>> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning commission
work session for Wednesday, May 20th, 2020.
I'll call this meeting to order at 532, seeing that we do have a quorum.
On our work session for this evening, we will just be going over the agenda, we'll walk
through the agenda.
There's no reports to go through tonight, so the first thing we have is the consideration
of our minutes.
Does anyone need to add or edit anything to the May 6th minutes?
Seeing none, we'll go into items for individual consideration.
Item 2A is being postponed to a date certain of June 3rd, or rather, I will ask for a motion
for that item to be postponed to a date certain of June 3rd.
There's nothing to talk about that, that item's just getting pushed, which moves us to item
2B, ADP 20-0009.
And if Julie Wyatt's hanging around, I'll invite her for a presentation on the item.
>> Did Commissioner Beck have a question?
>> Yes, thank you.
>> I was just curious, that was an applicant requesting postponement for 2A?
>> Staff is requesting that it be postponed, to continue to work through issues with the
applicant.
>> Thank you.
>> Yep.
>> Good evening, commissioners, it's Julie Wyatt.
I am going to share my screen now to get my presentation up.
All right, we've combined all the presentations, so let me zoom down to mine.
All right, here we go.
So the request before you is for ADP 29 Smith Street Apartments.
The request is for an alternative development plan, excuse me, for a multifamily development
on about half an acre.
The purpose is to deviate from sub-chapter 13 requirements in the 2002 debt and development
code for multifamily developments.
So as you're aware, we transitioned to the 2019 code last October.
Due to this project's timing, it is subject to the 2002 regulations.
And both in the 2002 and 2019 regulations, multifamily is a permitted use.
About the 2002, it was DCG was the zoning, and the current zoning is MN.
So you're probably familiar with the general area.
The site is outlined in yellow.
It is on the north side of Smith Street, just west of Dallas Drive.
This is kind of an emerging redevelopment area of the city.
And it makes sense why that emergence is happening.
When you look at where it's positioned within the city, it's about a quarter mile from the
central business district as the crow flies.
It's about a quarter mile from a UNT transit stop to the south.
And then it's also about a tenth of a mile from a DCTA stop.
So there's lots of transit options, as well as pretty close to some of the activity hubs
within the city.
And we've had a couple of projects that have come forward recently.
Just adjacent near the property, there is a multifamily development that has actually
gone vertical, and it's moving forward.
And then you probably recall the Haven at Doherty project.
There was an ADP for that one that you saw, and that one will be moving forward soon.
So there is some redevelopment going on within the area.
They have provided the site plan, and we've reviewed it.
Apart from the deviations that they're requesting, it meets all subchapter 13 requirements.
But let's go a little bit more into what they're requesting.
So there are three deviations they're requesting first.
The provision is that at least 50% of the front yard frontage should have buildings
within 20 feet of the front property line.
The property is kind of a narrow lot.
It has 122 linear feet of frontage, which would require 61 feet of buildings within
20 feet of that front property line.
However, the entire frontage of this site is encumbered with a variable width electric
easement so that they are set back 24 feet from that property line.
The second provision, the wall area of the front facade must have at least 25% windows
and doors.
They're proposing 19%, which fits with the architectural theming of the building.
Additionally, the building does provide a lot of color and texture, a lot of variation
in the building, providing visual interest and transparency into the building.
And then finally, the last one is buildings shall be directly accessed from the street
and sidewalk.
A minimum of one ground floor entrance must be oriented toward the street and include
a porch.
Once again, due to that easement, it really prevents putting a porch in that area.
However, they have within the stairwell screening element provided an entrance structure integrated
within there.
And that really does provide a sense of arrival for the residents and visitors, and that's
also connected to the sidewalk with the pedestrian path.
So it really does meet the intent.
We'll go over more specifically what the site plan shows.
So this is kind of a zoomed in part of the site plan that's adjacent to the street.
The building is outlined there in green.
You can see it has the 42 and a half feet of frontage.
Once again, that lot is 122 feet wide.
That variable width easement, you can see the blue line.
It is on the east side of the property, 20 feet, and then on the west side of the property,
it goes up to 30 feet.
So it really runs in a diagonal line across the frontage.
They're also proposing a 26-foot fire lane on the site that allows emergency vehicles
to adequately get into the site and to provide services if needed.
And then here is the front elevation for the building.
Once again, they're providing that total 19% opening with the four large windows per
floor.
What their intent is is to balance those transparency needs with the privacy for future residents,
to make sure that those two things are balanced while still providing that relationship to
the street.
Their proposed design, they've got a strong architectural point of view on their building,
and that building does provide a lot of variety, both in color and texture.
It's not just a blank wall that somebody would walk past.
Additionally, that architectural screening element, you can see it here, does provide
that nice gateway entrance for residents to provide, once again, that sense of arrival
and it is connected to the right-of-way.
The criteria for approval are in subchapter 13 of the 2002 code.
There are five of them.
We'll go over them briefly.
First, preserve existing neighborhoods.
This proposal is in that redeveloping area of the city.
The proposed use will complement that mix of uses.
There is a mix of residential, multifamily, large multifamily, and even some industrial
in that area.
So it'll provide that needed density near our downtown area.
Will assure quality development.
This request is not intended to lower design standards, but would facilitate development
of a site that is an infill site.
These sites can be really constrained in somewhat interesting ways.
For instance, in this one, you've got that easement.
You've got the narrow lot.
So sometimes you have to work with the constraints within these infill areas.
Apart from this request, it would meet all other subchapter 13 requirements.
Focus new development to activity centers.
Once again, this is urban infill, so it would not contribute to sprawl.
There is necessary infrastructure available to the site, and as we discussed earlier,
it's also near transit.
And then does it result in a high quality of development meeting the intent of the standards?
So we'll go over each of those requests one by one and just kind of talk a little bit
through that.
So the first one is that 50% of the front yard frontage should have the buildings within
20 feet of the front property line.
This intent really is to enclose the public space to make places more interesting to walk
around.
In this case, the easement does prevent situating that building closer to the street.
And further, that 26 foot fire lane also constricts the site.
We want to make sure that emergency vehicles do have adequate access.
But with their design, with the additional -- with the architecture of the building,
it does create that vibrancy in the street, and it will serve to meet that intent.
Does it result in a high quality development -- oh, I'm sorry -- the 25% windows and doors,
they're providing 19%, you know, and what they're trying to do is balance that transparency
to make sure that there is -- that there is -- once again, it's a visually interesting
building from the street, but without compromising the resident privacy.
We feel like their proposal meets the intent based upon their building elevation.
And then finally, the building access and front porch.
That entrance structure is integrated in the stairwell screening.
And there is that pedestrian pass.
So it does meet the intent of that building access.
And it does provide that sense of arrival.
Once again, there is still that easement that they have to contend with when you're looking
at a porch.
So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval.
And I will answer any questions.
And I believe the applicant is also available to answer questions and is going to make a
short presentation.
>> Any questions for Julie on this item?
I'm going to wait for Matt's screen.
Matt, do you have any questions, Christian Pernetta?
Okay.
Julie, I appreciate the presentation.
Thank you.
>> Sure.
>> The next item for our work session is moving into public hearings.
The first item is item 3A, FR19-0016.
And this is Cindy Jackson's item.
And I believe she is calling in this evening for presentation.
>> Thank you.
Can you hear me?
>> We can.
>> Super.
Okay.
Now, they're going to be running my PowerPoint from City Hall, so I'm just waiting for them
to pull it up.
>> We're ready to go.
>> Fr16-0016, the Vista Verde addition is a request for approval of a residential replat
of lot 1279 and lot 1X27X, block A, of the Vista Verde addition, excuse me, being a replat
of a remainder of lot 56, block A, of the Oaks of Township 2.
The approximately 8.882 acre site is generally located on the southwest side of Colorado
Boulevard, 315 feet northwest of San Jacinto Boulevard.
For the Texas local government code, a public hearing is required for a residential replat,
which requires written notices sent out to property owners within the original subdivision
and property owners located within 200 feet of the subject site.
And next slide, please.
On May 1, 2018, the City Council approved a request to rezone the subject site to NRMU
12 with mixed-use overlay protection district, including the following conditions.
There shall be no uses permitted other than single-family attached dwelling units, including
townhomes or single-family detached dwelling units.
The overall density shall not exceed 10 dwelling units per acre.
Buildings which are contiguous to the residential neighborhoods shall have a maximum height of
2 stories.
Installation of an 8-foot tall fence is required along adjacent properties.
The City Council also required the provision of two access points to the site from Colorado
Boulevard as shown on the plaque.
The proposed plaque conforms with requirements A and B regarding the density and the two
points of access from Colorado Boulevard.
The remainder of those requirements will be enforced during the building permit phase
of development.
Next slide, please.
This is the plaque, the proposed plaque.
The applicant intends to develop the site as a gated community of 79 single-family attached
houses comprised of 26 townhomes and 53 single-family homes in which the garages will share a common
wall.
The plaque includes seven open space lots, which include the private street system and
an amenity center.
The proposed site is intended to be a gated rental home community.
This is the original plaque of the Oaks of Township.
Next slide, please.
And you can see lot 56 originally was very large, went along San Jacinto and Colorado,
and it was platted in January 1985.
Next slide, please.
Phase 1 of the Villas of Piney Creek, platted in October '95, took up approximately half
of lot 56, as you can see here, leaving a remainder.
That remainder is the subject site and is proposed as the Vista Verde addition.
Originally this was supposed to be developed as phase 2 of the Villas of Piney Creek, however,
that did not occur.
We sent out public notices as required.
We received four responses back in opposition, which comprised 3.54% of the area within the
200-foot buffer, and we received one in favor, which comprises 19.11% of the property in
the 200-foot boundary, and we received one that was neutral in response.
The applicant has since contacted the person that says she was neutral and answers her
questions.
He is here to talk tonight, so he will probably bring that up in his presentation.
Staff recommends approval of this request as it meets the established requirements,
and that concludes my presentation.
>> Thank you very much, Cindy.
Is there any questions for Cindy on this item?
I do not see -- oh, Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Cindy, I assume most of the responses were more out of confusion than anything else.
I know I got a couple of phone calls on this wondering if any of those overlay conditions
had to do with what we were going over today.
Is that -- am I understanding that correctly?
Did you speak to all of the people who -- >> I spoke to them, and some of them -- I assured
all of them that the overlay is still in place, which they didn't realize, and I assured them
that there was no commercial development that was planned for this site.
I left a voicemail for a couple and didn't receive any calls back, but I know the applicant
has also reached out to them as well.
>> Perfect.
Thank you.
Any other questions for Cindy?
>> Commissioners, if I can just add, this is -- I'm not sure if Cindy had mentioned
it at the beginning of her presentation.
This plat is being reviewed under the old DDC.
I don't know if you caught some of those references or as part of the analysis in the backup.
So this was sort of a pre-shot clock of three other changes.
So this is being reviewed under the old DDC.
There was a change in this last legislative session where residential replats, the only
time there's a public hearing is if -- and the notice goes out in advance, is if there
is a variance associated with it, otherwise the notice goes after the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
So just wanted to reference that.
>> Thank you for that, Richard.
Seeing other questions, we will go to item 3B, PD-19-005C, which is also Cindy's item.
>> Okay.
Okay, PD-19-0005, this is a request for a zoning change on 11.53 acres from a planned
development mixed-use regional PDMR district and on .88 acres from mixed-use neighborhood
MN district to a planned development district to facilitate the development of seven lots
with restaurant and commercial uses.
This site is generally located on the southwest side of I-35E service road at the intersection
of Buckees Boulevard and the service road.
Next slide, please.
The current zoning, as you can see, is PDMR and MN.
And the proposed zoning map, you will see that it will be straight PD if this is approved.
Next slide, please.
This site has a considerable zoning history.
On July 15th, 2008, this site was actually rezoned from RCR 1 to regional center commercial
downtown, RCCD, for mixed-use development with the following overlay conditions, a 50-foot
landscape buffer is required, including at the existing pond abutting the residential
districts -- excuse me, districts to the west and to the south with the right to install
a walking trail and other complementary hardscape around the existing pond, including the area
within the 50-foot buffer in connection with the pedestrian easement.
No building within 100 feet of the -- is permitted within 100 feet of the residential developments
to the west and south of the subject property in excess of 40 feet in height.
The owner of the subject property will not remove the existing pond along the western
boundary of the subject property abutting the south ridge estate.
The owner of the subject property or its designee will erect at its expense an 8-foot iron fence
with finials for the benefit of the homes to the west of the subject property, which
are directly across from adjacent to the aforementioned pond.
All of the conditions of this overlay were fulfilled with the development of the Buckees
store and gas station.
Next slide, please.
At the time Buckees site plan was approved in October 2017, a master site plan for the
entire site was approved, as you can see here.
The site was designed to provide a substantial landscape area in the rear of the property
to buffer the residences located to the south and southeast of the site.
The more intense commercial areas were pushed forward to the front of the property along
the I-35E corridor to minimize potential impacts between these commercial areas and the adjacent
residential areas.
A master phasing plan requested by staff at that time was also approved at the staff level.
This included conceptual site layout for the seven remaining lots that are along the I-35
corridor and are the subject of tonight's rezoning.
The development standards for this development were based on the RCC district standards as
well as the open space landscaping requirements and parking requirements in the 2002 development
code.
As part of the master phasing plan, prior staff had the applicant include the zoning
standards applicable to the site, which were graded accordingly to create the pad slides
for the development as plotted.
Next slide, please.
The applicant is proposing to use the 2017 master phasing plan as the PD phasing plan.
The plan shows planned and existing connectivity to the I-35 service road.
Access to existing pad sites will be from Nugget Way.
Prior to the development of phase two and the adjacent driveway that is in the northern
part of the property, excuse me, adjacent to the Goodwill building, an alternate ESA
will have to be approved in order to broach the ESA for the driveway and the extension
of Nugget Way.
Next slide, please.
As a result of the DDC update, the 38.445 acres zoned RCCD dash overlay transitioned
to PD mixed use regional MR and 80.89 acres transitioned to mixed use neighborhood MN.
While not originally zoned as a PD, properties with the zoning overlay were transitioned
to a dashed PD.
The dash adds the underlying zoning district while maintaining any conditions and restrictions
that were included as part of the zoning overlay.
The most significant changes as a result of the zoning transition were the landscape standards,
which increased from 10% to 25%, and tree canopy, which increased from 20% to 30%.
The proposed PD standards restore some of the RCCD standards originally used to design
the site.
Major deviations from the existing standards are the minimum lot size has increased from
zero to 2,500 square feet.
Minimum landscaped area is reduced by 15% to the original 10% it was designed under.
Major changes from the MN standards, the front yard setback has been increased by 10 feet.
The minimum landscaped area reduced by 10%, and the minimum tree canopy coverage is reduced
by 10%.
Any standards not addressed by the PD must comply with the underlying MR zoning district
standards.
Next slide, please.
These are the proposed PD parking standards.
For the most part, these are the parking standards in place prior to the approval of the new
DDC last year.
The only unique parking standard is number four, or sit down restaurants.
The standard gives a range between a minimum of one space per 100 square feet gross floor
area to one space per 40 feet gross floor area.
Any other parking standards which are not addressed by the PD regulations must comply
with section 7.9 and table 7.9-I of the 2019 DDC.
Next slide, please.
We have general criteria for approval of all applications in section 2.4.5E, and the site
does comply with those as noted in your backup, so I won't go into detail on those.
We also have six criteria for approval of a planned development in section 2.7.3D, and
I will go into those in more detail.
Criteria one, Denton Plan 2030, the site is designated regional mixed use.
The designation applies to areas located along the I-35 interchanges and primary arterials
to encourage the greatest regional accessibility.
Allowable uses may include national retailers and restaurants.
Proposed PD is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan.
Next slide, please.
Criteria two, complies with the DDC.
The proposal would be consistent with the PD development plan map which I referenced
earlier, PD development standards, and the MR district standards.
Criteria three, provides greater building design, amenities, and connectivity.
The PD would encourage a unified development standard consistent with the scale and uses
typically found on highway corridors and within regional mixed use centers.
Criteria four, residential uses.
There are no residential uses proposed, so this is not applicable.
For criteria five, non-residential uses, appropriate area, location, and planning, the proposed
development of restaurants and commercial businesses is consistent with the type of
commercial development typically found along an interstate highway.
Next slide.
Criteria six, provision of public facilities to support development.
First one, schools, this is not applicable since this is not a residential development.
Fire, the subject site is located within the eight minute or less response time to fire
station number six, located I-35 in Lillian Miller.
Law enforcement, the Denton PD indicated that the development would not have a significant
or negative impact on response time, or that the development of these seven out parcels
would impact the number of calls currently received for this area.
As slide criteria six continued, water and wastewater connections are available to the
out parcels from Nugget Way, as can be seen on this slide.
Streets, three access points to the site are planned from the I-35 service road, as can
be seen on this slide.
Nugget Way, an internal private road, will be the primary access to all the pad sites.
Access will not be permitted to the individual pad sites from the I-35 service road.
Next slide.
The perimeter street improvements along the southbound I-35 service road were recently
completed and include the Brinker Road underpass, which will aid in the flow of traffic to this
area.
And finally, per the traffic assessment memo, Bucky's development and the subject pad sites
will have minimal impact on the roadway network.
Again, since this is a non-residential development, there will be no impact on the park system.
We sent out notices within 200 and 500 feet of the site, as well as putting a newspaper
ad in the newspaper.
We received two in opposition outside of the 200 foot buffer, and one in favor, also outside
of the 200 foot buffer.
A neighborhood meeting was not held.
Staff recommends approval of rezoning the 12.42 acre site to plan development with the mixed
use regional underlying zoning district with the modifications provided in the PD standards
table.
And each lot must submit for a site plan in accordance with section 2.5.1 of the DDC.
That concludes my presentation, and the applicant is available.
There are two slides after this presentation that the applicant will discuss.
Thank you very much, Cindy.
One point of clarification, Cindy.
All the plats that you showed had the old road continuing through the property.
Is that the actual platting that is the current platting everyone's going off of, or is that
just for our presentation had an older plat?
Well, the presentation that I provided didn't include a plat, it was just a site plan.
Okay.
So that site plan is not what I don't think is, it's definitely not what's on the ground
right now.
Which street are you referring to, Nugget Way?
There's the one that went through the ESA that was not passed through P and Z, but it's
showing on that site.
Yeah.
That's planned.
As I mentioned in the presentation, in order to develop that part of the street and the
entrance, they will have to first get an alternate ESA approved.
So that just stays on there as if it could happen in the future?
It could happen as long as they get approval for the alternate ESA.
Okay.
That makes sense.
I appreciate that clarification.
Commissioner Beck was next.
Thank you, chair.
My first question falls directly on from the chair's question.
So if we grant this PD, does that in any way grant that extension and sort of grease the
wheels for the alternate ESA through that area?
No, no.
They have to get an alternate ESA before they can do it.
It's just showing what's proposed.
Okay.
And my second question is for the facilities, the restaurants or retail on the northeast
side, where the .9 acres are being proposed to be changed, is there anything in the current
designation precluding a restaurant or retail from coming into that overlap area where the
zones overlap?
No, because are you talking about the two lots that have the split zoning?
Yes, ma'am.
Well, those are included right now in the request.
And that split zoning would go away and it would become PD.
Okay.
So but my question is there's nothing currently precluding facilities from going in there in
the existing process.
I guess where I'm getting at, my question is sort of what's the advantage to the city
or to Denton to make this a PD if everything is pretty much staying the same, why should
we change anything if restaurants and retail could already come in there and we're not
affecting the ESA and alternative ESA process, why do we need to do this?
The reason for doing this is because the site was already designed in 2017 when Buckies
was approved and if we have to make them meet today's standards, these lots would not be
able to meet today's standards.
Is that from the tree canopy?
That's from the tree canopy and the landscaping.
But those are relatively flexible nebulous things that a developer could put in.
You could add some more trees and add some more bushes.
Again this is the reason that the applicant has requested and applied for this PD.
The applicant can address this also if you'd like to question him as well.
Well, I'll leave that to Chair to decide.
But I think that's all my questions for now.
Thank you.
Okay.
I had Commissioner Ellis next, do you still have a question Commissioner Ellis?
I do.
One of my questions had to do with that alt ESA, I mean that got tremendous pushback when
it was requested and they actually pulled the request, I remember, because it was going
to fail.
So in looking at the information here, the traffic memo suggests that that nugget way
is going to be the main access to these pad sites.
So I'm trying to understand if the alt ESA got pushed again in the negative direction,
what would be the alternative here?
Well, the alternative would be they would have to come in and perhaps revise the PD
for a different use for the site or a different concept plan.
Okay, let me think on that.
Well, because nugget way would be needed to access the site and that drive would, what
they'd have to do probably is get a text dot, get a text dot permit to access the site directly
from I-35.
We're talking just to clarify lot two, correct?
Yes.
Without an alt ESA, they could not access that site from the private road.
They would have to use, there's an old right of way dedication, I believe it was dedicated
to Denton County, just to the west of the site on the west boundary of lot two.
So they would need to apply to text dot for that in order to access lot two.
They could not access it internal from nugget way without an alternative ESA.
Right.
So if the alternative ESA, which again, it was difficult to get passed before, who knows,
I guess, if they asked for it again, but it's the same area, it's the exact same request.
I believe that it was several years ago.
Correct?
Correct.
And it's plotted it, but noted that it essentially stops there.
And when that master site plan was approved, it shows the road going all the way through,
but it is noted that an alternative ESA is required if it would traverse that area.
Okay.
Another question I had, Cindy, was sign regulations for this, for these sites.
I know Bucky's got a variance from ZBA to make their sign larger.
What are current sign regulations for these sites once they would be developed?
They would have to comply with the sign regulations in place today.
So they would not be included in the variance that Bucky's got, or?
My understanding was the variance was just for that one sign.
Correct.
That is correct?
Okay.
That is correct.
All right.
Thank you.
The next thing we had is Commissioner Smith.
You still have a question?
I do.
Yeah.
Going off of Commissioner Ellis as well as Commissioner Beck's question about the alternate
ESA, Cindy, what are the criteria for approval for an alternative ESA when it does come back,
because they're going to obviously want to try to expand Nugget Way?
The thing that I think I'm looking at this from is would the approval of this PD be used
as evidence for why the criteria for the approval for the alternative ESA is, well, it's already
approved in the PD.
So essentially, I can see this as being an issue, saying we're approving a PD, therefore
paving the way for there to be criteria for approval for an alternative ESA.
So could you walk me through, if you were to come back and do the alternative ESA presentation,
what that criteria for approval would be?
And outside of there being the plans, the concept plan and the PD for the road there,
what other requirements would need to be met so that we have some other ideas of what evidence
would have to be presented, other than just say, well, the grounds for approval is mainly
that the PD says it should be there.
If I may, within the PD regulations themselves, it's explicit that you cannot use a PD to
modify any alternative ESA.
You can't usurp the ESA process through a PD, nor can you modify tree preservation standards
through a PD.
Yeah, and I'm not asking if they're alternating the PD, I'm saying that if, let's say we approve
it today and the next meeting they come back and say, hey, we have an application for alternative
ESA, and our criteria for approval as a city is does it meet what the current standards
are within this area based off of zoning?
Well, there's a PD here, it has on the concept plan for the road, it's supposed to go through
here.
Here's our criteria for approval.
This shows that we should support it because we've already approved the concept plan.
And I've seen it too many times on the Planning and Zoning Commission where we get recommendations
for an approval because we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
And this feels like to me that we're almost at that point right now where we could be
painting ourselves or a future commission between a rock and a hard place because the
concept plan has it approved, they can do it there.
Yes, they have to get an all ESA before they can build it, but you know, the concept plan
does it.
Does that make sense, Richard, what I'm asking and Cindy, do you guys understand the question?
Sure, I understand what you're saying.
This is actually the, if you look, let's see, if you look at the master site plan that was
approved in 2017, it also shows the same thing.
So they already have this approval that is within the existing PD.
However, saying that, as Richard said, you can't use a PD to change the requirements
and get around other regulations like such as tree preservation or ESA preservation.
They would have to show that the all ESA plan is a superior plan above what is currently
required.
So the criteria for approval, that's really what the original question was, the criteria
for approval for an all ESA, whenever we eventually would see it, because they're obviously not
to put in the concept plan if they're not going to come back and try to get it, would
be tree mitigation rights, preservation within that, it obviously be drainage.
What other criteria for approval we'd be seeing that we would have a chance or a future commission
would have a chance to vet to make sure that it is a truly good all ESA before we go into
there rather than saying, hey, we should approve it because the concept plan is there.
So what other criteria for approval are there, Cindy?
I'm trying to look them up for you right now, but one I do recall is that I think that is
the big one is that they have to prove that this exceeds the requirements for ESA preservation.
So they have a pretty stringent development requirement that they have to exceed what
is required, and they'd have to prove that up before this could be approved or even recommended
for approval.
Richard, do you have any other criteria for approval that you can go through for all the
ESA...
Yeah.
I'm pulling those up right now.
Okay.
Thanks.
I know, Chair, we're tied for time, so if I need to maybe bring this up in public, I
can do that as well.
Well, what I might do is, Commissioner Pernetta, I believe, has a question while Richard's
looking up your response, Commissioner Smith, I want to let Pernetta have the floor.
Yeah, and a lot of my question was based on what Commissioner Smith is bringing up right
now.
I want to make sure that by voting for this one, we don't make Altice basically a fait
accompli.
And I'll probably bring these questions up in public, because overall we know Buc-Ease
is a lightning rod, and whether or not there's people on the line right now, eventually these
questions will come out.
So when I look at what we're voting on, in essence, everything's already been approved,
was approved back in 2008.
Most of the changes that I'm seeing are pertinent to that one little 0.83 section, and it's
a matter of a 10% difference on the tree canopy and some landscaping outside of that.
Overall, we're mainly just kind of getting this in compliance with what we've passed
last year, right?
And is that incorrect in terms of why we're doing this and what we're going forward on
this?
Well, it's two-phase.
A part of it is we are getting it into compliance as much as we can with what was passed last
year.
However, we are maintaining those few standards that I noted that the applicant needs to be
able to make the lots work because of how the drainage and infrastructure was designed.
And those standards that I'm talking about are the ones I noted, the increase of the
minimum lot size, the minimum landscape area reduced by 15% in the PDMR, the front yard
setback increased by 10% in PDMN, minimum landscape area reduced by 10%, and minimum
tree canopy coverage reduced by 10%.
As I noted, part of the plan for this whole area was to keep the open space and tree preservation
to the rear of the site to buffer the residences and push the development up against I-35.
And to do that, that would mean they'd have to have a reduced landscape and tree canopy.
When the site was first approved, it was all one lot, essentially all one area.
And so that was how it was approved.
And we're just trying to maintain some of those approvals in order to have the site
develop and be an attractive, useful addition to the city.
Okay, pending the response to Commissioner Smith's questions, I bet that's all I've
got.
Thank you.
Richard, do you have any context or help?
I do.
There's section 2.8.4 of the DDC outline six approval criteria for an alternative ESA.
One, mitigation goals are obtained by creating, expanding, or improving ESAs.
Mitigation goals are obtained by preserving above the minimum requirements, exchanges
between different types of ESA.
Areas offered as mitigation are linked to existing or planned open space or conservation
areas.
So if you think in terms of other ESAs that we've seen, there's usually a give and take.
So if you take away, there's some mitigation that is required to occur.
And then areas offered as mitigation are placed either in a lot or lots that incorporate a
permanent conservation easement or preserved habitat or some other legal mechanism for
the long-term conservation.
And then the Alt ESA, just had a pop-up that blocked it, sorry, the Alt ESA plan demonstrates
that the property owners results in a higher quality development meeting the intent.
So just because we went through sort of a PD zoning, there's still six tests essentially
that they need to meet, none that really depend on the approval of this.
One thing I will mention with respect to the tree canopy, they are increasing it from that
20 to 30.
They are meeting the new standard where they're decreasing it is just on that 0.88 acres where
the diagonal side.
I just wanted to make sure that was clear.
Thank you, Richard.
Appreciate it.
Can I ask a clarifying question real fast of the site plan?
Is there any new detail about, excuse me, nugget way on this request that's not already codified
by previous approvals?
No.
So by approving potentially the PD request tonight, we're not actually changing or providing
any more notes or details or approval or consideration or paving any pathway or rationale or context
or anything about nugget way that's not already previously been provided to the applicant?
That's correct.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
And Chair, it may help if we have just two seconds, if Julie can pull the presentation
back up to show the plat or if you look at the attachment to the agenda item.
If you look at Exhibit 9 in the packet, it shows you the approved plat.
And so that Nugget Way, well, this is the master site plan.
It essentially follows the plat.
So that Nugget Way is plotted as a private road.
So this approval would not change the layout.
They would have to amend that plat.
So regardless of approving this PD or not tonight, the mechanism of still applying for
an ALT ESA is still the required avenue in order to complete Nugget Way across that environmentally
sensitive area.
Absolutely.
Okay.
Is there any other questions for Cindy or staff on Item 2B?
Okay.
Next item for business.
Thank you, Cindy, for that.
We'll talk to you soon.
Okay.
Is Item, actually, 3C and it is Julie Wyatt.
This item has been brought forward back from our March 4th meeting.
Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting a comprehensive plan amendment to you tonight,
CA191A Canopy Trails.
So this request before you, and you're correct, this did come before you earlier this year.
We're back with some additional information for their rezoning, but first we're going
to talk about the comprehensive plan amendment.
So this is a request to modify the future land use designation for 98 acres from business
innovation to regional mixed use.
You can see the property there.
It is at the intersection of Shady Oaks and Loop 288.
So Dent Plan 2030 was adopted in February of 2015.
As part of that comprehensive plan, there was a future land use map and that identifies
the locations for future land use designations.
This future land use map guides our zoning decisions.
We look at that first when we look at any zoning case to see what kind of what the vision
of that area is.
The best planning practice really is that zoning should be consistent with that comprehensive
plan and the future land use map.
Under our previous code, our 2002 code, we had pretty limited criteria for approval for
a zoning case.
It was really just, does it meet the future land use and does it have adequate public
infrastructure?
And it also provided an alternative path for cases that didn't meet that future land use
map.
So we saw a lot of cases that didn't meet the future land use map and they were able
to be analyzed and recommended for approval or approved based upon that alternative criteria.
When we adopted the new 2019 code, we have more robust criteria for approval and we really
as staff felt like we should start implementing those best practices, that really the zoning
should follow that future land use map.
There are instances where that future land use map may require a limited amendment and
that's why the code does allow for that.
Section 2.7.1 outlines the purposes and process for a comprehensive plan amendment.
It really is to provide flexibility when there are changing circumstances.
Comprehensive plans are policy documents, but they are living documents that we want
to always make sure that they are current and that they are adequately representing
our city and our vision.
So for this specific case, we're first going to orient ourselves with the existing conditions.
The subject property is once again outlined in yellow.
There's a large government center across the street, across Loop 288, that's the Denton
County buildings.
There are utilities adjacent to the west of the site.
There's quite a bit of retail along Loop 288 taking advantage of that access and visibility.
There's also residential coming in.
We've got some age-restricted housing.
We have multifamily in several places, so it really has filled in in this area into
be a mixed-use commercial corridor.
The current future land use map identifies this area, as I said, as business innovation.
The intent is for those large tracts that are for employment-type uses, think large-scale
office, distribution, light, you know, manufacturing.
So we typically see the zoning districts that fall within that umbrella business innovation
term are general office and light industrial, which is what's currently on the property.
The last time this came before you, Commissioner Smith asked a really good question that I
got the answer to.
He wanted to know how much acreage is in business innovation within the city.
And our GIS did an analysis, and there is about 4,700 acres within the city limits designated
as business innovation.
Of that total, they did an additional analysis that about 2,000 of those acres are either
undeveloped or developed with an agricultural use.
You know, by that analysis, staff does not feel like the removal of the 98 acres from
business innovation would impact the city's ability to attract employment-type uses and
development.
So when we get -- when we talk about our comprehensive plan and the structure of our city, I think
it's informative to kind of look at the historical context to see where we were.
So this is the aerial map from 1964.
The subject property is generally in the area of the blue star.
It was a rural area.
And as the crow flies, it was two miles from the square.
So it was probably quite a distance when, you know, mentally thinking you were probably
out kind of in the middle of nowhere.
One of the biggest defining features was that power plant, the water and power plant that
is kind of in the middle of the screen.
And so that was kind of out on the outskirts of town, which is where you often find those
types of uses.
As you jump forward a few years to 1970 -- the 1974 to 1992 comprehensive plan, the aerial
is from 1972.
Once again, the subject property is about the spot of the star.
The defining feature was still that power plant and the rural nature of that area.
That comprehensive plan designated it for kind of industrial and public uses probably
because of that existing land use out there and just the kind of distance from town.
Then we move ahead to the next comprehensive plan, the 1999 to 2020 Denton plan.
When you look at the map, sorry, it's a little fuzzy.
The once again, subject property is the blue star.
The regional mixed use came in at that time.
The mall was there, I-35 is a pretty important mixed use corridor within the city.
You can kind of see the faint outline of Luke 288.
So that regional mixed use started coming in, emanating out from the highway.
It restricted that employment center area.
That employment center was for that kind of employment industrial type use.
And then when you look at the aerial, you can kind of see the commercial development
has started to come in.
Still pretty rural or still pretty undeveloped adjacent to the property.
And then that brings us to today's comprehensive plan.
So the larger map shows the general future land use map for the area, that the business
innovation kind of spans where that employment center was in the previous comprehensive plan.
In looking at the comprehensive plan, this future land use map was based upon the preferred
growth concept.
And that preferred growth concept was based upon lots of inputs.
One of the input was the community, the community survey, and how the community wanted to grow.
And their big thing is we wanted to grow compactly, we wanted to try to prevent sprawl.
It was also based upon existing land uses, existing zoning, and then context evaluation
with aerial maps.
So that's really how they arrived at this future land use map.
And when you look at the 2002 zoning with the ECI and the ECC, those were our kind of
our light industrial districts, you can kind of see how our future land use maps were followed,
that pattern that was set way back in '64 and '74 and then moving forward.
So that's kind of how we got here.
I went out and took pictures of the site.
I'm not great at taking site pictures, but this does show you what Shady Oaks looks like.
Shady Oaks is a four-lane divided road.
There's not a lot of development on it right now, but that road is one of our secondary
arterials through the city.
And then when you get onto, on Loop 288, you can see the new county building taking shape
here along Loop 288.
There's also an office park kitty corner from the subject site.
And this is just looking at the landscaping along Loop 288.
Loop 288 really is developed as that commercial corridor.
There's landscape medians, there's a lot of commercial development along that right of
way.
So now we're going to get to their proposal.
They are proposing regional mixed use, and you can see what that map would look like
generally.
This is an area that it can include moderate and high-density residential, commercial office
entertainment uses.
It's typically found on highways or arterials, major arterials within cities.
The general criteria for approval is, it's in your backup, and we won't go really through
that.
It does meet the criteria, general criteria for approval.
We'll get, we'll touch on it a little bit in terms of the comprehensive plan though.
The first, what I wanted to look at is, I wanted to look at the comprehensive plan as
a whole and see how the goals align with what the proposal was.
So particularly three land use goals, the first that grow compactly, the next is grower
assets, and then the last one is grow with balance.
This segment of Loop 288 is a regional corridor.
It connects I-35 to US-380, so it's a pretty important corridor within our city.
The development is, as we know on this road, really favors that commercial mixed use.
It's got a lot of retail and restaurants, also got that government office center, and
that high-density residential as you move kind of away from that high-visibility corridor.
So it's all within there is that mixed use area.
The proposal does support this trend, and it also provides a basis for zoning decisions
that would encourage the infill development that would allow the city to grow compactly
on this existing corridor where we've already got development, so just a logical continuation
of that pattern.
The next would be to grow our assets.
We want to make sure that we capitalize and strengthen the commercial character of the
area and our important commercial districts within our city.
And finally, grow with balance.
That regional mixed use, future land use, would support the zoning districts that permit that
wide variety of residential, commercial, and also employment uses.
So it provides that flexibility to respond to those changing conditions.
Now we'll get to the specific criteria for approval for comprehensive plans.
Two things I want to look at is the events, trends, or facts after the adoption of the
comprehensive plan has changed, and then the events, trends, or facts after the comprehensive
plan was adopted to change the character of the area or the condition of the area.
And we'll go over these specifically.
So first, events, trends, or facts.
So 2015 doesn't seem that long ago, but a lot has happened in this area since then,
particularly in terms of mobility changes.
So Mayhill Road is, there are some pieces that are finished and it will be completely
online, hopefully very soon.
And that really has brought, I mean, when we think about the transportation changes
that that will bring when complete, that it does connect Denton to DFW airport.
And so it's a really important regional corridor.
We've also got expanded government offices with the county offices on Loop 288.
Prior to 2015, I know we talked about this, that zoning was the ECC and ECI.
That kind of informed that comp plan and we were looking to see if that is appropriate
anymore.
And the current trend really is to move away from that light industrial employment to more
commercial and higher density housing within these areas, these more urban areas.
Additional review standards, does it provide a substantial benefit to the city?
This would encourage additional mixed use development near this expanding government
center and existing commercial district.
Is it compatible with the land use goals and avoid isolated uses?
It is consistent with the land use goals and it would extend that existing commercial center.
Would it significantly alter acceptable land, existing land use patterns?
It's not anticipated to result in undesirable land use patterns.
It's pretty consistent with what is out there and both in use and scale.
And then we don't see any negative impacts to public services or facilities.
This is an existing area that's served by existing transportation networks and nearby
public facilities.
Also wanted to look at the development, the development pattern contained in the existing
plan does not provide adequate and appropriate optional sites for the use or change being
proposed in the amendment.
So when we look at this, what we want to look at is where we have existing regional centers.
So we've got three in Denton that are prominent.
We've got Razor Ranch, that is an existing retail restaurant and high density and entertainment
area.
We have Denton Enterprise Airport.
That's kind of a different regional center in that it's kind of serving that air travel
and employment uses.
And then we have Loop 288.
This is really our legacy regional commercial center.
It started with the mall and it has radiated out from there.
But it has less room to grow than the other ones.
It's one of those infill areas and it's pretty limited in the number of sites that are available
that have that frontage and that access along Loop 288.
And then the next criterion, that site conditions would make development under the current grant
plan inappropriate.
While areas dedicated to employment centers are needed, and I think, of course, we want
to make sure that we've got adequate employment centers, the GEO and LI districts do restrict
residential uses.
They also add in some potential for more moderate density industrial type development.
And so that could limit that necessary component by removing the residential.
It could remove that necessary component to support the existing commercial and employment
development and maybe introduce uses that would be incompatible with that area.
Areas next to Loop 288 are just more suited to commercial and high density residential.
We did send out public notices.
We haven't heard any responses in opposition or in favor.
And so based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request.
Thank you very much, Julie.
One thing real fast before I recognize Commissioner Beck is we have the public hearing scheduled
for 630.
So if we just manage some of the questions to public, that'd be, I think, helpful for
the public.
Commissioner Beck, will you defer to the public session?
Yes, absolutely.
It could be a public question.
Okay.
Yeah.
Fantastic.
With that, is there any opposition to having our discussion for the next item 3D in the
public hearing or does anyone need to have it pre-screened in work session?
Richard, is there any reason to have that in work session or can we just run 3D in our
public?
You're on mute, sir.
I think we can run it in the public.
All right.
Fantastic.
So with that, I'm going to end, call the work session to end at 637.
We're going to take a five minute recess.
And so we'll just call it 645.
We'll reconvene for the public hearing at 645.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the planning and zoning meeting for Wednesday, May 20th, 220.
Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 646.
I appreciate your patience for us running a little bit behind this evening, but we'll
hop in right now starting with the first item of business, which is to consider approval
of the planning and zoning minutes from May 6th.
And the chair will entertain a motion on the item by show of hand.
Commissioner Ellis.
I move approval.
We have a first, Commissioner Anderson.
Second the motion.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Anderson.
Yay.
Commissioner Ellis.
Yay.
Commissioner Cole.
Yay.
Commissioner Beck.
Yay.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Yay.
Commissioner Scott.
Yay.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
The chair is in favor as well.
Motion carries 7-0.
Next item of business is our individual consideration items, starting with item 2A.
This item is being requested to be postponed to a date certain of June 3rd.
The chair will entertain a motion for a date certain of June 3rd.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to postpone the date certain of June 3rd.
We have a first, Commissioner Pernetta.
Second the motion.
We have a first and a second for postpone to a date certain of June 3rd.
Any discussion on this item?
Seeing none, we'll vote via roll call.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Beck.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Yay.
The chair is also in favor, vote carries 7-0.
Next item of business is item 2B, ADP 20-0009.
Now I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation.
Sorry, I was muted.
We'll try again.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton.
And I'm presenting ADP 29 Smith Street Apartments.
The request is for an alternative development plan for a multi-family development on about
half an acre.
The subject property is located on the north side of Smith Street, kind of west of Dallas
Drive.
The purpose is to deviate from section 35.13.13(2) for some site design considerations for multi-family
developments.
So recently the city adopted a new code and we transitioned to that code in October of
last year.
We do have some projects, however, that are still being considered under the previous
code, the 2002 code.
And this is one of them.
So this is actually subject to the 2002 code due to the project timing.
Under the 2002 code, it had a zoning designation of DCG.
Under 2019, it has MN District.
Both of those districts allow for multi-family development.
The property is situated in a part of town that we're seeing some redevelopment in.
It makes sense because this area is well situated for more development.
It is located about a quarter of a mile from the central business district, about a quarter
of a mile from the UNT transit to the south, and about a tenth of a mile from a DCTA transit
station along Dallas Drive.
The subject property is shown here outlined in yellow.
And as you can see, those properties outlined in blue, there's a multi-family development
that is going in here.
It's actually gone vertical and it is under construction.
And then there's another large multi-family development coming in here that will be going
under construction soon.
So we're seeing a lot of development in this area.
There's some existing multi-family to the south, there's some industrial, and there's
some existing residential.
So it's a real mixed use area.
This is their site plan, and apart from the deviations, it meets the subchapter 13 requirements.
We'll go over those three deviations that they are requesting.
The first one is at least 50% of the front yard frontage should have buildings within
20 feet of the front property line.
The property has 122 linear feet of frontage, which would require 61 linear feet of buildings
within 20 feet of the front property line.
However, due to the entire frontage being encumbered by a variable width electric easement,
it really makes it impossible for that to happen.
The second is the wall area of the front facade has to have at least 25% windows and doors.
They're actually proposing 19%.
In order to balance the need for resident privacy with those need for building transparency,
additionally, their proposal does fit within the architectural theme of the building.
The building also provides a lot of visual relief.
It's got a variety of colors and textures and includes an architectural screening element
for that stairwell to ensure that interesting and transparent building.
And then the proposal, the requirements are that buildings should be directly accessed
from the street or sidewalk and have a porch with a ground floor entrance.
Once again, that electric easement sort of thwarts that porch, but they have provided
an entrance feature in that stairwell screening element.
It's integrated within there to provide residents a sense of arrival.
It also is connected to the right-of-way with a pedestrian connection.
So we'll look at what they are proposing.
This is the front part of the proposal.
The building is outlined in green.
That electric easement is shown in the blue dashed 20 feet wide on the east property line.
It's 30 feet wide on the west property line, so it runs that diagonal.
There's also a 26-foot fire lane.
We want to make sure fire has adequate access so that does further constrict the site to
provide for that emergency services.
And then here's their front elevation.
Here that 19% opening is shown in these four large windows per floor.
And that fits within the architectural theme, the sort of clean lines of the building.
It provides privacy for future residents while providing that transparency and that visual
interest and relief on buildings.
And then the architectural screening element for the stairwell has that integrated entrance
that's connected to the right-of-way, the sidewalk with that pedestrian lead walk.
A criteria for approval are in subchapter 13 in there five.
So first is the proposal preserve existing neighborhoods.
This is in a kind of a mixed use redeveloping area of the city near the city center.
And this use will complement the existing uses and provided some much needed density
near our downtown.
It'll assure quality development with the request assure quality development.
It's not intended to lower design standards, but with facilitate development of the site
and sort of the vision of that building.
Apart from the request, all other subchapter 13 requirements are met.
Does the proposal focus new development to activity centers?
And this is urban infill, so it doesn't contribute to sprawl.
There is the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the request.
And then the last requirement is would it result in a high quality development meeting
the intent?
So we'll go over these one by one, and I'll go quickly.
First, the requirement for the 50% of the front yard frontage, that buildings have to
be within 20 feet of that property line.
The intent of this is to close that public space to create vibrancy and pedestrian comfort.
In this case, that easement really does prevent buildings on this lot from situating the building
closer to the street.
And then the 26 foot fire lane further constricts the side.
And that's kind of the nature of these infill sites that you there are sort of boundaries
that you have to work within.
But the building and the proposal does have a strong architectural point of view and would
be a vibrant addition to the street.
So it does meet the intent of that requirement.
Does the 25% windows and doors?
They are providing 19%.
And that is to really balance the resident privacy with the needed transparency and that
interesting building from the right of way.
And it meets that intent.
And then finally, that building access and front porch requirement.
That entrance is integrated into the stairwell and it is connected to the sidewalk.
So it does provide residents and visitors that sense of arrival, meeting the intent
of that requirement.
So based upon the criteria for approval and the proposal, staff recommends approval of
the requested deviations.
And I will answer any questions.
And I believe the applicant is on the phone as well.
>> Thank you very much, Julie.
We do have a question, Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Julie, what is the diagonal feature on the fire lane?
>> Let me get back to the -- let me share my screen again so we can all look at it.
>> Is that just a turnaround?
>> Are you talking about this area?
>> No.
Up north and left.
Yeah.
What is that?
>> This is actually their dumpster enclosure and this is actually going to be moved to
the back of the site.
Kind of talked about it with Richard and the applicant.
And we really feel like this feature, although it's not a part of this request, we would
actually prefer it to be embedded a little further back in the site.
Its current location meets subchapter 13 requirements, but we think we found a better location.
So that's actually going to change on this site.
>> All right.
Thank you, Julie.
I appreciate it.
>> You bet.
>> Is there any other questions for Julie on this item?
This item is for individual consideration, so there's not a public hearing and there
is no one here wishing to speak or on the phone wishing to speak.
So the Chair will entertain a motion on the item.
Commissioner Anderson?
>> I make a motion to approve.
>> Commissioner Smith?
>> Second.
>> We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Anderson?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Ellis?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Cole?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Pernetta?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Beck?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Smith?
>> Aye.
>> The Chair also is an aye, which means the vote carries 7-0.
The next item of business brings us to our public hearings.
The first one is item 3A, FR19-0016, and I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.
>> Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can.
>> Great.
This is Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department, and I have before you
tonight a request for approval of a residential final replant of lots 1-79 and lots 1X-7X,
block A, of the Vista Verde addition, being a replant of a remainder of lot 56, block A,
the Oaks of Township 2.
The approximately 8.882 acre site is generally located on the southwest side of Colorado
Boulevard, approximately 315 feet northwest of San Jacinto Boulevard.
For the Texas Local Government Code, public hearing is required for residential replants,
which requires written notices sent out to property owners within the original subdivision
and property owners located within 200 feet of the subject site.
I do want to point out this plot is being considered under the 2002 Denton Development
Code.
Next slide, please.
On May 1, 2018, the City Council approved a request to rezone the site from NRMU-12 -- excuse
me, to NRMU-12 with a mixed-use overlay protection district, including the following conditions.
There shall be no uses permitted other than single-family attached dwelling units, including
townhouses or single-family dwelling units.
The overall density shall not exceed 10 dwelling units per acre.
Situations which are contiguous to the residential neighborhoods shall have maximum height of
two stories, and the installation of an 8-foot tall fence along adjacent properties is required.
The Council also required a provision of two access points to the site from Colorado Boulevard,
as shown on the plot.
The plot conforms to the requirements regarding the density and the use, as well as the provision
of two access points.
The remaining conditions will be enforced during the building permit phase of the development.
Next slide, please.
This is the proposed Vista Verde addition.
This is proposed to be a gated community of 79 single-family attached homes, comprised
of 26 townhomes and 53 single-family homes, in which the crashes will share a common wall.
The plot includes seven open space sites, which include the private street system and
an amenity center.
The proposed site is intended to be a gated rental community.
Next slide, please.
Here we have the original plot of the Oaks of Township, which was plotted in January
1985, and you can see the large lot 56.
They're adjacent to the single-family homes.
Next slide, please.
Phase one of the Villas of Piney Creek was plotted in October 1995 and took up half of
lot 56.
The remainder of lot 56 was intended to be developed as phase two of the Villas of Piney
Creek.
However, that never happened.
And so we have the subject site, the remainder of lot 56, and the proposed Vista Verde addition.
One percent out within 200 feet of the site.
We received four notices in opposition, comprising 3.54 percent of the site within the 200 foot
boundary and one in favor of the proposal, comprising 19.11 percent of the area within
the 200 foot boundary.
We had one that was neutral.
She represents 0.52 percent of the 200 foot boundary area, and no neighborhood meeting
was held.
Staff recommends approval of the request as it meets the established requirements.
The applicant is available to answer any questions.
That concludes my presentation.
Thank you, Cindy.
This is a public hearing, and it is open.
Is there any questions for Cindy on this item?
For this item, we did have two people make comments using our online form.
There was one in support of the item and one against.
All of these comment forms were emailed to all the commissioners and our city secretary
to be recorded.
Additionally, there are zero people that called into our 349-7800 line to register their position.
So there's zero in support and zero against.
Finally, there are two who have requested to speak over the phone on this item.
Staff will be connecting the first one now.
They are trying to connect as we speak.
Hello caller, you are live with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Can you please state your name and address and you'll have four minutes to speak?
My name is Daniel Kettler.
I live at 1925 Canyon Court.
I back up to the proposed development.
My comments revolve around the previous arrangement.
The area behind my home used to be zoned for four units per acre.
The last developer that came through was successful in getting the zoning changed to something
else and we were told at the time that the saturation level was not going to reach whatever
it is, 10 or 12 multi units.
It was going to reach something like six or seven and of course, that deal has fallen
through.
Then we get this mailing in the mail that says that do I oppose or I'm in favor of replatting
this area and gives no specifics as to what's being planned.
What am I agreeing to?
I can't tell because there was no information in the packet that was mailed to us.
So basically, whatever was agreed to with the previous developer, they were given the
green light to change all the zoning and now there's something completely different in
the works.
So my wife and I have to vote no for if we agree to this flatting or whatever the deal
is because there's just no facts to go with.
There's no information and now I thought I was going to be calling in and listening to
something along the lines of what the previous developer had done where they kind of laid
out what the plan was and going forward and they actually had a meeting beforehand to
kind of explain to people so people could get an idea of what the development would
entail and apparently that's not happening and I didn't get the benefit of hearing whatever
transpired before I got on to the call so I have no idea.
I'm absolutely in the dark so I can only vote no because I have no information to go on.
Is there anything else you want to say, Liz?
Okay.
I think we're done.
I appreciate you calling.
I don't believe there's anything changing to the original overlay on the site.
Richard, can you confirm that from the original to now that the overlay's not changing?
All of those zoning conditions that were put in place when this was rezoned are still being
abide by.
What this really is is after zoning is complete the next step in the phase is to plat the
property.
In this instance it was platted previously.
This is a residential replat so this is just laying out each individual single family lot
and those town home lots in the arrangement that they will be built.
Okay.
Again there was really nothing indicated on the paperwork so I mean there's, you know,
if I was going to have say a clubhouse built directly on the other side of my property
line I have no ability to determine that or comment on that.
So I mean it's we're kind of left in the dark and I mean this is your process not ours.
So I mean I just I can only respond to what I received in the mail.
So I guess at this point I still have to vote no based upon lack of information.
So I guess that's all I have for you.
Well I certainly appreciate you calling in and for what it's worth available online as
well as if you're able to rewind this video tomorrow once it's posted there is the full
plat of every lot that will be behind you.
There is not a clubhouse behind you but you can verify every new lot line to see exactly
what would be built or that's being planned to be built behind your property.
I certainly understand your opposition I'm not trying to convince you otherwise of that
opinion.
I just want to let you know there the details of exactly where things will be built is available
to you either on the agenda immediately tonight or if you can tomorrow you can you can watch
the video and see the presentation of that detailed.
Okay I will do that.
Thank you very much for that tip.
Well I appreciate you calling in.
We do have another caller we're going to have that person connected now.
Thank you.
Hello caller you are live with the Planned and Zoning Commission can you please state
your name and address and you'll have four minutes to speak.
Collette Brandon 1921 Canyon Court in Denton Texas.
My concern is the development going up behind our house being our property is so much lower
than where the development is going to be that the drainage is going to all come down
on us therefore we need to do something about that I'm not opposed to it at all.
Again like the fence I need we need something taller it needs to go up above where the property
is instead of being down lower so I don't know how they're going to go about doing that.
Also at the other meetings that we had went to we've heard that there were supposed to
be two entrances for emergency entrances and I was wondering how they were going to go
about doing that.
That's my main concern.
I certainly appreciate you calling in and voicing your concerns.
As far as the site plan goes and I'll have staff confirm this the emergency entrances
there will be two that directly face Colorado Boulevard is that correct Richard?
That is correct.
So both entrances there there is no access to the site except from Colorado.
Okay so then and how are they going to what are they building back there and is it going
to be are they going to lower the ground to match with us because we go down a slope.
So how is I mean property people are going to be setting up above us looking down on
us even though we have I have a two-story house they're still we are so far down on
the slope and all the drainage coming down in how do they gonna control that.
The applicant can probably address that when he makes his presentation.
What do what is their plan for this acreage?
These are going to be single-family attached homes and townhomes.
So and the townhomes go right behind us or where what are we what are we talking about.
The townhomes are at either end and between the townhomes will be the single-family houses
that will be attached at the garage.
So then the townhomes are on the end so that would leave me being right above the townhome
lower than the townhomes.
So all our privacy and everything is just like wiped away and like I said all the drainage
that we're going to be currenting through all this did they take any consideration for
that.
That's right Brandon in order for them to build they would have to have the engineering
plans ensure that drainage is mitigated away from your property.
They wouldn't be able to pull a permit and begin construction without engineering being
approved by the city to ensure regardless of the terrain of the land that you are not
negatively impacted by drainage from the construction of their property.
Well again are we set so low that I mean we're going to get all the drain I've already had
to put in the drainage thing.
So when they start to build it's going to really be running down.
As for now there's a field but then when there's houses and stuff back there it's going to
be just rushing down because we set below like I said in an incline.
Sure I definitely understand that there's a slope in your backyard coming towards you.
It would be their responsibility to ensure drainage does not impact your property.
Okay and then what kind of fence are they planning to build and where is this going
to set.
Is it going to be higher than I mean is it going to set where we're at or is it going
to be up at the top.
They're required to put an eight foot tall fence on their property which is above yours
and we don't know the type of fence yet.
This request is just for plotting the property.
We will know more about the fence when they go through the development process.
Okay so we don't know anything until I mean sometimes I don't understand what they have
the meeting for if they don't address anything.
I mean shouldn't you guys be calling people as whenever you have it planned.
Yeah I certainly understand the concern about the ambiguousness of fencing and drainage.
Right now we're just following the process.
This is the plotting to see where buildings would go on the property.
From here they'd have to have a site design of building materials drainage.
That's just not the process we're at and the continuum of this project that comes at a
later date and so as more information comes to us and it's presented there can be opportunities
for discussion but tonight we're specifically looking at just how is the the land plotted
for the different properties that are going to be built there.
So two town homes and on each end and then houses single family houses in between.
I would encourage you to take a look at the site plan it's available online and you can
you can see exactly where every lot I believe there's 78 lots you can see exactly where
each one will will be located.
Okay I know that we have got a letter but it never said anything about anything developing
out there.
Sure I understand.
Commissioner Beck?
Yes Richard on these communications with the surrounding property we we provide links to
the materials that are similar to what's presented tonight there yeah there should be at as part
of that notice when that when the agenda item will be available and a link to that notice.
Okay that was in this notice too at the bottom of the notice.
Sure what may help we can have staff reach out tomorrow and explain in detail exactly
what what's going on.
I'm not sure which lot is hers off of Canyon Court but one thing to point out there is
a large open space lot right at the end of where I think it's lots 33 and 34 of the Oaks
Township phase two so they do have a large open space lot that that it joins where that
all the SEC ends those two properties so they will not be able to.
So we're okay all right oh we don't know anything until you're just calling to see if we're
opposed to it or not.
We definitely will take any citizen feedback on the project that's what we're trying to
engage with tonight yeah I mean like I said it's going to take away everything that our
privacy everything I could see maybe if they do like a business or if they do I would you
know but not that many homes that town homes that are taller than our house overlooking
us I mean again I have a problem with the drainage and all that stuff now looking over
you know well miss Brandon I appreciate you taking time to speak tonight and registering
your opposition and we will have someone from our staff reach out to you in the upcoming
days to talk specifically about some of your concerns okay thank you very much and what
was your name my name is Andrew Rozelle okay thank you very much of course you have a good
evening.
There's only two individuals on hold to speak and seeing that they have spoken I will close
the public hearing on this item and turn to the commission for a motion Commissioner Smith
make a motion to approve Commissioner Pernetta second we have a first and a second for approval
is there any discussion on the item seeing none I will call for a vote be a roll call
Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Pernetta
aye Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner Smith aye chair is an aye motion carries 7-0 the
next item of business is item 3B it's PD 19-0005C unfortunately Cindy Jackson's voice is leaving
her quickly so Richard is going to be her proxy for the presentation this evening and
I will open the public hearing Chair if you'll give me just one second I'm going to move
forward.
Good evening chair members of the of the commission and members of public Richard Canone development
services the item in front of you tonight is a request to rezone a 11.53 acre parcel
from PDMR and 8.88 acres from MN to PD one thing to note the PD-MR this was in a previously
zoned property that was an RCCD that had an overlay and if you recall when we did the
DDC update any overlay district it transitioned into a PD so it's not a true PD in the sense
of how we're dealing with PDs today but it is a PD-MR which represents that it was previously
a had a zoning overlay and so in total it's 12.42 acres and it is the parcels essentially
that front the service road in front of the Bucky's travel station.
The as you see the current zoning you have the PDMR and the the split zoning with MN
and so what this will do is the main Bucky's site will will remain with the PDMR this site
will go to a straight PD give you a little bit of zoning history back in 2008 I think
even myself we were somewhat confused with where these conditions came about we thought
initially it had to do with with the Bucky's development but this was well in advance of
that development so in 2008 the site was rezoned from RCR one to RCCD for a mixed use development
with these four overlay conditions I won't read each of the reach of each of the conditions
but it had to do primarily with protecting the single-family residential neighborhoods
that that are adjacent to the site.
This is a the master site plan for the Bucky's store all of those conditions that were that
were required from that 2008 zoning were complied with as part of this site plan approval so
because these sites the these sites that front the service road at I-35 don't involve the
residential properties to the to the south those overlay conditions are not being made
part of of this PD so those those conditions will still stay with Bucky's so for some reason
it redevelops those conditions would still apply under under that PD-MR and if you one
thing I wanted to point out when when they developed this site under that RCCD obviously
the standards were a lot different and so really the intent was to push as much of the
development as close to 35 as possible that's why we have the the pad sites out out front
and so what they're requesting for their master for their PD their master phasing plan is
essentially the master phasing plan that was approved with that master site plan when that
site plan was approved there are a number of components with related to that one of
them being a master phasing plan and so you see the lots two three going left left to
right two three four five six seven and eight so those were the original pad sites that
that were graded when this was when phase one the main site was was was developed and
so they're they're really requesting to just carry forward what they were planning to do
when they when they started this work a few years ago I know this was discussed as part
of the work session but you can see the note here it does say conceptual crossing so this
eat there is an environmentally sensitive area here so that does need to be complied
with so even though that road is shown similar to the road that private road being on the
plat they cannot traverse that ESA area without without seeking an alternative ESA approval
some of the standards that that are being proposed to put being proposed to be followed
as a result of the PD again we have a split zoning currently PD MR and the in about point
eight eight acres are MN and so for the most part looking to pull everything into the current
MR standards the only real changes are a reduction in the minimum landscape area the current
MR provides for 25 percent minimum landscape the existing MN 20 percent they're proposing
a 10 percent minimum landscape area typically we look at these really hard and and and have
a lot of have have a lot of hard time supporting any changes to the minimum landscape area
but when you really look at how this site was developed even potential vesting that
they may have with respect to landscaping staff did not see a problem with with the
10 percent minimum landscape the tree canopy coverage the existing or I should say the
prior approval the old development standard for maximum tree canopy was 20 percent the
new DDC for most districts is 30 percent most of our mixed use districts is 30 for that
point eight eight acres it is 40 again there are some provisions particularly as it relates
to landscaping and tree canopy where they are some vesting however they're just looking
to move forward with their with their overlay I'm sorry with their PD to follow the existing
standards of 30 of 30 percent again this has nothing to do with the ESA I wanted to stress
again that you cannot you cannot alter any ESA language or or standards or any tree preservation
standards through through the PD and so all of those standards will be met or or have
already been met for parking requirements they are proposing some changes essentially
for items one two and three seeking to go back to what was previously in the code and
then for item four just given the nature of the type of restaurants that they're looking
to attract given it given that it's directly adjacent to 35 looking to have a have a little
bit of a wider range and increased parking just given the nature that you're probably
not going to have a lot of folks walking to this given that it is right on interstate
35 there are 13 general approval criteria for all applications where we won't go through
all 13 but it is in your backup staff did find that that this request was consistent
with all 13 of those criteria and then there were six specific criteria for approval of
a PD that we will highlight each the first is that it is consistent with the Denton 2030
plan this site is designated regional mixed use and so again that the PD would not would
not defer or alter any of what was intended to be developed under this land use category
the second is compliance with the DDC so again looking at the standards in MR and what they're
being proposed to change they would obviously if approved would be consistent with criteria
two criteria three provides greater building design amenities and connectivity again this
just encourages it continues to encourage that unified pattern consistent with what
we typically see along highway corridors as well as what was initially anticipated and
graded for this site and then criteria for residential if there's residential uses compatibility
associated with that in the character of the area there's no residential development proposed
as part of this of this PD and then criteria five that it's appropriate in in an appropriate
area location and the planning is just again these are primarily looking to develop restaurants
and commercial adjacent to the interstate highway so this this is intended exactly with with
what we would expect to develop there criteria six provision of public facilities as we stated
earlier there is no students being generated there is fire station six within a eight minute
or less response time Denton PD indicated that they did not believe this would have
a significant or negative impact on response times with respect to water and wastewater
as as indicated earlier when the site was developed and platted it was platted all as
one phase so all of the utilities were put in place ahead of time so there is no additional
utility work that's needed with respect to water or wastewater streets are already are
already provided again through through that through that initial plat that was approved
and so the major access points to the site will be Bucky's Way they have a private road
here obviously the private road of nugget way in in the back and then in order to access
this site if it were to develop sooner than later and they did not get a approval of an
alternate ESA there would need to be access granted through tex dot through a service
road I do believe there's a an existing right of way dedication right away easement along
this along this boundary this western boundary
one thing that I would also like to mention is drainage when the site was developed and
graded all of the drainage was incorporated into the site and so if if you notice now
there there's a small structure overflow structure here so it is in conjunction both with I thirty
five widening improvements and the large pond that they and and drainage that they've already
added as part of the the improvements associated with that plat again that there is no residential
development and so access to public parks will not be required but if you recall there
is a trail system that they did install on the back of the property interestingly enough
I happened to stop there the other night and and I was surprised to see the number of of
residents using using the the trail in the back we did send notice actually over notice
this property however within that two hundred foot buffer we did not receive any letters
of opposition outside of the two hundred there were two in opposition and one in favor and
they they did not hold a neighborhood meeting with that staff recommends approval of the
rezoning to PD as as presented thank you Richard for presentation this is a public hearing
so we certainly would welcome any public feedback at this point we have not received any feedback
via our online form anyone calling our office to register a position and we have no one
on the phone lines right now to speak so with that I will close the public hearing see that
we have no one to speak in in the public is there any questions for staff about this project
Christian back thank you chair Richard the access to the retail and restaurant potential
plots is all from nugget way is that correct no access from the Peter it will all be from
from nugget way and and do we know what the ramifications are if an alternative easement
isn't granted and therefore you only have two access points they it would only affect
the one lot and so that lot two would need to get access from short of how they how they
showed it on that master site plan so they would need to apply for a a permit through
textdoc to gain access so there wouldn't be cross access or interconnectivity with lot
two with the remaining development unless that all visa is is is approved so that lot
one would just sort of dangle there on the corner correct until you love to sorry like
to thank you and that's all my questions thank you any other questions for Richard or staff
Christian thank you chair so Richard we're effectively pulling these these parcels out
of the the master plan I guess so to speak correct to some extent it's still it's still
looked at as as a cohesive development because it's it's there's still those cross access
through the plat but for for development purposes yes okay so I know that there were protections
put in place with that master plan effectively most I think have been satisfied with the
buckies development what if you can tell me what are we losing by pulling these parcels
out and making them effectively their own pd I don't quite honestly I don't think we're
we're losing anything really just making them stand on their own and become with the exception
of of the minimum landscape area bringing them into compliance with the new ddc okay
and I know you mentioned on one of the lots there was some kind of drainage compliance
on one of the lots yeah when when the site was when the site was platted and went through
their construction engineering plans all of the drainage for the for that site was was
was planned I think that was part of of the request when staff had them submit for the
site plan for for lot one for the for the buckies proper they wanted to look at at that
site in totality how those lots were would develop at that max night you know built out
at that 90% to ensure that the drainage and all the utilities were were built to to a
standard that that would be able to handle handle both the runoff and and any impacts
from water and wastewater okay so by pulling that lot out of it if something goes awry
with drainage who's responsible there there are there's a property and I know the applicants
on on there is a property owners association also established that covers all of that so
it will still be main it will still be owned and maintained by by buckies I think it's
ltd which controls the the main lot one but that's where all of the drainage is the ponds
at least are located but my understanding that there is a property owners association
that will handle all of that that these that these parcels would still remain part of correct
okay yeah I guess that's all my quote I still have concerns with regarding to the the need
for the alternative ESA especially with regard to like staff analysis plus the traffic study
that talks about how nugget way is the main point of access to to um to get to these parcels
um so anyway I will stop talking and give other commissioners commissioner beck thank
you chair um real quick so the parcel one has the hundred foot zba um variance and for
this pd that is being proposed the sign um uh variance or the sign uh requirement would
be a hundred foot as well is that correct no there is no variance for the um as part
of this pd for for sign height so they would have to meet meet the current the current
and that's 65 as I recall or am I misrecalling I'd have to I don't have the the that's that's
fine that's fine thank you that that's my question thank you any other questions for
um staff and richard mentioned that the applicant is on the line if there's any questions for
the applicant commission ellis thank you chair I guess my question for the applicant would
be is if the alternative esa is not approved do you have a secondary plan in your mind
the uh the current access thank you commissioner for the question this is scott rackliff with
the luckies ltv I appreciate the opportunity to address you guys this evening via this
coded uh interface um but there is a lot eight there is a driveway to text that right away
so you have luckies boulevard you have driveway eight and then part of our agreement with
our neighbors is there's a driveway to the south that also connects to back south to
several other developments so there is an additional ingress and egress as it relates
to the isa crossing the original tia that was performed with this property in the original
overall development which accounted for all these lots as seen in the master phasing plan
did account for not having that connection the connection was proposed in a manner to
help uh improve traffic but it was not a requirement of the original traffic impact uh review for
this particular project as it relates to lot number two an earlier question that came up
with regards to access there was already a permitted driveway there with text dot and
uh if you've been out there lately you'll see that it's there right behind the uh goodwill
facility that services us and our neighbors that are uh to the north of us uh that have
an undeveloped track as well and so that access is there for lot two which is isolated because
of the isa area does that answer your question um possibly um let me say if i understand
so if if the alternative esa does not get approved um lots the the other parcels except
for lot two would still have plenty of of access in and out lot two would remain effectively
an island by itself and you have a way of of developing that and having access is that
how is that what i'm understanding correct lot two would remain a standalone through
the driveway connection that exists out there today from text on um lots three through eight
and lot one of buckies we have access all shared through our property owners group and
cross access easements that are already in place today through buckies boulevard which
then connects to nugget way nugget way parallels 35 running north and south there is a driveway
on lot eight which has an easement that allows people to access that driveway and then there's
an easement that continues on south into the uh movie theater and multi-family developments
that are south of us okay so there's three existing connection points that would handle
and we're designed to handle the bulk of the transportation needs for the development okay
thank you i appreciate the clarifications at this time the the public hearing is closed
the chair will certainly entertain any questions of staff applicant or motion and discussion
commissioner smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval commissioner
anderson i second the motion we have a first and a second for approval is there any discussion
on this item commissioner pernetta was was was that a hand or okay okay seeing no discussion
i will call for a vote via roll call commissioner anderson aye commissioner alice aye commissioner
cole aye commissioner pernetta aye commissioner beck nay commissioner smith aye chairs an
aye vote carries six one the next item of business is item well before i go on to item
three c i'd be remiss not to say something here item three b um was an item from cindy
jackson and with the closing of that item she has now um presented her last item to
p and z cindy jackson is retiring and so it's with a heartfelt thank you to cindy for all
your work you've been here for my i think i'm on five years and i i've heard dozens
of your presentations and and answered dozens of my questions and so you will be missed
and i i appreciate all the hard work you've put into all your city service so thank you
very much cindy thank you very much i appreciate that i enjoyed working with all of you as
well well enjoy retirement and get better it sounds like you're fighting something hopefully
that that passes soon i'm hoping thank you very much thank you cindy moving on the next
item is item 3c it's item ca19-0001a and this is an item by julie wyatt invite her for presentation
and open the public hearing good evening i'm good evening i'm julie wyatt and i am presenting
ca19-0001a canopy trails the request before you is for a comprehensive plan amendment
on about 98 acres the property is situated at the intersection of shady oaks and loop
288 and they are requesting to modify the future land use designation from business
innovation to regional mixed use the den plan 2030 which has the future land use map and
future land use designations was adopted in february of 2015 that future land use map
we use that to guide our our zoning decisions those future land use designations are broad
categories in which several zoning districts could fall under generally there are specific
districts that go with each future land use designation for example business innovation
we often see go or li associated with it a best planning practice is that zoning should
be consistent with the comprehensive plan in the future land use map we've had some
varied rules within the city of denton we adopted a new code last year but our prior
code the 2002 denton development code had limited criteria for approval but when a project
did not meet the future land use designation there was an alternate path for cases and
so we often had cases come forward and get approved that didn't meet the future land
use designation with the adoption of the 2019 code and its implementation and we've got
more robust criteria for approval and we want to implement those best practices so zoning
really should follow the future land use map it's you know there are instances where that
map should and and could be amended to address specific a specific area or circumstance it
is a living document and conditions on the ground do change and so section 2.7.1 does
give us the the purpose and the process for those comprehensive plan amendments it's intended
to provide flexibility to accommodate those changing circumstances or or policy now more
specifically to the site once again the site is outlined in yellow it is located on one
of our commercial corridors the loop 288 across loop 288 there is a government center the
county offices to the south and southeast of the site there's quite a few retail developments
there's a mall that there's some kind of larger centers with with large developments there's
also residential within the area a particularly higher density residential and also we do
have some elderly housing so we have a real good mix of residential and commercial and
office uses in the area as I said the current future land use designation is business innovation
that is intended for more employment uses think a larger scale office parks maybe distribution
centers industrial type uses and and as I said before the typical zoning districts are
the general office and light industrial those are associated with business innovation currently
within the city there is 4,700 acres dedicated or within that business innovation designation
and of that 4,700 about 2,000 acres is either undeveloped or developed with an agricultural
use so with this proposal staff does feel like there is adequate capacity of business
innovation and it would not impact the city's ability to attract employment type uses it's
informative to look at the historical context when the comp plan amendment to see how we
got where we are so we're going to go back to 1964 this is an aerial map from 1964 and
the subject property has a blue star on it and as you can see it looked really far out
of town it was it was pretty rural surrounding the subject property it was it was about two
miles as the crow flies from square a big defining feature and I'll point it out here
was a power plan and a water treatment facility so that was that was out kind of on the outskirts
of town when we jump ahead to a 1972 aerial in the 1974 to 1994 comprehensive plan we
still see that that power plan and water treatment plan is a pretty defining feature both in
the comprehensive plan and on the map and that really informed that this was intended
for kind of industrial type uses to to sort of be consistent with that that that standard
that had been set and now we'll go forward to the 1999 denton plan that brought in some
some differences in the area it really took into account the mall that was was is along
I-35 and loop 288 and that that growing commercial center there that was emanating out from from
the highway corridor so it brought in regional mixed use and that's that dark purple area
the subject property was still defined by employment center that code still looked at
that as sort of the industrial and employment type uses so that really still did define
that area and and even though that the regional commercial and mixed use was was coming into
play and now we go to the dent plan 2030 and that that adoption in 2015 so the future land
use map does show this as the business innovation and you can see that that light purple is
sort of surrounding the subject property all along Shady Oaks you've got that regional
mixed use to the south this future land use back was based upon community input that the
intent to grow compactly they also looked at existing land used existing zoning and
context evaluation with aerial maps so they took all of these inputs created a preferred
growth concept and then created the future land use map based upon that preferred growth
concept and you can see kind of where those inputs came from you've got the zoning map
here at the bottom of the page that shows what that zoning was in the surrounding area
and it really does sort of track with that business innovation it had that ECI and ECC
which were our employment districts under the the 2002 code so it really does inform
the evolution of this area here's some photographs of Shady Oaks it is a four lane divided roadway
there's not a lot of development on it as of now and then you can kind of see how the
development in this part of loop 288 is filling in we've got the county building coming into
focus across loop 288 from the subject site and then here is sort of standing in front
of that building and looking toward the north and the landscaping for the other county buildings
there's also a little office complex kitty corner from the subject site so there is office
development and other commercial developments in the vicinity so they are proposing to modify
that future land use map to regional mixed use this future land use designation is intended
to really promote moderate and high density residential and commercial and office and
entertainment uses they kind of nets out that industrial piece but it does have that employment
component and it is typically found along highway corridors and aerial or I'm sorry
arterials and the typical zoning districts that we see with regional mixed use would
be mixed use regional as well as highway corridor things that we see on I-35 and our larger
roadways the general criteria for approval is in sub chapter two of the debt and development
code and we'll just go over one section of that there's there's a full discussion of
all of the criteria in your backup but we'll just go over one particular point and that
is the overall goals of the comprehensive plan when analyzing the applicant's proposal
we looked at those land use goals we wanted to see if it met if it was consistent with
those and and and three in particular so first grow compactly this segment of loop 288 is
that regional corridor that we that connects I-35 to US 380 so it's a pretty important
road within the city and it has developed and you can kind of see that the evolution
of that road starting with the development along I-35 and then slowly tracking and transitioning
north that it's developed with those commercial uses with a mix of retail restaurant office
and high-density residential this request was supports that trend and it would provide
a basis for zoning just decisions that would encourage not only infill development but
in infill development in one of our important commercial corridors with a variety of commercial
and residential uses the second goal we looked at was to grow our assets it's an important
corridor as I said and so we want to make sure that we support that and this request
would support that and further strengthen the commercial character of loop 288 and then
finally grow with balance regional mixed use does provide support those zoning districts
and in particular that mixed use regional that is that that permits a wide variety of
uses so it would allow any zoning decision or any zoning on property to provide flexibility
for a property owner and development to respond to changing conditions and economic trends
there's also specific criteria for approval we won't go over all of them but we will touch
on a few of those so first of all how have events trends or facts changed in on the ground
in policy and in the character of the area since that comprehensive plan was adopted
so first I want to look at mobility changes I know I talk about Mayhill Road a lot but
it is it is a it's a pretty important road and that it connects Denton to a lot of other
to our Denton County communities to the south and then on to DFW airport and points beyond
so it's a really important roadway for regional mobility and that is there are piece of it
pieces of it that are finished there and it's it's it's coming online and it will continue
to strengthen the regional mobility in that area and there's also expanded government
offices the the county offices that I pointed out and took a picture of those have really
expanded in the last five years and and kind of come become a sort of hub for for their
operations as I said before prior to the 2015 comprehensive plan adoption this area was
zoned for more industrial and employment type uses and that really did inform that comprehensive
plan and has set the stage for that future land use designation and and now we're looking
at you know with with the the surrounding development pattern maybe maybe that that
isn't the correct zoning and the correct development pattern we want to see because the the current
trend really is to move away from that light industrial employment or industrial employment
in the area more to that commercial development and that higher density housing to support
the commercial development additional reviews standards we want to make sure any any change
to the future land map is is a provides a benefit to the city and in this case it would
encourage that additional mixed use development to expand that that development near that
government center in the commercial district we want to make sure it's compatible with
the land use goals and avoid the isolated isolated uses the permitted uses in the associated
zoning districts with the proposed future land use designation is consistent with the
land use goals and consistent with existing development we want to make sure it doesn't
significantly alter acceptable land use patterns existing land use patterns once again we don't
anticipate that this would result in undesirable land use patterns where there won't be any
jarring transitions it's it's pretty consistent in both use and scale and then we want to
make sure that we don't create any adverse impacts on public services and facilities
you know this is an area where there's been a lot of investment and and thought put into
mobility and so this is this is kind of an infill area that that is currently served
and would not be adversely impact impacted by the change additionally we want to make
sure that the development pattern contained in the existing plan does not provide adequate
and appropriate optional sites for the use or change being proposed in the amendment
so when we looked at this we looked at where we have regional mixed use in the city and
it really centers on three areas we've got razor ranch which is a retail restaurant and
high density residential area also has entertainment uses also didn't enterprise airport that's
a little different that's kind of the transportation hub so it's kind of it's sort of sort of
a different a different end result or a different type of use or development but but the end
result is it is regional type development and then finally loop 288 this is this is
our legacy commercial center this is where golden triangle mall started at all in the
80s and then the retail has really moved toward the north and is really filled in but but
there are now limited spots where you could kind of master plan a mixed use commercial
development that has frontage along 288 loop 288 with that that access and that visibility
and that site decision conditions would make development under the current plan designation
inappropriate while while we want to make sure that we are protective of our employment
centers throughout the city we feel like there is adequate land dedicated to that based upon
our GIS analysis and that in this instance folding in those residential uses and going
to more to more commercial standard is is would be necessary to support the existing
and future commercial and employment development within the city and then areas adjacent to
loop 288 are really more suited to those commercial uses we did send out public notification we
haven't received any responses in opposition or in favor and so based upon the criteria
for approval staff recommends approval of the request and I will be happy to answer
any questions and I do believe the applicant is also on the line as well that is great
Julie I appreciate the presentation Commissioner Beck thank you chair Julie can you go back
to slide 73 and 74 the alternative review for geo and light industrial you bet yeah
that larger one would be better actually yeah so for that region it's it's I'm concerned
I mean I you covered it but I'm concerned about the the sort of induction of sprawl
of our sort of office complex light industrial business innovation areas can you point out
where other than that purple region we're talking about where we might have light industrial
general office in in the region I don't want to push all those to the outskirts of town
because that's another form of sprawl so where would we develop sort of centrally in a compact
way those same uses that we're proposing to change in a nearby facility in a nearby region
you bet I can I can absolutely answer that so we have a little piece here and it does
have that access to mayhill so and that kind of within the city we also have a piece here
off of 380 we have and then we have quite a bit on this northern portion and you know
when I when I think of business innovation it really kind of my mind goes to something
like something like a distribution type development and so you know you are going to see that
centered more on I-35 because you really do have that easy in and out for large truck
traffic and so so you know especially this piece on the north side of town business innovation
is a great that's a great spot for it because business innovation can fold in that that
that distribution that light manufacturing maybe some medium manufacturing provide optimal
access to to I-35 for or distribution and and logistics type uses it also provides points
to the west when you consider it's it's right there off of three days 380 we also have a
few parts of business innovation here on the west side of town and then we have a little
bit here on 377 so you can kind of see it does sort of hug some of our our our areas
where it's kind of easy to get in and out of the city probably because you want to make
sure that those do you have adequate capacity for large truck traffic we want to make sure
that we we think about those edges with business innovation and particularly adjacent to residential
so that we always think about that when when we're talking about when you get to the fine
grain of zoning so you know we want to make sure that the business innovation is appropriate
and not only in transportation but in in land use in development scale so I guess my concern
is the the areas you pointed out again were on the sort of edges the periphery of town
and in terms of maintaining a sort of compactness and an opportunity for sort of a mixed environment
where you know you have transitions from residential to commercial to light industrial and they
and you have a nice sort of mix that prevents sprawl to the outskirts I understand the the
rationale for for getting on the 35 corridors but if you wanted a 2020 light industrial
use which isn't going to be maybe necessarily a you know a large you know Kubota factory
or something like that but might be more of a high tech establishment that would be maybe
more ideal for being near government offices near downtown near the commercial district
that would be adjacent to it if we maintain that and the other thing that concerns me
is those light industrials will be have less of a traffic impact on shady oaks whereas
if you have a bunch of small facilities with lots of traffic in and out all the time for
commercial use you'll have a lot higher impact and the TIA will be much more important right
there and and then further sort of peripherally on the light industrial especially on the
south part of that property is going to have less of an environmental impact unless you
fill up the entire parcel than a bunch of small businesses and residential and their
impact on concrete so I think that sort of the the density of what we're proposing going
to is is you know not ideal for traffic not ideal for the environment and and precludes
anything but small retail extending up into that corridor so we just won't have an option
we'll have to go 380 we'll have to go 35 there won't be any opportunity for the kinds
of businesses that were sort of proposed just a few years ago to go into that region so
I'm I'm concerned about these changes and I guess those are those are my comments thank
you Julie thank you Mr back anyone else have questions for staff and I think she said the
applicant was here as well if there's questions for the applicant again we don't have anyone
calling in on this item or registering any opposition or support formally so I will close
the public hearing and I will turn back to the virtual dais for questions comments motion
and discussion commissioner Alice thank you chair I guess I do have a question for Julie
unless she's addressing this perhaps with the next item but I know when when this item
came before us before it had to do with traffic and possible future signal lights and whatnot
are you addressing that on this item or perhaps you have the next I've got that in my next
presentation but if you like if that if that is something we want to talk about with this
I can certainly I can certainly fast forward to those slides and we can start chatting
about it if you like I can I don't want to speak for the rest of the commission but that
would be fine with me if it would help inform your vote commissioner Alice I think it'd
be a good idea to go ahead and and look into that all right well let me get that pulled
up and we'll kind of talk through that let me get to the most all right so here we go
so I'm I apologize I'm having some technical difficulties with the presentation almost
there okay here we go so yes we did talk about this in March and it did it did we did have
a discussion about traffic and wanted a little more information about traffic associated
with the request so the applicant went back and did a little analysis I did a little research
and then also talked with engineering so the first of all I want to talk about loop 288
when I talk with engineering a six-lane arterial road like loop 288 can accommodate about 80
to 90,000 vehicles per day that's what they're designed to accommodate I also found the cog
traffic counts for the subject property or for I'm sorry an area just south of the subject
property it's where this yellow star is the 2018 traffic counts they were they were taken
on a Wednesday and it's for 24 hours there were twenty four thousand five hundred and
forty five northbound trips and there were twenty three thousand four hundred and fifty
southbound trips of those over about ninety five percent of those trips were motorcycles
cars and pickup trucks so essentially passenger vehicles so when you look at that to me that
data tells me that this really is a commercial corridor and that an introduction of something
like an industrial use could impact the character of that street commissioner Ellis I know you
asked about signals in the area the subject proper or the the the corner of the subject
property shady oaks and loop 288 there is a signal there that shady oaks turns into
morse when you go to the east and it it is slated for improvements that will increase
the size of the road to three lanes as you get closer to mayhill I believe it's four
lanes here it'll transition to three lanes so that that's those improvements are slated
at some point in the future it is on the mobility plan and the city actually has some right
of way for for for this road brinker to extend north so there's a lot of connectivity in
this area and there's a lot of arterial connectivity and then the applicant also provided a couple
of scenarios for us to look at so so for their proposed rezoning they're one thousand multifamily
dwellings about 250,000 square feet of shopping center and 150,000 square feet of office according
to their analysis would generate about 18,000 588 trips for a 24-hour period I think that
changed slightly from their original analysis but I think the first one was a little closer
to 19,000 but but but that's what they're estimated is now because this would be a mixed
use development it would create something called internal capture so say you drive to
your office that's in a mixed use development and at lunch you go shopping on site or you
get a sandwich you don't leave the site so you don't impact the surrounding roadway network
so they're they're they anticipated internal capture for that would reduce those trips
to about 9,270 on site there would also be large trucks because there are deliveries that
would have to be made so the estimate is about 30 large trucks would be would visit that
site on a daily basis so that would be the proposal under the current zoning they would
they could develop 800,000 square feet of industrial space with 400,000 square feet
of offices just as sort of a top line concept that would generate about 6,500 trips per
day because this would be more single use there would be minimal internal capture so
that really wouldn't play into it but it would increase the large truck traffic to about
450 per 24-hour period and that impacts loop 288 in two ways first of all it would reduce
roadway capacity just by their sheer size I did I did a little little research on it
at a large truck is about 65 feet versus a 17 feet for a large SUV so they're about four
to one so it would reduce that roadway capacity just by their sheer size and additionally
just by adding that additional large truck traffic on loop 288 think about you know exiting
I-35 and then going up loop 288 it really would just kind of change that character of
that area to something that it is not what it is today due to the that that data that
cog has has has captured also transit you know something we didn't talk about in the
last meeting but there's a there's a DCTA route on the subject property there's a bus
stop right there on loop 288 and that route four connects directly to the a train so once
this property develops you know a resident on the property or an office worker could
could take the bus and the trains all the way to DFW airport or downtown Dallas without
ever getting on a roadway so you know the traffic is just one thing but we want to think
about all of those modes of transportation and then a full two TIA would be required
for the development of the site however and they have been on that scoping with engineering
but per engineering with the with that existing capacity that loop 288 has and the proposed
trips it there's the current arterial network can accommodate it and that's kind of the
end of of the traffic discussion.
Kushalis are you good you saw the floor I want to make sure yeah thanks just a quick
follow-up I think I saw in that slide Julie there is no signal planned for Katrina correct
correct so I did talk with engineering and right now that intersection doesn't meet the
warrants for a signal you know it could in the future but right now there's no plan for
it being it just be nice for for people in those new county offices to be able to access
this with ease instead of getting in the car and and heading over but okay walk right well
yeah but it would help if there was a light on that end of their property as well so okay
thanks for the info Julie you bet there's your back Julie can you pull up the traffic
analysis study again please yeah there you go so even on a 4 to 1 analysis you're looking
at 1600 plus 6500 you know you're you're looking at at apples to apples there I mean that's
roughly 9000 for both you know in a best case scenario for the proposed zoning and a worst
case scenario for the current zoning so you know I'm not sure that that you're you're
really looking at the kind of changes other than the the makeup of the I agree the makeup
of the vehicles could change but again it's if you have a light industrial of a 2020 variety
as opposed to a heavy industrial heavy truck use you're not going to have the the level
of large trucks of 450 that could potentially be on that property so I'm not sure I guess
I well while I respect the numbers that I'm seeing there I'm not sure that that it's it's
really as disparate as is as we're being as perhaps as being said so thank you Julie sure
the public hearing is closed the chair would entertain a motion at this point there's no
other questions Chris Ellis I move approval we have a first for approval Christian Smith
we have a first and a second for approval is there any discussion on this item seeing
none I'll call for a vote be a roll call Christian Anderson hi Christian Ellis hi Christian Beck
hey Christian Cole hi Christian Pernetta hi Christian Smith all right chairs and I vote
carries our motion carries six one the next item of business as we've already alluded
to is item 3d z20 - 0002 a and Julie Wyatt does have the presentation for this I will
open the public hearing and invite Julie to present all right so all right so this request
before you is z20 0002 a and this is the zoning case for the canopy trails development so
the request is to rezone the subject property from general office and light industrial to
mixed use regional and as you know this is being considered concurrently with the comprehensive
plan amendment and it covers the same three tracks we'll compare the current zoning map
to the proposed zoning map that currently it has that li the split zoning of li and
geo they would like to rezone that to mr and you can see it is a it is a really a logical
continuation of that existing mr to the south of the general criteria for approval for zoning
applications is in sub chapter two of the dent in development code as well as the more
specific criteria and we'll go over the the relevant portions of that so first of all
dent plan 2030 the site is us designated as business innovation I think we've we've kind
of gone over that and that it's staff's analysis that that really should go toward the more
regional mix the regional mixed use and then the those overall goals of the comprehensive
plan really apply to this as well and so I won't go over all of these again but just
that that that intent to grow to encourage the end fill development we have these these
transportation networks in this area we've got a lot of existing development that can
that that can support each other and so this is the kind of area we want to see development
that it does it does provide a benefit to that city to our city one criteria for approval
minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property and the permitted uses in mr district are
consistent with the surrounding existing development in both youth and use and scale we see that
the government office uses we see a lot of retail uses we've got multifamily additional
multifamily coming in we also have public facilities so those two those typical uses
found on loop 288 are are consistent with the types of uses that are found in mr district
and they do complement each other is the proposal consistent with the purpose statement of mr
that the the 2019 code has purpose statements for our zoning districts in that and I'm I'm
really grateful for those because it really does provide guidance and and the purpose
statement for the mr district is that it's intended to provide a walkable urban center
to augment the regional draw and image of denton development may include national retailers
employment restaurants entertainment video venues and housing at the highest levels of
scale and intensity in within the city the mr district may be established in areas with
the greatest regional access and is sensitive to the adjacent built in natural context and
I feel like the proposal in this area is consistent with that purpose statement I think we've
gone over the transportation unless we want to talk about it again I'll sort of leave
that leave that we can talk traffic counts and then water wastewater is available to
the site of course tap and impact fees would be based upon the intensity of the development
right now they don't have that that that mix set so so that will be based upon their final
design public outreach was done we haven't heard any responses and staff recommends a
approval of the crest because it does meet criteria not only the general criteria but
also the approval for or the criteria for approval for zoning changes and I can answer
any questions and I also believe the applicant is available as well thank you very much Julie
for that presentation any questions for Julie on this item as I give the commissioners a
little bit of time to think through that I just want to note that there was no submission
of support or opposition to our email to the phone recording to the office or on the line
currently there's not been any public feedback on this item specifically the applicant is
on the line if there's any questions of the applicant but since there's no one here to
speak I will go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it to discussion motion questions
of the of the commission commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for
approval commissioner Anderson a second we have a first and a second for approval any
discussion on this item seeing none we'll call us to a vote via roll call commissioner
Anderson aye commissioner Ellis aye commissioner Beck aye commissioner Cole aye commissioner
Smith aye commissioner Pernetta aye the chair is also an aye motion carries six one congratulations
that moves us to the next item of business which is our plan and zoning project matrix
I will turn the floor over to Richard Kanoni for updates and then if there's any questions
of the commission I don't have any updates on the on the matrix chart itself I will just
update briefly city council last night approved the SUP for the speed of light tower the monopole
tower that we heard at our last meeting as well as the rezoning for the Stonehill center
so those were both approved last night I suspect we'll be having a lot more agenda items as
we continue to move forward the next month or two we had a very good submittal this week
if you recall we had some limitations on the type of applications that we were accepting
under the under the various orders we now are open to accept all applications for the
most part variant we're variances well that is the only one that we are not yet until
ZBA meets but for at least planning and zoning commission we are accepting all and in total
we have submittals every Tuesday from new submit new applications in recent submittals
we had 30 came in yesterday which which is a very good sign so it's one of the higher
numbers that we've had in in some time and so I think there's some folks that have been
waiting to submit initially and so it's a good thing that they still wanted to see their
projects move forward and so hopefully we'll be having a much more busier agenda not that
these aren't but I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more applications as we continue to
move forward the next couple meetings Richard those 30 were they plats for shot clock consideration
or they the gamut of zoning and and all else really the gamut from from site plan or zoning
compliance plans ESA's initial ESA assessments construction engineering plans platting mending
plats so it really ran the gamut Christian Smith thank you chair Richard two questions
one what's the latest on when we can we can reconvene the face-to-face that period is
that I'm not sure I know they're gonna have another meeting I think next week they've
talked at some in some limited aspects of opening City Hall but I I don't think there's
anything at least in the near future I suspect for June our meeting in June we will still
be meeting this way at least for now second question on can we it seems like both these
past two weeks we've had work sessions spilled over into that 630 hour can we is there any
way we can we can push we can we go ahead and start work session at 5 rather than 530
just because there's there are a lot of questions and I don't know if it's the technology and
that's why it's delayed but two times now we've been 645 I think even last week Andrew
just went right from work session into into full meeting so we pushed it up to 430 or
5 for any of these things I mean we mean we even lost an item tonight you're still pushing
645 before you got started so just a recommendation no yeah we I think what had happened was there
were a couple of those meetings where we had light agendas and we just kept it at that
530 start time but we'll we'll kind of go back look at the agenda kind of kind of project
how long depending on the items and then we'll go back to Kathy reaching out to make sure
people are available whether we start at 430 or 5 depending and I think as we start to
get back into the swing of things we'll start having even some more work session items so
we may even have some of those four o'clock starts in the very near future and I'm saying
not saying you know I'm begging for it for four o'clock or 430 but you know when we do
a lot of questions we can get the items you know let's just let's let's give ourselves
a time to work such whenever we can so public meeting can go as fast as possible absolutely
definitely did help consolidate in the presentation so I appreciate that we just kept it up and
was able to go through those pretty quick Kirshir Ellis did you have something I did
yeah sorry so Richard is there any way we can make sure that that the notifications
going out have it pretty specific of where people can get more information I just I felt
bad that we had a couple of callers and they were angry because they felt like they didn't
have any information and we asked them to for their opinion and and if it was on there
then maybe it's not on there clear enough of where they can access the information but
can we we work on that absolutely I think what we need to start doing and we've talked
about it is making sure well we've while we've tried to include a little bit more of a descriptive
write-up more so I think on the SGPs because we don't have that many of these residential
replats I think that's where it it just kind of got it what we saw what happened but really
making sure that we include a copy of that so people at least have an idea what it is
it's sometimes more convenient to just look at the piece of paper along with the notice
yeah that's true but yeah anything we're yeah so that they can get more app more information
and be less confused and less mad when they speak to us thanks any other things for staff
in the matrix all right well seeing none I will close this meeting at 827 thank you everyone
and see you in a couple of weeks.
- Thank you.