The October 7th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting work
session has
been duly posted and we're ready to begin. We do have a qu
orum. I think we
have one missing that will be here shortly in about 10
minutes. We're going
to start tonight with a review of our agenda. First item
being does anybody
have any questions about the minutes?
Our next item will be our consent agenda and I'll ask Menal
to see who's going to
present and go through these items for us. Thank you Mr.
Chair. The first consent
agenda item would be the preliminary plat for West Park
Industrial.
Ross will go ahead and present that.
Good evening Commissioners. The plat is for two lots on the
northeast corner of
Airport. Let me see.
We just have a plat for two lots for non-residential
development. This is in
consideration for a part of a development, economic
development project for
Rush Enterprises. There will be completing a facility to
customize
truck vehicles for Peterbilt on this lot and then this lot
will be a future phase
with a future development. They haven't submitted the
building permit yet for
this yet so we're looking at the preliminary plat and a
final
plan will be issued when they when they get ready for
construction. Any questions?
Questions on this item? Thank you. Moving along to the next
plat we have
the plat for Cooke Children's Razor Ranch Edition and
Sophie Hummer will go ahead
and provide the description on this property and what is
being proposed for
development. This is the final plat for lot one block A of
the Cooke Children's
Razor Ranch Edition. This is lot one. The preliminary plat
was approved earlier
this year in May. You also approved a site plan for this
project earlier this
year and this is the final plat. Any questions on this item
? Commissioner Backer.
What is Cooke Children's Razor Ranch Edition? It is a
medical center. It'll be a pediatric
clinic. It's going to sit in between the select
rehabilitation hospital and what
looks like on Google Maps. Are those what condensate tanks
over there near Bonnie
Bray? It's I guess it'd be the southeast corner of Bonnie
Bray and
didn't they do some drilling there? Yeah what and what's
there now? Are those
condensate tanks?
Darren Groth, Gaswell Administrator. Hey, Darren Groth, Gas
well Administrator. I know some of
you have turned over since I've been here last but thought
I'd introduce myself.
The site at Bonnie Bray in Scripture has three wells on it.
They do have some
produced water tanks. They don't have any condensate tanks
on that site but it's I
don't know the measurement but it's to the east of this
site. So water tanks
that's all in. Produced water tanks. Okay. This meets the
fire code and the debt and development code
requirements. Okay. Any other questions on this item? Thank
you, Sophie. Moving on to the next, we're
going to actually skip Brubson Ranch to await Commissioner
Brighill. She had some
questions on that and had requested that she have the
opportunity to do so. If we
can go ahead and skip to the preliminary plat for Perfect
Finish Landscaping.
Julie White is going to present this on behalf of Mike Bell
.
All right. This is a preliminary plat for a to create one
non-residential lot. They
intend to develop the property with an office warehouse
type development.
Do you have any questions? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Beck. I was pulling up the
plat myself. They're intending to develop the property with
an office type and
warehouse type development. It's in an employment center
industrial zoning
district. That's a preliminary use. So no industry, light
industry, manufacturing? They haven't given any other level
of
detail for that. Any use that would go in would have to be
a permitted use within
the zoning district that's located in. Okay. It's close to
homes on both sides. You've got the house on the west side,
I believe, in the trailer park on the other side. There's
been no... this doesn't conflict with that. They would have
to meet the buffer
requirements within the Ditten Development Code and if it
was an industrial
type development, I believe that's a type D buffer which is
a 30-foot landscape
buffer between them and any residential development. It is
30 feet. Yes, absolutely
correct. Julie is correct with that. However, they did
request, the applicant
did request a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment
to reduce that
buffer width to 20 feet which would still include tree
plantings adjacent to
the residential district. And that's okay with the home
owner there? Right. So they went
through public hearing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
It was a public
hearing notification was offered and to my knowledge there
was no issue with the
surrounding property owners either. Okay. Good deal. Thank
you. Commissioner Hatchbeth. I have just a general question
while this is here though. Regarding the preliminary plat,
can you give me an
overview of that process? How do we get to that? What does
that entail in subsequent...
obviously there's final plat and so you know so if I can
get a timeline. To put it
in... to give you a synopsis, the preliminary plat is more
of a macro level. It
could identify a large acreage, a large substantial piece
of property that a
developer potentially has intent to develop. However, it
could be a phase
development or a phase program and so through that they
could carve out pieces
within that preliminary plat that would enable them to
final plat and provide
full-blown engineering or civil drawings associated with
that to make sure the
infrastructure needs are met and addressed for that
specific area. The
preliminary plat gives you a schematic and conceptual
layout as to engineering
your street layout and as you move forward and fine-tune
what exactly
you're going to do, how much acreage you're going to use
for that. So you could have
a hundred acres for example that was preliminary platted
and with that
perhaps in phase one only ten acres came in. That ten acres
would then become
your final plot which would have a more thorough study,
complete study on your
infrastructure requirements which is your water, your sewer
, your street. Drainage.
So at what level is that scrutinized? I mean you know is it
... I think I
understand your question. Yes. I think so. So I'm going to
take the liberty to try
and answer it without you completing it so I apologize in
advance. The
Development Services Department has a Development Review
Committee. The
Development Review Committee houses the planning discipline
, the engineering
discipline, FHIR, plans examiners which is your building
inspection team and then
when I talk about the engineering team we're talking about
the entire
engineering team which addresses utilities, which addresses
your roadways,
which addresses what the master thoroughfare plan and
infrastructure plan
requires and all those disciplines come together and they
review the final
plot such as this. So if you notice on this final plot it
identifies easements
as well. These easements are necessary to ensure that the
site functions not just
from an access point but when we talk about drainage. Is
there water to the
site? Is there sewer to the site? How do we... if it's not
there how do we bring it
there? What needs to happen to allow this site to function?
You mean preliminary
plot? I was talking about... well the preliminary plot is
more schematic and
then the final plot delves into that information more.
Right. It's basically to make
sure that the developers are on the right track before they
have to bring
forward serious engineering drawings for the final plan.
Got it. That's the function of it
and it's at the initial outset for the project. Okay. You
have some follow-up
questions? Well yeah I just don't... I still don't
understand. For example if I
if I'm if I'm gonna develop this the green area out front
here and I... is there
any scrutiny to that? Is there no that's not feasible? Are
we cutting them off at
the pass early saying hey that's not possible? Correct. Or
can someone bring us
a plan for anything and it passes the first preliminary
step and then goes in
the detail? I just don't know at what level so I understand
the disciplines
that go into the final... but the preliminary what is...
and the same
discipline evaluates from the onset. Let's talk about use.
For instance
Commissioner Beck brought that up. Can they do what they're
doing in ECI with
this one for example? Yes they can. The use is permitted.
What are the zoning
requirements in terms of lot width or lot area as we speak
to residential? All
those from a preliminary discussion standpoint are
addressed. So you cannot
proceed into a final without addressing your preliminary
and you wouldn't go
forward from your initial conversation. We enable initial
conversation with our
external stakeholders so we can understand their project
and they can
vet it with us prior to them even submitting their
preliminary plat. Got it.
There you go. Thank you. I'll add one more thing to that.
There's a there's a
preliminary step that you can do as a developer that even
comes before a
preliminary plat and it's called a development review
committee or a
pre-construction type meeting and it's a very inexpensive
way to take a piece of
property that you're unfamiliar with and it's I think it's
a $250 fee that you
present and to the board that... and I was talking about
the the the DRC and the
development review committee and all those departments will
come and review
that particular project. It's usually done within a couple
weeks and it does
exactly what she's talking about. It does a very
preliminary say we have a six
inch water line out in front there's a ten inch sewer line
down here what are
the easements what are your zoning's and kind of gives you
a very quick snapshot
without getting into a lot of engineering drawings to kind
of y'all's
point of what can you do this piece of property and what's
involved before
somebody starts writing big checks for engineers and civil
engineers and
surveyors and so you really go through and in my experience
that's a
no-brainer to go through first and get some feedback and if
it is positive and
you look like you can do what you need to do then you move
on to your
preliminary platting and then on to final plat so this is
just a preliminary
plat it's kind of would be a step to after somebody may
have done a
preliminary development review. So this will come back
again for a final plat.
Commissioner Dutta-Witts. I can just add that's why it's
part of a consent
agenda it's telling us it's already been through review
processes and been vetted
at that level for the preliminary stuff you know water
lines and easements and
things like that so it's pretty much you know understanding
that that's been
vetted and now we can move forward and get into other
details as we get to final
plants and then if there's any rezoning or other things
that's when it really
gets serious with us. Sit down and see if that makes sense.
We've got Commissioner Brighill has joined us and I believe
there was an item that we had
skipped that do you need a few more minutes we'll go on to
another item. We're
going to move on to our next item which is going to be the
sprouts edition.
This might look familiar this is sprouts you've seen it
before it was actually
this this plat was actually approved by this this
Commission previously however
they've decided to instead of do underground detention they
decided to
detain on the site so it's changed a couple of things on
the plat so in
abundance of caution we've brought it back so you can look
and see at it see
it again. Any questions on this particular item?
Commissioner Betk. I have
questions though. Thank you. Again being Teasley like it is
until this road gets
fixed concerned about the flow of traffic I didn't see
anything on the
plan here and I just may not be reading it right but coming
from down Teasley
heading south when you want to turn into sprouts are they
going to add a lane
where you can do that off of Teasley and if not why not and
do we have the right
to ask them to do that? I'm going to call Earl Escobar up.
Preach it to the choir.
Earl Escobar engineering. The construction plans for
sprouts are
proposing two entrances off of Teasley Lane. One's located
at the common
property line between their site and the site to the north
and then one is
further north within the property to the north because that
's where the median
opening will be upon the widening of Teasley Lane. Further
north? Yes. Okay.
But both entrances will have a dedicated right turn lane an
additional lane to
transition into their side. Okay that's what I was asking.
In other words people won't have to start backing up when
somebody's going to come in.
And then the entrance to the north the off-site entrance
will also have a
dedicated left turn lane as well. This entrance that's
located between the two
properties that's only going to be a right in and a right
out type driveway.
Now is this purely an entrance or is it an entrance and
exit? Both driveways are
exits and entrances but the only difference between this
one that's
between the two properties and the one further north is
that the one further
north is a full exit. You can exit left or right as opposed
to this one right
here which is only a right out. Was there any consideration
to making those purely
entrances and letting the exit traffic go out Hickory Road
there at the light and
the reason I again unless there's a light there people are
you know it's a
challenge to get over in the other lane because you got
cross traffic there. Was
there any consideration that this would be a problem with
exiting traffic out of
there heading back north on Teesley? There was some concern
on the first
entrance the southern entrance to only make that an exit
right to the right
only as opposed to a left turn exit or a full entrance just
because of a
potential left turn movements into the site given the
vicinity to the
intersection of Hickory Creek Road and Teesley we didn't
want traffic to back
up into that intersection so we we require that to just be
a strictly a
right in right out. The one further north is quite a ways
from that
intersection so we were comfortable enough with that being
a full entry.
Okay. Thank you. Question? Commissioner Detowitz. While you
're up there have we
seen any preliminary drawings from DOT because that is a
DOT right away? Yes there
are actual design plans for this project now they're
scheduled to. I'm
talking about the whole Teesley project not just this area.
I'm not familiar with
the whole set of plans there are a set of plans I just
focus for this project.
Because we've been we've been seeing additional sprouts and
other other types
of development from even further north in Teesley down from
the library we have a
senior citizen home we have I don't know how many homes are
going up there at
Ryan Road and now we have the neighborhood Walmart coming
in and we
have sprouts and then further further further all the way
down and we've had
some public interest about the traffic and all those and
yet it's still a DOT
project. Yeah the scope of the project is from it's from at
the intersection of
Teesley and Teesley or Lillian Miller that little corner
there all the way down
to 35. Right now they're working on 35 all the way to 2499
I believe somewhere
in that area. But we have not seen their plans so how do we
integrate our our
designs of ins and outs and X's? Oh we've in there we've
coordinated okay
textile plants with this development and that's the reason
why they had that that
driveway to the north off site is located where it is is
because that's
where the ultimate median opening will be. Now secondary to
that is is Hickory
Creek Road and Ryan Road and all those roads that parallel.
Those are city roadways.
Those are city roads and we've been asking about where
which the plans for
traffic lights and traffic enhancing whatever they may be
exits and
entrances those developments that are coming in. Yes as
part of the sprouts
development they are going to be widening Hickory Creek
Road I believe
they are constructing three additional lanes because it's a
six lane roadway
and I believe there's already three lanes on the south side
they're going to
build a three on the north side along with turn lines as
well along their
frontage. And Ryan Road? Ryan Road the Walmart development
is building I believe
their frontage. What about the other end of it where the
other developments are
going in? The Country Club Road which is a stop sign now
and people can't turn
left or right because of the traffic on Country Club and
Ryan. They are cost
participating they're proportionate. What's the city
planning to do at that? I
would just like to make a point of order if we could just
stick to the item
that's specifically. I disagree I think this is this is
relevant to the whole
development of that area of traffic is incredible and if it
doesn't flow down
easily it's it's hitting the other the other arterials in
there and it's backing
up all kinds of traffic. So it's a discussion about traffic
which was the
question was raised. I guess to answer your question on
Country Club and Ryan.
There are also applies to Hickory Creek to where it bumps
in. Right. Well Hickory
Creek and Fort Worth Drive there's a textile project for
Fort Worth Drive as
well. I'm not exactly sure when it's slated to begin but
there are going to
be improvements to that or those intersections as well in
terms of
signalization of Country Club and Ryan Road. All we can ask
them to do is cost
contribute their fair share for those intersections
whenever a development
comes in within the vicinity of that intersection and it's
just really up to
the city to supplement it. So the city is saying that you
're looking to the
developers to do something and you won't do anything until
they participate? It's
a requirement for them to cost participate towards those
improvements.
Okay. But unless it's a significant development and they
are willing to go
ahead and construct it like for example Razor Ranch, went
ahead and
constructed signals along. We have approved number of
developments along
Ryan and along Hickory Creek and we've not seen anything
that suggests
what's going to happen to the traffic of those additional
home sites and
developments on other city streets and it seems to be the
vacant part of all the
discussion. Well the city roadways, we analyzed the city
roadways when those
developments came in and they've named at the minimum level
of service. It's
the TechSot roadways that we have the problems with mainly
because Teasley
right now is a two-lane roadway. It's slated to be a six
lane but we're at the
mercy of TechSot schedule. I appreciate your answers. I did
that for some of our
new members because we've been having this discussion on
traffic in Teasley
and all that part of development there for at least my
tenure on the
Commission. So we still have a lot of answers that we need
to get and it's
just I believe the traffic is going to get worse and worse
because of a number
of homes and developments that we've approved in there
without making any
adjustments to the traffic flow. I agree. I mean I think
once Teasley gets widened into the six lanes
it'll alleviate a lot of that traffic at least from my
thoroughfare standpoint.
I'm on the main corridor there. I think we have another
question. Commissioner Taylor?
Just a brief follow-up. What is the expected date of
completion of the
TechSot widening of Teasley lane? Completion or start? Let
's start with the start.
We'll start with the start. Start is I believe it's August
2017. From Lillian
Miller to 2499 I believe is the scope of that work. Complet
ion is about three to
five years. So sometime between 2017 and 2021-22 this will
be complete and
you'll have a median and ride in ride outs.
Commissioner Rossell? This might be for Miss Wyatt. Can you
explain the change
and the first plat in this plat you said is about detain
ment? Can you elaborate on that?
They originally were going to detain any runoff underneath
the site.
When they got the cost estimates of that they elected to go
ahead and detain on
site. So that's what's changed. Thank you. Any other
questions on this item?
Amber are you ready to? Yeah I am and thanks for waiting.
We're one car family with two kids and a lot of after-
school activities.
So sorry I was late. Thank you. We're gonna back up then
and catch the Robson
Ranch item I think. Yes thank you. So I just had two
questions. We haven't even
had any talk on that. Who's going to present that?
So this is a Robson Ranch unit 10-2. You've seen the
preliminary plat. 10-1
which is another part of this unit 10 has been approved the
final plat. So this
is the final plat for 10-2 for residential development and
open space
lots as well. Commissioner Bugele? Thank you Chair. Miss
Wyatt I have two
questions. The first one is I see there are and I was
looking for like a key or
something. There are some letters with circles around them
and some of these
lots for example lot 63 has a letter I with a circle around
it 28 has an H with
the circle. 51 has got an I again. I thought I saw an E on
there. I've just
I've never seen that on these plats before and I was
looking for a key. I was
just kind of curious what those are the blocks. Oh thank
you. It is somewhat
unclear and if you'd like I could have the applicant add
block to those if it
wouldn't add more clarity to it. No it's fine. I was just
looking I didn't understand why
there were why that was there. I hadn't seen that. I can
see how that would be
unclear. Okay thank you and the second question is I'm
curious I've seen on on
other plats we're starting to now put in gas wells even if
they're not
specifically to that development but if they're in the
proximity of the
neighborhood they're kind of grayed out and we can see them
and I know that
there are gas wells at Robeson Ranch. I didn't see anything
like that on this
plat and I was curious is that because it's an MPC and
therefore it's not
required or clarify that. There is a gas well a gas park is
what they're called in
Robeson Ranch. It's adjacent to the property so it's not on
this exact
property so we didn't include it in the plat. But I've seen
that even when it's
not included on that specific development if there's a
development
nearby I've seen that grayed out on other plats just to
show that there is
something in the area. Am I I'm not imagining that we've
seen that before. No
I don't believe you are imagining that I think what we were
talking of what we've
seen in the past where you saw a an as built or shaded in
location of an
existing gas well in relation to the overall site. That's
exactly in this
instance we have a planned development district and we have
a separate detail
plan for the gas well park so the conditions that dictate
both are
different. Right so it's why you see it this way. It's not
necessary it's not
required. Right we're not in error with this plot nor we
are in error with the
other. Okay that answers my question thank you. Any other
questions?
Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Could you put that
drawing back up there that
showed the gas part? Okay. Right the proximity of that part
to the area that's going to be
developed seems pretty close is that within the back sets?
It meets the
requirements of the Robeson Ranch plan development. They
have a separate set
of rules for their gas parks and this does meet their
requirements for
separation. Okay so Denton's guidelines don't fall in here?
I'm going to call up
Darren Grove just so he can give you a little more
background on it might make
it a little clearer. Okay yeah the Robeson PD addresses set
backs and so what we did
here recently in August was adopt an ordinance that
addresses if a master
plan community or plan development were to change any of
their zoning documents
they would actually have to come in with a unified plan and
address the setbacks
with the gas well operator and the surface developer. Since
this is still a
plat and not addressing the zoning as we all pointed out in
the last answer the
plat isn't in conflict with our new ordinance because the
previous PD would
still apply and in that PD there was only a 100 foot set
back so it definitely
meets that. Right now we would have a different set of
regulations if they
were going through a zoning change and I think one of the
examples was probably
Sophie's case previously where the zoning ordinance
actually required the
plat to show those so again the zoning change would be the
key here this is a
plat that we're addressing. And the zoning change would
come through this
committee. Yes sir. Okay so my question so it's only a
hundred feet then. Correct.
And we've got minimum on new homes I believe is 500 feet
when you're building
a new area. A new home to an existing drilling and
production site outside of a
PD except for that unifying plan would be a 250 foot
distance okay except for the
structure to any pieces of equipment that would hold
explosive liquids or
gases that would be 300 feet. So are we gonna have problems
with this when they
start building homes then? Is this still outside the 250?
It won't be a problem
because of the set of separation standards that they will
be developing
under until Robeson were to come in and amend the plan
development itself then we
would get that unified plan that would address the setbacks
either to today's
250 foot or even greater in some examples but the 100 foot
distance is
what they will develop under so it won't be a conflict with
the ordinance
because they're still going to be building under the
initial Robeson PD
that was adopted in 1999. Maybe this is not the place or
the time to ask this
question but again one of the concerns about when you're
doing new
developments and it has to meet this minimum requirement
was there something
about homeowners being notified when you go in and buy a
new home in their new
planned community that they're to be notified that hey you
live within 250,
500 feet of gas well is that something we address here?
Well that's correct and
it's actually part of Robeson's management plan so they do
notify
homeowners of that again through the zoning but if that
zoning were to ever
be amended then we would have the opportunity to get a
unified plan that
the surface developer which I think is Robeson development
and in this case the
operator would would come in and set new setback distance
and all of the new
ordinance would kind of then be triggered. Thank you. I
think maybe
Darren can maybe clarify this I think maybe the issue is
this because this is
a master plan community even though it's a small section
that's being brought
before us it is just a small piece of something that was
done many years ago
and the rules and the guidelines for that were set in place
so to your point
even though we have new gas well regulations those affect
new
developments this is a old development that is a master
plan development that
has already got the criteria and it's already been pre-
approved and I think
maybe that's the distinction where is that why are we not
doing it here and
and there may want to even clear that even better than what
I just stated.
That's a good point Chairman and one of the things that
will will possibly change
is if that operator came in and it modified that large-
scale development so
again we're looking at one little piece that has pointed
out so that's kind of
part of the confusion. Because of the time frame on it our
answers are still coming in.
Well it's an existing project and so it kind of goes to
unfortunately some of the
new members may have missed some of the things that have to
do with called
vesting and I think kind of goes to Commissioner Hussbuss
questions earlier
as you go through the process once you begin the process
these are the rules
that you work under and so this project was begun a long
time ago and the rules
were set for it and there as long as they work under those
rules and don't
make a large change or a zoning change that would trigger
them to come under
the new rules they work under the rules when their project
was originally
approved. On new projects once those begin whatever the
rules the laws that
we have in place follow that at that time and same thing in
the future and
it's somewhat of a grandfather investing because existing
properties you know if
we make a new ordinance we can't go back so well you have
to do an energy update
on your home because new homes now have to be done this way
and it's the same
type of a principle on a development standpoint if that
makes sense as to why
it follows some places and others and it's taken the rest
of us a while to
understand why does it happen here and not at other places
and that's the
reason on this deal. I would just like to make a point for
the record that that was just a
general overview of our vesting process and may or may not
apply to a particular
piece of property and the chairman is not passing judgment
on whether or not
this particular applicant has vested rights. Thank you for
the clarification.
All right I think we have now addressed all of the consent
agenda items. I think
do we need to have any discussion about what we're doing on
the individual
consideration? No? Okay. I don't know how long
presentations will be on these do we
need to do food now or do we want to go ahead and get a few
of these out of way
and then do food? If I could make a suggestion not a
recommendation but we
have items 5a and 5b they're very straightforward standard
replants they
don't warrant discussion in my mind but if there are any
questions that the team
or the the Commission feels that they want to bring up we
can do that however I
would advise that we jump into our zoning change request
and go through
those they're they're pretty lengthy and I'd like to knock
those out. I was
thinking maybe if we could be done by 6 15 we would have 15
minutes of free time.
Okay if we can if not then we can okay we'll go ahead and
get whatever the
pleasure of the Commission. We'll take your recommendation
we'll go ahead and
does anybody have questions on items public hearing a or b?
No? Seeing none
then we're going to go ahead and move on to item C and Man
al who will make that
presentation. Item C is a request for a zoning change from
PD 12 to RCCD I'm
going to ask Julie Wyatt to make that presentation on
behalf of Mike Bell.
Thank you Julie. Good evening Julie Wyatt associate planner
with the city of
Denton I'm presenting Z15-5 Toyota of Denton. The request
before you is to
consider rezoning the subject property out of PD 12 and
into a regional center
commercial downtown zoning district the site's
approximately 15 acres. Just to
orient you it is located on I-35 here is State School Road
so it's south of
State School and Post Oak is down in this area. A little
bit of background the
original PD 12 was created in 1980 and it originally
encompassed 109 acres and
you can see it there in the green. In 1986 the concept plan
was amended for
74 acres and I know y'all went over PDs a couple of
sessions ago but just to
just to refresh your memory there's kind of a two-step
process to the zoning of
a PD would be the concept plan which kind of lays out the
uses where those
would go and then the second part is the detail plan which
looks at more of a
site specific where the parking would go where the
buildings would go the open
areas so the concept plan was for this PD was amended in
1986 to change where
some of the uses would be and what those uses would be. The
concept plan was then
amended again in 87 for 43 of those acres and then in 2001
and 2004 detail
plans were approved for both Toyota and Honda which are the
sites in question
tonight and the zoning map has changed since that time so
so here is the
original PD 12 here's what's left of it to the north
adjacent to State School
that was rezoned out of the PD in 1999 and then the
property adjacent to the
subject site was was zoned out of the PD in 2005. The site
is located in a
regional mixed-use future land use designation at per the
Denton plan 2030
this area is intended to have high density residential
urban form commercial
development that's supposed to draw in people not just from
its specific area
but from the greater region so it's supposed to have a
larger draw. The way
the property has developed with the Honda and the D and the
Toyota dealerships
it really does meet this future land use designation
require goal and intent. Back
to the background in 2001 the detail plan for Toyota did
also have some
conditions those included conditions regarding lighting
irrigation for
landscaping the public address speakers and then some
additional conditions
regarding the construction of the site where the temporary
sales office would
be and then and then the trees. Honda also had some
conditions also included
lighting the public address speakers and then also
addressed some future
development in a detention pond on the site. So when staff
analyzed this request
we looked at some condition or some considerations. First
the site is
developed consistent with the RCCD zoning designation which
they are
proposing. It is also developed in accordance with the
future land use
designation so it meets those requirements. Second
consideration was
that the approval of this would remove the conditions that
were set on the
site with the approval of the detail plans. But when we
look deeper at that we
saw that four of the conditions were related to the
original construction and
really are no longer applicable. That lighting is now
regulated with the dent
and development code in sub chapter 13 and it really does
meet the intent it
shields the the adjacent property owners as well as the
night sky those are the
requirements of the dent development code. The noise is now
addressed in the
code of ordinances and the detention pond that was
addressed is heavily
encumbered by easements and if they were to develop that
that plat what you would
have to be replatted and that would come before this
Commission. So the request
does meet the criteria for rezoning in the DDC and that
criteria for approval
is is located in sub chapter 3 and first that the proposed
rezoning meets the
the future land use element in the dent and plan 2030 and
that also the proposed
rezoning facilitates the adequate provision of
transportation, water, sewer
schools, other public requirements. Public notification was
sent out. We have not
received any responses in opposition or in favor. So based
upon the
considerations presented and the criteria for approval
staff does
recommend approval of this rezoning. I'll stand for any
questions.
Commissioner Begg. Thank you Chair. And this is just a I
guess a general question so
this is land the owner is TT of Denton Incorporated? Is
that that's what it's
showing here? Yes sir. Okay and so Toyota and Honda are le
asing from them? I'm not
quite sure how how their business structure is set out. We
have to make
sure that the owner of the property is is requesting the
rezoning so if the
owner is requesting the zoning then the rezoning can move
forward. Did he by any
chance give any indication I mean why would want to rezone
it? Has he got some
ideas in mind? Well I spoke with the project manager on
that because I thought
that would be a question that I would get and you know
these aren't a plan
development and when those detailed plans were approved a
site plan was
tied to that as well as elevations and other specifics to
the site. The sites
have now been developed and in some cases they've they've
done some tweaks
and some redevelopment which is required because it's a PD
to go back
through the zoning process if they want to make changes to
say elevations or
change some of the parking area and so in order to simplify
and provide a
little more flexibility for the applicant the RCCD does
meet the future
land use element and it does conform to that zoning so you
know we worked with
them and felt like that was an appropriate way for them to
move
forward. Does that answer your question? I think so. He
just indicated though that this opened up the opportunity
as a regional activity center is
considerably larger more diverse its land use it includes
vertically integrated uses so we're talking about. He could
it could redevelop in accordance with the with that zoning
designation yes sir.
Okay but he hadn't given us any idea. We have not been
given an indication that that's what we have. Thank you.
Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. I just wanted to add
a little
clarification on this too whenever we was it earlier this
year or last year we
had a case before us on adjusting the site plan and they
wanted to change the
shrubbery but that's a change to the site plan the way the
PD was written they
had to come to P&Z and I think I was among several members
of the Commission
who suggested it would be better to just rezone it out of a
PD and into an
appropriate zoning category. In my opinion a lot of times
plan developments
were used as a quick and easy way to get the use that a
landowner needed or maybe
they had a parcel of land and they wanted half of it in one
use and half of
it in another use they would put together a PD with a site
plan and get it
sold you know get it get it through planning and zoning
back 10 20 30 years
ago and they would build the project but then they wrote
the PD so
restrictively there is only one valid use it has things
like shrubbery on the
site plan it requires you know an application to move a
tree things like
that so often PDs were not well managed and now 30 years
later or 40 years later
you have something that's designed for 1980 and doesn't
meet any of our current
standards and by law they can't do anything about it they
have to that's
the only thing they're allowed to do. So this kind of
changes keeps him from being
hamstrung on every little change. Yeah and I feel
personally I feel like this
moves it into a more appropriate and they could they're
probably not going to
change the car dealership anytime soon but if they wanted
to 10 years from now
they could do put some of their use on there but they could
change their
shrubbery or move a building or you know things like that
put up an entryway
which would require an active. Well to add to that I think
it it makes the
developers project much easier to move it removes a step
they still have to
meet all of our ordinance from a building inspections and a
construction
standpoint so they basically skip coming before us and go
strictly to building
inspections and and make whatever change they need to make
as long as it is in
accordance with ordinances so it's just as a easier we're
not having to see
every single change because it's a PD. Any other questions
on this particular
item? Okay I'll move on to item D. Judy White still gonna
stand there and make this one as well.
All right this is Z1525 loves travel stop. This request is
to consider making
a recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning from
regional
center commercial neighborhood to employment center and
commercial on
approximately 15-16 acres. The subject property is located
on the north side of
the city it is here's I-35 and here's Bartold Road so it's
on the north side.
Some background originally the site was a truck stop car
wash convenience store
warehouse and truck storage as you might know it burned in
2008 the convenience
store did so it's so it's been in that condition you know
since then ready for
redevelopment so in light of that staff met with the
applicant in 2013 to
discuss the redevelopment of the site into a truck stop
which the uses would
include a convenience store, gasoline sales, restaurants
and also truck repair.
Because truck repair is not permitted in the current zoning
district staff at
that time in 2013 recommended that they pursue an RCCD
zoning district because
it was consistent with the Denton plan 1999 that area was
was considered to be
a regional mixed-use area for that future land use map and
so the RCCD fit
within that but also permitted the vehicle repair. Fast
forward in 2014 we
approved the Denton plan 2030 and we changed the future
land use designation
of this property to business innovation and just a little
bit of history on that
this area was designated as a regional center in 1998 I'm
sorry 1988 and it was
one of two so it was there was Golden Triangle Mall and
then there was this
area so they were anticipating that this would grow in a
regional way after that
a third regional center was added at I-35 and John Payne in
1999 and Razor
Ranch was then added in 2007 and then when you include
downtown of that that's
four regional centers and in doing the analysis for the
comprehensive plan it
was determined that Denton probably couldn't support four
regional commercial
centers so that's why they changed it to the business
innovation and the changes
or the differences are that the regional mixed-use which is
what it was before
was intended to promote high-density residential walkable
urban area and a lot
of commercial shopping areas. Business innovation changes
that to be promote
more employment centers but also keep that that commercial
element in order to
support those employment areas so it sort of takes out the
the residential
component. So then when we compare RCCN which is what it's
owned as today to the
proposed ECC both of them really permit the same commercial
uses RCCN does
permit the high-density multifamily whereas ECC permits
light industrial but
removes that multifamily so it's more consistent and in
line with the future
land use. So the considerations we looked at first this
site has historically
been a truck stop this area is ideal for this type of use
it's the northern
gateway to the city it's got it's got good access for the
end user so it's it's
an appropriate use for the area until the DDC is updated to
be more in line
with the new comprehensive plan. The ECC zoning is is
consistent with that
business innovation future land use element. The
surrounding uses are
primarily agricultural or commercial so it's not
anticipated since there's no
residential it's not anticipated that this use would would
have an impact on
the adjacent properties. Once again the criteria for appro
vals in subchapter 3
first the rezoning must be consistent with the future land
use designation of
the property and that it must facilitate the adequate
provision of
transportation water sewer schools and other public
requirements. It does meet
both of those requirements for for criteria for approval.
Public
notification it was sent out we have not received I take
that back I looked on
Mike's desk today and there were we received one letter
neither in opposition
or in favor there is an adjacent property owner who maybe
has concerns but
they have not said favorably or unfavorably to the project.
So based
upon the considerations and the criteria for approval staff
does recommend
approval of this rezoning.
Commissioner Dudowitz. Can you put up this slide with
regard to the current
zoning for that whole area up there? Okay all right and
that's current? Yes sir. Okay
across the road is TA which is a compatible I mean the same
convenience
store tire shop repair shop for trucks convenience store
gas station. Yes sir.
And that is now a RCCD. Okay so this would be consistent
with that? Well RCCD
was actually more in line with the previous future land use
designation and
that's why we did recommend that this applicant pursue that
RCCD back in 2013
however with the new comprehensive plan RCCD really isn't
kind of what we're
getting to is again we're gonna have to address this for
the other side of the
road. Yes sir.
Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you chair. Miss Wyatt there's a
there's a residential
home near this zoning request is that correct? I am not
aware. Maybe I'm confusing.
To the left. Yep. I'm looking at Google map. Okay thank you
. So I was curious to know what kind of
buffering requirements might be between this new this new
zoning request and
that residents? Vehicle repair is considered a commercial
use and so let
me get my code I want to verify. Okay.
I think it's a type C but let me just verify.
So commercial to single-family is a type C which is a 15
foot planted strip 15
foot landscape buffer. Okay. How 15 foot high? No 15 feet
wide. It would require a
combination of six evergreen and deciduous trees and 25 shr
ubs per 100
linear feet. Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Tater. Thank you chair. Just wanted to clarify
that there's this
little finger off of the bottom of that parcel shape and
looking at the map it
doesn't appear that are they purchasing an easement or
purchasing a strip of land?
That's a part of the property. It does sort of wrap around.
Just so I'm clear
that's that wrap around part is right at the edge of Foster
's Western Ware? I
believe so. Okay. All right. Well I think that's the little
white box down there.
It is. That's Foster's. Commissioner Rosale. So I have some
concerns about traffic in the area
specifically during workday mornings highway 1173 coming in
from Crum. Any of
the maps will work. There's a railroad track anyways on 11
71 heading backwards
and I know for one of my employees says it's backed up on
1171 for individuals
trying just to get on I-35 south above the loop. Is there a
change of road
suggested? What is that white line? Barthold Road is
actually going to be
realigned at some point and this is conceptual but it's
going to line up
with Elm at some point and I believe as a part of this
development they'll be
dedicating the right away for that. So it's actually going
to hopefully improve
the connectivity in the area in order to and Earl's gonna
come up.
Earl Escobar engineering. As part of the development when
they come in for
platting the requirement is going to be for them to realign
Barthold Road to
line up with the intersection of I-35 and 77 or Elm Street
on the other side
there. That's a signalized intersection there so and right
now
Barthold just kind of tees into the service road. And what
is it doing back
to the highway 1173 to the south there? You know what is it
connecting back
there? Eventually it's going to this road is going to
become 1173 and Barthold
will eventually be part of converge into 1170 the new
alignment of 1173. So
everyone coming in from Crum on highway 1173 would be rer
outed up to that
signaled light? That's correct. And not be having to wait?
Not into that T intersection. So as part of the
loves development they're going to realign Barthold Road up
to this corner
here of their property. They're going to abandon the
existing Barthold Road and
then then they're going to connect to the existing portion
here. So
essentially all the traffic will now be diverted into the
signalized
intersection and alleviate that traffic. So that partly
addresses the issue
because one of my issues is just the backup from warning
traffic on 1173
from individuals from Crum heading either into Denton or
through Denton
down to Dallas. The other concern I have is I can't really
tell on this map but I
estimated at that T&A about 90 semi trucks which back up
southbound on Elm.
So when they all exit TA on Elm it backs up there and it's
it's nearly
impossible on average one to two trucks can get through
that light to get on to
I-35 south. Is there any thought of or is the I-35
expansion going to solve that
underpass because that underpass is quite small?
Unfortunately the widening
project in this area is not going to happen until 2000 I
say 2030. Right now
the current widening project stops at 380. So part of me
thinks that some of
those 90 some odd trucks if they're heading south would
just leverage the
west side truck stop if it was available to them which
could alleviate some of the
traffic. It could alleviate now that they have a choice
between. Exactly so I think there is a
benefit to that but I am still concerned about individuals
the thoroughfare from
Crum to Denton is around that intersection and adding the
potential
increased traffic in restaurants I think we're gonna funnel
even more traffic to
that real small underpass. Well there's also an opportunity
we haven't dived into
the traffic studies as well as part of their plotting
process but I think one
of the comments was to analyze the need for a dedicated
right turn lane for
southbound Furnage Road on to I guess it's still be Barthol
road to alleviate
I mean if the trucks wanted to enter or be served by the
site that right turn
light would free up that traffic and alleviate that through
lane or possibly
even the turn lane. And I don't want to go on a rabbit
trails traffic but is
there any plans for loop 288 to help access Crum in the
future I know it's
dead in there but I don't know the future of loop 288. As
is. Okay thank you.
Commissioner Hatchbeth. Can you help we're right at the
northern edge of the
city or am I off? Where are we do you know generally where
we are where are
the boundary for city of? It's right here here's ETJ. Okay.
There is some that goes
up 35 but. Okay and again not to digress on traffic but it
almost seems worse in
my opinion to have through traffic under the underpass
because it gives more
options. Right now you have to turn left and from that
intersection 1173 you
don't have to wait for a light so you can turn right in
rapid succession
versus having to wait at a light for what it's worth down
the road when that
conversation comes. I just think options do I want to go
straight do I want to
turn and I think what is there one lane there currently I
mean that that would
be cumbersome. Thank you. Any other questions on this item?
Okay we'll move
on to this is going to be item E. Thank you I'm going to
invite Ross Culbertson
to make this presentation. Thank you Ross Culbertson senior
planner. This is
Pecan Park Z1524. This is a consideration before you for a
rezoning to from
neighborhood residential mixed use in our immune to
neighborhood residential
four on approximately 20 acres. To familiarize yourself
with the site the
zoning boundary under consideration is on the south side of
East McKinney
Street approximately 2,300 feet east of 4 Road which is
here at this corner here
in the north-south direction. Zoning request encompasses 20
acres of an
approximate 80 acre tract which is intended by the
applicant for a complete
single-family developed subdivision so you can see the
division of where the
boundary is today and what interests the property owner has
. This map also is a
good map to take a look at the natural and site context as
you can see this is
in a rural area off east area of Denton where left there's
very rural context
with homesteads there's a existing mobile home park up this
way ranchettes
over to the east. I want to point out that this area has
some substantial
trees and natural tree stands in the middle and the
concrete runs to the
south with some floodplain here over on the south side.
What we want to do to
that tonight is look at the zoning which we want to the
applicant wants to
rezone the NRMU portion as you can see in red over on this
map includes a lot
of leftover strip on the north side of McKinney and the
subject property in a
little bit on the south side of McKinney with the intended
in our four zoning
that will effectively create one complete district one
complete zoning
district to NR4 which is more compatible for development.
Again I kind of want to
point out what the NRMU designation is this was completed
and zoned this way
with the 2002 zoning update which has not developed to this
intensity since
that time and as you can see the intent was to create more
of a encourage high
density residential with town homes and apartments create
nodes of neighborhood
retail office very kind of intense uses that would kind of
support neighborhoods
around there and this zoning district prohibits single-
family units so
that is a concern if someone was to redevelop single-family
at this time. In
our analysis we will look at the future land use plan and
kind of see how that
guides us. The future land use map indicates rural areas so
I want to point
that kind of the in-between boundary here between McKinney,
McKinney Street and the
Pekong Creek area is rural in nature. The current NRMU does
not fit within the
character of that existing low density residential and and
so does we have to
point out that the NR4 does not fit with respect to the low
density rural context.
We are going to make a case otherwise though. However NR4
is more compatible
with the future land use uses in the area and more suited
and more suited
catalyst to spur future development. Essentially what we're
looking at is
we're not making any comprehensive plan map changes but
essentially by rezoning
this to NR4 we are kind of combining the the forces of
residential
development in this area which makes sense and staff is
leaning is supporting
that direction. This is the concept plan associated with
the request we as a
zoning we don't look at concept plans as guiding us but
this is good information
to show the intent of the development as a master plan
community that is under a
conservation and it shows effort towards a conservation
development scheme a
design idea which from the didn't plan encourages the cl
ustering of lots
reducing the full amount of developable area to maximize
open space and since
this property has beautiful pastoral areas that the
applicant does find the
need to maintain those areas and is designing a plan
accordingly. So we
create we consider that as a great great asset to the area.
So under the
considerations for you the NR4 zoning is more of an
appropriate district to
encourage low to moderate single-family units and to unify
the entire property
of the interest of the property developer. The land use
pattern in this
area has remained rural and has not necessitated the use
uses permitted by
NRMU zoning so logically we see that going through and then
the conservation
development design is a good response as a transitioning
element for
single-family development to be introduced in this area. We
look at the
didn't development plan sub chapter 3533 was list as in
your backup report items
A through E for criteria that do not conform to the future
land use plan and
and staff had assessed those items and really finds that
each one of those
criteria located by analyzing the land use pattern the
density of the
development to support the extension of city services to
this area if it is
rezoned and then if this rezoning does not isolate a
certain district and by
all means we're combining districts at this point. The
other sub chapter for
criteria will be the general guidelines for zoning
amendments which again talk
to the conformance of the land use element and facilitate
the provision of
city of services. Public notifications were made we
received one in favor which
is the major property owner on the north side and the
applicant did a
mail out themselves to see if they could solicit any extra
information and
none's been provided to me on any outcomes of that. So with
that we are recommending
approval as we see this as a positive for this area.
Questions for staff? Commissioner Taylor.
Thank You Chair. I actually have two questions. This so
this rezoning is
obviously anticipating development and we've in the past
had discussion about
post oak a mate the next major north-south arterial to the
east. Will
this as we're planning this are we leaving space for a
major north-south
arterial? I know at one point there was mention of the
alignment of Trinity and
this appears to basically take Trinity and tee it off and
break it off into a
subdivision. Consider that this alignment doesn't hit this
property
specifically it's closer to this area so it kind of swings
I think it will go to
or road in some way shape or form so it is kind of off this
property but we are
anticipating that this development needs to coordinate
their points of access
with that their affair for future development. I'll let
Earl speak to that. Yes as part of the
mobility plan amendment that PS Aurora has been I guess he
made a couple of
presentations to us already. As part of that amendment we
are realigning post
oak road actually to the west and it will intersect with 3
80 away from the
site but whenever a development in this area comes in we
will ensure that the
right of way is accounted for. A majority of the property
where post oak will come
through is a city property also as well. Okay so that that
's good because the I
think I know we've talked about a lot of options and the
current map is from
1999 then I just had another question regarding future land
use
so right now blue is it's listed as government but that's
also an
industrial area it's water treatment plant and a landfill
is that correct?
I believe that's where that is. Government institutional I
'm not sure what the land
uses were there before that they designated that. I believe
I saw a
treatment plant road which would be indicative. That's
where the landfill is and then yeah.
As an evaluation of future land use has that been evaluated
to to make sure that
these uses are compatible if that those are any necessary
buffer will this
prevent the full development of the landfill and the
treatment plant or are
they compatible? One of the things I think we need to asc
ertain tonight is to
determine it shows blue on future land use plan correct?
Correct. And we know that
there's a landfill out there I know that the landfill has a
CIP program associated
with it which there could be potential when we're talking
about you know most
issues are odor however related to setbacks and buffering
those would have
to be put into play adjacent to any residential development
. And like I said
I just want to make sure that at the beginning of the
planning process here
at the future land level. Yes. Any additional questions?
Commissioner
Bruegel. Thank you chair. Ross really when I when I saw
this and I saw the
conservation development design I got really excited
because that was
something that we approved like eight months ago when we
approved the the
comprehensive plan of the future this is the first time
that I've seen that. So my
question is and maybe this needs to be an item for future
consideration or an
item for a future agenda item but I'm wondering when are we
gonna start seeing
more of when are we gonna be updating that part of our
development code so
that we are seeing more of this conservation design I think
it's a
fantastic I think it's fantastic when are we gonna be
seeing more of that? This was
initiated by them the you know we can work with applicants
whenever they come
in into rural areas again it's kind of subject to the
layering of densities
from edges to edges and and if we find that it's
appropriate we suggest it in
our pre-application notes and due diligence in the
beginning. So was this
something that staff had encouraged the applicant to try
and do or did the
applicant come to the city and say I want to I want to do
both issues there
were things stated in our development because we had
previous there was a
previous preliminary plats for this project three to five
years ago that
allotted the whole development out and we had in our
research found that
that was kind of an inappropriate way to handle this piece
of property with that
we brought that information to the developer because they
were looking for
their background due diligence also and understood the
context of you know the
previous plans on this property and so they understood you
know we could work
with them on densities and I think that's something with
conservation
development we allow in our three in our four something
that gives you what you
need for lot counts but can vary that based on the amount
of open space you're
preserving okay and when so they were not required to have
this conservation
development even though it's in our comprehensive plan it's
not in our
development code yet so it's a respect it's a respect and a
response to that
and when when when will that be part of the development
code that's something
we'd have to add to code code amendment okay you'll be
hearing from me at the
end of tonight's session okay maybe because of what's there
already
Commissioner Dudowitz I'm sorry I'm just looking at the map
there's a there's a lake
or a pond there and it may be had been too expensive to
develop there's these
minutes there's a floodplain area so combination of things
could have
but I agree I think this is you know terrific in that
regard too yeah we had
I mean we had approved this as a city and this is the first
time in eight
months that we're seeing something like this so I just I'd
like to see more of
this come our way in the interim even though we don't have
any and I apologize
just jumped right in we don't have the development the Dent
on Development Code
and the comprehensive plan again we know that they're not
talking to each other
clearly understand that but we also know what elements of
the comp plan are
critical when we do meet we do impress upon our applicants
the need for
conservation development or the need for as much as
possible but until we don't
get to that point where we actually have an overhaul of the
Denton Development
Code and make sure that that point that's also addressed
the future land use map
and make sure everything is talking to each other right it
's a work in progress
but I would I would like to see more of this come our way
good to state it on record and get it out there in the
public too.
yeah thank you any other questions on this item? No I've
got two comments
Commissioner Dunlats. Two comments before you go can you
put the concept plan back up
please and I want to make an observation kind of piggyback
ing on you that this is
obviously a developer initiated you know they're not
required to do this and a lot
times in our Commission we're always concerned the
developers aren't green
they aren't trying to do anything this individual although
not required is
trying to do that and it prompted my thought process about
an issue that I've
had about concerns about our density being lot coverage and
I believe I've
pointed out before that as we move into this new plan we're
going to have to
address our lot coverage because as we have these green
spaces they're going to
get a density transfer a lot will be smaller and then when
we put our lot
coverage percentages on these you're going to end up with a
limited footprint
so I want to bring that to staff's attention you may
already be aware of
that as we go forward that is going to become a bigger
issue that we're going to
have to revisit and address and those are my two comments
and it's 615 and
we're going to close. Commissioner Dunlats. I have a
question when we do have
questions that are outside the agenda when can we bring
them up? When you put
them on a future agenda. Well it just may not be a question
that requires a lot
I'm just questioning things. Yeah as long as you've appr
ised the public what
you're going to speak about then that's fine you can take
two seconds you can
take an hour but we have to put it on the agenda if it's
outside of the agenda
we can't speak on it. Although we have concluded items and
we have future items
for agenda then is that when we can bring it up? I think
bring it up and speak
about it limitedly. Go ahead. Limitedly in order to place
it on a future agenda
but not discuss it. I just want to know the process for
doing it. Sure. Could be a
simple yes/no answer but that's the appropriate place to
bring it up correct?
Correct. Or if it's a specific issue you can just come to
staff direct about it
well another thing. I think it has applicability to all the
commissioners.
Okay. It's now 6 16 and I'm going to close the work session
and we'll break for
meal. Thank you.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton October 7th
Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. This meeting has been duly posted and
we have a quorum
present. Our first item will be to give a Pledge of Alleg
iance to the US flag
followed by the Texas flag.
Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible.
The next item on our agenda is going to be presentation of
the minutes.
Commissioner Taylor. I move approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Bruegel. I second the motion. The first and a
second. Any questions or
discussion? If not we will move for a vote on the board.
The motion passes 7-0. We'll move on to the consent agenda.
Commissioner Bruegel. I move approval of the consent agenda
. Commissioner Dudowitz. I second.
Is there any discussion or questions? Seeing none, call for
a vote on the board.
That motion passes 7-0. Moving on to item four, items for
individual consideration.
The first item we have is to consider and appoint a member
of the Planning and
Zoning Commission chair and vice chair positions. We took
that action two weeks
ago in work session. The reason it's on our agenda is
because it was not posted
correctly publicly. So this is the first meeting that we've
had that action posted
publicly correctly. And do we need to formalize that or is
it just in the
minutes? I would just go ahead and do a motion to ratify if
anyone would like
to sponsor a motion to ratify. Commissioner Taylor. Thank
you chair. I
move we ratify our previous election of Commissioner
Strange as chair and
Commissioner Bruegel as vice chair.
Commissioner Rossell. I'll second the motion. Any questions
or discussion?
Seeing none, we will call for a vote on the board. That
motion passes 7-0. It
moves us to item five, our public hearings. And we have
item A FR 15-0012
and I will ask Menal to bring that forward. Thank you Chair
person Strange.
I'm going to ask Sophie Humer with the Planning Department
to go ahead and
present this final replant for the Razor Ranch Town Center
Phase 1 edition. Thank
you Sophie. One point of order. We are now opening our
public hearings at the
beginning of the presentation so I would like to open the
public hearing at this
time. Good evening Commissioners. Sophie Humer, Associate
Planner with the City of
Denton. I will be presenting to you FR 15-12 the Razor
Ranch Town Center Phase 1
replant. The request before you is to consider a final repl
ant of lots 1R, 2R, 3R, 5R,
6R, 8R, 9R, and 10R of block A of the Razor Ranch Town
Center Phase 1. The
approximately 99 acre property is generally located at the
southeast
corner of University Drive and Interstate Highway 35.
Section 212 of the
Texas Local Government Code requires a public hearing for
any replant or
subdivision or part of a subdivision without vacation of
the preceding plot.
The purpose of this plot in particular is to amend lot
lines and easements within
the plot. This is the face of page one of the plot. This is
page two. The technical
requirements of the plot have been met and the plot is in
order as submitted.
The proposed replant complies with the requirements of the
Denton Development
Code and staff is recommending approval of FR 15-12. I
stand for any questions.
Any questions of staff?
Thank you. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone
here that would like to
speak on this item, please come forward now.
Seeing none, we will close the public hearing on this item
and the chair would
entertain a motion.
Commissioner Beck. I move we approve FR 15. Commissioner
Dudowitz. Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That motion passes 7-0. It moves us to item 5B. I'd like to
open the public
hearing for FR 15-0003. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a
request for a final
replant of block A for the mid-state's realty subdivision.
Ross Culbertson with
the Planning Department will present this replant. Thank
you, Manal, commissioners.
This is FR 15-03 for mid-state's realty subdivision of Ross
Culbertson, senior
planner. The request before you is for a final replant of
block A lots 2R, 1, 3,
and 4 of the mid-state's realty subdivision. The
approximate 1.5 acre
property is generally generally located on the west side of
loop 288, approximately
800 feet north of Spencer Road within the Mary L. Austin
Survey, abstract number
4. Per chapter 212 of the Texas Local Government Code,
requires a public
hearing of any replant of a subdivision or part of a subdiv
ision without
vacating the preceding plat. Subject property again shown
graphically above.
It encompasses the tractor supply, retail location, and
adjacent out partial lots
which are defined by the replant. Technical requirements of
the plat have been met and the
plat is in order as submitted. The proposed replant compl
ies with the
requirements of the DIN Development Code and staff
recommends approval. I can stand
for any questions. Questions for staff?
Seeing none. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone
here that would like to
speak on this item, please come forward at this time. When
you get to the
microphone, if you'll state your name and address for the
Commission, we would
appreciate that. Chairman, members of the Commission, my
name is Greg Edwards. I'm
with Greg Edwards Engineering Services, 1621 Amanda Coart,
Ponder, Texas. We
represent John Mullen who lives in California. This is the
tractor supply
site. He has had a long-term lease with Tractor Supply le
asing the property to
have them for about three and a half acres of the property
for several years
and he wants to create two pad sites out in front of that
for sale. I'm here if
you have any questions. Any questions for the applicant?
Seeing none, is there anyone else who would like to speak
on this item? Seeing
none, I'll close the public hearing at this time and the
Chair would entertain a
motion. Commissioner Taylor? I move approval as
submitted. Commissioner Beck? I second the motion. I have a
first and a second. Is
there any discussion on this item?
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.
This motion passes 7-0. I will move us to item 5C and I
would like to open the
public hearing for Z15-0015. Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm going
to request Julie
Wyatt with the Planning Department to make this
presentation for a change in
zoning from Plan Development District 12 to Regional Center
Commercial
Downtown. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, Associate Planner
and this is Z15-15
Toyota-Denton. The request before you is to consider a rez
oning from Plan
Development 12 to Regional Center Commercial Downtown on an
approximately
15 acre tract. The subject property is located adjacent to
I-35. It's south of
State School and north of Post Oak Drive. Just a bit of
background regarding the
plan development. PD-12 was created in 1980 and it covered
109 acres and it is
the area in green. In 1986 that concept plan for the PD was
amended for 74 of
those original 109 acres. In 87 the concept plan was then
amended again for
43 of those acres. And then finally in 2001 and 2004 there
were detailed plans
approved for both Toyota and Honda at the site. This is how
the zoning map looks
today. The green part is the existing what's left of PD-12.
The property to
the north that is adjacent to State School Road it was z
oned out of the PD
in 1999 to RCCN and then in 2005 the property adjacent to
it was zoned out of
the PD to RCCD. The subject property is located in a mixed
and a regional mixed
use future land use category in accordance with with Denton
Plan 2030.
The proposal does meet the requirements of this future land
use designation.
Just a couple of other things to consider when the when the
detailed
plans were approved there were some conditions on those
detailed plans. For
Toyota the the the lighting was addressed in a condition as
well as some lands and
landscaped strip, public address speakers, and then some
other conditions
associated with the construction including the temporary
sales office and
and some tree protection. Honda also had some conditions on
the detail plan. One
being the lighting like like the Toyota and then also the
public address
speakers and then there is a detention pond on this site
and there was a
condition that future development would require an
additional detail plan
approval. So when we looked at the considerations regarding
this rezoning
request first of all we looked at that the site is
consistent with the RCCD
zoning designation as well as the future land use
designation of the property. We
also considered that the approval would remove the existing
conditions that were
put in place with the detail plan but when we dug a little
deeper in that we
looked at four of those conditions really were related to
the original
construction and are no longer applicable. That lighting is
now
addressed in sub chapter 13 and part of those requirements
in sub chapter 13 do
address the lighting of the adjacent properties as well as
making sure that
the lighting doesn't like the night sky so those are
addressed. A noise is
regulated by our code of ordinances and then the finally
the detention pond it
is heavily encumbered by easements and so if that did end
up coming to develop it
would have to be replatted. Furthermore the requirement
does meet the criteria
for or the the request does meet the criteria for approval
and then didn't
development code. That criteria for approval is outlined in
sub chapter 3
first that the proposed rezoning meets the future land use
element of the dent
plan in this case it does and then second that the proposed
rezoning
facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water
, sewer, schools,
parks and other public requirements and it meets that
requirement. Public
notification was sent out and we received no letters in
opposition or in
favor so based upon the considerations and the criteria for
approval staff does
recommend approval of this rezoning case. Questions for
staff?
Seeing none. This is a public hearing anyone here that
would like to speak on
this item please come forward now.
Seeing none I'm going to close the public hearing on this
item and the chair
would entertain a motion. Commissioner Dudowitz.
Commissioner Rozelle. I second
motion. The first and the second is there any further
discussion or
clarification?
Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board.
The motion carries 7-0. We'll move us to item 5D I would
like to open the public
hearing for Z15-0025. Thank you Mr. Person Strange. I will
request
Julie Wyatt to come forward and make this presentation for
a zoning change
from RCCN to ECC. Good evening this is Z15-25. I'm Julie
Wyatt associate planner.
The request before you is to consider a recommendation to
City Council regarding a rezoning request from Regional
Center Commercial
Neighborhood to Employment Center Commercial on
approximately 15 acres.
The subject property is is located on the north side of the
city. It is
adjacent to I-35 and south of Bartold Road. Just a
background on the site it
was originally a truck stop car wash convenience store
warehouse and truck
storage. It what the convenience store did burn in 2008. So
in order to
facilitate the redevelopment of the site staff met with the
applicant in 2013 to
discuss how they move forward. They wanted to move forward
with a convenience
store, gasoline sales, restaurants and a truck repair. The
current zoning
of RCCN does not permit truck repair. So at that time based
upon Dent Plan 1999
that future land use staff recommended the applicant rezone
the property or
pursue a rezoning to RCCD. That was consistent with the
Regional Center
Commercial future land use designation of the property at
the time. However fast
forward and a new comprehensive or an update to the
comprehensive plan has been
passed and that's Dent Plan 2030 and it changed the area
from that Regional
Commercial Center to Business Innovation for a future land
use designation. And
just a little bit of history on that. So this area was
designated for Regional
Center Commercial in 1998, 1988 sorry. It was it was this
center as well as the
mall. So there were there were two of them. Then in 1999 an
additional Regional
Commercial Center was brought in and that was at I-35 and
John Paine.
A fourth Regional Center Commercial was added in 2007 and
that was the Razor
Ranch development. So when you include include these these
areas as well as
downtown we're looking at at four regional centers and and
during the
analysis of the comprehensive plan it was just determined
that was too many
for Dent to support. So the end result was they changed
this area to Business
Innovation and really what that did was it changed it from
that that desired
high-density residential commercial that sort of urban
center to a an area that
is intended to promote large-scale employment areas offices
with also the
supporting commercial uses as well. So when we look at that
in look at that in
context of the zoning districts RCCN it both RCCN which is
the existing zoning
and the desired ECC permit a lot of commercial uses.
However RCCN has a
high-density residential use whereas ECC doesn't have that
residential use but it
has some light industrial so it can go more toward
employment center. So the
considerations we looked at first that the site has
historically been used as a
truck stop. This area is ideal for this type of use it's on
the north side of
the city it's sort of that gateway that travel center and
it provides that
access for for the end user. Until the DDC is updated in
response to Denton
Plan 2030 the ECC zoning district is is a consistent zoning
designation with that
business innovation future land use designation. The
surrounding uses are
primary primarily agricultural and commercial and so
therefore the impacts
to the adjacent properties are not there or minimal. And
then when we look at the
criteria for approval the proposed rezoning conforms to the
future land use
element it does that that that ECC does meet the
requirements and the intent of
that business innovation future land use designation and
that the proposed
rezoning facilitates the adequate provision of
transportation water sewer
schools parks and other public requirements and convenience
. It meets
that requirement as well. A public notification was sent
out we have not
received any letters in opposition or in favor. So based
upon the considerations
and the criteria for approval staff recommends approval of
this rezoning.
And I believe the applicant is here so if you have any
questions for staff.
Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. I have some
significant issues or questions
rather about the traffic flow that would be generated by
adding additional truck
stop looking at aerial maps the truck stop on the east side
of the interstate
is is quite full and I know from my own experience that
underpass at that
intersection is is already pretty tight and so I'm
wondering the impact on
traffic flow by adding another stop there. Well we
typically address those
specific traffic impacts during the platting phase so at
this stage they've
not done traffic impact and a traffic impact analysis so
that would be
addressed at the platting stage. And during the platting
stage I would
imagine that the traffic would be measured at Barthold
streets but I'm
also curious about the impact of highway 1173 just to the
south which is the main
thoroughfare into Crum from the highway. Would the traffic
study or is it under
the purview of this Commission to have the traffic study
also measure the
impact of that thoroughfare highway 1173. Let me call Earl
up because he'll
give me more information on what the analysis is for the
traffic impact.
Thank you. Good evening my name is Earl Escobar with
engineering. As part of the
development plotting process they're going to be required
to perform a
traffic impact analysis and as part of that analysis we'll
establish the
parameters of the intersections that they need to evaluate
and I believe the
intersection by 35 is already one of them and if PNC is
concerned is the
intersection 1173 and 35 I guess it'd be southbound service
road then we can
include that as well. Thank you.
Any other questions for staff? Thank you. This is a public
hearing is there
anyone here that would like to speak on this item please
come down at this time.
Please state your name and address for the record. Good
evening names Jeremy
Rees with Chippewa Engineering Group 4420 Jackson Street,
Marianna Florida.
Basically just here at where the site development engineers
just basically
here to answer any questions you guys might have from our
standpoint and we
just look forward to working with the city to provide you
know clean up the
site kind of provide a respectful development here and
something we really
look forward to having so thanks. Great any questions for
the applicants
represented?
Again this is a public hearing is there anyone else that
would like to speak on
this item?
Good evening chairman on the board my name is Michael Oshos
hoya. For the 981
battled I belong to the owners of the property that is just
west of the
proposed property. The question I have is when it gets to
the platinum and
development are there going to be ways to address pollution
coming from that
truck stop and noise especially since we bother the
property to make sure
whatever development goes on there this truck stop doesn't
impact the future
use of that. Thank you.
I may be able to help with some of that. The city does have
a noise
ordinance that at the property line I don't believe that
the noise can be
greater than 65 dBA so so that is an ordinance that we have
at the city and
then I also believe and someone may correct me that we have
an anti idling
ordinance as well or an idling ordinance as well that might
address some of the
pollution as well. Thank you Mrs. Wyatt.
I got my recognized Commissioner Hussbett you have a
question for. Thank you
chairperson. Yes I have a question for Mr. is it I'm sorry
yes sir yes sir
what I am so I've pulled up your address but how big is
your property or how many
acres? I believe is 12.3 I'm not too sure of the number.
Okay yeah and is
your understanding looking at the map that you're kind of
at the back end of
that yellow? Yeah the west side of that yes yes directly or
is there property
our property is just west of the yellow from the top there
Barthold that's
strip to where you have the detention pond. Okay thank you.
Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair so just to clarify you
're on the north side
of Barthold? No south side of Barthold that's west of the
proposed property. So
where there's kind of like a parking in the in the aerial
there it shows that
kind of parking currently a parking lot area is that
correct? No it's yeah it's
parking lot area I showed in the area yeah. Yes yes. Just a
second. Commissioner
Detovits I don't have you on the board. There's a good
there's a wing stop right
there. Wing stop wing foot. Yeah. I believe it's kind of
auto show.
No no we I just belong to the church at home to property I
do I don't have
anything to do with that business. Any other questions?
Thank you sir. This is a
public hearing is there anyone else who would like to speak
on this item? Good
evening my name is Samuel Akin I belongs to the church as
well the only thing
that I want to address is the road to Barthold because that
place is very very
narrow I don't know whether they have any plan to make that
place a little bit
wider for us. Okay we'll see if we can get an answer for
you.
[inaudible]
As part of this development what they're going to do is
they're going to realign
Barthold Road to line up with the signalized intersection
of I-35 and as
part of that as realignment they're also going to improve
it to a wider section I
believe it's going to be a four-lane divided roadway along
their stretch here.
Thank you. Commissioner Roselle. I have a question about
the traffic flow sorry to
I understand that the applicant would be rerouting Barthold
to align with Elm
Street on the east side that timeline would work with
construction of the
the travel stop what about on the west side connecting
highway 1173 to Barthold
it looks like you're kind of s-shaping that around what's
the timeline for that
redirection of that road? That timeline is unknown at this
point this eventually
will become 1173 which is a textile roadway and it's not in
their near future
radar. Okay thank you.
Again this is a public hearing is there anyone else who
would like to speak on
this item? Please come forward. I think this matter of the
road is something that
we need to address right away because right now if anybody
is trying to go
through the Barthold it's only one way something. Two
vehicles cannot come across
each other at all so we need to address that immediately.
Okay thank you.
Again this is a public hearing is there anyone else who'd
like to speak on this
item? Seeing none we have one response that was sent in
from Mr. Joseph Agbo at
3400 Marymount Drive in Denton. He did not have in favor a
neutral or opposed
his request we have a copy we'll have that attached for the
record. I'm going
to at this time close the public hearing and I'm going to
recognize
Commissioner Hutsboth. Before you do. Okay excuse me I will
reopen the public
hearing from this item. Thank you. I just the applicant
representative can you
staff has already given an overview but could you kind of
summarize what your
vision or your your clients vision for that property is
just for clarity?
Well basically a normal love site will have the regular
travel center which
will include two to three restaurants. In this case we're
not really sure what
the restaurants will be at this point. We're looking at
probably one drive
through and maybe a couple of smaller sit downs and there
'll be an auto fueling
area and then in the back of that completely separate from
the auto area
will be the truck area and then they'll have the diesel b
ays back there and then
toward the rear of the property will be a tire building and
that was the reason
for the rezoning so we could have just the tire maintenance
and fluid changes
that sort of thing just some some light maintenance work
but loves is a family
owned company they you know take pride in everything they
do all their
developments so you know they put their name one they're
gonna make sure it's
gonna be you know up to code up to standard so. Thank you.
Commissioner Taylor.
I was wondering if staff could address or to speak to what
kind of barriers
would be in place or what kind of buffering would would
occur if we have a
church or kind of a residential use next to a commercial
use. Sure we have
buffer requirements between the different uses. Let me go
get my code so I
make sure I.
So a church would be an institutional use and then you have
a commercial use
adjacent. It doesn't look like the code requires buffers
between institutional
uses and commercial uses. If it was an industrial use then
it would require a
type B buffer but as it is right now there aren't any buff
ers required. And so
would this quote so the tire shop does not make it
industrial? Is that it?
Vehicle repair I believe. Let me verify.
Vehicle repair is under our commercial land use categories
so it's considered
commercial. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair.
Got a question for the
and I think I know the answer is but I'm gonna ask it
anyway. Is this a 24/7
operation this business? I believe it is yes. So there's
something going on day
and night. Right. Okay thank you. Commissioner Briggle.
Miss Wyatt can you bring your code
back up here please. Sorry I just didn't get to ring in
fast enough after
Commissioner Taylor's question because I had asked also
about the buffers
during the work session. So there's not currently a church
on that property to
the west. So what what buffer would be required for what
the current property
is? No buffers. There's no buffers. No ma'am. Okay and then
on the south side where
there's that residence just to clarify that would be. Now
if it was against a
residence. I don't want to misspeak.
Commercial against single-family residential is a type C
buffer which is
a 15 foot planted strip that includes a combination of six
evergreen and
deciduous trees and 25 shrubs per 100 linear feet. And that
's 15 feet along
the whole perimeter. Yes ma'am. Okay when the church is
established to the west at
some point would that the if the church wanted a buffer at
that point they would
be responsible for that. Okay thank you. I see nothing else
on the board but I'm
ask again are there any other questions?
Seeing none. All done we're going to close the public
hearing on this particular
item and the chair would entertain a motion.
Commissioner Dudowitz. I approve or motion only make a
motion to approve it.
Thank you. Commissioner Hudspeth. I second. Okay have a
first and a second. Is there
any further discussion on this item? Seeing none we'll call
for a vote on the
board.
The motion carries 7-0. Move us to item 5E. I'm going to
open the public
hearing for Z15-0024. Thank you. I'm going to request Ross
Culbertson to come ahead and make this presentation.
Commissioners this is a zoning request Z1524 for Pecan Park
addition. Before I
raise the consideration to make a recommendation to City
Council
regarding a rezoning request from a neighborhood
residential mixed use
district in RMU to a neighborhood residential 4 district on
approximately
20 acres. Property before he is generally located on the
south side of
East Bikini Street approximately 2,000 feet east of Orr
Road which is a north
south road over here to the west. This slide provides a
little more context for
you. The zoning request encompasses 20 acres of an
approximate 80 acre tract
which the applicant intends to develop as a single-family
subdivision. As you
can see I've tried to delineate the 20 acres and the
holistic nature of the
property. This slide also provides a visual of the natural
context and the
vicinity of uses. This is a rural part of Denton to the
east off of loop 288 and
south south of McKinney Street. As you can see there's some
very nice natural
areas to be considered with future development particularly
there's a area
of tree stands in the middle there's property the 80 acres
bounds to the south
with Concrete which has some floodplain areas just in
between that area. Right
now we are just looking at the zoning for this portion only
at this moment.
Looking at the zoning maps side by side the intended
request is to remove the
red area shown as NRMU which is that 20 acres and rezoned
it to NR4 and you
can see the comparisons that the intent is to create a
holistic rezoned property
to NR4 for future development. I also want to point out the
compatible area to
the west property that is zoned NR4 that also has adjac
encies to this
property. When we look at the NRMU category and you can see
the delineation
on the on the screen per the 20 2002 citywide rezoning this
area was rezoned
to encourage uses but since that time uses have not
developed to that
intensity and this is a very kind of high intense zoning
district that
encourages high-density residential creates active nodes of
neighborhood
retail and office uses to support those neighborhoods and
allows for
multifamily with 30 units per acre and it does prohibit
single-family. So in
your considerations we look at the future land use map the
future land use
map guides through the didn't plan 2030 map of the intended
growth patterns the
future land use map indicates this area as rural area
indicated in green the
current NRMU district does not fit with the character of
this low intensity low
density rural context and to be honest the NR4 does not fit
with respect to the
low density rural character rural context. Staff is making
a effort to to
show that we support how the transition of these densities
can be applied with
the NR2 NR4 zoning. However the inner four is more
compatible with the future
land use map and more suited as a catalyst to spur future
development and
we look at that in how the land use patterns and the the
blobs of yellow and
orange may be able to accommodate residential zoning in
this area. The
applicant has submitted a concept plan just as a graphic
illustration this has
not been vetted as if you have with any plant activity but
yet it shows NR4
zoning applying lots to NR4 zoning which represents a
medium density. The
concept plan speaks to a conservation development.
Conservation development is
a type of programming design within the DEN plan concept
comprehensive plan to
protect natural features and respond to a staged transition
of growth between
developed areas and rural areas. The applicant provided
this as the intent of
the development that they would be seeking with future
plats this is not
holding them to anything but they are introducing a concept
of conservation
development mainly to to work with natural site features
and to develop
according to those constraints. In the considerations
within your report I want
to point out the NR4 zoning is a more compared a more
appropriate district to
encourage low to moderate single-family units and to unify
the entire
property interests. The land use pattern in this area has
remained rural and has
not necessitated uses permitted by NRMU zoning and the
conservation development design is a good response to the
transitioning for
introducing single-family into this rural context area. For
you have in your
staff report you have evaluation criteria stated in sub
chapter 35 3 3 b 3
of the DEN development code which lists items a through g I
believe which speak
to items that do not actually conform to the future land
use map but may be
considered under analysis and that analysis from staff
shows that we've
looked at the land use pattern that the density of the
development to support
the extension of city services would be warranted and we
are not creating with
this rezoning any isolated districts. Additional criteria
for review is found
within DEN development code 35 3 4 b 2 which again speaks
to conformance to a
land use element and facilitates provision of city services
with future
development. We did do a public notice outreach and we
received one notice in
favor and that's included in your packet and shown on the
screen. Based on the
considerations presented and the requirements within the D
EN development
code staff recommends approval of this item and I may stand
for any questions
you have. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you for the
presentation. Thank you for the
presentation. I have a question about the future land use.
Can you help articulate
what the expectation of rural future land use is?
Specifically does it
necessarily include in our for zoning within the future
land use of rural? I
have to say no to that. There is no rural is designed for
large lots. We have
zoning categories in our RD5, RD, rural residential zoning
districts that
are more appropriate within that. The presentation
indicates this development
is under low to medium and more on the medium side but
based on how they are
applying the conservation and working with constraints of
the property we can
consider the densities they are approving but rural context
is to maintain
large lots under a rural character. So the expectation of
the DEN 2030 plan was
to have large lots in this property in this zoning? Correct
. Any additional
questions for staff? Thank you. This is a public hearing.
Anyone that would like to
come speak on this item please come forth this time. Mr.
Chairman and
Commissioners my name is Rod Zilke with ZPS Consulting
Engineers. I'm here
representing the project tonight if you have any questions.
Any questions?
Commissioner Bruegel we do have a question. Mr. Zilke.
Sorry. I'm not sure if you were in the
in the work session or not. I'm sorry. I'm proud to be to
my back. So I just
wonder if you could speak a bit more about this
conservation development
plan. It's the first time that we've seen it as a
commission in the eight
months since we've adopted the 2030 plan, the comprehensive
plan for the city in
which the conservation development is a vision that we have
for our city. Now
you're the first developer to bring this to us and I didn't
get to see your
your mock-up in our backup so it's really the first time I
'm seeing it but
it does excite me as a you know this is something that we
approved as a city and
it's good to see this. I just kind of want to hear about
what was your what
you're not required to do this conservation development and
yet you're
bringing it forward anyway. I just wonder if you could
speak to that a bit and
kind of what your experience was working with staff and why
does you'd like to
bring that piece to us now. Sure and keep in mind we're
very preliminary stages
this is just the zoning of the north portion and before we
get into too much
detail we want to be sure we have the whole piece of
property to work with of
course. The property obviously from the aerial photos has
some significant trees
and some natural features and some floodplain so it's
conducive to a
conservation type project and that in combination with the
tree ordinance and
the clustering of lots you know you can with the way ordin
ances are now the tree
ordinance and the conservation plan you can cluster smaller
lots and preserve
larger areas and this property just it's conducive to that
I mean we have a nice
contiguous tree area in the center of the property that has
some some you know
preservation type trees and that quite honestly we're kind
of doing that on a
couple of projects on you know a little further south and
the passive tree area
park seems to be popular right now with you know with home
buyers as opposed to
more active parks and you know lots of activity that less
less activity is
appealing I guess. I don't know if that answers your
question. No it's very helpful.
Yeah thank you. That's kind of where we're at on it. Yeah
that's good thank you. Hold on just a second.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. I'm sorry your first
name was Rod. So this is
this 20 acre development is going to be for single-family
homes? It's 80 acres.
The 20 is part of a larger tract. Okay. So we're working on
the total 80 acres
but before we could get too far into that we had to
determine whether the NRMU
portion could be. We need to focus our attention just on
these two slides here
showing the red is the zoning that we were under and they
haven't designed any
plans for phases phase one of this yet but we they need to
look at it
collectively to make their plan. So but I guess my question
is the plan to build
single-family homes on the 88. The plan is to build single-
family homes on these
80 acres is that correct? Okay what percentage of these do
you plan on
building low-income housing for low-income families? Is
there a percentage?
Yes. Yes. Well right okay.
Okay affordable housing is what I'm talking about for low-
income families.
There's a percentage or should I direct this at staff? Is
this? I think maybe legal
would want to weigh in on this. Yeah well we can discuss it
off record as far as
those requirements are concerned. I'm sorry was there an
answer in there? I
didn't. No. We'll have to discuss it with you off record.
Okay gotcha. All right. Thank you Ron.
Any other questions for the applicant?
Seeing none again this is a public hearing is there anyone
else that would
like to come down and speak on this item? Please state your
name and address and
we'll need a yellow card. Good evening. I'm Jeff Hargrave
vice president of
pipeline operations for Atmos Energy and I just wanted to
bring the applicant to
the applicants attention that we do operate a high-pressure
natural gas
pipeline that traverses across this entire 80 acre track
about 2,000 feet and
that to the west of this development less than 150 feet
there'll be a gas well
there and a gas storage facility that's located 800 feet it
's the industrial
side colored there in blue we don't make opposition to the
project we just wanted
to be sure that staff the applicant are anxious to work we
see that you
preserved a green belt for that pipeline for high-pressure
pipelines it was a very
serious pipeline incident in Collin County today disrupted
activities and we
just want to be sure that staff is aware of that thank you
so much
excuse me sir just a second we have a question
Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. So you mentioned that
you have a gas well
on that site could you describe the nature of that gas well
? Yes it's a
natural gas storage well oh thank you can you can we point
here if I do this
kind of okay there is our there's our gas well right there
can you I'm trying
to move this guys I'm not real skilled at things. Hand-eye
coordination it's a
natural gas storage facility we've been in operation almost
50 years it serves
the critical energy needs in North Texas it's a depleted
reservoir there is no
while there is gas drilling out there there is no fracking
this reservoir
does not require fracking it's very porous as it is and
then if you'd like
to know where the pipeline is let's see if I can pull this
off one more time it
originates up in this station I think you can see the right
away is fairly
well clear as it traverses it crosses about 2,000 feet
across there and it's a
high-pressure large diameter 16-inch pipeline sure. How
deep is that? Commissioner
Dedowitz. How deep? It's typically about 36 to 48 inches
deep could be deeper in
some locations there if the elevation hasn't been changed.
So 2 to 4 feet?
Approximately yes. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you chair
and thank you for
bringing that up I just wanted to be clear though from
staff and from legal
what we're looking at today is the simple rezoning request
and not we're
we're looking to approve or deny this rezoning request and
not necessarily any
specific development at this point so though that that mock
-up of the
conservation development is beautiful and appealing we're
not looking at that
as a commission we're looking at at the rezoning request am
I correct in that?
Right. Our charter is to evaluate I'm talking about the
planning department the
compatibility of an NR4 zoning district with the
surrounding property as it
relates to those 20 acres and the compatibility with. Thank
you. Not the land
use not the conceptual plan but just that zoning district
and the use is
permitted within that category. Thank you and so and this
is all very helpful
information that we will take into consideration I guess at
a future point.
I'll be back at planning. Thank you. Other questions? Thank
you. Thank you so much. Thank you sir.
Again this is a public hearing is there anyone else who
would like to speak on
this item?
Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Chair would
entertain a motion.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair I move we approve Z15-00
24. Commissioner
Dutton. I second the motion. First and a second.
Commissioner Rossell. Thank you
chair I just wanted to go on record and state that I think
the rezoning is
compatible with the surrounding areas however I am
concerned about the future
future land use if if there was a an approved plan that
going forward that
is to be rural then we need to take seriously what that was
supposed to be
for and what the expectation of that land actually is.
Again the zoning issue I
think to align with the other properties is an alignment
however I just have some
concerns about going against the specific future land use
that's been
approved by the city so I just want to go on record. You
can have a first and a
second is there any additional discussion or comment on
this?
Seeing none on the board I will call for a vote on the
board please. The motion
carries 7-0. That moves us to our final item on the agenda
tonight concluding
items. Commissioner Bribble. Actually I'm okay thank you.
So going back to our
previous conversation during the work session I'm very
excited to see the
potential for conservation developments coming to our
community. It's not part of
the Denton Development Code yet and I understand that is a
huge undertaking so
I'm certainly not expecting this to come to us next week
but I was just wondering
if I if we could even just get a preliminary kind of
overview about where
where we're headed with that so that we can see
developments like this come to
us a little more frequently. So thank you. Okay.
Commissioner Taylor. Thank You Chair.
I just wanted to reiterate the need for us to create a sub
committee to look at
the entire business innovation district and specifically
the Mesa Drive area. I
mentioned this last meeting and I'd like to get that on our
next agenda just if
we can just form the subcommittee then we can move forward
at a later date but
I think we really need to get the ball rolling. We have a
lot of stuff happening
in the northwest quadrant of the city. Okay. Commissioner
Detovits. Yes going
forward with my question and work session to staff and
appropriate answers.
In previous approvals we have made additions in the sense
of we approve
with conditions bike racks or certain signs of certain
sizes whatever. What
does city staff do to make sure that those things do get
done? Because I'm in
particular looking at the special sign district that we put
in place for the
mall and I'm seeing that certain things are happening but
certain things are not
happening and is that concluded or at what point in time do
we say hey you
have not complied with with our recommendations. There are
a myriad of
steps associated with let's talk about the I believe you're
talking about
Golden Triangle Mall the overlay district right. Once they
submit for a
permit that has to be cross-referenced with the conditions
associated with that
overlay district. Assuming everything is fine then their
permits are issued to
them and signs are installed and inspected so the different
departments
and the different teams that evaluate that. If something
has been missed or you
notice that there's lack of progress in some way and you've
highlighted that to
me I will follow up. With respect to let's take specific
use permits as an
example those are site plans with those site plans they our
Commission has the
ability to attach additional conditions to that. Those
conditions become part of
an ordinance as does the overlay district for signs special
sign district.
That ordinance is then attached to any permits that come
through or that are
submitted for that specific development and then they're
cross-referenced from
the planning team from the plans examiner building
inspection team from
our urban forest or in our landscape administrator as well.
So everybody plays
a role in evaluation of the program or the project. That
timeline for that final
write-off could be? Well typically we're talking about the
first review is
typically a 10-day time frame assuming that the application
is in order as
submitted and that all this all the pertinent documentation
has been
provided from your civil sets to your architectural site
plan landscape plan
all those your MEP plans for example because you're
submitting for permit.
More than likely I would suspect some sometimes there is a
second review but
we are talking every review cycle at least 10 days. We take
no longer than 10
days to review. Commissioner Hatchbuth. Thank you chair. I
'm not sure I need help
with directions. So I'd like for especially with the trees
I'd like to try
to quantify that in the information we get given a
percentage. So let's say a
heavily treed lot is going to lose X percent of its trees
that sort of thing
so that I can kind of get my head around what we're doing
and kind of the it just
helps me process so I don't know where that falls in in the
process and then
secondly so that's one thing. Okay. Is it okay? Now you're
gonna have to remind me
of the second question later. We'll do and so the other
thing is I'd like to get
information earlier in the process we talked in work
session about things that
come to planning I'd like to try to get a general list
Excel anything just a
simple this is what's coming in the pipeline almost like a
activity report of
some sort and I don't know if that's doable but that's just
a wish list. Okay.
I'll ask Manal to try to address your first question. The
first question as it
relates to a straight zoning request so a change in zoning
from X district to Y
district merely addresses the land use the proposed the
compatibility with and
that's the land use analysis. So it's difficult to quantify
because a tree
mitigation survey plan has not been provided a tree survey
has not been
provided because until the applicant is not to the point
where they're ready to
commit and know that they're going to get their zoning that
information is not
readily available sometimes it might be in the instance
where it is we would
provide that to you if a lot is heavily treed as we've
mentioned today we work
with the applicant to see what we can do but the numbers
cannot be provided
until let's say there's a detailed plan approval it was a
specific use permit
associated with that so in most instances if something goes
straight to
building permit that you don't even see then that you
wouldn't be privy to those
numbers just because of the way the process is not just in
Denton but that's
the typical development process. Second question what is in
the pipeline and how
can you be privy to it? There are some functions that go to
the planning
department there are some functions that go to the building
inspection
department and they all have a development function to it
so if
something is permitted by right it goes straight in for
building permit. I can
meet with our building official and I can meet with the
planning team to see
if there's something we can work out where there's a link
of some sort that
you can access off the website to know what is happening
because my
understanding is you want to know what's happening okay I
'll try and get you some
information pertaining to that and I you know we can give
it to the whole
Commission at the next meeting if I have it. Was there a
third question? No? Okay.
I don't see anybody else so I'm gonna step in with mine. We
had a lot of
discussion this evening in work session and we've had it in
some prior work
sessions about traffic, street improvements and I think it
would be a
good idea for us to get on our future agenda hopefully
maybe our next work
session because we are spending a lot of time on this to
get an update and get
some definitions from staff about perimeter street paving
so that we can
all understand what a developer's responsibility is how
that process works
whether it's the city of Denton Road or a Tech Stock Road
and what things we can
ask developers to do or not do and I think it would help
all of us in
looking at all these projects because traffic is a big
concern and there are
limited things that developers are responsible for and I
think it'd help us
all so I'd like to see that as soon as we can get that
before us.
Commissioner Dudowitz. Commissioner we started this
discussion a year ago and
we asked staff specifically do we have someone that's
liaison with DOT so that
we can get answers about the impact to our streets and to
our area of their
projects and as we have with Teasley that's a DOT and we're
asked what's you
know we have some sort of idea but I'm also understanding
that they have more
specific plans and ideas that we may be privy to a liaison
from staff to DOT
they could present to us and or have someone from DOT come
and speak to us
with regard to what their plans are and then we can hear
from the horse's mouth
so to speak. Thank you. Anybody else? Sure. I have a
clarification question
Commissioner Taylor would you like us then or is it the
wish of the
Commission to have an item on the next agenda to create a
subcommittee to
assess those? Got it. Okay thank you.
Last thing I'll throw out is I want to thank staff for the
update on the matrix
this is something I think has come before us in the last
number of months
and I think it's been a great help it's been a kind of an
ongoing issue as I've
turned on the Commission of questions coming back of things
that have been
asked and maybe not been able to be gotten to yet and I
think this is a great
way for all of us to keep track of the items that we've
asked questions about
and time frames and I just appreciate staff continuing to
keep this updated
and bringing this to us at a very frequent basis so good
job and thank you.
No other speakers from the Commission and then at 7 45 I'm
going to close this
evening's PNZ meeting. Thank you.