weird terms, but food, crop,
vegetation for their landscaping instead of regular ornamental landscaping, but it would
still be landscaping in order to sort of have a "greener environment" in their landscaping,
so that was the direction of the public request, so I don't know how that will incorporate
into your report that you're looking up, but just to provide some clarity on the public
request.
I'll provide a response.
I know, and again, I just don't recall off the top of my head, I thought we had eliminated
the requirement for sod, I know we had that discussion as part of the DDC update, I just
don't remember off the top of my head, but then I need to also look at the property maintenance
standards that aren't part of the DDC to make sure there's not that inconsistency, but I
see where your "thank you" question is.
Anybody else for the matrix, besides me?
A couple of things.
I guess if we could be sure that the drainage issues from -- at least gets addressed by
someone in the city with what's going on there, that would be great.
Also if I could request maybe an upcoming work session to further understand how we
want to go forward with overlay conditions, I know, you know, we certainly had a lot of
discussion about that in the past, especially with the new code about how we were not going
to do that, but if it is going to be something that we want to focus on maybe doing, I definitely
think we need to talk about that and figure out where staff is on that.
And then let's have sooner than later a work session regard to the approval of plats, preliminary
plats and final plats, so we know where we stand as a commission since we are the final
body in that vote, I definitely think we need a work session on that.
Anybody else?
I'll commit, I know sooner than later, we'll try to work together with the city attorney's
office if not the next meeting after.
Great.
Thank you.
Anybody else for the matrix?
Okay.
Any concluding items?
Okay.
Seeing none, I will close our meeting at 7 44 p.m.
Thank you, everyone.