Good afternoon. Welcome to the work session for the Planning and Zoning Commission for
the City of Denton. I'll call our meeting to order at 432. My name is Tim Smith. I'm
the vice chair. I'll be filling in for Chair Ellis this evening. I'll also make note that
Commissioner Ronnie Anderson is also not present at this time. Our first item on work session
is citizen comments on consent agenda items. Are there any citizens here to make any comments
on consent agenda? We don't have a consent agenda so that's not even possible. All right.
With that being said, we'll move forward. First item of business then will be 3A work
session reports. Charlie to present on PZ 22-078 on our fiscal impact model tool.
We've spent a lot of time working and developing this model with our consultant AECOM is here
with us. This model started back in 2019 with the adoption of the development code. One
of the approval criteria in the development code was a consideration of fiscal impact
to the city. With that City Council requested staff come up with a standardized model that
we could use to input development related information and then produce a summary for
consideration when these projects come forward. So we issued a request for proposal and AECOM
is the person that was awarded that contract to create this model. So what was the goal
of the model? Like I had mentioned previously, the goal is to have a standard model that
isn't developer driven and it's a set of assumptions that the city has come up with
through this process of developing it that we can provide consistency from development
project and proposal to the next so that you all are looking at the same information every
time. Previously, we would have developers submit, sometimes they would submit their
own fiscal impacts for these projects and so like I said before, this would be a standard
model. So a word of caution to the commission on how this should be used. This is one of
13 approval criteria in the development code. This is not the only approval criteria. So
you will see the fiscal impact of these projects based on the model that's been created, but
there's a number of other factors to consider when these projects come forward and then
so this is not the -- this should not be the sole determining factor and moreover, it's
also should be a balanced citywide approach. So project proposals will come one at a time
and the commission should remember that, you know, these projects balance out citywide.
So I think AECOM will touch on it a little bit. What we've seen is what you would probably
expect that commercial projects offer a higher net positive fiscal impact to the city than
maybe a residential would, but as the city develops out, multiple of these projects could
balance the city out as it relates to the fiscal impact. With that, I'll let Chris Brewer
with AECOM talk about the work they did. >> Thank you, Charlie. Again, thank you very
much for the opportunity to present tonight. I think this has been an exciting moment to
get to in terms of what we've learned over the last year and a half. To get to tonight,
given all the complexities of the last few years, has been a challenge but also an enjoying
process for us. I think when we look at the scope that we were asked to deliver on, there
were really two goals at the end of the day. One is this notion of is a project in that
benefit to the city? Simple enough. But that obviously creates a whole set of questions.
Well, is it a single family house on a one acre lot or is it a five story building with
300 units on half an acre? Again, that notion of density, that notion of scale, having a
model that can deal with such a wide array of development options. Again, building in
that flexibility and that redundancy but also building in updateability. These are key challenges
that we had to think through but also building in concrete assumptions that allow us to make
sure that the answers you get make sense regardless of project size. So, again, thinking about
that, try and provide a framework for how does the city benefit from real estate development?
What are those fiscal benefits and how do they change over time? Was ultimately a key
goal of our process. And when I think about that, I think, you know, when we first talked
to Charlie and the team, there was this clear challenge of many times you're operating at
the beginning of a development program where the developer does not have a clear view of
their project, their cost may change, their program may change. So, building in a set
of assumptions at the front end that allows you to begin to understand that fiscal benefit
conceptually and then as the developer comes back and finalizes their numbers, we can then
improve the model and get to a closer final proxy for what the actual impact will be.
We also see another benefit of this process that we're learning through similar efforts
elsewhere is the need for cities to compel developers or to work with developers to come
to a standard set of inputs to allow cities to understand development. I think many developers
will try to confuse the process with different ways of framing information. The huge benefit
of transparency here in terms of asking for information a certain way becomes very telling
in terms of understanding how the developers are looking at projects. We want to have a
long-term view, so not just year one of a project but over 40 years, what is that net
benefit over time, how does it change becomes an important thing to us. And then really
I think one of the things we've really keyed in on this study is this reality of roadway
maintenance and reconstruction costs. I think the one issue that a lot of cities are slowly
waking up to is where do they find the funds to replace that 50-year-old road, the city
road. Those sorts of questions have become a lot more present to a lot of cities and
our model that we've built to this point allows us to begin to understand those questions.
So the core methodology for us, again, it builds from basic information. One is a structured
way of collecting information from our developer, so being able to pull that into the model
and a clear framework in terms of zoning, what's the actual parcel, what's the parcel
land value, how much density are we putting on the parcel, again, a very clear and transparent
framework. And then we take that information and we then put it into context with a broad
set of assumptions that have been developed. So a lot of these were brought up through
GIS data, so parcel-specific information on property taxes, so relating property taxes
to year of construction. Again, getting at very specific types of assumptions for whether
it's an effective rate that we're calculating based on some things or a calculated rate
based on property taxes. So that as those rates change, you can change them. But it
ultimately gets us to a way of getting to a net benefit framework over a multi-year period
of time. And part of what I'm so pleased about with the study is that it is both broad
and robust, meaning we've thought about just about every revenue assumption we can come
up with and come up with a framework for how to attack it. And a lot of these, again, series
of conversations with city staff to think about and question and second-guess the assumptions
so that we're in a decent place in terms of where we are today in terms of the different
revenues, whether it's a calculated rate or an effective rate. One of the examples of
an effective rate is we wanted to come up with an estimate of net retail sales per square
foot. And so we worked with the city to understand aggregated sales tax data in relation to growth
in built occupied retail environment to get at that net number. Now we know from experience
that's going to be a volatile number, particularly post-COVID. So that might be a number that
we update more consistently. But thinking about how to calculate and come up with justifiable
numbers is a critical approach for us. And I think one of the things we're most intrigued
about at the beginning was leveraging GIS to be able to get at, in many cases, parcel-specific
assumptions. So being able to think about based on where you are in the city, what those
underlying land values are, what the zoning allows for, what the new development is, and
what, for example, say the property taxes or utility taxes could be. Taking that information
at a parcel level and ultimately working up to get to our assumptions was a critical thing
about this. Because obviously based on where you are in the community, the costs could
be different. So thinking about that and being able to pull that up was one of our key goals
in the process. And specifically the revenues could be different.
Probably one of the areas that we spent a lot of time thinking about was cost of city
services, specifically general fund basis. So a lot of time for me as the economist wading
through city comprehensive financial statements. I know not the most exciting thing, but we
enjoy it. Thinking about this sort of long-term question as, you know, the city grows, there's
at least an argument that the marginal cost of providing city services should decrease
as we add more residents. So what that tells us is that growth rate on cost should be potentially
less than inflation over time. And at least historically what we're running for in the
model right now is, you know, 2.4% growth in general fund cost. And this is an assumption
that can be changed in the model on an annual basis. But it becomes that one of those critical
notions of how does a new project increase the city's cost of doing business on a general
fund basis. So to us this was an important assumption. But we wanted to actually think
about different ways of looking at the data as well.
Now basically last fall there was a critical moment where we handed the model over to the
city. And I don't remember if I told Charlie to attempt to break the model, but we wanted
to put it through its paces. In other words, try to use it in a bunch of real-world situations
and to see how it was calculating. Because again, we can't always predict the different
scenarios in which it'll be used. And so we wanted to get that real-world experience.
And I think we learned two things for that process. The first was that the model wasn't
dealing with increases in density very well. So if we were adding density within a given
site it was increasing the cost of each additional resident. And we generally agreed that if
we added more residents in a given specific parcel, that marginal cost of each additional
resident should probably go down. So this really triggered a literature review to understand
this question of how does density reduce the cost of city services. And quite frankly there's
a huge body of research that goes back about 40 years on this topic. In our case we found
research from 2021 that actually provided very clear marginal reductions in revenues
and costs for each city department to give us a framework for how we might reduce the
cost of going from say four units to the acre to say ten units to the acre. So again at
the margin we're able to say it costs the city slightly less amount to provide services
based on more density within a given location. When you read all of these studies though
it's very clear that as you build up in density and start thinking about transit and taller
buildings obviously city cost tends to grow. So that's one of those assumptions that we
think is probably pretty stable for the near term. But it's one of those things to think
about. But again this was one that we made, spent a significant amount of time this spring
trying to adjust for because it wasn't being dealt with in the model really well. I think
the other one that's really been a big focus in the last six months has been this whole
question about roadways, life cycle costs of roadways. The model always dealt well with
the roadway impact fee. It's a relatively straightforward calculation. But there was
this broader question of as roads are taken into the city system what's the cost to maintain
those roads over time and what's that incremental cost to a project whether it be an infill
site with no new roads or say a new subdivision where there's not only impacts on existing
city streets but new roads coming into the system. And we obviously had one set of assumptions
probably six months ago and in the last six months we've revisited almost all of those
and I think we're at a better place now. I think there's still some questions we're
working through here. But the basic goal is to give the city a better perspective of the
true long term cost of how does road maintenance come into play in terms of thinking about
new real estate development. So I think this is probably one of the areas where I think
we're much happier with the result meaning coming up with an ongoing cost over 40 years
to maintain a road at such a level where it won't fall apart and we have to reconstruct
it. So we're doing a better job of trying to maintain a road before we have to rebuild
it from scratch if that makes sense. Now ultimately what we want to be able to do is to start
to build again a faceplate to the model to allow us to understand all the different assumptions.
I think the model deals with a tremendous number of different assumptions that we can
think about based on the property type whether it's single family, multi family, whether
it's under three stories or over three stories. We built in a significant amount of flexibility
here to deal with different scenarios because we obviously can't anticipate all of them.
And one of the things I'm excited about is that ability to deal with quite possibly just
about any single development format you could think of is at least at this point conceptually
in the model. But then ultimately building in a fiscal summary page and I think it's
the intent of Charlie and Development Services to be able to present a summary like this
whenever we're thinking about a project to be able to understand the sort of net benefit
over 40 years to that project. Again thinking about whether it's a revenue or a cost item,
what does that look like at the bottom line. So again this sort of simple summary is one
way that we may see these things presented in the future in terms of policy action.
And again I think this last spring what we started to do was to put the model through
its paces and so this is one example where we took an actual parcel conveniently one
acre in size and started to think about how we change density on that parcel, how we think
about the number of people as well as jobs associated with that parcel. Again these are
all single family up to multi-family projects. Thinking about average unit sizes, construction
cost, one of the big adjustments we made this winter was the model right now runs off of
construction costs based on national building code, international building code. We recognized
early on that a developer might build a building that's more expensive than the code so he
wanted to build in an option in the model to say well it's not a $350,000 house, it's
a $450,000 house. And to have that difference to be picked up in the model is one of the
adjustments. So what we noticed here obviously is thinking about the notion of revenues,
cost of municipal services and then that net impact at the bottom. And I think the one
thing you notice here is as we increase in density that marginal cost of each resident
decreases. So again that's one of those key things we wanted to get at was as we add density
that marginal cost should be going down to some extent. But also thinking about that
net impact and does it ultimately make sense in terms of residential product versus say
retailer commercial product. And really on this last slide we wanted to actually think
about some actual projects and how they might look based on the model and I think some of
this is fairly intuitive in terms of commercial projects and significantly greater net impact.
I always think about this too, the three single family options and realizing lane miles constructed.
And obviously now in the model it's going to take a heavier hand with more lane miles
constructed. So that's one of the differences in the model as we see today. But again a
applying it to different real world situations whether it be an infill site close to the
core or a greenfield site at the edge of town. Those are two very different scenarios and
being able to understand cost implications and revenue implications is something we wanted
to think through carefully. Questions, comments?
I think this is a great tool. If I was to be a devil's advocate though, you know, wouldn't
it be fair to say that there is a built in bias in this formula towards more density.
I mean this really didn't say anything new. We all know a development further out from
the city's core is going to cost more, you know, we know that. But as a thriving city
you have to offer alternatives. I mean not everybody wants to live 10 houses per acre.
You know what I mean? Does that make sense? Yeah. I mean so are we not going to build
an R2, R3 development because it doesn't make, I mean it just seems there's a built
in bias. Yeah, right. So and I think this goes back
to one of the key points that Charlie had made at the beginning of the presentation
is that, you know, we need to make sure that we're considering all types of development
within our community. We cannot evaluate projects on a project by project basis as it relates
to the fiscal impact to the city. It's very important that we have a community that has
a balance of land uses both from non-residential and residential. As the data showed, commercial
development and multifamily projects are going to have a better financial benefit to the
city. But we also recognize the importance of having single family housing. It's very
important that we have a variety of housing types within our community so that our residents
and future residents have an opportunity to select from a variety of housing options.
We have an issue with affordable housing that we're also trying to address. So that's why
we say this is only one out of 13 criteria for evaluating zoning requests because we
recognize the significance and importance of having a wide variety of land uses within
our community. And I would also caution the commission that as we make decisions on projects,
they need to be land use based, right? So our future land use map is one of the key
components that we look at as part of our comprehensive plan and our policies. They
are very land use focused. And so we need to make sure that we're evaluating projects
from a standpoint of is the proposed land use consistent with our comprehensive plan
recommended land uses for the area. It shouldn't be based upon what is the price of the single
family home that's being provided for, or if it's, you know, Starbucks versus Tina's
coffee shop that's being evaluated. Again, it comes down to appropriateness of land use.
Thank you. And thank you all for the work. And this is a great idea. It's a great thing
tool to use. And I'm all for it. I just wanted to kind of play devil's advocate a little
bit on it. Thank you. Commissioner. Scott. Commissioner call. I appreciate that comment.
And I guess I just want to even make it a little more clear. This is not designed as
a tool to disapprove a project. It is not a tool that's designed to prevent something
from occurring. It's just another informative way for us to be able to bring projects forward
and you can see comprehensively how this fits into our community. So just I want to make
sure that's just abundantly clear. It's not a tool in the toolbox to negate something.
Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair. More vice chair. I just thank you for all your work on this. I think
it's been a long time coming and a lot of hard work has gone into it. I did have one
just brief question. I think obviously for projects where this is applied and it comes
into backup, we'll be able to see it. Will this be used in the development process for
by right projects for staff's information or will it only be used for projects as they
come before us? I think there's a variety of uses that we can use this for. Even when
it first came together, it was contemplated if we're looking at a specific area to incentivize
redevelopment, a tool like this could be used to look at multiple different project types
in an area. So I think there's a variety of ways that we could use this tool and not just
the items that come before this commission. Okay. Yeah, I guess I would think -- I think
we've talked before about having whatever it is yearly or bi-yearly reviews of the culmination
of projects that have come both before us and through the rest of the process. And as
we talk about, hey, what we want is a balanced pattern of development, it might help if we're
already doing that work to be able to see whether this tool is also balanced once you
sum all the projects together, if that makes sense.
Yes, I believe I follow you on that. And I guess I go back to -- so with respect to by
right development, this tool, we shouldn't be utilizing for by right development. And
the reason why I say that is because the zoning has already entitled the uses that are allowed
within it. So if somebody comes in with a project that is allowed under the existing
zoning by right, then they have the opportunity to get their plans approved if they meet all
of our development requirements, right, but be able to get that permit. So this is not
a conversation for by right development. So you're right with respect to reporting project
progress. I think that was primarily geared toward the Conference of Plan and our 271
action items associated with that. But I think there could be some benefit in making sure
that we evaluate this tool over time and could provide, you know, maybe an annual summary
to the Planning and Zoning Commission to demonstrate how well we believe this tool is working for
us or working against us or if any of the assumptions need to be modified as we work
through it.
Got a couple of questions. Tina answered one of them there, just about us having an annual
report or something like that so we could see just how the impact tool is, this fiscal
tool is working for us to be able to see projects as a whole as they've come in front of them,
the PNZ and then going in front of council, how that pans out. So thank you, Tina, for
answering that. There was a question that I think Charlie, you kind of brought up there
a second ago that I want to come back to saying that we could use this tool as a way of identifying
areas that we should maybe look to incentivize development. Does this tool incorporate the
ability for us to input maybe tax breaks that we're giving or tax incentives we're giving
and calculate that into the total fiscal analysis? Is that included in that tool for us to be
able to see that? Not saying that it pumps out, saying this is the recommendation if
you want to incentivize, but if we do have incentivization projects that come from like
economic development and can we input that into the tool and see how that affects our
fiscal analysis? Yeah, actually, there's a section in the tool that allow us to add any
of those additional economic development incentives as part of the fiscal summary. Okay, awesome.
Whenever you are discussing marginal cost, talk to me about what that means. I understand
it. It sounds like what you're talking about is the dollar to develop or dollar to repair
per person, and that's kind of why you said marginal cost decreases as density increases.
Give me just the definition of what you mean by marginal cost.
So the way the model works specifically with general fund costs is that it looks at growth
in population over time, growth in inbound commuters. So workers who come in, that's
our total on an annual basis over I believe a 10 to 15 year period in relation to growth
in general fund costs over that time. What we're trying to get to is both a compound
growth rate and the expectation, the hypothesis going in was that it was going to be less
than inflation and it was, which was helpful, but also on a per person basis, per person
plus per commuter effectively, what's that marginal cost of each person we add, what's
that cost? Gotcha. And I think begging or baked into that approach is actually an important
question and I always remember this, my wife is a high school principal and she always
says that at certain times of the year that 25th or 26th kid doesn't, it's all revenue,
it doesn't cost much. So I think there is a conversation to be had about pragmatically
what is the marginal cost based on project size. I think we're making a general statement
across the board that well if we add a project there's a cost and I think there's probably
an argument that for projects below a certain size that cost might actually be more negligible.
Also based on location, I think this is one of the things we really keyed in on was is
it an infill project where we're keeping the existing road versus is it a greenfield
project where there's a new road to be built? There's obviously a different cost factor
there. Gotcha. Okay. Did this also take into account hot tax and things like that that
are collected from obviously hotel occupancies? Yes. Is that included in there? I just didn't
see it on the tools I was going through when we were looking at the last slide. We spent
a lot of time thinking about assumptions and being able to come up with appropriate proxies
based on whether it's a hotel or some other use. Gotcha. I understand. And then I think
to Commissioner Pruitt's questions, what step do we include this tool? I mean obviously
it's, we wouldn't be doing it necessarily at zoning because at zoning there's not a,
we don't have a project to look at. Is it done at preliminary platting? Is it done at
the time of engineering as we lead up to that platting process? When do we see as a city
we would incorporate that tool? I was going to say I have, well Charlie I was going to
say, have you given thought to this as to where we would incorporate this? And I've
got an idea and that is any report that we produce that requests for the fiscal impact
analysis as an evaluation criteria that we could include that information. Now keep in
mind some of the reports that you receive that address fiscal impact analysis, the zoning
entitlements are already in place, right? So and a great example I believe is on our
platting reports. One of the criteria that's in there is, thank you for the head nonsense
too, one of the criteria that's in there is the fiscal impact analysis. So that data
could be put in there. But again, when it comes to a by-right project that's already
been entitled, this really is just for informational purposes only. So it seems like it's at the
step in which this commission is acting more in a ministerial manner than anything else.
Is that correct? Especially on those plotting items? Yes. Gotcha. Okay. What about in the
form of like a PD, whenever there is a plot that's being submitted with that zoning change?
You know with, so I believe one of the criteria for evaluation on the fiscal impact analysis
does apply to rezoning as well as specific use permits. So we would work to be able to
provide that information to the commission. I think, and I don't know if, I can't recall
if we tested this on much larger scale projects that might have a variety of different land
uses included with them. I guess if we get a development plan in, we would probably be
able to plug the information into the tool. Yeah, so one of the benefits of the tool is
it allows for multiple uses. And so that we can look at a single project and include residential,
retail uses, commercial uses. So those can all be included on a single project. And I
think also a benefit of the tool is we don't have to have a lot of inputs to be able to
produce a fiscal impact to the city. I will say, obviously, the more information that
we have about a project, it's going to be a better analysis. And these projects may
also change as projects change going through the process. So if we receive something and
then it comes to platting and the project has changed a little bit, the fiscal impact
obviously is going to be different as part of that as well. I think my only, I think
it's a great tool. And I think my only concern is we've been, this is, this has been discussed.
This tool has been discussed for what, two, three, four, I mean, I've been on the commission
for five years and we've been talking about it. You know, hopefully, hopefully having
this come up. I think my only fear has ever been having something like this involved has
just been possibly muddying the lines when we see something that is ministerial, like
a preliminary plat or a final plat, that we, we see an impact analysis that's negative
and it begins to confuse folks to say that, you know, the city, therefore we couldn't
do something about it. I think that the, I think it being involved in a zoning process
and being informational is, is extremely great. I'd, I'd, I'll let Scott talk in a second,
but the, I think that my, I think there's a little bit of a fear there of we see this
in a, a zoning process or an SUP process that may end up affecting a vote that comes forward.
But regardless, I think having more information is always better than not having more information.
So I just want to make sure that's clear. Before I throw to Scott, I just want to recognize
on record that Commissioner Anderson has, has joined us. So welcome, Ronnie. But Scott.
Well, and I think just to be frank that, that this will be a learning process for all of
us. So I think that we will, will gain a better understanding as we work through this and
walk through this staff, your professional planning staff will ensure that you understand
that this is for informational purposes or just part of the backup like anything else.
So we'll try to delineate that. And again, I think we're all going to learn as we do
this. It's something new. And again, we'd like to think that it's an improvement. So
we appreciate that. Thanks, Scott. Okay. Any other questions from the commission?
I just want to thank everybody. This has been a long time coming. We spent hundreds of hours
in this model, testing it, I'm going through and redrafting it and get the best product
that we can. So thank you guys for all your support on that. Thank you, Charlie. Thank
you Acom for your guys' hard work on it. So thank you. Really appreciate it. Thank you.
Great. Commissioner Smith, if I could just add, I mean, significant kudos to Charlie
as well as Chris as well. Charlie has been tremendous in trying to lead us through this
effort on pulling this tool together and really allowing us to ask lots of questions related
to it and challenging the, especially the assumptions associated with it. So tremendously huge thank
you to both of you for that. Of course. Hang around Charlie. I'll buy you dinner tonight.
All right. Moving on to our next work session report. PZ 22-114. Receive report, whole discussion
regarding overlay districts and historic districts. I think we got Mia and Cameron tag teaming
this one. Good evening, commission. Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer and
principal planner. And then we have Mia Hines, associate planner. Let me bring up the overlay
bootcamp. Okay. So this evening, our planning bootcamp is historic districts and overlay
districts. On the agenda, first we're going to be covering just the purpose and history
of overlays, just to give you kind of that foundation to build off of. And then we're
going to start running into our different overlay districts. We have our municipal airport,
unicorn lake, razor ranch, followed by Fry Street. And then I'll be talking about historic
districts as well as our Denton square district. And then we'll be ending with helpful links.
So now I'm going to have pass it over to Mia. Thank you, Cameron. Okay. Again, Mia Hines,
associate planner. All right. So what is an overlay district? I like to think of it as
a chicken burrito or a chicken burrito bowl, excuse me. So a chicken burrito bowl to me
is a chicken burrito bowl to you, but they are not the same typically because of the
rice type and the toppings and stuff like that. And so similarly, an overlay district
would be the bowl and then the base zoning would be the chicken. So I say a chicken burrito
bowl and then you understand it as a chicken burrito bowl. We say PD with a base zoning
of MN. It has the same similar type of understanding, but there are different stipulations and different
regulations within that that are special and unique to that specific land area. So sub
chapter four of the Denton development code establishes procedures and standards to allow
for the creation of overlay and historic districts, excuse me, in the city of Denton. And again,
that is meant to protect and enhance specific lands and structures by applying specific
standards to that overlay district. The districts shall contain in the creation of them reasonable
and necessary requirements to ensure the protection and enhancement of said lands and structures.
The creation and amendments to an overlay district shall be made pursuant to subsection
2.7.4 and 2.7.2 and those are the standards that we use whenever we bring zoning text amendments
or zoning map amendments to this body. So historically speaking, currently overlay conditions
are not permitted for base zoning districts under the 2019 DDC. So if you have a straight
zoning district or zoning change request brought to you, we cannot apply conditions to that
specific straight zoning. We do still have the PD tool or have the PD tool to apply overlays,
but under our current DDC, we do not allow us for overlay conditions to be established
on straight zoning changes. Under the 2002 DDC, we did have the flexibility under the
mixed use residential protection overlay standard and that was used where necessary to address
the concerns of owners of existing adjacent residential uses and sort of apply maybe additional
setback requirements or additional landscape requirements and sort of to help provide flexibility
in areas where a developing use would have adversely impacted a neighborhood or to protect
environmental areas. There's different reasons to apply overlay districts, but mainly it's
to address development concerns or limitations within a specific area. Under the current
DDC, section 2.4.5 F1 does allow for conditions of approval, but those cannot be applied to,
like I said earlier, straight zoning changes and zoning map amendments. And then currently
under our current DDC and section 2.7.3, we have standards and procedures for rezoning
to a plan development, which is a completely other boot camp in itself and the complications
and things, complexities of things associated with plan development. So just to give you
a brief history of how overlays are and how they've come about. So as we mentioned in
the title slide or excuse me, the agenda slide, we do have a couple of overlay districts here
within the city of Denton that have transitioned to PDs under the 2019 DDC. Specifically we're
going to discuss Fry Street, Unicorn Lake, Razor Ranch, Historic Districts, Denton Square
District and the Municipal Airport District. And as you can see, a lot of the things that
they regulate are parking, uses, density, dwelling unit size, things like that, specific
to those areas. So jumping straight in with the Municipal Airport overlay district, these
standards and the things that regulate this area can be found in DDC section 4.5. And
these are standards that restrict the height of structures and objects of natural growth,
land uses and implement state and federal rules regarding land uses in the vicinity
of the airport. And that's essentially to ensure safe travels and safe flight paths
for the planes using that airport area. Another overlay district that we have is the Unicorn
Lake overlay. So this is a district that was established, for example, to protect an environmentally
sensitive area while still allowing for density and development within an area. This particular
district was established via ordinance 2006-139 and encompasses approximately 47 acres allowing
for up to 112 maximum single family residential units. The Razor Ranch overlay district is
probably our most active overlay district. I think we have at least maybe two agenda
items on the agenda for tonight regarding Razor Ranch. This particular area encompasses
approximately 410 acres of land and allows for development of a mix of uses located near
West University and I-35. The last comprehensive ordinance for the Razor Ranch overlay was
adopted in 2016. Staff will be working with a consultant to provide another comprehensive
ordinance and add that to our current DDC just so we have those standards in a centralized
location. So with that, I'll pass it back over to Cameron to cover the Fry Street overlay
and the historic districts. Thanks, Mia. So moving on to Fry Street overlay, this is located
in our DDC section 4.6, but it covers approximately 12 acres and is divided into two sub areas,
sub area A and B as you can see on the map here. It does apply to all buildings, structures,
sites and properties within that district. It does allow for that multifamily dwelling,
which we obviously see in our sub area B, which you can see in our photo here at Fry
and Hickory Street in the lower right hand corner. It does also regulate off street parking,
solid waste containers and signage and it does have district dimensional standards involved
and it does look at lot dimensions, setbacks and other standards such as height maximum
as well as coverage. In addition to that, we do have additional standards for sub area
B, which is that multifamily apartment complex, that mixed use that we see and it does regulate
site landscape and building and parking designs and those site plans are specifically shown
within the DDC. Moving on to our historic districts, we do have three local historic
districts within Denton, the Oak Hickory Historic District, which is covered in 4.9.4, our Belle
Avenue Historic District, which used to be a conservation overlay and this is located
in our subsection 4.9.5 and then lastly our West Oak Area Historic District, which is
located in 4.9.6 and all of these buildings within the historic districts are reviewed
under our Secretary of Interior Standards, also known as the standards and they also
do within their overlays have additional individual architectural requirements that they that
are overseen by the DDC such as fencing, ordinary maintenance, window replacements, things such
as that. So just to kind of give you all a general idea of where these historic districts
are, I circled the square, the Oak Hickory Historic District is probably our most well
known historic district and that's located west of the square along West Oak and these
are just an example of some of the properties that are in that area, but you can see a historic
building and the building today and once again these are kind of why we have these regulations
in place to show and retain that historic character that we have here in the city. Another
example Belle Avenue, which is located just north of T.W.U. campus, but once again that
historic photo and then the building today. And then lastly the West Oak Area Historic
District, which is located a little bit further west along West Oak, generally between Houston
Place and Hickory Street. So moving on to the Denton Square District, this is located
in subsection 4.10. The district is outlined there kind of in that brown tan color and
I wanted to start the local landmarks within this district. These are properties that are
under HLC jurisdiction as local landmarks so I just wanted to highlight that. But when
it looks, when we're looking at the Denton Square District, this did get implemented
in June of 2019 and it also falls under the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic
Properties, but we're also looking at an individual set of guidelines which are located in the
DDC, but also in their own packet and that is the Denton Square District Standards and
Guidelines. And this really is regulating the built environment so that we're looking
at building orientation, setbacks, materials being used and ultimate goal of it is to promote
and preserve the square and to look at proper context and proper infill. So as we're kind
of wrapping this presentation up, we just wanted to share where you can find these different
overlays on our Denton interactive map. So you can go to our GIS maps, click on planning,
go under the subcategory to overlay districts and then you'll see all our districts there
that you can click on so you have a better idea of where all these are. As you can see,
most of them are located more centrally within our 288 loop in the I-35, but then we also
have our municipal airport overlay on the west side of the city and then we have Unicorn
Lake a little bit further south, south of I-35 east on the southeast edge of the city.
And as we wrap up here, we have our helpful links, the standards which I just discussed,
the Denton Square District Guidelines, Preservation Plan, Zoning Map, Comprehensive Plan and Community
Code, but we are free to stand for any questions. Thank you, Mia and Cameron. Any questions
from the commission? Mia, can you go back to the historical lake district for the downtown
area? Just a pure curiosity. So the STARD, the STARD properties have to fall underneath
the HLC guidelines, but then the entire, our entire historic overlay applies to all buildings
within there? Correct. So the STARD are local landmarks, so they have additional jurisdiction
under HLC, so HLC has to review those. Just those properties. Yes, correct. But when we're
looking at the square as a whole, that does have its own kind of set of standards separate
from HLC. Gotcha. I'm guessing HLC is more strict than our standards are. Yes, correct.
Okay, got it. So basically it's like the entire down there has one set of strict standards
and then those STARD ones have even more strict on top of that. Correct. Okay, just wanted
to make sure. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So any other questions? Thank you all very much for
your hard work. Appreciate it. Okay. That brings us to clarification of agenda items
for tonight. I'll give a few notes to make sure if you guys saw the emails that came
in. Item 3E FP 22-0027A has been withdrawn by the applicant. And then items 4C and 4E
both had revisions that were emailed out. 4C, just whenever we make a vote, it'll be,
if it is a vote for approval, it will be with the modifications as prescribed in the presentation.
And then on 4E, if approved for a vote with modifications as presented on some revised
ordinance text. So you guys should have all received that. Okay. First item then 2A, consideration
of the of the meeting minutes from August 24, 2022. Any comments or questions on that?
Okay. Seeing none, move on to 3A ZCP 22-0018. I think that's Mia Hines coming on up for
that one. Okay. Good evening again, members of commission. Mia Hines, associate planner.
Just a brief overview of this agenda item. It is a request for a site plan approval for
a razor ranch medical office development phase three. The site is approximately 2.065 acres
located at the southeast corner of Panhandle and I-35 frontage. And staff will be recommending
approval of this request as it meets the established requirements. Just a brief reminder that the
reason that this is a zoning compliance plan, which is typically approved administratively,
but the reason that this is coming before this body is because it's within the razor
ranch south campus. So Tina, do you have anything to add in there? Got you. All right. Thank
you, Mia. Any questions? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think you got the
next one. FP 22-0028. Mia, I'm telling you, we're going to combine all these into one
PowerPoint and make it super easy. I should. I should. Okay. Good evening again. This is
a final plat for the razor ranch addition. At this time, the plat, I'm sorry, located
south of university, east of I-35. At this time, staff is recommending denial as the
plat doesn't meet all of our approval criteria. However, we have no objection to the request
extension to a date certain of September 28th, 2022. Okay. Any questions? All right. Three
for three, MP 22-0011B. Oh, that is me. That is you. Sorry. You're good. Okay. This is
a minor plat located within the city's ETJ at the northeast corner of March and, sorry,
I can't read the street name. It is of J&J Acres. It does not meet all of our criteria
for approval. At this time, we tried to work with the applicant here last minute as well,
and we just weren't able to get to that point, so we are recommending denial of this case.
And we already gave an extension on this one. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions? All right.
Thank you, Mia. All right. Bring us to 3D PP 22-0022. Sean Jacobson to present. Good
evening, Chair and members of the commission. So, yes, this is PP 22-22, which is the prominent
square addition. It's a 36.13 acre site at the southeast corner of Loop 288 and University.
At this time, staff is recommending denial, but we do not object to the request for an
extension to that October 12th. Any questions? No questions? Okay. Thank you, Sean. 3E has
been withdrawn, so it's a 3F PP 22-0021A. Julie Wyatt to present. Good evening, Julie
Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. This is PP 22-21. This is located between
Loop 288 and Mayhill. The purpose of this plat is to facilitate a multifamily development.
They still have to get an SUP for that multifamily development, as well as address some other
items on that preliminary plat. They have submitted for those additional requirements,
but they're not quite there yet, so we are recommending denial of the request. I'll be
happy to answer any questions. And we gave the extension last meeting, correct? Yes, sir.
Any other questions? All righty. Thank you, Julie. 3G PP 22-0007A, all you. All right.
So this is for a single-family residential development south of Audra. It is the second
phase of a two-phase project. They have a couple of things they need to work through
on this preliminary plat, so we are recommending denial. However, we have no objection to that
extension that they requested. Okay. Any questions from the commission? All right. Thank you,
Julie. Last one, FP 22-0001. All right. This is for the Agave Ranch development, and you're
probably all very familiar with this one. They did get a plat or a preliminary plat extension
a couple of weeks ago from this commission. They're now moving forward with their final
plat. They do have some items that they do need to work through on this first phase of
their final plat, so staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objection to their
requested extension, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Any questions
from the commission? I know there was an email sent in, Julie, from the North Denton Neighborhood
Association. I don't know if you had a chance to review any of those comments they had in
there and would be willing to address it. I don't want to go through line by line item
on there on a plat with an extension request, but are any of those things been brought to
the attention of the applicant to be able to address? It seems like they're referencing
things that were put into the overlay as originally approved. Yes. So we went through the concerns
with that neighborhood association, and they were related to those overlay conditions.
So this zoning was approved a couple of years ago with overlay conditions with the adoption
of or the implementation of the 2019 Denton Development Code, those transition to a PD.
So any development on the site has to conform to that, and that has to do with land use
as well as screening and other open space requirements. We did go through their concerns.
A lot of their concerns were related to those amenities that are required of the development,
some trail systems, some park amenities. Those are things that are typically or those aren't
reflected on final plots. Those are reflected in the development of the site. So the applicant
has reserved those common area open space lots that are going to be maintained by the
HOA to accommodate those landscape buffers and open space amenities that are required
by the applicant, but that wouldn't be reflected on the final plot. Only the reserved space
will be reflected on the final plot? Yes, sir. Got you. Okay. I know there was a question
about phasing, but I think we understand they're doing this in I think three phases, correct?
They are. And staff, the way their plot does reflect, the phasing is a little unconventional,
so we have asked them to be a little clearer with their resubmittal so that it's very clear
going forward how that phasing is approached in those remainder areas.
How do they make it more clear on the plot? There really isn't a set rule as to how an
applicant could address these. It's pretty open-ended in terms of our Denton Development
Code and the Texas Local Government Code, but we just want to make sure that however
they choose to say that this is phase two or phase three, that it's just very clear
on the plot. Got it. Okay. All righty. Any other questions
from the commission? Thank you, Julie. Thank you. Appreciate it. That brings us to item
number four, public hearings, 4A PD 22-0006 and Cameron Robertson to present. Good evening,
commissioners. Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer and principal planner.
There it is. Okay. So this is for PD 22-0006. This is a request for a planned development
with MN-based zoning for an approximately 36,000 square foot home zone furniture showroom
at the southeast corner of University Drive or also known as US 380 and Ector Street.
It is consistent with other commercial development along US 380. The majority of the parking
would be placed at the front of the lot and the property or the building itself would
be centered between that north and south property line along that western edge to mitigate impact
for those residential properties to the south. It is also staff found that it is consistent
with our Denton 2040 comprehensive plan and staff is recommending approval. And I can
take any questions. Any questions, commission? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, vice chair.
Just qualitatively so that we're all on the same page, is there a particular main reason
why this is decided to go to the PD route and the main zoning category wouldn't apply
or wouldn't be sufficient for the proposed development? So currently it is an MN zoning
district. If we went the just MN zoning district, we would not be allowed to have front parking.
The parking would be near the rear nor near those residential properties. Additionally,
we would have to have that SUP for a general retail use over 15,000 square feet. So what
this PD is trying to provide is proper infill, more contextual that is more compatible with
the properties, commercial properties along US 380 as well as to reduce the impact to
those residential properties at that southern edge. Okay. Thank you. Tina. And to that point,
I think Cameron explained that very well. Normally we would not advocate the planning
and zoning commission consider planning plan development district requests for single lots.
But in this case, as Cameron pointed out, we felt it was an appropriate solution to
be able to address this infill development. We understand why the MN zoning was put in
place, particularly from a land use perspective. But when it comes to the existing surrounding
development conditions, especially if you look at the existing grocery store that is
immediately to the West, that it would only be appropriate to consider this type of solution
as it relates for the development of that property. So otherwise you normally hear us
on our soapbox about our caution on using PDs. Trust me, we hear it. Thank you. Is the
applicant have a presentation tonight, Cameron? They do not have a presentation, but they
will be here for Q&A. Okay. I'll just ask the question here because it's more of a
piece of curiosity. Are they going to shut down the other home zone over off 288 or is
this going to be a second location in the city of Dunlap? From my understanding, this
would be a second location. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other
questions? All right. For BZ22-0004A, Mia Hines to present. Thank you. Mia Hines, just
a brief description of this request. It is to amend the text associated with the Razor
Ranch overlay district's allowance of multifamily within the Razor Ranch South Campus. Specifically,
they are wanting to add 200 multifamily units. Currently, the Razor Ranch overlay district
standards allows for up to 1800 multifamily units within the Razor Ranch South Campus.
They're wanting to increase that to 2,000 and it's just a zoning text amendment. They
aren't trying to include it in an area where it isn't already permitted or anything like
that. As part of this though, we wanted to further clarify, visually speaking, where
multifamily is permitted on the zoning concept plan just to show, again, it's something that's
already listed within the standards where multifamily is, but just to visually show
and have a visual representation of where multifamily is permitted. With that, staff
is recommending approval of the request as it complies with the applicable sections of
our DDC and I will take any questions you have at this time.
Any questions for the commission? I've only got one. I know you just made the presentation
on overlay districts a minute ago on work session reports. This feels a little bit of
cart before the horse in the sense that you referenced that there was going to be a review
of that Razor Ranch overlay district and is that correct in understanding what you said
earlier? Not a review, but a compiling of Razor Ranch ordinances the way that they're
amended. Every amendment doesn't include the entirety of the Razor Ranch district development
standards. What we're wanting to do instead of when I'm looking at a specific sub area
and reviewing it, I have to go find the specific ordinance and then point to those specific
development standards within that specific ordinance. What we're wanting to do is compile
the changes and amendments and add that to as an appendix to our 2019 DDC just so it's
much easier for us to access and it's much easier for the public to access as well.
I know we've made amendments in the past, but I just know the city staff started working
on this. We're making changes to it, but if we're just compiling them all together, then
what's another one? So, okay. Well, and to that point, what I would add is given all
of the ordinance amendments that have transpired over time, this is going to be a complex project
for us to consolidate, and we had started on an effort and then the person who was working
on it is no longer with that entity, so we're basically having to start over again. So,
we don't want to cause any delay with the applicants project in this particular case.
So, as for right now, we believe it's appropriate to go ahead and allow for this means of addressing
the need. Got it. Thank you. Any questions?
Okay. Thank you, Mia. Thank you.
Brings us to 4C, S21-0008, Ron Megida to present for us.
Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. I'll take my glasses off so I can see. Again,
Ron Megida, principal planner of development services. The request is for a specific use
permit as introduced for an equipment sales and rental use. The equipment sales and rental
use is part of a U-Haul commercial business, which will consist of office, warehouse, self-storage,
as well as the equipment sales and rental uses as requested. It is located here, as
you can see in yellow, just north of 380, east of Spring Valley Drive, and, again, approximately
5.892 acres in size. The site plan that you see here, you hopefully had received the revised
version of it. I just want to highlight a couple things. Obviously, it's going to be
made up of three buildings. Building A will be where the office and front of the business
will be located with also warehouse spaces to store the U-Box containers. So that is
primarily what Building A will serve. Building B is the location of the self-storage units.
Those are individual units rented by individuals, again, to store their items. Similarly, Building
C will have similar type units for individual renters to rent those units. The specific
use permit, as again introduced, is really to allow for the equipment rental and sales
area or use, and that is displayed here in what is shown highlighted in this darker gray
shading, one location here as well as the other area, which is shown over here. Also,
want to make mention as part of the conditions, which I will highlight in a second, there
will be some locations where those U-Box containers will be stored temporarily. This is to allow
for those individuals that own those U-Boxes to empty or load them again from the U-Boxes
to their units or vice versa, as well as a U-Box display only, which will be located
in front by the front entrance, and this will be just for that purpose to display that type
of use or that type of container. I'll go straight to the recommendations or the conditions
that is staff is recommending approval of the specific use permit with the following
conditions. Condition one is primarily making sure that the site plan as well as the landscape
plan is followed and complied with. If there are any changes, they will require a new specific
use permit. Now, there is some allowances for some slight changes to the landscape area,
up to 5%, but again, all other changes will require a new specific use permit. Storage
of the U-Box containers are prohibited outdoors. They must be located within an enclosed structure.
Again, except for those that we mentioned earlier that you saw earlier, the display
one will be located in front. That will be outdoors, as well as those temporary stored
containers, again, right in front of building B. Those will also be outdoors if there is
a need for them, and again, that area is specified in the site plan, and that is the only area
in which those U-Boxes will be located. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for
any questions.
>> Commissioner Perot.
>> Thank you, Vice Chair. Just one, when staff was evaluating this, did you look at the proposed
alignment of the 380 to 288 bypass on TxDOT's future projects, and how does that impact
this area, or is it further north of this?
>> I think it's further north of this, and I know Karina, who also was part of this review,
and I'm getting a head nod as well. So yes, the transportation department, as well as
our other engineering department, looked at that specific alignment.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions to the commission? I think the only question I have is I know
on DCRC on Monday, we were looking at the next item we were going to discuss was outdoor
storage, and I just didn't know, with you leaving the charge on that, how much, you
know, the changes and the recommendations that are within here are going to align with
some of those recommendations city staff was going to make to changes to outdoor storage
in the DDC.
>> Yes, the goal, right, and again, we won't get into that because I think posting, we
want to make sure we don't get outside of that.
>> Sure, I understand. I guess more of is we're not going to create a nonconformity
if there is some sort of change, ultimate change that gets created in the development
code later on down the road for outdoor storage. It seems like this has been very strict in
the way that it's restricting outdoor storage, and I guess to make it more, so that Hillary
doesn't hit me over the head in a minute, I've seen U-Haul facilities before that have
trucks that are stored all over the place on the site itself. I don't, I see it talks
about the U-Haul, the U-Box containers. I don't think this has actual truck rentals
there, so it's just storage facilities and the U-Boxes themselves, and that the U-Boxes
are being contained to only the temporary areas and the display areas. Is there anything
I'm missing on that?
>> So, no, these will include trailers and trucks as well, and because these are displayed,
you know, for immediate rental and for sale, they will be allowed, and that is something
that the development code will allow and, or does allow and will allow in the future.
>> But for, but for display, it's out there, but then for the actual storage of them, they'll
also be outdoors back there.
>> Correct. Correct. So, storage is a little bit, you know, different versus display, you
know.
>> Sure.
>> The ones that are not necessarily immediately for, you know, sale or rental, those are what
we're referring to as display, and I'm sorry, for as storage.
>> Yeah.
>> So, those are a little bit more stricter in what we would require.
>> Okay. Got it.
>> Commissioner Smith, if I could add to that. So, keep in mind, the DDC has a use that's
considered equipment, sales, and rental, and so, and then we also have outdoor storage.
So, in this particular instance, we've evaluated this as equipment, sales, and rental because
of the trucks and trailer component. The U-box container is a little bit of a unique situation
associated with this, and we felt like it aligned better with the equipment, sales,
and rental component of their business, but the standards that this request has been evaluated
against are based upon the requirements that we would have in place for equipment, sales,
and rental, which may have some differences compared to our standard outdoor storage regulations.
So, not to split hairs, but it does to some extent.
>> Gotcha. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson.
>> Thanks, Chair. Are there going to be open 24 hours to the storage units? Because, I
mean, there's a neighborhood right behind it, and I wouldn't want to live in that neighborhood.
>> My understanding is that they're going to have some, no, they'll be closed, is my
understanding. So, there'll be business hours where there will be closed hours.
>> But they don't have a code where they can come in and punch in and go to the storage
unit, all that stuff.
>> Not that, I mean, the applicant is here, and they'll be able to answer that question.
My understanding is even with that, they will not be allowed to enter the building during
closed hours.
>> Okay. Any other questions for the commission? Okay. Thank you, Ron. Brings us to 4D, DCA
22-0005. Ron, your project as well.
>> All right. Okay. This is a development code amendment related to multifamily dwelling.
And, really, the genesis of this code amendment started off with how we are to address multifamily
living. And those that are, you know, on the commission are familiar with these, these
are ones where they're on a single lot, and they are developed with either a single family
or duplex or even a triplex or fourplex on a single lot again. And so, trying to categorize
what that type of use is, it's a fairly new residential type. We, you know, struggled
with it. We actually processed it as PDs in the past. But after learning more of the function
and the way it's developed and what it's being used as, we felt that it was more of a multifamily
use. So, therefore, staff is recommending that we categorize it as a multifamily, have
adjusted that by, you know, refining and clarifying the definition of multifamily so that it would
include this type of use. We're also adding additional standards to enhance the multifamily
development. Again, as a result of adding this, I want to make sure that we address
these other, you know, components such as a single family type of housing. So that is
what is under Section 533D. That will be included in there to address specifically those buildings
that have one or two units. Lastly, we wanted to make sure that we address dimensional standards
under MN where the housing, or sorry, the height limit is 41 through 65 would require
a specific use permit, and that applies to all uses. We are actually limiting that or
applying that only to where it's adjacent to residential uses, and I'll discuss that
in our presentation during the public hearing. The DCRC met on this several times, three
dates specifically. Therefore, after meeting with staff and reviewing the proposed code
amendments, they've recommended that this be moved forward to the Applying Zoning Commission
and City Council. The sections that we saw here, or that you see here, pretty much what
I described earlier, we were going to work on the definition of multifamily. We're proposing
some main amendments there, adding that use specific standards for those buildings that
have one to two units, and then also that MN district dimensional standards as it relates
to building, maximum building height. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for
any questions. Any questions for Ron? Okay, seeing none. Thank you, Ron. Last one for
EDCA 22-0006. You all heard a little bit about plan developments
or overlay districts as it relates to plan developments. The reason for this code amendment
is really to develop a more comprehensive PD procedure from rezoning it to a plan development.
One of the major additions that we're proposing, staff, is the option for an overlay plan development.
What will result is there will be two types of PDs if this were to be approved. One, an
overlay, which is a little bit more or less involved as far as types of submittal requirements.
It's a little bit more to address the compatibility or the issues that are more related to adjacency.
That is what is being proposed. We're also looking at clarifying what submittal requirements
are for standard PDs. The current development code has it, but we felt that there was a
need for more clarification. Adding more information related to PD amendments. As we get more PDs,
more amendments will follow. Staff is recommending that we delete the notification requirements
for minor amendments. Currently, the requirement is to notify property owners. Again, we felt
that that was not necessarily needed for minor amendments as opposed to major amendments.
Lastly, looking at the criteria for approval for rezoning to a PD, we added a little bit
more information and more criteria so that when staff looks at it, when the Planning
and Zoning Commission looks at it, and City Council, they have a little bit more of information
in which to make their decision. That basically summarizes the PD code amendments.
Any questions for Ron? I've only got one. Ron, can you just walk through what is a minor
amendment and a major amendment when it comes to a PD?
Sure. Generally, a minor amendment is something very simple where it doesn't affect the site
layout. It doesn't affect the number of units or parking or any major design element. As
opposed to the major, which if they're proposing a change in their street configuration or
access, that sort of thing, a little bit more substantial. That is something that is considered
major. The full description of that is available on your backup if you need to. We can pull
that up during now, or we can pull it up during the public hearing.
No, I just wanted to make sure you said it out loud.
Commissioner Smith, if I could ask Ron a quick question. I seem to recall we had some corrected
text. Are you addressing that in your public hearing presentation, or was that sent out
previously? Yes, that will be part of the presentation
in the public hearing. Okay. Got it. All right. Thank you, Ron. Appreciate
it. Before we close work session, I just want to
recognize and say welcome back to Corina Maldonado for coming back from maternity leave and welcome
back on as a transportation planner. Everyone go over there and say hi to Corina. Glad you're
back and rolling. With that, I will close our work session at 544 and we will reconvene
in council chambers at 630. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton
planning and zoning meeting on September 14, 2022. I'll call our public meeting to order.
First item of business is item number one, pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flags.
Please stay with me if you're able. 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. Honoring the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the
United States of America and Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.
Thank you. All right. On to item two, consider approval of the planning and the zoning meeting
minutes for meeting of August 24, 2022. Commissioner Villarreal.
I move approval. I didn't see who the second was before I
got away. Commissioner Anderson.
Second. Okay. First and a second for approval.
Go ahead. Take a vote. Take a vote on the board.
That passes 6-0. Moving on to item three or item 3A, ZCP 22-0018.
I'll ask up Mia Hines. Mia Hines, associate planner.
This item is a zoning compliance plan for Razor medical office building phase three.
This is coming before this body, and I'll get into that subsection here in a second,
but this is coming before this body as it is within the Razor Ranch South Campus and
any site plan within that development area requires approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. So again, this is a consideration or considering
approval of the site plan for medical office development within the Razor Ranch overlay
district South Campus. The site, as you can see there to the right,
is approximately, or located at the southeast corner of Panhandle Street and I-35.
It's approximately 2.065 acres, and the area specifically that we're concerned about this
evening is the area highlighted in green. Previous phases for this have already been
developed and are existing, and this is just the phase three of that overall development.
So if you're familiar with the, I know you all are familiar with the Razor Ranch overlay
zoning, within the overlay are sub-districts, and then within those sub-districts are each
parcel is further subdivided for conceptual land uses allowed within that particular area.
So this site is zoned within the RCCD Zoning District. It's part of the Razor Ranch Overlay
District South Mixed Use District, and the uses permitted on this site, as you can see,
they're highlighted in the box, the red box, are hotel, retail, office uses, and multifamily.
And so with them proposing medical office, that use is of course permitted within this
particular site. For Razor Ranch site plans, and this is sort
of what I was, I'm sorry, for Razor Ranch site plans, what we're going to look at for this
particular site is Ordinance 2011-225, specifically the architectural standards established in
Exhibit C-2A and the landscape standards established in Exhibit D-2A. And with the Zoning Compliance
Plan package, we took a look at the site plan, the landscape plans, and the four-sided building
elevations. Additionally, the Razor Ranch Overlay District
and the 2002 DDC provides criteria for approval for site plans within this sub-area of Razor
Ranch, specifically the site plan should substantially comply with the concept and schematic plan.
The site plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses. The site plan
provides for the adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic, and the site plan fully
complies with all other sections of the Overlay District. And so those are things that we
checked to make sure were addressed as we were reviewing this Zoning Compliance Plan
package. Additionally, with the development and the
approval of the site plan for Phase 2, came some conditions with that approval as it relates
to the eventual development of Phase 3. Specifically, one stipulation was that plant materials approved
for Phase 2 and the amended Phase 1 should not be removed in future phases unless they
could be successfully replanted using equivalent or similar material. Additionally, the minimum
open space requirement shall be maintained for all approved and future phases of land
included within Lots 1R, which is there shown to the south, and then Lot 2, which is our
subject lot this evening. So here's the site plan, and of course a detailed version was
provided within the backup. Existing on the site for the overall razor medical development
is a 15,000 square foot building and an approximately 22,000 square foot building. Currently there
are 193 parking spaces, and as you can see, shown in there with the light orange color
and the light yellow color, there is one driveway access point off of Panhandle. That's only
a right in and a right out. And then there's a cross access point through Phase 2 into
Phase 1 and a cross access also to the east. So with the addition of Phase 3, which we're
focusing on this evening, the applicant is proposing an approximately 9,000 square foot
medical office building on Lot 2, shown there in green, 37 additional parking spaces, and
then that driveway there to the northwest would be a full access point, right in, right
out, left in, left out, and straight ahead as well. So the landscape plan, in looking
and reviewing this particular plan, we wanted to make sure that the minimum requirements
as established in the 2002 DDC and the razor ranch overlay districts were met, namely minimum
one tree per 45 linear feet. That was actually, if you look at the image to the right, all
of the lighter green circles are existing plantings approved with previous phases. If
you recall the approval criteria I mentioned earlier, one of the stipulations was that
anything approved within the previous phase should not be removed unless they could be
replanted as a part of this Phase 3. They are not proposing to remove any of those plantings.
They are adding two trees within the parking area and then some screening there along the
east. So those standards are being met. Excuse me. Additionally, within that, as you can
see by the table, those minimum open space requirements for the entire site are being
maintained as well. So here are the elevations with the proposed
material and color screen there to the right. That image that you see at bottom center is
an existing building within Phase 1 of this development. So as you can see, both the proposed
elevations and color and material scheme match with what is existing within the razor medical
development. So with that, staff is recommending approval as the request does meet the established
criteria of the RROD development standards, and I will stand for any questions that you
may have at this time. Thank you, Mia. I don't see any questions
at this time. Thank you.
Does the applicant have a presentation or is that it? Nothing? Okay. All right. This
is not a public hearing, but as an item for individual consideration, anybody who would
like to speak may do so with three minutes. Okay. Seeing none, I'll open the floor to
a motion or approval. Commissioner Anderson? Make a motion to approve.
Okay. I've got a motion to approve. Commissioner Villarreal?
Second. Okay. I've got a second. Commissioner Perot?
I've got technical difficulty if I come back up. We're good.
Good? Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval. We'll call for a
vote on the board. Nothing? Okay. On this item, we'll take a vote
via roll call. We got a recusal. How should we handle that?
I was going to say if Selena can reset it, you're more than welcome to take a vote that
way. Okay. All right. We'll take a vote. Commissioner
Anderson, Commissioner Villarreal, will we make a motion again? Okay.
All right. Motion passes 6-0. Sorry for the technical difficulties there. Okay. Bring
this to item 3B, FP22-0028. Mia, your presentation as well.
Good evening again, members of the commission. Mia Hines, Associate Planner. So this is a
final plat request for Razor Ranch addition located at the southeast corner of West University
and I-35. The plat at this time does not meet all of our approval criteria, and so staff
is recommending denial. However, we do not have any objections to the requested extension
to October 12th. Okay. Thank you, Mia. Commissioner Villarreal.
To approve the extension to a date starting of October 12, 2022.
Okay. Got a motion to extension. Commissioner, approve it.
I have a second. The first and the second. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call
for a vote on the board. That motion passes 6-0. Moving on to item 3C, MP22-0011B, and
Mia Hines come on back up as well. Thank you. Again, Mia Hines, Associate Planner.
This is a minor plat application for J&J Acres. The property is, at this time, the plat does
not meet, I'm sorry, located at the northeast corner of Warshin and Green Valley Circle.
At this time, the property does not meet the standards and approval criteria within our
ordinance, and so staff is recommending denial. Okay. Thank you very much, Mia. Any questions?
Commissioner Anderson? Has there, was this brought up in the work
session? Was there already a previous? There was. Yeah, there was a previous extension
already given. That's correct.
Yes. All right. Thanks. Okay. All right. Seeing no other speakers, I will call for a motion.
Commissioner Villarreal? Move to deny. Okay. Got a motion to deny. Commissioner
Pruitt? Second.
Okay. We have a first and a second for denial. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call
for a vote on the board. Just a reminder, a vote yes is a vote yes to deny. Okay. Motion
passes 6-0. Item 3D, PP 22-0022, and Sean Jacobson to present.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, presenting
PP 22-0022, a preliminary plat for the prominence square addition. At this time, staff is recommending
denial of this plat for a property on the southeast corner of Loop 288 and University
Drive because it does not meet our standard of approval. However, staff has no objection
to the requested extension to October 14, sorry, October 12.
Any questions for Sean? Okay. Commissioner Pruitt?
I'll move to approve the applicant's requested extension to date certain of October 12.
Okay. Got a motion to extend. Commissioner Anderson?
Second.
Okay. With a second. Any other discussion? Okay. I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion
passes 6-0. Item 3E has been withdrawn by the applicant. So that's FP 22-0027A that
has been withdrawn. So I'll move down to 3F, PP 22-0021A. Julie Wyatt to present.
Good evening. Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. I'm presenting PP
22-0021A. This is for a preliminary plat for the Forest Crossing Phase 2 addition. The
purpose of the preliminary plat is to facilitate a multifamily development. They do have some
items that they have to address with the preliminary plat, including moving forward with a specific
use permit for that use. And so staff is recommending denial. They have received an extension, so
there is not an option for an additional extension. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Okay. I don't see any questions, Julie. Thank you.
I'll take a motion and discussion. Commissioner Villarreal?
Move to deny.
Okay. Got a motion to deny. Commissioner Cole?
Second.
Okay. Got a second. With a first and a second to deny, I'll ask for a vote on the board.
Okay. That motion passes 6-0. Moving on to 3G, PP 22-0007A. I believe that is Julie Wyatt
as well.
Good evening. This is PP 22-0007A. This is for the Audre Oaks addition. It's for a single-family
residential development south of Audre Oaks. They do have some items they do need to work
through in order for it to meet our criteria for approval. So staff is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension to October 12th. I'll be happy to
answer any questions.
Okay. I don't see any, Julie. Thank you.
Thank you.
I see a motion and discussion. Commissioner Cole?
I make a motion extension to October 12th, 2022 meeting.
Okay. Got a motion for extension. Commissioner Anderson?
Second.
First and a second, hanging in the discussion. Call for a vote on the board. That motion
passes 6-0. Our last item of individual consideration, 3HFP 22-0001. I'll call Julie Wyatt as well
for that project.
Good evening. This is for a final plat for a phase of the Agave Ranch development. The
item, they do have some items that they do need to correct on the final plat before we
can recommend approval. So we are recommending denial. However, we have no objection to the
requested extension to October 12th. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
I don't see any. Thank you, Julie.
Discussion or a motion?
Commissioner Pruitt?
I move to approve the applicant requested extension to a date certain of October 12th.
Okay. Second. Second for Cole. Okay. Any discussion? That's enough to call for a motion on the
board.
All right. That motion passes 6-0. Moving on to item four, public hearings, 4A PD 22-0006
and Karen Robertson to present. Evening, Karen.
Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Let me pull up my presentation real quick. So
this is for PD 22-006, home zone. This is a request for a PD with MN land uses for general
retail use larger than 15,000 square feet. It is located on approximately 2.407 acres.
It is located on the southeast corner of Ector Street and University, also known as US 380.
It is also situated between an existing commercial corridor, which is that US 380, as well as
single family dwellings along the southern edge.
So before I kind of delve into the development plan itself, I just want to kind of talk about
the difference between a PD and an SUP in this instance. So the reason this is going
through the PD process versus an SUP is to allow for consistent commercial development
along US 380. Currently, the project site is larger than two acres, so it does not need
our definition of infill development. Due to that fact, it has to be restricted with
that MN district. An MN district does not allow for front parking, and it is a little
bit more restrictive. So with the PD, this allows that commercial development to push
most of its parking along US 380 and to kind of match what we're seeing along that commercial
corridor to the north, east, and west with that Aldease. The applicant is also seeking
to allow for all general retail uses, regardless of size, to be permitted on the property.
So moving on to the development plan, it would be a maximum of 39 feet, four inches tall,
and it would be centrally situated along that western edge of the property, which is close
to Ector Street. It does allow for setbacks, beginning at a minimum of 55 feet near the
residential properties on the south and the east side. It does have a main entrance emphasis
along US 380. It also allows for vehicular access. Primary access would be from US 380.
There would be a drive along Ector Street and cross access along Primrose Street. The
development did reduce the parking number of parking spaces to 87 parking spaces, and
the primary parking, as I stated, would be located along the frontage of US 380, similar
to what you see across on the west side to Aldease. Additionally, there would be a tree
preservation area that would be located along the southern edge. Those are those trees highlighted
in green there. It would also provide a minimum six foot solid masonry wall along the southern
and eastern southeast edges for those residential properties. The development plan is currently
providing 21% landscape area. The minimum for MN districts is 20%. They'd also be providing
a 74% new and preserved tree canopy, which that minimum is 40% for MN districts.
So looking at the provable criteria, just a summary, the project is consistent with
Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, which I'll delve a little bit more into in my slides
after this. It does provide greater level of design quality as compared to a specific
use permit. It is compatible with the surrounding area, especially that commercial corridor,
and it does provide public facilities adequate to serve the development.
So moving on to the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, I'll kind of keep this high level,
but it is a mix of community mixed use as well as low residential. Community mixed use
areas do accommodate greater density between that single family with neighborhoods and
commercial areas. And then low residential does include land uses that support residential
neighborhoods. It is on a corridor focused area, which we do see US 380 remaining a significant
commercial thoroughfare in the city. It does implement, it is infill. It is basically filling
a gap in our neighborhood fabric along US 380. The property itself has been undeveloped
since the 1960s, except for that southern portion, which does have a residential property
on it. And it does provide context sensitive commercial infill. In regards to urban design,
as I stated earlier, the primary access would be along US 380, but it would allow for cross
access as well as onsite pathways to public sidewalks. And lastly, building scale and
orientation, it is centered in the property along that western edge, trying to reduce
the impact to neighboring residential properties to the south and southeast.
Moving on, it provides an additional commercial option in this established area. As you can
see on the aerial here, much of the corridor is already infilled. This is one of the last
remaining properties on US 380. The existing size of the property does limit the size and
scale of development. The applicant has reduced the parking and has placed the majority of
parking towards the front of that property along that commercial corridor to keep it
away from the adjacent residential properties in the south and southeast. And it is a compatible
land use and scale and form considering the single family residential as well as the adjacent
commercial. There was public outreach done. There was a newspaper ad and property posted
both in August. Notices were mailed, 20 in the 200 foot, 118 in the 500 foot. We did
receive one response in opposition at 1207 Primrose Street. Staff is recommending approval
of the request as it complies with criteria in section 2.4.5(e) as well as 2.7.3(d).
And this is scheduled for the City Council on September 27th. And I can stand for any
questions. Thank you, Cameron. I don't see any at this
time. We do have a card from the applicant. I'll go ahead and call up Michael Clark to
come up and speak. You'll have 10 minutes. Before you continue, I want to go ahead and
open up the public hearing. Good to go? Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Good evening. My name is
Michael Clark. I'm with Winkleman and Associates, 6750 Hillcrest Plaza, Suite 215, Dallas 75230.
Here representing Jason Adams and Home Zone. Jason is unfortunately out of town. We've
had a couple delays and he was unfortunately not able to be here. I have the architect
is with me here tonight and the broker if there's questions that I can't answer. Staff
as always did a very thorough report for you guys. I'm not going to try not to be redundant.
But the Home Zone, what we're proposing here is a showroom, has very little traffic. Any
basically people come in, they look at furniture. Furniture is delivered from their warehouses
in Grand Prairie. So we have very little truck traffic, very little vehicular traffic actually.
Staff is in agreement with our parking request for a slight deviation in the required parking.
We actually think we need significantly less than that for what we're proposing here. We've
worked diligently with staff, worked trying to preserve trees, get the parking. To get
where we're at here today, we had a, pardon me, we had, I believe, a very productive meeting
with the homeowners. They expressed some concerns. We, I think, alleviated many of them with
the low traffic and the showroom and the low trucks. I think...
We'll have public comment. You'll have public comment here in a minute, Mr. Anderson. So
if we can, we'll just let the applicant go ahead and present. Sorry, sorry, go ahead.
From, as I said, we had a public meeting and we invited as many as we thought we could.
If I did something incorrectly or obviously somebody didn't get invited, I apologize for
that. We have coordinated cross access with the commercial uses to our east as staff directed,
quite frankly, not to throw them under the bus or anything, but the cross access to Prim
Rose is really more for them than us. We don't envision using that little narrow alley that
goes out to Prim Rose for anything other than for them to eventually, if they redevelop,
get access jointly with us. Pardon me, with us. So with regard to Prim Rose and the access
there, we don't envision using that in any way. That being said, I'm happy to answer
any questions and reserve any time I have left to answer any other questions possibly.
Are there any questions for Mr. Clark? How did you notify the neighborhood of the public
meeting you're going to be having? We, how did we, Jerry Clark was our contact
given to us for the HO, for the Homeowners Association. I'm sorry, it's been a number
of months ago. Jerry Clark was our contact and he established the meeting with the Ector,
I apologize, I can't remember the name of the organization, but we set up a meeting
at a local church down on Ector, just a few blocks south of the site, but he was the one
that coordinated it. Were you in attendance there? Yes, sir.
How many folks showed up? 15, 16, Gary? Perhaps 20. Okay.
It wasn't a huge number, but it wasn't three. Okay. All right. What were the main concerns
are brought about the neighborhood? They were concerned about the homeowners immediately
to our south were concerned about the proximity. We discussed the height of the building and
the actual separation that we were preserving trees there and the lack of truck traffic.
I think made them feel more comfortable. The rest of the homeowners were, I think, generally
concerned about traffic and I think the showroom use and the seriously very limited amount of
traffic was what made them feel more comfortable. Okay. All right. I see other questions for
you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. I do have two other
cards that are wishing to speak. I'll start with Crystal Rainey Anderson. Come on up and
introduce yourself, give your name and the address and then you have for a public hearing
four minutes to speak. Okay. My name is Crystal Rainey Anderson and
I am here representing my mother, Janet Rainey. She lives at, we live at 1207 Primrose Lane,
Denton, Texas, which is exactly right behind where they're proposing to build this home
zone. I have a letter of opposition that she sent in. She wanted me to read here today.
She says, "I am opposed to the rezoning of the property. I'm strongly opposed to a home
zone project. I brought my property in 2009 and have spent over $150,000 remodeling and
adding to it. It is my retirement home and home for my daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons.
My property value would decrease tremendously. Between the proposed retaining wall and my
back fence, there would definitely be a dead space where homeless people could and would
camp creating trash pileups and who knows what else. Right now, I have an uninstructed
view from my back patio and kitchen window. If this project is approved, I would be looking
at a back of a business instead of the sunset and clouds, which we regularly enjoy. There
are tagged trees next to my back fence that cannot be removed. These trees provide shade
and help kill these. I also don't want to hear delivery truck beeps or garbage trucks
dumping at four o'clock in the morning like they do down the street at Enterprise. According
to the plan, the dumpsters will almost be in line with my bedroom window. That is not
acceptable. Not only that, but I also do not want to sit on my back patio and listen to
the delivery trucks at their docking bay at any time in the day. Although this is not
a food service business, there would still be employee food trash and bathroom trash
that would attract rats and guess where they would end up. If this property is approved,
I would be concerned because of the outside lights and security cameras. The eight foot
retaining wall will not prevent these lights and cameras from shining into my backyard
or even my bedroom windows. I don't want my backyard lit up at night. I have grandchildren
that play in the backyard and I do not want security cameras looking in there. That is
an invasion of privacy. Home zone is a very affordable furniture store because the furniture
is cheap and poorly made. I know because I bought from them and had to get a refund.
I do not believe this location will benefit them and they should move up the road to raise
a ranch. The traffic would increase down Ector and Emory and Primrose. It is hard now to
make it across Ector from Emory with the increased traffic. I'm sure there will be accidents.
It's almost impossible to make a right-hand turn onto University from Ector. There have
been several wrecks there already. I understand that there was a neighborhood meeting of which
we did not get invited to some weeks ago. I know that the owners who are notified of
this were the vitamin shop owner and the 1300 Ector owner. Why were not the rest of us
invited? We don't know what was discussed at this meeting. The first time we knew about
this was when one of the owners who were invited provided my next door neighbor a copy of the
plan. I would like to know why we were left out and others left out of that meeting. There
were five homeowners, three retirees, that would be greatly affected by this project.
We would slowly be overtaken by other businesses and I'm sure none of us are in favor of this.
We are all residential zoning, not a retail business. We want to enjoy our homes to the
stage of our lives. I don't want to leave this area, but if this project is approved,
most likely my house will go up for sale. Please do not approve this project. Keep the
neighborhood. We don't want them in our backyard. Thank you for your comments. Next to speak,
Mr. Kurt Anderson. You'll have four minutes to speak. Just state your name and address
and your four minutes will begin. Hi. My name is Kurt Anderson. I live at 1207 Primrose.
This is my wife, Crystal. Son-in-law, I take care of the property. I also take care of
the easement behind the property. The tagged trees are an issue and also you have tagged
trees that go into approximately maybe 30 yards into those properties on the easement
line from where they're going to exit to Primrose. You go down, you look down that line, that
tree line, all those trees are tagged. You go look down this side, all the trees are
tagged. You know, I maintain that area. I keep it clean so the vagrants and the homeless
don't camp out. I had an incident last year, last July. Someone broke into my shed. I found
two homeless men on the other side of my fence in a bunch of brush. Covered up. They had
a nice little pad and 25 feet easement. All it's going to do is attract homeless. We're
going to have a rat problem on top of more traffic, whether it's, you know, Primrose
actor. People are going to be going, you know, if they miss the driveway, they're going to
come in Primrose. You know, I've got kids out there. I like to play. You know, you're
going to increase the traffic. You're going to have, you know, what's -- my question is
how is the state going to deal with the infrastructure? Are they going to put lights in Primrose
and lights at the other entrance so people can get out safely? You know, I oppose this.
You know, I'm a man of few words. I don't usually speak up like this, but this is going
to be an issue. Not just for us. Security wise, lights, it will be 24/7. That's an invasion
of privacy. And they can't do anything but do that. They have to. That back line, you're
going to get a lot of people coming in and out of there, going to those dumpsters to
pick furniture, and it's going to end up in that alley because that's where they're going
to put it. And guess who's going to occupy that furniture? Homeless people. I've got
nothing against homeless people. I was homeless for six years. I came to Texas to change my
life. Okay? I have no problems with them. Their shelters being built, hopefully it accommodates
the masses. But you're still going to get people in there. No matter what you do, people
are still going to camp out there. Because it's going to be hidden. And it's going to
be hidden well. Unless you can supply a patrol that goes through that easement, pave it up,
preserve the trees, make a nice alleyway through, and that goes all the way from 380 to actor.
That easement. Like I said, I oppose this. And thank you very much for your consideration.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Cameron, I have a couple questions for you based off
what the public comment was made on that. Traditionally when we have neighborhood notification
for any type of neighborhood meetings, are we providing the 205 foot, 500 foot radius
addresses to the applicant? How does that -- I've never actually ever asked before how
does an applicant get the addresses for inviting out neighborhoods? They source it themselves?
How do they go about that? So we usually provide those addresses as well. But that meeting
did take place in January of 2022. So it has been a while. I assume as staff that I provided
that, but I'm not positive. I do know that they went through the HOA first. Okay. Okay.
Thank you. Another question I had. There was a question about lights and access at Hector
and Primrose. I'm assuming a TIA was completed for this project and there wasn't. I know
that TxDOT controls 380, but we don't see any major TIA impacts that come from that
to predicate a stoplight. Let me grab the quick numbers real quick. Sure. I will provide
them. So in regards to our trip generation report, it would generate approximately 238
daily trips with 10 morning peak hour trips and 18 evening peak hour trips. Okay. Thank
you. Okay. Any other questions for Commissioner Anderson? On the presentation, can you go
back to the lot? I want to see what's going to happen that's going to back up to Anderson's
property. This photo right here? Yes. The little red arrow. Yes. I'm looking at a map
here and I don't see where that arrow is going to come out. Is it going to come out by the
building at 1201 or 1211 Primrose? Yes. I believe that is correct. As staff, I do want
to preface though that the egress and the ingress and the cross access can change as
part of the PD standard stipulations. So there is additional, I guess, wording included in
our development standards to allow for changes at the CEP phase. There's not going to be
a grass 30 foot area between their house and it's going to be paid parking, correct? Yes.
Not only 9% is allowed to be paid, but yes, there will be some paid parking behind that.
Okay. Could I ask the developer, I mean, could I ask you a question, please, sir? The other
concerns they had were lights. Are there going to be tall lights facing the properties on
Primrose and Hector? Cameron, how do I bring it back up? No, go ahead. Unfortunately, they
weren't at the meeting, so they didn't hear if those questions were brought up and answered
or not. That's good. Thanks. As far as lighting goes, that was discussed in the meeting and
one of the things that we will do, or not one of the things, there will be no pole lights
at all behind the building. Everything will be on the building, wall packed, shielded.
So just the bare minimum of light for security in the back. Okay. But back inside, my apologies.
Okay. Now cameras, are there going to be cameras facing their property looking in their backyard?
I don't know that. Yeah, I apologize. I don't know that, but I assure you that if we have
cameras with an eight foot wall, they will not be able to, they won't be high enough
to be in their yard and I'm not trying to make light of it, but we will not be searching
in their backyard. It will simply be for our security. And may I answer a couple other
questions if I could? Sure. Absolutely. Perfect. Thank you. The lights were one of them. The
garbage, actually we would just as soon not have a dumpster. They recycle all cardboard
and all styrofoam inside. We're required to have a dumpster. So we've got a double dumpster
and we certainly don't need two. But I understand, I deal with rules all the time. That's what
we're showing. So the dumpster is not, I mean, it will be, it will be utilized. Any commercial
property is going to have a dumpster. It's not trying to make light of that either, but
it will not be heavily used. And food products, houses have trash. I mean, we have employees
who might have some food trash, but that's it. I mean, there is no food product here.
And one other thing with the lights, we close at eight o'clock. This is not a, not a late
night operation. So the lights on would be just for security reasons only. That's correct.
And they're, they're not as bright as. No, and they'll be shielded. They'll, they'll,
I don't know how to describe it exactly, but it'll be basically just a light on the wall,
just shining and with a cutoff fixture, basically just, just like the drive. Okay. Okay. Thank
you. Terribly described, but not a bit as just answer your question regarding the lighting.
So as part of the DTC, we will be looking at lighting specifically during the building
permit process as part of the DTC, all lighting does have to face downwards. It cannot face
out and it cannot shine on neighboring properties. Thank you. Any discussion? Questions for city
staff or applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and look to the dais
for a motion or discussion. I closed the public hearing already. And then you use your, your
four minutes. I'm, I'm sorry. There will be time at city council as well. If you want
to bring up any of the points that you do have, and I'm sure camera will be able to
visit with you afterwards to be able to questions that can be worked out with the applicant,
but I did close the public hearing now. So we do have to move forward. I apologize. Motion
or discussion? Okay. Commissioner Cole. I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. A motion to
approve commissioner Anderson. A second. And man, I just want to say one thing. Unfortunately,
three 80 is going to be building up and, and, and, you know, this is going to be a lot lower
traffic than something else. I believe that would eventually come in there. So I just
want to say that to you guys. Sorry. Okay. We got a motion, a second to approve. So you
know, the discussion on the board, I'll ask for a vote. Okay. The motion carries six zero.
And I believe, uh, just for those that are spoke, um, the, it will be seen at council
on September 27th, uh, in this room at, at six 30. So the 27th of September. Yes, sir.
In this room. Yes, sir. Okay. Uh, that'll take us to item four B Z 22 0 0 0 4 a I'll
be Mia Hines to present. Now open the public hearing at this time. Okay. Good evening again.
Members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner. Um, this is, uh, this item on the
agenda is a zoning change for the razor range overlay district regarding the number permitted
number of multifamily units within the South campus. So the request is specific to specifically
to amend the text of, um, section 35.7.15.7 subsection 8.1 C and a two of the razor ranch
overlay, uh, development standards. Currently the, those standards allow up to 1800 multifamily
units, um, within the South campus where multifamily is permitted. Um, and the applicant is proposing
to increase that to two, a total of up to 2000 multifamily units, um, within the South
campus. Um, as a part of this request, the applicant has provided, um, a, an exhibit
sort of clarifying where a multifamily is permitted. Um, they aren't changing any underlying
zoning or any, um, um, conceptual lean uses that are already existing and already permitted
within the razor ranch South campus. Um, they are simply sort of clarifying for visual purposes
where multifamily is permitted, um, on that exhibit. And this is sort of what I was talking
about there. The area highlighted or the area in the center highlighted, um, in the sort
of light pink color is considered what we call the razor ranch town center area. Um,
as you can see, it just has that RR1 designation as it currently exists. They're shown there
to the left. Um, and the, we would just further clarify that with, um, the MF, um, next to
it. Again, MF, multifamily is already permitted within the town center. This just visually
clarifies that point. Um, so in reviewing this request, since it is a simple text amendment,
we looked into the razor ranch overlay development standards to see if there was a specific review
criteria, um, and there, uh, was not within those overlay standards. Also anything within
the razor ranch, um, development that does, is not specifically listed, um, in the standards,
uh, is subject to the 2002 DDC. And the 2002 DDC did not have any, um, criteria for approval
specifically related to amending overlay text, um, um, and regulations. And so with that,
we brought it forward to what we currently go by, um, and, and, and, uh, reviewed the
request, uh, pursuant to the, um, uh, criteria for approval located in sub-chapter two of
the current DDC. Um, specifically, I just wanted to point out that, um, the, the future
land use map area designation for this site is regional mixed use. Um, and so with that,
if you look in our 2040 comprehensive plan, the, um, intended, uh, area or that, that
area is intended for development, proposing residential commercial office entertainment
and other uses except industrial at the highest level of scale and density within the city.
So if there were anywhere to support and promote additional density and additional multifamily,
um, um, uh, dwelling units, it would be within where we have within our future land use map,
regional mixed use. And so that's, uh, part of the, the, uh, support, um, for this project.
Um, additionally, there are, um, design standards, uh, specifically applicable to multifamily
developments within the Razor Ranch South Campus, namely a minimum of 7% parking area
landscape coverage, a minimum of 15% parking area tree canopy coverage, and a 15 foot wide
landscape screening buffer around parking areas. And that sort of aids in the, um, minimizing
adverse impacts on surrounding properties, wherever multifamily would develop. Um, so
with that pursuant to our DDC and state law, we did do public outreach. And as the time
of this report, we have not received any opposition or any responses in opposition to this request.
So given that, uh, staff recommend staff is recommending approval as it meets the criteria
I discussed, um, earlier. Um, a part of the backup that was sent to you was a, a red line
essentially showing what those changes are. That has been modified a little bit just to
provide further clarification. It's still, um, that they are, the applicant is requesting
to increase from 1800 up to 1800 multifamily units to 2000. Um, but instead of what the
wording has, and I believe that that was shared with you in advance of this meeting, um, instead
of the wording provided within the packet, we're, we would like to go with, um, um, what's
here and that would be the remaining 750, um, multifamily dwelling units can be built
within the density zone or outside of the density zone within any sub district in the
South campus. And so that's something that is already exists. Um, it's already in place,
but it further clarifies, cause as it reads currently, um, one would think that those
remaining 750, um, need to be outside of the density zone. And that's certainly not the
goal, um, here. So with that, I'll stand, oh, following the decision of the recommendation
of this body, this is scheduled for the September 20th city council meeting and I'll take any
questions or comments that you may have. The applicant is also here with a brief presentation.
Okay. Maybe questions for city staff. Okay. Uh, seating. Yeah. Thank you. Do I have one
car to speak? And as the applicants, I'll ask Amy Bissett to come up and introduce yourself
as well as your address and you'll have 10 minutes to speak. Thank you. Amy Bissett,
97 land company, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201. I'm going to be very brief, but I do want
to share a couple of quick things with you all. I appreciate being here this evening.
Um, as you know, um, razor ranch is its own unique animal. It's an older, um, development
code and it's, um, the 400 acres is regulated by a complex, um, zoning overlay ordinance.
But when you boil it down to its very base, um, there are 15 pages of a base ordinance
that really outlines the entire development. Um, it, it dictates the criteria for approving
a site plan. Um, it dictates the land divisions on the North and South side of university,
um, indicates development standards and permitted uses. And on the South campus, there are three
primary sub-districts, the town center RR2 and the South mixed use district. The South
campus development standards do define the number of and type of dwelling units allowed.
Um, and they, it also defines a density zone, which, um, Mia showed on, on, uh, in her presentation
and I've got another exhibit here showing the same. Um, really what I just wanted to
point out here is that, um, the design or the intent behind, um, the razor ranch overlay
district is that the multifamily would be, um, clustered around the 10 acre public park
that was dedicated by, um, the razor ranch developer and, um, provide those amenities
within walking distance. And, um, I'm going to show you an aerial in just a minute because
I think it's worth sharing, but, um, our request is simply to change a couple of sentences
within the text of those 15 pages. Um, the only substantive change is to increase the
number of total units by 200 and, um, to provide some corrective text or really clarification
text on, um, where multifamily is allowed outside of the density zone. And then, um,
Kevin Bankhead with Allegiance Hill View is here with me as well and, um, available for
any questions that you may have, but he sent this aerial to me not that long ago and just
wanted to share if you look, um, you're looking towards the density zone in this aerial with
the, you can see the, um, oop, got to flip right off of it, the 10 acre park here and
you can see how the multifamily that's developed today is kind of clustered around that with,
um, immediate access to a very, um, nice public amenity. And, um, that's all I have and happy
to stand for any questions. Thank you.
Any questions for Ms. Bissett? Okay. Thank you. That is the only card I have, uh, to
speak. Anybody who has wished this public hearing, uh, to speak publicly may do so and
you can fill out a blue card afterwards. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing
and I'll move to the dais for motion or discussion. Commissioner Cole. Make a motion to approve.
Okay. Got a first for approval. Commissioner McDade? I second. Okay. Got a second. Well,
the first and second for approval. No other discussion to be had. I'll ask for a motion
or a vote on the board. Okay. That motion passes six zero. Okay. With that, we'll move
on to item four C that's 21 dash zero zero zero eight. Ask Ron McGee to come up to present.
Thank you chair. My name is the commissioner Ron McGee, a principal planner with development
services. Get my presentation. This, uh, request is public hearing now around. Okay. Great.
Thank you. Um, this request is for a specific use permit to allow for an equipment system
sales and rental use, uh, the equipment sales and rental use as part of the U hall commercial
business, um, that you see here outline in yellow, um, north of university and just east
of spring Valley drive. It's approximately 5.82 acres in size. Uh, the business will
consist of an office warehouse self storage, uh, units as well as the equipment sales and
rental use, uh, that is being sought out after, uh, for this SUP. The future land use, um,
designates the area as community mixed use, uh, with some light industrial to the north
of the property. Uh, it was currently zone light industrial and as part of that light
industrial zoning district, the equipment sales and, um, rental use requires a specific
use permit. This is the proposed site plan. Um, this site plan was emailed to the planning
zoning commission, uh, prior to the meeting. Uh, it's an updated one that's, um, in, uh,
that's different from what was included in your packet that was sent out on Friday, uh,
really quickly to illustrate what the site plan includes. It includes a building a, which
will be the, uh, location where the office and the rental, um, uh, activity will occur.
Uh, it also houses, uh, the you box containers, which will be part of the, uh, business. Uh,
this warehouse will be, um, primarily where they will be stored, uh, loading and, um,
unloading will come from the back of the property, the rear, I'm sorry, the back of the building,
uh, the rear area that you see here, um, highlighted by the cursor. Building B is the location
of the storage units where individuals are able to rent out, uh, individual units in order
to store their items. Uh, building C, which is further, uh, to the east, I'm sorry, to
the west, uh, as well will be located, uh, will be where, uh, self-storage units will
be located. Um, the area where the equipment rental, uh, display areas, uh, primarily again
per this SUP will be located in the areas that are highlighted or shaded in gray in this
particular area, uh, along the, uh, western part of the property as well as this area
over here. Now the remaining areas that you see here in white, uh, those will be for the
purpose of maneuvering large trucks and other, um, uh, vehicles. Uh, but again, the display
area and equipment rental area will be in this highlighted areas. Also important to
note in the site plan is two areas specifically as it relates to the conditions, which I will
be presenting in a few minutes. Uh, the area that you see here in orange is where there
will be temporary storage of U box centers, uh, send, uh, sorry, containers that is, uh,
where individuals who want to unload or unload their items from the U box containers into
their storage units that are able to, and that will only occur within the area that's
identified there and dimensioned as eight by 18 feet, uh, in size. The other area important
to note is the orange that's in front of building a, that will be the location of a U box container
display, uh, that will only serve as a display to help, um, uh, show what a U box, uh, container
is. As far as the landscape plan, um, the landscape plan complies with the landscape
area tree canopy cover, uh, the street tree requirements as well as the buffer screening
and requirements, uh, per the development code. I want to make mention that the, uh,
applicant as well as staff have worked hard in order to provide that screening that's
required or that's part of this proposal. You see that the area along university is
well landscaped with trees and, uh, landscaping also included. There's hard to see, but there's
also a berm that again helps screen, um, the, uh, the equipment cells and rental, um, and
just provides that additional landscaping that we would like to see on US 380. Criteria
for approval for, uh, SUPs are under, uh, section two five, I'm sorry, two four, uh,
five E as well as two five two D. Uh, could summary, um, wise the proposal is consistent
with the goals and policies of the den 20 40 comprehensive plan. Uh, it complies with
the ally zoning district purpose statement. Uh, the approval of the SUP is not expected
to generate any adverse impacts and the utilities and infrastructure is available as this area
is located within an urban area along three 80, uh, an area that, um, is, uh, somewhat
developed already, uh, with other uses newspaper, I'm sorry, uh, notifications were sent out
on includes newspaper as well as a website. Um, notice this, um, were, um, published on
our city website as of this afternoon, staff has not received any written responses. Um,
one public hearing sign was posted on the property, um, in advance of the meeting and
there were no neighborhood meetings held for recommendations. Staff is recommending approval
with this, um, issue for this USP requests with the following conditions. The first one
is generally to comply with the attached site plan and landscape plan. And again, the attached
site plan, um, that we're referring to is the one that was submitted with the changes
that were, um, described. Um, if there were, if there are any changes to the site plan
or the landscape plan, that will require a new specific use permit. Now there is allowances
for some landscaping, uh, adjustments up to 5%. But again, generally any changes will
require a new specific use permit. Uh, condition number two, uh, relates to the, um, you boxes
or storage containers specifically, uh, they're not, they're not allowed to be stored out,
um, in, um, outside of the enclosed structure. Um, the change and the backup, we added that,
um, the last sense that you see there, this does not include the one storage container
located by the front entrance of building A for display purpose only. So that would
be something that would be allowed and it would be just that one, um, storage container.
Number three, um, again, changes, um, that were sent earlier, uh, prior to this meeting,
um, include the following that in situations when their storage containers are, um, temporarily
stored outside of the, of the, um, uh, the building, uh, they're primarily to be used
by customers to load and unload, uh, their items. And they are, um, in an area identified
per the site plan. Again, as I illustrated in the site plan, an area of eight by 18 only
that's where they would be located. Again, these changes, um, were made after the packet
went out, uh, after, um, staff and the applicant were able to further discuss, um, their business
plan. With that, um, staff, um, stands for any questions. The applicant is, uh, present
and does not have a presentation, but is, uh, open for questions or be available for
questions.
Thank you, Ron. I don't see any questions for you right now. So appreciate it. This
is a public hearing. Uh, anyone who's wishing to speak may do so. We fill out a blue card
afterwards if you'd like. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and move to
dais for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Cole. I make a motion to approve with conditions.
Okay. The motion approved with the conditions are presented. Commissioner Villarreal. Second.
Okay. Got a second. Um, chair, may I ask for a tiny adjustment on the motion? Um, to, just
to confirm that it's as, um, as presented. Is that correct? Conditions as, as, as presented.
Yes, chair. Thank you. All right. Clarification of the motion. Uh, commissioner cold motion
to approve with conditions as presented and commissioner Villarreal seconds that. Okay.
All right. Any discussion? Okay. Call for a vote on the board. That motion passes six
zero. Good luck in your project. All right. I'll move on to item four D D C a 22 dash
zero zero zero five, and I'll open the public hearing. Go ahead. Ron. Thank you chair. I'm
a commissioner on the principal planner. Um, this item is a code amendment requests initiated
by the city. Uh, it is for the purpose of addressing a new residential type that we've
seen the last, uh, I guess past year, uh, regarding, um, uh, horizontal multifamily
living and those that actually seen and heard some of those cases, we've processed as can
you go to the full screen? I'm sorry about that. Um, these, uh, horizontal multifamily
living have been processed as PDs, uh, primarily because we, um, we're trying to find a use
that fit, um, what their role functions are. After review and further, um, you know, study
of this type of use, uh, it was determined that the use is more in line with multifamily
as it is a single lot with multiple units. Uh, now these units are not typically what
you'd seen a multifamily as far as a vertical, um, type development. It does have some of
them have single family, uh, or single units. Some of them have two units. Some of them
at three unit buildings. Uh, so they're, they're not your typical, but again, by definition,
they fit the multifamily desk, uh, definition as such. We have updated the, um, or proposed
update the definition of multifamily. Uh, and that's part of this code amendment. We're
also adding a use specific standard, uh, to multifamily specifically to, uh, provide a
little bit more design consistency for those buildings that contain one or two units as
part of a future multifamily development that more or less would resemble what you've seen
as a horizontal multifamily living type development. Uh, also in addition to the code amendment,
uh, this code amendment, we're looking at adjusting the, um, the, um, the dimensional
standards that is for the MN district, uh, where it requires a, uh, SGP for buildings
over 41 or 41 to 65 feet. Uh, and we're gonna, um, I'll further describe what we're proposing,
but really just focusing on where those buildings are proposed adjacent to residential uses.
And I've got, uh, uh, shared, uh, information that I'll share in the presentation or the
slide that's coming. Also make, I wanted to make note that the DCRC, um, held, um, three
meetings specifically to discuss this proposed code amendments. Uh, as you see here, April
22nd, May 27th and June 24th, uh, they, the development code review committee has recommended
this be moved forward to planning zoning commission and city council. And therefore we're, we're
here tonight, uh, for this, uh, item, uh, summary of the code amendments. Um, again,
we talked about the multifamily dwelling unit being, uh, amended. Uh, we're also adding
residential condominiums as it is referenced in that, uh, in the code. We want to make
sure that we provide a definition for it as well. Then you use, uh, use specific standard.
We're also proposing to add that as part of section five three three D, which is the use
specific standards for multifamily. And then lastly, uh, again, mentioning the dimensional
standards for MN, uh, we're looking to amend the, uh, height, uh, maximum building height
requirement as it relates for, uh, as it relates to the MN district. So, uh, with that, uh,
what you see on screen is the proposed definition of multifamily. Uh, you see that the, uh,
the red line and underline, um, in red are the added in or deleted, um, language. Um,
so as, uh, proposed, the definition of multifamily dwelling will, will be as follows, a single
lot containing five or more dwelling units. This definition includes residential condominiums
developed on a single lot. We're also proposing as mentioned, uh, a definition for residential
condominium dwelling. And that is, is going to read as follows, a pop, sorry, a property
comprise of multiple individual dwelling units on a single lot where each unit is owned separately.
Again, um, very similar to, um, multifamily, but we wanted to make sure that we gave it
a special definition as it is referenced in the development code. The use specific standard
that I was referring to is the one in red, uh, highlighted in underline that is, um,
it is for buildings containing one or two dwelling units. Uh, they shall comply with
the building mass and form standards as established in section seven, 10 three E, which is the
building mass and form. Again, this would only apply for those buildings that are part
of a multifamily, uh, development that contain only one or two dwelling units. The item,
um, that you see here is related to, again, the build, uh, maximum building height for
MN. As you see note number two, um, that's where the changes are being proposed. Uh,
buildings between 41 and 65 feet. We've added the language adjacent to a residential zoning
district or adjacent to an existing single family detach dwelling townhome or duplex use
shall require a specific use permit pursuant to two five two of the development code. Now
the reason why you see, uh, single family detached dwelling townhome and duplex highlighted
is that this is something that was changed or amended and modified, um, after the development
code review committee, uh, made their recommendation. Um, the understanding of what we believe was
it was intended for these types of uses, but as it was presented to the DCRC, the development
code review committee, it only stated existing residential use. Uh, we wanted to go a little
further and really just focus on the uses that we felt that was the, um, uses that wanted
to, we wanted to see protected. And that again is the single family detached dwelling townhomes
and duplex uses. So that is different from what the DCRC recommended, but again, wanted
to make sure that we specify specifically those types of uses. Staff recommends approval
with, um, um, as it does comply or as it does meet the requirements of approval for code
amendments under section two, seven, four D of the DDC. And that concludes my presentation.
I'll stand for any questions. Okay. I don't see any Ron. Thank you. This is a public hearing.
Anybody who was wishing to speak may do so. You thought a blue card afterwards. Okay.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. I'll move to the dais for a motion. Commissioner
to vote. Sorry. Before I take the motion, Tina Ron, could you please pull up that slide
that had the language with respect to the MN district? Something just caught my attention
on that as you were explaining that. So the note number two buildings between 41 and 65
feet, we have adjacent to a residential zoning district. We consider multifamily zoning districts,
residential districts, correct? It does include multifamily if yes. Okay. And given your explanation
that we were the reason why we were amending this provision was to not require a specific
use permit also for multifamily adjacent to multifamily. I believe we need to tweak the
text that's on the slide so that it says adjacent to a residential zoning district parentheses
excluding multifamily districts parentheses or adjacent to an existing single family detached
dwelling townhome or duplex use. So when he was presenting that, it caught my attention
with the language that's proposed here. So it's kind of silly to require a specific use
permit adjacent to for a multifamily development adjacent to a multifamily development. So
the way this language that we have here is since we consider multifamily zoning districts,
residential districts, it's important that we make, we insert a parenthetical reference
that excludes multifamily districts. And my apologies that we did not catch that previously.
I guess going with our shorter presentations for work session, I missed that. And my apologies
for bringing that up at the dais, but I just want to make sure that we get that correct
and want to make sure that the commission would be in agreement with that change.
All right. Thank you, Tina. So this will have the change within there saying that footnote
number two adjacent to residential zoning district excluding multifamily dwelling use
or adjacent to an existing single family detached dwelling townhome or duplex use. So we've got
that in there. Okay. With that said, commissioner Villarreal, I'm sorry, before I go to commissioner
Villarreal, commissioner Peru. Sorry. Just a point of clarification. I'm trying to recall
where in our code it defines a multifamily district. I think we have our one through
our seven and then the other districts which allow multifamily are mixed use districts.
So I just want to make sure that the language is clear as intended. Does R7 allow multifamily
with this approval of a specific use permit? I believe so. Yes. Do we have any other residential
zoning districts that would trigger the multifamily? I guess we want to make sure that we are not
requiring an SUP for multifamily development adjacent to multifamily. And since we consider
adjacent to a residential zoning district, is it appropriate then to say excluding multifamily
uses or do we need to, I'd be concerned about excluding R7 altogether since R7 allows for
other residential uses, such as single family. So, yeah, so just to kind of clarify the multifamily
dwelling use is permitted in the residential zoning districts, but only in the R7 with
a specific use permit. So. Does that answer your question commissioner Peru? Yeah, I just
wanted to, maybe I was mishearing, but I thought we were referring to a term of multifamily
district, which wasn't defined in the code. And I appreciate you catching me because I'm
confusing my cities. So maybe what we do is on that language, excluding multifamily uses
in an R7 district. The whole intent was to remove that specific use permit requirement
for the additional height where it was adjacent to the, for multifamily uses where it was
adjacent to single family detached dwellings, townhomes or duplex uses, but also in our
code we were trying to be consistent with our language because we typically make references
to residential districts and then whatever additional qualifiers we add on there. So,
but I appreciate you catching me on that. So maybe it needs to be excluding multifamily
dwelling use in R7 district. I know it gets a little wordy, but I just want to make sure
that we're trying to achieve the intended outcome. Okay. All right. I guess I have a
quick point of clarification commissioner. Sorry, apologies. A quick point of clarification
before I make the motion. What practical difference does adding the language about the R7 zoning
district make to the overall amendment? I'm, I guess I'm missing the confusion on Eric's
part. I think it, I think it makes it, cause if it says adjacent to a residential zoning
district and R7 being a residential zoning district and because R7 can allow for multifamily,
then that might, then that's what Tina is saying that essentially if we have it in there
and it just says residential zoning district, then we would be requiring new multifamily
to obtain an SUP when they're a budding or adjacent to an already existing multifamily
that's existed in R7 district. So I don't know if that helps clarify. No, I get, I get
that part. I guess my question is more about the language Ron had before he added the R7
zoning district when it just said excluding multifamily dwelling use. I think it's, I
think it's only just, I think it's just, I think it's just overkill of clarification
so to speak since R6 and lower doesn't allow for any multifamily with an SUP. Okay. I,
I see your point and I agree with you that I think that it might be just overkill, but
I think it might just be more of a better clarification to say R7 zoning district by
putting it into there. But yeah, I don't know if Tina, if you had anything else into there
that, okay. You've all explained it. Okay. All right. Well with that, yeah, I've served
on the DCRC when this was proposed. Staff did a good job of providing a real tangible
need for these changes and I appreciate that. With that, I happily move to approve the amendments
as presented with the new changes. All right. Commissioner McDade. I second. Okay. Well,
first and a second. Any other discussion? Sometimes democracy at works feels like mommy
and daddy fighting at the dais, but it's okay. We'll be okay with that. See no other discussion.
We will take a vote on the board. Okay. That motion passes six zero. All right. Ron, last
one. 4E DCA 22-0006. You to present and I'll open the public hearing. Great. Thank you,
chair, members of the commission. This is another city initiated code amendment related
to plan developments. The reason for this code amendment is really to provide a more
comprehensive procedure for rezoning to a plan development. One of those changes is
to also add a new type of PD, a plan development, an overlay plan development. And I'll go into
that in my slides preceding this to provide a little bit more description of the difference
between what an overlay PD is as well as what a standard PD is. The DCRC did meet on this
particular item and discussed it on July 8th. And per the recommendation, we are bringing
it forward to the planning zoning commission and ultimately to city council for consideration.
To summarize the code amendment code amendments, that is again, we're outlining and proposing
the new type of PD and that is an overlay. So we will now approve, have two types of
plan development, an overlay PD, a plan development, as well as a standard plan development. We're
also looking at clarifying the submittal documents, just again, to help more further require what
we need in order to review plan developments. We're making sure that those documents are
provided. Clarifying when concurrent reviews are allowed. There are certain times when
they are allowed and certain times when they are not. So that is further clarified in this
proposed code amendment. Adding more information related to PD amendments. There is, as you
all know, past PDs prior to 2019, there were some PDs that were created as part of the
2019 development code and as we know, as PDs start to become used more often, there will
be needs for amendments. So adding more information is going to be helpful in those efforts. We're
also proposing to delete, sorry, to delete the notification requirements for minor amendments.
The current requirement is that we, the city, notify adjacent property owners for minor
amendments to PDs. We feel that those are unnecessary and that those minor amendments
are typically minor in nature, of course, and the ones that are more substantial, such
as the major amendments, do still require those notifications and do still require public
hearings for those considerations. Lastly, we are proposing to add more clarification
as it relates to the approval criteria for rezoning to plan development. Again, to provide
further information to be able for staff, the P&Z, and city council to review as planning
developments are proposed. So we won't spend, I won't go through all of the code amendments
that's on, that was submitted to the planning zoning commission. Those are included in your
backup as exhibit two. I really just wanted to focus on the overlay PD addition, and as
you see on this slide, the description of an overlay plan development is presented,
and I will read it for the viewing public. I also want to make mention that the changes,
there are changes to this description different from the backup that was sent to you on Friday.
Yes, we looked at this after the backup had been sent out. We wanted to add a little bit
more clarification to the description, and so the changes that you see here is what staff
is proposing. So an overlay plan development is a PD intended to address concerns of neighboring
property owners to ensure the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of are compatible
with surrounding neighborhoods or less intensive uses. An overlay PD may be used to restrict
or expand the uses permitted within a base zoning district, or to impose additional use
specific standards within sub-chapter five upon a proposed use, or to modify setbacks,
landscaping, screening, or buffering requirements to allow the borders joining residential uses
or less intensive land uses than what is proposed within the overlay PD. I also want to make
clarification that the last sentence on this description should not be included. I failed
to remove that. That is not our intent. We want to remove that as part of our code amendment,
so let me go ahead and make that quick correction. Further, the overlay plan development is in
the course of reviewing any requested zoning map change to a base zoning under the section
272. The director of planning, as well as the planning zoning commission or city council,
they find that there is a need to impose conditions upon the request that rezoning to address
compatible concerns. This overlay PD would be one of those options to utilize if that
is the direction of the planning zoning commission, the director, and the city council. So examples
of an overlay PD, as you probably have already or know of, is the Baker track. Our end district
that one is located on the northwest part of the city. As you know, there was a rezoning
to go from RR to LI, and as part of that rezoning, there was some conditions added to that, primarily
adding landscaping and some trees and some screening. So that zoning change request would,
if they were to be presented today or if this was approved, they would come in as an overlay
plan development. Another one is the Windsor 935 medical office. This one is a little bit
further ago, and where there were some uses that were identified as only allowed, and
so limiting just certain uses, that is another way an overlay plan development could be used
in the future, again, if the code amendment was approved. Standard PD is defined or described
as intended to be used to achieve greater flexibility than is allowed by strict application
of the DDC. So standard PD may be used to permit new or unique land use or combinations
of uses to propose, or to propose innovative or creative development standards. A standard
PD shall be built off of a basic zoning district within the DDC. And again, I apologize, the
last sentence should not be included with this plan development or with this proposed
code amendment. That is something that will not be included. Examples of a standard PD,
obviously Robeson Ranch is one of those plan developments. The Christopher Todd communities,
which is the horizontal multifamily, again, as I mentioned earlier in the previous code
amendment, that was used as a PD because we didn't have quite understanding of what that
type of residential development is, so it was processed as a PD. Love First Community
Village, that one is off of McKinney and just west of Mayhill, that is. That had a unique
development proposal where there were some additional housing types, and the way it was
laid out was a little different from your typical development, so that we felt was more
of a specialized PD or a unique type of development, so it fit within the definition or description
of a standard PD. So those are examples of what we would refer to as standard PDs.
I want to make also just a quick presentation on what we would require between the two.
Overlay PDs, really what we're looking for is just a list of conditions or restrictions
that are proposed, again, hopefully to ensure that there is compatibility between the proposed
development and any other neighboring property, so that would be something that the staff
will be looking for as part of their submittal documents. Standard PDs are a little bit more
involved in that we require a little bit more information and require the following. One
is the PD regulation document, which will consist of the following. Also a PD development
plan, which is really their site plan for that particular development, and if they're
proposing any phasing, they will also provide a phasing plan as part of their submittal.
So again, as you can see, I just want to illustrate, an overlay PD does not require as much as
does a standard PD, where they will provide a lot more information as part of their submittal.
With that, staff is recommending approval as the proposed code amendments are consistent
or are in line with the section of the DDC, Section 274D as it relates to code amendment
approval criteria. With that, I'll stand for any questions.
Okay. Thank you, Ron. I don't see any questions this time. This is a public hearing. Any of
those that wish to speak may do so. You can fill out a blue card after the fact. Okay.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. I'll move to the dais for a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Cole. Make a motion to approve. Okay. Commissioner
Cole, a motion to approve with the additions and changes that were created and presented.
Yes, with the conditions presented. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal.
Okay. Got a first and a second in the discussion. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask for a vote on the
board. And that passes 6-0. Okay. I'll take us to our final item tonight. The item 5A,
our Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix. I'll turn the dais over to Tina.
Thank you, Chairman. We have not had a City Council meeting since the Planning and Zoning
Commission last met, so no cases to report or provide any update on that. But wanted
to get an item on your calendar just because I know some of you are working professionals
and want you to be able to plan accordingly. On October 12th, we are anticipating that
the Planning and Zoning Commission will probably need to convene a meeting at approximately
3.30 or 4 o'clock that afternoon. We'll obviously firm up that time once we have the agenda
more solidified, but just wanted to, you know, maybe have you put that on your calendars
for 3.30, and we might pleasantly surprise you with a later start time. But the reason
for this, just so you know, is our capital projects engineering team as well as our transportation
planning team is working on an update to our roadway impact fee ordinance. The Planning
and Zoning Commission serves as the CIAC, and I would be lying if I told you what all
those letters stood for. I just know that's the acronym assigned to the alternate committee
that you would convene into to consider any changes to the roadway impact fee ordinance.
So what we would do is in all likelihood convene that meeting first, take care of that business,
and then it will have a separate agenda posted, and then we'll have your normal Planning and
Zoning Commission agenda packet that evening as well. But again, more importantly, just
want to get that on your calendars so that you can plan accordingly at work, so thank
you.
Okay. Commissioner Villarreal.
So I brought it up briefly at the DCRC meeting about perhaps putting forth a potential amendment
or at least a discussion about a potential amendment, and it was said that this would
be the best venue to initiate that discussion, right? I know we've had a couple conversations
over the last few P&Z meetings about parking minimums, and I know we just had a DCRC, or
sorry, a Development Code amendment regarding that, but I know there's a lot of discussion
and approval in the realm of removing parking minimums entirely, and I would like to kickstart
that discussion down the line and put that on staff's radar for perhaps a future amendment
going to DCRC, not immediately, but sometime in the long-term future.
Okay.
That's it.
Got that in?
Awesome.
Okay. Commissioner Cole.
I just wanted to concur with Commissioner Villarreal on that. I support him in that, just having
a conversation. I think we should have a conversation. I think there is a consensus on this commission
to have that conversation, but I think it needs to be targeted and narrow and not go
down a rabbit hole, but just handle the parking minimums.
Okay. I know we did just approve a code amendment. We did. It's got to go to council, and it
sounds like we haven't gone to council yet. Say it again?
Go to council.
Okay. Go to council. Really, the discussion on that would probably have to be much later
on, and I'd hate for us to go through and have a discussion about change to code that
we just approved. I think it's a good discussion to have, and I think that we'll direct city
staff to bring back why parking minimums even need to exist and what the importance of those
are, then see where we go from there. Commissioner Pruitt.
Yeah, I'll just third that, but also echo some comments of the vice chair. Any change
like that is something that needs community buy-in, needs a longer perspective to understand
what the trade-offs are, and so I think I would look forward to those discussions.
Okay. Anything else to add to the matrix this time? Okay. Seeing none, I'll adjourn our
meeting at 759. Thank you very much.