mission meeting for April 11th 2018. This meeting has been
duly posted and we do
have a quorum present and I will open our work session at
five o'clock. We'll go
into clarification of agenda items. So does anybody have
any comments or changes
on the minutes?
Okay, as is. How about on the consent agenda?
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. It had to do with the
Texas oncology. That's
Haley's. Thanks Haley. You know it's really just my brain.
I could not wrap myself
around this vehicle generation table that was up there. Can
you walk me
through that at all as how those numbers were? Those are
just standard numbers
based on trip generation for a medical facility of this
type. Okay, so not specific to this.
No, it's very general just to determine what their
estimated trip
generation would be. It's standard data that's requested
with a preliminary
plat. In this case they just put it on the plat rather than
submitting it as a
separate document. Understood. Thank you because I haven't
seen it on top there
before. Thank you. Clarification, this would be specific to
this site though,
correct? In that it's you know for that size of a medical
facility, yeah, but
they're just estimates based on the ITE manuals. But
nothing that was done
specifically in this area for this site? It's not like a
full TIA. No, this is
just looking at a facility of this type. Some kind of
general data? Yeah, general data from the ITE manuals.
Okay. Just to help, trying to help. It's based on the site
though.
Specifically it's using the traffic criteria manual for a
site this size to
estimate what the traffic generation will be off of this in
lieu of doing,
because of the size of it, in lieu of doing an actual TIA.
So it's kind of a
staff level engineering type calculation that's done
because of the size it's not
so large and it doesn't have the trips to justify TIA like
we've talked about.
But they are having to do an actual traffic calculation for
this particular
site by using the criteria manual because it's not big
enough to trigger
TIA. So your question, I was just trying to be helpful.
Yeah. I thought what you
were asking is are those numbers in regards to the site?
Right. Yes, they are.
They're just the way it's calculated is not a true TIA.
Understood. That does help.
Thank you very much. Any other questions on this item or on
the consent
agenda? Okay. Thank you, Hayden.
Then we'll move us to items for individual consideration. I
'll call on
Haley for presentation of 4A.
All right. This item is an alternative development plan
request for a tractor
dealership and repair facility. So the request is for
approval of an ADP that
would deviate from these two specific sections of the code,
perimeter fencing
and screening requirements and then the parking lot
screening requirements
within subchapter 13. So the site itself is the northern
roughly 5.4 acres of
this tract outlined in yellow. We've seen a preliminary
plat for this site
previously. It's being split into two lots and the northern
lot will be
developed as a tractor dealership. As you can see here it's
located on the west
side of I-35. We have Windsor here across and then it's
just north of Schuyler
Drive. And this is located within a regional center
commercial downtown
zoning district. To walk you through specifically what's
involved in this
request I want to first look at the overall site plan. So
you can see here
they have about a 20,000 square foot building proposed in
the middle of the
site. The area here and here would be display. So this
would be kind of public
display like you'd see at a car lot and then this would be
behind a fence. Just
other display area for them. The blue areas are where
customer and employee
parking would be and the green is a detention pond that
they're proposing at
this time. So what we have on the site is 71% lot coverage
and 29% landscaping
total and a total of 63 parking spaces. And I did mention
briefly in your backup
but I wanted to bring it up here today. There is some
discussion with the city
of Windsor Drive possibly extending so I wanted to point
out that this detention
pond and some of the parking spaces may be relocated before
the building permit
for this site but it wouldn't alter any of the items that
they've requested this
alternative plan for. Commissioner Becker. Thank you Chair.
Okay can you illustrate
where Windsor might come no go back to the other one you
had there. Where would
Windsor come through? It would be on lot two of the okay if
you remember the
preliminary plat. Right. So lot two being roughly across
here. Right. The intent
would be for someday for Windsor to cross. So it wouldn't
come straight
across then? It would probably angle across and hopefully
come somewhere in
lot two but just in them dedicating that right-of-way if
they if they do so it
could shift their boundary line for lot two a little
further north and relocate
some of the parking on this side. Okay mentioned that
should the Windsor come
through it'd be located on the south end of the Soate
property. He said if this
occurs the parking and detention fill is shown on the site
plan may change as
you pointed out but none of the proposed deviations really
requested with this ADP
would be affected so the eight foot chain length fence
wouldn't be the
material and the landscaping all that would remain the same
the location may
change may change okay just to follow the boundaries of
wherever the parking lot.
Gotcha. Thanks. So again that they do have three specific
standards they're
requesting to deviate from. Our code does not allow chain
link as a permitted
fence material and they are as I mentioned requesting an
eight foot tall
chain link fence. It would be vinyl coated to tinted black
so it would be
non-reflective and that would be along the rear and side
yards of the property.
The code also specifies that fences forward of the front
building line
shouldn't be over three and a half feet tall. For security
purposes they're
requesting a total of a six foot tall wrought iron fence
along the front of
the property and then the code requires and if you have
parking in front of a
building a 15 foot wide landscaped area that includes a
berm a large tree for
every 40 linear feet and then either a hedgerow continuous
wall or zero
escaping also in that area to screen the parking because
they want that display
area right on I-35 for visibility purposes they were
requesting to not
provide that screening and instead they've proposed some
alternative
locations that we'll look at. So to look at the fencing the
area in yellow or
orange on the map is where the chain link fence is proposed
right now so that
would be again eight feet tall black vinyl coated chain
link they are
proposing to plant some trees along it to help further
screen that side yard
fencing. The red area would be the wrought iron fence
location so that's
six foot tall wrought iron fence and there would be gates
here and here across
the access drives to allow circulation through the site and
as I mentioned
they've proposed some alternatives for the landscaping so
the darker green here
and here on the site are trees that they're proposing to
plant along that
chain link fence so that the chain link isn't as visible
from the right-of-way
if you're driving down the frontage road and then in the
lighter green these are
the alternative locations so they've proposed all of the
required number of
trees and shrubs just in alternative sites rather than
putting it directly
here in front of their display yard as the code would
require they're proposing
clustering it around the entrances to the site and then
four other trees that
they couldn't fit in they've proposed to move to the back
of the site. So just
some of the considerations that staff looked at with this
request the intent
for our fencing requirements is to ensure you know visually
attractive high
quality materials also to ensure the visibility of
buildings from the right
of way being the intent for lower fencing in the front yard
and then with
our parking requirements the intent there being to kind of
mute those visual
effects of driving by and seeing just rows of parking in
front of a building
you know to ensure that there's not glare onto the roadways
and that it's a
visually attractive look along the street. So the code
provides us very
specific criteria for an ADP the first being preservation
of existing
neighborhoods it's not anticipated that this would have any
negative effect on
the surrounding area if you're familiar with the area there
's RV dealerships
directly north of there and then various other commercial
uses along the frontage
road as is typical. So this is consistent with the existing
development pattern in
the area. In terms of assuring quality development the
request doesn't
necessarily lower the design standards they're just
proposing alternatives that
aren't allowed in our code that would help them enhance the
security and the
visibility of the products on site. One of the other
criteria is focusing new
development to activity centers this is compatible with
that goal in terms of
if this is typical highway development it is a regional
scale customer base
that they have so it fits with the zoning requirements for
the area.
Infrastructure is in place for this development there's no
concerns there
that staff identified and then in terms of resulting in a
high quality
development that meets the intent of those standards we
discussed what
they're proposing is higher quality the fencing along the
frontage is non-opaque
so it won't necessarily reduce the visibility of the site
from the right of
way and they are proposing to screen the chain link fence
by vinyl coating it and
providing landscaping in front of it. And then in terms of
the parking lot
screening as I mentioned they have all of the required
plantings they actually
are providing eight additional street trees beyond what is
required to greatly
enhance those main entry points to the site but not you
know visually detract
from the display area for their equipment. So with all that
being said
staff is recommending approval of their request we found
that it meet these
established standards in the DDC and I can try to answer
any questions about
the site. Commissioner Smith. Thank You Chair. The further
down along 35 Haley
like James Wood and then across on the east side with
Classic and one other used
car lot is it still is it RCCD over there as well?
35 East? Yeah 35 East but further south of Mayhill. I
believe most of that is RCCD
there is some PD zoning in that area but most of those are
RCCD. So what makes
I mean the what makes it to where if we approve this we
wouldn't see like James
Wood or some other because it seems like they're requesting
the six foot
wrought iron fence in the front purely for security
purposes. They're a tractor
and repair shop and get it I mean how but how much
difference are they in
comparison to James Wood or to Classic or some of those
other car dealerships
who would have the same amount of security concerns what
would what would
preclude them from coming along and asking for the exact
same type of change
within the change and be able to build a new fence as well
be able for security
purposes and we didn't have a just six six foot wrought
iron fences all up and down
35. Certainly and in discussing it with the applicant the
concern was with the
type of equipment that the typical low fencing you see at
car lots in the front
wouldn't necessarily be sufficient and they they found that
some of the
neighbors in this area have taller fences that predate our
current code so
they just wanted to be consistent with what the neighbors
have and ensure that
extra level of security based on the large equipment that
they're dealing
with and why why is the current zoning only three and a
half is just for a
visibility issues or what was the that is not based on
zoning the fence
requirement is that applies citywide unless you are an
industrial or an
agricultural use so if this were an industrial site they
would be allowed to
have a six or eight foot fence in the front yard but got it
for commercial
uses it's not allowed and then the the screening the the it
's like a fabric
correct like what you'd see on construction sites as well
the screen
the screening within the chain link no I believe it's
actual vinyl coating on
the metal chain link itself okay all right so it's not it's
not the screen
like you see on construction sites where it's got it my I
was gonna ask about
maintenance on that stuff gets raggedy after a while but
yeah now I understand
thank you that's all I have commissioner Rizzo thank you
chair the ADP would apply
to both lots correct the the ADP is specific to the site
plan for this
Kubota dealership so just the five point eight acres they
have no plans at this
point for what would go on lot two but if lot two one of
the same conditions
they would have to come back and get an ADP yes it is
specific to the the Kubota
sites that we're looking at tonight and maybe we can talk
about this in the
other room but I'm with the Commissioner Smith on this I
don't I'm trying to
understand why they need a six foot fence maybe it's my
ignorant ignorance
and the tractor business but I think those equipments are
enclosed just like
a car would be so I don't I'm not understanding why they
need a six foot
fence but no car dealership has ever asked for that and I
don't I don't know
I'd be interested if the applicants here to understand
their rationale because
it doesn't seem like a six foot rod iron fence is necessary
and the
applicant will be here this evening at the regular session
to discuss this
further my understanding from them as I said it's because
they they're going to
have this large display area in the front with large tract
ors rather than
smaller cars that couldn't necessarily cross a lower fence
I guess the concern
would be tractors and heavy equipment may be able to do
that so they were they
felt that the six foot height and the wrought iron material
was necessary for
security but I believe they could speak more to the
specifics on that okay I
have a more general question rather than specific in the D
DC update that we have
coming which and maybe I have a different opinion these
seem to be
fairly minor to me are these things that possibly with the
DDC update be handled
administratively rather than these are still going to be
required as ADPs
because of this some of the small changes trying to think
back to some of
the specifics I think some of the fencing requirements we
're trying to
address to allow a little more flexibility there for
certain uses and
then in terms of landscaping I don't think we quite have
that nailed down yet
but the intent is for it to be more administrative approval
for you know
that were actually the way that the current the current
draft is written
there would not be an ADP process anymore there would be
some flexibility
with with staff having some some some minor the ability to
do some minor
adjustments like 10% I think it is on certain standards
fence I just don't
recall off the top my head regarding this the height in the
front
anybody else thank you having that will move us to 4b and I
have a conflict of
interest on 4b I was in the partnership that sold this
property to this current
owner and so even though it's been a number of years ago I
'm going to recuse
myself just to make sure there's no appearance of conflict
of interest a
moment turn the meeting over to Commissioner Roselle at
this time thank
you chair and I believe Haley is presenting this item as
well item 4b
yes so this item is a site plan for a medical office
building within the razor
ranch overlay district so the request is from prime Denton
properties for
approval of a site plan to allow a medical office building
on lot one block
four which is part of the razor ranch south edition to look
at the site more
specifically it's outlined here in red on this this aerial
to give you a
reference as to where this is in relation to the convention
center the
hospital next door so it's on the I-35 frontage road
between Scripture and Pan
handle it's just over four acres total in terms of the
razor ranch overlay it's
on the very southern portion within the south mixed use
district so in 2011 they
adopted very specific standards for this lot you've heard
me mention before that
the south mixed use district we don't have a lot of those
standards adopted in
the overlay yet this lot specifically had those developed
in 2011 with the
intent of developing it with a similar medical use that we
're seeing tonight as
with other razor site plans what was required of them was
to provide a site
plan a landscape plan and building elevations at this time
so the criteria
for approval for a site plan for razor is that it
substantially complies with
the concept and schematic plan that it provides for a
compatible arrangement of
buildings and land uses that wouldn't adversely affect
neighboring properties
that it provides for safe vehicular circulation and that it
complies with the
requirements of the overlay district so looking at their
site plan you can tell
they at this point they're developing phase one of what
would be a larger
development so at this time we're only looking at the
southern half of the slot
so the northern portion will be developed at some future
time but what
they're proposing tonight is a 22,000 square foot medical
office building it
would include 110 parking spaces which is what's required
based on the square
footage and the site would have direct access from
scripture Street so no no
direct tie-in to the frontage road all traffic would be
routed to the site
through scripture it does have a tie-in to the adjoining
medical facility and
then you can see where they've stubbed out to someday
provide connectivity to
the northern half of the lot and ultimately to panhandle
looking at the
site they have a total of 22% landscaping 20% was is what's
required by
the overlay there isn't a specific tree canopy requirement
for the overall lot
within the standards the parking lot did have a 22% tree
canopy and 10%
landscaping requirements so they have exceeded those as we
can see here on the
plan and I wanted to point out just some features you'll
notice there there are
no street trees directly provided along I-35 due to the
amount of utility
easements in that area they've relocated those in between
the buildings which the
flexibility for that is allowed for within the overlay and
then they do have
all of the required street trees here along scripture
looking at the building
elevations this top area is what would face internal to the
parking lot this
would be the side along I-35 and then we have here the two
side elevations which
you can see are kind of mirrors of each other so scripture
and then facing north
which would ultimately about the other building and the
building is proposed to
be built primarily of Texas limestone and ephis materials
so fairly typical
and staff is recommending approval of the site plan request
we found it to be
compatible with all the requirements of the razor range
overlay district and I
can stand for any questions Christian back thank you by
chair signage
would they be able to put signs on the back of their
building that faces 35 and
if so what would they look like they haven't provided sign
plans at this time
all signs are handled as separate permits at the time of
building permit
but they would be allowed to have wall signs the exact
square footage I'm not
sure off the top of my head but illuminated I'm sorry
illuminated signs
are they pliable I believe illumination is permitted okay
the other thing
noticing that the only entrance into this is all scripture
going back to your
traffic analysis for the Texas oncology which is just right
down the road did
was that taking consideration that we were also building
this unit that was
going to bring in the I don't believe this site was
accounted for in the Texas
oncology numbers that plat started long before this came
along but there has
been traffic studies for the overall razor ranch area that
included all of
razor ranch so you know all of the necessary improvements
to the perimeter
streets and accounted for okay Trish or Sullivan I think is
it thanks sir chair
as an add-on to a commissioner back I guess I was a similar
question is that
we've got a thousand thirty four vehicle trips on oncology
coming on to
scripture and then we have only one plate one entrance and
exit from this
location on the scripture and driving on scripture quite
often for one of a
reason there's two lanes on the eastbound side and one lane
coming on to
the service road which means those two sides are going to
generate a thousand
two thousand three thousand cars a day and they're going to
be going on to a
one lane street to then get onto the service road to go
wherever they're
going to go from there has I mean is there no other I mean
what's what's
their other plan to get all those cars out of that area for
the time being the
traffic would be on scripture the ultimate goal is that
they would have a
you know what like we saw on their site plan they are stub
bing out to the north
so eventually this lot will have access via panhandle and
scripture when the
northern portion develops at this time this site would have
the one driveway
you know somewhere in this area and then they're also
connecting to this existing
facility here so there there would be cross connectivity
between the sites that
would offer another means in and out of the parking lot if
that were a concern
but scripture for the time being would be the only access
to the site until that
northern half develops thank you pressure Sanchez you
mentioned that the
parking parking is based on the number of the square
footage is that for a
medical facility yes okay specific for mad yeah leave a
parking ratio I believe
it's a one to two hundred square feet for medical offices
oh it's what's
required so they're right at that number
any other questions for Haley thank you very much
would be possible to call chair back in item 5a that public
height that's being
withdrawn from staff so we won't that'll come back at a
later time it'll be
re-advertised the access bank project is withdrawn so that
we reposted it'll be
completely reposted renoticed react re-advertised okay
perfect and just to
give you there was an issue with I think most most are
probably aware there was
an issue with the signposting so as a result that item is
being withdrawn from
staff and we'll be requiring them to just re-notice repost
properly in the
interim were adjusted some administrative policies with
respect to
signposting technically it's not a code requirement but it
has been a directive
from City Council so we'll clarify a few items moving
forward
Commissioner Ellis thank you vice-chair we don't have to do
anything though this
is just going to be pulled from our meeting today but we're
pulling with
that we can move on to agenda item 5b chair I give it back
to you thank you
that we will move on to 5b and ask for Cindy Jackson for
presentation thank you
chairman commissioners c17 - 0 0 3 3 is a request to rezone
0.3 acres well it's
not really a rezoning is to assign an initial zoning to 0.3
acres on to see em
see mg you can see the site is located here along old Alton
Road just south of
Teasley current zoning is already 5x the site was recently
annexed into the city
and it's currently got a holding zoning designation of
already 5x and the
proposed zoning is CMG which is concurrent with the
property to the
north I'd like to mention that this lot the subject lot and
the property to the
north are all one lot for some reason they were plotted
with part in the city
and part in the county once the app if this is rezoned the
applicant plans to
get the site plan approved and construct a vehicle repair
facility on the site
the site has a future land use designation of community
mixed use the
types and uses the types and scale of uses permitted within
the CMG district
conforms to the goals of the community mixed use
designation the zoning also
conforms to the industrial commerce area and rural areas
that is surrounding it
we've got some moderate residential further up the street
however this along
old Alton Road is our site right here the requested CMDG
district would be a
continuation of the existing CMG district the use is
permitted in the CMG
district would be consistent with the uses that are exist
in the area today
which I include vehicle repair which is across the street
come over here in the
ETJ offices to the south self storage to the east and some
institutional uses
Geier high school as well as a there over here is a
electrical transformer
site substation the site will take access from old Alton
Road currently old
Alton Road is designated as a future secondary arterial
roadway Teasley is a
primary arterial roadway the subject site also has water
and sewer available
which you can see from these very thin blue and red lines
the blue is water and
the red is sewer staff sent out notifications on March 25th
we sent out
five via certified mail and 11 courtesy notices so far we
have not received any
response to those notices a sign was posted on the site I
did verify that
earlier today staff recommends approval of this request as
the requested zoning
is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton
plan 2030 and
the CMG is compatible with the surrounded property in terms
of permitted uses that
concludes my presentation I'll answer any questions
Commissioner Smith thank you chair whenever we did this we
proved the
northern part of this of this plot we proved it back in
October why wasn't it
included in the rezoning at that point in time is because
they only do in the
city okay we the annexation happened in yesterday it final
ized yesterday if I
could just add the annexation we went through altogether I
think five between
public hearings public meetings five different meetings for
a small piece of
property but exactly those are the rules thank you for your
hard work it started
in February cool anything else Commissioner Sanchez on the
north side
that's gonna be a garage right there that's what they're
working on and then
it's just gonna be an extension yes this is all gonna be
one side and it's all
gonna be a garage that's correct which will have access off
of old Alton right
about here okay Commissioner Ellis thank you chair so when
they combine the two
still only access off old Alton there that's for the whole
development okay
thanks this this looks like a lot here but what it actually
is it's right of
wife or Teasley Commissioner Beck I just like a publicly
apologize to the staff
for sending up a false red flag about the sign on that my
bad I was looking on
the wrong side of the road so I sincerely apologize for
that thank you
just as a note looks like the current zoning map hasn't
been updated for the
site to the north that we've rezoned I think that's on LCMG
also correct yeah I
don't think I don't think it has been updated quite yet
okay any other
questions for staff on this okay thank you Cindy thank you
that will move us to Adam see Haley
so this is a proposed amendment to the DVC to remove
limitation 34 so the
request before you as I mentioned is to remove limitation
34 from sub chapter
5 our zoning districts and limitations this limitation only
applies to the
distribution center warehouse and warehouse retail uses
within our
employment center districts so a little bit of background
this was taken to City
Council as a work session item and they recommended that we
bring it forward
prior to the overall code update so what we're proposing is
to remove limitation
34 entirely from the code what limitation 34 states is that
the
warehouse and distribution center uses are permitted with
no more than 150,000
gross square feet and eight truck docks it further stip
ulates that all of the
docks and bays shall be to the rear or side of the
structure not visible from
the street and that buffering standards apply to any
outdoor storage as well as
the loading docks just to give you a point of reference for
150,000 square
feet equates to this is the Walmart at razor ranch it's
just over that size and
has six truck docks on it so we're talking about this
applying to something
roughly the size of a Walmart or larger just a little bit
of background so
limitation 34 has been in the code since it was adopted in
2002 in 2012 we
changed some of the warehouse and distribution center type
uses so prior
to this we had wholesale storage and distribution and
distribution centers as
separate uses and l34 only applied to the wholesale storage
use within the ECI
district both of those uses were completely removed in 2012
and we got
our current uses which is distribution center slash
warehouse general and
warehouse retail and then we extended the applicability of
limitation 34
to apply to both of those uses within ECI and then to
retail warehouses within
ECC so we did a little bit of internal analysis just to see
how much property
this would affect within the ECI zoning district if you run
just some basic math
on a site to see what would it take to fit a hundred and
fifty thousand square
foot building allowing for parking at a rate of one to one
thousand and then
accounting for the lot coverage with an ECI which is a
maximum of 85% what we
find is that you need a site that's a minimum of 5.2 acres
to fit a structure
that size and adequately provide for parking of it so just
looking at our map
all it's a little hard to see but all of the sites that are
in the black
outlining with the hatch marks on them are the sites that
that would actually
fit so we're not talking about all that much property that
this would change
anything for within the ECI district I believe the total
was just over 400
acres and it was 23 properties across the city and they're
running along that
same thought process within the ECC district to see what
size of property
you would have to have to actually be able to fit 150,000
square feet we found
your minimum lot size would be 5.5 acres so that applied to
about 150 acres total
in the city that was limited to these six properties some
further considerations
we did do a comparison of several neighboring cities you
can see the list
here we found none of them had anything even remotely
similar to this that in
terms of limitations on warehouses or distribution centers
within McKinney
within their town center they limit warehouses to 20,000
square feet other
than that there are no limitations and then within Carroll
ton warehouses are
limited to being an accessory used within their corporate
commercial
district which is intended to be more for office office
campuses but you could
have an accessory warehouse at those facilities further
looking at what we're
permit currently without limitation in our ECC and ECI
districts light
manufacturing is permitted by right no limitations on size
or the number of
base that you can have at a facility if you're
manufacturing craft alcohol
production also permitted by right so if you had a site
that was actually
producing alcohol or another product they could have as
many bays and as much
square footage as they wanted but if it's solely a
distribution center
that's where our limitations would currently apply and just
in speaking with
our economic development team they do see a lot of requests
for property where
you could put a large warehouse and the average minimum
size that these
corporations are looking for is 200 to 300 thousand square
feet of building so
currently we limit greatly where those facilities could go
in the city with all
that being said staff is recommending removing l34 from all
of the employment
center districts as we've discussed here and I'd be happy
to answer any other
questions Commissioner Beck thank you chair just to satisfy
my own curiosity I
assume Walmart got an exception to the ruling when they
built that as what a
part of the razor-range overlay Walmart is actually just
considered retail so
this limitation didn't apply I was just using that for a
size comparison to let
you know what type of or size of facility that we were
looking at thanks
any other questions for Haley okay thank you that will run
us through our agenda
for this evening and it will take us to back in our work
session to receive our
work session report and I don't know which withers okay
good evening chair
commissioners Scott McDonald director of development
services just want to give
you a brief update on the development code review committee
took some action
at City Council last night there's been a little bit of
confusion as to the
makeup and how it is that the the group is going to
function so through a
resolution with council the committee is comprised of a
total of six members
three members which are council or considered the voting
members two of
those council members make a quorum the council members
will serve as chair vice
chair three P&Z members are ex officios and part of that
committee ultimately
some of that conversation and just as a heads up on this
that there won't be a
great deal of voting that will take place this is going to
be more gathering
input seeking input from both P&Z and council this
committee also will have a
sunset date of December of 2018 and council has the option
of of course
changing that but that's that's the way that the resolution
is set it is also
the intent that staff will come back before this group and
report what status
were the were the committee the work group is steps that
have been achieved
and and kind of address what the committee's concerns are
it is our intent
to walk through our we have the as you know three modules
and we'll be
presenting before this group next week with module three
which are their final
sub chapters but the subcommittee is going to be walking
through it as if it
is the development code beginning with sub chapter one and
then we'll just work
through at a pace that's comfortable for the subcommittee
and if you have any
questions as far as organizational Ron is going to bring
you just a little bit
of an update of it and kind of where we're at and where we
're going the next
meeting is on next Wednesday for the subcommittee and that
will be an
organizational meeting where it is that will set the chair
vice chair capture
the minutes from previous meetings and ultimately work on
really those goals
and it'll be an overview while clearing is here of the
contents of module three
and answer any questions that they have
Commissioner Roselle thank you with with some of the
committee members rolling
off council do you have an update of what three council
members are on that
committee thank you yes I intended to to bring that as well
so councilperson
Sarah Baguier ultimately is coming off and council
appointed mayor Watts to to
be that third member so the members then in turn will be Ke
ely Briggs John
Ryan thank you and Chris Watts thank you
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Scott I know this the
draft resolution
changed because I read it and then it was different this
morning so can you
walk me through that discussion I'm just trying to figure
out exactly what our
role is now just because at one point it was going to be a
six-person committee
and it kind of still is sort of not really because you got
a quorum really
with two of three council people so will you just walk me
through that a little
bit yes and ultimately discuss this in work session and
there was some some
dialogue that went back and forth with council and it was
councils intent that
because the original committee that was created and I don't
recall what year was
three council persons and they wanted to keep it in that in
that context but they
also did value the input of P&Z so it was important to keep
the three members
the resolution then just makes that committee a committee
of six which is
three of the council three of the P&Z P&Z acting in an ex
officio capacity I
can tell you for me personally that it is my intent that
really it's the voices
that I hear in the differing opinions as to how it is that
we move forward and
what we do with that ultimately council has the final
decision on how it is that
we adopt and what we adopt and I and I really don't think
that there will be
too many opportunities that we're really gonna have to vote
really it's gonna be
a recommendation of the committee to move what we're
proposing forward if that
helps what does but what we're proposing for will be voted
on by the three
council people correct if if a vote is necessary that would
be how the voting
would take place would ultimately be the three council
people correct right okay
only question I would have on the the meetings that you're
talking about are
those televised or live stream where we can watch those or
do you have to
actually come and attend them you'd have to come and attend
them they're they're
open to the public of course they're posted and I think we
'll have a regular a
regularly scheduled time that that we're gonna work to do
day and time okay
and you know then Ron will give you a brief update of where
we're at and where
we're going okay thank you Scott thank you
thank you chair members of the Commission I'll try to make
it brief our
meeting last Friday was two hours so I don't plan on taking
two hours but we'll
go through this really quickly my presentation real quick
so as Scott said we met with the Advisory Committee there's
really high
level went over the purpose of the DEN development code
update of course our
DEN plan 2030 to be consistent with that but also
consistent with the vision of
the DEN plan 2030 we are looking at updating our code not
only in the the
zoning districts but also the development standards as well
the
chapters that we will get into a little more into detail
later are here shown
here they are eight total sub chapters we're going from 24
to 8 again we we
went through with Clary on last the 28 that is with
chapters 1 & 2 we will go
through 6 7 & 8 next Wednesday I won't go through each one
of this but again
sub chapter 1 is general provisions sub chapter 2 is
administration and
procedures and again you heard that again from Clary on a
couple weeks ago
sub chapter 3 our zoning district and sub chapter 4 overlay
districts is
important these are important sub chapters this is where we
see a lot of
our zoning cases come through and this is where everything
is put in for
example the sub chapter 3 we are going from 28 I'm sorry
yes 28 zoning
districts currently down to 14 so there's going to be a lot
of consolidation
elimination revised and also new zoning districts as well
included in that sub
chapters are dimensional standards the maximum height
maximum lot coverage the
minimum setbacks and minimum lot area sub chapter 4 will
contain our overlay
and historic districts none of those will change they will
carry forward and move
over to this sub chapter sub chapter 5 is our use
regulations this is where we
look at what uses are permitted in each zoning district it
will advise us as to
if it's permitted by right by SUP or permitted by a use
specific standard now
you specific standard is it's basically our limitations so
what you see is
limitations they're just renaming it as you specific
standards one big thing
that is not included in this sub chapter moving forward the
mixed use residential
overlay protection will no longer be included in that and
the hope is that
the development standards as proposed will address
compatibility moving forward
included in this sub chapter are our accessory uses and
structures temporary
uses our wireless telecommunication and gas well standards
as well some of those
are ready sub chapter 6 is our development standards this
is the the
largest sub chapter it contains a number of sections that
are currently
different sub chapters in our current code as you can see
here this is what it
will include from land disturbing activities only through
parking
buildings and site design down to water and wastewater
standards sub chapter 7
is our subdivision regulations and that includes our plat
ting requirements
public improvements requirements more on how subdivisions
are handled and yes
that's true definitions we know a definition this is
important right
because a lot of times we want to make sure we understand
what the use is or
what the term is and that's where the sub chapter 8 will
contain all of our
definitions so that being said we've got a lot to bring
forward all of the public
drafts are online as we speak that's all of those sub
chapters 1 through 8 so
anybody that's watching please go to den code 2030 comm you
can view those
sub chapters and you can make comments online you can also
call or provide us
an email or send us an email that is with any comments
moving forward we've
already gone through the module 1 we've done module 2 last
month we are going to
be doing module 3 next week we see here this is the
schedule as clarion will be
visiting us next week we will start with a work session
with council and go
through these meetings and end it with a public open house
which will be held on
Wednesday from 6 to 8 at the den that should say Civic
Center I should change
that that's Civic Center on April 10th which was yesterday
our zoning map went
online as well so our proposed only map was that is drafted
was put online so
those folks that are able to can also view that zoning map
on our website den
code 2030 comm to help answer questions and address any
concerns or issues we
have put together a series of public open houses that you
see here the first
one will start on April 23rd at the Fred Moore High School
from 6 to 8 we will
have staff available to answer questions we've got we had a
total of seven the
committee suggested that we add more at any public
libraries to assist or to
provide those that are able to go to a library through
public transit it's a
more of a central or public place that they can make it to
so we are proposing
three additional workshops or a public open space open
houses that is at the
three libraries that we have again those dates have not yet
been determined but
we will schedule those as soon as possible and post it
online as well
these dates also were included in a postcard that was sent
out I believe it
was last week so every property owner should have received
a postcard with
these public open house dates and times so if they didn't
catch it here
hopefully they will catch it when they get their postcard
in their mail they
should have received it by either today or tomorrow there's
a postcard I failed
to notice that that was the next slide so this is the post
card that went out
and as you can see hard to see maybe on my screen but the
the dates that I just
went over the seven are included with the the postcard
again we are trying to
direct post folks to the website again a lot of information
is on the website
including the zoning map so again denco 2030 comm so we we
send those to
property owners but we also know that citizens residents
that don't own
property are also interested so we are trying to make sure
that we get them
involved and engaged with this process these are the list
that you see up here
our our communication plan to get the word out we we also
rely on the planning
zoning Commission to help spread that word so any
information that you can or
any feedback or any ways that we can do better please let
us know but we also
encourage you to help spread that word about what's going
on with the den code
update we have a dedicated website I probably said it three
times already but
den code 2030 comm is where everything is being put in we
've got links to all
of the sub chapters as well as the zoning map and any other
information
that is relevant to this process when we're at the public
open houses we hope
that there are a lot of people there that have questions we
hopefully can
answer them but if we cannot we will take their comments
write it down and
document it and so when we start to revise our draft we we
can refer back
to these common cards so at those public open houses we'll
have a fair number of
these comic cards available so that people can fill out and
make sure that
they provide it back to us so this next few slides is
regarding the zoning map
update I can go through it it's a fairly lengthy discussion
I don't know chair if
you want to take a break there's food available and then we
can go through this
so we don't have to break the presentation that's up to y'
all it'd be
a great suggestion so why don't we call a recess at 553 and
we'll try to get back by 6.
Going to reopen our work session at 6.01 and let Ron go
ahead and continue
this presentation. Great thank you chair members of the
commission I felt you
emphasize this one important change that's being proposed
with the den code
update and that with the new 14 zoning districts I
mentioned that we have
minimum lot areas minimum setbacks we also have maximum
maximum heights and
maximum lock coverage that being said the proposal is we
will no longer as
proposed have any density requirements so there will be no
density so you're for
example in our four four units per acre none of that it
will be based on the
development regulations parking lot coverage landscaping
that will set the
development for that property so I hope that I know that
was a big one for me
too so I wanted to make sure that I got that through.
Commissioner back. Thank you
chair. I appreciate you mentioned it Ron I'd encourage Ron
to bring that out
because that was kind of a scary thing for us I think the
concern was by
removing that limitation there we've got to rely on lot
coverage and and building
height stuff like that so the concern was you know could
they build them higher
and put more in there because it could build them higher so
that's just
something you know we need to as a commission need to kind
of watch as we
move along there that one that one I think bothered a
couple people. That was
a big one so I apologize I went through that I didn't mean
to but I want to
make sure that that was clear that we are proposing as it
is no density
maximums or requirements. Ron if I could just add one one
notion within the each
zoning new zoning district there are you know there are the
standards the setback
requirements we are looking at adjusting some some of those
where some might be a
six foot side setback they may be reduced to five given the
majority of
the NR4 lots that we have now and so I just wanted to point
that out because we
haven't we haven't adjusted that yet from from module one
so that'll be taken
care of after module three when we do the complete draft so
just wanted to
point that out in case somebody sees that and thinks that
their property now
will be non-conforming we we're still looking at adjusting
that. When will that
adjustment come out you say? With the public draft of the
entire code. That's set for
June, July so as soon as we get comments from these sets of
public drafts the
consultants will go back and make necessary revisions and
then bring back
a draft that we can present back to the Commission and to
the rest of the
public. Thank you. Again yeah just to add to what Richard
said in addition to those
zoning dimensional standards also the use standards or use
table we're also
looking at updating as well so there there will be some
changes and we
anticipate additional input as we get through this process
so a lot of a lot
of input a lot of revisions but hopefully we can get to
approve of a
development code update. Okay so next important topic is
zoning. Zoning map.
The zoning map as you know we has to be updated because we
have new zoning
districts we're going from 28 to 14 and those 14 don't
share the same name or
the same you know some of them don't share the same
intensity or density so
there are going to be some properties that are going to be
changed our hope is
that we can just convert convert that is those zoning
districts that we have now
to a zoning district that is being proposed and I've got a
table or a chart
that shows how that's going to be done but we've went
through the a process
it's it's not it wasn't a simple process but I want to make
sure that you all
understand it it is still a draft in that we're going to
need to update it but
this is our first brush of trying to make a zoning map out
of the new zoning
district so I won't go through this list because I've got a
slide for each of
these criteria a total of 16 so I'll go ahead and start
with the first one of
course we started off with the DIM plan 2030 looked at the
goals and object
objectives as it relates to a lane use and zoning the big
one there is our
community vision statement we we want to make sure that
that's the focus that's
what the citizens approved back in 2015 and we want to make
sure it's consistent
with the vision of the city after the the the vision and
the the goals and
objectives we looked at the future land use map that you
see here and you often
hear from us from staff these future land use designations
from rural areas
down to business innovation all the way through you know
neighborhood
compatibility areas these are the future land use design
ations as shown on our
future land use map so here's the chart that I was
referring to earlier on the
left is the future land use designation in our DIM plan
2030 to the right is
the the middle column is the current zoning districts and
this is how we see
these zoning districts where they fall under that specific
future land use
designation so for example in our one would be considered
low residential the
NR 2346 is moderate residential and so on and so forth the
farthest right column
is our proposed zoning district that is the 14 zoning
districts that I was
referring to this is how we see them being converted from
not only the
current zoning district but from the future land use
designation so I'm gonna
keep this up here for a little bit and ask if anybody has
any questions with
this chart and I apologize none of this was provided in
advance but wanted just
to give y'all some time since we have time to go over the
process of our
update of our zoning map so the next step was we had this
methodology of not
not splitting parcel we purposely left parcels the way they
are we didn't want
to zone a property half one zoning and half the other so if
you see a parcel
that extends long from from here to here this probably
should be zone geo general
office but because we didn't want to split parcels we left
it alone because
we felt that that would cause even more confusion or more
issues in the future
so we left it based on parcels moving forward Ron question
for on that yes sir
if you have on a on a current parcel split zoning did you
go with the more
dense or the higher zoning rather than down zoning them for
a lot of those
chair there the ones I recall are primarily around the
downtown or around
the the University because we're limited we're limiting the
amount of zoning
districts that automatically was zone whatever the zoning
that was closest to
the area so so to the to your answer to answer your
question that is yes but the
majority of it we didn't deal with that specifically well I
'm just going through
my memory of how many cases have come here over the years
and split zonings
right and so obviously there's probably still some of those
out there so on
split zoning cases you had to take that parcel now it's
owned right with one
running rather than two in the one I recall it was the one
off of Scripture
normal that one comes to mind that's the one I can I mean
in the example I gave
you the response I gave you we gave that a zoning that was
suitable for both for
example that was I believe dr2 and DCG right and so in that
area we we don't
amend because our current I'm sorry our proposed MD would
not apply there so in
essence we took care of that split zoning by the proposed
zoning proposed
again because we were dealing with less zoning districts so
there there wasn't a
lot of where we had split zoning to begin with or as a
result so I guess to
carry the conversation one step further mm-hmm in that
example since you brought
it up that parcel had DCG and dr2 right and so instead of
that parcel becoming
an MD that parcels become an MN correct so back to my
question that property
really it's probably down zone rather than up zoned correct
okay and we will
get to that that is there's something that's part of this
presentation and how
we deal with down zoning and some up zoning as well okay
but good question so
the next step in the methodology was we applied the HC
which is a highway
corridor zoning district and what we did is we apply that
to properties or
parcels that is a long I 35 and we use a thousand foot
extension from the center
line of the highway so as you can see this is I 35 where
there are the car
dealerships some regional or commercial retail establish
ments in as you can see
based on what you see here majority of it roughly is about
a thousand foot deep
now that may be a bit longer or deeper than normal but we
wanted to capture as
much as we can and we went back and made sure that if there
are existing
neighborhoods or existing uses that would not fit the HC
zoning district we
went in and modified it and you can see some of it over
here as well the other
important thing is where there is a PD or a zoning overlay
and we'll get into
that a little bit more we left those alone as well those
existing PDs and
existing zoning overlays will carry forward as PDs the
other zoning district
that we use along major corridor was the suburban quarter
zoning district and
again we use the a thousand a thousand foot central from
the center line this
is loop 288 it also applied on University on Teasley and
Fort Worth
Drive as well so the idea here again is we want to capture
any highway or I'm
sorry suburban corridor and we use a thousand foot again as
the start but as
I explained earlier we went back and made sure that we
weren't impacting any
existing development or residential development here's a
here's an example
of how that was done so the one to your left is University
Drive and again this
area here is looked at or is being being proposed as
suburban corridor and if
there was a neighborhood adjacent to it and it is an
established neighborhood we
made sure that we went back and made it right and cleaned
it up and it's more
obviously better it's not better but it is existing
established neighborhoods
and they should be zoned the way they are and so that is we
're going to be
receiving an R2 because of the conversion that we talked
about prior
yes sir commissioner back thank you chair so I'm
assuming that black line we've seen and we'll actually take
a dip and go around
that neighborhood right yeah it will not know that that's
just to illustrate
where that thousand foot extension was taken to the same
thing for I-35 we we
did the the HC and you can see here this is the Southridge
neighborhood we know
that that's not going to be to see that's established an
established
neighborhood and it's residential so we went and we made
sure that we zoned it
the way it should be zoned I talked about this somewhat
earlier PDs the big
one that we know of or as well known as the ropes and range
plan development
those PDs that we have a total of 15 legal conforming PDs
will carry forward
as PDs so they will be moved over and will not be altered
or of any way
master plan communities we've got three four technically
but three coal ranch
hills of den and hunter ranch those MPCs will be carried
over as PDs so moving
forward they will be PDs as part of the draft zoning map
zoning overlays these
are different from your special purpose overlay districts
such as the fry Street
special purpose overlay district these are zoning overlays
these are the zoning
cases that was brought forward to the planning zoning
Commission and to and
then into to council that is and if there was a restriction
or a condition
placed on this zoning case they technically are not the
true zoning so
they're referred to as zoning overlays and we have
approximately 32 of these
currently since 2002 and they will be carried forward as PD
s as part of the
draft zoning map any questions on this one because this
this provided or had
some discussion with the advisory committee so I didn't
know I want to
offer an opportunity for the playing zoning Commission to
ask questions okay
I think everybody remembers this one this one I try to find
one that was
somewhat recent this is the one of Audra where they were
proposing an NR six
but truly they needed four point five and so that's that's
the reduction
Commissioner Smith nature who's gonna keep track of these
overlays because
they're all gonna be so different everything else that I
mean it's it's
not just even taking like we've got it we got a variation
or an overlay on an
R2 or something like that now and then we go in and it's
everything becomes PD
we don't even see in the signifier of it was it in our two
or in our four in our
six with extra little overlays or emissions everything else
who's keeping
track of it is it written it's it's it's gonna be by
ordinance so we will have
that go back through and be able to currently currently
with the current PDs
we've got a folder system with each PD sure that identifies
you know what it is
their development standards their zoning regulations so the
ordinance part I get
I think I think the part I'm more looking at is that if
there is ever any
extra development in any of these areas that have an
overlay on it the current
system we have now at least gives you just from the outset
of just being able
to see it's in our two at least gives you some idea of
knowing at least how
many how many dwellings per acre and then you can kind of
figure out the
overlays from there once you do PD you know in our six with
overlays and two
with overlays well no I mean it actually I guess just log
istically I don't want
over overburdened city with having to ask right answer a
bunch of questions
maybe I'm I think it might be even easier if we put them as
PDs because if
you left them as zoning you don't know there's a PD and you
can assume it's
this with the PD you can see okay it's not it's gonna have
an overlay yes you
know to go to if you click on it in our interactive map you
can click on an
existing PD sure it tells you what number it is what name
it is and then
you can reference that there's an ordinance number so it
almost helps that
there is a PD it's a PD versus just a underlying zone
industry so smart Ron
thank you okay so the other after we did all that we also
looked at the preferred
growth concept which is in our didn't plan 2030 our again
our our vision our
hope is that we try to develop sustainability a sustainable
with with
the intent of you know sustaining our resources so we want
to develop within
the core and then work our way out eventually so any areas
that were in the
periphery of the city we left or try to leave as rural
residential our our that's
the least intense zoning district so similar to what we
have now is RD 5 they
will just be our art and again we those are going to be
those areas that are
along the periphery of the city we also looked at you know
areas that we weren't
really familiar with we use aerial photography Google
Street View and
visited each site so I asked the committee I asked you all
know where this
is this is actually University Drive and this is mingo
right next to the railroad
does anybody know that this well I guess we weren't as
familiar with it than as
you all were so I I didn't know that building was there or
you know what it
was and so we had to research it and so we we had to make
sure that we knew each
parcel before we put a zoning on it so that's that's to
show you that there was
there was some time spent doing that city properties city
properties where
they made sense that they were the use that's currently on
that property was
permitted on in that proposed zoning district we left it as
is so this is in
the downtown area the blue here that you see is the square
and so all this
property and this is where we are right now this is where
we're currently at MD
mixed use downtown is primarily high intensity I can't say
high density I say
high intensity because it allows a lot of different uses
and allows for a
certain height maximum and lot coverage as well but the
uses looking at the
allowed uses it also allowed for the those those type of
uses in the MD when
we left it empty we didn't change it at all
for larger areas that we feel needs a little bit more
attention such as the
airport the landfill large DME facilities and so on we have
the option
or the zoning district called PF plant public facilities
and again that is
defined as lands that are meant for public and quasi public
community uses
and this zoning would apply to and should apply to these
type or these
areas in the city that the city owns so we have it for
large areas such as the
airport we also have them for UNT and TW now we're also
considering an
institutional zoning district for these two universities
that's that's something
that will most likely come as part of the amendment but for
now they're zone
SPF Commissioner Roseau thank you chair can you help me
understand the
rationale of making of their own zoning district when they
de facto do what they
want anyways we have to give them some zoning district so I
think institutional
zoning district that's what that's a good question because
we thought the
same thing if they didn't receive any zoning is like we we
wouldn't have you
know a designation for them but you're right there is there
they don't have to
comply with our regs as far as the zoning regulations so
what would be the
benefit of having a separate zoning that's used twice in
our city just for
them I think there may be I don't know if Richard can help
me with this one part
of it is just to avoid any confusion with the p.l. I have
seen in in past
cities where where it had a residential designation and
this particular
University had a campus plan but they felt as though they
had they were
entitled as a result of the zoning for a certain amount of
density not the case
here since we don't have density but all in all it's I
think it's it's just
better to capture them as their own ideally it would be to
have a master
plan but I think at that point it would just defer to that
for whatever whatever
they do yeah that makes sense thank you I'd have a follow-
up question on that
you say if I should are they're gonna become a separate
zoning category yes
we're thinking of adding a zoning district called just
institutional
zoning district for the universities and all these other
properties those are the
properties that the University of North Texas currently
owns yes so with the
with the rules that all the other zoning categories have to
meet then if I heard
you right these don't have to meet those same categories or
requirements the
University the institutional one here didn't I see doesn't
fall under
institutional just DST would be under public facilities
just the first two
yeah just these two okay I misunderstood I just thought all
of those were going
into oh no no no no those those my mistake misunderstanding
yeah
apologies Commissioner Smith nature if they acquire new
land after we go
through to a reason rezone that's technically go through a
zoning change
then if they let's say they go buy something that's just
they think they
sorry they would they would have that would that come in
front of us we would
just vote on that because zoning change technically or what
would that go be
automatic when they purchase it it will be up to them to
decide if they want to
rezone it or just keep it as this so it's it's it's it
makes it simple for us
right now right but if they grow and they acquire any type
of the property it
we did be complicated again at some point if I can just say
you know another
and I was thinking about this actually earlier it's kind of
funny one way we we
might want to consider and just sort of talk it out more
with legal is there's
kind of the concept of a floating zone so whether this
becomes sort of a
floating zone and as they acquire property just become sort
of self
executing again I want to talk that over with with legal
whether that's even a
possibility but I think it's just sort of looking at at
those options or sort of
every quarter do we do a true up of properties of David
Clark yeah I think
it's also to understand where they're they obviously have a
plan of how they
want to sure I guess I guess for me it was more to not have
to bog us down as
a as a as a commission to not to come to the see it's a
here have Haley get
there and talk for ten minutes about why we're gonna reason
on it and it just
like I was just going on it sorry for picking on you Haley
one follow-up on that on the
on the reverse is true though - these entities do sell
properties they do come
so what would be the zoning or how would you handle going
from institutional that
there there is no zoning on that parcel so for example like
the city of debt
parcel that's for sale here on Locust Street I bought
property from DISD
before if it's institutional so TISD would would not be the
institutional it
would be there's just the universities I guess I'm still
yeah sorry I'm having a
hard time with it got wrote written in stone and it doesn't
come out right actually
if I can just give another another example because this is
a real example
TWU in this case probably wouldn't want to rezone to
institutional they've
acquired it was a piece of property they acquired to to
build apartments for the
students so in that case they kept it but they were
contracting out with a
different party to sort of build and manage that so in that
case they kept
the the zoning and went and are going through through our
site plan process so
in that regard we may want to have them rezone or again I
think there's other we
can look at it as as we move forward but part of it is to
sort of try to
understand also what what their long-term plans are
Commissioner Osello
I'm gonna restate chairs question a little bit differently
the public
facilities can sell and what would that zoning would just
be public facilities
until the new property owner came back through the rezone
yes okay and a lot of
I did speak with DISD the county text I mean text on and DC
T a you know
individually and I told them this is what is happening and
they were
comfortable with what we were proposing for example DISD
the schools are
permitted in all zoning district from majority except for
like the HI the L I
so you don't want schools in those areas so we did we did
talk to these agencies
before we made this public I know we have a couple minutes
left this is
probably the more important slide but I just wanted to
share this with you really
quickly we have approximately 38,496 parcels in the city
and we did an
analysis where we took a parcel and if it went from an R4
with the conversion
and we zoned it on R2 for because of maybe consistency or
compatibility that
is considered a zoning down and vice versa if we saw an LI
and probably more
suitable for an HI that would be a zoning up so we did that
we did that
conversion we did that analysis and we came up with
approximately 2800 parcels
that are being zoning up being zoned up in about 1800 are
gonna be zoned down
now out of 38,000 that's pretty good that tells us that the
majority of these
parcels are being converted to the zoning district that
they either are or
roughly are so and not not a big change so just give you
guys an insight of what
that number is or how we're how we've done our our zoning
map update so that
concludes my presentation unless there's anything else I
appreciate the time
thank you Ron and just one quick note we'll have a standing
work session item
so that we can update the Commission on the actions of the
committee and what's
being presented and where we're going great thank you with
that I'll close our
work session at 629 and we'll reconvene as quickly as
possible in council
chambers good evening and welcome to the city of Denton
planning and zoning
Commission meeting for April the 11th 2018 this meeting's
been duly posted and
we do have a quorum present and we'll call us to order at 6
37 our first order
of business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and
the Texas flags
honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one
state under God one
and indivisible
our next order of business will be to consider a motion for
our minutes for
March the 21st 2018 Commissioner Smith I'm most to approve
okay Mr. Beck
second okay we have a first and a second for approval any
comments or questions
seeing none to call for a vote on the board
oh most is going to carry five zero with two abstain and we
'll move us to our
consent agenda Commissioner Beck I move we approve consent
agenda okay
Commissioner Smith second that motion okay we have a first
and a second for approval any
discussion seeing none call for a vote on board
most is going to carry seven zero I will move us to item
for a individual
consideration call on Haley for presentation
good evening this request is for an alternative development
plan for a
tractor dealership and repair facility the request for this
alternative
development plan is to specifically deviate from the
perimeter fencing and
screening requirements and then the parking screening
requirements found in
subchapter 13 of the Ditten Development Code the site is
part of a larger
tract of land located on I-35 the property has been
preliminary platted
not yet final platted to separate this into two lots this
ADP specifically
applies to the northern 5.4 acres of the site and the
property is currently zoned
regional center commercial commercial downtown looking at
the site you can see
they have approximately a 20,000 square foot building in
the roughly the middle
of the site that's outland here in yellow in blue you see
the designated
parking areas and the area in green is a large detention
pond overall the site
has 71% lot coverage 29% landscaping and 63 parking spaces
as I mentioned
briefly at work session the city is in some discussions
regarding the future
alignment of Windsor the general location of parking and
this detention
pond could shift but the requested items tonight in terms
of the fencing and
screening would not be affected by that
specifically the request the first item is to permit a
chain link fencing
material currently this isn't a permitted fence material in
the code
what the applicants requesting on the side and rear yards
is an eight foot tall
black vinyl coated chain link fence they're also proposing
to plant trees
along that fence on the side yards to further screen it the
second request is
for a front fence that will exceed the three and a half
foot maximum in the
code what they've proposed is a six foot tall ornamental wr
ought iron fence
along the front property line and then the third item when
you have parking in
front of a building the code requires a 15 foot wide area
that is to include a
berm one large tree per every 40 linear feet and then
either zero scaping hedges
or a continuous wall to enhance their display visibility
from the street the
applicant is proposing to not provide the screening yard
there are they are
proposing to include all of those required landscaping
elements for that
area and have them in alternative locations on the site
that we'll see
here in a moment so looking at the fencing requirements the
yellowish
orange color is the location for the black eight foot chain
link fence you
can see here they do have trees proposed along the sides of
that to further
screen the parts that would be visible from the road and
then the area in red
is the location for that six foot tall wrought iron fence
they're requested
along the frontage and to further elaborate on that the wr
ought iron
fencing is like I said proposed for security because this
is a display yard
here in the front it would have gates here on the access
drives to allow
traffic in and out of the site but its primary purpose
would be for security
and to still allow visibility of the site and it is
generally consistent with
other fences that you would see along this part of the
service road on I-35
from our research those other fences in this area predate
the code requirements
so that's how they were permitted at a taller height
looking at this in a little
more detail the dark green areas are the areas where they
're providing trees to
help screen the fencing as we discussed and then the
lighter green areas you see
here all of the required street trees and parking lot
screening trees as well
as the shrubs that would have made up that continuous hed
gerow are all
provided in these areas you see them clustered around the
two main drive
entries to the site and then a few of the trees have been
provided along the
back part of the property and in addition to the required
plantings they
are proposing eight additional street trees as well to
further enhance these
entries to the site so with an ADP we always like to look
back at what the
intent of the code requirements are the DDCs fencing
requirements are meant to
ensure high quality you know long durability fencing
materials and then
specifically within our residential and mixed-use districts
we have that limited
height requirement to ensure that the buildings and you
know the entire site
is still visible from the right-of-way with our parking lot
screening the intent
there is muting the visual effects of parking from the
right-of-way so that as
you drive down the street you have you know a visually
appealing street front
edge and there's no light or glare from the parking lots
interfering with the
roadway so to go briefly through the criteria for approval
for an ADP the
first is preservation of existing neighborhoods it's not
anticipated that
this would negatively affect the surrounding area it is
consistent with
the other development specifically to the north there are
several other large
RV sales facilities and then south there's a mixture of
institutional and
commercial uses this request would not necessarily lower
the site design
standards in the Denton Development Code they're intended
to provide enhanced
security and visibility for the site in terms of focusing
new development and
activity centers what we see here is typical highway scale
development this is
a regional zoning a regional commercial center by zoning
and future land use and
this use would be something that we would expect to have a
regional customer
base that fits with that infrastructure is not a concern
here there is existing
infrastructure in terms of roadways water and sewer
available to the site
and the end result here would still be a high quality
development that would
generally meet the intent of the code by providing the
screening for that chain
link fencing and vinyl coating it they would reduce you
know the the reflective
typical material see with chain link and they are providing
a non-opaque high
quality fence along the frontage as well the height is
higher for security
purposes but the material itself is a permitted high
quality material and then
in terms of parking lot screening as I mentioned they are
providing all of the
required elements just in alternate locations on the site
and they are also
providing those additional eight trees so with that staff
is recommending
approval of the request because we found it to meet all of
these criteria and I
could stand for any questions do you have a question
Commissioner Beck thank
you chair Haley just for clarification again can you go
back to the diagram the
site location show us that the Google yeah okay so when you
're talking about
this is one tract of land but it's gonna be in two
different lots yes there is a
preliminary plan that's been approved it would split the
lot into two pieces
this would be the northern roughly five and a half acres
and then there would be
a second lot okay okay and I don't know why that wasn't
clear to me before so
we're basically building in that area where the least
amount of trees are
right now correct yes is what you're doing and that is the
five point three
eight acres yes what is the total acreage for the whole I'm
guessing 11
maybe
I believe the other lot is just over two acres but I want
to confirm that yes I
believe the totals about seven point one acres okay so they
're using about five
and a half and then be a remainder of about two so when we
're talking about
putting fencing on that I guess it'd be the south end to
kind of obscure the
view in there actually it's gonna be covered up by a couple
of acres so yes
why is the fencing even an issue as far as a barrier of
some kind is that where
the roads gonna run through and no the code doesn't permit
chain-link material
at all it's not a man material yeah but you talk about
trees and bushes being
planted to landscaping on that south end to cover the view
of the chain link
fence but can we even really see it if there's two acres
roughly two acres
south of that once that sites developed it probably wouldn
't be visible no but
in the meantime it would provide that additional screening
and okay they're
using that to meet all of their other tree and landscaping
requirements as well
okay thank you any other questions for Haley
thank you Amy I believe the applicant is here if you had
any questions for them
as well this is an item for individual consideration and if
there's anyone who
would like to speak on this item especially the applicant
you're welcome
to come forward this time
my name is Richard Mason I'm with icon consulting group I
am the project
architect on it and I appreciate your time to speak this
evening we have been
through quite a bit of give-and-take with Haley and her
group to to get to
this point and as most of you know where the current
location of Zimmer or
Kubota is they're busting at the seams and ready to get to
a bigger site you know to
expand and and get into a nicer building that kind of thing
and so that's
basically the whole development there and and what we're
asking for again we're
trying to meet the intent of what in working with Haley and
the intent of the
code with the materials and those types of things
recognizing that the front of
this is going to be a display area for various types of
equipment that Zimmer
sells and and so and then the security issue of being in a
transient zone that
are along the highway those are the main two things that we
're trying to to
accomplish keep the site secure but also keep it
individually pleasing and
architecturally aesthetically pleasing space in short I'll
keep it short but
that's basically what our agenda is okay any questions for
the applicant thank
you for coming out thank you for your time you bet sir
anybody else want to speak on this item seeing none chair
entertaining motion
discussion Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I'm gonna
move to approve ADP 17
for Commissioner Beck second first and second any further
discussion or
comments I'll make a quick comment just say so good to see
a local company do
well and glad that you all are going to be able to stay in
town and expand and
continue to run your business here congratulations with
that call for a
vote on the board motion carries seven zero good luck with
your project that
will move us to well before I go to 4b I want to make this
a general
announcement on our agenda I've got a couple people here in
the room let
everyone know that in our public hearing sections item 5a
has been withdrawn so
if you're waiting for that item it has been withdrawn and
it's going to be
renoticed so do want to let you all know that if any of you
are waiting for that
item that will move us on to item 4b and I'm going to rec
use myself on this item
due to the fact that I was in a part of the partnership
that owned this property
originally and has sold it several years ago to the present
owner and so I'm
going to recuse myself on this item and I'll yield to the
vice chair on this
item thank you chair for item 4b I'll call Haley for
presentation good evening
this item is a site plan request for a medical office
building in the razor
branch overlay district so specifically this is for a
medical office on lot 1
block 4 of the razor ranch south edition you can see the
property here outlined
in red it's total of just over four acres it's located
along the I-35
frontage road scripture currently runs on the south side of
the property on the
north will be the future extension of panhandle drive that
's being extended as
part of the razor ranch development within the overlay
district this lot
specifically is located within the south mixed-use district
we've discussed
previously that there haven't been design standards
developed for the
majority of the south mixed-use district but this specific
lot did have an
amendment to the overlay passed in 2011 that adopted a site
design standard just
for this lot and as you're familiar with these site plans
for razor ranch
require submittal of a site plan landscape plan and
building elevations
for your consideration the criteria for approval generally
are that the site
can comply with the concept and schematic plan that we just
looked at
that the site provide for compatible arrangement of
buildings and uses to not
net negatively impact adjoining properties that there be
adequate and
safe circulation of vehicular traffic and that the site
comply with all other
aspects of the overlay so we'll look at the site plan here
the proposed building
is 22,000 square feet this is intended to be phase one of a
larger development
so you can see they're generally developing the southern
half of the lot
the intent would be to develop another medical office or
similar use on the
north part of this property to make one larger development
that would be
interconnected for this phase they're providing 110 parking
spaces which is
the exact requirement based on the parking ratios in our
code of one space
for 200 square feet of office and you can see here access
to the site would be
provided on the south side from a single driveway along
scripture Street based on
the drive aisles and their parking lot they do intend to
interconnect so that
eventually when the northern half develops there will also
be access to
the site from panhandle and they also have cross-connect
ivity to the existing
medical facility east of this property looking at the
landscaping they have
exceeded all of the landscape requirements in the razor
ranch overlay
for this particular lot a total of 22 percent landscape or
20 percent
landscaping was required they're providing 22 and then
specifically
within the parking lot they were required 22 percent tree
canopy and 10
percent landscaping so they have exceeded those numbers the
building
elevations are in compliance with the requirements of the
overlay what you see
here on the top is the side that would face face east into
the site the middle
elevation is what would be visible along the right of way
of I-35 and then on the
bottom you see the two the north and south end of the
building and the
building would be constructed of if his material similar to
stucco and Texas
limestone staff is recommending approval of the site plan
request it was found to
be compliant with all of the applicable regulations within
the razor ranch
overlay district and I can stand for any questions thank
you Haley any questions
for Haley commissioner Ellis thank you vice-chair Haley
when they do develop
the other site you did say that they would come back with a
site plan for
that as well that would be something separate yes thank you
I do not see any
other questions thank you Haley as this is an individual
consideration item
anyone who would like to speak and certainly do so is there
anyone here who
would like to speak about this item great see none the vice
-chair will
entertain a motion or discussion commissioner Smith motion
to approve SP
18 - 0 0 0 1 commissioner Ellis second is there any
discussion I'll call for a
vote on the board
motion passes passes 6-0 with one recusal with that we'll
move into our
public agenda item B will be first and before that I'll
call the chair back in
the meeting
thank you chairman and commissioners z 17 - 0 0 3 3 is a
request for approval of
an initial zoning designation of CMG on the subject site
located on the map here
it's located on the east side of old out and road south of
Teasley given that the
site was recently annexed into the city it has a holding
zone designation of
RD 5x and here you see the zoning map as it will look if
this request is
approved the subject site is designated as community mixed
use the intent of
community mixed use is to achieve a mix of uses basically
commercial uses but
also some residential and other service uses the types of
uses and the scale of
the development that is permitted in the CMG district
conforms to the goals and
of the community mixed use designation the requested CMG
district would actually
be a continuation of the existing CMG district that you see
to the north this
little site right here this point three acres is actually
part of the lot that
is located to the north when the site was plotted it was
plotted with the city
limit line going through the lower third of it the uses
permitted in the CMG
district are consistent with the uses that are in the area
today specifically
vehicle repair offices self storage we have institutional
uses across the
street as well as commercial the site will take access from
old Alton Road old
out and road is designated as a future secondary arterial
you can see Teasley
Road right here which is a primary arterial the site has
access to water
and sewer you can see the water and sewer lines water are
blue and the sewer
lines are red notices were sent out on March 25th we sent
out five notices via
certified mail to property owners within 200 feet of the
site and we sent 11
notices courtesy notices to property owners with it with
excuse me to
properties within 500 feet of the site we have at this time
received no
response to the mailing staff recommends approval of this
request as it conforms
with the standards for rezoning specifically the CMG
district is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton plan
2030 and the CMG
district is compatible with the surrounding land uses and
that concludes
my presentation
so any questions for Cindy
I think in the transition of me stepping back in and you
already being here we
didn't open the public hearing so just for clarification I
didn't know where we
were my apologies so we're gonna open the public hearing
for item 5b do you
want me to go through my presentation again
I'll ask for that is there anyone in the audience that
would like to hear the
presentation again seeing none public hearings open and we
've had our
presentation any questions for Cindy seeing none this is a
public hearing so
if there's anyone here who would like to speak on this item
please come forward
at this time
seeing none it'll close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion
or emotion Commissioner Smith motion approves e 17 - 0 0 3
3 a commissioner
is out I second okay we have a first and a second for
approval any questions or
comments so none we will call for a vote on the board
motion is going to carry 7 0 we'll move us to item C this
time I'm going to open
the public hearing for DCA 18 - 0 0 0 2 and call on Haley
for presentation
so this is a proposed amendment to the Denton Development
Code to remove
limitation 34 so the request before you is to consider
making a recommendation
to council regarding removing limitation 34 from subchapter
5 of the Denton
Development Code this limitation is applicable to
distribution center
warehouse general and warehouse retail uses within our
employment center
districts so for a bit of background staff is proposing to
remove l34
entirely from the code in all places where it applies
within the employment
center districts this limitation specifically as I
mentioned applies to
distribution centers and warehouses and permits no more
than 150,000 gross
square feet and eight truck docks it further stipulates
that all the docks and
bays have to be to the rear or side not viewable from the
street and that
buffering standards apply for outdoor storage and the
loading docks just for
size comparison purposes the Walmart at razor ranch that
you see here is just
over 150,000 square feet and contains six truck docks so
that would be a rough
comparison of the type of facility where this limitation
would start applying a
little bit more background l34 has been in the code since
it was adopted in 2002
in 2012 we did make some changes that expanded the applic
ability of it though
we changed uses in 2012 so we previously had wholesale
storage and distribution
and distribution centers as separate uses with this with an
ordinance in 2012 we
removed both of those and adopted instead distribution
center slash
warehouse as a use and warehouse retail as another use and
then we along with
that expanded l34 to not only apply in the ECI district to
wholesale storage
but to apply to both of these new uses in the employment
center districts we did
some comparisons just to see what types of properties this
would affect in the
city so to develop a site that would have these limitations
with 150,000
square foot or larger building to provide for adequate
parking and allow
for the required landscaping area on the site within the EC
I district you would
have to have a minimum size property of 5.2 acres so
looking at where we have
that size of property with this zoning we found that it
would affect
approximately 23 different properties in the city that
totaled approximately
429 acres total so in the grand scheme of things not all
that many properties
would even be eligible for a facility as large as this
limitation applies to
properties within ECC we did ran the same comparison again
to just see where
this would start to kick in and we found the minimum size
property where this
would affect would be about five and a half acres a total
of six properties
were affected by this at just approximately 150 acres total
so some
further considerations that staff had we looked at what
other cities in this
area have in terms of limitations on warehouse or
distribution facilities we
found nothing comparable to what we have here none of the
comparison cities had
any limitation on the number of bays only two had
limitations on warehouses
at all with McKinney limiting the size of a warehouse in
their town center to
20,000 square feet and Carrollton limiting warehouses to be
an accessory
use only within their corporate commercial district which
is where they
have zoning in place to allow for large office campuses
looking at other uses
that can be permitted by right in these districts today
craft alcohol production
and light manufacturing are permitted with no limitation
those facilities
could include warehouses or distribution centers and not be
limited in size but
if you're strictly wanting to warehouse or distribute
things that's where we for
some reason have this limitation in place and speaking with
economic
developments they do frequently get requests for this type
of facilities and
places where they could go within the city and in general
when those
applicants come to them they're looking for places to put a
200 to 300,000
square foot building minimum so this limitation does
inhibit in that way a
lot of property that could be eligible for development with
that being said
staff is recommending approval of removing L34 from the
Employment Center
districts and I could answer any questions any questions
for Haley okay
thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you Jim Haley was there
any discussion among
staff with the other part of the limitation removing the
size and that but
where it talks about the screening and the loading ducks
being the back did you
have discussion over perhaps certainly entertaining them
and we currently have
standards that that accomplish those same goals within sub
chapter 13 we have
requirements for of course buffering between uses we
already require that
docs not be accessible or visible directly from the street
so all of those
same things are accomplished just in other places in the
code okay so
redundant yeah we're not removing any protections there
necessarily by
eliminating the location okay and then the way I read this
is this limitation
wasn't just two buildings that were 150,000 square feet it
's just they
couldn't be over 150,000 square feet exactly so I don't
quite follow the map
thing because so really we're removing any this from any
distribution center of
any size yes the intent with that exercise was just to see
at what point
would you start being limited so if you did have a property
that was 5.2 acres
that's when we would start seeing this because any site
smaller than that
couldn't even hold a facility that would this would apply
to okay okay thank you
any other questions for Haley okay thank you this is a
public hearing so if
there's anyone who would like to speak on this item please
come forward at this
time seeing none will close the public hearing and open the
floor for
discussion or motion
Commissioner Smith thank you chair motion approved DCA 18 -
0 0 0 2 okay
Commissioner back second okay we have a first and a second
for approval any
further discussion seeing none of clothes and call for a
vote on the board
most is going to carry seven zero and we'll move us to our
project matrix for
this evening
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair well I'm going to bring
up that notification
practice once again here as some questions came to light
today so I guess
I want to know who currently enforces it is that something
that maybe we can have
a discussion about to know how that is enforced and then I
know we have an
affidavit I believe that the applicant is supposed to
supply to the city can we
maybe get that in our backup materials that that was
received or get a copy of
it or something I know I don't want to be the sign police
even though I do drive
by all of our you know zoning issues but I would like to
know and you know who
is enforcing that so that things are properly done
certainly and it's our
responsibility to to to police that in this regard I
believe in this specific
case I believe they did submit an affidavit I can't tell
you I have
already updated the application and criteria as far as what
needs to be
posted and how and I sent that to to all of staff tonight
and we will be
reviewing that Monday morning at our staff meeting and so
once we finalize
that I will include that in the packet for the next PNC
meeting to review okay
thank you can I ask one more question if if an applicant
submits an affidavit
which is a notarized document and it is it compliant I mean
is there a do we
have a penalty or is there there's a requirement that it
needs to be
submitted prior to the to the meeting the way it's written
unfortunately it's
not a code requirement and so there's there's not a it's
not as tight as it
should be I mean there's not there's simply no other way to
put it so the the
what I attempted to do this evening is working to sort of
clarify that where
staff will be designating exactly where those signs need to
be located they'll
still be responsible for putting them up but we will be
able to tell them exactly
where to put them and how they need to be placed thank you
I look forward to
that update because I know we've made such good progress
forward I don't want
to go backwards now especially on something this absolutely
simple thank
you
anything else on the matrix this evening okay with that I
will close this at 7 10
thank you everyone