I will call the meeting to order and we will jump into our work session items.
The first item is work session reports and then we will come back to the agenda items
for clarification and a work through of those.
To begin our first work session report is item 3A DCA 20-0001C and this is to hold a
report discussion about the process of Ditten's Development Code.
Thank you Chair.
Raman Ghida, Principal of Planning with Development Services.
Let me pull up my presentation real quick.
Okay, hopefully you all can see my presentation.
This is again regarding the Ditten Development Code amendment process.
For the brief presentation, just wanted to go over a history of the DDC update or our
DDC amendments, what we're proposing in certain categories, discuss a little bit about the
development code review committee and then also lastly talk about the schedule of how
we want to accomplish this or when we want to accomplish all of this.
So by way of history, as you all know, the DDC update was adopted in April of 2019, zoning
map transition chart was also considered and approved on September 17, 2019.
The code itself became effective on October 1st of last year.
We're approaching our one year anniversary and part of that one year anniversary is start
to look at the development code, how we can provide further clarity, align the processes
that we've implemented and then start with the code amendments.
All of this will also involve the DCRC, the Development Code Review Committee.
It worked well when we were updating the development code and we hope that the same group can offer
the same guidance and a review as they did in the past.
This is just a quick slide to, again, why are we doing the amendments now?
Obviously, there were some nonconformities that were created due to the adoption of 2019
development code.
We hope to continue to address those.
Again, there were also some state bills that were passed, specifically House Bill 3167
and other bills, we want to make sure that our code is in line with those provisions.
Then we continue to improve our development review process and we want to make sure that
our code is in line with that and anything that we can codify to make it clear for our
applicants, for our commissioners, for our council.
We want to do that as part of these development code amendments as well.
Lastly, we continue to hear feedback from our general public, the development community
and other boards and commissions on certain things that we can improve and so we are also
looking into some of those suggestions and recommendations.
Here are the four categories that we've identified for the DVC updates, amendments that is.
We have priority changes.
We also have substantive changes, which are basically recommendations that we are seeking
clarification and/or direction from our development code review committee.
We will be bringing that forward, hopefully, in the next month or two.
Criteria manual transfers.
These are transfers that are currently in our criteria manual that we want to include
in our development code.
It just gives it a little bit more, I guess, certainty or legalness to some of the criteria
that we're asking for.
And then last is the non-substantive changes, which are just minor typos or corrections
that just were inadvertently done as part of the DVC update back in 2019.
I skipped real quickly on priority changes.
These are ones that we feel that need to happen sooner than later and so we've put together
a list of these code amendments and we're hoping to take this forward.
In fact, we did talk a little bit about some of them at council yesterday evening regarding
some of those priority changes.
So here are what we feel are the priorities.
One that you'll hear tonight is the tattoo and piercing parlor that is on the agenda
for public hearing.
Some of the other things that we'll be bringing forward as part of our priority change topics
is the development contracts and then subchapter two, which is our administrative and procedure
section of the development code.
There are some things there that we want to improve on.
And so again, as we align with 3167, as we look at how we transfer or we transition from
the 2002 code to the 2019 code, how we can do better in regards to administration and
procedures.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Ron, just while you're on this slide, this was brought up in council last night and I'm
going to reiterate it here.
I understand that we need to be in line with 3167, but why hard code that into our DDC,
especially if the winds of political change ... This is a law that's unpopular in some
camps and there's political will to adjust this law.
And so why hard code our DDC to match that if then we're going to have to un-hard code
change it in a year or two?
Just a quick answer to that, Commissioner Beck, is just so that we're able to provide
that information clearly and concise with our development community as well as the general
public.
It's part of our Texas local government code, but a lot of our development community or
general public are more, I guess, familiar with the DDC.
So that's part of the reason why we want to make sure it's in the DDC and it's clear.
All right.
I just caution against over-alignment unless you're sure that this law is going to be ...
Got it.
Yeah.
Anyway, thank you, Ron.
I appreciate it.
Okay.
Commissioner Burnetta?
Is there a way to do it or is this already kind of cooked into it kind of to Commissioner
Beck's point where should this law get overturned where basically the adherence to those specific
things automatically falls off or would we have to revisit this at that time?
I think as we introduce it into the DDC, it follows a process.
We will have to do the same to remove it if that is the situation in the years that follow.
So we would have to come back to PNZ and City Council.
Okay.
So this is, again, our list of priority change topics.
And then here are our list of substantive changes.
As you can see, there's a lot on this slide.
I'm not going to go through all of them.
During our discussion with the Pre-Use DCRC, we did talk about those that are highlighted
or numbered one through three.
We did a lot of work there.
We hope to just bring that forward, and it's probably more or less a recap.
But there are other items that are topics that we want to bring forward to the DCRC,
and this will probably be the majority of them as, again, they relate to the four items
that we already discussed as to why we're taking forward these code amendments.
The criteria manual transfer are essentially what it says.
We're looking at our criteria manuals, stormwater, wastewater, transportation, as well as solid
waste and introducing electric, and I missed the transportation criteria manual as well.
There are items in those criteria manuals that are better suited in the DCRC, so we
hope to transfer those over to the DCRC, and we will still have those criteria manuals,
but they will not include some of the ones that, again, will be added to the actual development
code.
The last of the categories is the non-substantive changes, again, the typos, the corrections,
and other ones that we identify as we go through this process.
We have a list, and actually this list here is actually the largest number of changes
that we have identified, just because as you go through the new code, you just find things
that were inadvertently done or just need further clarity.
As far as schedule, we have an ambitious schedule for these code amendments.
We hope to have a majority of them by the end of the year.
It may be where we will be looking at some of these after the first of the year, but
our hope is that we can get started as soon as possible.
In fact, yesterday, October 6th, the City Council adopted a resolution to reestablish
the DCRC, and this is an item in our agenda tonight for the Planning Zoning Commission
to nominate and select a third member of the DCRC.
Once we have that identified or that person identified, selected, we will start again
with meetings with the DCRC, and all of those would be done after, obviously, we identify
that Planning Zoning Commission member.
That concludes my presentation.
I just wanted to provide you all with an overview of our process and how we're going to be handling
the DVC updates amendments in our timeline moving forward.
I'll be happy to stand for any questions.
>> Are there any questions?
Thank you, Ron, for the presentation.
I do not see any.
>> Okay.
>> The next agenda is another work session report, I believe also by Ron, item 3B, PZ20-225.
Since we had an earlier call, I'm kind of thinking of ballparking a 5 o'clock break
just for everyone to take a breather and reconvene, so you'll have it on your radar here in an
hour and a half or so.
We can just have a planned break.
So, with that said, Ron, are you ready for item 3B?
>> Yes, yes.
Chair, members of the commission, I had planned on presenting this item as you have seen in
your backup, but because of our discussion with city council yesterday, there were some
comments and suggestions, good suggestions that we want to spend more time on.
I am requesting that we move this item to a later date.
We'll bring this back when we have a little bit more, I guess, complete presentation for
you all to discuss.
So we will not be discussing or presenting this item today, but we will bring this back
at a later time.
>> Great.
Any questions about the work session 3B, bravo?
All right.
Thank you, Ron, for being here and reporting out on that.
Before we dive into the actual agenda, I just wanted to consult real fast with Richard,
is there any clarification?
I know there's a flurry of activity through email and maybe some changes and recommendations
we'll go over, but any last minute changes to the agenda for the evening?
>> Sorry, nothing additional.
>> Okay.
Great.
Then let's just hop right into it.
The first item of business is 2A, the minutes.
Is there any discussion or changes that need to be recorded for the minutes?
Okay.
Next item of business, we move into the consent agenda.
We have several items here, A through E. Happy to look at any of these, if anyone wants these
pulled.
Kirsten or Beck?
>> I just have -- I don't need full -- thank you, Chair.
I don't need full presentations, but I have a couple questions on B, C, and E.
>> Great.
Let's start with three different people, so let's start with Ron, if he's already there.
This is going to be item 3B, PP20-0015B.
And Commissioner Beck, you have the floor.
>> Okay.
Thank you, Chair.
So Ron, what -- what -- what DDC is this under?
>> Ron, you're muted.
>> Thank you.
Sorry.
Sorry about that.
This is the jury track, so this is under the 2019 DDC.
>> And -- okay.
So then that would mean it's the 20% tree preservation requirement?
Okay.
>> 30, I believe.
>> It is the new one?
>> It's the 2019, yes, sir.
>> Okay.
Okay.
So it's the 30%.
I mean, that -- that preliminary plat for those houses in the southwest corner, I -- I'm
just at a loss to see how you preserve 30% of -- I'm sorry for the bells and clicks.
I mean, let me mute a few things.
How you -- that southwest track preserves 30% of the trees?
How was that determined?
>> Tree survey, and one of the things that they do is a tree inventory, and based on
that inventory, the amount of DBH is calculated for the total, and whatever that total is,
you obviously identify the 30% number?
>> So yeah, I don't mean to interrupt.
I apologize for that, but if -- are they -- so the -- I understand the code is that it's
mitigation of -- of 30%, whether that's purchasing of -- or paying a fee for DBH or preserving
actual trees of DBH.
So can you enlighten me whether they're -- they're doing more purchasing or more preserving?
>> My understanding is that they're meeting the minimum requirement of 30%, and therefore
they meet the code.
Anything as far as any mitigation that's required comes out of whatever differences,
and my understanding is I don't have it in front of me, and I can happily pull this up
for the -- for the amount of mitigation, if any, that they're required to pay or replant
onsite.
>> Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, I'd be curious to know if you could get back to me on that, and then my last question
on this one is that gap, if you look at that -- you've got it up there on the plenary plat.
There's a gap between C7 and C8.
Do we know what's going on in that gap?
Yeah, right there.
You've highlighted it.
>> Yes, yes.
I think from what I'm looking at, the aerial, that may be part of the tree preservation
requirement.
>> Okay.
All right.
That's all my questions on this.
Thank you, Ron.
>> Okay.
>> Great.
Thanks, Ron.
Does anyone else -- yeah, Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Well, I had posted an email to you with regard to the asterisks on those couple of lots.
Did you ever get clarity on that?
>> I did.
I did.
And Haley was able to help me out with this.
Because there are only three, it's noted on the plat.
A lot of times, those asterisks are put on if there are multiple, you know, more than,
I guess, three or more than that can be noted.
That's something that is not necessarily in our code as far as asterisks, but as long as
they identified the lot and identified that it is part of an area that could be impacted
by the gas well, and they've done that through the note.
>> And I appreciate that explanation of how you came about that.
I like consistency, so I would love to see a stick with asterisks with regard to gas
well stuff, but I understand your determination.
Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Any other questions for Ron on item 3B?
Great.
Thank you.
Next, can I invite Carina Maldonado to stand for questions on item 3C, FP20-0020.
>> I'm here.
Can you hear me?
>> We can.
>> Okay.
Carina Maldonado, assistant planner, and I'm here for any questions.
We're back.
I believe you had a question.
>> Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
So there were concerns before this, when this was brought before us, about the drainage.
Can you just enlighten us about the changes that they implemented in the previous versus
this one so that we can understand what they updated?
And then secondarily, before you get going, I'll lead into the second question.
Same one I asked Ron.
Which tree preservation rules are in place on this?
>> Sure.
So for the drainage item on the eastern side of the site, between the preliminary plat
and this plat, they were working through their drainage and how to appropriately address
offsite easements for it.
And so the difference between this one and now is they were just trying to make sure
that there was an approachment into the ESA floodplain area, that there was no negative
impact, and then just obtaining the offsite rights for drainage into the property to the
east, which was from the previous owner, so he was okay with it.
And then the tree preservation plan is under the 2019 DDC for this item.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
On the drainage, I know that -- let me get my notes here, I apologize.
Do we -- so does that property of the east count -- I mean, it counts as an ESA.
Is that correct?
>> There is some ESA on the eastern side.
It doesn't encroach into the actual property boundaries.
>> Okay.
And so the sort of section 735 and 751 issues of drainage and construction drainage, that's
not in play for developing impervious surfaces and then draining into that east of the east?
I mean, that's being mitigated, can you help me -- what are they doing for the mitigation
if it is being mitigated?
>> I do not have an answer for that right now, but I can look into it.
I'm not familiar with the citations off the top of my head.
I'll have to look into it before we get to the regular session.
I just know that from the engineering standpoint, they meet all the minimum requirements in
order for this to be recommended approval.
>> Yeah, I was with Ron and I would appreciate it if you could get back to me on that one.
>> Thank you.
>> I'm sorry, I didn't catch you.
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
No, as I said with Ron, if you could get back to me and let me know about the drainage,
I'd appreciate it.
Thank you.
>> Did you provide me with the citations that you just had a while ago?
>> It was just the -- I flipped away.
It just -- the chapter 751 and 3 and then 735D relating to drainage and construction
drainage, you know, soil creep into ESAs, impacts on adjacent ESAs and 741, that sort
of thing.
>> Okay.
>> They may have covered it.
I just would like to be more aware of that, if we could do that, please.
>> Okay.
>> Any other questions for Karina on item 3C?
Karina, we did get one comment against this.
Do you know about that or if they were articulated in any kind of reason?
>> I -- let me pull it up, sorry, my mouse on my computer just happened to die right
now.
Let me --
>> Tragic.
>> I'm being timed.
Give me one second.
>> Take your time.
>> It appears that the comment for this -- here we go.
The comment states, please focus on the infrastructure of the city before you add more people.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Streets, sidewalks, schools, not to mention taking away green space.
So I believe they're more concerned about making sure that, you know, the roadway infrastructure
is in place and that we're not negatively impacting schools with additional students.
In the case of the roadway improvements, we did have a zoning compliance plan that was
approved before we moved through with the preliminary plot process.
And so roadway infrastructure, including sidewalks, was addressed and they do meet all the minimum
requirements of our transportation criteria manual and the DDC.
I'm not sure that we addressed schools particularly, but for this project, since it was -- it's
in the MN district, it's permitted by right.
We typically look at that when it comes through and then green space, they are required to
dedicate their open space.
I'm not sure what I'm missing.
The majority of these items were addressed during the zoning compliance plan.
I don't know if I'm missing anything on this.
No, I don't have any -- I think I appreciate the context of the comment.
That's all I was kind of looking for.
Is there any other questions for Karina on this item?
Okay.
Thank you.
We're going to go ahead and move on to item 3D, as in Delta FP20-0021.
And it looks like Haley is -- Wait, Chair, I misspoke.
I asked for D and that was a mistake.
I meant to ask for E. Oh, it looks like Julie was mind reading there.
Yeah, let's go ahead and skip to item E while Julie's there.
And if anyone has any questions for D, we can bring Haley up.
But item E, FP20-00096 or 9C.
It's all yours, Julie.
Yeah, I misheard E. So if you have specific questions about that, I'll be happy to answer.
Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
I just had -- like, I often do this, but could you highlight the changes, sometimes reading
through the esoterica and trying to flip back and read the previous esoterica is challenging.
I don't swim in it like you do, so if you could just highlight the changes.
Sure.
So a lot of the issues related to the previous plot that you saw were a lot of kind of cleanup
items.
So if you recall when you saw this in July, the first time, they had just submitted one
item, so staff had provided those broad comments for this final plot.
In the interim between when they asked for that extension for that first submittal and
that denial of the plot, there were actually some changes to the plan.
And if you recall, there was an ADP that Karina brought forward to you.
I don't know if it was the last meeting or -- so the building mix changed and just some
of those elements to the development.
So not a lot changed on this plot.
They still have that access easement here, dedicating right of way along Teasley.
There is some FEMA floodplain back here.
They are going to be adding a little bit of fill, so there is a note that they're going
to have to do that LOMRF, which is consistent with FEMA and city requirements.
So that's really -- and they have gone through and gotten their text-up permit, so they've
really kind of worked through just those checklist items that were required that they just weren't
ready for in July.
Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
I appreciate it.
You bet.
Any other questions for Julie on item 3E?
Great.
Thank you, Julie.
And before we move on to the individual considerations, is there any items or questions on item 3A
or 3D?
Those are the only ones we didn't call out specifically.
Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to next items of business, which is our individual
considerations section, starting with 4A FP20-0019.
This is marked by Mark Laird, but is he on the phone or is Ron presenting?
Mark should be on.
Good afternoon.
This is Mark Laird.
Can you read me?
We can.
Awesome.
This evening, well, this afternoon, I have for your consideration the approval of Cambridge
Brook addition.
It's a 102 residential lot in Fort Common area development.
It's located south of Vinnage Boulevard along the west boundary line of Bonnie Bray.
And staff recommends approval of this plot, and I stand for any questions you may have.
So any questions for Mark on this item?
Christopher Beck.
So two things.
My first question is, can you clarify, since we had the original backup and then it changed
in the email, can you clarify what was updated in the new emailed version?
And then the second question is, I want to address the, could you clarify the financial
impacts portion of the review?
Yes, the plot when it came in, it had four, as it's mentioned, it has four common area
lots that are owned by the homeowners association.
And with that, our code requires that the homeowners association, the CCRs restrictions,
fee restrictions for the property are submitted for review.
And that review, it did not meet our standards.
And so we made those comments.
The advocate was able to address those comments prior to this meeting.
And so we changed our recommendation to approval.
And I don't understand the question about the financial study.
So for these kinds of things, let's see, this is the final plot.
So I just was curious, I mean, it feels like we have this property didn't, I mean, I guess,
can you, I'm kind of burbling here, but my question was, it wasn't very clear other than
a statement on the matrix that you guys fulfill, that it doesn't meet, that it does or does
not meet, but it wasn't very clear on the criteria in which it was evaluated and how
it was meeting financial impacts.
And I would just like maybe a little more clarity on that.
If I may now reach out to Richard for assistance on this.
Yeah, I want to make sure I understand the question.
Is it a criteria for?
Yeah, isn't this 245E9?
And so my question was, basically, we dance around it all the time.
What are the financial impacts on the infrastructure?
I know that there is development costs associated with this, or impact fees rather.
And so I know that those are coming back, but I would just like a little clarity on
those impacts and how to assess 245E9.
For planning, it's really not one that would be relevant.
They're not asking for a change of anything.
They're developing within what the zoning allows for.
So they're meeting exactly what's on the zoning map.
So they're not asking for anything additional that would change than what's already planned
for the area.
All right, thank you.
Any other questions for Mark on this item?
Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to the next item.
Thank you, Mark, for the presentation.
Next item is 4B, PE20-0001.
And this item is Haley Zygursky's.
All right, good afternoon, commissioners, Haley Zygursky, senior planner.
This request is for a plat extension related to the Audrepoint subdivision.
You can see the location of the property outlined in yellow on the map.
This is about 13.2 acres.
It's located on both the east and the south side of Audre Lane.
A preliminary plat was originally approved for this subdivision in October of 2018.
It contained 53 residential lots and two common area lots.
Some of you may remember this property also went through a rezoning shortly before that.
So it was zoned in R6 with overlay conditions at the time.
The preliminary plat was in conformance with that, which limited the uses of the property
to single family with a maximum of 54 lots.
This plat is set to expire on October 24th of this year.
Sorry about that.
I didn't realize the camera was off.
So with that, the applicant has requested an extension to prolong the life of this preliminary
plat to allow them to continue working through the civil engineering and final plat process.
The code does require that a final plat be approved before the preliminary plat expires.
So they're coming up on that deadline.
In the interim two-year period here, they've been working with staff as well as the developers
for the property to the north and the east of them to resolve some drainage issues that
were fairly extensive along Audre Lane.
There is a pipeline just down to the east of this property that they were trying to
figure out how to get a storm drain to work around that pipeline.
They found an alternative solution to that that would result in a kind of regional detention
facility on the eastern project.
So while they've been working through that, it's caused some delays in their timeline
for this.
In the recent months, though, they have reached a very close to approval on their civil engineering
plans and they have recently submitted their final plat, I believe just yesterday.
So they should have no problem meeting the completion of this project within the six-month
extension that they've requested.
And with that, staff is recommending approval of this request.
We found that it meets the criteria and they have demonstrated continuing to work towards
completion of this project.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
It looks like we have one from Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Haley, just for my own notification, how does this work into the shot clock?
So is shot clocks are on the approval of a preliminary plat, correct?
Is that, am I understanding the law correctly there?
That would relate specifically to the review time frame between the plat being submitted
and getting to an approval.
Once a project is approved, the Denton Development Code establishes a two-year time frame in
which they can then get through final plat completion before a preliminary plat would
expire after it's approved by you all.
And they've had two years now, and so within the DDC, we have the ability to extend it
for six more months.
Correct.
You could extend for up to a year.
They specifically requested six months.
Okay.
All right.
I was confused.
It seemed like it was like the review and the language was in there, is trying to make
sure I understood the basically how the shot clock law worked at the end.
So just need a clarification.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Any other questions?
Oh, Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
So is the drainage issue solved or are they actually still working through that?
So they found a solution, like I said, they worked with the adjacent property owner to
the east and they are going to jointly install a regional detention facility on a portion
of that property that's going to be dedicated to the Parks Department, most likely.
So that would resolve the need because they found that alternative path for the drainage
to flow to that pond and avoid the pipeline issue.
Okay.
So they came to an agreement.
Correct.
They came to an agreement fully.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
So this just, thank you, Chair.
This just occurred to me, Haley.
I know the answer is yes, but when we have these kinds of situations where we have drainage
facilities, who is responsible, or I shouldn't say, I know it's just because it's not the
right answer.
Who is responsible for pest, mosquito, in particular, mitigation, when we create a private
or public drainage pond?
So typically a facility such as this would be, if it were on private property, it would
be privately maintained.
The city does have standards and enforcement for mosquito control issues.
In this instance, the property that it's on is intended to be dedicated to the Parks Department.
So that would become a kind of a city asset at that point, and the city would be responsible
for mosquitoes and any other issues that may arise with the pond as we would with ponds
and other city parks.
All right.
Thank you for that clarification.
I appreciate it.
Any other questions?
Okay.
Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to the next item.
Thank you, Haley, for that.
The next item is item 4C, FP20-0022.
This is Carina Maldonado's item.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
Give me one second.
I'm back to my no-mouth situation.
Okay.
This is a final clap for Glenwood Meadows Edition.
They are proposing 102 residential lots and three open-space lots.
This was previously a recommended denial, but since the publishing of the packet and
now we are now recommending approval of this item as they now meet the minimum requirements
for approval.
Let me backtrack a little.
This is a 68.774-acre site located on the southeast side of the future Bonnie Bray,
just north, 750 feet north of Vintage Boulevard.
The differences between what we had in the denial and now are that the portion of the
site to the east, which is that large open-space area, I believe it's Block D Lot 22X, they
have now worked at the Parks Department to dedicate that lot to meet the park dedication
requirement.
Previously, that was dedicated as an open-space lot and so now Parks is working with them
to meet their minimum park dedication requirements instead of payment in lieu of that.
The second item that's changed is we've now worked with them to meet their minimum tree
preservation requirements.
This project is going in under the 2002 development code and so there was just a miscommunication
with them through the application process.
They were showing us an incorrect inventory, so we needed to clean that up.
They have since addressed that and will not need to mitigate for trees on the site that
are being removed.
And then just to add on top of that, they are planting 396 3-inch caliber trees to offset
the removal that they are doing, but they do meet the minimum preservation requirements
for quality and secondary trees.
And then the last item that was previously denied but has now been addressed are the
HOA documents that are required to be reviewed by the city attorney's office for both the
open-space lot and then the notification for gas flows.
So all four of those items have now been addressed and so staff is now recommending approval.
Commissioner Becker.
Thank you, Chair.
Carina, so help me on the notification.
What does that mean for future homeowner purchasers?
What kind of notification are we talking about?
So similar to the gas flow notification that indicates which locks are being affected,
there's a note on the plat, but the DDC also requires that they include that notification
in the HOA document.
So we were just making sure that that was included as well.
The language is essentially the same language that's shown on the plat.
Okay.
And that sort of flood out of, oh, I think this is Hickory Creek, right?
I forget my creek names.
There's a little sort of flooded lake pond area, Oxbow Lake off the creek there.
That extends the floodplain all the way up to pretty much the property lines of where
they're shown on that plat.
How is this meeting both the construction drainage criteria and the overall floodplain
issues that, I mean, you have pretty much floodplain adjacent to fence lines.
I'll try to break down the question.
There is floodplain that is kind of wrapping around the proposed residential lock.
So you'll see the majority of the east side is floodplain and ESA and then there's a portion
of floodplain that goes around the west side where there's a gas well lot on there.
So they're required per our standards to, one, stay out of the floodplain and then have
a drainage easement or a floodplain easement along that.
I'm not sure about the very specific requirements related to that, but they do meet the minimum
drainage requirements in terms of making sure that there's no negative impact and that any
detention that's required that they are providing that, I apologize, I'm not sure if I answered
your question fully.
So I mean, you're in the right family.
So you partially answered it.
I guess my two concerns are, one, during construction, as we impact this property, that ESA to the
east and the floodplain is going to have soil creep and erosion that we specifically prohibit.
It's just a given, there's no amount of little hay bale berms that's going to stop that.
And so I guess I'm at a loss to see how we're covering 735B.
And then on top of that, I worry about the future homeowners with that floodplain being
right there.
I live here along Cooper Creek and you can see the impacts of poor development as we've
talked about in previous meetings where these bends and curves just flood out neighbors
who the old code was allowed to get too close to the creeks when they flood.
And it's a huge financial impact on the city.
We have to dredge it, drain it.
We have to do terrible things to the environment to keep those property owners safe.
And it should have just not been, a few of these lots should have just never been built
in the first place.
And these are very similar kinds of lots where there's a slowdown and you're going to get
those, even if it's not 100 year flood, you're going to flood out on a road, their property.
And we see that all over our creek beds.
And I just would like to see that we're sort of following our own guidelines and some of
those lots we don't put in, even though they're profitable, maybe the rest of this development
is fine, but a lot of those lots are just going to flood out.
And we know it and it's just challenging to then vote for something when I know some future
property owner is going to get flooded out.
So I guess that was more of a diatribe and a comment than a question to you.
But maybe you could address the 735D where the construction silting of that little ESA
to the east.
I know we're not allowed to have impacts on ESAs.
Yes.
So I could sort of, I could do my best to address that item.
I did go back to the code to look at the reference that you brought up.
So I believe if I understand it correctly, it's really referencing what we actually look
at the permitting process.
So when our applicant gets to their permit, they have to provide a, I believe they have
to get an inspection regarding their erosion control.
And if I take a step back from that, a lot of that is actually addressed with the civil
engineering plans.
So those have to be approved before we can take the final plan forward.
But during the civil engineering plan process or review, we do have our water administration
folks and engineering look at that.
They look at the erosion control plan along with their grading plans to make sure that
there's no negative impact.
And so that's when it goes back to the permit that they're basically putting in what they
said they were going to put in to make sure that, again, as you mentioned, that there's
no sediment release and without knowing the lingo, you know, that they're not disturbing
the ESA or the floodplain to the adjacent property.
But I do want to point out that the applicant is on the line and they could probably better
address kind of those drainage issues.
Overall, drainage is addressed during the civil engineering plan.
So without being an engineer, I can just, I can confirm that that was addressed.
It was reviewed.
And staff did look at that.
I can't provide you the specifics.
I'm not too familiar with everything that goes into that process.
And I'm not sure, Richard, if we need to get one of the engineers on the call to answer
this question.
But the applicant is available if you do have questions related to that specifically.
The only thing I'd like to add is 735 isn't necessarily a subdivision regulation.
It's more of a regulation that deals with permitting.
So these are things that are addressed after the plat is approved and has to do with actual
the land disturbing activities once that permit is issued for construction.
So that is all reviewed at the time of the pre-construction meeting, both with public
works inspections, water, building, and the like.
And so they go over all of these permitting requirements, making sure the SWP is up, construction
notice sign, and everything else.
I appreciate that clarification, Richard.
The thing that concerns me is when we, that we should take a comprehensive view.
And I know that y'all do, but if you wait until you've achieved that stage of development
where that particular chapter, even though guidance is in that chapter saying thou shalt
not or thou shalt, if you wait until you achieve that stage, then it is often too late and
a fait accompli to be able to provide guidance because of the way we phase out these developments.
So the fact that it's in our DDC, in our language implies that we think it's important and provides
backup for not letting this get so far into the process that we can't back out or make
changes that would otherwise let this project go through without the impacts.
You sometimes get to where I can't not have that particular lot there or that road there
without changes because I've already approved it in an earlier stage.
I think it's important to note, though, that if they're meeting our standards, if it becomes
an enforcement issue, then we deal with it that way.
But I don't think we can review these and automatically assume things are going to fail,
it's not going to work.
If they're meeting the standard, then we have to trust the updated standards that we put
in place, very different than what we had in place 10, 15 years ago.
>> All right.
I appreciate it.
Thank you, Richard.
Thank you, Karina.
>> Sorry about that.
The mute button got me.
Any other questions for Item 4C for Karina?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to Item 4D, PP20-4.
This item will be presented by Julie Wyatt.
Julie, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.
>> Okay.
Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city of Denton, and this one might
look really familiar to you.
You just recently saw a plan development amendment for this piece of property for the preserve
at Pecan Creek.
They are moving forward with their preliminary plan.
We are recommending denial.
It does not quite meet the standards yet.
There are some corrections they need to make.
So they have requested an extension to the November 4th meeting.
>> Great.
Thank you.
Any questions on this?
We will see it in three weeks or so.
Thank you, Julie.
This item is Item 4E, which is FR20-0008A, and this item will be presented by Ron McGuida.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Let me pull up the presentation.
Good afternoon.
This is a final replat application that was initially recommended for denial that was
included in the Friday packet, however, since the packet was sent out, the staff was able
to work with the applicant to obtain and review HOA documents, and that was really the main
reason for the recommended denial.
However, like I said earlier, they have submitted their HOA documents, and our legal staff has
reviewed it, and there are no other outstanding comments for this final replat.
Therefore, the recommendation is now amended for a recommendation of approval as it meets
all the criteria of approval for a final replat, and I'll be happy to stand for your questions.
>> Any questions for Ron on this item?
Okay.
I did not see any.
Thank you, Ron.
Next item of business is item 4 FPZ20-223, and this is -- I think my pages are out of
order.
Is this Ron or Richard?
>> This will be me.
>> Okay.
Great.
Sorry.
>> We'll go ahead and share this screen.
So this is the Development Code Review Committee portion of the agenda where we are seeking
a selection of a new DCRC member to represent the Planning Zoning Commission.
Again, the purpose of the DCRC Development Code Review Committee is to assist in the code
amendments, provide guidance, help prioritize, and review the draft amendments with the ultimate
objective to provide recommendation to the full City Council.
This is currently the makeup of the DCRC, three City Council members.
John Ryan serves as Chair, Keely Briggs serves as Vice Chair, and Chris Watts also serves
on the Committee.
Three Planning Zoning Commissioners are Andrew Rozell, Chair Andrew Rozell, and Vice Chair
Margie Ellis also serves on the Committee, or did on the Committee.
And we have a vacancy, and that is one that was held by Larry Beck, who is no longer with
the Planning Zoning Commission.
So what staff is seeking is for the Commission to nominate and select a Commissioner for
the DCRC.
This is, again, the schedule that we have, you've already seen this.
We hope to, as soon as we select a member from the Planning Zoning Commission, to start
holding our DCRC meetings to go over those categories that we discussed in an earlier
work session item.
With that, I'll stand for any questions and/or see where we go with the selection.
Ron, I have a couple questions that would be helpful.
We will take any nominations during the actual public hearing, public meeting, not now, right?
And then two, is there a preliminary schedule for my and Margie's notification, but also
for someone maybe considering this?
The frequency and duration of the meetings would be helpful, I think, to anyone accepting
a nomination for this.
And then lastly, can you remind me of the turnover date for council with the election
being in November?
When will Mayor Watts actually roll off service?
And Richard can correct me if I'm wrong, Cynthia, I understand that the swearing-in is on November
7-10?
So that leads me maybe to the logical question, is two members of the council representation
will serve half the duration of this project and then will bring in, theoretically, two
new council members to serve for the other half?
I just maybe throw out the proficiency of the project if two members have a turnover
mid-service of a pretty short sprint of a project.
I think the intent was to get the DCRC going and we understand there will be at least one
for sure that will not be at the DCRC.
Hopefully we will be going along sooner and we can get some items identified and discussed.
And when we get to that point, we'll transition to some of the items where we can and hopefully
that next person or persons can fill in that void.
Okay, and then the question of scheduling?
Yes, as far as scheduling, we know that it's going to be at least two hours.
We know that that's worked in the past.
An hour would just seem too short and then anything more than two hours would just wait
too long.
So between an hour and a half to two is what we're looking for.
As how often I think it's going to be initially, maybe every week.
However, that can change depending on how soon we can get things turned around or prepared
for the committee to review.
So I would say the first, maybe first couple of weeks will be every week and then adjust
after that.
But again, the length of the meeting would most likely be around an hour and a half to
two hours.
Okay.
Commissioner Beck, I think you had a question.
Yeah, I just actually agree with Ron on that, Chair.
If you and Margie are going to stay on, sorry, Commissioner Ellis, are going to stay on that
committee, then your expertise and existing knowledge would help guide any flopping of
council members of the committee.
So I think having some stability would help in that transition and I don't know how you
would avoid the transition of council members otherwise.
So that was my comment.
Thank you, Chair.
That's a good point taken.
I guess my counter would be appoint members of council that aren't subject to being turned
over readily.
There's three other council members, two other council members, there's members that would
remain.
Commissioner Ellis, you had a question?
Yeah.
Thank you, Chair.
Ron, are you still talking about Friday morning as we have done in the past?
You know, Commissioner Ellis, one of the things that we'll do, and I know this is probably
part of the decision-making factor, we hope to send out a survey to see who's able and
how many are able to meet on a certain date and we'll have to make a decision at that
point.
Friday's worked just because it was flexible in the people that were in the DCRC at the
time.
That may be different.
So I can't say it's Friday, but something that we probably should consider.
Understood.
Thank you.
Okay.
We'll revisit this in public hearing unless there's any questions.
Yes.
Okay.
Great.
Let's go ahead and move into the public hearing section of the agenda.
We'll start with item 5A, DCA 20-0004.
This looks like it'll be presented by Richard.
Ron's going to go ahead and take this one.
Sounds good.
All right.
I know I have a presentation in here.
Give me a few minutes to pull it up.
One second.
While Ron's pulling that up, I just wanted to note that thanks to Commissioner Ellis
pointed it out, in the draft ordinance, for some reason, if you look at the P pluses across,
there's not a plus added.
I think it's the highway commercial.
What happened was it just got cut off in that box as we were formatting, so it is a P plus
straight across.
So really all this amendment is doing is just adding a P plus to the column to permit the
use within MN.
Chair, members of the commission, I forgot to attach the PowerPoint presentation, but
I will make sure to have that as part of the public hearing.
But as far as the work session is concerned, as we consider this item, it's a code amendment
to the tattoo and piercing parlor use table in subchapter five of the development code.
Currently there are a number of these types of businesses, tattoo and piercing parlors,
in the city that were approved and legally started back before the 2019 code.
Either they were zoned NRMU 12 or NRMU, however, due to the transition to the new then development
code, 2019 development code, those properties that were zoned, those zoning districts were
transferred into or transitioned into an MN zoning district with the adoption of the 2019
code.
However, that particular zoning district did not permit or does not permit currently the
tattoo and piercing parlors.
So what we have is a number of uses that are now non-conforming, a total of seven of those
that are currently in place are zoned, are within a zoning of MN.
So what staff is proposing is to address the non-conformity by adding a P plus to the MN
zoning district for tattoo and piercing parlor, and what that will do is bring those seven
businesses into illegal statuses.
The plus specifically is a use specific standard, and what that is basically is that they must
comply with the state requirements under that type of use.
And that's it, that's all that's under the use specific standard.
So I apologize, I don't have the presentation for you during the work session, but I'll
make sure that what I'm referring to is illustrated in the public hearing section of this agenda.
Great, is there any questions?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Ron, I'm just curious, was this staff initiated or did some of these business owners come
to you?
I think, well, we definitely were asked to start this process, but it's being brought
forward as a staff initiated code amendment.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Okay, great.
Let's move on to item 5B, S20-0005.
This item is to be presented by Sean Jacobson.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
I'm just going to pull up my presentation here.
Okay.
So, good evening.
I am here to present S20-0005, which is a request for a specific use permit for a minor
automotive repair use on about a 0.201 acre site, generally located on the west side of
South Elm Street, just northwest of, north of the northwest corner of South Elm Street
and West Highland Street.
This is required, a specific use permit is required for the minor automotive use within
the MN zoning district.
This is a currently developed site, has an existing building, and that's had a range
of uses, which in the past has included automotive repair as well as air conditioner repair,
legal office, auto sales, and the opt-in is now wanting to pursue a tire shop in that
location.
So, as you can see here, this is the site plan they proposed.
They would be working entirely within the existing building and not proposing any expansions
or additions.
They do have the required amount of parking spaces.
The one change which we'll discuss a little bit later is the replacement of the existing
visible dumpster with dumpster on casters that could be moved back behind the existing
fence on the site.
The surrounding development, as you can see, includes commercial and mixed use commercial
to the north, a variety of auto repair and auto sales uses there to the east, and then
duplex residential dwellings to the south and west.
And again, this is an existing building that's been there, I believe over 25 years, not proposed
to be changed with this, just to bring in this use, which now requires the SEP.
You're familiar, we have our general approval criteria as well as specific criteria for
the SEP and we'll touch specifically on kind of the key elements that apply to this site.
One of the big ones we always look at is the compatibility of the proposed use with the
surrounding area.
This is a mixed use corridor area.
So as you saw, we have a variety of commercial and residential uses.
This fits in with that pattern, the proposed use is similar to a previous minor automotive
repair that's actually existed on the site.
And as I said, the building's been there for an extended period of time.
We see this as a neighborhood serving commercial use, which is an important part of a mixed
use area.
Surrounding properties zone similarly, MN, and it's developed, there's certainly potential
for redevelopment, but this is not expected to limit that potential.
Another real important thing to look at is mitigating any potential negative impacts.
One of those is noise, and so that's addressed in two ways.
All of the bays point away from the adjacent residential.
In addition, staff has recommended and the applicant has agreed with a condition of approval
that all work will be performed inside bays, no work will be done outside of it in order
to limit the effect of any of the tools that are being used.
Another important consideration is the visual effect as well as the effect of the refuse
storage area.
Use specific standards already apply.
All storage of equipment, auto parts, supplies that they use in the servicing of the vehicles
needs to be inside.
However, we've added and the applicant has agreed to additional condition of approval
that no wrecked or inoperable vehicles may be stored on site, so you're not going to
have junk cars sitting in the back there.
In addition, and this goes to the dumpster that I referenced earlier, and as you can
see there right now, it's in full view adjacent to the right of way, and we as a condition
of approval, we've recommended and the applicant has agreed that at the applicant's expense
that will be replaced with a dumpster of similar capacity on casters that will be stored behind
the fence.
You can see there and just rolled out on the pickup day and then put back, which removes
a current aesthetic down point of the site and takes away, you know, the presence of
a dumpster regularly on the border with neighboring properties, as well as the right of way.
So that condition of approval helps mitigate that issue.
Finally, it's always important to look at compatibility with the overall comprehensive
plan.
This is part of the downtown compatibility area.
And so uses in this area are intended to provide compatibility between downtown Jason residential
and commercial.
And one important part of that is providing neighborhoods serving commercial in a scale
and form that's sensitive to the surrounding built context.
So again, we're talking about a building that has existed for a long time.
They're proposing to bring in a neighborhood serving commercial use.
It is consistent with the goal of providing neighborhood serving commercial in that area.
It also meets DP 2030 goals of developing a long corridors, which is this is a primary
arterial and facilitating non residential adaptive reuse existing buildings.
We have an existing commercial building that's currently not being used.
This would provide a commercial use in that fighting stability.
Providing adequate public facilities is also important.
They looked at traffic generation would be a morning peak hour generation of about 11
trips, evening peak of 13 trips.
As this is a primary arterial use is similar to most recent previous use.
It's not expected to have negative effects that traffic generation.
We've addressed solid waste, which will be handled by that dumpster, which will now be
out of sight.
Water and wastewater and other utilities are already provided to the site.
No changes will be necessitated if this use is approved.
We did as a standard, provide the newspaper and property posting mailed out notices.
We did receive two responses in opposition and those were included in your backup neighborhood
zoom meeting was also held.
One neighbor did attend expressed concerns about noise and traffic generation, had some
conditional concerns, but was one of the two that wrote in a letter.
So you've had a chance to review the full concerns there.
So with that staff is recommending approval with the following conditions because based
on having those approval conditions, this does meet all of the criteria for approval
and is consistent with plan 2030.
Again, not that the conditions related to the rolling dumpster that all work on vehicles
will be conducted inside vehicle bays and shall not be performed outside and that there
shall be no storage of wrecked or inoperable cars on the site.
So with that, that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you
have.
Okay.
Mr. Smith.
Hey, Karen, Sean, so it was, it was a minor repair auto shop and is it, it's currently
vacant.
You said now.
So there's when was, when was that minor, when was that last tenant in there?
It was within the last year that, that, uh, that you ceased.
Okay.
Cause a lot of, a lot of the citizen comments have been in regards to the ways and not wanting
to have those, you know, that, that use around, but that use has kind of always been there.
Do you know any history longer than the last year?
Has it been an auto shop for as long as that building's been there?
It kind of looks like it's designed to be an auto shop.
It has also previously been an air conditioning repair shop within the last 10 years.
It's hosted a law office, but as you say, the initial design there certainly was set
up for a minor automotive repair.
Okay.
Got it.
Thank you.
Chris, you're back.
Thank you, chair.
Um, yeah, can Sean King, similar to, to commissioner Smith's question, uh, when did the surrounding
residential, uh, come in, uh, I guess it's a duplex.
Uh, yes, sir.
That was, that use was, uh, I'm sorry, let me rephrase, uh, the building permit for that
was approved between last July and last September and construction completed this year.
So that's a new duplex.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Previously it was a single family residence.
Thank you.
Great.
Uh, any other questions?
I don't see anything.
Thanks for the presentation, Sean.
Thank you, sir.
The next item of business is item five C ZC I 20 dash zero zero one D. This is Ron McGuida's
item.
Thank you, chair, um, let me share my presentation.
So for, um, Ron McGuida, principal plan with development services.
So for your consideration, uh, this evening is a public hearing item, um, a zoning, uh,
case, uh, rezoning, um, that is going to be presented by myself as well as Danny Shaw with
community services.
Um, she is the community services manager.
She is on the call.
So if there are any questions related to the, uh, proposed project, she will be hopefully
able to help answer those questions.
So the request inside location of the subject rezoning is located on loop 288, uh, it is
proposed to, um, change from SC suburban corridor to public facilities, which is PF.
It's approximately five acres, uh, in size.
It's of the existing building that you see there highlighted or surrounded in yellow.
Um, it is an existing commercial building with parking lots, a parking lot, um, and
again, located along loop 288, um, between, uh, the road and an existing substation.
Uh, this is just to illustrate the zoning change as you can see, the zoning will go
from this pink SC, uh, to if approved, uh, will be, uh, changed to a PF, uh, that will
make this entire area here, uh, one continuous zoning district.
So one of the things or a couple of things that we look at, um, in regards to any application,
there are 13, um, approval, uh, criteria, uh, applicable to all applications and they
are listed here.
I won't go through all of them.
However, I've highlighted three that I think is worth mentioning, uh, is the rezoning consistent
with the comprehensive plan?
Does the rezoning, uh, will, would it minimize any adverse impact on surrounding property?
And lastly, will the results of the rezoning, uh, will it have, uh, adequate public services
and facilities?
Um, these are some of the things that we look at and have, have answered and as part of
your backup, uh, in addition to the, um, approval criteria for all applications, there are also
criteria for approval for specifically zoning map amendment or rezonings.
And again, they are listed here and there are a total of seven.
Um, uh, I'll just briefly go through them consistent with the future language map, consistent
with any small area plans, uh, does it, um, is it consistent with the purpose statement
of what the proposed zoning district is, um, will, um, there have been a have been or will
be significant changes in the area.
Um, five, the intensity of the development in the new zoning district is not expected
to create any adverse impacts to surrounding properties.
Uh, six public facilities and services are available and adequate.
And seven, that the zoning, um, was, uh, original zoning was not, uh, an error in establishing
the current zoning.
So first, uh, is it consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Well, the proposed use, um, which is, I'm sorry, proposed zoning district is PF, um,
and looking at the surrounding zoning districts, uh, it is, um, going to put PF in line with
the other areas that is currently zoning PF.
Uh, it is a long loop 288, a very, um, um, appropriate, uh, area for PF.
Um, the proposed use, uh, development will help facilitate the opportunity to establish
some programs to serve our den community in need of need.
Uh, it is also looking at redevelopment, redeveloping the existing underutilized property.
And again, the last two bullets there are just that it complies with the development
standards and the setback requirements under, uh, the development code.
How is it, um, as far as the surrounding properties, uh, where is it located in, in relationship
to some of the more sensitive uses and in this case, uh, single family homes, um, to
the north, as you can see, it's undeveloped, it's currently zone PF.
So the zoning to the north is, is going to be consistent or is, is, is PF.
To the west, uh, we have an existing sub station, uh, and then further to the west of that substation
is the, uh, residential neighborhood, a residential neighborhood, um, in the zoning for the substation
directly adjacent to the proposed zoning area is also zone PF.
To the south is undeveloped, as you can see here, um, there's, um, some proposals that
we've seen in the past, but nothing has really developed, uh, the, the zoning of that parcel
of parcels are zoned, uh, are seven residential seven.
And then to the east across, uh, loop 288 is some uses that the DPS building is there,
uh, FEMA's further to the south, uh, but in general, the area is undeveloped, um, and
the zoning consists of both PD as well as mixed use neighborhood.
Um, just to dive in a little bit more on how this, um, area is situated, again, the DME
substation, uh, sits between the proposed, um, zoning district or zoning area that's
under consideration.
Audra Meadows is to the west, uh, and then, um, Mockingbird Heights is even further to
the west.
Uh, Providence square is to the east across, uh, the high, um, the highway loop 288 and
other undeveloped properties.
We wanted to show just to illustrate how this is viewed from, uh, loop 288.
And I'm sure some of you may have already driven by this site.
As you can see, this is taken from the, um, loop 288, um, area and looking west, uh, there
are obviously some trees, uh, along the northern part of that lot, uh, as well as you can see
in the very, um, background, it's the substation, uh, that is, uh, surrounded by a masonry wall.
Um, my understanding the area along between the substation and the residential, um, neighborhood,
there are fences that basically border that neighborhood, um, to the west.
Uh, this slide here illustrates it even more, um, wanted to get close to between the substation
and the existing neighborhood.
Uh, there is a gap between there.
Uh, there are some trees and also again, between the masonry wall of the substation and the
residential neighborhood, there's also some fencing, existing fencing.
So one of the things that we look at as far as, uh, potentially adverse impact to, um,
the area, again, we're looking at a PF zoning district.
So this here list all, list all of the uses that are allowed under the public facilities
zoning district.
And again, I've highlighted a number of them, um, primarily as it relates to the proposed
use of the property, uh, future use community service is a permitted use, homeless shelter
is permitted use, administrative, professional, and government office is a permit use.
And this is one of the reasons why this zoning district was selected is because of those
three items or three uses that is primarily what will be if approved, uh, the uses that
will be associated with this building, um, proposed uses to be considered, um, I'm going
to turn this over to, um, to Danny, I think she's on the call.
Uh, she's, uh, better, um, informed as to the day to day and propose, um, uh, programs
that are proposed for this development.
So if I can have Danny chime in.
Hey, Danny Shaw, community services, uh, commissioners that we're looking at a proposed project that
would, uh, include a day shelter and an overnight shelter for people experiencing homelessness
and people who are at risk of homelessness, the services proposed would include, uh, supportive
services for people who are in need of assistance, especially you're dealing with the effects
of poverty with a primary focus on food security, providing meals and other resources for folks.
And then, um, our overall, it meets in alignment with our overall plan for our housing crisis
response system that helps people both maintain housing so they don't become homeless and
or provide them a shelter if they are homeless while they work towards the housing solution.
Thank you, Danny.
Um, the notifications for this, um, public hearing was sent out, um, in line with Texas
local government code.
Uh, we did send out notices to people within a turner feet.
Um, and those consisted only six, as you can see from the red, uh, there are not that
many, uh, properties that are within the two or two foot boundary.
Uh, we also sent out notices, uh, courtesy notices, postcards to property owners, not
just due to 500 feet, because we realized that 500 feet really wouldn't garner any,
um, input.
So what we did is we extended that, uh, notification to a thousand.
So those within a thousand feet of the subject site were sent a postcard, uh, notifying them
of the public hearing, public hearings, uh, related to this zoning case.
Um, initially we, we had intended to bring this public hearing item to you all earlier
this summer.
However, due to, um, uh, ownership, um, reasons we postponed it, um, but before then on June
4th, there was a virtual neighborhood meeting held by the city, uh, where we, um, heard
from the community, uh, that called in.
Uh, there were a number of folks that, um, participated in that virtual neighborhood
meeting.
And, um, after this slide, Danny's going to go over some of the questions and some of
the responses that we provided, uh, as a, as a result of that community meeting.
As of, uh, this afternoon, uh, I know we've received a number of, uh, notices and or,
uh, comments, uh, that were either sent to you all, um, hopefully you have had an opportunity
to at least see some of them.
Uh, they, they still are coming in, uh, and the red represents the, the folks that are
opposed to the, um, subject rezoning.
Um, again, those are the ones in red here.
Uh, we do have only one that's within the 200 foot and that person owns this property
here and this person is in opposition outside of this person.
Most of them are, are, are not within the turn of foot.
They're just outside, um, the 500 foot in between five and foot and the 1000 foot boundary.
So I'm going to turn this back again to Danny to talk a little bit about the neighborhood
meeting that was held on June 4th.
Thank you, Ron.
We did provide in your backup, a response that was provided to the participants, uh,
on the neighborhood meeting.
We wanted to go through what we heard were their issues, including some concerns for
negative effects on property values, concerns for increased crime concerns for the safety
of residents, some questions about what the city will be doing to prevent, um, traveling
through the neighborhood information about what, what other locations might've been considered
and how we would prevent individuals from living on sheltered as well as some plans
for the area between the neighborhood and the center as it's currently located.
We did share some information about what we had already been planning in advance, which
was looking at how we would provide sensing and barriers and lighting appropriate to contain
what's happening in the, in a facility to the facility.
And then we've identified some other strategies, um, that we would like to deploy once a provider
is, um, secured in what requirements we will place on that provider.
Um, but the biggest one is we've made it very clear that there will be no camping in or
around the property.
We'll make sure that the fencing, um, is considered with neighborhood engagement.
And then also looking at how transportation and mobility will be an important part of
our conversations, how people get there and how, how they exit the property currently
does have sidewalks in front of it and a bus stop.
So those are some of the things that we're looking at immediately, uh, with the project
based on the feedback we, we heard from the residents.
Can you talk a little bit about the good neighbor concept?
Sure.
One of the requirements that is, is under consideration in the, in the agreement with
the nonprofit provider is what we're calling good neighbor practices.
And we will expect them to employ staff who will do daily inspections of the property
in the surrounding area and then connect with anyone who might be there and shouldn't be.
And then we have a direct connection now with our new mental health unit that they can connect
with to make sure people are exited from the property who shouldn't be there and who should
be engaging with the shelter services.
And then a couple of other requirements that we would like them to do, which is to do ongoing
neighborhood meetings to make sure that any issues that do come up throughout the course
of their use of this facility will be addressed quickly and immediately.
Thank you.
Um, so with that, um, just wanted to share the public hearing, uh, schedule, uh, of course
today we'll be considering it the planning zoning commission.
Well, uh, there has been a change in the date, uh, initially it was published for November
3rd, uh, that has, um, obviously, um, will not happen because of, um, the election.
We are now going to be considering this or the city council will be considering this
after the planning zoning commission makes their recommendation on November 10th, uh,
2020.
A staff recommendation, uh, is for approval as it meets the requirements of, um, the Dunvely
code, uh, for approval of the zoning change.
With that, uh, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
And if there are any related to, uh, the program itself, Danny Shaw will also be able to answer
questions.
I think we'll have some questions.
Let's start with Mr. Smith, um, the, uh, Ron, who is the actual applicant loop to 88 property?
Um, who is the applicant that's actually initiating this and is it, is it, is it this, is it Danny's
division that's going to be hosting this, this, this shelter there or who's actual entity
that's going to be operating?
Is it Monsignor King?
Is it, I think some of those, uh, agreement that was struck there.
Can you kind of give me some?
Sure.
I'll answer the first part of the question.
The city, uh, city of Din is the applicant of this rezoning.
I thought it was a city property, so I wanted to make sure.
Right.
City property.
And that's partly the reason why it's been postponed.
We, we were able to take ownership of the property just this past summer.
Uh, but as far as the selection, uh, I don't know if we've selected a, uh, provider yet,
but maybe Danny can fill us in a little bit of where we are on that.
Right.
The provider selection hasn't been finalized.
We have been working with, um, two entities primarily.
Um, but that, those agreements will come later once we've gone through the processes of identifying
and then creating the agreements that are appropriate for how we want someone to manage
the facility and services.
Okay.
And then, uh, Ron, if you wouldn't mind, can you, could you show on the, on the site, uh,
or on the aerial map where the property itself, where the boundaries of the property and specifically
what I'm asking about is who owns the property south of, uh, of that, the, where that's tree
stand is and everything else.
Okay.
I see them.
I see the property site there.
This right here, I'll try and see if I can find a better, this is probably the best of
this.
While you're searching for the image Ron, um, Singing Oaks is the owner of the property.
Okay.
The, uh, um, the property south of it.
That's right here.
Yes.
That's correct.
Gotcha.
Okay.
Um, there are plans to develop that piece of piece of land at any point in time.
We've seen a number of applications, um, from a church to some, some, um, multifamily development,
but they've all just been proposals and not have, haven't seen anything, um, other than
a pre-application.
Okay.
Uh, and then my bigger point about this, uh, served in is 0.6 miles away from this site.
So in my opinion, as a commissioner, I would see that, you know, if we're putting, we're
putting in a shelter for those who are experiencing homelessness somewhere in the city, that's
a pretty, pretty good spot to put it, um, which is probably why Danny and her team and
everybody else, you guys are moving it that way because there's a, the second largest
health and human services center in the state of Texas is a half mile away from this location.
What my question is, is I'm looking at aerial maps and zooming in.
It doesn't look like there is really good public, um, I say public transportation.
I'm not talking about DCTA.
Any type of public access, uh, around there, I mean, sidewalks pretty much stop there at
that senior property line there, I don't know about, about crosswalks to get from the west
side to the east side of 288 as served in is on the east side where a lot of those health
and human services that people using this, this, the shelter would probably need to go
and visit and be seen at.
So can you talk to me a little bit about, I know you mentioned some stuff about the
transportation, but can you give me some context about where we can put in sidewalks, what
we can do from, from, I don't know.
That's really not even a zoning question, but it's going to come up later on, but before
we go through and zone it with as many concerns there are there with, with the neighborhood
and folks that own property around that, how are we going to make sure that, that folks,
if we do approve this zoning can get to and from this rather than hopping on the bus and
especially if it's a half mile walk down to served in, how can they get down to serve
in without having to interrupt flow of traffic or some other issues there?
I'll try to answer the first part of that question and then Danny can probably answer
the second part.
As far as the, the crossing, unfortunately, this is a textile roadway and any crossing
would probably have to happen at an intersection.
That being said, I know that Danny has been in conversation with some of our staff in
regards to sidewalks and maybe she can give us a little bit update of where we are on
that process.
Yes, absolutely.
We are looking at how the sidewalks can be increased in that area.
Specifically, we're also considering in the interim, some sort of programmatic intervention
like shuttles that go between the two facilities that would eliminate the need for that transportation
concerns specifically, as far as the access to the facility, we've already been working
with streets traffic and with the folks running the mobility plan to see what solutions are
available.
Oh, this is a textile roadway.
They set the easements correct for sidewalks that that's that's correct.
There's a certain right away with.
So if it's already there, then obviously no reasons to be required.
But if there is not a right, if not extended enough for sidewalks, then of course, there'll
be a need for additional easements.
Okay.
And then being able to develop those easements that has to be a request to tax dot and then
tax that would actually do that correct, the city would have no power to be able to build
those because the text on Broadway, therefore, that'd be a textile project.
It could be something that we can partner with text that obviously they would need to
approve it.
And it certainly can be a project that the city can can partner with or can be the prime,
but certainly text that we need to be involved.
Okay.
Yeah, the project as a whole makes sense and I would be I'm supportive of just from a general
standpoint.
But the questions of sidewalks and really a lot of the concerns that that the citizens
have put forth are valid, that, you know, having having some sort of way that and Danny,
thank you for you guys already working through to try to get some sort of shuttle service
there.
You know, people walking up to the shelter and we see that at Salvation Army, they, they,
they show up whenever and they get in line whenever and even a shelter service wouldn't
be all encompassing.
And so some sort of public access for sidewalks, at least down to the other end of that that
singing oats property where there are sidewalks that do begin, it looks like about halfway
through the seniors property that it they could cross over in front of FEMA and there's
not really a intersection there I guess so there there could be a way for them to get
across at least maybe all the way down the market street, but there needs to be some
sort of sidewalks there.
So I don't know if I'd feel comfortable with zoning it without at least putting in some
sort of overlay of requirement for us to pursue sidewalks and exploring those easements before
we move forward with the reason that's the that's all I have here.
Great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay.
So from my understanding, I mean, this is just like any other thing.
We're looking at a zoning, a rezone.
We are not approving a homeless shelter as I understand it.
Correct.
That is correct.
Okay.
So my question is, I know that is a proposed use here.
So with our use specific standards that are in place in the code.
I mean, knowing this is not being initiated by a third person, which is seems how these
use specific standards are set up, it's being initiated by the city.
Do any of these apply?
So is there going to be a public hearing with regard to building a homeless shelter?
If this rezoning takes place?
I'm going to see if Danny can answer that question.
Actually, I would kind of toss it back to you, Ron.
I don't believe there would be any requirement for us to have a public hearing on the use
since it's permitted.
Maybe Richard can help.
That's correct.
There wouldn't be a separate SUP.
So it would just be the rezoning that's being considered.
Okay.
And so what about like the posting of the notices?
I guess what I'm asking is, because it's the city, do any of these use specific standards,
do any of these apply to the city that we have in here at, what is it, 534C?
Hold that up real quick.
Thanks.
So yes, anything that, and I'll have to read this in greater detail, but just off initial
reaction or initial response is that, obviously the separation is something that we would
have to comply with.
The notices, obviously we're the governing body, so we would already have known that.
So that's something that's not probably going to apply.
And then the number three as well, since we're the municipal consent, we would obviously
be the ones providing that response.
So I think one would definitely be something that we would need to comply with.
And then two and three is something that we already, as being part of the city, would
not most likely have a need to certainly respond or comply with.
But I would say number one for sure, separation.
Okay.
But not, so like we're 3A where it talks about the public hearing for the construction operation.
So that would not have to be complied with because the city is initiating this?
That's my understanding.
And I guess why I'm asking and why I don't necessarily like your answer at the moment
is all of this talk so far and what we've heard from comments and what Danny has shared
and all of that, it's all really good discussion and points and things that are going forward.
But we have no, I mean, when is that going to, how can we make sure that continues?
Today we're looking at a zoning, a rezoning.
So we're not looking at any of this.
So I'm trying to figure out how, if this is going to be then proposed, and as a city,
we don't have to go by these use specific standards, which would be how we would bring
the public together to further discuss this facility.
I'm confused at maybe not.
It would be required.
It is that P plus.
So those standards would apply.
Okay.
So now all, so all the use specific standards do apply.
Correct.
Obviously municipal consent.
We wouldn't have to seek it because we are the, we are the applicant.
Okay.
Right.
So then that would take away that entire paragraph would not be necessary is what you're saying.
Correct.
Let me go back.
So you would.
Yeah.
Okay.
So commissioner analysis, yeah, there, there are some parts of the notices that where it
says post on the location, right?
That's certainly something that we could, we can do.
I think some of the other parts of the notices, obviously we would already be at, we would
already have been given notice, but I think it's, it's a combination.
It depends on, on which particular use specific standard and if it applies, we'll certainly
do what is required.
Okay, and I guess that's what I was asking for clarification of what was required.
But yeah, I'll read further this and see if I have any more questions when we get there.
Okay.
Thank you.
We will do the same.
Thanks.
Chair, if I may add something, I think to commissioner Smith had a question about the sidewalks.
There is a development that's in review now.
One of our traffic engineers just pointed out that they are going through the platting
phase.
It's the by right development, so they will, as a requirement, have to install sidewalks
to the south.
It's going to connect, he said, to, well, it connected directly to the, I'm just looking
at the aerial view on Google maps here, guys, so nothing, nothing scientific.
But there are, there are sidewalks all the way up until that driveway that's on the south
side of that, of that property.
So they'll have to connect into that driveway at the very least then to continue on the
sidewalks.
Correct.
That, that, that whole length of that development would ultimately connect, I think where the
apartment is, well, there is a sidewalk there, so ultimately it would connect to that apartment
down there.
Okay.
Correct.
All right.
Got it.
When was that platting?
Do you have a?
I believe it's Julie's project, she, they're, they're on zoning compliance plan review
now after that platting will be forthcoming.
Okay.
And can you work with traffic to let me know or just tell us in public, 'cause when I look
at it once again, I'm not scientific here, guys, just a real simpleton, I'm typing in,
I go from, I go from the, the subject property down to serve Denton, click, search, click,
click directions, and I click that I'm walking, and it eventually tells me that I need to
cross.
But as I look at it on loop 288, there's not an intersection that's not, that's not
controlled by a light until we get all the way down to McKinney.
And so just for a, you know, just for knowing that we don't want people running across loop
288 with no controlled crosswalks, are there any crosswalks and traffic mobility or any
type of stoplights there in the process that are with, that the city's working with, for
us to know that there's going to be a traffic light there that can have a crosswalk incorporated
and if not, what does that process?
I know Chandra's on the phone, perhaps he could provide some guidance or input.
I don't know if you are muted, if you are trying to speak.
While we wait for him to kind of connect in, Mr. Smith, looks like Mukesh, Mukesh is popping
on.
I reset it.
I'm unmuted right now.
Alright.
Okay.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Good afternoon.
This is Chandra.
Regarding the traffic light on loop 288 next to this project, soon after the Audra lane
is realigned, there will be a signal light at the Prominence, Audra, and loop 288.
It's development-driven once all this development happens.
And that'll happen, do you know, about when?
The timeline is uncertain right now.
It should happen once the Audra lane along with the DME project gets realigned and there
will be a four-legged intersection at Prominence, Audra, and 288 and that will drive the signal.
Okay.
Well, then that makes this whole Southern property conversation not even really a conversation
then, Richard, because that Prominence lane is north of that subject property.
So you're basically diverting, if they were to use a crosswalk there, that they wouldn't
even go south.
They would go north and then have to walk through whatever those land is north of DPS
to get down.
And then there's not a sidewalk until you get in front of DPS and FEMA.
So okay, well, I don't think I'm really going to get any answers from this, so we'll just
move on along.
Chris, you're back.
Thank you.
While we have our traffic engineers still in the system, I hope they're still there.
Yes.
I know this is a text-dot road.
Do we, are there, are there, you know, I've seen pedestrian-only crosswalks, well, all
crosswalks are pedestrian, but pedestrian crosswalks that are not associated with lights
in other locations on similar sized roads, is that something that is available to Texas?
Yes, we can certainly look at if there is sizable number of pedestrians, then we can
use what we call the hawk, the pedestrian hybrid beacons, where the pedestrians activate
when they want to cross and wait for the traffic to clear.
And they can cross at mid-block locations like these facilities, but it will be something
that we need to coordinate with the text-dot, where signals cannot be implemented.
This is like an app, the traffic signal, that it will give them the time and safe way to
cross those streets.
So that's promising.
It sounds good, like there is an opportunity for some mitigation of the need to cross 288.
Yes, it needs to meet the threshold.
That sounds good.
Yes, it's specifically for the mid-block locations, and the threshold is minimum 20 pedestrians
per hour, so then we can definitely consider it as a safety improvement.
We can suggest to the text-dot, and we can coordinate with them for safety programs.
Thank you very much.
Welcome.
Any other questions on this item?
Seeing none, we'll move on to our final item on the agenda.
I know I said there's a break at 5 o'clock, but if we can do one more item, we can just
take a longer break altogether.
Is there any opposition to that?
Okay, let's go ahead and move on to item 5, DS 20-0001, and this is Ron's item again.
And you have the floor.
You are muted.
Sorry for that.
Good afternoon.
This is a specific use permit application for the Mockingbird Multifamily Proposed Development.
As you can see on this slide here, it may seem familiar, it is about a year and a half
ago or so, the Planning Zoning Commission that is considered this subject site for a
specific use permit.
The specific use permit is to allow for the multifamily use.
The applicant is currently seeking a new SUP because of a change in their site plan, in
their development program, in their landscape plan and others.
The proposed development will have approximately 149 dwelling units with six buildings, a clubhouse
and 250 associated parking spaces.
Again, it's generally there located on Mingo and Mockingbird.
I'm going to run through these first few slides.
The land use element identifies this area as a moderate residential.
The moderate residential is described here, bulleted, as 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre,
low rise multifamily dwellings, and then the very consciousness to maintain the style,
the scale, the style and the building orientation of the area and have a transition so that
it creates a buffer between the higher intense uses.
The current zoning per the 2019 Development Code, as it was put into effect in 2019, is
now R7.
The R7 requires a specific use permit under the Zoning District for multifamily.
Maximum building height is 40, maximum building coverage for R7 is 65% and then there are
other requirements related to parking, landscaping and tree preservation.
I just want to make note that under the 2019 Development Code, there are no requirements
or maximum densities, therefore the development must comply with all other development standards.
So the reason why we're here this evening again is because per the approved SUP back
on July 16, 2019, the City Council, as part of the Planning Zoning Commission's recommendation,
approved a specific use permit with conditions and the conditions speak to the ability to
make some changes that staff can approve, however that can only increase or decrease
by 5%.
What we're seeing is obviously a greater amount of change in what they're proposing, therefore
a staff ability to approve a change we would not be able to, therefore the applicant is
seeking a new specific use permit for the new use that they're proposing.
So this slide here illustrates what was approved under the 2019 SUP and what they are seeking
today as far as the new development, you can see by way of these columns, the difference
in the Development Code, the difference in zoning, they still share obviously the same
area, 9.91 acres, they are reducing the number of buildings from 12 to 6, they are increasing
the square footage of the total square footage, this accounts for all buildings and clubhouse,
the number of units increases from 118 to 149, but I want to make mention that most
of that increase is now because of one bedroom versus two to three bedroom units that they
had proposed prior, the number of bedrooms you can see here has dropped from 343 to 202,
and again because they're going from one bedroom units versus the three and the two bedroom
units as initially proposed, as a result of the number of units or number of bedrooms
that is dropping, their required parking spaces has also dropped from 375 which was required
to now 250 parking spaces, their impervious surface has also dropped by 3%, their landscape
area has increased, their tree canopy has also increased, and their lot versus building
coverage has changed, this is difficult to compare because one is lot and one is building,
and then the preservation is also difficult to compare because one is 2002 and one is
2019, but overall I think what we have focused on in our staff analysis is the number of
units, number of bedrooms, and number of parking spaces as well as the landscape requirements.
This here illustrates what is approved or what was approved under the 2019, you can
see that there are more buildings and more services for parking, they actually provided
the buffer and the landscaping, but you can see there's a lot more impervious under the
old SUP or the current SUP that is, with the new SUP they're consolidating a lot more,
they've only have six buildings, they have the center located open space, they have provided
additional open space here, landscaping and tree preservation, as a result of that they
are also again meeting the buffer requirements as per the development code.
Real quickly this is their proposed site plan, just to help illustrate a little bit more,
this is where the parking is going to be located, and the main center of the site will be dedicated
for open space, dedicated for the residents.
There's also the clubhouse located in this vicinity.
They meet the landscape requirements as far as meeting the minimum landscape area, the
minimum tree canopy cover, they also meet the requirements per the DDC, they also provide
the buffer and the open space and the landscape points per again the DDC.
Tree preservation is an important part, there are lots of trees on this site and they are
providing that minimum 30% as you can see from this illustration along the north side
of the property, there are some along the middle and then the rest are along the south
side of the project.
Similar to the other application we considered, we discussed the section of the development
code that speaks to all applications as shown here, these are the 13 criteria for approval,
again consistent with the comprehensive plan, minimize adverse impacts to surrounding property
and then does the proposed use, will it provide the adequate public services.
I focus on these because I think these are specifically important in how we look at the
impact to the area.
Also specifically to specific use permits, there are also six approval criteria, very
similar to the ones that apply to all applications, again compatible with surrounding areas, minimal
impacts to future development, meets all the development standards which I briefly went
through, provides adequate services and if not adequately mitigated, is conformance with
the comprehensive plan, as we said earlier, it is designated as moderate residential,
so a higher density or higher dwelling units per acre and it does not adversely impact
the health, safety and welfare of the city's inhabitants.
Just to help illustrate what's surrounding this site, the area in red is obviously what
we're looking at, we have University, Mingo, Audra and Mockingbird, Mockingbird is the main
find here in the general vicinity, we've got a number of neighborhood residential developments,
specifically to the south is the Bel Air North addition where we've heard a number of folks
speak on this item in the past, we have heard from one and we continue to hear from others,
again expressing their concerns.
The mobility plan shown here shows the site abutting a collector road on Mockingbird which
is Mockingbird and then Mingo which is across the railroad tracks is a secondary arterial,
I will note that both Mingo and Mockingbird are not built to the roadway classification
with, but again under a mobility plan that's what it's planned for in the future.
I won't go through this list, but I just wanted to highlight specifically again our SQP analysis
which is part of the backup, went through those approval criteria, there was a traffic
impact analysis that was prepared, there was one prepared from the 2019, a new one was
also prepared for the current proposal and based on that TIA, it was determined that
mitigation measures were required in the form of two right turn lanes which the applicant
is including in their development, there was a flood study, based on that flood study there
are no adverse impact as a result of the proposed development and again based on what staff
has reviewed on the preliminary or proposed site plan and landscape plan, they meet all
of the different development regulations and standards under the 2019 development code.
Notifications were sent out similar to what was done in the past, we again have heard
from one property owner who lives just south of the subject site on Stockton Street who
is in opposition, have not marked it yet but he is generally in this area here, as of this
afternoon that's the only one that I've received regarding this application or this project.
There was a virtual meeting held by the applicant on July 16th and July 20th this summer to
talk about the difference between the old or the current and what is being proposed.
That summary of that meeting was included in your backup, I know that between the two
meetings there were about five or six total so there wasn't a lot of people in the meetings
but there were still some folks there that again were informed of what was being proposed
and had some questions and they were answered by the applicant.
Staff is recommending approval of this request under again per the approval criteria under
the development code.
We are also proposing conditions as part of the specific use permit similar to what was
approved in 2019 in that the applicant under the approve if approved site plan and landscape
plan will be included in the ordinance and as before any changes could happen as long
as they don't exceed 5% increase or decrease the project itself has been updated to reflect
what is currently proposed so again six buildings, 149 dwelling units and 250 parking spaces
so that is what they are proposing and that's what will be part of the ordinance if again
this gets to City Council for approval.
With that I will stand for any questions and go from there.
Commissioner Beck.
Commissioner Smith had his hand up first chair.
Oh okay.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you Commissioner Beck, sweetheart you are.
Ron, quick question, a couple of questions here, what was the emphasis of the change
from the approved SUP to the proposed SUP going down, I mean they go up in units I'm
assuming it's more economically friendly for the developer but they give you any reasoning
behind that?
I don't, I can't say, obviously the applicant will be a part of the call later this afternoon
and you can certainly ask that question but as far as the purpose of the new SUP and not
necessarily amending it by staff is because of the condition that we can only approve
an increase or decrease of five percent.
Yeah of course, I didn't know why they were changing it, I can share that with you.
We I know that's a proposed site plan not an actual site plan but do we even put proposed
site plans up to fire and emergency services to review, I highly doubt it but.
No, no well the SGP obviously because it is a site plan and that will be approved by ordinance,
we made sure that our fire department and other engineering departments, also our other
departments that is, were able to review it and provide comments so that if there are
any changes that need to happen, they need to happen now before it gets approved by ordinance.
I was just wondering because there's, it looked like the proposed site plan was pretty, had
some pretty tight curves and whatnot and they're first for emergency services getting in there
so I wanted to make sure there was no, no issues.
Okay, sorry, sorry to get you out there, no they were able to review it and also our solid
waste folks were also to review it so we want to make sure that our solid waste services
were able to get in and get out.
Okay, understood.
And then they, by right they can still, if they wanted to, if this this SUP wasn't approved
by right they can still develop underneath the currently approved SUP, correct?
Correct.
So two years and two years from July 16, 2019, otherwise they'll expire.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you, Rob.
Appreciate it.
Christopher Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
So I want to say I like a lot of the changes that they've implemented and I like that they've
updated to newer codes and there's a lot of, you know, good beneficial infill, but what
concerned me and maybe do some deeper analysis was, you know, everything we see that's coming
in along Mingo, I mean we know the Mobility Plan wants to connect downtown through Mingo
on one side or the other, hopefully on the railroad track side if they can get the railroad
to do it, but all the way up to Fish Trap and out to the lake and whatnot for trails,
we're putting, there was another apartment just down the street next to the senior complex
that wants to go in and the issue with all of these mobility issues, and it's germane
to what Commissioner Smith just said, is Mingo is too small for the development that we're
putting on it and so not only does it have public safety issues and right of way, future
right of way development, if we want to expand that road to make it the arterial it needs
to be with sidewalks and every other amenity that we clearly want to because we're trying
to do it crudely anyway, what bothered me is putting additional load on that road and
so in looking at this analysis, if you just actually literally take the site plan that
you have and rotate the buildings 90 degrees, you move the apartment complexes another 20
feet away from the Mingo providing opportunities for additional development right of way.
And so, I mean, I'm very torn, I'm concerned about, I guess so my question to you Ron is,
it doesn't feel like this actually meets future land use goals and future mobility plan goals
for the layout it's there, even though I really like the infill and like the proposed plan
in the central square and in fact, if you rotate the buildings 90 degrees, you actually
get a bigger central square and about the same parking that's further away from Mingo.
So I guess, does the question is, does it match our mobility goals and our right of
way standards that layout I guess you're probably going to tell me yes, but I think that I think
the layout is works I mean, obviously, we don't really have any control of how it's
laid out as long as they meet the requirements that you know, the building orientation and
this and this and that, but from what you're describing, I sense that you were talking
about traffic or was it more pedestrian, because per the mobility plan collector and a second
arterial, although the proposed project will be on a collector, I think that that is suitable
for a collector street that use itself, the future land use shows it as a moderate residential
area and along that particular area, stretch that is, please know that there's also the
railroad tracks right that that also divides that so I think if you were looking at this
particular property and the collector, I think the use or in the number of trips, maybe,
will will will be is sufficient for for that particular roadway.
So, so not so much that the southern road and mockingbird.
But the, those are going to connect up and spill their residential traffic on Domingo.
I mean, there's no, there's not really an outlay to the west.
I mean, I guess you could try to meander through the neighborhoods and pop out one of those
roads but by the, the storage facility or something but everyone's going to exit mockingbird
on Domingo at that, where it turns into Old North there. And so, it's not so much those
the the traffic flow patterns there but it's like that the increased traffic patterns at
that intersection.
I mean, I have to be careful I actually want like this development and I want to vote yes
I'm concerned that the the actual layout of this is is is not the best layout for the
the residents who would live there as well as the traffic of for these new residents
and adjacent residents trying to exit mockingbird onto Domingo with considering the development
of the Mingo corridor. So when the traffic analysis was that, did that include Mingo
or just those those collectors?
No, it included Mingo as well.
All right, thank you, Ron.
I muted myself, Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. Hey, Ron, just a really quick question.
Is this the same developer?
It is, same applicant, same developer, same engineer.
Okay, good. I just want to make sure they were because then they heard all the neighborhood
concerns before. Okay, thank you.
You're welcome.
Ron, the existing SGP, is that still current?
It's current. They've got two years until it expires.
So the the comparison of the project you showed, which was super helpful with the 12 buildings,
they could just go build that. They could start construction on that now.
That is my yes, that is correct.
Okay, I just wanted to make sure what was on the table, the two alternatives basically
is they wanted to go for the current project they could. They're bringing a different project
that looks to me like an upgrade in all facets. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I was aware
of that.
Yes, sir.
Is there any other questions for Ron on this item?
Okay, well, that concludes our work session for planning and zoning today. We will have
our public meeting at 630 right here. See y'all in a little less than an hour.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning public meeting
for Wednesday, October 7 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I'll call this meeting
to order at 632. The first item of business is to provide a Pledge of Allegiance to the
US and Texas flag. So we'll do that first. If other commissioners want to unmute themselves
to join, you may certainly do so.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, one state, under God, one nation, under God, indivisible.
The next item of business is consideration of our minutes from September 16th. Is there
any notation? Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion for approval.
We have a first. Commissioner Ellis?
Second.
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 Beck?
Aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta?
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner Kohl?
Aye.
Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0.
The next item for business is the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Beck?
I'd like to make a motion to approve, with the exception of Item C, which I'd like pulled
up for individual consideration.
Okay. We'll pull Item 3C. The motion is to approve Item 3A, 3B, 3D, and 3E. Commissioner
Pernetta?
I'll second.
We have a first and a second. Any discussion on this?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck?
Aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta?
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner Kohl?
Aye.
Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. That brings us to our items for individual
consideration. We'll go ahead and start with the Consent Agenda item. Just carried forward
Item 3C. It's Carina Maldonado's FP20-0020. And Commissioner Beck, do you want to take
the floor for your questions?
Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Carina, did you ever get back from work session about the drainage
into the adjacent ESA?
No, I was not. Unfortunately, it's kind of difficult to get ahold of some of the engineers
at this hour. I was able to look through some of the documents from the previous review,
but all I was able to draw out of their comments was that they met the minimum requirements
for approval of the final plat under the subdivision regulations. I will defer to Richard on some
of the questions related to drainage, as I don't really have the expertise to kind of
go into the detail. For the other item that we talked about during the work session related
to the permits, we did go back and clarify that that was the erosion control item that's
really addressed with an inspection during the permitting process. So whenever their
civil engineering plans are approved, they do take into account all their erosion control
measures, but there is an inspection that's done at the permitting phase, and that's where
we would catch any inconsistencies before a permit is issued. Outside of that, no, I
wasn't able to get ahold of someone to just clarify those questions that you had.
All right. Thank you, Carina. I appreciate it.
Any other questions on this item? Okay. Chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner
Ellis? Second.
We have a first and a second for approval. Any additional discussion? Commissioner Beck?
Yeah, I'm going to vote against this. I think it's not clear to me that the drainage
issues are resolved, which is 2457. It's not clear to me that they are meeting minimum
standards, and I'm also concerned about the sort of financial and business impacts of
having the business consistency and the shopping with the apartment complex right there under
245E8 and with backup from 7101B. So I'm not going to be supporting this.
Okay. We do have a first and a second for approval. Seeing no other discussion, I will
call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck?
Nay. Commissioner Ellis?
Aye. Commissioner Pernetta?
Nay. Commissioner Anderson?
Aye. Commissioner Smith?
Aye. Commissioner Cole?
Aye. Chair's an aye. Motion carries 5-2. The next item of business is item 4A, FP20-0019.
This is Mark Laird's item for presentation.
Good evening. My name is Mark Laird. I'm a planner with the Development Services Department.
This email I have for your consideration, the final plan of Cambridge Brook, addition
phase one. It's 102 residential lots and four common lots. The property is generally located
on the west side of Bonnebray, being south of the intersection of Vintage Boulevard and
Bonnebray. Staff recommends approval of this plan as it meets all the criteria that didn't
develop the code. I stand for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much, Mark. I do not see any questions. Chair will entertain a motion.
Commissioner Smith?
I motion to approve.
Commissioner Pernetta?
I'll second.
We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for
a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck?
Aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta?
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson?
I think that was an aye. You're muted. Can you try one more time?
Aye.
All right. Perfect. Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is item 4B, PE 20-0001.
And I'll invite Haley Zagorski for presentation on this item.
Good evening, commissioners. Haley Zagorski, senior planner. This item is a extension request
for the Audra Point subdivision. The property is outlined in yellow on the map. It is 13.2
acres located on both the east and south side of Audra Lane. The preliminary plat for the
subdivision included 53 single family lots and two open space lots. It was originally
approved in October of 2018, which means it is set to expire per the Denton Development
Code two years later on October 24, 2020. The applicant in the interim two years since
this approval has been working with neighboring properties that are being developed both to
the north and the east, as well as with city engineering staff to find a resolution for
some drainage challenges they were facing along Audra Lane. So those developers have
worked together and come up with a solution for a regional detention facility that will
be located on the eastern adjoining property that will solve the issues for these two developments.
And the one to the north has found a different solution for their individual property. But
those challenges did take time to work through. However, in the last two to three months,
they have gotten civil engineering plans submitted, reviewed, those are almost ready for approval,
and a final plat for the subdivision was submitted yesterday and will be coming to you all in
November. Just in case anything else comes up, any last-minute surprises, they have requested
this extension for six months to allow them a little bit of leeway there in their schedule
to finish up the final final plant and civil engineering plans for the subdivision. Staff
is recommending approval of this request again for six months since the applicant has demonstrated
a continual progression towards the completion of this project. And the applicant is on the
line if you all had any specific questions from this evening.
Great. Thank you very much, Haley. Commissioner Anderson.
I'll make a motion to approve the extension. Commissioner Pernetta.
Second that. So we have a first and a second for approval
of the extension. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner
Beck. Aye.
Commissioner Ellis. Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta. Aye.
Commissioner Anderson. Aye.
Commissioner Smith. Aye.
Commissioner Haley. Aye.
Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is item 4C, FP20-0022.
This item is presented by Carina Maldonado. Carina Maldonado, Assistant Planner. The request
before you is for approval of the final flat of Glenwood Meadows addition. The subject
site is approximately 68.774 acres and is located on the southeast side of future Bonnie
Bray, approximately 750 feet north of Vintage Boulevard. The previous request of denial
is being modified by staff to now recommend approval as the previous reasons for denial
have now been addressed and the plat now meets all minimum standards for approval. With that,
I'll take any question. Thank you, Carina, for presentation. Is there any questions or
a motion? Commissioner Anderson. I'll make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Smith. I'll second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion?
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Similar to the other issue, I hate to constantly pick
on Carina, but I don't think this matches our erosion control protocols. I disagree with
staff. I think you're asking to have these properties, especially the ones along the
flood plain in that little lake, the future issues that we have to mitigate with bulldozers
that would be not necessary if we just pulled back a few of these lots and made them HOAs
or something else. So, you know, barring that option, I think, you know, 264D and 245E7
are justifications with backup from 751 and 735D for erosion control. So I'm not going
to be supporting this. I would otherwise, but I think there's a drainage issue here.
Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Beck. We do have a first and a second for approval. Commissioner
Pernitta? I just have a question based on that. So based on Commissioner Beck's concern,
as opposed to opposing it, I mean, is this something that you feel could be remediated
with an amendment or something like that? Are you asking me, Commissioner Pernitta?
Yeah, yeah. I'm asking you if there is something that you think that we could propose and take
to staff that would make you more comfortable with it?
Yeah, I sort of alluded to it. Thank you, Commissioner Pernitta. I alluded to it, that
if we were to move, rearrange some of those floodplain facing lots to where there was
more adequate room for erosion mitigation, soil creep, you know, less danger, you know,
rotate a few of the lots, maybe make a couple HOA regions, more specifically along that
eastern region, I could probably see my way going for this. But in general, I know that
that is something that most developers are loathe to do because those lots are valuable
to them. So I guess if they were willing to sort of pull that back a little bit and make
this more viable, then I probably could lend support. But barring that, I don't feel comfortable.
As a point of order, in terms of processes, I think in order to do that, what Commissioner
Pernitta and Commissioner Beck were speaking of, we would need to deny the plat and need
to be resubmitted with updates so it meets all technical requirements. It'd be really
hard to put an amendment on removing lots and not understand the technical requirements
of that. So certainly if the motion to approve fails, and then we have a denial on our hands,
it would be brought back under a new, potential new design to staff to make sure it meets
technical requirements. Thank you Chair. I take the Chair's point under advisement. Thank
you, Chair. Any other discussion? Okay, we have a first and second on the board for an
approval. We will vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck? Nay. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner
Pernitta? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Cole?
Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-1. The next item of business, item 4D, PP20-0020.
This item is presented by Julie Wyatt. Good evening, Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner. This
is PP20-0020. This is a single family residential subdivision in the Preserve at Pecan Creek.
At this time, the plat does not meet all of the requirements, so staff recommends denial.
However, the applicant has requested an extension, and so, and staff has no issue with that extension
to the November 4th, 2020 meeting. Okay. Thank you, Julie. Commissioner Cole, is that a hand
raise or a swatting of a fly? If it was a hand raise, can we motion to postpone right
now? Yeah. Okay. I motion to postpone. Commissioner Anderson? I second, Commissioner Cole. Okay.
Just for clarification, Commissioner Cole, you're wanting to postpone to a date certain
of November 4th? Yes, Chair. Thank you. Okay. So we have a first and a second for the 30-day
extension, which goes to the next. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify that the
motion is to approve the request for the extension. Commissioner Cole, is the motion to approve
the request for an extension? The motion is to approve the request for an extension, Chair.
Thank you. Thank you. And Commissioner Anderson, are you good with that wording? Absolutely.
Fantastic. Thank you for that clarification, Cynthia. We have a first and a second. Any
discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck? Aye.
Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Panetta? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner
Smith? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next
item of business is item 4E, FR20-0008A. This item is presented by Ron Maguida. And the
floor is yours, when ready. Thank you, Chair. Let me pull up the presentation. Good evening.
This is Ron Maguida, principal planner with Development Services. For your consideration,
this evening is a final reply for a property located between Crowe and Senna. The application
when it was sent out or the packet that was sent out on Friday had previously a recommendation
of denial. There was one item that needed to be addressed. Since Friday, the applicant
has submitted the HOA docs documents related to this particular project. It has been reviewed
and approved. Therefore, the recommendation for this final reply has been amended for
a recommendation of approval that it meets the established approval criteria for a final
replat. That concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Commissioner
Beck? Thank you, Chair. Ron, I forgot to ask you this in work session, and I see it on
my notes here. What's that little sliver of land in the southwest going to be used for,
does it say? I'm just curious. We'll back up. I mean, you could say nothing or it doesn't
matter. I just want to make sure. It's just the remnant of the lot, and that's why it's
shown this way. It's too narrow to do anything, so it will most likely be just landscaping.
Okay. Thank you, Ron. Thank you for the presentation, Ron. Any questions or a motion? Commissioner
Ellis? Move approval. Commissioner Beck? I second if we could have a friendly amendment
to the staff recommendations. Isn't there specific recommendations on there from staff?
There is none. No, then I second. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any
discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck? Aye.
Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner
Smith? Aye. Commissioner Kohl? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. I second
if we could have a friendly amendment. Next item of business is item 4, FPZ 20-223. Ron,
do you just want to summarize what this item is about? Yes. One second. There we go. Try
to find a PowerPoint presentation. This is related to the development code review committee
nomination selection. The development code review committee for this particular item
today for your selection is for the committee to provide staff assistance in the process
of code amendments by providing guidance and also providing review and prioritizing our
recommended code amendments. Ultimately, the objective is to make a recommendation to the
full council. Currently, the development code review committee sits three city council members,
John Ryan, Keely Briggs, Chris Watts, and also two current planning zoning commissioners,
Angel Rozelle and Margie Ellis. What we are seeking is to fill that third vacancy under
the planning zoning commissioners. Again, this is for the development code review committee,
which on October 6th, yesterday, the city council approved or adopted a resolution to
reestablish the development code review committee. That concludes my presentation. I'll be happy
to answer any questions. Thank you, Ron. Before he gets a chance to nominate himself, what
I'd like to do is nominate Commissioner Smith for the DCRC. Commissioner Ellis. Second.
We have a first and a second for that. Is there any other nominations that want to be
put forth? Commissioner Beck. Yeah, I wouldn't mind serving on that committee, so I'd like
to nominate myself. Okay, great. And out of ignorance, maybe Ron or Richard can direct
me when we have multiple nominations, do we go into certain order for voting or how, what's
the procedure that the chair should be following here? I would have to double check Robert's
rules of order. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. You could take a vote on the first person that
was nominated. Okay. And then if that passes, this, the position be filled or do we still
wouldn't, would, do we still vote on the second? Oh, I want to be mindful procedures. Yes.
I'm not going to ask the logical question if they both pass, but we'll go instead to
Commissioner Beck. If we're starting with Commissioner Smith and he succeeds, then I
will withdraw. That will avoid the issue. Commissioner Beck, that would be quite a conciliatory
of you. Let's take the vote for Commissioner Smith and we'll go from there. We do have
a first and a second. We'll do a vote via roll call. This is for the commission to approve
the nomination of Commissioner Smith for service on the DCRC. First goes to Commissioner Beck.
Well, since I've nominated myself, I will say nay. Sorry, Tim. All due respect. I am
sure. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Terribly uncomfortable. Aye. We're
back in grade school strangely. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith, do you
accept the nomination? Okay. I probably should ask that earlier on. Cynthia didn't tell me
to do that. You just started going on about it. It's good. It's gonna be called Andrews
Rolls Royale. Rosels, but continue. So Commissioner Smith, I apologize. Are you in a yay or nay?
I'm a yay for myself. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Cole. Yay. The chair is also a yay. That passes
six one. Commissioner Beck. Chair, I'd like to withdraw my nomination. Well, thank you
for doing that. And thank you for actually volunteering as well. Both of those things
is certainly admirable for my position. And congrats to you, Commissioner Smith for service
on the DCRC. Thank you everybody for voting for me. The next item of business is item
four, excuse me, 5A, DCA 20-0004. This item is going to be presented by, I believe it
is back to Ron Maguida. Yes. And I'll open the public hearing. Okay. This time I've got
my PowerPoint presentation. Make sure I've got everything. Can you hear me? Okay. Sorry.
This is a code amendment to the table of allowed uses under sub-chapter five for tattoo and
piercing parlor. The rule currently, it's not permitted in the MN zoning district. And
the issue here is that there are existing tattoo and piercing parlors that are currently
in business under the MN, which means they're considered non-conforming. Prior to the 2019
development code update under the NRMU 12, NRMU, these types of businesses were permitted
under professional services and offices. Currently there are seven existing businesses that fall
under the non-conforming use category. What options we have as option one is to leave
them as non-conforming or option two is to amend the table of allowed uses and add a
P plus under the MN zoning district. Staff is recommending option two. This is just to
illustrate that there are a number of these businesses, the tattoo and body piercing locations,
parlors location that is of the 16, seven are currently in the MN zoning district. And
again, based on the 2019 development code, they are considered non-conforming. And what
we're trying to do is address that non-conformity by allowing that use under the MN. What staff
is recommending is to add a P plus to the table of allowed uses. What that will mean
is that it would be permitted with a use specific standard. And that use specific standard as
specified here under 535 P that tattoo and body piercing parlors shall comply with licensing
and certification requirements of the Texas department of state health services. And that
concludes my presentation. Be happy to stand for any questions.
Thank you, Ron. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, chair. Ron, this isn't going to, if this passes,
this isn't going to require any action by those seven non-conforming businesses, correct?
No, sir. They would just operate as, as, as is. But if they were to, you know, obtain
another CEO or, you know, change hands, that's the only time that anything would change for
them. And of course, now that if this passes, they would be conforming in that new user
would have a conforming use on their CEO. Thank you, Ron. Commissioner Beck. I motion
to approve as stated by staff. So real quickly, I want to make sure there's
no public comment. Before I close public hearing, I'm getting no. So I'll go ahead and close
the public hearing. I'll receive the, the motion from commissioner Beck. Commissioner
Smith. And Commissioner Ellis, you had your hand up. I just wanted to check in with you.
Yeah, thanks, chair. I wanted to bring up that the draft ordinance does have that typo
that Richard mentioned. Is that something that we could maybe move into this motion
possibly as a friendly amendment to ensure that that typo gets fixed to include the plus
on the HC district that is currently not there in the draft ordinance?
We certainly could. It wouldn't, I think, is that that section wouldn't change anyways
and it wasn't advertised, but, but we could certainly include that as a part of the motion
if, if, if we need to. Commissioner Beck. Can I, can I ask Cynthia, is that something
that Richard says we don't need to, but is that something we should do for completeness?
By the way, I'm happy to make that friendly motion, by the way. Mr. Chair and members
of the commission, that, that is just a draft ordinance that is subject to change that was
attached to the agenda, but you can certainly clarify that in the motion if you'd like,
but we'll make sure it's fixed when it goes to the council.
Then I take under advisement, the friendly motion following Richard and, and commissioner
Ellis's guidance to include those points in and recommending staff as recommended with
the typographical changes. Just to clarify the motion, you are approved,
your motion to approve the recommendation with the added verbiage that we add a plus
to this use in the HC zoning. Is that correct? Is that correct? Mr. Allison, do you second?
Oh, we're not adding it. We're just ensuring the draft ordinance is corrected to reflect
that. Understood. And you're okay with, with the amendment commissioner Ellis on the second.
I am. Oh, did commissioner Smith say it's not me? Okay. Great. Yes. Yes. I'm fine with
that. Okay. Great. Thanks for clarifying that. So we have a first and a second for approval
with that extra condition or clarification. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for
a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Chair
is also an aye. Motion carries seven zero. The next item of business is item five B as
in Bravo S 20 dash zero zero zero five. This is Sean Jacobson's item and I will open the
public hearing. Good evening. Chair, members of the commission. Let me just pull up the
presentation. All right. Good evening, chair and members of the planning and zoning commission.
My name is Sean Jacobson, assistant planner, and I'm here to present S 20 0 0 0 5 south
helm tire shop. This is a request for a specific use permit to permit a minor automotive repair
use on approximately 0.201 acres in the M N district. That's generally located on the
west side of South Elm Street, 70 feet north of the northwest corner of South Elm Street
and West Highland Street in the city of Denton. Uh, this request is required. The property
is zoned in the mix in the M N mixed use neighborhood district and, uh, an S U P is required to
have minor automotive repair use in this area. This is proposed for a developed lot. It has
an existing building and the use would be in that existing building. That building has
in the past been occupied by other automotive repair uses as well as air condition repair,
legal office, auto sales. So you can see here that proposed site plan from the applicant
the existing building with an existing opaque fence. The building is not proposed to be
added to or expanded in any way has the appropriate number of parking spaces for the use. It's
supposed to be a tire shop. I will discuss further the fact that the currently existing
dumpster would actually be removed and replaced at property owner expense with a rolling dumpster
that could be moved behind the fence out of sight. The surrounding development includes
a mix of commercial to the north auto related commercial to the east and duplex residential
to the south and west. So this is a commercial in an area that is a mix of commercial and
residential. You know that we have our general approval criteria as well as specific approval
criteria for S U P s and we'll tackle the highlights that kind of the key areas of those
two. One of the big ones is compatibility with the surrounding area. So this area is
a mixed use corridor area. You have both commercial and residential uses and this would be an
additional commercial use there. It's similar to a previous use of the property in a building
that's been in the area for over 25 years. This would be neighborhood serving commercial
in an area that's intended for a mix. Surrounding property is similarly also zoned M N. It's
currently developed. It could redevelop in the future, but this proposed specific use
is not expected to hinder any future redevelopment. It's also important to look at how any potential
negative impacts of this minor automotive use automotive repair use have been mitigated.
The first one is noise. There could be concerns related to the tools that are using the process.
One thing that helps with that is the design of the building. All bays face away from the
adjacent residential. In addition, staff is recommended and the applicant has accepted
condition of approval that all work be performed inside bays. Another issue is the visual as
well as specifically how the refuse areas handle use specific standard is applicable
to this use already that storage of equipment, auto parts and supplies used in serving the
vehicles must be maintained inside with in the enclosed structure. You can't have that
piled outside. Staff has recommended the additional condition of approval. The applicant agreed
to that no wrecked or inoperable vehicles may be stored on site. Staff is also recommended
as a condition of approval, the replacement of the unscreened dumpster that's currently
adjacent to the right of way with a wheeled dumpster that could be stored behind the fence.
So you can see here the dumpster is highlighted in orange there. It's adjacent to the neighboring
property. It's adjacent to the right of way. It's not screen. It would be replaced by a
dumpster of similar capacity that could be moved out of sight behind the fence except
for on the one day a week when it needed to be picked up. So that would be an improvement
both aesthetically and how the trash pickup is handled for this site. It's also important
to look at whether the pro specific use fits with the Denton plan 2030 for the area. This
is within the Denton, the downtown compatibility area, which is intended to provide compatibility
between residential and commercial adjacent to downtown. And it is important as a part
of that, according to the Denton plan 2030 to provide neighborhoods serving commercial
in a scale and form sensitive to the surrounding built context. Again, this is a building that
has been in the area. It's not being expanded and it is a commercial use within that building.
Denton plan 2030 also recommends development along corridors, which this would be, it's
along a primary arterial commercial development, as well as strengthening commercial areas
by facilitating non-residential adaptive reuse, info and redevelopment. This is a commercial
property that's currently vacant. This specific use would enable that to be occupied, active
and contributing to commercial in that area. It's important to look at whether we have
adequate public facilities traffic generation morning peak would be 11 trips an hour. Even
peak would be 13 trips in an hour as South Elm street is a primary arterial. And this
use is similar to the most recent previous use. It's not expected that this use will
cause negative impacts in terms of traffic. We've addressed how solid waste service would
be provided in an improved way with the rolling cart provided by the applicant and maintained
by the applicant and water, wastewater and other utilities are already provided the site.
You won't be any change or expansion needed to serve this use. We did inform the public
by newspaper ad, posting the sign, sending out notices. We did receive two letters in
opposition and those were included in your backup. The applicant held a neighborhood
meeting, which had one attendee who expressed concerns about noise and traffic did have
other concerns. But this applicant or this citizen did send in a letter and so you were
able to fully read their concerns. So with that staff recommends approval with the following
conditions as with those conditions, the proposed use meets the criteria for approval and is
consistent with didn't plan 2030. Conditions are the dumpster currently on the property
should be removed. Property owners shall provide at property owners expense a dumpster on casters
of the same capacity as the current dumpster on site. Property owners should be responsible
to maintain this dumpster in good working condition. Dumpster should be stored at all
times out of public view behind the fence shown on exhibit B, except on the one day
per week when the dumpster may be rolled out for emptying by Denton solid waste. The state
should be determined by agreement between the property owner and the city of Denton solid
waste department. When not behind the fence, dumpster should be placed in the area labeled
dumpster location on exhibit B 50 foot unobstructed area should be maintained in front of the dumpster
location to provide a path solid waste truck, as well as all work on vehicles will be conducted
inside vehicle bays and should not be performed outside. And there should be no storage of
rector and operable cars on the site. With that, my presentation is concluded and I will
stand for any questions you have.
Christopher Beck. Thank you, Chair. Um, Sean, I asked this in a different way at the work
session, but it's it's my understanding from what you told us at the work session that
this was this was has been an automotive repair shop for a number of years and then subsequently
the nearby residential was built within in. And so essentially the use predates the residents.
Is that correct? Yes, sir. That is my understanding. Okay, thank you, Sean. Any other questions
for Sean? Okay, I know the applicants send in a request card to speak this evening. I
believe it's Lee Allison. And sure, I do have his presentation ready. Okay, perfect. Mr.
Allison, are you I think you're I see you online. You're still muted. I believe I'm
unmuted now. Is it okay to speak? You are good if you just state your name and address
for the record. This is Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group 2415 North Elm Street, Denton,
Texas with me this evening somewhere in Never Neverland or my clients and Adam Claycomb
from our office observing this as well. And Sean, when you're ready, I'd like to start
the presentation. I'm trying to watch on TV. So I hope I'm coordinated here. This is a
specific use permit for an Elm Street tire shop is titled by the staff and it's in a
zoning district mixed use neighborhood. And as indicated on the next slide, we didn't
have a neighborhood meeting. It was held on September 29 during as a 2020 is a zoom meeting.
First one we've ever conducted this way. I'm not sure how successful it really was, but
we tried one neighbor attended that was the one on the south that owns the the new SRO
duplex was a G representatives owner in the city. Sean was present. We did on our mailings
provider contact information to give people an opportunity to call in if they didn't make
the meeting. We are looking at ways to improve our notifications for these zoom meetings.
We did receive a letter of opposition or two of them as indicated on the next slide. One
was from the neighbor to the south with the with the duplex. And the other was from the
retail center to the north. The concern as they indicated were primarily noise, traffic
and land use. The noise as we see next. The concerns, Sean, I can switch please. We we're
we're on that page. You might have a slight delay on the TV. Okay, very good. We can see
the big issue being tenants of the newly constructed duplex next door. The bigger concerns would
be air compressor impact tools and traffic. And if we'll go to the next one, related to
the noise, we know that the city does have a noise ordinance, 65 decibels maximum the
property line. And the ordinance does discuss something regarding the nature of the noise,
an air hammer versus a violin or two different things, even at the same noise level. And
we realize that concern and respect it. A restaurant with an outdoor music, depends on what you're
playing could be offensive to somebody and somebody else is sitting out on the porch
enjoying it. We made some field measurements, the code requires 65 decibels maximum at the
property line. When we did, we made measurements on all four property lines. If we have nothing
just absolute silent on our building, no traffic, we're getting 61.2 decibels at the maximum
location and at the south property line adjacent to the duplex 56.3. If we have no equipment,
but with traffic going by cars coming by, we're at 71 maximum and 69 at the property
line with equipment inside the building where it's 61 and a half, both on maximum and at
the south property line. I expect that's because we've got everything muffled by the building.
And if the equipment is outside, we're running 66.3 and 66. Our noise remediation is indicated
next and Sean has presented it. We're willing to keep the equipment inside, keep all the
work inside. And we are limiting it to just two service bays or limiting tire service
to the two front bays. The rest of the building may be used for storing tires or some other
incidental office uses. On the next slide, the traffic, the tire shop with two bays has
limited parking, generates less traffic than other allowed uses would, a restaurant or
a club, for example. When I say limited operating hours, it's, I should say more like normal
operating hours, Monday through Friday, a little shorter on Saturday, shorter on Sunday,
but it's not a 24/7 operation. There were concerns about land use and I'd like to point
out that as we study the code, the zoning and the comp plan, we recognize this is a
transitional area and they're trying to make it downtown compatible. We expect there would
be declining auto service uses. There's quite a few auto service uses in the area today
and I can expect that the city anticipates that to decline as we convert more over time
to a downtown compatibility area. You'd like to see an increase in residential retail office
entertainment and recreation and allowed uses could compete with or support the opposition
to the north. The northern opposition is a retail center. I'm sure they'd like to see
more residential and professional offices in the area to utilize their facilities as
opposed to things like a tire shop that would not necessarily help much, maybe a couple
people going to a barbecue restaurant or something. And the SUP still allows the city to control
the expansion of auto service. For example, if there's a vacant lot out there, I think
I would have a hard time recommending approval of an auto service. In this transitional area
next please, we're taking an existing use and we want to change it. It's going to go
vacant or empty and after it goes vacant or empty, it could be abandoned or hopefully
repurposed but repurpose has a cost or it could be demolished and redeveloped. But how
this moves forward in the future is driven by the economics of the transitional development
versus the continuous use. And our rationale for the SUP is shown is that this building
is established for a minor auto service in 1964. It has been existed for that, the building
has existed for that purpose or use since then. The duplex next door, the completion
of construction was in 2020. The retail center was constructed in 1965. Our thought is that
an occupied building would be kept up better than one that is left empty or vacant. A vacant
building could be neglected and subject to court enforcement efforts to try and keep
it in a responsible manner. And as the area tends to transition, the city can still prevent
expansion of auto service by the nature of the SUPs, particularly on vacant lots that
are not really transitioning, they're just being developed. And the sites may redevelop
as the area transitions to a higher economy as the cap rates increase. It may be that
more residential rentals will do better than something like a tire shop would and people
have an incentive to move. And we encourage the investment, well, the investment in repurpose
requires more economic growth to redevelop. It's going to need more things like the neighbors
next to us and help it out. We would encourage the city to adopt some incentives that would
help land properties want to combine together, make for different type of developments instead
of just trying to redevelopment in the current configurations. We could get things too tight
and too pressed together. As we see it, the options for the city on the next slide, or
you could approve the SUP, which is sure is an active site. You can deny the SUP and it
becomes vacant and neglected possibly. Or it becomes vacant and there's property maintenance
issues and code enforcement gets involved. Or there's an opportunity for repurpose with
cost if this is denied. Or there's an opportunity for redevelopment with cost. We're just considering
what is the current and projected economic opportunity for the site. We believe that
occupying this building for a similar purpose that people are expecting and accustomed to
would be appropriate at this day and time. And does the city have any economic incentives?
Certainly the landowner may want to approach the city and downtown redevelopment if they
can see about doing some things to help spruce up the site a little bit. I think I've covered
all I expected too, and I'll be glad to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Allison. Any questions for the applicant? I do not see any, but I appreciate
you being here. And if questions come up, certainly stand by. For this, I got Commissioner
Beck. I was just going to make a motion for approval with staff recommendations. Okay,
just one minute. We actually are still in public hearing. We have someone on the call
on the phone who wants to speak. So this item, we didn't have anyone make use of the online
comment form, nor did anyone call and leave a message. However, we do have one person
who's been holding very patiently to speak with us on the phone this evening. I'm going
to ask staff to connect them to us now. Good evening. You are now with the Planning and
Zoning Commission. If you could please state your name and your address. You would have
three minutes to speak. Okay. Hello, my name is Kent. Last name is
Holman, and my address is 538 South Elm. I guess I can get to the chase. Have you had
a chance to read the letter that I submitted? We were provided your letter.
Okay, and it's been read or not because I don't want to waste time talking about things
you already know about. I would say for the edification of the commissioners,
just restate some of the high-level things in case anyone didn't read it. It was provided
to us. Okay, very good. So we had really three basic
concerns. The first was the noise level. I had a chance to look over the planning staff
analysis. It doesn't really address the noise level concerns that we had. It talks about
the orientation of the paperwork and such, but doesn't really get into the increased
traffic. I assumed 18 in my letter, 18 cards a day. Your report says it's probably more
like 24 cards a day, weekdays, 88 cards on the weekend. So that's a lot of cards going
in and out. I'm concerned about the place. Let me just give you a little background.
It's a duplex housing eight students, four students on each side, and they're UNT students,
so everybody's online, and I'm really trying to keep the noise to a minimum there. So that
was my major concern was just the noise for them through traffic and, of course, through
impact wrenches and other equipment used for the tire services. My second concern was that
there's already at least four places within a half mile that are doing the tire service,
including right across the street. You've got Hugo's across the street. You've got
Briscoe that's .2 miles away. You have PMB and Automax that are both a half mile away.
So to argue that the service is necessary downtown, I just don't think that holds a
whole lot of water. Your analysis talks about scale and form sensitivity to surrounding
build context. Well, I mean, I'm not sure in scale that you need a fifth tire shop within
that area, but that's my two cents. Your report also talks about the visual impact
and makes quite a big deal basically over moving a dumpster, but I don't know if you
guys have looked at this property, like really looked at it, and I'm wondering, and I don't
know if this can be answered, what city ordinances cover this place because it's got two signs
that have exposed electrical hanging off of it. One of them at a tilt, don't know how
long it's going to last. It's got a retaining wall that's on its property that is looking
pretty compromised. There's an area that holds water next to this place. The paint is a mess.
So to say that the visual impact is a dumpster up front, I think it's a real misrepresentation
of what's going on there. So I don't want to take up a whole bunch of your time, but
I do hope you'll read our letter and I am interested. I do have questions, so it's kind
of sad that I have three minutes because I have questions about the city ordinances and
how they cover a property like this and what are the permit circumstances for them. They
didn't have a permit or they had a shop next door to me for three years that apparently
wasn't permitted. I mean, maybe there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that,
but I just like to know that. I don't want to assume bad things about the property owner,
but I'd like to know what the situation was. I guess I'll just sum up by saying, my wife
and I, we built that place as an investment. It took a year because of COVID and so to
have a tire shop that's going to create noise next to it, that impacts what I can charge
for the place, impacts my property value. And I just, I really don't feel like it's
the right thing to do. You know, when I built that place, I could have put two of those
places on the same property. And I'd say this in my letter, but I chose not to because parking
is an issue down there. So I put my own parking and put one building. And so I do have the
city's interests at heart. And I really hope that y'all will just take that into consideration.
And I'm sure my three minutes is up. So I really appreciate the time to talk to all
of y'all tonight.
Well, I appreciate it being patient calling in. It's certainly valuable to have public
inputs. I appreciate that. Is there any questions for the caller? I do not see any questions
and there is no one else wanting to speak.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, chair. It's not really a question, but maybe Sean, maybe you could get with him
offline. Obviously he has questions about other things with regard to development downtown
and around his site. So maybe you can get together and direct him to where in the city
he can get some questions answered.
Certainly. Absolutely.
Yeah, that'd be great. You know, I just, I don't know about if signs can be nonconforming,
you know, like they are now or, you know, if there are other repair issues that are
nonconforming. I'd like to know about that. I found them in the city ordinances, but I'm
not really sure if they apply. And I certainly, I could use the education if nothing else.
Well, our staff is a wealth of information, so you will be enlightened. I know it.
Yeah, for sure. For sure.
That's a good recommendation, Commissioner Ellis. Thank you for doing that. And thank
you, Sean, for following up with him. At this time, we're going to close the public hearing.
And Commissioner Beck, I want to come back to you. You. Commissioner Smith seems to have
a comment.
No, I'm going to second your motion, Commissioner Beck. I would like to make a motion to approve
with staff recommendations then, Chair.
Gotcha. I appreciate that. And Commissioner Smith?
I'd like to second before I finish my motion. I just want to say to the individual that
built your duplex next to the subject property, you know, but I feel your pain on having an
investment and possibly having something next to it that might lessen that investment cost
or that investment value. It is historic. I shouldn't call it historic. It is a legacy
piece downtown of has a history of being entire shop. And I think that Mr. Allison mentioned
a little while ago that there's really kind of the best possible option is for us to allow
for development of that property and to a lot of your facade questions about exposed
wires and signs and retaining walls and dumpsters and those kinds of things. I'm sure knowing
Mr. Allison and Allison Engineering's work, they're probably not going to move a tenant
into that space without doing some improvements and beautifying it just a little bit. So at
the very least, yeah, you might have a fifth tire shop, but at the very least, you may
not have as much of an eyesore on your hands. So with that, I will second the motion to
Commissioner Beck.
We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the item? Scene nine, I'm going to call
for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner
Cole. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion
carries seven zero. The next item of business is item five CZCI 20-0001B. This item is being
presented by Ron Maguida and I will open the public hearing.
Thank you, Chair. Ron Maguida, principal planner with Development Services. Let me pull up
my presentation. And here we go. This is a rezoning, zoning change request for property
located at the Loop. Presentation will be made by myself, including Danny Shaw with Community
Development. She is the community services manager. She is aware and more familiar with
as far as the programming of the subject used. But what we're going to be talking about first
is the subject rezoning. For your edification, the property is located here on Loop 288.
The request is to rezone the property from SC Suburban Corridor to Public Facilities PF.
It's approximately five acres. It is currently an existing commercial building with parking
lot, a parking lot. And again, located along the Loop, which is a primary arterial. This
slide here illustrates the current zoning as shown to the left. It is currently zone
SC, which is the light pink. If approved, the proposed zoning of PF will be shown as
such, basically closing off all the blue in that particular area of Loop 288. A couple
of criteria of approval are provided in the development code. This particular set of criteria
apply to all applications. As you can see, there are 13. I've highlighted three specifically
as it relates to the comprehensive plan, how it minimizes adverse impacts to the surrounding
property and how it provides adequate public services and facilities. There is also a set
of requirements or approval criteria that is related to zoning map amendment, which
is rezonings. As you can see here, the list I'll read quickly is one, that it's consistent
with the future land use map. Two, that it's consistent with the relevant small area plan,
which there are none in this location. That is consistent with the purpose statement of
the proposed zoning of PF in that there have been or will be significant changes in the
area to warrant the zoning. Another criteria is the intensity of the development of the
new zoning would not have adverse impacts to the surrounding properties or neighborhood.
Public service and facilities are provided and are adequate and this current zoning was
not an error in establishing the zoning map. Excuse me. The first item is the comprehensive
plan. Is it consistent in staff's analysis? Shows that it is. The non-residential use
along loop 288 is an appropriate use. The facility that's being proposed will provide
a program that will serve our community of need. It is a redevelopment of an underutilized
property, complies with the standards of the DDC and meets all the other requirements as
per the site plan. As far as the impacts to the surrounding property, as you see here,
the property to the north is zone PF with not much development. It's currently undeveloped.
To the west is an electric substation, an electric substation that is, with residential
neighborhood further to the west. And then to the south is an undeveloped property, zone
R7. And then to the east is loop 288 and additional undeveloped properties that are currently
zone either PD or MM. This slide here illustrates a little bit closer look on what's surrounding
the property. Again, the substation is directly to the west with Audre Meadows to the west,
further west, and then Mockingbird Heights even further to the west. To the east, we
have prominent square and undeveloped property as well. The site itself, just for purposes
of information, from the border to the nearest residential home is approximately 700 feet
away. The next few slides illustrate just what the view is from a major roadway. In
this case, this is loop 288 looking west. You can see that in the background, the substation
is located between the building and the Audre Meadows, the residential neighborhood to the
west. This is from Audre looking south, southwest. Just to illustrate that there is some masonry
wall that borders the substation and there are wood fences that also border the neighborhood
to the west. Between there, there is a gap where, again, there is open space. One of
the other things that we look at when we look at rezoning is what this zoning that's being
proposed will allow if it were to be approved. The list that you see here are allowed uses
in the PF zoning district. Just wanted to highlight three specific ones in purpose of
why PF has been selected. Community services, homeless shelter, administrative, professional,
and government offices are permitted uses or allowed uses within the PF. So with this,
I'm going to turn the presentation to Danny Shaw who will discuss and talk about what
the proposed use is being considered for this site. So if Danny is available, we can have
her start the presentation. Her presentation. Thank you, Ron. Can you hear me? Yes. Good
evening, commissioners. Just want to go through what the proposed services are for this facility.
It is proposed to provide public services for people who are in need of emergency assistance,
including those who are experiencing and those who are at risk of homelessness because of
issues of poverty. The facility would provide the wraparound services to address those effects
of poverty and to help with emergency assistance for folks in our community with a focus on
providing housing stability and then also overnight shelter for people experiencing homelessness.
There would be services provision in the facility for addressing any of those needs that folks
have. Sorry, Danny, was that the end of your discussion? Yes. Thank you. Just to provide
information regarding the notification, public outreach efforts, there were notices sent
out to property owners within 200 feet. We also sent out residents with postcards within
1,000 feet. We normally send it out within 500 feet. However, looking at the map, you
can see that there would not be much. So staff did extend that buffer area to 1,000 where
it did reach the residents to the west, Audre Meadows and also Parliament Square to the
east. Notices were also published on the website and in the newspaper. And just for background
information, you see a June 4, 2020 date there. This item was supposed to be brought forward
earlier in the year. However, due to ownership, obtaining ownership of the site, it was decided
to be postponed. But we did have a virtual neighborhood meeting on June 4 and was attended
by a group of folks, I would say six or seven folks that attended and had questions. And
I'm going to turn back the presentation to Danny and talk about what was discussed and
how staff is responding to those comments and input.
Thank you, Ron. During the public, virtual public meeting, we did hear from the residents
and they did address, and I'm assuming the slide is up, we comprised a summary of some
of the concerns that were shared during that meeting, concerns for the negative impact
on property values, the potential for increased crime, concerns for safety of the residents,
questions about what the city will be doing to control traffic to the facility, information
on what were plans for the area around the center and in conjunction to the neighborhood.
And then looking at some questions about were there other locations identified for the purpose
of the center and would we, as a city, prevent individuals from living unsheltered from camping
near the center. In consideration of those comments, the city did provide a letter of
notice back to the participants of that meeting to address some of their concerns and what
steps we would be taking to look at those. First and foremost, just want to make it clear
that the city will not allow camping anywhere around the facility. And there will be steps
that taking place to ensure that that doesn't happen. And then we're looking at some different
practices with our agreement with the nonprofit provider that would set out some expectations
for that provider to make sure they are maintaining the area around the facility as well as maintaining
good neighbor practices with the neighborhood, including making sure they have regular neighborhood
meetings to address any concerns that are coming up. And then we will have the ability
to connect to the city's new mental health unit to provide any immediate response to
any situations that do come up. And with that, I'll turn it back to you, Ron.
Thank you, Danny. The slide here, just to illustrate that there was notices that were
sent out with a November 3rd city council public hearing. That has changed and the updated
date is now November 10th. So for those that are watching and those that are listening,
the new city council date for this particular item will be now November 10th, 2020. With
that, staff is recommending approval of this request as it complies with the sections listed
there and the items under the zoning approval criteria. Therefore, again, staff is recommending
approval. This concludes my presentation. I will stand for questions.
Great. Thank you, Ron. I know we have individuals on the phone as well, but if we have any initial
questions for Ron, happy to look to hear those. Commissioner Smith.
Ron, did we get any conversation from traffic about some of the questions I asked about
the sidewalks or sidewalks or those kinds of things? Did we have any more information
came out of the work session? Other than what was presented during the work
session, I know that I stand corrected. There is actually development to the south under
a zoning compliance plan review right now, where obviously if any development occurs,
sidewalks will be constructed to link the property from where it is now to the property
to the south. I believe it's a multifamily development where there's currently sidewalks.
I know that our traffic engineer spoke during the work session and mentioned a future light
at Audra and Prominence. However, a timeline for that has not yet been determined.
If this zoning was to be approved, what is the timeline for the city to, this might be
a Danny question, what's the timeline for the city on beginning a process of converting
this into the shelter? Yeah, if I can have Danny answer the timing
question. Right. Last night, city council did approve
a contract with an architect to begin the design phase. The architect is proposing about
three months to go through that process, and then the construction phase at a minimum nine
months before it would be renovated. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, Chair. This may be going to Ron
or Danny. You say that the city is not going to allow camping in the, you know, behind
the building. Apparently the city didn't allow camping next to the present Mont Signor King
place, and that place looked like a dump. There was tent camps all throughout that area
for years until finally people complained and complained enough that the city came and
drove them out that all that did is move them to across the street to more trees. So I'd
like to know how is the city going to protect these citizens whose house abuts the property?
How are they going to provide that? Because I work on McKinney Street and I drive up and
down the street every day. And I know when these people get out of that Mont Signor King,
because I've been in meetings with this, they bother people on the streets going, I need
your phone. I need your phone. I need to make a phone call. And we've had to get the police
involved and to protect some of these people. And I know it's going to be, and I totally
understand this citizen's concerns that property lives there that back up to that property
because they're going to have to walk from McKinney Street and all these other places
down through their neighborhoods to get to this place. I just like to know how the city
is going to address not having these people bother the citizens in that neighborhood and
also provide that they're not going to sleep in the trees behind there.
I'll just quickly respond and I think Danny has a little bit more of an elaborate response.
I know that we're trying to be proactive and we're looking for solutions and working with
the property owners or residents. So with that, I think we know what has happened and we want
to be proactive and address those upfront. So I think Danny, you had some ideas or had
some additional comments, correct? I appreciate the commissioner's comments on encampments.
We do have encampments in the community and we do have a process where we're addressing
those. And the process does take some time in some cases to look at where the property
is located. But in this case for this area, we will have a no tolerance, zero tolerance
for any encampments in a designated buffer area around this facility. And then we are
continuing to update our processes on how we address homeless encampments in the city
overall. Monsignor King was a good lesson for us on how we can look at where those are
and how to move and mobilize resources to correct those situations when we can.
Right. I mean, by no means, I'm not saying I do not want to help the homeless. They need
help. It's a sad situation. But I know business owners that are across the street from the
church in downtown on Oak Street. And they've found these people on top of their buildings,
living on top of their building. They had to run them off from there because they've
destroyed the roof. They had to come in and pay tens of thousands of dollars to have the
roof redone. So, you know, I hope the city can come up with some kind of solution to
protect the neighborhoods because I've seen it and I know friends that have businesses
have been affected by this. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Absolutely. Yeah.
Thank you for your comments. We absolutely will. Thank you. Any other questions for staff
at this point? And if not, commit to share this. Thanks, Chair. Ron, is there any more
clarity on my question from work session? Okay. Yes, we do. And I appreciate the question
comment. We did spend a little bit more time on reviewing that U-specific standard 534C.
All of those U-specific standards, the city will comply with. It is something that we
will. However, I just want to make mention that the U-specific standard, what it says
on the separation that if a proposed homeless shelter is within 1,000 feet of another homeless
shelter and/or private or public school, then the number 2 and 3 would apply. But since
there is not, in this particular case, that section will not need, we would not need to
comply with it because it's not within 1,000 feet. But I guess the question that you had,
if we were, say, within 1,000 feet, the city would need to comply with all those notification
and requirements. Okay. So you're saying that C1, so it doesn't
comply to C1. This particular site does not comply, correct?
Right. And so that negates the other two. Correct. And the consent, which we're doing
anyway. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. So I just wanted, for the point of clarity, and I think Commissioner
Ellis brought this up, or maybe it was you, Chair, that this particular item is about
the zoning. And while we do need to be mindful about the uses, it sounds like Ron is saying
that we have to follow all our own guidelines, which is admirable. One should follow one's
own guidelines. So that sounds like we're staying in line with our activities. Is that
correct, Ron? That's correct. Any of the, and that's the
reason why the zoning is in place, or this rezoning request is currently under consideration
is we want to make sure that we follow the development code and in all other development
code related standards. Thank you, Ron.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. And I'm sorry, Ron, I'm
going to ask for a little bit more clarification because I just reread this. I understand why
separation wouldn't apply here at all. And I also understand even municipal consent not
applying since it sounds like it's the city who is initiating the shelter. It's really
the notice paragraph. And the reason I'm asking about this is, again, because there's good
discussion to be had on how to make this the best if the zoning case passes. And so I just
want to ensure that that talk continues. So to me, I mean, if this applies to the city,
it would seem like after the zoning, if it gets passed, that you would have to put notice
on the building. Am I not reading that correctly? Let me ask Richard if...
That would be correct. So C2A would be the one that we would follow. So since we're not
within that thousand feet of another shelter or school, one and three essentially are tied
together so those would not apply. The component of two would where that would be posted.
And you're saying 2A, not 2B? Correct, because it wouldn't be required.
I'm sorry. Yes, it would. So it would be that 61 days before. What wouldn't kick in would
be the public hearing or resolution that would be mentioned under C3.
Okay. And it doesn't matter. I know a nonprofit would be involved here, but it would still
be considered that the city would be the owner of the shelter. Is that correct? And the nonprofit
would just be servicing it. So they wouldn't be considered the other person as it relates
to these use specific standards. I'm not sure how the lease agreement is structured,
but yes, maybe Danny can add. Yeah, we will retain ownership of the facility
and we will be utilizing an agreement that allows a nonprofit to manage the facility
and services only. Okay. Very good. Okay. Thank you, Danny.
And then just Commissioner, just a recap real quick. Yes, then C2, the notice is we will
do if this were to move forward and home shelter does become part of this use.
Okay. Very good. Thank you, Ron. Okay. At this time, I'm going to go ahead and
go to the phones. They've been waiting patiently. I know we have a list kind of stacked up.
So at this time, I'm going to ask staff to patch in the first caller and we'll start
there. Good evening. You are on with the planning
and zoning commission. If you could please state your name and address, you'll be provided
three minutes to speak on this item. Yes. My name is Robert Grable, G-R-E-B-E-L.
Address is 820 Brittany Drive in Denton and then one of the houses in the Audre Meadows
back behind the electric thing and the facility that's under discussion.
Great. Thanks for being here. You have three minutes to provide us your perspective.
Sure. Yeah. I wanted to speak in favor of the rezoning to PF. I know eventually to turn
the facility into a homeless shelter or providing services for homeless or at risk. As somebody
who lives in that area and I've lived near the shelter that's run by Salvation Army,
I think I've had nothing but either positive or neutral experiences with that kind of thing.
And I think that using this as a homeless shelter is a good thing to do. I don't know
how much more I can elaborate on that, but I guess I also wanted to say that the neighborhood
I'm in, Audre Meadows, it's not like there's easy access going back behind the proposed
shelter into this neighborhood. So it's not, you know, residential areas in the area, it's
not like it's a concern that, I don't know, that's not a concern that I understand, I
guess is what I would say. Well, Mr. Grable, I appreciate you being on
the line and holding for us and then providing your support for the project. Thanks for adding
that perspective. Sure. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you, too.
And if I could ask staff to go ahead and patch in the next caller. Good evening, you're on
with the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you could state your name and address, you'll
have three minutes to tell us your perspective. Okay. Hi, I'm Jane Piper Lunt, and I live
at 1205 North Austin. I am for this, and I just want to kind of address some of the concerns
of the homeowners. I lived on the square up until three years ago, less than a block away
from our daily bread, and we never had any problems, ever, ever, ever. I now live on
Austin Street, and we have several homeless who go up and down our street every day, and
they're nothing but congenial and friendly, and they mind their own business, and they
are going where they're going. I've worked with homeless people since the '80s, and they
have, you know, they don't just take strolls, okay? You know, so they have no reason to
go into that neighborhood, okay? And their needs will be met there. There's going to
be a whole lot less foot traffic, I would guess, than there was from Monsignor King,
because the food's there, and they're now having to walk into town, you know, and then
walk back to Monsignor King. The organizations that will be doing this are very competent
people, and my understanding is there's going to be sensing. So, you know, I think it's
just the usual fear of people you don't know, and so I'm asking you guys to pass this.
Jane, I appreciate calling in and providing that perspective. Does any commissioners have
any questions? Okay, I don't see any questions for you, but I appreciate you being on hold
and waiting for us. Hope you have a good night. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. If I could ask
staff to patch in the next caller. Good evening. You are on with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Jane, if you could just state your name and address, you'll have three minutes to speak
about the matter. Hi, my name is Mary Higgins, and I am representing the family property
at 3760 Holland Lane in Denton. It's due east of the proposed shelter, and I'm speaking
in opposition to the project. I oppose the zoning change that's being driven by the development
of this homeless shelter. I'm told that the plans for the area include opening both an
emergency shelter and an enhanced shelter, along with wraparound services needed to assist
the homeless and to be provided by the Junction of Denton, a recent merger of Monsignor King
Outreach Center and our Daily Bread. The goal is to provide services to 300 people per day.
How can the area not be impacted negatively by a sudden influx of those 300 needing help,
as well as the workers needed to provide the services? While some of the homeless are those
that have had bad breaks and are trying to rebuild their lives, it has to be acknowledged
that there are also career homeless who have very little respect for others. It's my belief
that we'll see a new set of problems developing in the areas surrounding the shelter, including
thefts and destruction of private property. I believe it will pose safety risks to those
living nearby, especially the children and the elderly. There are further concerns from
activities often observed in the area of shelters with those who use alcohol or drugs. As a
holder of undeveloped property in the area, I fear the presence of tents and encampments
as well. I'm told there will be a zero tolerance policy for such activities, but how will that
be enforced effectively? I'm told that once the report is issued, the property owner will
be contacted for permission to enter the property to remove the camper. I've also learned that
in the event that damages are done to the property or in the case that it has to be
cleaned of litter, trash, feces, or other matter, the property owner would be expected
to bear a hundred percent of the cost for that cleanup and restoration of the property.
Under other circumstances, I think the intruders would be made to pay for the damages they
cause. However, in this situation, since these people are homeless, they have no way to pay
for damages. Could there be some type of work order issued by the city to make them spend
the hours needed to clean up or fix the damages they cause? It just bothers me that through
no fault of their own, a property owner in proximity to the shelter could be left with
substantial costs to repair and restore the land after illegal encampments cause damages
to it. Is there some way to help pay for the necessary work? Further, I'm aware that the
Salvation Army holds 17 acres of land that they're planning to develop as the same type
of shelters that are proposed tonight. The land is within a very short distance, approximately
half a mile or less from this location. It's to be a full-service location with both emergency
and enhanced shelters as well. Why do we need two of these facilities this close to each
other? I do understand that the current facility near East McKinney will be shut down when
new facilities are open, but why do we need two large shelters in this proximity? I urge
the commissioners to at least delay this project while further studies can be done as to the
effects on the surrounding neighborhoods and undeveloped properties. Ideally, I would hope
to see the zoning maintained as suburban corridor. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you very much, Ms. Higgins, for that perspective. I don't see any questions for
you. Commissioner Beck.
This is related to the caller's comments. Danny, how do we handle, or Ron or whoever
is the appropriate person to answer this, how do we handle impacts from individuals
who perhaps might be unhomed or homeless anywhere in the city if they are engaged in activities
that are untoward? Is there any difference between handling that adjacent shelter versus
far away from a shelter? No, the only consideration would be where the activity is happening and
if the activity is criminal or behavioral. So if anything that's criminal would be addressed
by the police department, immediately anything that is behavioral would be addressed depending
on where it's located. But we would handle that the same regardless of where the activity
took place. Is that correct? That's correct. But for example, there may be rules for the
use of the library or rules for the use of a park facility that may be different than
would be in a public space that's open. That makes sense. Thank you, Danny.
Is there any questions for Ms. Higgins? Okay, Ms. Higgins, thank you so much for waiting
patiently for us and taking the time to call in. At this time, I'll ask staff to patch
in the next caller. Good evening, you're with the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you
could just state your name and your address, you'll have three minutes to speak.
Yes, this is Arlene Gibson and I reside at 1012 Bayfield Drive, Denton, Texas, 76209.
My property backs up to the loop 288 and I'd like to just state my opposition to having
that the property turned into a nursing home. And the reasons that I would like for it not
to be turned into a nursing home is that it would increase the traffic, the foot traffic
as well as the automobile traffic in this area. And we have elderly as well as children
that walk this neighborhood and I believe that it will be a safety concern for them.
I also am concerned about the encampments that if the homeless were to begin to encamp
around the woods that's surrounding the building, including the back of my property, that that
would be a safety concern as well as problems with trash. I also oppose it because of the
Salvation Army's intent on building a large homeless shelter structure within three miles
of this shelter. And I'm concerned as to why they would build two shelters within three
miles of each other. And that would place us directly in the middle of both shelters.
And I think that that would affect our property values. So I oppose it for those reasons.
And I hope that, you know, should this go through, that if it goes through, I hope that
you would provide some safety for us in the neighborhood by putting up barriers so that
at least we can feel safe within our neighborhood for some sort of safety. But my greatest thought
would be that it wouldn't be, that it would not go through. And I think that's all I have
to say.
Okay. Well, Ms. Gibson, I certainly appreciate you staying on hold for so long and waiting
for us. Does any commissioners have any questions for the caller? I don't see any, Ms. Gibson.
So again, I appreciate you calling and providing your perspective. Your thoughts have been
noted. All righty. Well, thanks for your time. I'm sorry. Yeah, Mike, I have a question for
Danny. Okay. Danny, a couple of callers had mentioned now the future site of Salvation
Army. Do you have any knowledge of that? Can you enlighten us on that at all?
Not only that they have access to a property that is currently where Shiloh Gardens is,
but it's in the concept stage at this point. So I'm not aware of where they are in the
progress of considering that property for development.
All right. Thanks.
Well, as far as that property is concerned, this property has been donated by the church.
I just lost my train of thought, but the church that's right there off of university, I can't
think of the name of it, but that property has been given, donated to Salvation Army.
And they do have plans on making a mega, some type of institutions for the homeless as well.
And that is a concern. So if anybody, I think that's worth investigating to find out, you
know, what their intentions are, because from my understanding, actually, I got that information
from Kaylee Briggs, who also sat on the, who brings to mind a concern for me, and that
Kaylee told me that she is, she sat on the board for the homeless shelter for one of
the programs where the homeless shelter and that she was, she's supposed to be representing
district two, but I think that's kind of a conflict of interest because she, she in representing
us for her to be on the, on a board to push this through, I don't think that our needs
were or our, our needs or wants were put, were considered. I think that that, that was
a conflict of interest.
Well, Ms. Gibson, again, I appreciate you calling in and staying in line for that discussion
and we'll certainly take any consideration.
All right. Well, thank you for your time.
Thank you. If I could ask staff to patch in the next caller. I think we have at least
three left, I think.
Good evening. You're on with the planning and zoning commission. If you could please
state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to speak.
Yes. This is Eric Pangburn with Audra Meadows neighborhood. Am I on now?
You are. Yes, sir.
Okay. Thank you. We would have commented sooner, but we didn't get any notice, unfortunately,
and I learned about this from a neighbor about three weeks ago. My wife and I live here in
Audra Meadows neighborhood within a thousand feet of the proposed shelter for our homeless.
And we bought a home in this neighborhood 17 years ago with the intent after a civil
career and 28 years of military service to kind of make it our retirement location is
what we intended. This goes through, we, we, we may seriously reconsider that, but anyway,
we anticipated that loop 288 due to its suburban corridor zoning would develop as I believe
the city intended with commercial businesses all along that corridor on this side of town.
And this typically causes home values to increase. I served in another city as the chairman of
a historic district commission with 2200 historic structures. So I'm, I'm a little bit familiar
with zoning issues and how cities work, but as, as just what I gleaned from looking at
our zoning guidance and the Denton 2030 plan, it seems that zoning changes should definitely
be very carefully evaluated. And it should be the burden of the city to prove that the
change would not adversely affect the citizens within the proximity of that change. And I
read the staff analysis and the guidance statement reads that the intensity of development in
the new zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to surrounding
properties or the neighborhood. And the staff answer was that it won't. Um, and that's not
the opinion of a real estate professional that I did speak with who is familiar with
this area. Um, to my way of thinking, it should be a win-win result and not a win-lose result.
Local residents, homeowners, and local businesses, in my opinion, will not win. In fact, I believe
it'll further impede future business growth along this corridor. Um, I think we need a
win for our homeless and that win is not placing this facility in a family neighborhood. Um,
some say that the homeless either sleep in the street or they go to this location in
our neighborhood. In other words, nobody can find any other location where this can work
for everyone, I guess. But one evening, a guy was sitting down at the 7-Eleven just
up the street from this location at McKinney and Luke 288. And I bought him some chicken
for dinner from the store. A few weeks later, that same guy is on the sidewalk at the El
Mat door restaurant right at the front doors at dinner time. I were urinating on the sidewalk
in front of everyone. Um, and so if I'm asked, do I want this in my neighborhood? No, of
course I don't. The mitigations I've read about, uh, I think it was, uh, Danny Shaw's
letter and some that we've seen tonight, um, certainly, uh, sound good, but the transiting
traffic in my opinion will not be prevented. And if you ask me if I care about these folks,
of course I do. On the civil side, I spent 18 years as an air ambulance pilot care, caring
about, um, and, and helping people that are in helpless conditions. I understand that.
And some of our homeless, our fellow veterans, um, this isn't, in my opinion, it's an okay
for your neighborhood, but not mine issue. Uh, in my opinion, no city project should
ever go where we all know there will be a negative effect on our residents. It's been
shown over and over again. Uh, and I feel that to purposefully change the zone to make
it fit here, isn't the right solution. The solution is to put it where, where we intended
it to be in public zoning. The solution on the face of it looks like an ideal opportunity,
but I think it's wrong. I think we definitely need a solution and as soon as possible, but
one that serves everybody's best interest. Uh, thanks a lot for your time this evening.
Well, I appreciate you holding for so long and articulating those thoughts. I don't see
any questions from the commissioners for you. Um, and so again, I appreciate your thoughts
and, and, um, we'll take it into consideration. Thank you. If staff could patch in the next
caller, that'd be great. Uh, yes, you are online with the planet zoning commission.
You can state your name and address and maybe turn down the TV. You'll have three minutes
to speak. Okay. Yes. Uh, my name is Kenneth. Can you please turn on your TV? Yeah, I'm
trying to do it right now. Unfortunately, it's my one second here. So again, I appreciate
your, is that a little bit better now? It sure is. If you just state your address, you'll
have three minutes. Yes. My name is Kenneth Coleman. Uh, I'm a minister. I live at that
3901 Trenton place, uh, in Denton, Texas. Okay. And you have three minutes to tell us
your perspective. Okay. Um, I'm, uh, I'm really disappointed that a lot of people would consider
being that I've worked with the homeless since 2005. And I think that the greatest, um, um,
offense is that they've been misunderstood. Uh, the people are being called, uh, drug addicts
and they're being called thieves. They're being called child molesters. And, uh, and
that is, that is not true. If you want an absolute truth, I worked in the fourth work
shelter, Presbyterian night shelter, Salvation Army, Union gospel. So I have a lot of experience
with the homeless and you'd be surprised there. Uh, they're a business, they were business
owners. They were in the shelter. They were military. They were in the shelter. There
were, uh, uh, uh, people, aircraft mechanics in the shelter, people who worked for pharmacists
in the shelter. So homelessness, uh, doesn't have anything to do, uh, in regard to crime.
It has everything to do with, uh, with them being in a situation, a hard place. And, and,
and because they're homeless, it does not make them hopeless. And for, for Denton to
consider, uh, having a place where they can go, uh, where they don't have to, uh, urinate
on the park, uh, on the, uh, sidewalk and they don't have to beg and wait for a meal
and they don't have to hang out at Walmart and Target and all these other places that
people seem to have a problem with. Uh, if there was a place that is proposed, they'll
have a central location where they can get food. Uh, they have a place to shower. Uh,
this, this is, this is actually a blessing to this community. I moved here only a few
months ago and, and, and my prayer was before I moved here that Lord, that I would be planted
in a place that I'm needed. So all of this makes sense to me. And for those who don't
understand homelessness, it's because you've never experienced homelessness. Uh, um, and
we call them homeless based on their possession. Uh, they don't have a home to become homeless,
but they're still people. And we have to take into consideration that these people need
help. And here's an opportunity for Denton to show their compassion, uh, toward the homeless
and give them a central location and give them a place, uh, where they can be considered
and, and, and taking care of. I understand the residents. I'm a homeowner as well, but
I am not affected by the fact that they want to do someone that who's, who's less fortunate
than I am. I say spin up an SOS. That means scoot over some scoot over and make room for
people that are less fortunate. We are, I would think with all that has taken place
in the world and everything is wrong, that it may have changed or picked the hardest.
Um, that they would have a little more compassion, but unfortunately that's that for some, that's
not true. It's that I don't want it in my neighborhood. I don't want it in my community.
Then it's not here where, so I applaud those who are standing and taking a stand for those
that are less fortunate. I mean, I have a controlled climate. I walk into my house,
I can control the temperature. I turn my water on, I can control the water and there's food
in my refrigerator, but yet still there's room in my heart to consider that there's
someone out there right now that don't have that. So what the people who say that they're
a problem, it's, it's, it's really not true. The problem is an issue of the heart and I,
and I'm not going to preach, I'll be done in a minute, but some, some 41, just one verse
says, blessed he who considers the poor, the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble.
If there's anything inside of your heart that can SOS, scoot over some and make room and
consolation and I applaud the gentleman who, who served in the military, you all help out,
but you don't understand. There's also a battlefield and then that we need to conquer. Mr. Coleman.
Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. Certainly part of the interruption. I want to be responsible and
respectful of other people waiting on hold and I appreciate calling in. I just, I hate
to catch you off, but I want to be respectful to those on hold as well. Okay. Thank you.
Is there any questions for Mr. Coleman? Mr. Coleman, I appreciate again, you, you hold
him and waiting so long to talk to us and we'll consider your thoughts this evening.
Maybe you've already lost them. Staff. Can you patch through the next caller? Good evening.
We're on with the planning and zoning commission. If you could state your name and address,
you'll be provided three minutes to speak. So my name is Colter Souser. I live at nine
and 10 Bayfield. I would like to, I guess, state my opposition for this. I believe Eric
has the, the opinion that Eric stated earlier was perfectly stated and I really couldn't
agree more. So my property backs up directly to the substation behind the property. And
I believe Ron's pictures, if anything, they've conveyed perfectly that there'd be no better
place for people to hide out during the day in camp. Then between that, in that a hundred
foot easement between the substation and my back fence. I mean, the previous comment about
there being no easy access from the person who lives on Bayfield, I think holds no merits
in this situation. It would be a very easy walk right down the street, right up Audra.
And then you're in our neighborhood. I would like to know what the plan is to, I know they
said there's some mitigation being talked about, but I would like to know a solid plan
for how we would, I guess, prevent encampments and stuff like that. The current homeless
shelter is right is next door neighbors with a, with a, with the jail. There's more cops
in that position than just about anywhere I've seen in the city. And we still haven't
done anything about the trees between the current shelter and the river right there
by the bridge. So maybe somebody can try and explain to me, or I guess enlighten me on
what these mitigations are that are being taken.
Yeah. Mr. Salazar, you're, you're talking to mitigation specifically regarding the easement
between the substation and your property boundary.
No, just the whole, the whole surrounding area. I mean, like, like, like the picture
showed, there's lots of empty area. There's lots of trees. I know I drive by the current
station or the current shelter right there by the jail every day on the way to work.
And it's just tent after tent after tent and garbage. And I'm just curious what's being
done or what, what, what the plan is to prevent that. It was stated there was mitigation in
place, but I'm curious what that is going to be if we haven't, if no solution has been
made up to this point.
Yeah, I can act, I can see if Danny can speak into that. But I have a question out of curiosity
perhaps for you, as I think through this, a lot of individuals, including yourself have
talked about encampment and camping and different places around the city in which we've seen
those experienced homelessness gather. It seems to me and held me where my logic's wrong
here. If we had a 25,000 square foot facility that would feed them and house them, what
would, why would they go camp in and the lawn behind there if there's shelter and a bed
inside and I maybe I'm missing something.
No, I agree with that position, but I can't tell you because, because I mean, it happens
currently, right? Like it happens every day around current shelters, whether it just be
throughout the day until, until they're able to go somewhere that evening or, or whenever
else it's going to be, it'll take place. But I'm just, I'm just curious how, like what
are the preventative measures that are going to be taken? So my backyard isn't treated
the same way that the trees are next to the current shelter. You know what I mean?
Yeah, I totally understand it. I'm going to pass it to Christian Prenutter who's, who's
holding his hand up. And I think one thing to note that I can note is that the city is
going to enter into a good neighbor agreement that will outline the strategies involved
around what I believe you're speaking to. It sounds like they're trying to codify that
agreement to ensure security and no camps and, and those things to, to hopefully keep
a kind of a either literal or, or, or a metaphorical fence around the property. So there is that
in place for an agreement to be attached with the city. But Christian Prenutter had his,
his hand up when he recognized him.
And this one, my question would go to Danny. I kind of clarify what we've heard from a
couple of callers. Now, my understanding was that a lot of the camping that we had outside
of Monsignor King was precipitated by the fact that Monsignor King had limited hours
and did not, you know, have overnight here seven days a week, only a couple of days a
week. The facility that we're looking at right now, my understanding is seven days a week.
Is that correct?
Right. So a couple of things to address that specific question first. This facility will
be 24/7. So the people have access for 24 hours a day, where our current facility. Can
you hear me? Sorry. Okay. Thank you. So to make sure I remember done you, um, where Monsignor
King was an inclement weather shelter only open certain days of the week, Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, and an inclement weather that prevented people from having access to your shelter
every day of the week. And there is no shelter or space currently where people can go and
be 24 hours a day where this will solve that issue for us as well. Um, and then just a
couple of questions on the encampments. One of the complexities around the Monsignor King
facility is, is that some of the property isn't owned by the city. And so we are not
allowed to access private property or property that is not owned by us to do any kind of
abatement without permission from that owner, which we generally take steps to work on that
immediately to address any encampments that do exist. And then with areas that are undeveloped
that are city property, we take a compassionate management process where we work with the
people there. We send our home with outreach team out to build relationships with those
folks to connect them to services. And we worked in for as long as possible until it
becomes a safety issue. And then any encampment that is located near a private property, we
currently address immediately or where there are active use areas of public property. So
hopefully that helps. But if you have other questions, let me know. No, I guess my only
other question is, I know you said there's 24 hours a day services, but I mean, are people
expected to go in the building and never leave? You know, that's, that's the, I guess the
argument of, of the whole thing is whenever we start talking about migration through the
neighborhood or access through the neighborhood, we can talk about sidewalks in front of there
in the new zoning, but then there's still no sidewalks all the way down there to, I
guess, around Dairy Queen or up to a university. And it's where there's going to be a lot of,
I guess, movement through the neighborhood that that haven't typically had it. You know,
I bought this house, I bought my, I bought my property eight years ago now. And then
and wherever I bought it, there was an open field there. There's since been a substation
put up. It used to be a daycare behind there. This, this good current property we're talking
about is a daycare. A homeless shelter is a, is a, is a very far stretch from what it
was whenever we got it. So I, I appreciate, I appreciate their perspective. Mr. Salazar,
Christopher, you saw the floor. Yeah, no, I just wanted to, you know, thank Danny for
clearing up those questions because they were, they were concerns and it sounds like the
situation is completely separate in terms of the ownership of the surrounding lands
that would allow mitigation. You know, to the caller's concern, we're certainly not,
you know, understanding that this place is going to be the Hotel California. They can
never leave. They will, you know, but you know, basically we are going to be providing
people with someplace to be 24 hours a day, which provides less incentive for people to
go hiding in the cold dirty woods. And I think it provides, but we're what I'm hearing addresses
a lot of the concerns. And I'm done with that. I'm done with this. Thank you Mr. Perneta.
Commissioner Beck. Yeah, I have a, thank you chair. I have a real quick follow on for,
for Danny related to the caller's comment. Who, who owns the adjacent public facility
property with the substation? We own that as part of DME, correct?
We own the, the, to the West and to the North, uh, there's the only private property is to
the South. And just as an example, when we are working with private property, we also
are able to get enforcement authorizations that allow us to enter private property to,
to address any issues or abate any issues that may occur as quickly.
So there would be no distinction from our perspective or from a police enforcement perspective
or mental health enforcement perspective, whether the, someone who is, um, illegally
camping was on the shelter's property or, or DME property, that's all just city property
and the same response could be had. That's correct. We would address that immediately
and not allow for it. Thank you. Okay. So it's, pardon me for the interruption, but
can I make one comment based on the, on, on that statement there? You sure can. So, uh,
I guess it was last winter, the sprinkler system between my house and the substation
was, was on, and there must've been something, something faulty with it because I noticed
it was on for 12 straight hours. I probably made at least a dozen, maybe 15 calls to the
city trying to get somebody to turn the sprinkler system off. It took six days to turn a sprinkler
system off on, on DME's current property. So I just, I would like to be assured that
some of these things would be handled in a more timely manner. Yeah. Mr. Sousa, I certainly
the points made, uh, with, with that, um, I will say that as, as far as the city can
provide the appropriate barriers to prevent and to mitigate for the sprawl of those experiencing
homelessness near your area, I believe is being made. I don't think any assurances or
guarantees could be made at this time, but I assure you, it sounds like they are well
ahead of preventing and gaining the authorization to remove, uh, individuals who are on property
where in which they shouldn't be. Yeah. Okay. Well, I appreciate you guys letting me take
the time. Sorry. I know I ate up more than a three minutes. Not at all. I appreciate
you being on hold, uh, and engaging with us. You have a good night. You have a good evening.
So that concludes, um, the individuals who have been waiting on hold to speak with us.
In addition to those who called in, we did have 49 people make comments using our online
form. There were 34 in support of this item and 15 were against all the comment forms
were emailed to all the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. Uh, no
one called a line in on our line to, uh, leave their position. With that, I will close the
public hearing and turn to, uh, the zoom dais for a discussion or emotion. Commissioner
Smith. I'd like to make a motion for approval of staff recommendations. Uh, and with doing
that, I think, um, Mr Coleman, one of the, uh, one of the speakers who spoke earlier
today, I think that, uh, his position, his beliefs, his viewpoints should be heard and
heated a little bit more. Um, and, uh, in our community, I totally understand from the
property owners who are behind the property itself, that, um, the, uh, the fear of, uh,
the detriment that might bring you in your neighborhood that you might bring you in the
value of your property. And we will do our best from this commission and encouraging
city staff to, uh, to have that good neighbor agreement and to be able to codify those rules
to protect you guys, uh, both financially as well as physically. Uh, but with, uh, that
entire area of those don't know that the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act, uh, the, the, the tax
bill that was passed by the Trump administration created opportunity zones. And the only opportunity
zone in all of the, all of the North Texas area is actually in that neighborhood, right?
Where we are placing the shelter right there along 288 all the way over to the mingo road
all through that neighborhood, that area, and that is designated as a, as an economically
distressed area, an area where services like this services, like serve Denton, uh, that's
about a half mile south of this homeless shelter, where this is owning this proposed zoning
is right now, um, services that are needed for the people who live in that area and people
who congregate in that area. So, um, I can't think of too much of a better place to put
it. So, uh, my, uh, I wholeheartedly support and, uh, would like to see this zoning change
occur so they can see this project move forward. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Uh, Christian
Pernetta. Um, I'll second that and, uh, you know, my thoughts on this good and get my
thoughts on it right now. Uh, you know, I live near North lakes. Um, so over the last
few years, I've gotten to see firsthand a lot of the influx of the homeless that have
moved in, you know, people experiencing homelessness that have moved into debt. And, um, you know,
my neighborhood doesn't experience significantly higher rate of crime than any others. What
we're having to deal with are people who are suffering right now. And, uh, right now, you
know, Denton is an appealing place for people to be because, um, it's not a violent place.
Um, it's, uh, you know, there's a lot of open area. Um, I think a lot of people around town
kind of experience, uh, experience, you know, um, our homeless population moving through
their neighborhoods. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that we don't have a facility
right now that provides 24 hour service and bed seven days a week. Um, this zoning, just
dropping back to the zoning is, you know, does conform to what's around it. Um, there's
nothing, you know, out of the ordinary about us passing it. Uh, I hope this passes because
I think this would be a great step in taking care of a problem for people who need a problem
taken care of. And I think, um, you know, what, whatever we can do to move compassionately
toward that place to, to make this a better community because this is a community, um,
you know, is something we should all stand behind. Thank you. So we have a first and
a second for approval. Is there any discussion on this? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, just
for clarity. Um, I know commissioner Smith said, um, approved with staff conditions,
but this is just a zoning change. Correct. There are no conditions where we're putting
on this. Correct. Ron, you're muted. Oh, sorry about that. No, just, uh, just the,
um, um, recommendation for approval. There are no conditions. I understand. I just wanted
it for clarity. Um, yeah. And then if I could just make a couple of comments, I mean, obviously
we are approving a zoning change. And as commissioner Pernetta, I've just stated, I mean the PF zoning
change, it completely makes sense. Um, and obviously the idea is great for, for the area.
So my hope is that Danny just continues to do the great job she's doing with public outreach
and continuing to put forth the effort to make this the best, you know, and a win win
for, for everybody in the city of Denton. Um, obviously this became a public hearing
for the homeless shelter. Um, that's not what we're doing here. We're talking about a zoning
change. Um, but yeah, just keep that public outreach going so we can make this the best
for the city of Denton. Thanks. Uh, commissioner Beck. Yeah, thank you. And, and because the
other commissioners said, uh, actually pretty much exactly what I was feeling. I just want
to commend them and share their viewpoint on, on that one. The, the other thing I want
to highlight is something that commissioner Ellis brought to the front and that we had
staff confirm over and over again is that we follow our own guidelines. So, uh, we're
going to follow the rules that we set for ourselves and, and those are going to be what
Danny operates under and, and makes this the best possible property that it possibly can't
be for Denton. So, uh, I completely concur with the, uh, people who have spoken so far.
Thank you. All right. We have a first and a second for approval. Any other discussion?
Seeing none. Uh, the only two cents I will add before we vote via roll call is, uh, commissioner
Ellis is right. This is a zoning and even if looking at the zoning map, uh, PF makes
a whole lot of sense here. Um, so on its surface, uh, it makes a lot of sense. Moreover, when
we think about the plans already in place to build out a homeless shelter, there's concerns
about the geography of it and the commissioner Smith's point. It makes complete sense given
the resources available at serve Denton just down the road. Uh, and then there is comment
I made about the salvation army, which is speculative, um, of what's happening there.
And all I would say is if didn't becomes a city in which we have an oversupply of homeless
beds, I think that's a win. Um, because it says we're doing something right to serve
that population. Um, right now we all see it every day that there are people that don't
have places to stay, uh, and they are, they're suffering and, um, we have great nonprofits
trying to serve them. Uh, and I think they're doing a great job. Uh, but it is clear to
me that didn't needs more, uh, support for these individuals. And so if, uh, the city
of Denton can make something happen and salvation army wants to pair with them, then, then I
think we should provide the best service we can. And then our goal is to reduce the number
of occupants because we're, we're, we're creating, uh, some successes and getting people back
on their feet. And so, um, with that, I happily support this, uh, but we'll go ahead and take
a vote via roll call. Uh, first step is commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner
Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair's
also an aye. The motion carries seven zero. The next item of consideration, uh, is item
five D S 20 dash zero zero zero one. Before we hop into this, I just want to be respectful.
Does anyone need to take a break or would like to take a break or should we hear this
last item? Okay. Well, let's, uh, let's go ahead and hear the last item. Uh, so this
item is being presented by, uh, Ron Maguida and I will open the public hearing. Thank
you, chair. Uh, let me pull up the presentation. Ron Maguida, principal planner with development
services. Uh, this, uh, item for consideration is a specific use permit for a project, uh,
called mockingbird multifamily. And by name, uh, this is a request again for a specific
use permit to allow for a multifamily use, uh, which is located as you can see here on
the corner of bingo and mockingbird outline in yellow. Uh, the proposed, uh, multifamily
is going to consist of 149 dwelling units, um, within six buildings, a clubhouse and
20, sorry, 250 associate parking spaces. Um, the future land use for this area is shown
here as moderate residential. And on the left, you can see that the description of a moderate
residential is four to 12 dwelling units, uh, low rise, multifamily dwellings and town
homes, uh, keeping in scale and, and style of buildings, uh, with the neighborhood or
the area, uh, providing a transition between low residential and a more intense commercial
use. Uh, and you can see from the map here, you, you have some single family, uh, lower
intense uses in between modern residential and then the community mixed use, uh, which
is a long university. The current zoning, uh, per the 2019 development code, uh, transitioned
this area from, um, what it was once NRME 12 to now our seven, uh, our seven requires
a multi, I'm sorry, a specific use permit or multifamily. The maximum building height
is 40 feet with a building coverage maximum of 65 feet. Um, there is no density requirements
in the 2019 development code. So what, um, property owners and developers have to comply
with is the parking requirements, landscape and open space requirements, as well as tree
preservation requirements. So why are we here today? Um, and I failed to mention that this
is a site that you have seen before. It was under consideration for a specific use permit
back about a couple of years ago. And on July 16th, 2019, the city council approved the
specific use permit for this site for multifamily with conditions. And those conditions, um,
as you see here in on the screen allows for staff to make any corrections or adjustments,
but only up to 5% either increase or decrease. Uh, and why we're here tonight is because
the applicant is wanting to change their site plan and their program for their, for their
development, uh, because it does increase more than 5% or decreased by more than 5%
a new specific use permit is required. Uh, specifically the number of buildings, the
number of dwelling units, and also the number of parking spaces all exceed that 5%. What
we have in front of you here is a chart that illustrates what, um, was approved under the
2019, um, um, SUP July 16th, 2019. And what is currently being requested as part of this
proposed SUP, um, just way of describing the, the column under here is actually under the
2002. And then what's currently being proposed is under the 2019. The zoning is again stated
earlier is our seven. The site has not changed as far as acreage. The number of dwell a number
of buildings that is, is going from 12 to six, uh, with a clubhouse, the number of square
footage has increased. The number of units has also increased. Just want to note that
the reason why the units have increased is because there are more one bedrooms versus
two and three bedrooms. As a result of the more one bedroom units, um, the number of
parking spaces required has dropped from 343 to 202. Uh, sorry, I, I stand corrected. The
number of bedrooms, um, that was proposed, um, or, uh, back in 2019 is 343. And what
is being proposed today is 202 because of the number of bedrooms dropping the number
of parking spaces has also dropped, uh, again, from three 75 to 250 parking, uh, spaces required.
The number of, I'm sorry, the number of the percentage of the impervious surface has dropped.
Uh, the landscape barrier has increased and then tree canopy has increased, um, uh, significantly.
Uh, and then the, the other two items here, the lot and building garbage are difficult
to compare because one is lot and one is building. Uh, and then the tree, uh, tree preservation
is also difficult to compare because one is 2002 and one in 2019. But again, I want to
focus the differences in the number of buildings, the number of units, the number of bedrooms,
which has decreased, which again, as a result also dropped the number of parking spaces.
This here illustrates what was approved under the 2000 or the previous, um, SUP and what
is currently proposed under this request. Um, for this SUP, you can see that the number
of buildings have obviously decreased. Uh, there are a lot more open space. As a result,
the areas to the north along the railroad has a lot more open space and trees, uh, either
replanted or preserved, uh, to the East, uh, I'm sorry, to the West. There are also additional
open spaces than compared to what was, uh, proven 2019. And then the Southern border
of the property still has the buffer or the screening, uh, landscaping that was proposed
prior. Really quickly, I'm going to illustrate some of the, um, the site plan and landscape
plan. This is the proposed site plan. It identifies that, uh, they've met all of the requirements
as far as setbacks. It also meets the building maximum building coverage, uh, as well as
the required parking spaces. They all are in compliant in regards to those standards.
The landscaping, uh, similarly has met the requirement based on the site plan submitted
with regards to landscape area, tree canopy cover, uh, the landscape and buffer points,
and then the minimum open space, um, uh, for the residents of 8% has also been provided.
Uh, the majority of that, as you can see, based on this illustration is in the center
of the proposed development. The tree preservation also, um, was reviewed and you can see based
on this, that they are preserving the minimum 30% of the tree, uh, DB, uh, DBH, uh, diameter
breast height. And most of the locate is located along the Northern portion of the development,
uh, along the railroad tracks. There are some along the within the middle of the development.
And then again, some along the Southern portion of the proposed site. Um, as with any application,
there are the, uh, 13 that we look at as far as approval criteria. Uh, again, I won't read
all of them, but again, I wanted to focus on the three that are in bold as far as consistent
with the comprehensive plan, uh, how it, um, how it minimizes or affects the surrounding
facilities. And does the proposed SUP, uh, with the proposed multifamily development,
um, does that provide adequate, uh, public services and facilities within the area? Lastly,
there is also a section in the code that speaks to the specific use permit approval criteria.
Um, there are a total of six, uh, very similar to the first, uh, set of approval criteria,
but I'll just read these, uh, real quickly that the specific use, uh, proposed is compatible
with this surrounding area that it does, uh, not, uh, create, um, impact on future development,
that it meets all standards of the DDC, that any, um, impacts are adequately mitigated
in terms of utilities and other, um, services, uh, that is in, it is in conformance with
comprehensive plan and it does not adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of
the citizens or inhabitants of the city of Den. Um, I, I want to also share with, uh,
with you all that the site is surrounded by, uh, some major streets, um, University, uh,
to the north, Mingo, um, to the northwest, uh, we have also Audra to the south and then
Mockingbird is the spine that, that, um, is aligned with the site and that will be the
major, um, access for the proposed development. Uh, with that, there are a number of the existing
residential neighborhoods, uh, to note the Bel Air North, uh, addition is an area just
directly to the south, uh, and in the last, uh, specific use, uh, permit, uh, consideration,
we did hear a lot from these folks. Uh, as of today, we have only received one and that
person, um, that had submitted their comment is along Stockton street and generally in
this area here, just so just directly south of the site mobility plan shares, uh, shows
that the, um, the Mockingbird road, um, lane that is, it's, it's designated as a collector
and Mingo is a designated secondary arterial. Uh, and I want to make mention that these
streets are currently not built to their roadway classification, so they're, they're, um, they're
not up to what is, uh, planned for the future, but, um, again, those are the designation
as per the mobility plan. This slide here illustrates or shows that we have done our
analysis, um, staff has prepared a staff analysis that is included in your backup. Again, trying
to address those approval criteria, uh, we looked at the, uh, the land use element, how
it is compatible with the surrounding area. Does it provide adequate capacity for public
services and facilities? There was a TIA that was submitted for this application. There
was one before, um, because they changed their site plan, we asked that the applicant prepare
a new one and that has also been, uh, submitted, reviewed and approved by staff. Uh, the results
of that TIA, uh, required mitigation measures in the form of two right turn lanes that lead
into the development. There was also a flood study done, uh, as a result of that flood
study, it determined that there were no adverse impact, uh, for the development as a result
of the development. And again, the preliminary site plan, a proposed site plan and landscape
plan that, uh, we have, we saw will, um, as shown will comply with the development code
standards, uh, as it relates to the following, uh, sections of the code. As noted earlier,
we, we did send notifications, uh, to, uh, properties within 200 feet, 28 in total, and
then 83 postcards to properties within 500 feet. And as of this afternoon, uh, this site,
this slide hasn't been updated, but again, we received one in opposition. And again,
that person lives, uh, on Stockton street. There were two virtual neighborhood meetings,
uh, held again. This is recently, this was earlier this year, July 16th and July 20th.
Um, the applicant hosted that virtual meeting. There were, uh, I would say six or seven participants
that participated, uh, five or so in the first one, and then one in the last one. And the
applicant presented the proposed changes and also answered questions related to their concerns.
Um, with that, um, staff, uh, is recommending approval, uh, as it is, uh, compliant with
the criteria of approvals that, that were stated earlier. Uh, we are recommending the
same conditions are very similar in the sense that, uh, the proposed or preliminary site
plan and landscape plan will be tied to the ordinance and any changes to those site plan
or a landscape plan, uh, can happen as long as it does not increase, um, or decrease more
than 5%. Uh, and what we're talking about are again, the number of buildings, the number
of dwelling units, the number of parking spaces, and also the maximum, um, building coverage.
So as long as they comply with these, uh, set of, um, development, um, topics or items,
then, um, they are good. However, if again, things change, then obviously, um, they would
have to resubmit a new application. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Um, the applicant
is also hopefully on the line and has a presentation, um, that, uh, they've prepared and shared
with staff. Uh, thank you, Ron. Uh, Christopher Beck. Thank you, Ron. Um, so something I forgot
to ask you in work session is, uh, what, what school district or school district, what schools
are these, is this area zoned for? Is it Wilson? I don't know off the top of my head off. And
did we, did we talk with the, um, the district about, uh, the increased load depending on
the school? That's a typical thing we typically see. That, that is, that is something that
obviously with, with the zoning, obviously with the con the conference, I'm sorry, the
development code update, uh, we obviously made them aware now as far as the use itself,
um, you know, multifamily, um, that is something that would need to be, uh, further, uh, uh,
discussed with the school district. Uh, obviously, uh, from between now and, and city council
will certainly reach out. We did, we, we normally do it with zoning and SUPs is a little bit
more different, but we can certainly reach out to, uh, DISD and get that, uh, comment
from them. All right. Thank you, Ron. Any other questions for Ron, or we can invite
the applicant for his presentation or her presentation. Okay, great. Um, if the applicant
is on the line, they can go ahead and unmute themselves. Yeah. My name is Patrick Phelps
and I'm with Kirkman engineering. Can you hear me? We sure can. Patrick, as the applicant,
you have 10 minutes to present. And I think, uh, Ron has the slides being pulled up for
you right now. All right. I've got the wrong slide here. Let me, let me try to scan. I
can do that one. Sorry, Patrick. Um, there we go. You're, you're fine. I can, I can give
you my address now. My address is 5,200 state highway one 21 in Colleyville, Texas. And
I am with Kirkman engineering here this evening, representing the owner and developer of the
property, um, who is also on the column and has a, uh, has lost his voice. So he's going
to, he's got a little challenge talking this evening. So I'll try to answer all the questions
I can. And if he needs to jump in, he can as well. Um, Ron, do I just have you change
the slide? Yes, go ahead. Okay. Um, and like Ron mentioned that we do have an existing
SUP on this site for multifamily use. Um, I'll get into the reasons why we're requesting
a revision to that SUP or a new be, um, in just a moment. Um, Ron covered his presentation
was a very extremely good, extremely thorough, covers a lot of the same talking points that,
that I will, I won't spend a lot of time as it's, it's getting late in the evening and,
um, waste your time with duplicate effort here. Um, so if we go to the next slide, again,
just the location of the property, uh, we've do one of the points I want to clarify from
the work session is that we don't really have direct access or adjacency to mingle road.
We've got a large railroad right away. That is a buffer between us and the, uh, mingle
road right of way. So we don't, we're not, we're not taking access directly from it.
We don't have, we're not making improvements to it. We have studied it a number of times
and studied the traffic on that road, um, the number of times through this process,
but we are one property, um, removed from it. Um, if we go to the next slide, okay,
again, existing zoning are R7 with, with an existing SUP. Again, we're requesting an SUP
for multifamily use. Next slide. Okay. And you know, I think the, the first question
from you guys has got to be what, what are we doing here? Why are we, we just approved
this SUP last year. Why don't you go build your SUP, your, your multifamily use in accordance
with the SUP that we worked, you know, a tremendous amount of time back and forth with you guys,
with council, with staff, spent a lot of effort last year getting this done. Um, and, and
it's, it's a, it's a good question is why, why are we asking for this SUP? During that
time since we've been approved, we've really spent a lot of time researching, you know,
corporate research, um, working with other developers, multifamily developers that work
in this community, work in other communities and, and seeing what works best, what, what
are these, what are these items that we could do, um, better. And, and so when we did that,
we kind of went back to the drawing boards with, with a new design team and looked at
it. And what we ended up with was a significant, uh, change in our program, like Ron mentioned,
it was, it was more than what was allowed in the approved SUP. And we've got a side
by side comparison here of, of kind of some of the things that have changed, you know,
the, the big, the big things here are, you know, we are increasing the number of units
118 to 149 and, but we're not increasing the density. And really in reality, we are reducing
the density by the number of bedrooms, by the number of parking spaces, by the number
of total people that will be utilizing this development. And then by creating, we really
try to cluster the open spaces and consolidate the open spaces and the living spaces into
more regional spaces within the development. And by doing that, we were able to monetize
the multifamily area significantly more. Whereas before we were providing a swimming pool and
a dog park and some, and the necessary open space to meet the ordinances and, and the,
the amount of landscaped areas that that's required, but they were really segmented and
it was a little piece here and a little piece there. And with this new layout, we really
consolidated all that. And you'll see in just a moment, there's large open spaces in the
center of the buildings and in a courtyard type area. And then you could see the list
of amenities. We had a clubhouse with a resort style pool, sand volleyball court, um, basketball
court in a number of things, uh, that, that we're doing above and beyond what was doing
we were providing previously. And then the two big items that we really want to point
out here are the total number of bedrooms and the total number of parking spaces. Um,
previously that, that was where the largest concerns is, is really the traffic impacts
to the area. And, and then this is the biggest, uh, positive we can provide with this new
development plan is by just reducing the overall number of people that will be living here.
And it's not, it can't be any more clear than just reducing the number of bedrooms and parking
spaces. So, and site plan improvements, we've got additional green space and I think just
improved green space and you know, the overall impervious areas is not changed significantly,
but I think the way it's being used is being changed significantly. Um, elevation improvements.
We'll touch on those in just a moment. We go to the next slide, Ron. Okay. Um, the neighborhood
feedback. So we, we did hold two more public meetings virtually. Um, and some of the, the
same folks that were, uh, we spoke with last year came out and we spoke with them again.
And general, the, the feedback was positive when, when they see the, the work that's been
done on this thing and the, the renderings that we'll look at in just a minute and what
this, what this product is going to actually look like and how it's potentially going to
function. I think everybody was in agreement that this is just an overall better product.
And that's at the end of the, at the end of the day, that's why we're bringing this back
to your commission and hopefully to city council for approval is that we just felt a significantly
better product and we would just be doing a disservice to the community and to ourselves
by moving forward with what we had previously approved. And so we're here tonight asking
for an approval on a new SUP on what we believe is a better product. And I hope you guys do
too. Um, last couple of items that the tree canopy cover as, as increased and by a significant
amount. And then the, uh, building a lot, coverages are, are within the tolerances that
allowed by ordinance. Um, Ron, when the next line, just real quick, just the approved layout
and we'll, we'll go to the next slide. Oh, the previously approved layout just for reference.
And then our, our, uh, proposed plan. And just with the naked eye, I think you could
just tell and see the immediate difference of the, the can now consolidated open spaces
that I'm speaking of where the buildings, the building and living spaces are really
localized in a, in a, you know, clusters of themselves. And then the same is true with
the open space and it's really activated and be more useful to the con the product consumer
here who are the folks that will live in this development. Next slide. We've just got a
zoom in on the site data table there and it shows you the breakdown of, of the number
of units and how we, how the bedrooms were counted, um, the parking spaces were counted,
things like that, that are pertinent to really the detailed items of things we can, we can
go back to if we need to with any questions. Next slide, Ron. Okay. Um, this is our landscape
plan and the, the challenge with this site was preserving as many trees as we possibly
could. That, that was a task asked of us, um, last year and while we're working with
the original SGP, um, we got over that hurdle and, and with this plant, we've made improvements.
I think we're able to save more trees and preserve more trees. Um, now than we were
previous flame and, uh, accommodate the, the change in, in, uh, in ordinances as well.
So the, the, the ordinances change and we've updated that and, um, we're, we're working
with within that and, you know, we've got a very conservative plan here in front of
you today and we just hope to be able to save even more trees once we get into the design
phase of this project. Next slide. A tree mitigation plan. You can see the trees that
were, um, proposing to preserve the, the Southern cluster on the, on the property line are,
are critical for us and we're going to make an extreme effort to, to preserve those trees
and you'll see in a moment with a rendering slide on how, on how that's going to buffer
us from the residential folks to the, to the South. Next slide. Just to break down again,
like the site data table of, of the tree preservation, um, quantities, you've got the new categories
of landmark heritage quality and secondary trees and just the breakdown of, of the percentage
of trees that we're, that we're saving in each of those categories and then ultimately
what we'll have to, to mitigate for. Um, there you go. Next slide. A new and improved elevation
here. Uh, I think we're really excited about, about the, these next couple of slides and
I think we'll really show the image and the vision of what we're, we're trying to achieve
here. I mean, just a very modern, clean look, a two story product that I think everyone
will be supportive of. And it just, it's just a nice looking product, we believe in a, in
a vast improvement over the garages and things like that, that we had on the previous plan.
Next slide. And so what we've tried to illustrate here is, is how we'll, um, work with the property
owners to the South. And you can see the drainage channel, the concrete channel that's actually
in the subdivision to the South. It's in the, um, residential lots. And so our property
starts at the tree line. You can see just there on, on the North side of the concrete
channel. Um, and then we've, with the rendering, we were able to put, put in our two store
product, keep those trees, the existing trees that are going to be there today and show
the line of sight from a, from a residential, um, property on the other side of the channel
and, and just illustrate the buffer that will be there, um, as an existing, um, landscape
buffer with the trees that are there today. I think that that's, it's an important point
and we will go make an extra effort to preserve those trees, to preserve that, that buffer.
Next slide. Just, uh, I think this is where the visioning really comes into play. And,
and we worked with a really excellent, uh, design team that, that, that's able to produce
these types of renderings and really get, give a feel for how the community will, will
function. And I think with the, in the interior space, you can see in the courtyard between
the buildings where your, your imagination can really run wild. What, what, what would
happen in those areas, you know, where you could have kids out there playing, you've
got people utilizing the pool, volleyball courts, basketball courts. I think it's, it's
just a really neat community and a really nice space for, for everyone that would live
there. Uh, next slide. And then we're just pointing out the, the items and the, uh, amenities
in the area, utilizing the open space, utilizing, utilizing these existing trees and then, um,
creating those clusters of, of active open spaces. Next slide. And then again, like Ron
had, I think this is the, paints the biggest picture and, and, you know, without looking
at the data, without looking at, you know, 57% versus 60% of, of impervious area, I think
it, it's just clear that there's a superior product here. And then this is the slide and
this exact image is what really drove us to come back before you and, and make this request
so close from being approved last year. And we just believe it's, it's a far superior
product that, that you guys can get behind in support that the community can, can get
behind in support and that, and that we're really proud of. Um, so, uh, we can go to
the next slide and I think it's just questions. Yeah. So I, I, I'm here to answer any questions
you may have and, and, uh, we hope to move forward with, with your support.
Thank you, Mr. Filson for that, uh, presentation. Commissioner Smith. Actually, you know what?
You did answer, uh, the reason why you, uh, reason why you changed your, your mind. So
thank you very much, Mr. Filson. I appreciate it. Commissioner Cole. Mr. Filson, uh, could
you go back to that slide with a drainage, please, sir? That has the creek there and
all that. Yep. I know which one you're talking about. Give me a second here.
Yeah. Okay, right there, right there. Slide 14. Yes. So the last few years, we've had
very wet springs and summers. Yes, sir. Can it handle 10 inches of rain in a week? Can
it handle 10 inches of rain in a week? Yes, sir, it can. So that, that channel will actually
be designed to handle a 100-year storm. So a 1% chance in any given year that you will
have a rain event, which is, would likely be more than 10 inches in a week. It'd be
more concentrated than that. But, and one of the, and drainage has been one of the topics
that we've talked about with the, every one of the virtual meetings and the public meetings
that we've, we've met with the neighbors about, because it does stay pretty soupy out there.
And then on the other side of the road, they've got some areas where it ponds up and is, and
create some drainage problems in that area. And what I've explained to them is one, we've
done a flood study and we've remapped the FEMA floodplain map to, to be accurately aligned
with what, what's actually being done out there today with that channel. And then two,
the way this development will help improve that situation is where it takes a long time
for that water to run across an undeveloped site that's got low spots and, and it doesn't
drain real well. And it takes, it just takes a long time for that water to get moving it,
get to this channel, which ultimately all has to get there regardless. When we come
in and develop it, we'll have a, you know, a paved system and a pipe underground system
where the water gets collected and we'll discharge into this channel well before the peak of
the channel hits. So that before that channel has time to collect water from the entire
region in the basin and fill up with water, our water from our site and the rain event
has already gotten it, gotten into the channel and through the channel and is already downstream.
And so it'll alleviate that peak on peak factor is what, what we call it in the engineering
world to, to, you know, really reduce the amount of drainage issues. And so it, it does
two things. It gets that water out quicker, but it also keeps the water from just sitting
on a piece of property that doesn't drain well today. Well, I mean, the, the structure
on the right or the left, I don't worry about the structure on the right. I believe it's
from the flood. I mean, that house is real close, but I take your point and if they can
handle that, you know, I take your word for it. Well, and another thing to add to that,
the structure on the right, the house, it, it to, to get insurance on that house, you've
got to be two feet above the floodplain. And so it's that, that structure and, you know,
this is a graphic image and it's not, it's not showing as accurate, you know, 100% accurately.
It's not being surveyed in or anything like that. It's really just to show kind of what's,
what's happening here ideally, but just to be insured, it's two feet above the plane,
the 100 year floodplain line as mapped by FEMA. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. That satisfies, satisfies
my question. You bet. Any other questions for the, Chris, you're back. Thank you, Chair.
I actually, I'm going to commend the developer on this. I really do think that they've improved
things a lot. I mean, I, I think, you know, maybe there's some noodling you could do,
but compared to the previous SUP, I, I'm, I'm favorable. The, the one admonishment I would
make not to the developer is, but maybe staff is, is what I was alluding to earlier in work
session is we are just cramming, cramming, cramming things on Mingo. And, and you know,
all your presentations and staff, not just Ron, but every, every staff that addresses
properties on Mingo, we, we are not matching our mobility plan. It's, it's a bad, it's
going to be a bad scene. It's going to come before P and Z and it's going to be an issue
over and over and over for council. So I just admonish staff to, to do, do be, be really,
really careful with Mingo, but I, I do, I do commend the engineer. I think this is a
better plan. So I, I'm, I'm, I'm suitably inclined. Thank you.
Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Philson, thank you for being here in your presentation.
At this time, we're going to move on to public comment for this item. We had one person make
a comment using our online form. That person was against the project in this comment form
where it was emailed to the commissioners and to our city secretary to be recorded.
No one called in the number to register their position via like a voicemail message. And
there is no one wishing to speak on this item this evening. So with that, I will close the
public hearing. Commissioner Ellis. I move approval and I appreciate the thorough
presentations today. Thank you all. Commissioner Beck. I second. We have a first and a second
for approval. Were there any, there were conditions on that. Do we need to specify? Yes. Commissioner
Ellis, you're good with conditions. Absolutely. And I'll second those conditions. Yes. Or
have recommendations. Thanks for that clarification. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing
none, I can definitely call for a vote via roll call. And before I do that, I'll just
say, well done. This is a great improvement to the original project. So thank you for
taking the time and the diligence to update and improve that site. I'm excited to see
construction start. The roll call begins with Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Ellis.
Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner
Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries seven zero. Congratulations. That moves us
to our concluding item for this evening. That is the project matrix. I will turn over the
floor to Richard to begin and then open it to the commissioners to add or question. Just
a brief update. Wanted to bring up, I guess, the start time for next, our next meeting
on the 21st. We do have the gas well work session item that we're planning to bring
forward. In addition, I did speak to Gary Packin today. So they'll be presenting the
Parks Trails Master Plan at that same day. I think currently we have about, I think,
four public hearings on the agenda. Plats, I'm not sure how many we'll have. I don't
know that we'll have as many as we had tonight. But I'm sure there'll be a number of plats.
And so just wanted to, I don't know that we need an answer tonight, but to think about
another 3.30 or 4 o'clock start time, just given those two work sessions and some of
the other items. That's really all I had with respect to the update on the matrix. We have
not had any council items since our last meeting. We had sort of a little break there in between.
The only other thing I will mention, I know there were a number of questions, some very
detailed questions, that staff couldn't answer. And I just want to make sure that everyone
understands. We want to be a resource for you to make those decisions. Unfortunately,
we can't have every single person here. Just to give you an idea, from preliminary plat
through final plat through pre-con, there might be 15 to 20 different reviewers and
disciplines that look at that. So if there are very specific questions, understand things
come up at the meeting. But let us know ahead of time, we'll make sure that we can get you
those answers before the meeting. Or if need be, have that person here to answer those
questions. So just wanted to bring that up again. That's all I had.
>> Great. Thank you for the updates. Does anyone have anything, Commissioner Smith?
>> Thank you, Chair. Richard, just one thing on this. I've seen it a couple of times. The
first couple of times, it didn't really mind too much. But we started getting to applicant
presentations. And they're essentially another 15-minute presentation about what we've already
seen with staff. And then we see that presentation also in work session. And I don't really know
what the direction is more than anything else. I'm just saying that if there isn't substantive
additions to the overall project, they're being added by the applicant's presentation.
Maybe ask if city staff can maybe try to limit down some things that they have in there.
Of course, the elevation and the facade stuff and all those kinds of things, those are totally
things that are not usually in staff presentations that we'd love to see in some of the line
of sight things. Of course, they add it in there. But sometimes they just recap the history
that we've already gone over a couple of times. So for the sake of length of meetings, I think
it might be good. >> We'll certainly pass that on.
>> Good. Thanks. >> Christopher Beck.
>> I was going to ask a similar but not exactly the same question. And that is I find it really
helpful when we see multiple items that have small incremental changes. The staff always
puts up in the presentation this is the small incremental change. And sometimes we see that
in our backup and in our materials. And sometimes we don't. Sometimes it's just in the presentation.
And so it would be helpful if those could be included in some way once the materials
are made available to the commission, I would appreciate that. It would be helpful.
>> Okay. Certainly. >> Any other items for the matrix?
The only thing that I would say, Richard, this is probably embedded into the discussion
is the earlier advancement on scheduling DCRC, the better. So I can prioritize it on my calendar
and other commissioners as well. But I'm sure Ron and team is on top of that.
>> We've already had a number of emails going back and forth this evening.
>> Perfect. Well, seeing no other discussion items, thank you everyone. Thank you everyone
for a great meeting. I will close it at 919. >> God bless Eddie Van Halen.