- Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's
planning and zoning work session for Wednesday,
October 12th, 2022 at 5.01 with a quorum present,
I will call us to order.
The first item on our work session agenda
is citizen comment for the consent agenda.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak on the consent agenda?
Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and move to clarification
of items on our agenda.
First thing is our minutes for the 28th.
Anything on that?
Okay.
Any questions from the commission on the consent agenda?
We've got one preliminary plait.
Okay, then items for individual consideration.
The first one is the P&Z calendar for 2023.
Haley, do you have something to say on that?
- Yeah, I was just gonna add,
we do have a separate work session item for that,
so we can skip that for now
and we'll come back to it at the work session.
- That sounds great, okay, perfect.
Item four B, I'll go ahead and invite Mia up on that one.
That was one I believe we did get an email on
that has changed from our original backup.
- Yes, correct.
So this is a final plait for
Razor Ranch Town Center addition,
and essentially they are wanting to establish
the easements associated with the development
of the Razor Ranch Town Center.
It's located south of West University,
just east of I-35 in the Razor Ranch South Campus,
and since the report went out,
staff was able to work to make sure that
they satisfied all the right comments,
so we are recommending approval.
- Okay, great.
Any questions from the commission on that?
Okay, thanks, Mia.
Four B, no, that was four B, excuse me.
Four C, that was another one that we got an email on,
and I'll let Julie explain that.
- Good evening, Julie Wyatt,
senior planner with the City of Denton.
This is a preliminary plait for the Audreau subdivision.
Staff's original recommendation was for denial.
They had two issues that they had to address
in order to get to approval.
They have satisfied those comments,
and so staff is now recommending approval of this plait.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
- Thanks, Julie. - Thank you.
- Any questions?
Okay, and if you did not see the email that came out,
four D has been withdrawn,
so we will not be taking action on that today.
That will take us to our public hearings for this evening.
Did Sean walk in?
There you are, hi.
Do you wanna give a quick synopsis of our first one?
I believe that, yeah.
You are up first, please.
Just make sure I pull this up.
Okay.
All right, good evening, chair and members of the commission.
So this is a request for a zoning change
from mixed-use residential to light industrial zoning.
This is out on properties located
between Barthol Road and FM 1173, about 53 acres there.
It is mostly undeveloped, one single-family lot
and one-plugged gas station.
It's a three-story building,
undeveloped, one single-family lot and one-plugged gas well.
The applicant's proposed use is industrial, of course.
Any use permitted in the LI Zoning District
would be permitted, and staff is in support
because this does meet our future land use
of light industrial and as well
as our comprehensive plan goals.
Happy to answer any questions.
- Perfect.
Do we have any questions?
Okay, perfect.
Thank you very much.
Taking us to 5B, and Angie is here for that one.
Hello.
- Hi, good evening.
Get this pulled up.
This is a zoning change request Z220014.
The proposed request is for approximately 84.9 acres
of land situated on East McKinney Street.
It has a current zoning of rural residential.
There's some mixed-use neighborhood
as well as some R4 on the subject property.
It is predominantly undeveloped
on the eastern portion of the property.
There are three detached single-family dwellings.
In the southwest corner of the subject property,
there is some existing FEMA floodplain
as well as a 50-foot wide Atmos gas easement.
The proposed zoning district for this project is R6
to facilitate the development
of a single-family residential neighborhood.
Staff is recommending approval of this request.
It is consistent with the future land use designation
of low residential and complies
with our approval criteria in subchapter two.
- Great, thank you, Angie.
Questions on this one?
Okay, thank you very much.
With regard to 5C, that item is needing to be postponed.
We are gonna open the public hearing.
It's not going to be re-noticed.
The signs have been placed on the property already.
So I will open the public hearing, leave it open,
and then we'll, for a motion to postpone it
to a date certain of October 26th.
Okay, any questions with regard to that?
Okay, okay, awesome.
Then that takes us through our agenda.
We'll get into our work session reports.
3A, PZ 22, 232.
We're gonna receive a report and hold a discussion
on our updates of our criteria manuals.
I'm not sure who is going first on this.
Good afternoon.
- Good afternoon.
So thank you everybody for letting me come here
and speak to you about the criteria manuals.
My name is Brett Bourgeois.
I am the Deputy City Engineer
in the Capital Projects and Engineering Department.
And so we're gonna talk about the criteria manuals
that we have.
We go through an update process.
We're gonna lay out what our public outreach plan is,
including this meeting, what our background was
in terms of having to develop these criteria manuals
and make edits to them.
Walk through some highlight revisions
to each criteria manual, then lay out our next steps.
In addition to myself, we brought various experts
from different departments to answer any questions
that you may have.
So as you can see, we have a pretty extensive
public outreach plan laid out.
Starting tonight, we're gonna do
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Tomorrow, we'll do Developer Town Hall.
Then we publish the manuals online on Friday
for public comment.
So we're, various meetings going to all the boards
and commissions before we go to the city council
in December and hold a public hearing
and go for adoption to take effect on January 1st.
So a little bit of background.
The criteria manuals went for several years
while being updated.
Last year, they did a revision, an update to them
that was led by, I believe, Becky and Scott McDonald
and some other folks.
One of the tasks we want to do
is make periodic updates throughout every year.
We do annual updates on it.
And so to do that process, we kicked off
in about April, weekly meetings.
We held meetings every Thursday from 10 a.m.
until 12 p.m., so a two-hour block in the morning.
We got all departments represented in the meeting.
Went through every manual, every criteria manual,
every detail on it.
Spent several weeks on each manual,
so we went in pretty good depth on them.
And so that was done over the course of the spring.
The summertime, we actually went through
and made those edits and updates.
And now we're starting here with our public outreach
and to present what we're doing
in terms of modifications to that.
Again, we're here to get public comments
and go that direction in addition to posting
on the website for comment to the public.
We're also gonna publish and post in the newspaper
that we are updating the criteria manuals
to get additional comments from the public.
And then one of the things that we noticed
in terms of going through the criteria manual updates
is that we had various different formats.
We had different styles.
We had conflict of information across the criteria manuals.
We had information repeated.
So one of our goals is to eventually
combine these into one document,
just like how we had the development code,
where it's one document for all developers to use
with different chapters for every subject that we're going on.
So that's one of our goals towards next year
is to simplify this, make it more coherent
and a little bit easier for everybody to use.
So a little bit of highlight
in terms of what the criteria manuals are.
The Denton Development Code
is our policy and procedure documents.
It lays out the guiding principles that the city wants.
It goes through the procedure
so everybody develops the same way
and everything gets done the same way.
The criteria manuals are really the design details
and technical information on how to actually achieve
those developmental goals.
In addition to that, we have the standard specifications
and standard details that get even more into the minutia
in terms of this is how you actually build these connections,
build these roadways, the details of how they're laid out.
So we have different levels of documents.
And you can kind of see how we have it laid out
where the Denton Development Code provides the guidance.
The design, the criteria manuals
give us the technical details.
The specifications tell us how it's supposed to be built
and the standard details show us
how it actually gets implemented.
So in terms of the Solid Waste Criteria Manual,
last year they did a full rewrite of their manual.
So the previous revisions was in 2008, I believe.
So they basically did a full rewrite of it last year.
So this year was actually our shortest meeting on it.
They think they had two comments,
said we wrote it last year, we're very happy with it.
Let's make a couple of clarifications.
One of the clarifications was,
hey, we had a paragraph previously that stated
the city was the sole provider of solid waste
and recycling services within the city.
We removed that and now we're getting questions on that.
Let's put that back in to solidify that.
We provide all this recycling and solid waste services,
even during construction.
So we added that back into the criteria manual
to clarify that.
Another thing was that they wanted to add a single enclosure
to the end as an option,
they wanted to add a single enclosure in addition to a
roll-off compacted enclosure for multi-family developments.
Gives more flexibility for the developments
that they've noticed.
And we've also reduced the alleyway minimum width,
paved section down to 15 feet from 20 feet.
That's consistent with other jurisdictions.
It's also consistent with our mobility plan
and our transportation criteria.
So we kind of had this gap in there that we solidified
all the information across different manuals.
For the stormwater criteria manual, we went through it.
We noticed that there are several definitions and terms
throughout the document that were not defined
and were causing some confusion.
So we went through and defined all those terms properly
throughout the definitions portion of the document.
We also went through and we noticed that all development,
all projects had to be designed to what's called
the flood mitigation event,
which is essentially the 100 year flood storm.
Where we were doing project either internally
or in downtown urban areas, it became so cost prohibitive
and restrictive in terms of developing those projects
that the stormwater aspect made it impossible
to actually get any work done.
So we talked about it and we realized,
hey, any incremental upgrade is better than no upgrade.
And so we allowed some language in there
for replacement of existing structures
or modification of existing structures.
We can allow for a smaller improvement
with the permission of the city engineer
and engineering department.
So it gives us some flexibility
to allow for redevelopment downtown.
It gives us some flexibility for our own internal projects
and streets to offer smaller improvements
that are still getting us a better product
instead of having this massive improvement
that makes the projects unattainable
and impossible to complete.
And one of the things we also found
is that our standard specifications restrict us
from using corrugated metal pipe culverts and driveways.
However, that was still added in our criteria manual.
So we struck that from there as well.
So that way we're consistent with our standard practice
across all documents.
So as you're probably all aware
is that we adopted the mobility plan in March of this year.
And so as part of that,
we define all the roadway cross-sections,
roadway requirements.
And so we updated the geometric standards
of our transportation and our transportation criteria manual
to match the mobility plan
in terms of road sections with the lane characteristics.
We also added turn lane warrants.
So when we have one installed turn lanes,
we had no defined procedure for this to work.
And so we lined out the procedure, the warrant counts.
How do we make it standardized
so that way we can define
how big the turn lanes are supposed to be,
how long they're supposed to be,
and if that roadway actually needs a turn in that location.
We also updated our on-street parking standards.
We were already designing them
to ADA and PROAG requirements, but it wasn't clear.
And so we just added that we're following
the ADA and PROAG standards.
We updated the cross-sections, the details for those,
the width, the access points, all those types of things.
We also added as part of our safety push within the city,
vision zero and mobility plan, other things.
We've added safety assessment
as part of our traffic impact analysis.
So not only do they have to look at the trip generation,
the amount of turns, intersections are being impacted,
but also look at it from a safety standpoint
to make sure that we are accommodating
safe intersections, safe access.
- Brian, can I ask you a question on that?
- Yes, go ahead.
- So with regard to a safety assessment,
I mean, are you giving them things to look for?
I mean, how is that gonna be determined?
- Yeah, so we lay out actually things for them to consider
and to revise and to look at and provide comments on
in terms of how is the safe conditions done.
And the pre-term actually has more information.
He can respond to that in more detail.
(clears throat)
- Good afternoon, Preetam Deshmukh, transportation planning.
Yeah, I think just to give you a quick example
of understanding, there are a lot of rural roadways
with rural cross-section with two lanes.
And typically when a development comes in,
not necessarily every TIA triggers
an introduction of a left turn lane.
So what we're doing is with the safety assessment,
making sure that a left turn lane is provided,
getting the turning vehicles out of the travel lane
so that that makes a safer bay
or a stacking area for the vehicle to stand
until they can safely make the left.
And that is just one example,
but there are several examples that are in there
that we can assess as part of the safety
and not necessarily rely on the TIA results.
- So the safety assessment is gonna be different
for each project then?
- It may be a project specific,
just depending on the access where they are
and depending on how they connect.
If a school is nearby that would trigger
some other requirements for that particular project,
but yes, it would be project specific.
It would also be more defined in the scoping
when we're talking to developers for the TIA.
- That you would drill down exactly
what they're gonna have to measure and whatnot.
Okay, then I had another question you probably can answer.
'Cause as I was reading through that,
it said the area will be looked at
in the vicinity of the project site.
That seems really vague.
So again, are we dealing because
we're dealing with each project individually,
but when you just say vicinity,
I mean, what does that mean?
Like a couple of blocks, a quarter mile,
but what does that mean?
- Yeah, it's funny.
This question was just raised earlier today.
(laughing)
So we have a list of pointers there.
Typically projects we're looking at a two mile radius
and any arterial to arterial or arterial collector
intersections that are either signalized
or even some of them are stop control
because some of them are rural cross-sections,
but we're looking at all of those intersections
in the vicinity.
And if a project is larger,
if you have more than 500-peak hour trips,
then we may expand the area
to look at the nearest freeway connections,
nearest highway connections, and so on and so forth.
But typically it's within the two mile radius.
- So you would let them know
what vicinity means at that point
so there's not, like they don't bring you a report
and you say, oh, sorry, you didn't go far enough, but.
- No, there is a process that we go through.
There is a TIA scoping meeting
and we clearly define that this is what we request from you
and at that meeting we point out
if the area is not enough,
we think that they need to extend
or there's special intersections
that are just outside the border of the vicinity,
we ask them to include that
because they're more congested
and we need to know what the impacts would be.
So yes, it's more of a,
at the starting point we define exactly what we want.
- Perfect, that's what I wanted to know.
Thank you very much. - Thank you.
- Then we also, as part of our complete streets,
we included pedestrian traffic impacts.
So in addition to roadways,
we wanna look at the pedestrian mobility
and how they can get around in terms of,
from feature to feature in bike ped and sidewalks as well.
So we included some more of that,
that inclusion to the TIA process.
So for water and wastewater criteria manuals,
we updated, we clarified the requirements
for metering for multifamilies.
And so there's discussion about,
do we have one master meter
and then the property owners have to sub meter
for every dwelling below that?
Or do we have a meter for every dwelling?
So we clarified some of that and cleaned that up a little bit.
I believe we're going with the one meter
and sub metering them by the property owner.
One of the things that we did not have
was any discussion on backflow prevention.
That's a requirement in the city,
it's a requirement in the state,
but we had nowhere defining and discussing
what the requirements for backflow prevention
was in the city.
So we added the whole section discussing that area.
We had a table in the document
where we're having a lot of conflict
in terms of how utilities cross each other,
whether it's gas lines crossing water lines or sewer lines
and storm drains crossing.
We had a table that was a little bit unclear.
We went through, we looked at it.
We refined that table, redefined some of the terms on it,
changed some of the requirements to make it easier to use
and better and more clear for everybody
in terms of the crews installing the work.
And we also added a discussion on grease traps
and grit traps, which is kind of a weird topic
to have in the water or wastewater criteria manual
as it's like food processing and restaurants.
But the problem was that it's not defined
or discussed anywhere else within the city code.
And it belongs in here because anything that overflows
from that goes into the wastewater system.
And so we had to have a discussion of it.
And so we added it to this document
to codify the requirements of that for the city
as part of the overall development
and the code requirements.
And so for our next steps, as I discussed previously,
we're having the Developer Town Hall tomorrow.
We're gonna run through this similar presentation,
giving all the developers an opportunity
to seek the information and provide comments and questions.
The criteria manuals will be posted online on Friday
as a draft for everybody to review and comment on it.
And then we'll be in the process of gathering information,
comments and feedback.
And then we'll be making updates and revisions
prior to going to city council in December.
And again, here's our schedule of all the planned meetings
and major milestones.
We have several presentations and meetings to do,
both to the city boards and commissions,
to outside agencies, to the Developer Town Hall,
to Engineering Society, publishing it online,
or publishing it in the newspaper,
and then going to city council for adoption
and effective in January.
And we're here for any questions you may have.
- As you're collecting feedback,
where is that feedback going?
Perhaps if a commissioner tonight comes up with something,
oh, where should they submit that?
- So on the website, we'll have a link to a form
that you fill out and the form will get populated
and put into a data collection process from behind scenes
and get notified to us.
- So it'll just go right through the online form?
- Exactly. - Okay, awesome, great.
Questions for Brad?
- Commissioner Perot.
- Thank you, Chair.
First of all, outstanding job.
I think last year we were short staffed
and we were running as hard as we could
to get to this thing in December.
And we got it through by February, I think.
And this year it really seems like it's a well-oiled machine.
So the hard work shows.
So thank you.
It's just in really good shape.
Just one question.
Well, we have several people in the room.
I think a couple months ago we had a work session on parking
and there was a slide on bicycle parking.
And that reminded me that in the past
we've had certain guidelines of types of bicycle
parking facilities that are allowed or encouraged
and that sort of thing.
Was there any discussion in the staff meetings
with our bicycle and pedestrian ADA coordinator
about what we should aspire to
and whether this is the right place
to make those amendments
or if there's some other document to make sure
that we're getting the right
or the intended type of bicycle parking?
- Yeah, so we actually did discuss that a little bit.
And part of the problem is that we have public right-of-way.
And so the right-of-way we have that's off of the streets
are used for sidewalks.
And we have to have ADA compliant sidewalks and facilities.
So we can't put bicycle parking
impeding the ADA travel lanes.
And so most of the bicycle parking that we're noticing
is gonna have to be on private property
outside the public right-of-way.
So it's not really something that we can incorporate
necessarily into our criteria for the city improvements.
One of the things that we did discuss
was motorcycle parking.
We had quite a few comments about that.
And so we did include a basic detail
for motorcycle parking.
Essentially, it's half of the parking spaces.
We looked it up and did some research online.
We have a note on the table saying that motorcycle parking
is one half of a traditional parking space.
- Okay, yeah, I think the specific thing
that I was thinking about is,
I mean, a lot of projects around town, even city projects
and parks projects have seen a lot of those sort of,
for lack of a better term, wave racks, right?
Where it's a squarely snake
with two positions on either side.
And the document that we refer to for general guidelines
and resources kind of dissuades against that style.
But there's nothing that requires a particular style
or two points of contact.
So just something to think about.
I don't know if Steph has any more thoughts on that.
- Yeah, we'll definitely take note of it
and look into it.
- Thank you.
- Anyone else?
Okay.
- Thank you.
- Outstanding, thank you so much.
That will take us to 3B on our work session agenda.
And Haley, are you handling that or is there a,
Sean is handling that very good.
- Good evening.
- It is once again, calendar time.
And I can pull that up here.
Basically, we've put together once again,
a draft calendar following the pattern we've been on,
which seems to be working,
which is that second and fourth Wednesday.
So staying away from the city council dates.
We would have again, two dates in every month,
except for those where we're trying to provide some time
for holidays, which would be July, November, and December.
Otherwise, we would stick to that second and fourth.
And we have checked to make sure that there is no more
than 30 days between any dates that we're staying
within the rules of the shot clock,
but to have it answer any questions or concerns.
And I'm also happy to zoom in if that would be helpful.
- Anybody have questions on the dates?
I know that I saw that spring break has been accounted for,
so there will not be a meeting on spring break week.
Any questions, concerns, problems?
Okay, outstanding.
- Thank you.
- And we'll have an agenda item, I think, on this too.
- Yes.
- That's right.
- Yes, we'll have an ICI.
- On a regular meeting.
Okay, awesome.
Thank you, Sean.
Okay, our next topic is 3C.
Receive a report, hold a discussion
regarding transportation topics.
And look who's back to talk about
transportation topics, Howard.
- Good afternoon again.
Chair, members of the commission.
Pretend they smoke, transportation planning.
And let me pull up the, all right.
So as you can see, this is a tech team effort.
Karina was going to do the whole thing,
but she is, she has an infection issue with the voice.
(laughing)
All right, let's start the boot camp.
She'll be covering the last couple slides,
but now that we've all left, let's get started.
The day we open up the partitions,
that's when we talk about infection.
(laughing)
So just a quick overview of this particular boot camp topic.
It is TIA.
What exactly is TIA, traffic impact analysis?
The purpose behind it, we'll go through the components,
what's included in the study and analysis.
Then we'll talk about how do TIA relate
to the development review and the different applications
that come in and when we require them
and what format they're presented.
And then last but not least, we'll have the helpful links
to go to when we wanna look at the criteria
needed for the TIA.
So what is a TIA?
It is, as the name suggests, the traffic impact analysis.
We're actually determining impact for any new
or added traffic coming out of a proposed development
on the transportation system.
So the city has a network, a street,
and we just wanna make sure that before,
sorry about that, before we move forward
with the approval process of a development project,
what kind of impacts does it have?
Does it negatively impact our system here?
So next step is the purpose, understanding the purpose.
There are three main purposes here
if you focus on this side of the street.
First, it's first and foremost,
we're protecting our infrastructure.
We're protecting our transportation infrastructure.
It's billions of dollars to install it
and we're making sure that any new development
does not come in and negatively impact
our existing infrastructure.
So that's the first and foremost purpose of a TIA.
The second important thing is we're making sure
that we are providing possible mitigation measures.
And when I say possible, I wanna emphasize that word.
Making sure that when a development comes in,
it proportionally contributes to fixing some of the issues
that are created due to the new added traffic.
So in certain cases, the impacts or the congestion
already exist, so we cannot require the developer
to come in and fix those existing issues.
So that's what the word possible means.
So whenever a TIA, when we go through the process,
we identify the mitigation measures.
Not necessarily the entire mitigation measure
is proportional to the development.
So it's not necessarily that that developer is,
or the applicant is paying for the entire mitigation.
There could be a piece of it that's required.
So that's really important to keep in mind.
But when we talk about mitigation measures,
we help identify all the negative impacts
and provide that information to elected officials,
to appointed elected officials,
and then staff itself to make those informed decisions.
So when a new development is coming,
we wanna make sure that all the decisions that are made
are informed, and that's what the TIA does
as far as the traffic impacts are concerned.
And last but not least, there are several goals in the TIA.
When we're adding new traffic,
we wanna make sure that the system itself,
it's safe and efficient to travel on the roadways.
That's why we added that safety area,
or the safety section in the criteria manual,
make sure that our system remains safe and efficient.
We also wanna make sure that there are minimal
delay increases.
We know that there are delays on our intersections,
there is congestion on our roadways.
We wanna make sure that the new development
that's adding traffic is not increasing it to a point
where it starts failing, it starts congestion.
So we wanna make sure that that piece is mitigated.
And then also help identify, prevent crashes first,
and then help identify some cross-connections, axes,
but at the same time, making sure that there is no,
there is minimum cut through traffic.
So we wanna develop projects and make sure that we plan it
such that there is no cut through involved,
there is no increase in cut through traffic for existing,
as well as future subdivisions or areas
within the development itself.
So those are the main focus areas
as to why we require a TIA.
When do we need it?
There are clear guidelines.
If you focus on this table at the bottom,
it is in our transportation criteria manual.
It clearly defines when and what type of TIA,
how much in tents, and what all material will be required
that the city needs.
And just to summarize it on the left,
we are looking at developments
that are adding more than 100 peak hour trips
or 1,000 daily trips to the system.
So we want to make sure that those developments are analyzed.
We wanna make sure that we look at everything
in the vicinity, in the surrounding area,
and that as far as the impacts,
any large developments that are coming are in.
So any development that's more than 100 acres,
we wanna make sure that are we even prepared already
as far as transportation infrastructure is concerned
to serve that type of development and community.
So that's the second piece.
And then any other changes or alterations,
if we're talking about zoning changes, intensifying uses,
any of those changes,
or even mobility plan alterations and changes,
any changes in our master plans,
we wanna make sure that that also requires a TIA.
And last but not least,
when we're connecting our access points,
if we're connected to an existing congestion,
congested roadway,
or even if we're connecting to a text out roadway,
we wanna make sure that we identify the impacts,
make sure that we know exactly what's happening
when the traffic is added,
new development comes in and traffic is added to the system.
So those are the times when we would require a TIA
for a new development.
What are the components?
If you follow the bottom line,
it's fairly straightforward.
At first, we start with identifying that area, study area,
which is approximately two miles
in the vicinity of the project itself.
Then we identify what the existing development is
and the characteristics of the site itself.
We wanna make sure we also look at our mobility plan.
Are there any collectors?
Are there any arterials
going through that particular project area?
And then also we wanna make sure that
if there are any planned CIP or capital improvements,
any corridor projects going through that area,
we look at all of those aspects
and make sure that that's all included in the TIA.
And then we study the existing conditions,
what's out there, traffic counts, everything.
Then we study the future conditions
based on how many ever trips
that are being generated for the project.
So, and then based on the future condition,
we assess the level of service,
which is if we are delaying someone
at an intersection more longer than it currently is,
then how do we identify the proposed mitigation measures
to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development?
Now I wanna turn it over to Karina.
- Just kidding.
Just to clarify, I lost my voice.
That's why he did the presentation.
All right, I know we're a joking group.
We like to joke around.
So pre-time gave you a good amount of information
related to the TIA and what goes in it.
So how does this impact our current development review?
And I think this is kind of the meat and bones
of why it's important to PNZ.
So as pre-time mentioned, there's certain thresholds
that come into play that trigger a TIA.
So this is when a TIA is warranted.
When a development comes in and a TIA is warranted,
they're typically approved and prepared concurrently
with the following development applications.
So a preliminary plot, a zoning compliance plan,
which is our site plans,
plan developments and specific use permits.
Now the Planning and Zoning Commission
doesn't see all of these applications,
most of them, of course.
But the zoning compliance plans,
those are administratively approved.
So when it only needs, or when it comes in
versus the zoning compliance plan,
that's our non-residential projects,
you won't typically see that
with the exception of RACER Ranch if that's triggered.
So the first application that comes in
would be your preliminary plot.
So at that point, the TIA, again, if warranted,
is going through the process with staff.
If there's any mitigation measures
that are identified in the recommendations from a TIA,
those are incorporated within the zoning compliance plan
and preliminary plot.
So you won't see those plans come in
without those mitigation measures.
Those would be the responsibility of staff to identify
and make sure that they're in there.
Again, they're not required,
but when they're proposed,
staff does make the determination
what would be appropriate for the area.
And then, of course, when those zoning cases,
the plan developments, specific use permits,
when those applications come in for public hearing,
that's typically where the questions come in
from PNZ and council.
What was done for congestion on this project?
What are the mitigation measures that we're requiring here?
So if PNZ has a concern, if city council has a concern,
we will look at the TIA and see what it recommended
and make sure that we're balancing that with, you know,
those requirements, as well as any concerns
that our elected officials and appointed officials have.
I'm not sure if I saw a question.
Okay, good.
So as I mentioned, the TIAs are required on a case by case.
Well, I did not mention this,
but other applications that you might see it on,
these come in on a case by case basis.
So that would be your zoning,
comprehensive plan amendments,
and mobility plan amendments.
So zoning is the application type
that you will typically not see a TIA
unless it hits that threshold of,
okay, this is 100 acres, this is 200 acres,
or an applicant is requesting to rezone
from rural residential all the way to LI,
and it does not meet the future land use map.
So those are some instances where staff will come in
and say, hey, we do need a TIA for this area.
What you're proposing may have potential impacts
on the system, especially if it's out on the fringe,
the city fringe.
This is when we'll request that analysis to be done.
So as I mentioned, some considerations,
and before I jump into that,
I did put some screenshots for you
of a recent project that came in.
This is at the corner of Loop 288 and University.
It was a plan development before,
and then the applicant came in and requested
to rezone to three different zoning districts,
which would be general office,
mixed-use neighborhood, and light industrial.
So when that zoning case came in,
we did request the TIA.
Within that TIA, recommendations were proposed,
and it was presented by the planner on the case
as it relates to the criteria for approval for zoning.
So going into that last bit,
some considerations when we do require TIAs
with these applications.
Again, it has to be related to a substantial change
in the future land use designation,
the residential to industrial,
substantial changes to a zoning district.
So we won't typically require a TIA
for R1 to R2, as an example,
but if it was R1 to MN or MR,
that might be a case if a conceptual plan is provided.
That's another kind of triggering factor
or something that we consider.
And then last, mobility plan amendments.
We don't typically see these,
but I believe in the last year or two,
we did have one come to PNZ and council.
I can't remember off the top of my head which one it was,
but it was on our light industrial side of town.
There was a requested amendment to the mobility plan,
and then at that point, we did request a TIA.
So those are just some examples of how the TIA comes
into play with our development review
and how PNZ does kind of evaluate some of these decisions
related to that.
So last, just a couple links for y'all.
Of course, our development code, the comprehensive plan,
which does include the mobility plan as an element,
and then the current transportation criteria manual,
which outlines thresholds for a TIA
and then what's required within a TIA.
And with that, Preetemar, I can answer any questions.
- Go ahead.
- Commissioner Rick Dane.
- Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just have one question on the traffic,
on the only analysis of your traffic.
And I'm gonna use the new apartments coming in at Woodrow.
They say that the street is gonna tie into Dutchess.
So I'm looking at, you have Dutchess,
when you try to get onto the loop,
there's no traffic light there,
but you have a light maybe 300 yards up
at Shady Oaks and the loop.
And then you have one at McKinney and the loop.
What's gonna be done?
You're adding 289 apartments that's gonna tie into Dutchess.
How is that gonna, you're gonna have a big impact right there
'cause you're not gonna be able to turn left
to get on the loop.
Is it, would it make any sense to put another light there
when you already have one,
maybe two or 300 yards from that site?
- So I wanna make sure we don't get too far off topic.
So maybe if, maybe if we can ask a more general question,
like did it trigger a TIA and stick to that
versus a more individualized thing.
I believe, Hilary, is that, okay.
- It's potentially off topic, so if it's there,
- So yeah, in general question,
yes, we typically do include signalization,
identify, it's called signal warrants analysis.
So as part of the TIA, we do have the applicant
go through a signal warrant analysis,
particularly when we're tying into TxDOT facilities.
TxDOT does require that we provide that,
and once they go, we have to go through an approval process,
and when they process it, then we have to identify funds
to put the entire signal in there.
One of the nuances that does happen is one development
may not, as I mentioned earlier,
may not be responsible for the entire mitigation.
So even though it triggers it, it's not fully responsible.
So at that point, the city has to identify
how do we move forward and implement this mitigation measure
in a reasonable time, even though we're not getting
the full cost recovered from the one particular development.
So yes, there are some challenges,
and then we continually work, but the TIA should identify
and conduct a signal warrant analysis
in situations like theirs.
- Just to generally answer the question
about the Woodrow project, there was a TIA submitted,
reviewed and approved when the SUP came in,
and we can send you information offline about that project.
- All right, thanks.
- Commissioner Smith.
- Thank you, Chair.
I think it's been, for the five years
I've been on the commission, I think it's probably been
one of the biggest sticking points we've had
that gets brought up constantly is about traffic, obviously.
And I think the empower of the TIA is great,
and I'm glad we're going through this bootcamp process
just to kind of get an understanding of it.
But I know that sometimes when we bring up TIAs,
they're kind of just not blown through during a meeting,
and it's not really you guys, it's the planners
that are presenting it, and they're not coming out
to any of the planners here.
But when there are things like you just mentioned, right,
this does trigger a factor that needs to be going in
for mitigation, and it's on a tech stop managed street,
where it's on a city road, but it's not enough for us to,
there's other properties that are not developed yet
that probably would end up triggering it,
and then you can't put that full weight and bearing
of that cost to put in a signal
or other type of mitigation in place
only on that one person, who is the strawberry bear
with camel's back.
The, I don't know if there's a way for us in the future
during TIAs and during presentations
to have those types of pieces brought up
a little bit more clearly,
especially when we're looking at zonings,
where it's like, yes, this zoning is something
that could have, by the TIA,
we could need signalization at this street,
but there'd be this process X, Y, Z
that we have to go through for that.
Or because it's along the tech stop road,
we'd have to go through the tech stop process
within getting that signalization.
I think that sometimes we just,
we miss mentioning some of those small things
that should be some deciding factors
when we talk about a zoning,
because even though it may trigger it,
it doesn't mean it will be necessarily there at that time,
and it does kind of create this gap in safety
that we hope the TIA will point out for us,
and we hope the TIA will protect the community
at large for it, but there might be a need to discuss
that a little bit more in depth at public meetings,
and so I don't know if that's something we can
bring up in the future.
- It's possible that that could be
something to bring up at matrix time.
- Okay, we'll do that then,
but one question I did have on the tech stop process.
As we have, can you go in depth on,
just for the commission as a whole,
to have a better understanding,
'cause we do see a lot of projects
that happen on tech stop roads,
or a lot of projects that are next to tech stop roads
and go through the tech stop process.
What is that step-by-step, after we do that TIA,
that it goes, when it goes to tech stop,
that they then go through to be able to discuss,
okay, this is when we're gonna start going through,
I know you mentioned it there at the end,
we have to, the city has to locate some funds
to be able to do that, but how does tech stops process
of identifying mitigation, and the city's process
for identifying medication differ, or align,
or how do those two things interact?
'Cause it seems like it's always been a little bit gray.
- You can give us our name.
- Yeah, I'll tackle this from the development review side.
So, typically the general process is,
once the zoning, in this case,
we'll talk about plan developments and SUPs,
'cause those are the ones that have site plans approved,
and the TIA would then include those mitigation measures,
or not, if it didn't require it.
After that stage has passed,
they'll go through their planning process,
and then, well, their civil engineering plan process,
and planning process.
When a tech stop permit comes in,
that's typically what they need to do
before they get access to it.
That'll come in concurrently
with their civil engineering plans,
and that's kind of the point in time
where all of that will be decided by tech stop,
whether they approve those access points,
or they're gonna require something else on top of that.
So the tech stop permit is the key application.
Concurrent with the civil engineering plans,
and then prior to final platting,
where that decision will be made,
and then just for general informational purposes,
the current timeline right now for tech stop
is four to six months before they approve a permit.
So sometimes, that's why you'll see a significant gap
from when the plan development came in,
or the SUP came in,
to when the plat is finally coming in for approval.
So I'm hoping I answered that question,
if not, Preetam can come right in.
- I just follow up, how often do we see
those permits getting denied or modified
in a significant way that might be different
than what is discussed in a public approval setting?
Is it pretty common, we're going through,
we're following essentially what,
we know what tech stop wants,
we know we're gonna go through that process,
that the permit doesn't usually get denied,
we don't see big modifications, those kinds of things.
- Yeah, we typically go,
it's a two or three step process,
but what we have is we have a great relationship,
and thanks to Becky's group,
we have a great relationship with Tech Stop,
and we conduct monthly meetings with them,
so if there is a development that's coming in
and tying in, and they have certain design concepts,
they will bring it up,
and we will bring it up in a discussion with Tech Stop,
and say generally, conceptually,
do you agree with this step?
Then they move to the next step,
which is actually designing it,
and during the design phase,
if they find out there are some engineering design issues,
if there is drainage issues or other issues,
then they will provide those comments,
and they have another option to go back
and ask Tech Stop the same question,
but after everything is done and we feel okay,
that yes, we've received a couple approvals from Tech Stop,
and then we as a city, it satisfies all city criteria,
it does go to Tech Stop, they may have comments,
they may have some minor modifications,
but it's very rare at that point,
after going through that many steps,
that they really completely decline
or reject those applications.
- I'm sorry.
I just thought of one more thing.
Given how the approval process is for SUPs and PDs,
if Tech Stop were to find a project
that has already gone through approvals
and indicate that it's not sufficient,
they're gonna deny the permit,
at that point, that applicant would have to bring the SUP
back unless flexibility was written into the SUP or PD.
- So it doesn't happen very often?
- Not very often, there may be one case
or maybe something minor where there might be issues
between the site plan that was approved,
but typically, if it stays within the limitations
or boundaries of the approval,
then it doesn't have to come back.
We try to find a resolution as best as we can.
- You guys stay pretty proactive,
and I'm saying thank you guys very much for doing that.
How many other cities have a monthly meeting with Tech Stop?
Cities of our size are sad.
Sure, Dallas has weekly, if not daily meetings with Tech Stop,
but not many?
So I don't know the answer to that question.
- It does actually depend of how many facilities,
Tech Stop roadways, they have within the city.
So if there's not a whole lot of touch points,
we do have a lot, and Tina can attest to that
when she moved here.
- Tina can beat her head against the wall
and make a touch to that, yeah, sure.
Awesome, thank you guys, thank you for being so proactive
on that.
- Other questions?
Commissioner Perot.
- Thank you, Chair.
Just a couple quick things.
I heard Karina mention that,
sorry, let's take a minute here.
Mentioned something about if a zoning change was not,
or differing from the future land use map,
and does that mean that essentially some of those triggers
occur when we are changing,
essentially changing the future land use map,
because the mobility plan was drawn up
with the assumption of the land uses within that map?
Am I understanding that correctly?
- I'll say it's a consideration for.
So if, again, if a zoning request comes through
and it doesn't meet the future land use,
but it's not too far off from what we're asking for,
we're not gonna put an applicant through the process
to go through the TIA process.
Now, if it's something significant
that warrants a comprehensive plan amendment,
and again, it's that far off from what we're asking for,
then yes, we will have a TIA with that application.
- No, that's good.
And then on the, and maybe this differs
from project to project, so feel free to tell me
it just depends as the wonderful engineering answer.
But from time to time, we have projects come through
especially with a PD or an SUP where a developer
will offer to provide some offsite improvement
that may or may not have been required by staff
from the TIA.
Is there a general way in that funding scheme
that is typical from a, here's my question is,
it's my understand that sometimes those improvements
are sort of fronted some money from the developer,
but then on the back side,
once they have their construction applications
and they pay their impact fees,
that gets basically refunded on the back end.
Is that the normal process or is it,
does it really just depend?
- The starting answer is it depends, but (laughs)
but in order to provide more information on that,
yes, if a roadway that's adjacent to the project
is a roadway that's within the mobility plan
and it's included in the right-of-way impact fee study,
then any capacity improvements, adding turn lanes,
adding through lanes, they will get refunded at the back end.
So they will have their right-of-way impact fees credited.
We won't go beyond the credit amount.
The city will not pay in cash beyond that,
but yes, up to that limit of the roadway impact fee,
they do get credited any capacity enhancement.
As far as the other off-site improvements,
there is no one formula fits all.
There are times where the developer is willing to,
for his benefit as well as the overall benefit,
willing to add in more, more than the proportionality.
And at that point, we do work with them saying,
okay, if this benefits the city as well as the development,
better access, better in and out, more attractive product,
then yes, we can work with them and put it in,
but it's purely with a conversation,
with a discussion with the developer.
- Okay, thank you.
I'll try to be more active and remember that
when those things come up.
And then lastly, I recall from previous discussions
that for the mobility, vehicular access and everything,
there's a particular level of service that we aim for,
and that vehicular level of services
is sort of a amount of delay, right?
- Correct.
- But then in conjunction with this,
as we just saw in our criteria manuals,
we're instituting a, I think it called it
like a pedestrian level of service analysis
or something like that.
And when I looked through that, it didn't seem like
it was so much of a delay to the pedestrian.
It seemed like it was more safety slash ease of use, et cetera.
So I think my question is,
I understand that we have a particular amount of delay
that we're willing to stomach for vehicular level of service.
Given that it's the same term,
how should I understand the evaluation on a TIA
of the pedestrian level of service?
Given, I know it's a new process,
but just what's our goal for that?
- So a really good question.
It's very new that we're going through this process
of including more active transportation
like pedestrian and bicycle and so on and so forth.
So as the whole community
of transportation traffic engineers go through this process,
we have started on the bike side
to identify the stress level.
So which means, is it more stressful to drive on this lane
that has cars running at 40 or 50 miles really close,
three feet, four feet from you?
Yes, that's a stressful.
So the stress level is high,
which means that facility will be downgraded
or have a lesser value.
Whereas in pedestrian, at this point,
we are mostly focused on the connectivity, shortest path,
so which reduces the stress for a person to use it,
so it creates a better, so that's one thing.
And then also identifying what existing paths we have
to the most common locations,
especially like schools or any other parks,
any other attractions that pedestrians may be going to
from a development.
We identify everything in the vicinity of the area,
and that's what's included in our pedestrian impact.
And we come up with asking them,
what are the mitigation measures or improvements
that you're willing to do,
because there is certain areas that is lacking connectivity,
so that may trigger an off-site improvement for them
to extend a sidewalk and connect the missing sidewalk.
So that's what we're looking for in pedestrian at this time.
It's not necessarily the amount of delay
or how many pedestrians we can accommodate
within a five-foot sidewalk or system,
so it's very evolving at this point,
but slowly we're making sure
that we at least check the first things,
which is connection and shortest route.
- Okay, thank you. - Thanks.
- Other questions?
And let me just clarify, any mitigation measures
that come from a TIA is required to be done?
- So yes, as long as they're fully created
by the development itself.
So when development connects to a roadway,
if the roadway is already congested,
for example, there's a new driveway on the loop.
During peak hours,
everyone knows the loop is fully congested,
and you can mitigate that existing condition.
We can't ask the developer to say,
okay, now you have to put in a through lane on loop
and make it better.
So yes, any additional up to their proportional addition.
So for example, there are 100 trips on loop,
and the development is adding 20 more.
That mitigate, they need to mitigate
whatever additional delay or congestion
that those 20 trips are.
So that's the proportionality piece.
- Sure, that makes sense.
Commissioner Smith.
- This brought up a question I've never thought of
in five years of it on this commission.
(laughing)
- Tina's here.
- Tina's right here, let's do this.
- Exactly, we've got Tina now.
The mitigation on the traffic mitigation specifically,
that impact fee, is it earmarked for specifically
that area, that roadway it's being impacted?
Is that in like a balance line of a budget item
within transportation?
I guess it's really more capital improvement.
Is it like, this is an impact fee paid specifically
for loop 288, and therefore it has to go
to loop 288 projects?
And then if it's loop 288 south versus loop 288 north,
then how does that work?
- So I think later on, I think Becky will bring
the roadway impact fee ordinance and the study
in front of you and just give you overall
how that thing works, but essentially what happens
with the roadway impact fee, there are areas identified
similar to any other utility impact fee
and so on and so forth.
We have specific areas, we have identified
specific projects within the area.
It could be large arterials, it could be collectors,
so on and so forth.
And we develop a cost estimate based on today's dollar
when we're doing the study, that that's the cost estimate.
And then we collect the money that's coming in
in a whole big pot that goes towards that area.
So not necessarily a development that's located
on the south side of that particular area.
We'll contribute development or improvements
on the roadway in front of their development.
It's within that region we are, by state law, allowed
to spend that money on different projects
and the city gets to prioritize what projects
and where is more important in certain areas.
So that's how the roadway, there is a nexus study
that identifies and defines all the projects
that we are going to do and required.
And the money that's collected goes towards that.
But it's not necessarily line item loop 288
from here to here.
It's not necessarily defined, but we have some discretion
over the whole area.
- No, I wouldn't think so.
That'd be way too complicated.
We'd have dollars tied up for areas that should be needed.
But so I think you said we're gonna get a presentation
on that some other time.
So cool.
Thank you.
- Okay, I do not see any other questions
except I see Tina wanting to speak.
- Just real quick.
I wanted to let you know that this is pre-Tam's last
planning and zoning commission meeting
that you'll hear from him on.
So we purposely made sure that we could get
this boot camp presentation in before he's decided
to go pursue greener pastures
and work for another municipality.
So I just wanted to let the commission know
because I know you've had a working relationship
with him in the past.
And we appreciate all the guidance and expertise
that he has provided our organization
through the time that he's been here with us.
So embrace this opportunity to ask him all TIA related
questions that you want.
Because this will be the last time
he'll be able to address them for you.
And then obviously we have a great resource with Karina
now that she's back from her temporary leave
to take care of her newborn.
And so we're in great hands also
with Karina's transportation background and expertise
and also all of the development related work
that she's done.
She brings another level of expertise
to our transportation planning program.
Not to say that we won't miss pre-Tam, but because we will.
But actually we're still in great hands also
with Karina still being here.
So with that, any final remaining TIA questions
for pre-Tam, go ahead and fire away.
(laughing)
- I do not see any.
So see if we're gonna give you a good send off.
Pre-Tam, we will miss you.
I did not know that you were pursuing other things.
So all the best to you.
Thank you for all the time you've given us
and all the knowledge that you've shared with us.
So good luck.
- Okay, with that, I will close our work session at 6.03
and we will reconvene in council chambers at 6.30.
- Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton's
planning and zoning commission meeting
for Wednesday, October 12th, 2022.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.31 PM.
The first item on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance
to the US and Texas flex.
(laughing)
- 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.
Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas,
one state under God, one and indivisible.
- Thank you.
The next item on our agenda is approval of our
planning and zoning commission meeting
for September 28th, the minutes from that meeting.
Is there any discussion from the commission
or I can entertain a motion?
- We are not seeing the buttons on the screen.
Point of order.
Looks like we are having a bit of technical difficulty.
No, I would back that up because no one's made a motion yet.
Yeah.
(laughing)
- Okay, do you have, do you not have a button
to make a motion?
Okay, it looks like we are gonna have to go ahead
and do hands.
So Commissioner Villarreal.
- I move to approve.
- Okay.
We have a first for approval of the minutes
for September 28th meeting.
Commissioner Smith.
- Second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second.
Any discussion from the commission?
Okay, let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Smith.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Pruitt.
- Aye.
- Commissioner McDade.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Cole.
- Aye.
- Chair is also an aye.
That motion passes seven zero.
That will take us to our consent agenda for this evening.
And it would appear we'll have to do the same, I believe.
Commissioner Smith.
- Make a motion to approve.
- Okay, we've got a first for approval
of the consent agenda.
Commissioner Anderson.
- Second.
- Okay, first and a second for approval
of the consent agenda this evening.
Any discussion?
Okay, let's take a roll call vote.
Commissioner Smith.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Pruitt.
- Aye.
- Commissioner McDade.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Villarreal.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Cole.
- Aye.
- Chair is also an aye.
That motion carries seven zero.
That will take us to our items for individual consideration.
4A is PZ22-220B,
and that is to consider the approval
of our Planning and Zoning Commission calendar for 2023.
Hi there, Sean.
- So yes, Chair, members of the commission.
This is the calendar for your consideration
for the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings for 2023.
Happy to answer any questions you may have on that.
- I think we discussed that in work session.
There were no concerns on that.
Have any come up since?
Okay, thank you, Sean.
Commissioner Smith.
- Make a motion to approve.
- Okay, we've got a motion for approval.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- Second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second
to approve the 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission calendar.
Any discussion?
Okay, Commissioner Smith.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Villarreal.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Pruitt.
- Aye.
- Commissioner McDade.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Cole.
- Aye.
- Chair's also an aye.
That motion carries seven, zero.
That will take us to item 4B, FP 22-0028.
I'll invite Mia up for presentation.
- Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.
I'm Mia Hines, Associate Planner.
This item is a final plight for,
I'm trying to reply for Razor Ranch Town Center
and the purpose of this plight was to establish
the easements associated with the Razor Ranch
Town Center development.
When the report went out, staff's recommendation
was of denial, but we have worked internally with staff
and with the applicants to make sure
the remaining comments were satisfied
and so now our recommendation is of approval
and I will stand for any questions you have at this time.
- Thank you, Mia.
- Any questions for Mia?
No?
Okay, thank you very much.
Commissioner Anderson.
- Make a motion to approve.
- Okay, Commissioner Smith.
- Second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay, we'll take a roll call vote.
Commissioner Anderson.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Smith.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Pruitt.
- Aye.
- Commissioner McDade.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Villarreal.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Cole.
- Aye.
- Chair is also an aye.
That motion carries seven, zero.
That will take us to 4CPP-0007B.
I'll invite Julie Wyatt up for presentation of this item.
Hi, Julie.
- Good evening.
Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton.
This is a preliminary plat for the Audreau subdivision,
a single family residential subdivision south of Audre Lane.
When the agenda went out, it was a recommendation of denial
as there were a couple of items they still needed to address.
They've worked with our engineering group
and those items have been addressed and cleared
and so staff is recommending approval.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
- Thanks, Julie.
Any questions?
Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- Move to approve.
- Okay, we've got a first for approval.
Commissioner Smith.
- Second.
- Okay, we got a first and a second for approval.
This item, any discussion?
Okay, let's take a roll call vote.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Smith.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Pruitt.
- Aye.
- Commissioner McDade.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Cole.
- Aye.
- Chair is also an aye.
That motion carries seven, zero.
With item 4D, that item has been withdrawn
so we will not be taking action on that item this evening.
That will take us to our public hearing portion for tonight.
Call up 5A, Z22-0011.
We'll invite Sean up for presentation
and open the public hearing.
- Thank you, Chair. - Hello again, Sean.
- Good evening.
Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner.
Here to present Z22-0011.
Just gonna open up my presentation here.
All right.
Yes, Michael, thank you.
So yes, this is Z22-0011.
This is a request for a rezoning from
current mixed use regional zoning
to a light industrial zoning
on a property located between Bartholomew Road and FM 1173.
It's approximately 53.6 acres.
The property is currently mostly undeveloped.
There is one single family dwelling
as well as a plugged gas well.
Of course, we want to consider all of our criteria,
but particularly alignment with our comprehensive plan
and our future land use map.
As you can see here, the comprehensive plan
future land use map calls for light industrial in this area.
And this request would align with, of course,
that future land use.
In addition, our comprehensive plan in action 3.1.1
encourages us to ensure that there is adequate land
available particularly for non-commercial development
in the future.
And this rezoning would help to accomplish that
by ensuring that there is light industrial
zone land available for those types of future development.
Also want to specifically address the current zoning
on the property of MR, which could be a little bit surprising
given that it's so out of line
with our current future land use map.
Briefly, that was put in place back in the 2002 zoning.
And at the time, the 1999 to 2020 comprehensive plan
was expecting that there would be a major entertainment
and shopping area that would develop out there.
And since then, of course, Razor Ranch has developed
as that area.
And in addition, we've seen more of a trend
of industrial development in that area.
And so based on that, the comprehensive plan
most recently approved in 2022
reflects those changed expectations.
And this zoning would bring the property back into line
with our comprehensive plan.
As you can see there, just highlighted
some of the residential uses that would be permitted
by right now, which would not necessarily be in line
with the comprehensive plan expectations for this property.
So overall, this request does meet our criteria
for approval.
We did also go through our standard notification process.
We have not received any responses,
they're positive or negatively.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting
and we were able to hear from some of the neighbors.
They were not opposed, they did have some questions
and concerns related to lighting,
transportation, security.
And we were able to discuss those with them.
So overall, staff is recommending approval
of the change to the Light Industrial Zoning District
on this property.
That is my presentation, but I'm happy to stand
for any questions.
And the applicant is also here and does have a presentation.
- Excellent, great.
Any questions for Sean at this time?
Okay, thank you, Sean.
I do not have any cards, but I'll go ahead
and invite the applicant up for their presentation.
I'd call you by name if I had your card, but that's okay.
I said I'd call you by name if I had your card
in front of me, but if you will just state your name
and address it and your time will begin.
- Yes, Todd Finley, CLX Ventures.
How are you all doing tonight?
- Good evening.
- Thank you for your time.
I won't take too long, but CLX Ventures,
we're currently building a industrial development
just south of this site.
You probably noticed it if you're driving by 35 lately.
But it'll be three buildings, 1.1 million square feet.
So we definitely know the area and know the staff
and know the process.
Brad Copeland and Tony Long are our co-founders,
both with 30 years of experience in real estate.
I have 20 years of construction and development experience.
This is just a map of the cities and locations
we're currently developing in or have developed in.
Our main focus is across the I-35 corridor,
large cities and that.
Right now we're only Texas-based,
but we don't have any plans to expand out of Texas right now.
This is just a photo of a rendering we did
at DFW Airport and then an actual building,
later leased that to Amazon.
This is another facility we finished in Duncanville,
leased it and sold it to the user.
This is a project that Brad and I worked together
on four or five years ago in Houston on I-45.
This is a conceptual site plan
for what we're planning to do.
We have, as Sean said, we did have a neighborhood meeting.
We've been coordinating with the city staff
as far as engineering on the idea
of having a north-south collector that will be required.
We're working with the adjacent landowner
to acquire or have a right-of-way dedication.
We understand that requirement
that the city has put on us.
It's not shown on here, but it would be
on the western side of the property.
The tie-in up at Barthol Road will be the exact tie-in
'cause that aligns with the future expansion
with TxDOT on Barthol.
And then our main drive in the middle of the two buildings
ties in with our 1173 improvements
that we're currently working on approval with on TxDOT.
That's all.
Any questions?
- Great.
Any questions?
We do not see anything.
Thank you for your presentation.
- Thank you. - Appreciate it.
I don't have any cards in front of me to speak,
but this is a public hearing,
so anyone from the audience who wishes
to speak on this item certainly can.
Hi, if you'll just give your name and address,
your time will begin.
Hi.
- Good evening, I'm Gretchen Van Olken.
I've been a lawyer in Denton for quite some time,
and I've represented Evelyn Barthold
who owns the 73 acres just adjacent to this property
to the west of this property.
She was unable to be here tonight,
but I spoke with her this afternoon.
We've represented her.
My firm has for 15 to 20 years.
She authorized me to let you know
that she has no objection to this project.
- Very good.
Thank you for coming out.
Anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
Okay.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing
and open the floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Smith.
- Make a motion to approve.
- Commissioner McDade.
- Second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second
for approval of this request.
Is there any further discussion by the commission?
Okay.
Seeing none, we'll take a roll call vote.
Commissioner Smith.
- Aye.
- Commissioner McDade.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Pruitt.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Villarreal.
- Aye.
- Commissioner Cole.
- Aye.
- Chair is also an aye.
That motion carries seven zero.
That will take us to 5B, Z22-0014.
I'll invite Angie up for presentation
and open the public hearing.
- Thank you.
Good evening, Chair.
Give me just one moment.
Angie Mingler is Senior Planner, City of Den.
This is zoning case Z22-0014, Stella Hills.
The proposed request is for approximately
84.9 acre tract of land,
currently zoned rural residential,
residential four and mixed use neighborhood
to a zoning designation of residential six.
It is located on the south side of East McKinney Street
at the intersection of East McKinney and Laney Circle.
The subject property has a future land use designation
of low residential in the Den 2040 plan.
It is currently predominantly undeveloped.
There are three single family detached dwellings
on the eastern portion of the site.
On the southwest corner of the site,
there is existing FEMA floodplain,
as well as a 50 foot wide Atmos gas easement
that clips that southwest corner.
To the east of the development
is the existing Townsend Green development zoned R4.
I'm sorry, that's to the west.
To the east of the development is undeveloped R6.
And then to the south,
there is existing undeveloped residential two zoning.
Into the north, north of McKinney Street there,
there is a strip of undeveloped mixed use neighborhood
as well as R6 zoning.
This application was reviewed in accordance
with the requirements in DDC subchapter two,
as well as against the goals
in the Den 2040 comprehensive plan.
The Den 2040 plan calls for this area
to develop predominantly as low residential,
which calls for lot sizes ranging in one acre
up to five units per acre gross density.
The proposed R6 zoning is consistent
with the future land use designation.
However, it is important to note
that some of the uses permitted in R6,
such as triplexes and fourplexes,
while not directly consistent with the future land use plan,
are consistent with the existing development pattern
and zoning within this corridor.
The Den 2040 plan also calls
for providing diverse housing options
in varieties of density, styles, and price points.
More specifically, goal HN1 calls for the development
and maintenance of a housing stock
that meets the needs of all residents
to provide an array of choices in type, cost, and locations.
The proposed R6 zoning is consistent
with the achievement of that goal.
This site does have a bit of ESA,
as well as potential ESA on it,
as evidenced by the preferred land preservation map
that you see here.
Submitted in concurrence with the zoning application
was an ESA field assessment.
Along the southern portion of the subject property,
there are potential riparian buffers,
as well as upland habitat and water-related habitat ESAs
that may exist.
Should these ESAs be confirmed,
any development that is not permitted by right
in 7.4.7 of the DDC would require review and approval
of an alt ESA plan by city council.
At this time, the ongoing ESA has confirmed
that the potential riparian buffer shown there
in the center of the subject property
does not appear to meet the criteria for riparian buffers.
The ESA map will be reflected to remove that designation
once the entirety of the field assessment
has been completed to remove the potential
ESA riparian buffer that is shown here on this plan.
This application was reviewed in accordance
with the review criteria as set forth in DDC subchapter two,
and staff is forwarding it this evening
with a recommendation of approval.
Public outreach was conducted in accordance
with state law and city ordinances.
At this time, we've not received any responses
to those outreach efforts,
and a neighborhood meeting for this case was not held.
Staff is forwarding this to you this evening
with a recommendation of approval as it complies
with the criteria in DDC subchapter two.
The next step in this project will be a public hearing
at city council on October 18th,
and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
I believe the applicant is also here with a presentation.
- Great, thank you, Angie.
Any questions at the moment for Angie?
Thank you very much.
I'll go ahead and invite the applicant up
for their presentation.
Good evening.
If you'll give us your name and address,
your time will begin.
- Good evening, my name is Sean Faulkner.
I'm with the Foresight Group.
My office is at 1999 Bryan Street in Dallas.
I'm here, the developer is here as well
with Allied Development.
Talking about Stella Hills,
just kind of a brief overview with current zoning.
The zonings around us are residential.
So again, with the comprehensive plan,
we feel that the residential uses
with our six requests fulfills with the adjacent properties.
And then here's our concept plan
that we have developed showing,
right now we have 326 homes.
The tract on the top of the property,
that's a seller retained property,
we'll probably be developing that,
platting that as by three to four additional lots,
but the current landowner will retain ownership of those.
Right now, with this land plan,
average lot size is about 7,500 square feet.
And we planning to have eight and a half acres
of open space.
As you can see, we're very concerned with
cross connections with the properties adjacent to us.
On the bottom of our screen, which is to our west,
that's the towns and green subdivision.
We're connecting to two street stub outs
that they have provided.
And we are continuing two street stub outs
to our east to the undivided property on that side.
Trails up along McKinney Street,
there is a, I believe an eight foot trail
that towns and green is constructed.
And we will continue that trail.
On the southwest corner,
we have been working with city staff
to add a potential segment of the concrete trail
that I believe that they're in the,
about 30% design development stage.
But we are working with them and we're investigating,
putting that trail in and helping them with Atmos
as a part of that trail.
We'll probably go along the Atmos easement for that.
Other amenities, we are also looking to put
a top lot playground area in along our natural buffer.
To the south of us is core property.
So that property will never develop
as part of Lake Louisville.
Currently, we have the zoning case.
And as Angie mentioned, we have ESA submittal under review.
And our current schedule,
we'll be coming up with a plan in December,
go through construction plan reviews January to March
and plan to start construction late spring in this year,
or next year.
So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
- Thank you.
It does appear so.
Commissioner Smith.
- Thank you, Chair.
- I know you said you had a conceptual plan.
This is a zoning case, and so I understand that.
On your conceptual plan, you said that's a big priority
of you guys to make sure that this property,
if approved, would be developed with connectors within there.
That neighborhood to your east, or to your west, I'm sorry.
- Yes.
- That's all, those are all cul-de-sacs
with backyards and that kind of thing.
So I don't know if there's--
- No, well, there's two street sub-outs over that side.
- Okay.
- That they have stubbed out
and we'll be connecting to those.
- Do you know what roads those are?
- I do not know the names of the roads,
but they are, I've been out there in their barricades.
- Okay.
- And blocking them.
So they're intended to be extended onto our property.
- Okay.
Thank you.
- Any other questions at this time?
I do not see any.
Thank you for being here.
I don't have any cards in front of me,
but is there anyone wishing to speak who's here?
Anyone wishing to speak on this item?
Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing
and I will open the floor for motion or discussion.
Wow, and our board is working suddenly.
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you.
Commissioner Cole.
- I make a motion for approval.
- Commissioner Anderson.
- I make a second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval.
Is there any discussion?
Okay, seeing none, I believe we can vote on the board.
If we get that option.
It's not lighting us at the moment.
Okay.
Well, that's okay.
Oh, there we go.
Okay, we can vote on the board.
That motion carries seven zero.
That will take us to five CZ two two dash zero zero one six.
I'll go ahead and invite Julie up.
If you wanted to say anything or I can just introduce it,
it's up to you.
I'll go ahead and open the public hearing
while we have that.
- We don't have a presentation tonight,
but they are on the agenda.
It shows that they're requesting to postpone
to a date certain of October 26th.
- Okay, very good.
Thank you.
So with that, I will leave the public hearing open
and ask for a motion.
Commissioner Villarreal.
- I move to postpone to a date certain
of October 26th, 2022.
- Great, thank you, Commissioner Smith.
- Second.
- Okay, we've got a first and a second
for approval of the postponement
to a date certain of October 26th.
Any discussion?
Okay, seeing none, let's vote on the board.
That motion carries seven, zero.
That will take us to our Planning
and Zoning Commission matrix.
And I will turn it over to Haley.
- All right, good evening.
We actually have not had any items go to council
since our last PNZ meeting, so nothing new to report there
other than we did get our budget approved,
so we can all celebrate that.
- Yes.
- And I did just wanna make sure you all were aware
that a revised matrix was sent out
after the agenda was posted
'cause we accidentally had an outdated copy on there.
So you'll see we did have removed several items
that we've recently accomplished through our boot camps
and other work session discussions.
So we're happy to consider adding anything else
that you all may have.
- Great, thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
- Thank you, Chair.
I brought it up in work session, Haley.
I'd like to be able to have a longer discussion possibly
about after the TIA presentation today,
really just a deeper scrutinization
of how when we see zoning cases,
specifically zoning and SUP cases,
that would predicate a TIA having some more context,
specifically on, I know the impact fees
are gonna be discussed at a future work session
there in a boot camp, but having something involved
in the presentations of this would trigger,
this does not trigger traffic mitigation items
that may be required because of this,
that there's not enough funds to come with that,
just so there's some more clarification,
both to the public as well as the commissioners.
Not only that the TIA does what it's supposed to,
obviously, which is try to measure
what generated traffic's gonna be
and what safety protocols need to be in place,
but give me some context of whenever a project is ahead,
maybe possibly what traffic issues we may be causing,
even though there is mitigation in a TIA in place,
but how long that might be until that's done.
So more context is essentially what I'm searching for there.
- Okay.
- Thank you, Haley.
- Anything else for the matrix?
- Tina.
- Tina Fergens, planning director.
Just a reminder of the upcoming joint meeting
that should be on your calendars for next Tuesday.
We start at noon.
- Thank you for that reminder.
Okay.
Any concluding items from the commission?
Commissioner Villarreal?
- And we are still starting early
next PNZ meeting, correct?
- I believe that is the plan,
and I would assume that, yeah,
we'll get clarification on that at exactly what time,
but yeah, that will be the plan in two weeks.
Yes.
- Yeah, I believe right now we're planning
for a 3 p.m. start.
- Okay.
- As the PNZ convening as the CIAC that day.
- Right, right, right, okay.
Any other concluding items?
Okay.
I will go ahead and adjourn us at 6.59 p.m.
Thank you very much, everyone.