Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, November 17th, 2021. This is our work session and with the quorum present,
I will call us to order at 5.02 p.m. I'll let the record show that Commissioners Cole
and Smith are absent at this time. First item on the agenda is citizen comment on consent
agenda items. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on that? And staff, is there
anyone on the phone for that? No, there's not. Okay, thank you. That will move us to
our work session reports. Our first one, 2A, is receive a report, hold a discussion regarding
fire and emergency response planning related to new development. Hi. Good evening. How
are you doing tonight? Doing well. Thank you for being here. My name is Megan Chuth and
I am the assistant fire marshal. I'm David Becker, assistant fire chief and fire marshal.
So tonight we have prepared a presentation, hopefully that will address some of the issues
that I think have come up in past Commission meetings. So I'll start with our part in development
review. The fire department is involved in all parts of development review from pre-development
through projects, through building permits, all the way through inspections and final
inspections. We're a member of the city's development assistance team. So we are part
of those internal meetings with other city departments. We are a part of all of the pre-development
meetings as well as any applicant meetings and we review all of the projects that come
through. Our role in these meetings is to provide feedback to developers on ensuring
that they meet compliance with our adopted fire code, which is the 2012 international
fire code with amendments. We're hoping to adopt the 2021 code in February. So the two
main items that we review in the development phase is water and access. For water, we're
just checking to make sure that there's a hydrant close to the building. The code requires
it to be within 400 feet. That distance increases to 600 feet if the building is sprinkler.
We also check hydrants in residential developments to make sure that they're spaced out on average
of 500 feet. For access at a minimum, the fire code requires a 20-foot fire lane that
reaches within 150 feet of all portions of the building. If a building is sprinkler,
that can be extended. And we look at those on a case-by-case basis. If the building is
over 30 feet in height, then we require aerial apparatus access, which is a 26-foot fire
lane situated 15 to 30 feet from the building. And that is to assist in ladder deployment.
So the fun part. The fire code dictates when two points of access are required for development.
If it is a commercial development, two points of access are required if the building is
over 30 feet in height or over three stories. If a property has multiple buildings and the
building area is over 62,000 square feet, or if it's a large building or if all the
buildings are sprinkler, that goes up to 124,000 square feet. Then two points of access are
required. For residential, more than 100 dwelling units requires two points of access, unless
all of the buildings are sprinkler. So if it's an apartment complex and they have a
clubhouse, everything has to be sprinkler. Then it can go up to 200. But any multifamily
developments that have more than 200 dwelling units has to have two points of access. For
one- and two-family dwelling developments, over 30 dwelling units requires two points
of access. There is an exception for that if all of the homes are sprinkler. Then only
one point of access is required. And just a little side note, that is a different type
of sprinkler system than like a commercial sprinkler system. It's connected to the domestic
water. It's a much lower cost sprinkler system that the intent is not to save property, but
to save lives. So when two points of access are required, the code requires that they
meet remoteness. With the exception of multifamily apartments, this is not required to me for
apartments. However, in the 2021 code, that changes and apartments will be, multifamily
is included in having to meet remoteness. So when we adopt the 2021 code, this will
apply to any time two points of access is required. So remoteness refers to, I'm going
to try to explain this the best I can, but I do have pictures that help. Remoteness refers
to the distance of the two access points and it has to be equal or greater than the total
diagonal distance of the lot or area to be served. So again, I think pictures help so
much more with this. This is kind of an easy one, but this is single family development
over 30 homes. So two points of access are required. We take the total diagonal dimension,
which is the diagonal measurement of the lot is 1400 feet. Half of that is 700. So that
means their two access points have to be more than 700 feet apart. And you can see here
they have access points, two access points on Mills Road that are 800 feet apart. So
they meet remoteness. As we know, a lot of lots are not this simple and we do have to
get creative sometimes when applying remoteness. It's not always just a nice square or rectangle
of that. I think what we're looking for is to make sure that they meet the intent of
the code. So let's look at one more that I know has been a subject of discussion. This
is a development between Buckees and the South Ridge Village Shopping Center. It's a very
long narrow lot and the developer was having a really challenging time meeting two points
of access. This development is a one multi-story building, but just one building. It is over
30 feet in height, so it requires two remote points of access. So since the code specifically
says that that diagonal measurement is for the lot or area to be served, we consider
the building to be the area to be served. On the backside of the property, it's just
access roads. So what we did was in order to try to assist this developer, we measured
the diagonal distance of the building, which was 650 feet. Take half of that, that's 325
feet, and that was the distance that their two access points had to be apart. So they
have one access point up on I-35 Frontage Road and they were able to get a second access
point that connected to the fire lane of the South Ridge Village Shopping Center. So again,
maybe not like the previous example, but again, it's us trying to work with developers so
that lots don't become undevelopable based on them requiring two points of access. And
we felt like this was a good example because it truly does meet the intent of the code
where the fire department has access and we can come in off the frontage road or off Lillian
Miller and through the fire lane and the shopping center.
Can I stop you there for just one second? He's got a question it looks like. Commissioner
Anderson.
Yeah, I do have a quick question. This remoteness, the apartment complex, I'm glad you brought
that up because I had it on my notes here to write down. When did this little second
entrance become, when did that become part of the project? Was that recently? Because
I don't think that was on the thing that we approved.
So the development project when the commission considered it was required to have a second
point of access, they were coordinating with the off-site assisted living care facility
and so they were going to obtain that second point of access through that adjoining site.
But they're saying that they don't have that access. They're saying they have one behind
like the Goodwill Center, pretty much.
Right.
I was going to say, Haley was the project manager. Maybe she can provide.
Yeah, that is definitely a different schematic than we saw.
I just wanted to clarify, this particular site plan looks like it was for a previous
proposal on that property. This is not the Millennium Crest site plan that you all recently
saw. This is that same property, but a prior development that never came to fruition.
Okay. So the apartment complex that got passed through us, they don't have two access points.
Their proposal was to get a similar concept to this with that second point of access being
through the adjacent site to the west.
Have they received that? Do you know?
They have not submitted anything further to us, but I do know they're working on finalizing
a site plan for the property. But this was a previous development.
Okay. Because I was confused because I was like, this is not what we saw.
Correct. This was an elderly housing development that never came to fruition. Millennium Crest
hasn't come back in yet. So we don't know what that will look like for them.
Okay. All right. Thanks.
This was just an example Megan was using.
All right. Thank you, Haley. Another quick question.
Sure. And I apologize for that confusion. I was struggling just trying to find some sort
of pictures.
No, I'm glad you brought this up because that was-
It's a good example.
This was on a point that I wanted to make also about the other property that we talked
about. The other one that says, we had, and I maybe jumped the gun. I apologize. But it's
talking about, they have to have access. And how does the development here on, well, I
can mark that one out. That was the good one. That just recently passed on Loop 288 and
McKinney Street here behind the 711, that apartment complex. They're going to be here
off of Loop 288. They're going to make an entrance, but I don't think they have a second
access point. Would that be yours? Can I ask that?
I believe the development you're talking about is the Pebblebrook Parkside development.
Right behind the 711?
Yes.
So they did have two points of access. They had a Southern entry point, which would have
full access with a traffic signal. And then the Northern access was exit only and had
a, or it was a 3/4 access. In order to meet the fire access, especially the aerial apparatus,
they had rollover curbs on the four-story building off the right of way. So they could basically
enter off of Loop 288, go over the rollover curbs, and be able to have that ladder access.
Okay.
Is it Amy?
Yeah.
All right.
All right. Thank you.
Yeah, no, and thank you for bringing that up too, because it does just make the point
that for the two required points of access, it's not always just a traditional fire lane
or access point. A lot of times due to maybe resident concerns on adjacent properties,
they might have to, I think as long as we approve it, they might have to do either a
gate with an ox lock or an opti-com or just something else that still meets this requirement
but allows them to continue on with their development.
Thank you.
We're about to move on, but do y'all have any other questions that you would like to
ask me about?
No, not at this time. Go ahead. Please. Thank you.
And as I said, I'm David Becker, Assistant Chief, and I agree with Megan, but at this
point in the last couple of years of me being in this position, we really do try to work
with the developers. And as you can see, as we all run together, we try to work together
and have these conversations to try to find the best access. And I mean, our ultimate
golden fireside is Las Aguilera.
So there was a couple of questions in the packet about response times. So Megan did
the first half of PowerPoint. I'll do a little bit more with pictures and just talk you through
it. But if you look in that top right corner, you can see where the existing fire station
is at. And if you were to remove Station 8 from that position, in the old days, we basically
took a compass, we drew about a four-mile circle, we considered about a five-minute
response time, tried to meet NFPA 1710 to meet, you know, ISO needs, you know, patient
safety, EMS, fire, all that type of response.
Now as you look below that, in today's world with ArcGIS and heat mapping, you can see
the dark green kind of shows what we can cover in a four-minute response, NFPA X that we
look at, NFPA 1710 that we look at, four-minute response and eight-minute response. And you
can see in there, even with that previous stations, that we have some gaps in there.
But the light green is an eight-minute response, which is what the question was aimed at, you
know, what do we look for eight-minute responses?
The slide that's actually with the red, the green, in the middle of the page, this isn't
what we can do with our mapping now. We can basically drop a pin, look at how the current
streets are set up, how that works, where can we be in four minutes and where can we
be in eight minutes? So we're using technology to help us get to that point, where do we
build future fire stations? So as we continue to develop the city of Denton, we're not drawing
concentric circles anymore. We're looking at the major roads that go through town and
give us that access. And this one here is one that we're looking at off of a 380 West.
And we'd be doing the same thing if we start looking at the new fire station. Questions?
And then the last question, and as we know, we're getting more and more residential, we're
packing in the city, we're trying to develop the land around us, but we got fire stations
sitting there. So one of the questions was code one versus code three response. Code
one, no lights, no sirens are driving down the road. And code three, lights and sirens
are visual and audio alarms. 90% of what we do is a code three response. If somebody's
having a heart attack, it's your house is on fire. 70% of what we do in the city of
Denton is EMS based. The next is a lot of responding to automatic alarms. And we do
allow our captains to ask questions, is there, you know, what's the sensor being sent? And
they can make that decision, do I want to bump down to code one or do I want to continue
code three based on what those responses are from dispatch? And then the code one responses
are, you know, just going out and doing welfare checks or something that's, you know, a little
bit pub ads and those kinds of things. So the question is, is we are looking at code
two response. We've had several emails, we're dealing with the legal department. PD is easily
covered under code two response because sometimes they need to not have lots of sirens on because
they have to sneak up on a criminal. You know, they have to show up without everybody knowing
they're in the neighborhood. We make a lot of noise when we show up in the neighborhood.
You know, we got that big red calling card that we run with. So we're looking at transportation
code and it doesn't really, it's not specific to what we can do at the fire department.
We are set up code one, code three. We're having legal look into it and see if we could
set up our own city ordinances, our own policies, and maybe address some of that and some of
those issues where maybe we could use visual alarms or the lights and not the audible or
the siren. So it's a topic conversation around the fire department and especially as we see
that the apartment complex is going in next to station five and that we see around our
new station eight and the hotels that are there, we're trying to be good neighbors,
but as we'd all say, if it's your mom or your house, you know, you want us there quickly.
So we're trying to, we're trying to be good stewards of the, of the power that you've
given us, but we will make sure that we're doing the right job. So any questions on?
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you. First, I guess just a brief question on this and then I want to go back to response
times. When you have a code three call and you, you know, you roll the doors up and you
start going out is, are the sirens active from the moment the truck leaves the bay or
how does that process work?
The normally as they hit the end of the ramp, based on traffic, those kinds of things, when
they turn the lights on, they turn the sirens on with it. So as they're making that response,
it's just automatic. They engage both at the same time. They are different switches, but
they are engaging them both. And it's usually, you know, the inner traffic middle of the
night is probably not uncommon that it takes a second or so they get it flipped on, you
know, and there's not a lot of traffic.
One of the things is, is even whether we're driving code three or code one with the good
stewards of the road, you know, we just because we have lots of sirens on, we're only asking
permission to run a red light, only asking permission to go the wrong way down the street.
It's still our responsibility to make sure that we do it safely. So with code one, we're
obeying all the traffic laws, just as you are. In code two, we would be still obeying
all those traffic laws. The only thing that would be different would be we would have
the lights running.
Okay. And just forgive me for my terminology question, but by end of ramp, is that the
exit from the the parking area or inside the fire station property? Okay. Okay. Thank you.
And then a question about the response times. If you could go back to that slide that showed
the map. I think one thing I've been interested in when we see proposals for, you know, especially
for rezonings and that sort of thing. One of the criteria in our comprehensive plan
is to seek to optimize the usage of our existing facility, public facilities. And part of that
is fire stations and personnel. And I think what we've seen so far is that if that development
was within an eight-minute response time, that's sort of a pass/fail grade that we've
seen on our applications. I guess what I'm interested in is understanding if you have,
say, a development that goes in that has a seven-minute response time, over time, would
that be a development that you would look to add additional fire stations to to reduce
it down to that four-minute goal of NFPA 1710? How do you make those decisions? Because from
my perspective, it's just, you know, we want to make sure that we grow smartly for lack
of a better term. And part of that is to make sure that we don't necessarily saddle ourselves
with overextending stations or requiring stations down the road that we may have a difficulty
affording, if that makes sense. That's a great question. 1710 is what the
intent is, and I'm speaking from memory, is that we can provide that service to 80 percent
of our population. And so as we grow, sometimes we'll have those outliners. And what we try
to do is look to the future and try to find ways. And it's one of the reasons that this
morning we were at the mobility plan meetings, because we want to know where future roads
are going in, because if we know that, we can start looking for land in that area and
we can have those discussions. One of the other things that we do currently, even with
our residents of Robeson Ranch, we go into mutual aid agreements or automatic aid agreements
with other agencies that, and they have a fire station just south of the entry. So we
actually are in agreement with them and they respond to that area, which helps them with
their insurance, but it also helps us get to the scene faster, treat the medical patient
or get on the scene faster and knock the fire down, because we know it's exponentially growing.
So when we have those outliers, as you were saying, as we do our studies, we also look
for ways to get creative, you know, even fiscally creative to cover that area.
Okay. But if you had an area that was, say, a seven-minute response time, that would be
one area that you would try to reduce that down to the four minutes in one of those creative
ways? At some point, as it continues to grow, as
we know with Cole Hunter Ranch going in, we know more stations going there, and that's
actually going to help the residents of the Robeson Ranch area also. So as the city continues
to grow, we will continue to look for areas that we can put a fire station in that can
have great reach at major intersections or can gain access to an area. We try not to
bury our fire stations into a residential district, because once again, now it inhibits
me from getting out to provide that. I hope I'm answering your question.
I think you are. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Did you have more to
your presentation, or was that? Hold on. Wait. Wait. Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank you so much. Great information. Obviously, yeah, that comes before us often, just in
our backup, and you helped to let us understand that further of how the process works. So
thank you so much for being here. Oh, we do. Commissioner McDade, we do have a question.
All right. Thank you. I have just a question in general. In my neighborhood, we're actually
having traffic issues, really speeding, and we've asked about speed bumps. And the response
we got was, well, they're not warranted because it affects a fire. And I just want to know
what the logic is behind that, so I can get back with the community. Does it slow down
the response time, or what is the effect of a speed bump when it comes to the fire trucks?
Sorry, I couldn't answer that. The International Fire Code actually prohibits the use of speed
bumps for regulating speed and traffic, but a lot of that goes back to that. But it also
puts it on the fire official's plate to kind of make smart decisions. Can we find traffic
calming devices to slow that area? Can we use enforcement by our PD officers to slow
down speeding in that area? Can we put in, you know, and so we've been working with,
I don't say engineering, we actually have several conversations. It's something that
we're working on, and to the fact that we don't want to outlaw them completely, but
we do want to help design them, what the shape is of them, that helps our trucks. We've actually
had damage to our apparatus because the weight must be, you may not realize, but we have
500 pounds, I mean, 500 gallons of 8 pounds of water in those trucks, and they don't go
over the speed bumps very well. The other problem is, is there are studies out there
that show for every speed bump you put in, you can put in about a 10 second reduction
in response time. So if you have one in the center of your street, we can probably get
around it. As long as we, and that's the things that we're working on with engineering now,
to try to come up with a better plan on how we can address safety in your neighborhoods
because ultimately we care about safety, but we also don't want to slow our response times
because we've had areas in the Sea of Denton that we've had to cross 8 or 10 of them, and
all of a sudden now we've taken our response time from 4 minutes to 8 minutes and all the
work that we do to reduce our time out the door, down the road, putting our stations
in the right place, and a few speed bumps can slow that down. So we're not completely
against them, and I'm hoping I'm answering your question, but we are reviewing that with
engineering and there are other traffic calming devices and other techniques that we can use,
and that's something that we're working on to try to implement in the City of Denton.
Alright, thank you. Awesome, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, thank you again for being here.
Well thank you for having us. Appreciate it. Okay, our next agenda item in our work session
reports is receive a report, hold a discussion regarding the city's plotting process, and
I will call up Karina for discussion there. Alright, good evening. Karina Maldonado, Associate
Planner. So I won't spend too much time on some of these slides. There was a previous
presentation on plotting earlier this year, but what we wanted to focus in on was on the
shot clock and how it affects the process, as well as go over some questions. I'll just
skip this slide. So PNZ had requested in a previous meeting some additional information
about the plot approval process, and some of those questions that were brought forward
were, you know, why are some plots brought back as denials and some as requests for extensions,
and then why do some recommendations change after the agenda is posted, even up to the
meeting time. So those questions kind of go back to our process, and more specifically
how the process was changed due to HB 3167. So I'll focus on that, and please feel free
to stop me during the presentation if you have questions. So I'll go over this pretty
briefly. So HB 3167, otherwise known as the shot clock, that legislation was passed through
the Texas legislation in 2019, which required that municipalities have 30 days to act upon
a plat or construction plans. That legislation required that we approve, approve with conditions,
or deny a plat within 30 days of its submittal. The City of Denton actually just approves
or denies plats because an approval with conditions follows the same process as a denial. And
some of the key areas from this slide that I'll touch on was obviously there was changes
to our submittal process we followed. Based on P&Z meeting dates, we had submittal schedules
that would allow the 30 days within that period. We did require that supplemental applications
like your TIAs, your field assessments, that those things were completed prior to plat
submittals so that it wouldn't hold up that plat application. Other things were it allowed
30 day extensions. That would be a one time extension and we are seeing those more frequently
as you guys can see during our frequent meetings. And then it changed our staff report. So the
staff report that you see specifically have to indicate why we're denying a plat, how
it applies to specific DDC references or state law or other regulations. So again, I'll just
briefly go over this. So the general information that we typically tell you all is if it meets
all our requirements, we're obligated to or the P&Z is obligated to approve the plat.
If it does not meet these regulations or requirements, then you may deny the plat. And so some of
the things that we consider as the development review team, which includes planning, engineering,
fire, and some other technical review staff, sometimes these denials are based off of just
general insufficient information. Maybe they're not providing enough of that background information
in order to approve the plat. That can be plat notes, that can be graphic information.
They can also just not be meeting our DDC. So our development standards are included
in subchapter seven. That's things like water, wastewater, access, site and building design,
ESAs. So if they're not meeting the requirements in that section through their supplementary
information that they provide with the plat, then that's a basis for denial. Other things
like just our subdivision standards. So whether they have sufficient access, are they meeting
the minimum lot requirements and setbacks? Even HOA documents, those are some things
that you'll see. And then of course, I mentioned supplemental applications. So that's things
like our tree preservation. We review that with the preliminary plots, civil engineering
plans, flood studies. If those supplementary plans don't meet our code and it ties to the
plat, then that's a basis for denial. So this is just kind of a screenshot. We showed
this last time. We mentioned that basis for denial sometimes is based on the preliminary
plat checklist, the final plat checklist. This is just a brief screenshot of that. Supplemental
sheets that are typically provided with the preliminary plots. That's things like drainage
sheets. So your pre and post conditions. Tree preservation. So they have to provide the
survey and the preservation plan. Utility layout is another item. And also grading.
So these are all the things in the background that you don't see in your backup. But as
we review this, mark it up, go through the process, these are some things that kind of
hold up an application. And so going back to those questions, why would one plat come
forth as a denial and another one as a recommendation for an extension? So here's just some markups
and some of them are pretty simple, just to convey the information. So just provided a
markup here. Graphic information. Sometimes it's as simple as lot and block, not matching
or being consistent with what we would require. So as this example, they've provided a single
lot as a lot 41 block F. Well, there's no block A and there's no lot one through 40.
So that's kind of one of those simple things like, could you please change this? And you
can see that it's simple enough that they've changed it. So as an example, if maybe this
was one of five comments that was simple enough for staff to review, they would be able to
work with staff to clear that out before P and Z. Simple things like just wording on an
owner's dedication. And here's a more complicated one is meeting the minimum lot standards.
So for this lot, the minimum lot depth was 80 feet. They didn't dimension it, so staff
could not review to make sure that it complied with the code. So these are some examples
of some minor issues that are pretty easy to resolve. It's just a matter of adding the
information to the plat. It's simple enough. Things like what you see on these supplemental
sheets, if they need calculations that are missing that require staff to verify whether
they're meeting drainage or not, those are more complicated and would require a full
submittal. So sometimes you'll see they'll just ask for their extension. They don't have
the time to go back and do the thorough review. And so hopefully the next slide will help
kind of explain that a little bit more. So in current, if I could just interrupt you,
they have until up to the start of the meeting, correct? To be able to, yes. And just to add
on that, sometimes it depends on staff workload. You know, is if it's available for staff to
provide that informal review, then we can have that changed. If it's a very lengthy
review that's required, it's difficult to have staff review an hour before the meeting.
So we'll just kick it back to a formal review. Understood. And hopefully to better explain
the process of the 30 day shot clock, I've outlined the process, kind of just showing
you from day zero to day 30 what that looks like. So day zero is the day that you submit
your application. They've submitted it by 5 p.m. Typically that's a Tuesday, so that
they could get that in. Between day zero and day two, we do a completeness review. So making
sure that they have all the correct information in order for us to sufficiently review it.
Then it goes to the development review team. So that's, as you can see, day 3 through 13,
that's about 10 days for staff to review. I do want to clarify, that is calendar days,
not business days. So that will be, you know, we'll get a review on a Thursday and it's
due on Monday. So just to give you a sense of what that looks like. Day 14, we get together
as a group, the development assistance team, that's all the reviewers. We go over our comments
and we make sure that a planning comment doesn't conflict with the FHIR code comment. So we
make sure that each reviewer has an opportunity to say, okay, here are the issues with this
plat. So if issue with planning for access also is an issue for FHIR, it allows an opportunity
to set up meetings on the side to help the applicant understand these are the 10 comments
that you need to address in order to get this approved. As it moves forward, so this is
just where the internal meeting happens. Then the project facilitator, so that's not planning.
This is a separate person. The project facilitator issues those comments directly to the applicant.
At the time they're told, okay, you have outstanding comments, we're recommending denial at P&Z,
or you've met all our requirements, so we're recommending approval. With a first review,
that's more than not a recommendation for denial. We do have a few like our minor administratively
approved plat sets sometimes do reach that at an earlier date. Skipping from that point
to day 29, that is when you guys see the plat come forth for P&Z for either an extension
of approval or approval of an extension request, approval of a plat or denial. And I just wanted
to highlight three days that kind of interrupt that. So as you can see, day 20, that's when
staff is drafting the agenda items, including the draft staffed in analysis. And that's
where we compile all the denial comments based on the review. So we'll compile engineering
comments, fire, any review where that comes forth with outstanding items. And then we
go through the agenda finalization process. So agendas are always finalized the Friday
before. I think commissioner Anderson has a question.
Thank you. From when the development assistant team looks at a plat and knows that it may
be recommended for denial, do they get with the submitter? Is it on day 29 or could you
all let these because my question basically is if you know it's going to be submitted
for denial on day 13 or 14, why wait till day 29 to let the person know that's going
to be denied? That's two weeks. Why don't we let these people know earlier so they can
go ahead and work on it before it comes to us? Does it make sense?
Yeah. And it's really at the discretion of the project facilitator. So within that time
period, plats are not the only applications that staff accepts. We accept our zoning applications
and PDs and things like that on off weeks. So the time period that's allowed to staff
really also captures staff workload and being able to address other applications as they
come in in order. Some plats might not take a lot of staff time. Some might may take more.
But in general, if maybe planning knows that there's three comments we do as staff reach
out to the applicant through the project facilitator to say these are pretty minor. Can you address
them? But for the most part, because reviewers have different workloads and different availability
to complete that review, sometimes it's it's beneficial for them to receive all their comments
at once, which would be when day 16 arrives. So at day 16, y'all can let them know that
there's issues that arise. So they have another 13 days, basically two weeks to get that corrected
back to you before you ever submit it. OK, I just want I just I just would like the people
to know, but instead of blindside them at the last day going, Hey, sorry, today's day
nine. Sorry, we're gonna spend it for denial. They did not give them the opportunity to
have the to to correct the plat to make sense. I think Tina wanted to jump in. Well, and
I was just going to add. So, yes, I mean, so the we try to do a good job of communicating
to our applicants, especially if we have concerns regarding if we're not going to be able to
recommend approval of their in this case, the plots, right? But even any development
application that we're working on, you know, I think engineers who have been doing this
for while planners as well, you know, they'll have a good sense based upon the nature of
the comments that are received as to how quickly they'll be able to turn around that the shot
clock bill has really. It's made it more challenging for municipalities because we're obligated
to perform within a certain amount of time. The development community is not. So if if
a developer is really wanting to get a project through, then they need to be on their engineer
that they've retained to make sure that the engineers doing their job in it and addressing
comments accordingly. Folks that do regular business here at the city of Denton are going
to have probably a good idea of what we were typically looking for. And they'll know and
have a good sense what the status of their project will be in all likelihood. So the
more experienced. Now, if the first time someone's doing business might be a little bit different
situation or their second time. It's just part of a learning process because while cities
are similar, you know, we have also some different processes. But but we do try to be proactive
in educating applicants accordingly. I just want to make sure like under example, like
lot block need to be changed from, you know, whatever that they didn't wait till they wouldn't
wait till day twenty nine to try to let these people know. And that kind of. Yeah, that's
something that's so simple that you could call and go, hey, this is all your plat needs
to be finalized. Just fix this real quick. Absolutely. And that's why sometimes you'll
see maybe a last minute change at the podium. So maybe the the agenda will say it's for
a denial. They've already had their extension in the last. Maybe two comments are that simple.
And then when we get to the podium, you'll see they've addressed our comments now. So
we're recommend recommending for approval. So those are some of the situations staff
will reach out to them to clarify those. If it again, if it's more complicated, they they've
usually been told at a certain time, like this, this may not work. We need to sit and
talk about options for you. How how to address these comments because there's options of
withdrawal or depending on the severity of the issues. I appreciate it. Thank you. And
I think your next slide addresses some of that resubmission and how we are trying to
accommodate getting plots back to the commission. Yes. And so this is kind of just the overview
of a simple 30 day process. As you can see here, date Day 28 is kind of like we offer
based on our submittal schedule again to meet the 30 day window of resubmittal. So the second
review of a of a plat they can submit that on Day 28. So before PNC, assuming they are
going to request an extension so that they can add an additional 30 days to their review.
So overall, they're getting 60 days of a review period before they're actually receiving either
a denial or approval. So Day 28 they submit. It doesn't actually get forwarded until PNC
approves the extension. And then we kind of move past this. So next slide, I kind of just
highlighted those same first two dots would be the request to resubmit PNC approves the
extension. At that time, Day 37, they've already had their second review. They get comments
again. Again, staff will communicate if if it's simple enough that it's been addressed
or not in some instances. And again, this is based off the 30 days and the submittal
schedule and I'll go over that just briefly. Sometimes there's an opportunity for a third
review. So they've even got kind of two extra reviews in within that 30 day, 60 day period.
So you'll see if they've already received an extension, they might get a denial or they
might even have time to have another review in to then get the approval. So overall, within
the 60 day period, sometimes you'll see them come back several times. Depending on the
severity of the comments or the simple simplicity of the comments, you might see where it's
a very simple extension approval or just an approval and some we've seen it's complicated
enough or maybe they've dropped the ball on their end. They didn't look at our resubmittal
schedule and you'll see very simple comments actually will just end up in a denial multiple
times. We don't like to see that. But sometimes maybe the applicant has too many projects
or their staff has not unfortunately done a great job. So that's kind of the situation
that it ends up being. Lastly, I just want to leave you with our actual submittal schedule
that's on our land development webpage. So as you can see, there's two highlighted areas.
This is how we base our submittal schedules based on when we can meet the 30 days on a
P and Z date. So you'll see first is the initial submittal. This is when comments are due in
the second column. Here's a resubmittal date that they're allowed to resubmit if they have
the extension. And then this is what the actual P and Z date would be. Then it goes all the
way down the second review when comments are due and then even a third review if it's permitted.
So this is available on our website. All the applicants have access to this. And so anytime
it gets updated, it's posted and there's kind of like a massive email that goes out to developers
to let them know this is what our submittal schedule is. So here are the opportunities
for you to submit or resubmit your PLA applications. And with that, I can answer any additional
questions that you'll have. >> Great, Karina, thank you. Questions? Commissioner
Villarreal? >> Yes. Could you explain from staff's perspective
what you would want to see from us if we decide to approve a plat that's recommended for denial
or deny a plat that's recommended for approval? Because I understand you would like to see
citations and from staff's perspective, what would you like us to do if, say, four of us
decide to, again, approve something that is recommended for denial? What would that process
look like? >> I'll shoot that over to Tina to answer.
>> So with PLATs, keep in mind, it's a technical review. It either meets or it doesn't meet.
And so we're obligated by state law, we staff on administrative approvals, but the commission
also in your role, where you are obligated to approve the plat if it meets it. When it
comes to denials, if we are telling you that this plat does not comply with our development
standard requirements, regardless of what the issue may be, then I would strongly encourage
you to deny the plat. When it comes to PLATs, I would discourage you from going against
staff's recommendation on that. It's because we don't want to get into a point where we're
engineering the document here at the DIAS. So, you know, some communities allow for approval
with conditions. As Karina mentioned here, approval with conditions is similarly treated
as a denial. There are some communities that would, you know, will do the approval and
have the laundry list of conditions to try and have the applicant be able to address
those. So we do not go down that path. It's my understanding because, again, just from
a process standpoint and because either the, in our opinion, a plat either needs to meet
or it needs to be denied. It's, you know, it's different than on a zoning case or a
specific use permit where that's a more subjective review that can fall into play. You can, you
know, we can agree to disagree on zoning and the specific use permits. But when it comes
to PLATs, if we're recommending denial, then we're recommending denial for a reason and
we've cited that reason in the staff analysis. So we would respectfully request that you
concur with us and deny the plat accordingly.
And then if I might just add, Tina, to that, if you have a question on a plat that staff
is recommending approval or denial on, by all means, reach out to them as soon as possible.
If there is something that was missed or there's something that you need clarified so that you
can feel comfortable with their recommendation, by all means, reach out to them ahead of the
meeting so that discussion can be started. Because oftentimes it might just be something
that's not quite understood. And you can, you know, get a quick answer to your concerns.
So that would certainly be something I'd offer to that question.
The other thing I'll add is keep in mind, the PLATs may have engineering plans associated
with them. So as part of our review of the engineering plans, there's, you know, potentially
a significant issue that's still having to be worked through and which affects the plat
that is submitted in-house. And so hence why a plat may also need to be denied is because
of the engineering plans have not been fully addressed. Because keep in mind, there's a
linkage between PLATs and the engineering plans, because the engineering plans are typically,
in addition to just regular site improvements, they're also addressing the public infrastructure.
So that's where the platting is important, because in addition to showing the property
boundaries, if there are any easements that are being proposed on the property, then those
easements are typically synced up with improvements that are being shown in those engineering
plans. For example, drainage improvements. The applicant may not have addressed all of
the drainage considerations associated with their civil engineering plans, which then
could affect the size of an easement or the location of an easement, or even if an off-site
easement is needed associated with it. So hence why we take our denial recommendations
very seriously, because we realize that that's cost and time, or excuse me, money and time
to the applicant. So when we're recommending denial of a plat, we've identified why it's
deficient and we take that very seriously. So our goal actually is to try and work with
applicants to get the plat where we can approve them, because at the end of the day, we want
it in and out. We want to be able to allow folks to be able to get under construction
on their projects. The last thing we want is documents that continue to linger and linger
and linger within our department and non-responsive applicants, because that just burns more of
our time when we could be spending our time more effectively on other projects, right?
So that's why we even give the applicants the ability to submit that corrected plat
up to your meeting. Like Corina said, if it's something that's easy to be able to address
and get that review done, in all likelihood, we're going to try to accommodate that review
and make that happen, because it's easier for us to turn around and stand up here and
tell you that that plat complies instead of taking our own sweet time on getting a review,
because then we're finding ourselves having to write another staff analysis, and that's
having to go in the packet. Corina's writing, I'm reviewing, Haley's reviewing, Selena's
pulling the packet together. That just adds time and effort that we otherwise would not
need to be able to have to be spending. So we do try to be accommodating from that perspective.
Any other questions? Commissioner Perret? Thank you, Chair. On plat applications, do
the applicants have an option for a pre-development conference? Yes. Actually, all applications
that come through development services, we highly recommend that they have a pre-application
conference, and then at that meeting, along with technical staff comments, they're provided
with a list of applications that they need to go through the process, as well as development
fees and kind of a general timeline for their project. You know, that sounds like common
sense to me, especially given the situation we're in. I hate to suggest that we try to
track more things, because I know it's hard, but if it seems like those applicants that
come in for pre-development conferences have a really high success rate of getting things
through the first time, whereas those that choose not to don't, I wonder if that's something
that we could try to publicize in the development meetings with the development professionals
that we have. So we are not allowed to recommend who an applicant could use, so we have to
be very careful of that. So we can post who has submitted, and if someone is interested
in seeing who are engineers that have happened to file applications with us for the last
three submittal cycles, we can post that kind of information, but we can't recommend who
they might use. So we have to be impartial on that. Trust me, there are times where we
would like to recommend who someone might use, but we can't, because of ethical obligations,
but also we just need to remain impartial on that.
Okay. Well, hopefully everybody will get the word sooner than later. Thank you.
Any other questions for Corina? Thank you, Corina, for that. I think you all have done
a great job. This shot clock bill has, you know, been so difficult to work with, and
putting that schedule together, I know has just done wonders for workflow.
You can thank Sean for that schedule. He's put a lot of time and effort into it. You
can thank Sean for that schedule. He's put a lot of time and effort to make sure that,
one, we make sure we line it up with P&Z appropriately, but also even the holiday schedule. We'll
make sure it doesn't pose a problem for our developers during that process, and even for
staff so we can take a little bit of a break. Yeah, exactly. Great job. Thank you very much.
Okay. Moving through our agenda, we are on to clarification of tonight's agenda. First
is our minutes for November 3rd. Any discussion on that needed? Okay. How about consent agenda
for tonight? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to individual consideration items. We have, I
believe we had a change in the meeting calendar, which is why it is back before us. Tina, I'll
take that. Yes, that's correct. We made a few slight adjustments since the last time
we presented this to you. So as we noted in the staff report, we removed a meeting in
July to be more consistent with council. Having the one meeting and being able to practice
the being able to absorb into the holiday during July. Also, and I think this was a
result of Commissioner Pruitt, one of your conversations, you mentioned something that
caught Sean's attention with respect to that shot clock bill, and we went back and just
double checked our date. So we had to move one of the November meeting dates because
of that. And then I know we added the holidays that have been approved to the calendar for
your benefit. But otherwise, the calendar remains as is as we noted last time we were
proposing to go to the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month instead of the first and third
because that will also assist our team in being able to process not only our agenda
items that are needed for your consideration, but it gets us a little relief and where our
agenda item preparation is not syncing up with typically what we have going to council.
So and also it removes us from back to back meeting situations where we're here on Tuesday
night and Wednesday night back to back. So but otherwise, the happy entertain any questions
that you may have if you find the calendar acceptable, then staff's recommendation would
be that you approve this as submitted. Any questions on the calendar? Okay, moving to
four B. We'll have staff come up at the public meeting unless someone has a question. Per
the backup, there is an extension request on this to the date or date certain of 1215.
Any questions? Okay, moving on to four C. Same. This is a plat with an extension request
for 1215. Four C. Same. I'm sorry, four D. Same. Extension request to 1215. Any questions?
Okay. Four E. Final plat with an extension request to 1215. Okay. Four F. Is recommended
for denial. Any questions on that for staff at work session? Okay. That will bring us
to our public hearing item for the evening. I will invite Mark Laird up to discuss. Hi,
Mark. Thank you. All right. Good evening, guys. My name is Mark Laird. I'm a planner
in the development service department. This evening for your review consideration, I have
a request to rezone one acre track from rural residential to residential one. This site is
generally located 190 feet east of Miller and Marsh Branch Road and is currently vacant.
It's surrounded by rural residential, residential one, and residential two. The property owner
is requesting the rezoning for site compliance to develop the property for single family
use. Staff has made an analysis of this request and a copy of that analysis has been included
in your backup. Based on that analysis, staff recommends approval of this request. I stand
for any questions that you have. Thank you, Mark. This looks like we've had a rezoning
case on this same road, correct? That's correct. About a month ago, we had another rezoning
request. I remember that. Any questions for Mark on this item? I don't see any. We'll
see you at the meeting. All right. Thank you. With that, that ends our work session items
for this evening. I will adjourn us at 6 p.m. We will see you back here at 630 for the public
meeting. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting for Wednesday, November 17th, 2021. With the quorum present, I will call us to
order at 634 p.m. I'll let the record show that Commissioner Smith is absent. First item
of business is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and 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 the city of Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible. Thank
you. Our next item on the agenda is to consider approval of the Planning and Zoning minutes
for November 3rd. Commissioner Anderson? Commissioner Pruitt? Second. We have a first and a second
for approval discussion. Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries
6-0. Next item on the agenda is our Consent Agenda. Commissioner Villarreal? Move to approve
the Consent Agenda. We have a first for approval of the Consent Agenda this evening. Commissioner
Anderson? Second. First and a second for approval of Consent Agenda. Any discussion? Seeing
none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 6-0. Brings us to agenda item 4. Items
for individual consideration. 4A is consider approval of the 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting calendar. Commissioner Villarreal? Move to approve the 2022 Planning and Zoning
meeting calendar. Commissioner Pruitt? Second. We have a first and a second for approval
of the meeting calendar as presented. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries
6-0 for B. It's PP21-0030. I'll invite Lisa up for this item presentation. Good evening.
Hi, Lisa. Here we go. Apparently we're not sharing the screen. Okay. There we go. Okay.
Good evening. Lisa Payne, principal planner for the City of Denton. The item before you
is PP21-30, which is a preliminary plot containing approximately 56 acres and located on the
northeast corner of Mingo Road and Loop 288. The preliminary plot will create three lots
for warehouse development on property zoned light industrial. Staff is recommending denial
as it does not meet the established criteria for approval. However, the applicant has requested
a 30-day extension to allow for additional time for review and staff has no objection
to that going to P&Z on December 15th. And I'm available for questions. Thank you, Lisa.
Any questions? I do not see any. Thanks, Lisa. Commissioner Villarreal? I'll move to approve
the extension to the December 15th, 2021. Okay. We have an approval. Second. Commissioner
Cole, second. Okay. First and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain
of 12/15. Discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries six zero, taking us
to 4C, PP21-0028. Cameron Robertson is here to present. So good evening, commissioners.
My name is Cameron Robertson. I am a principal planner and historic preservation officer
for the city of Denton. So this is PP21-0028. This is for approximately 34.5 acres at Corbin
Road, just north of Corbin Road, west of I-35 west. So staff is recommending denial of this
plot as it does not meet our established criteria for approval, but staff has no objection for
the requested extension to December 15th at the PNC meeting. I can stand for any questions.
Thank you, Cameron. I do not see any questions. Commissioner Villarreal? Move to approve the
extension request to December 15th, 2021. Commissioner Anderson? Second. We have a first
and a second to approve the requested extension to 12/15. Any discussion? Let's vote on the
board, please. Motion carries six zero, moving us to 4D, PP21-0029. I believe that is Julie
Wyatt. Hi, Julie. Good evening. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city
of Denton and I'm presenting PP21-0029. It's for the Holland edition. The proposed plot
is a preliminary plot for a residential development located on the east side of Loop 288. They
do have some additional comments they do need to address and so staff is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to their requested extension to the December 15th PNC meeting
and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Julie. I do not see any questions.
Appreciate it. Commissioner Anderson? Make a motion to extend the request to December
15th. Commissioner Villarreal? Second. We've got a first and a second to approve the extension
request to a date certain of 12/15. Discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 6-0. Item 4E, FP21-34. I'll leave it to Julie again. All right. This
is FP21-0034. The request is for a final plot for the Mission Street offices edition. It
is for a commercial development. They do have additional comments they've got to address
prior to staff recommending approval. And so we do recommend denial. However, we have
no objection to their requested extension to December 15th and I'll be happy to answer
any questions. Thanks, Julie. I do not see any questions. I can entertain a motion. Commissioner
Cole? I move to move the case till the December 15th. We've got an extension request to a
date certain of 12/15. Yes, 12/15. Okay. Commissioner Villarreal? Second. All right. We've got a
first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of 12/15. Seeing
no discussion, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 6-0. Next is item 4F, AFP21-0006.
Hi, Ron. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Here we go. This item is
for an amending final plat, AFP21-0006. It is for phase 4 of the Eagle Creek development.
It is approximately 32.67 acres in total. This is an administrative plat because it's
an amending plat. The applicant has already submitted an extension to staff directly,
and they have already gone through another 30 days of review. There are still some comments
that are outstanding because this is a -- they have not addressed those outstanding comments.
This is a recommendation for denial. The P&Z must consider this application. Therefore,
staff recommends denial of this plat as it does not meet the application criteria manual
or criteria approval for an amending final plat. I'll stand for any questions. Thanks,
Ron. And then just to clarify, staff just does not have the administrative right to
deny. Is that why it's before us? Correct. And that's why it is before the P&Z. And they
already had an extension through you? They already did, yes. Understood. Okay. Thank
you, Ron. Commissioner Villarreal. I move to deny the plat. Okay. We have a first for denial,
Commissioner Anderson. Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for denial of this item.
Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 6-0. That
brings us to our public hearing item for this evening. It's 5AZ210015. I'll invite Mark
Laird up for presentation. Hi, Mark. And allow me to say that I will open the public hearing
at this time. Good evening. My name is Mark Laird. I'm a planner in the development service
department. This evening for your review and consideration, I have a request to rezone
a 1-acre tract from rural residential to residential 1. The property is located east of the intersection
of Miller Road and Mosh Branch Road and is currently vacant. The site is surrounded by
rural residential, residential 2, residential 1, and also the ETJ. The property owner has
requested the rezoning to allow for site compliance to develop the property for single-family
use. Staff has provided has made an analysis of this request. And a copy of that analysis
has been provided in your backup. And based on that analysis, staff is recommending approval
of this request. I stand for any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mark. Any questions
for Mark on this item? I do not see any at this time. Thank you. I do not have any cards
here nor do I see anyone in the audience wishing to speak. Staff, is there anyone on the phone
wishing to speak on this public hearing item? No, there is not. Thank you. Okay. With that,
I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner
Anderson? Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Cole? Second. Got a first and a second for
approval of this item. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion
carries 6-0. That will bring us to our planning and zoning matrix, and I will give the floor
to Tina. Thank you, Chairman. So there are no updates to provide to the commission based
upon recent council action. We did not have any project -- any zoning cases or specific
use permits on council's meeting yesterday evening or even last week. So you have a hiatus
from that portion of the report. Otherwise, we have amended the attendance -- or excuse
me -- the matrix that's included in your packet to include the two items that were requested
at your previous meeting, so -- which we're discussing prioritizing future area plans,
as well as then the requests related to the e-comment feature for the Planning and Zoning
Commission meetings to have it be more visible on the website. We did address two items on
the agenda. So one is the -- discuss the plotting processes, in particular why plots are being
brought forth for denial or extension requests. So that one will come off as well as the one
related to the fire department presenting about their emergency service operations.
But I'm happy to address any additional questions you may have or if there are other items that
you're interested in having added to the matrix.
Thanks, Tina. Anything for the matrix? I do not see any. Moving us to concluding items.
Any concluding items? No, I'll just say thanks to staff for the work session reports today.
They were incredibly informative and appreciate you working down the matrix list for us. It's
very helpful.
Absolutely. And if I might just take a quick brief moment and recognize Mark Laird on our
team. He's still back there. So Mark is going to be taking on a position on our real estate
team, which is where he came from originally. But we appreciate all the work that Mark has
done being part of the planning department and evaluating development applications and
presenting before the commission. So we'll miss having him as part of our team, but he'll
still be close by because we'll still be able to collaborate on real estate issues.
Excellent. Thank you, Mark. Best of luck back in real estate. Awesome.
Congratulations.
Okay. With that, I will adjourn us at 6.49 p.m. Thanks, everyone.