Apr 25, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-04-25 5:00 PM

- 5th, 2018. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present. We'll call our work session to order at five o'clock. Our first order of business will be to receive clarification of agenda items. So, and moving through, looks like we do not have any minutes. So we will go to our consent agenda. Does anyone have questions on the consent agenda? Which item? - Item C. - Item C, okay. I can't hear item A, so as long as we're not talking about item A, we're good. So, that will be Hayley. And if someone does have a question on A, no problem, just let me know and I'll step out. (man speaking off mic) Well, let's hear C and then we'll come back. - All right. - Did you want me to just go over the whole flat or did you have a specific question? - I just have a specific question and it's really just to clarify. What, it says on there, the Walmart expansion detention pond, there's an agreement. Just my question was between whom is the agreement? - My understanding is there's a historical agreement between Walmart and the owners of these properties to the south that they could drain their water into that pond, that it would be appropriately sized for that. - Okay, so the agreement's between. That's what I wanted to clarify. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. - Yeah, I have a question on the ESA. On that, that was established, I guess. When was that established, ESA? Does anybody have an idea? - I'm not sure the date of establishment. I know it dates back to prior to the development of lot one here to the south. - Okay. - So at least several years. But you see here, the outline area is the entire tree conservation area. That's where they'll be retaining their two and a half acres of the five acres of upland habitat that's on the site. - And that's going to be a, it's looking at, when they talk about ESA, they're talking about the cross timbers, right? - Yes, it's upland habitat. So they're remnant to the cross timbers. - Okay, now the quality, how is that defined? Because when I walked through there, I mean, when we talk about upland habitat, we're talking about your upland species, which I mean, your wooden species, which is primarily your oaks that you have in the Black Jacket Post Oak. But then when you look at the ground species, you really don't have a grassland species there. So my question is, how is this quantified, I guess? Because I would say it's in very bad condition. It's not a really good condition of example of a cross timbers ecosystem, because there's nothing there on the ground. - My understanding is it was confirmed to meet the minimum requirements to be considered upland habitat. And then to speak to it, the area they're preserving is on this portion of the site, because that makes it contiguous with the other remnants of that area. So overall, there will be more than just their two and a half acres left, which is the goal of that, to maintain as much contiguous tree canopy and upland habitat area as we can. But as to how, if they rank the quality of that somehow, I'm not aware of that. - Okay, I mean, I was just concerned that pretty much there's no grassland species on that thing . It's actually a pretty thicket underneath. So I was just curious how it was, you know, if there was like a good, medium or poor, and then given some kind of rating so that people could be able to say, okay, we're gonna give you this. If they had a good example of a cross timbers, they would get more points or whatever, as opposed to one that is a very poor example. So I was just curious about something like that. - I'm not aware of what ranking system they use. I know for their field assessment, they do have the standard forms that they use for those. But I'm not aware of any ranking system for the quality of habitat. - Any other question? Commissioner Beck. - Thank you, Chair. Yeah, on that, I was just asking Scott. Deborah Vieira, who is his assistant for environmental services, could probably, if anybody's rated it, she has. So if you know how to get ahold of her, she'd probably be a good one to ask on that. And that'd probably, I'd like to know myself for what it's worth. That's all I got. - Okay, and the other, I mean, the other question I had is how do you manage it? Being that it's, what I could see is a poor quality and we're retaining it. How are we gonna manage it for the future so that we keep a good quality cross timbers there? Because over time, if you look at what's in there, there's a lot of cedars and some other underground species that are more shade tolerant. They're gonna take over that area. So how do you manage it? We just identify it. But there's nothing there that tells people, okay, you're gonna have to do this, this, this, and this in order to maintain it. 'Cause these habitats or these ecosystems were maintained by fire. So just to put it out to the side and say, okay, this is what we're gonna do. We're gonna protect it, but don't manage it. We're gonna lose it over time anyway. - Call on Richard. - If I could just make a suggestion. Since Debra handles it, what I'd like to do is, if you can, I'm gonna have to make you bring it up again, but mention it when we get to the matrix, I'll add it to the matrix and I'll forward that to Debra so that she can prepare a response specific to it. - Okay, okay. - Well, I'll piggyback on Commissioner Sanchez. Just for clarification, that's gonna be privately owned. Is that correct? - That's correct. And just to speak briefly to it, to my knowledge, the only requirement in the code is that they maintain it in its current state. I don't know about the management of it, but they are required to not encroach on any of that two and a half acres in any means whatsoever. - Yeah, well, I knew that it's privately owned, but it's almost, you're forcing somebody to maintain something that over time you're gonna lose because it's not really the quality that, it's not really that high quality. - Yeah. - I agree, I've spoken out quite a bit about those. So that's the concern I've had about it for quite some time . So anyway, any other questions on item C? Okay, thanks, Haley. You have another one on this? - Yeah, I'm actually gonna recommend that the chair of scene probably step out for this one. And since because this, we no longer have a vice chair or a chair, if you guys wanna nominate the chair pro tem just for this one item. - We're gonna do that now or in there? - Well, in both. - Okay, so do I stay and vote on that? - No, no. - So neither you or Richard could just fill in this one time? - Well, just to conduct, continue conducting the meeting. We got to do it here and at the regular meeting as well. - Okay, I nominate Margie. (laughing) - I just said something. - Anybody else? - I say that nomination. (laughing) - All in favor? - All in favor. - All right. - Okay, so you can continue the discussion on this item. (singing) (laughing) - Okay, if I may, do I get recognized first? - Commissioner Beck. - Thank you, temporary vice chair. (laughing) - On the lot, this is something we dealt with either at the last PNZ or the one before that. Now, so what are we doing a little differently here? Because where I'm going with this is the one we're dealing with is right up against the service road, right? There we're dealing with? - That's correct. - Okay, where this is a part of a couple lots, there's another one, right? Just do each of it and that's gonna be a part of this development too, correct? - No, so what we have here, we've seen a preliminary plot and a site plan for this lot previously. So this is the medical office building at Rager. So the development will actually be on the southern half of this lot and I believe at a later date they'll probably do develop something similar on the northern half. - Okay, so this is the same thing we dealt with. Didn't we have a means of egress off of scripture there, which I don't see on this? - There will be a driveway there. - Okay, okay. I saw the other one on the other one, I thought, well, that was part of the bigger thing we're dealing with. - Yeah, their driveway will tie into this easement on the adjoining property and also to the south on scripture. - Thank you. - Any other questions on A? Commissioner? - Whatever your name is. This is Texas Oncology, right? - No, Texas Oncology is further to the east. Yes, yeah, this is a select medical here, I believe, and then on the opposite side of Heritage Trail is-- - To the east of it, and this is on the west side of the rehab hospital. - Yes, yes, Texas Oncology will be east of the rehab facility. - I was confused as to where we were talking. Thank you. - Anybody else? Questions on A? Okay, we'll call the chair back in. - Yes, sir. - Okay, any other questions on the consent agenda on any items? Okay, now we'll move us to our items for individual consideration. Call on Haley for presentation. Yep, Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair, can we back up just a second? If you're recusing on A, then are we doing consent agenda items individually then? Or are we gonna-- - I assume that I was just gonna step out. Y'all would do your temporary vote on the consent agenda, and when the consent agenda's approved, then I would come back. - Understood, thank you. - Thank you. - All right, this is an alternative development plan request for Iglesia Laramosa. So the request is for approval of an ADP to deviate from the non-residential and mixed use buildings in a pedestrian-oriented district standards within sub-chapter 13 of our code. The site is approximately nine and a half acres located on the north side of Windsor, just to the west of Bonnie Bray. Looking at the zoning, you'll see this property and the other vacant properties to the east of it are zoned neighborhood residential two, so our low-density residential district. The request is for the development of a church on this site to walk through quickly what they're proposing. They have approximately 12,000 square feet of buildings. It would be three separate buildings, the main church, kind of a Bible school or classroom building, and then a space for events. So the buildings you see here are outlined in orange. Other key features of the site, they are proposing a pedestrian plaza in between the street and the main church building that would contain a fountain, flag poles, and general walking and pedestrian space. Overall, their lot coverage would only total 13.5%. You see out of the total site, they're really only impacting about the southern third of it. They're proposing 75 parking spaces that would all be located here to the east of the buildings . Other key features, there is a floodplain, and both floodplain ESA and stream buffer ESA here on the north end that will be unaffected by the development. There is a gas well on an adjoining property, with this being a church, it is considered a protected use, so it has to maintain that 250-foot reverse setback. So you can see the radius here, only the parking and the detention pond would encroach into that setback. So with that site plan in mind, there's two standards that they're requesting to deviate from. When you have a pedestrian-oriented district, there's a requirement for non-residential buildings to have at least 60% of the street frontage have buildings within 10 feet of the property line. What they're proposing on that site plan, the closest building would be 42 feet back from the street. In lieu of pulling the buildings up to the street, they are proposing that pedestrian area with the fountain and the flag poles that I mentioned. The other standard they're requesting to deviate from is a requirement that the minimum floor area ratio be 4/10. Just to run the math with a lot of approximately nine and a half acres, that would require 164,000 square feet of building on this lot to meet that requirement. What they're proposing with the three small buildings at 12,000 square feet is an FAR of approximately 3/100, or .03. Just real quickly, 'cause floor area ratio isn't something we talk about very often. It's simply the ratio that you get when you divide the floor area of structures by the floor area of the lot. So for example here, if we had a 10 acre lot to meet that requirement of .4 for the FAR, like I said, you need 160 to 170,000 square feet of building. So it's just that simple division is how we get that number. So to look at some of the more specifics on the site, with this smaller footprint of building that they're requesting, it's allowing them to maintain a lot of the environmental features of this site. So all of the area that I outlined in dark green up here is area that would be completely undisturbed by this development. So they're maintaining a large number of trees that are on the back of the site that are within the floodplain and the ESA area. So, and the ESA totals about 2.7 acres of the site. They are also installing compatibility buffers as required by the code. So they have a type B buffer here between the church and the single family homes adjoining to the west. And then, my apologies, I think I got, I'm sorry. No, the west is the type C buffer. I've got my directions backwards there. So type C buffer between them and residential, and then a type B buffer is required between the non-residential use and the gas well. So that would be here along the eastern and western property boundaries. They're also meeting all of the street tree requirements in the front as well as the parking lot screening requirements. So overall, they've met and exceeded all of the landscaping requirements with this development. Some of our considerations. The intent of these pedestrian-oriented district standards is to encourage walkable urban-style development in areas that we would expect to have high pedestrian activity. The code does define a pedestrian-oriented district as every neighborhood residential district as well as our central business district. So it's actually a large part of the city that's considered pedestrian-oriented. But when looking at this a little deeper with the criteria for approval allowed for an ADP, one of those being preservation of existing neighborhoods, we found that this wouldn't be expected to have any negative impact on the surrounding homes. They're providing the required buffer. It's a very small-scale development. And in fact, by lowering the FAR and only developing those 12,000 square feet of buildings in lieu of 160,000, they're making it more neighborhood-scale and more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. They're not necessarily requesting to lower design standards with this development. They're choosing to develop the site in a way that allows them to preserve all the environmental features and maintain a smaller scale that's more consistent with the neighborhood. This is a property that's remained undeveloped for several years, so it would be contributing to this neighborhood in terms of the amenities there for the residents. All of the necessary infrastructure is in place with Windsor Drive and water and sewer lines being available along there. And then in terms of it resulting in a high-quality development, we found that the plaza area that they're proposing in front of the building does help meet the intent of being pedestrian-oriented, provides direct connectivity between the sidewalks on the street and the building. And then, as I mentioned, by not meeting the FAR requirements, they're actually making it more compatible and scale with the surrounding neighborhood. So staff is recommending approval of the request, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. - Commissioner Bec. - Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Haley, for that presentation. I just realized something I was looking at. The land north of this tract is on planned development. Now, this development, they're not gonna touch that ESA area at all, so it's gonna remain pristine, so to speak. And you may not be able to answer this. This may be a debravere question, so if you don't feel comfortable doing that, that's fine, I understand. Let me see if I can put this correctly. When they go in and do their development, they'll be able to alter that some, provided it meets certain criteria. In that move, when they do that, if that negatively impacts this more pristine area that's not being impacted, we got provisions for that to ensure that they'll be able to develop on this land, they have to preserve so many trees and protect the ESA and all that, but they're gonna impact it somewhere. The one on this tract of land isn't being impacted at all, so there could be negative consequences as a result of future development on the planned development area. So is that gonna be taken into consideration on the formula , or do you feel uncomfortable trying that? - No, I can speak to some generalities there. So in terms of the site to the north, it'll really depend on what their flood plan designation is . If it is within the 100-year flood plan, I believe the ESA flood plan regulations would also kick in . So what they would be allowed to do would depend on both the FEMA designation for the property and the ESA designation. So it's possible that they would have to go through something like an alternative ESA or a letter of map revision. So I'm not sure if they're proposing anything in that specific area, but they would have to meet those same requirements. And then just in terms of general requirements, they're not allowed to have a negative drainage impact on the site to the south. So there would be at least that control in place. - Okay, okay. We'll probably deal with that down the road. Just wanna get some help with that. I do have a couple other concerns. That buffer on the west side there, that doesn't include a fence, does it? Just trees and bushes? - Yeah, our landscape buffer requirements are strictly trees and shrubs. - Okay. And wasn't there a concern, we dealt with this earlier, this property, and it seemed like we had some residents come in and they were concerned about development here, how it would flood Windsor. Wasn't that a legitimate concern that we didn't have the drainage there? Am I thinking of something else? Does that ring a bell? - I'm not aware of a specific concern there. I know for this site, based on the data we've seen so far, the drainage and detention pond that they're providing would be sufficient to address the development here. - I did notice that we're gonna grade it back towards the north there. - Yeah, I believe that, yeah. - Okay, okay, but that's not an issue we need to worry about now as far as-- - Not that I'm aware of. - Okay, great, thank you. - Any other questions for Hailey? Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. Hailey, back to that buffer where the single-family homes are. So is there's no fence between this development and those property owners? - I believe the existing homes have fences along that property line. - So that would be the line, and then there would just be these trees? - That's correct, yeah. Our buffer requirements don't require a fence. They can install one if they choose to, but we don't require a fence at this time. - And how is it determined? I see you have six trees, 25. Is that what they're proposing, or is that what's required? - That's both. That's the code requirement, and they're meeting that number. - How's that figured? - I'm honestly not sure how we came up with that requirement, but it is a standard for each of our buffers. There's a set number of trees and shrubs per 100 linear feet. And typically the more intense the buffer, type C or D, requires more trees and less shrubs. The ratio kind of trades off as the buffer intensifies. - Okay. Another question I had. This is just feeding out into Windsor, correct? - In terms of access? - Yes. - Yes, their only driveway would be here on Windsor. Do you know what the services are planned there? I was just curious at what is the traffic flow in this development? - I haven't seen the traffic generation for this. I don't believe they triggered the requirements for a TIA with the small size of the development. But that is something that we'll look into with their site plan. The property's already plotted at this point, so when they get to a full site plan, engineering would review the traffic data. - Yeah, I know something was mentioned in there, a left turn lane that was required. So somebody must have done some kind of study. I think I read that on there. It might have been in the narrative that they provided. - I believe it was, yeah, you're correct. I think they were proposing a left turn lane on Windsor. - Okay. Okay, I think that's all I have at the moment, thanks. - Any other questions on this item? Okay, thank you, Hayden. - Sure, legal? - Yeah, so I'm gonna have to say that I misspoke when Council Member Ellis, you asked whether on item 2A on the consent agenda, whether we would have to take one individual because of the abstention. And I was confirmed with the 229 of our code ordinances, a member can't abstain from a vote if they don't have a conflict or for other reasons. And so that would require us to take a separate vote for A, then when the chair came back, the council could, the commission could vote on B and C. So those present, not including the abstention, would vote on A, then we have a separate vote for B and C. - Okay, we got it. All right, that will move us from our items for individual consideration. To our public hearing section for later this evening. And item A, we'll call on Hayley for a presentation and then Cindy Jackson for the next item. - So this is a replant for the 510 villas. The property is approximately 10 and a half acres located on the west side of Fort Worth Drive. It is just south of Collins Street, which is here to the north around these apartments. What they're proposing is two lots, the northern lot is intended for a mixed use development, multifamily and commercial along Fort Worth Drive. Not aware of any specific plans for lot two at the moment, but this is a replant. It was actually two lots at one point. The former lot line for lot one was this general area here. And then lot two was the back portion of the property, this southern piece here. And this northern portion was just over two acres that was previously unplatted property. So we're combining or reconfiguring two platted lots and a portion of unplatted property. - Commissioner Beck. - Thank you, Chair, sorry. - Okay, could you, with your cursor, could you draw that line and show us what we're looking at? - Certainly. So what we have, the proposal, this line down the middle would subdivide a lot one on the north, lot two on the south. The original configuration, we had unplatted property just over two acres up here. Lot one of the original plat was this area here. And then lot two was all of this back area and the southern piece. - Okay, so we're going to one lot? - Two lots. - Two lots, okay. Now is lot one still that line? - Lot one is this entire northern. - Okay, so that line going through the middle there, that was, I guess, the previous one. - This is the existing plot line. - No, above that, yes, that. That's not a boundary line for lot one? - That is the existing boundary of lot one of the original plat that's being removed by this plot. - Okay, thank you. - Thank you. - Any other questions for Haley on this item? Okay, thank you, Haley. Okay, Z17-0034 is a request for approval to rezone a 0.81 acre property from the RCCN district to the RCCD district. You can see the site right here, bordered by yellow. The site is located generally on the northeast side of I-35 and about approximately 627 feet southeast of Mayhill. The quick trip is here and then Dickies and then the care facility is here. This shows the current zoning map and the site zoning as RCCN. And if the site, if this is request approved, this shows how the map will look with the site rezoned to RCCD. The subject area has a land use designation of regional mixed use. This designation is typically located along the I-35 interchanges. It's also located along primary arterials and it's intended for regional uses such as shopping centers, large multifamily uses, car dealerships. The applicant is proposing actually to use the site for a car dealership and the types of uses and scale of development that are permitted in the requested RCC district, they do conform to the goals of the regional mixed use designation. The RCCD district would actually be a continuation of the existing RCCD district that surrounds the area. Directly next door to the east is the RCR1 district and then on the south on the other side of I-35 is RCCN. And then somewhat back off of the freeway we've got NR4 and NR2 right here which is part of Unicorn Lake. The uses permitted in the RCCD district are consistent with the uses that exist in the area today which include automobile sales and service, offices, hospitality and restaurant and commercial uses. Access to the site will be taken from I-35 service road. Water and sewer is available from the site. I-35 is designated freeway and Mayhill Road is a primary arterial roadway. So the site has plenty of access available. Six certified notices were sent out to areas within 200 feet of the property with property owners within 200 feet of the property on April 8th and 14 courtesy notices were sent out to properties within 500 feet of the notice of the subject site. And as of today we've not received any responses to them. The DDC has two criteria for approval of a zoning request. One is that the request, the proposal conforms to the future land use designation and this request does indeed conform to the future land use designation. And one is that it facilitates the provision of infrastructure. The infrastructure is already in place. The site was originally developed as a gas station. It has since been closed and the tanks have been removed. However, it does still have water and sewer available. That concludes my presentation. - Questions? I have one question, how are we treating all these rezon ings in tying them into the future zoning map with the DDC update that's coming? - With the rezonings, these people will be vested in the use standards and development standards that we are currently under. - Okay. - So the site will be rezoned to whatever the designation will match the future land use. However, they are vested in our rules today. - Okay. And I think maybe staff might have some further input or clarification on that with the DDC update. I don't know if you wanna take that up now or with the DDC update. - Do you wanna do that when I'm finished with my presentation? - Yeah, I mean, it's my mission. I have to try and fix it. - Okay. Commissioner Beck. - Thanks, I'm glad you asked that question, Chair, 'cause that was going through my mind too. But it seems to, even though it's gonna go by the existing rules, it seems like it would fit that corridor along that line. That's the only reason I wasn't too concerned about but I'm glad you asked that. And I guess there'll be some more clarification from Ron when he comes up, so. - It will, and it conforms with our new Denton plan, future land use designation, which is what our zoning is modeled after. Just for clarification, where I was going with that is that I know we've developed what's gonna be the rezone of the whole city based on what current zonings are. And if they're changing their zoning, I wanted to just bring it to light that we go back and look at whatever they're zoning to is in either comparable or better than what they may currently be shown as in the rezoning map. That the update in zoning they get now is the same, but it's not one of those blocks, well, it was this and our future zoning kept it in that category and it kind of-- - Exactly. So the applicant, whatever they choose to do with this, if they decide to redevelop it, they can stay with our current regulations or they have a choice of going with the new regulations when the time comes. - Okay, great. - Thank you. - Just to clear, this will, it's anticipated now to be highway commercial, which is, okay. But honestly, the most intense that we wouldn't have throughout the city. - Okay, great. Any other questions for Cindy on this item? - Okay. - I think that will take us through our agenda items. So we will go back now to our work session reports. I assume Ron's gonna make that presentation before you get started, how long is your presentation? Do we need to stop and break? - Be really short. - Okay. - Really short. - Well, go ahead. - So just really quickly, this is an opportunity to brief the PNZ of the subcommittee, the DCRC Development Code Review Committee's actions or discussions. Last week, we met on the 18th and really, we just covered the subchapters, subchapters six, seven, and eight, similar to what you all discussed with Clarion when they were here. And just high level, we talked about fencing, the use of chain link, landscaping, and even solid waste. But we didn't really get into details. The hope is that when we have our meeting, actually our next meeting is tomorrow with the committee and we'll be focusing on subchapter one, starting with that. And at that point, we'll go a little bit more into details page by page and answering and presenting that subchapter. So really not an update other than we discussed, again, six, seven, eight, very high level with Clarion when they were here. And our next meeting, again, is tomorrow. After that, we should have a little bit more information as far as presenting back to the Planning, Zoning Commission. As it relates to the question earlier with the zoning, we, when I say we, staff collectively understand that any rezoning that's going forward, we have to pay really strict attention to it because we don't wanna be approving something and I'll find out later with the proposed rezoning, it's changed dramatically. What we're doing also is making sure that we keep track of these approvals, go back and verify our proposed or draft zoning map so that, again, if there's something that's changed or is proposed to change, we address it before the code gets updated or before the map gets updated and considered by City Council. Yeah. - Any questions? I've got a couple. Can you share with us what the process is gonna be as we continue going through these code updates? As far as what sort of public input city staff or commissions are getting, these subcommittees from citizens, property owners, say, okay, we reviewed it, we have some questions or concerns and is there gonna be some type of comments, red lines type draft that at some point comes back, we have the information come before the commission and say, we've sent it out, we've gotten 100 comments, here's what we've done to address them and here's how we've changed it. Can you-- - Sure, no, that's a great question, it's the last comment. We also had the same request from the committee. We are currently in a series of public open houses where people can come in and ask questions. We are tracking every comment through comment cards. Those comment cards are available at the public open houses. They can come to our offices and we fill out the same comment cards. Ultimately, what we want is to have these comments in a spreadsheet and that spreadsheet is what we will produce to the subcommittee and also the PNZ if as requested. At that spreadsheet, we will identify those common comments . We will then forward those comments to our consultants and use it with staff to redraft or revise the next official draft and that next official draft is what we're calling a consolidated draft. So currently we have a public draft which is online which people have the opportunity to review and provide comments. Again, through the comment cards, through email, through phone call, any information that are, request questions they may have, they can present it to the staff. We will then again add it to our spreadsheet. Spreadsheet gets consolidated or compiled, forwarded to our consultants and they will use that with staff to draft the next version which is the consolidated draft. And at that point, hopefully you will see where the changes have occurred based on the comments we've received and we'll have a red line. The consultants are prepared to do that. - Okay, there's a follow-up to that. That's great to hear and I think that's like a great approach. Can you give us an idea approximately how many comment cards or emails that you've gotten from the general public so far ? - Sean, if he can let me, he's the one he's actually compiling it. I forward it to him. Every email I get, Sean, here you go. If you can come up here. And by the way, this is Sean Jacobson. He is our new assistant planner, prior intern for the planning division, so Sean Jacobson. - Good evening. So I'm giving you an estimate but what we have in this spreadsheet as of now, I would say we're approaching 50 to 60 comments and we've been gathering those actually since the very beginning of this process. So that includes every email, phone call and comment card we've received. Actually added one today, someone called in and then he had his brother call in to say the same thing 'cause they really wanted to get that message across. We record all of that as well as our responses to those individuals should that be of interest to them. - Great, thank you. - Just to add to that too, and we're also gonna be adding this to the spreadsheet, we've met that is with the developers, DCDA committee or alliance and they've forwarded us their comments as well. So we have copies of that so we'll be folding that in as part of the spreadsheet. So again, everything's gonna be in this spreadsheet again so that everyone can see what those comments are and then we'll be using that to monitor what we do with those comments. - Great. Commissioner Sullivan. - So we're not gonna have another kind of a snafu, I think that we had once before when there were all these comments and the developer or whoever it was said, oh yeah, we took all that into consideration and yet they hadn't. And so every comment's gonna be considered and looked at and talked about, addressed. - Yes, yes, so the idea there is if there's common comments , we will compile those and those will obviously be something we will address individually. - Okay, thank you. - Is there something? No? You look like you're pondering whether you're gonna ask a question or not. (laughing) - I mean, was there something that I missed with the DCRC that we discussed? - Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. No, Ron, as a matter of fact, I asked the same question you asked, Chair, which was how are we compiling these comments? So, and I can add this, I am on another committee where Sean has been present and he is an excellent data compiler. I have seen him in action multiple times. So I believe that spreadsheet's in good hands. I look forward to seeing it. - Twice, permanent staff. - Yep. (laughing) - Great. - All right. - Any other questions for Ron? - Thank you all. - I like how you're doing a great job, thank you. Okay. With that, I'm gonna close our work session at 5.42 and we will reconvene in council chambers at 6.30. Thank you. - Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April 25th, 2018. This meeting's been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at this time at 6.33. Our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge to the US and the Texas flags. - I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. - Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. I will take us to our consent agenda and we're gonna split our consent agenda into item two A and then follow with item two B and C. I as chair have a conflict of interest on item A and so at this time I'm gonna step out and I'm gonna turn it over to Commissioner Alice. - Okay, thank you chair. With the chair's recusal, we will consider consent agenda item A, consider request by Prime Denton Properties LLC for approval of a final plaque. - And I will entertain discussion or motion. Commissioner Beck. - Motion that we approve FP 170032. - Commissioner Sullivan. - I second that. - Okay, we have a motion to approve and a second. Any discussion? Okay, let's call for a vote. Motion will carry four to zero. We can call the chair back in. - Thank you chair. - Okay, thank you everyone. Sorry to have to split that and take a little more time. That will pick up now on our consent agenda items B and C. The chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you chair. And I will move to approve consent agenda item B and C. - Okay, thank you. Commissioner Beck. - Second. - Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion's gonna carry five to zero. That will take us to our agenda this evening, our individual items for consideration. This time I'll call on Haley Zagorski for item A ADP 18-0001. - Good evening, this is item ADP 01 for Iglesia Lahermosa. The request before you is for approval of an ADP to deviate from two of the requirements within our non-residential and mixed use standards for pedestrian oriented districts. The site is a 9.43 acres located on the north side of Windsor Road to the west of Bonnie Bray. The current zoning for the property is neighborhood residential two districts, so low density residential. Looking at what is proposed, we have approximately 12,000 square feet of buildings. The building would be subdivided into the three areas you see outlined in orange on the map. It would consist of a church, a Bible school building, and a room for events. Overall, the proposal is equivalent to 13 and a half percent lot coverage, so 86.5% of the site will remain natural or landscaped area . They require a total of 75 parking spaces for the use that are proposed to the east of the buildings. Some other key features, on the north end of the property, there is a significant area of a flood plain and environmentally sensitive area that's all being left intact with no disturbance. And just to the east of the property on the adjoining parcel is a gas well site. So due to this being a church, that is considered a protected use. And they do have a 250 foot reverse setback. So you can see the red arrow is the measurement from the pad site boundary into the property. And then that arc represents the 250 foot radius that the buildings had to stay outside of. So the specific requests associated with this site plan, the first is a requirement that at least 60% of the street frontage have buildings within 10 feet of the property line. The closest building shown on that site plan is about 42 feet from the property line. In front of the building, to make it a pedestrian friendly space, they've proposed a plaza that would include sidewalks, a fountain, and flag poles. Just to give you a comparison, if they were to meet that 60% requirement, that would be 271 feet of building, which exceeds the frontage of all of the buildings they're proposing combined. The second requirement is that in pedestrian oriented districts, there'd be a minimum floor area ratio of 0.4. In this case, with a property of 9.43 acres, that would equate to just over 164,000 square feet of building area. What they've proposed is an FAR of 0.03, which is the equivalent of the 12,000 square feet of building. Just a quick summary of floor area ratio is the result of dividing the total floor area of structures by the total area of the lot. So for a 10 acre lot, see here to get to that 0.4 FAR required, it would be around 170,000 square feet of building in this example. Looking a little more detail on what they've proposed, as I mentioned, they're leaving a significant amount of the site undisturbed. That's the area outlined in dark green on the map that contains a wooded area flood plain and then riparian buffer and flood plain ESA. The ESA itself equates to approximately 2.78 acres out of the total. They are providing the required compatibility buffers on both the East and West property line between the church and the single family homes, they're required to type C buffer. So that buffer is required to and is proposed to contain six trees and 25 shrubs for each hundred feet. And then on the opposite side of the site, where they about the gas well, which is an industrial use, they have a type B buffer that's required to contain five trees and 30 shrubs for every 100 linear feet. Some other landscaping features, they do meet all of the street tree and parking lot screening and parking lot landscaping requirements as well. So the intent of our pedestrian oriented districts is to encourage walkable urban style development in areas where we anticipate there'd be high pedestrian activity. The code goes on to define pedestrian oriented districts as all of the central business district, as well as all of the neighborhood residential zoning districts. So even in cases like this, where we have primarily single family, Windsor is not a high pedestrian traffic area, that designation still applies. Looking at the criteria for approval of an ADP, the first being preservation of existing neighborhoods. Through our analysis, staff found that this wouldn't be likely to have any negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, by deviating from the high FAR requirement, they're actually providing a development that's more neighborhood scale and consistent with the development in this area and those single family homes. The second criteria is to assure quality development. We didn't find that their proposal is seeking to lower the design standards in any way, they're just proposing a smaller scale development that's more consistent with the neighborhood and allows for the preservation of all the key environmental features on site. As far as the next requirement, focusing new development to activity centers, this is kind of an infill property, it's remained undeveloped for a significant amount of time, so this wouldn't be contributing to the sprawl of the city in any way. All of the necessary infrastructure is in place along Windsor Drive. And to speak to a question that came up in work session about the left turn lane, I looked into that a little bit further and they've given preliminary traffic data to the city's traffic engineer to determine if that will be a requirement or not. And then the final standard is that the result is a high quality development that meets the intent of the code. By providing the plaza area as they proposed, they're still providing that direct pedestrian connectivity from Windsor to the development. And as I mentioned before, by lowering the FAR of the site, they're actually making their development more consistent and less imposing on the surrounding neighborhood. With that, staff is recommending approval of the request and I'd be happy to answer any other questions. Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Haley. One thing I forgot to ask at work session, currently in our backup, it says the congregation is 150 parishioners, but the church is being built to seat 300 to allow room for the congregation to grow. There's only 75 parking places now. I would imagine that's not going to work if the congregation does double like that. So is there room there to build additional parking? - There could be room for additional parking with how large the site is. The code requirement is one parking stall per four seats. So they've allowed for that maximum of 300 seats meets the current code requirement. - Doesn't seem like that would be enough for 300 parishioners. Okay, thank you. - Commissioner Sanchez. - Are they gonna be required to put a sidewalk along their property? - Yes. - Okay. - Yes, that will be part of the development. - So as that area gets developed, they'll run a sidewalk all on that end of the, that side of the road? - Yeah, generally as each parcel develops, it's responsible for providing the sidewalk along its frontage. - 'Cause there's a lot of people that walk from those neighborhoods down to North Lakes. You see them all the time running, jogging. So it'd be important that we have good sidewalks on that. - Yes, yeah, and they will be providing the sidewalks along their frontage and then concurrently as each piece develops, unless the CIP project comes along for that. They'll be developed piece by piece. - Okay. - Any other questions for Haley? Commissioner Beck. - Thank you, Chair. Are we gonna have a representative for the project? - For next, yes sir. - Yeah, the applicant is here if there are any questions. - Okay, great. Okay, thank you, Haley. This item is for individual consideration. So if the applicant's here, be happy to have you come and tell us about your project. And if you're satisfied with staff presentation, that's fine too. - My name's Craig Bond, I'm with KJE. We're the engineer. He's a believer, he's gonna be the pastor at the church. I don't really have anything to add other than what Haley says, he does a great job. - Great. - Let me see. - If you have any questions that you might-- - I have one question so far, Commissioner Beck. - Thank you, Chair, thank you. Craig, what was your last name? - Craig Bond. - Bond, okay, thank you for coming up. Couple of things. I didn't see anything on this plan about heading west on Windsor, maybe cutting in a little area before you pull into the drive. Is there any plans of doing that so it doesn't impact, not that Windsor right now is a high traffic area, but maybe-- - We talked to the engineering staff and they thought that we could get by without a right turn lane. - Okay. - But they want us to put in a left turn lane. - Right, got that, that's a good thing. But you don't see any future possibility of putting in that little extra right turn lane going west on Windsor? Not now? - Probably rather not, because of the expense. And since folks will only be showing up probably on Wednesdays and Sundays, we don't anticipate a whole lot of traffic outside of those hours. - Okay. One other thing I would like to address, and I'm gonna say a little bit on it before we actually go on it, but just you're aware of the oil well, the gas well that's nearby, right? - Correct. - Any concerns there about that at all? I mean, about being that close to, there is a lot of research out lately that these things are becoming more of a concern than they were previously when we set these setbacks up. But I mean, is everybody fully aware of any potential? - We've met with the pastor several times. He's aware of the-- - Everybody feels comfortable. - And I don't think he has any issues with it. - Okay, okay. Well, I didn't wanna, and that's fine. I think this is a good project. I plan on voting for it. But I do have a concern, so I'll say something on it before we vote. But that's all I have for you. Thank you, sir. - I have one other question that's come up. Commissioner Sullivan. - Thank you, Chair. I just wanna let you know, I find it somewhat refreshing that you're not trying to put every square inch under concrete, trying to squeeze everything you can out of it to build another building or another house or another whatever. And so I appreciate the fact that y'all wanna have a nice big open area for your church. I think it's gonna add to the neighborhood. So I appreciate that. - All right, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. - Thank you, sir. - Thank you. - This is an item for individual consideration. I don't have any cards for anyone who wishes to speak on this item. And so with that, if there's no one else that would like to address this item, we will move on to discussion or motion. Okay. Commissioner Begg. - Thank you, Chair. This is a little out of the norm for me, so I appreciate your tolerance on this. This is an area, I'm probably part of that citizen group that is concerned about developments close to gas wells. We've got setbacks established and that's fine. The city is aware of the problems involved. I think we've addressed them okay. And your development, it's a good development. I'm glad to see that land filled over there. The ADP that's been offered here appears to fall within the realm of our development code that allows this and this technically, there's no reason for me to oppose it and I don't plan on doing it. But I am gonna say a few comments. I'm a little concerned about these kind of developments because they are close to gas wells. So if you'll bear with me on this, I'll get through this as quickly as I can. The decision to build next to an existing gas well to the east of your property runs the risk of creating health and safety issues for the church's congregation. Though this development falls within the setback guidelines allowed by the city, it still remains close enough over time to generate health issues for everyone who frequents this area. The setback limits that were established just a few short years ago are already being shown insufficient to prevent greater lung and cancer diseases. This however is an issue that hopefully one day soon will be addressed by local authorities and including our city council. A recent cumulative study from the Colorado School of Public Health, Boulder County Public Health and Colorado University at Boulder where they have a lot of gas wells, concluded the following . We found that air pollutant concentrations increased with proximity to an oil and gas facility as did health risk. Acute hazard indices for neurological, hematological and developmental health effects indicate that populations living within 500 feet of oil and gas facilities could experience these health effects from inhalation exposure to benzene and alkanes. The potential for contracting leukemia, endocrine disruptions, asthma, preterm birth and fetal death is significantly enhanced. The study also found that cancer risks were eight times higher than the EPA's upper level threshold, risk threshold at these close proximities. Now whether anyone associated with this church actually encouraging these ill health conditions over time is not absolute. But as a public servant, as a part of this commission who is concerned about the welfare of all of its citizens, I would just feel remiss that if I didn't share this for the public record. So I just wanted to be out there. In the words of an old adage, to be forewarned is to be forewarned. So having said that, I feel less guilty about voting for now anyway. So thank you, Chair. - Okay. Any other discussion? Okay, that chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Sanchez. - I make a motion to accept item A, which is ADP 18-001. - Move for approval. - Move for approval, yes. - Okay, we have a motion for approval. Commissioner Beck. - And with my reluctance as stated, I'll second that motion. - Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. (clears throat) Motion carries five to zero. That will move us to our public hearing section this evening. This time I'm gonna open the public hearing for FR 17-0007. We'll call on Haley for presentation of this item. Good luck on your project. (clicks tongue) All right. So this request is for approval of a final replat of the 510 Villas project. The replat includes two lots, total of approximately 10.5 acres. The property is located along Fort Worth Drive, approximately 1,000 feet south of Collins Street. As I mentioned, it's two lots, so the lot line dividing lot one and two is approximately here in the middle of the property. Lot one is intended for a mixed use development, including multifamily and commercial development along Fort Worth Drive. Lot two, there are no immediate plans for development at this time, to my knowledge. The replat is of two lots and some unplatted property, so this northern portion of lot one was previously unplatted, approximately two acres. The original lot one within the paint addition was this area that outlined here, and then the back portion of the property and the southern piece was the original lot two of the paint addition. The property is zoned Downtown Commercial General. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have about the plot. - Okay, see no questions. Thank you, Havie. - Thank you. - Is the applicant here? Would they like to speak on this item? Okay. Please give us your name and address, and then before you leave, if you'll fill out one of our cards for us. Let's see, we'd appreciate it. - Yes, sir. My name is Matt Kane with Kane Click Engineering, 325 North St. Paul, Suite 2850, Dallas, Texas. We work with staff on coming together with this plot application, and we're working on the site plan. There's no conditions in this. We've been, staff's been very helpful in getting us to where we are at this point. If you guys have any questions, we're here to answer them. Anything you guys might have. - Great. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Anyone to speak on this item? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. I move approval of FR 17. - Commissioner Sanchez. - I second it. - Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on board. Motion's gonna carry five to zero. That will move us to our next item, B. I'm gonna open the public hearing for Z 17-0034. We'll call on Cindy Jackson for presentation. - Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Z 17-0004 is a request for approval of a rezoning of a 0.81 acre site from RCCN to RCCD. The site is located on the northeast side of I-35E. You can see it outlined in yellow here. Approximately 627 feet southeast of Mayhill Road, which is located here. This shows the current zoning map with the current zoning on the site of RCCN. And this shows the proposed zoning map if this is approved with the site zoning changed to RCCD. The site is designated regional mixed use. Regional mixed use is a land use that is primarily along I-35 frontage and arterials. The intent of the regional mixed use is to have development that is cohesive and it has a regional draw. Types of uses that are usually in this type of district are auto dealerships, hotels, large regional centers like Razor Ranch, multifamily, that kind of thing. The types and uses of scale development, which are permitted in the requested RCC district do conform to the regional mixed use land use designation. The requested RCCD district would be a continuation of the existing RCCD. That is, as you can see on this map, is located on the entire north side, just about the entire north side of I-35 in this area. The property next to it is RCR1 and then the property on the south side of I-35 is zoned RCCN. The use is permitted in the RCC district. They are consistent with the uses that exist in the area. The applicant plans to use this site for an auto dealership and there are several auto dealerships in this area. The site takes access from the I-35 service road right here , which is designated freeway. And then the adjacent Mayhill Road is designated as a primary arterial. There is water and sewer already available at the site. The site is developed with a gas station. That gas station has been vacant for several years and the tanks have been pulled out. So it does have water and sewer out to site. Six notices were sent out within 200 feet via certified mail and 14 notices were sent out via regular mail within 500 feet of the property and we have received no response to either of those notices . A sign was also posted and we did have a legal notice in the paper. Staff recommends approval of this request. The RCCD district is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030 and it is also compatible with the surrounding property in terms of permitted uses. That concludes my presentation and the applicant is present if you have any questions. - Any questions for Cindy? Okay, thank you. If the applicant's here, you're more than welcome to come down and speak on your project if you'd like and if not, you're not required to. - We are here. - Okay, you're welcome to address us if you'd like and if you don't want to, you're not required to. - We got the tenant, I'm the business advisor. - Okay, just give us your-- - The tenant, David Zygo. - If you'll give us your name and your address, we'll have one speaker at a time. - Okay, I'm David Zygo. I help put together the applicant. The city's been very helpful, the folks have been very, very helpful at getting this done and what I look forward to seeing due to you is taking a vacant property and improving it. The building's gonna be improved and the whole lot's gonna be improved and it's gonna bring business to the area. - Great. - Okay. - Thank you. If you'll fill out a card for us before you go, we'd appreciate it. - Good afternoon, my name is Carlos Sandoval. My address is 114, Staline Lane, Hickory Creek, Texas 75, 065. And I'm the owner of Lake City Investment. I'm trying to help on this lot right here. You know, you guys allowed me. And David Zygo, he'd be helping with the whole development and I appreciate the city too. - Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Beck, you have a question? - Yes, I do. Thank you, too. - Oh, yes. - Oh, I'm sorry. - One question for you, yes. Thank you for sharing that with us. I think this is, I'm glad to see this site being filled up too. Is this a used car lot or new car sales? - Used car lot. - Used car lot, okay. - All right, that's all I wanted. Thank you. - Thank you. Thank you. - Hello, my name is Andy Fringe. I'm the owner of the property, Melissa Investments LLC. And it needs substantial improvement. I'm working with these gentlemen to do it and they've done a lot of cleanup. I did have the gasoline tanks removed several years ago. Got a clean bill of help from the state. Right next to the property is Hyundai dealer and they have used cars there for sale. This is used car lot, but they have their used cars for sale. Actually parking some on my property right now. - Okay, do you have one question for you? Commissioner Beck, is that still or is that just leftover? Leftover, okay, no question. Thank you. If you'd fill out a card for us before you leave that seat, we'd appreciate it. - I will, thank you. - Thank you, sir, for coming out. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to come forward and speak on this item at this time, please do so. Anyone else want to speak on this item? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Beck. - Thank you, Chair. I move to approve Z170034. - Okay, Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair, second. - Okay, I have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. Motion is gonna carry five, zero. Congratulations and good luck with your project. You're welcome. That will move us to our final agenda item tonight, which is gonna be our project matrix. Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. I'm gonna go ahead and bring up what I brought up last time . Do we have an update on the sign enforcement process? Or can I request that we get one? - I can provide that to you. I'll have it for the next meeting. - Okay, I'd appreciate that, thanks. - Not a problem. - Anybody else? Commissioner Sanchez. - I'd like to have two discussions. One of them, as we discussed in our earlier meeting about the ESA and have staff kind of talk to us a little bit about the issue that I had brought up. And also like to discuss a little bit on roundabouts on our mobility plan, talk a little bit about that. Those are the two issues I think are. - Okay, I'll discuss with Debra to provide sort of an outline of the issues that were brought up in the work session with respect to that application. And then also give sort of an overall view of how it's monitored and what happens if it is deterior ated. With respect to the roundabouts, I'll reach out to Pre-Tim. I know he and I have spoke about him coming in and just giving an overall overview along with the mobility plan and kind of how it all fits together along with the impact fees. And once we do the traffic analysis, what I wanted him also to do is to talk about the traffic model that we do have and the components of that and how we're now sort of gathering data. With that, I'll have him include roundabouts. But I will provide a response back as far as a date. I know he's been trying to ramp up with some additional staff, so his time is somewhat limited. But I will check with him again and get back to you by the next meeting with hopefully a date where he'll be at a work session. - Okay. Commissioner Beck. - Thank you, Chair. Just, this is more thinking out loud and kind of in conjunction with the request to have Deborah Behr come over and give us kind of a rating on that ESA off Brinker Road. Would that be something that maybe when we're dealing with a project, a development, that's gonna have Upland Habit had on it or ESA, if we don't have a current rating on it, that maybe Deborah can be at these meetings to, like in this case, we could have kind of posed that question to her right then and pop it to her. I know she's busy and I don't wanna lay extra work on her, but would that be a possibility that if a similar situation like this arises, that she'd be on hand? - I can discuss it with her, but I also would wanna talk with Victor a little bit, 'cause I know we have specific criteria in which to sort of approve a project. If that's not one of them, I would be a little just cautious into bringing something else that has a whole separate, the alternate ESA has a whole separate process, but we could certainly look into generalities with respect to it. I don't know if Victor has anything else to add. - Just a thought I thought I'd throw out there. Thank you. - No, it's definitely something we can talk about or maybe even have her present for questions maybe, but we'll work on it. - Okay. Anything else for our matrix? Okay. Seeing none, I will close our meeting this evening at 7.06. Thank you everyone for coming out.