Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for Wednesday, November 16, 2022.
This is our work session and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.04 p.m.
The first item on our work session agenda is citizen comments on consent agenda items.
And I do have a citizen here who has filled out a card to speak on that.
And I will ask Leah Todd to come up and join us.
Hello.
Good afternoon.
Hello.
I'm Leah Todd.
I live at 3316 Roseland Drive, a taxpaying citizen of Denton.
I'm up here in relation to PP 22-0014C, Kimley-Horn approved primary plat for the Hunter Ranch
Phase 1.
I know that there's also the four-star Eagle Creek development next to me on Roseland,
which was the architects of Kimley-Horn.
At that time, they weren't required to be under the tree ordinance and it has been a
devastating experience where 50 percent of historical landmark post oak trees have been
destroyed in the development of this.
And also, currently, the development code for lights is not being complied with.
What I'm requesting is that in relation to the lights and in relation to this Hunter
Ranch Phase 1 that these developers or these architects be responsible for the tree ordinance,
which is now in effect as of 2019 7.7.4, where removal permit is required, a tree survey
is required, an application with fees, trees that are marked need to be tagged with an
orange fence around it at drip line, and preservation of historical sites like Knobbs and Bass Hill.
Who knows what's going to be in the design?
I know that the Eagle Creek has been a tragedy when it could have been an incredible hike
bike trail, still with development, in relation to right next to Dena Parks and Recreation.
But instead, it's mowed down.
Also, it wasn't terraced, there was 15 to 20 foot drops, there's not a blade of grass.
It's just dirt until they do the development.
The other thing is the lights, the development code, Section 7.11.6, that all street lighting
shall have full cutoff and design to direct light below a 90 degree horizontal plane extending
from the lowest point of the light source.
This provision of the DGC is not enforced in the Eagle Creek development, and it needs
to be in the Hunter Ranch development.
I was informed of this by Tony Puente and Michael Ganje, I guess that's how you say
the last name.
So that's, I think as a city, we have to consider trying to maintain ecological, environmental,
and aesthetic values, and not just have architects, developers come in, get their money and leave,
and then what are we left with?
And I ask you as a planning and zoning committee to consider the environmental aspects of our
community, of our town, in relation to any future developments, Hunter Ranch in particular,
and the beauty of Knob Hill and Sandbass, the last of the Mesa's coming out west.
And also enforce that developmental light code in relation to Eagle Creek development.
I appreciate your time and your consideration.
This is where we live.
This is our home.
And we may need to consider other architects other than Kimberley Harn over and over again
because I don't feel like they've worked for the benefit of this city.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Thom.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak on the consent agenda tonight?
Jennifer, do you?
I'll just, I'll just go up.
Oh, you can come on up if you'd like.
Thanks.
Thanks very much.
I wasn't expecting to speak, but rather to support 100 percent what you just heard.
I live not far from where Leanne lives and it's just devastating to see trees of that
age just mowed down for no good reason when design changes could have been implemented.
I have noticed since protesting and speaking to Kimberley Harn during their meetings with
the public that they're on practically every other agenda here.
And I begin to wonder why the city is not asking them to consider why the city is allowing
them to have their cake and eat it too, to yes, they have every right to take on their
private contracts as they wish, but if they prioritize that over the public good, why
are we hiring them basically is my question.
Thank you.
Just checking if there was anyone else there who was wishing to speak.
OK.
Thank you very much, ladies.
OK.
I didn't know.
I want to ask questions.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, ladies.
Have a good evening.
OK.
Next item on our agenda is our work session reports.
We've got one this evening.
It's a receiver report, hold a discussion regarding regulations and procedures related
to SUPs and PDs.
That sounds like a fun boot camp topic.
Hi, Julie.
Good evening.
Let me pull up the presentation.
We've got two of us presenting this topic tonight.
I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I have Angie Manglaris.
So we're going to team up on this.
I'm going to talk about PDs and she'll talk about SUPs and wrap it up.
So tonight in our boot camp series, we are continuing with a deeper dive discussion on
SUPs and plan developments.
Just to set the table and the development process, this graphic on your screen outlines
the development process.
And as you can see, each square contains a different project type.
So depending on the complexity of the project, quite a few applications or submittals would
be required in order to go from dirt all the way to a certificate of occupancy.
It generally starts with a pre-application conference.
For those of you who don't know, a pre-application conference is something where somebody has
a dream or an idea and a site, and they come to the city and say, "Hey, this is what I
would like to do."
City staff sits down with them and talks over the regulations that would be required or
that would apply to the project, maybe the processes that would apply to the project,
and talk about those regulations and identify areas where they might have public hearings.
So that's really the first step in a lot of projects.
But the first real application that we often see would be after the pre-application, and
that's entitlement.
And that is that second square on your screen, and that's got the little asterisk next to
it.
Entitlement is just kind of a plan or a word for zoning, an SUP or a PD.
Those are generally what we see.
And so that's what we're talking about tonight.
So within that entitlement, within that entitlement toolbox in the Denton Development Code, we
really have three options.
First we have straight zoning, then we have SUPs, and we have PDs.
So first, straight zoning, those are the zoning districts that we know and love in the Denton
Development Code.
We have our residential districts, our mixed-use districts, our corridor districts, and then
our other districts like industrial.
They establish those use and dimensional standards, and also any development standards associated
with the Denton Development Code would apply when you're looking at a straight zoning case.
And those standards were created through a lot of effort from a lot of policymakers and
decision makers within the city to create standards that would ensure compatibility,
not only among uses within a zoning district, but also when zoning districts abut each other.
So those are things like landscaping buffers and setbacks and screening, height standards.
So we have a lot of those provisions within the Denton Development Code to ensure compatibility.
And then the Denton Development Code within a straight zoning case also has deviations.
There are potential deviations that a developer could ask for.
They could request to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance.
Even the Planning and Zoning Commission has seen subdivision variances recently.
So we also have things like minor modifications, alternative landscape plans.
So there are some relief procedures within the Denton Development Code that applicants
could request.
And all of this follows Texas Local Government Code 211.
And what that states in zoning is that each district must be uniform, but it can vary
from district to district.
So for example, MN in the south part of town has to be MN in the north part of town.
So the uses and the development standards in MN are the same regardless of where it
is on the map.
MN is always the same.
Now MN and R7 may be different because we have different uses or development standards
associated with those, but they really should be standardized.
A specific use permit is nested inside of zoning.
It is something that's kind of a part of zoning.
And when you see a specific use permit, and Angie will talk about that more in depth,
but that doesn't change the underlying zoning.
It really is just related to a specific use on a specific site.
And then plan development.
So we'll talk about this more deeply, but just top line, it is a tool to address site-specific
situations.
I kind of think of it as customized zoning for a specific site.
And it would run with the land on that site.
When something is zoned to PD, that becomes the zoning of the property.
It does allow that greater flexibility because it does allow the deviations that are greater
than what those deviations are within the debt and development code.
But it should be used sparingly.
It should be for those sites that are kind of outside the box or uses outside of the
box.
So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Angie to talk about specific use permit.
Hi, everyone.
Good evening.
Angie Minglaris.
As Angie mentioned, I will be going over specific use permits a little bit more in depth.
So specific use permit is a permit for a use that is not allowed by right within a zoning
district but could be appropriate given the location that the proposed use is to go.
So it's a mechanism that we use to evaluate development of land specifically for uses
that are known to have a wide variety of operating characteristics.
The intent of the specific use permit is to ensure that where that land use is going is
compatible with adjacent existing uses and provides for adequate mitigation for any anticipated
impacts that could be expected from that use.
Specific use permits do have their own set of review criteria at the time of first submittal
of an SUP.
We expect a zoning compliance plan, a landscape plan, a tree preservation plan to be submitted.
And that is in part to ensure that they are adequately mitigating for any adverse impacts
the site may have.
Review timelines can vary greatly due to the need for a zoning compliance plan and the review
that goes behind that, but typically they run between three and six months.
When we review specific use permits, we review them against our general criteria for approval
as well as the criteria for approval for specific use permits as outlined in DDC 2.5.2.
So just a brief recap what our general criteria for approval is.
When we review an SUP, we're looking at is this consistent with the goals and objectives
of the comprehensive plan as well as the intent of the underlying zoning district.
More specifically when we're referencing that, is this use in the zoning district appropriate
given the surrounding uses and its compatibility with what's already in existence?
Also when this is reviewed, you look at are there adequate public facilities available
in the area to serve this and have potential impacts to neighboring properties been adequately
mitigated for.
This is the general review criteria that we review every application against.
And then specific use permits come with their own set of review criteria that staff reviews
when these come in that is the use compatible with existing developments?
Does this adversely impact the potential future development in the area and have any impacts
that are expected such as traffic, access, noise been adequately mitigated for this use?
So those are the standards that staff uses to review an SUP against.
And we're going to go over just two examples to kind of illustrate how this works in practice.
So the first example we have is Quincy Court, which is a multifamily development that was
seeking an SUP for additional height on their building.
So this is zoned MN multifamily buildings between 41 feet and 65 feet in this zoning
district did require an SUP permit.
So if you can see on this graphic where the blue line is, it's 40 feet where they could
build by right and where that green line is in that top graphic there is where the additional
height they were requesting would fall with their SUP.
So in this case, SUP was used to evaluate the additional height on the building and
its appropriateness in the area.
As stated, this was on loop 288 and it's Stewart Road, 288 is a major thoroughfare.
The development was adjacent to the south and to the east to existing single family
homes.
So it was reviewed for its compatibility against that.
The proposed complex was set back approximately 100 feet for many adjacent residential uses
and within those setbacks, there was adequate landscape buffering and screening that were
provided that would be expected with any multifamily development.
When this application was reviewed, it was determined that the additional height was
not expected to cause any adverse impacts.
Additionally, with this being on loop 288 and there being existing undeveloped MN zoning
and similar zoning that you would see along a major thoroughfare was determined that this
would be compatible with any future development as loop 288 continues to expand and develop
in that area.
This next example is an SUP that you guys saw relatively recent.
This was for U-Haul of East Denton where there was the request for an SUP for the equipment,
sales and rental.
The site did have a underlying zoning of light industrial which allowed for warehouse uses
as well as self-storage.
However, the equipment, sales and rental component of this did require an SUP.
When looking at the future land use designation, you can see that it was split between light
industrial and community mixed use and it was determined that the use could be appropriate
given the location along 380 and that community mixed use is a transitional zoning district.
When reviewing where the sales and rental equipment would be, you can see it kind of
notated here on your map.
The site did provide adequate landscape buffering and screening to the residential development
that was located immediately to the west and overall the development was not anticipated
to generate any noise, odor or other adverse impacts that would affect the single family
development to the west and this SUP was deemed appropriate for the area for the use of equipment,
sales and rental.
So those are kind of two examples that how we review SUPs in real time against the criteria
that we have and the different components that are looked at during the review process.
When you're approving an SUP, you're also adopting that zoning compliance plan.
There are minor modifications that are allowed to a site plan.
Those are minor decreases in buffering and screening requirements, possibly parking alterations
as well as locations of buildings.
Really the reasons these come up is after the zoning compliance plan you're going to
civil engineering.
At that time there may be some minor modifications that are needed.
Those are written into the adopting ordinance that usually plus or minus 5% is the language
that we go with for like an increase or decrease in an element that was provided.
Anything above and beyond that, a major expansion or a site redesign is what we consider a major
amendment and that requires that the applicant go back through the process.
It would come back before you all as the planning and zoning commission and then ultimately
city council to review those changes.
SUPs can also be denied or revoked.
That usually happens in instances where the plan has changed substantially or a condition
of approval has been violated if the site plan or the development is not substantially
underway 24 months after the approval or if the SUP was obtained by fraud or deception.
That's a high level overview of SUPs.
I'm going to give it back to Julie for some plan developments.
All right, now we'll talk PDs.
I may have Tina jump in if she hears me say something.
I shouldn't.
All right.
So the Denton Development Code has two areas that we really talk about PDs.
We have SUP Chapter 2, which is our processes and administration SUP Chapter.
It was recently amended for some processes as well as for PDs and we're going to talk
about that briefly.
And then SUP Chapter 3 and that SUP Chapter 3 outlines our zoning districts, PD being
one of them.
So it's addressed in SUP Chapter 3.
Both of those areas really talk about what the intent of a PD is and that is to provide
that flexibility that if their proposed uses or the site really doesn't fit within the
strictures of the DDC that they would request a PD for that flexibility.
It's that alternative zoning district.
But what we do want to see is a greater benefit to the community with a PD.
We want to see how that really fits within the Denton community.
So as I mentioned, we have recently updated SUP Chapter 2 in the Denton Development Code.
And as part of that, we have updated our PD regulations.
So we actually have two types of PDs now.
You haven't seen the first one yet.
You might see one soon.
It's an overlay PD.
I've called it PD Lite, but the Denton Development Code calls it an overlay PD.
And that really is intended to address concerns of compatibility, and with an overlay PD,
an applicant would choose a base zoning district, and then on top of that, could restrict or
expand the permitted uses, impose you specific standards, modify the setbacks, landscaping,
screening, or buffering.
Typically, when you're going to see an overlay PD, it will have a list of conditions, overlay
conditions.
You wouldn't see necessarily a map with that.
It really just would be more that text-based overlay.
If some of you remember the 2002 Denton Development Code, we had a similar type of provision in
the 2002 Denton Development Code, and we would see those from time to time.
That is different from the standard PD, and that really gets to that PD that we've seen
in the last couple of years.
And a standard PD includes two parts.
It includes the text, and that includes a base zoning district.
They always base it on an existing district that we have in the Denton Development Code.
And then that text should also include the things like the purpose statement.
Why are they doing it?
What is that public benefit?
We want to see how it fits within the fabric of Denton.
And then those deviations from the Denton Development Code.
Really, that's why they're doing that PD, is to build in those deviations.
So that's the first part.
The second part of a standard PD is the map.
That's really where we see that site plan coordinating structures, access, where the
parking is, where the lots are, where the variety of uses would be.
If there are any parks or trails, that's where we would see that come into play.
The standard PD can be phased, so it can have maybe parts of that map that aren't fully
fleshed out at the time of adoption.
But when they come back for a subsequent phase, it would still have to follow the text that
they establish with their PD.
And then the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council would have to approve any
subsequent phases through the public hearing process.
The site must be developed in accordance with the PD, regardless of ownership.
And that's something to think about, that if the zoning is changed to PD, that remains
on the property.
They couldn't develop another use.
They would have to rezone in order to develop with a different use.
So using plan developments, what are the rules of the road for that?
So if you recall at the beginning of this discussion, we talked about the Texas Local
Government Code and how the zoning must be applied consistently throughout the city.
That MN should be the same everywhere, right?
But if you get too many PDs, if you get too many individualized zoning districts, you're
really running afoul of that, right?
Because now you've got separate zoning for every single parcel.
So therefore, PDs should be used sparingly.
They should not be used for every project.
We really should be relying on our Debt and Development Code to guide our development
in the city.
They can be useful.
They can be useful in challenging situations.
Where straight zoning just doesn't work, maybe small redevelopment lots, some unlisted uses,
or coordinating those diverse uses.
So it really does have a place within that toolbox, but it should not be our primary
tool.
But it should not be used just to vary a couple of standards or uses.
Anything?
Is that -- any questions on that?
All right.
Now, in an instance where we've had multiple requests for a similar issue, think horizontal
multifamily.
You saw what?
Three or four of those come through.
In that instance, maybe that was a sign we need to add that use to the Debt and Development
Code.
So if we're seeing a lot of PDs for the same thing, that's when we probably need to talk
to DCRC and maybe think of ways that we could incorporate that in our Debt and Development
Code.
So, okay, let's talk about -- we talked about SUPs, kind of the process with that.
We're going to go over this just briefly in PDs.
So an applicant comes to us.
They've had a pre-application conference.
They realize they have one of those unique sites or uses where they really do need a
PD.
What happens next?
These are complex documents.
They have the text and the map.
So they can take, you know, sometimes six to nine months to go through that review process,
because they can be challenging.
It's a lot of back and forth with staff.
The approval criteria is in subchapter two of the Debt and Development Code.
I won't go over all of those.
Y'all can read those.
But just in summary, the things that we think about when they first come to us with the
pre-application all the way through the public hearing process, we really try to keep that
approval criteria in mind.
So the first thing we always think about is the comprehensive plan.
What does the future land use map say?
Are there other goals or objectives in the comprehensive plan which would be served by
this proposal?
Are there area plans that affect the subject property?
We also look at the context.
What are the nearby uses and development patterns?
What is the nearby zoning?
Are there parks or schools near?
Are there potential incompatibilities?
What are the physical site conditions?
We look at that.
Eases, topography, floodplain.
What is the tree canopy on site?
And how does that affect the layout?
And then connectivity.
Not just cars, but also trail systems and bike and ped.
We want to think about all of those things as we're reviewing.
So we put all of that together.
And permeating the entire process should be community outreach.
We recommend to all applicants that they reach out to the community early in the process
and let that community outreach inform their process.
And then that comes together with the proposed development regulations and the proposed map.
And once again, that should have that increased development quality or community benefit.
So we're going to take a look in practice.
I've chosen a couple of examples that you've seen in the last couple of years just to kind
of show you how a project started and then how it got and then what it looked like when
it got in front of you.
So I don't know if this will be easy to see, but this was a multifamily project that recently
came in front of you.
They submitted in February of this year and it came before you in August, so it was about
six months that it took through the review process.
You can see on your screen this right here, those are the markups that planning had and
then other departments had other markups, lots of access and engineering and tree preservation.
We all mark up these plans and we give them guidance and tell them where they're meeting
the code requirements and where they are and where they should think more thoroughly about
a project.
For instance, at the beginning, their building was pulled up near I-35 and we talked to them
about that.
There's a really big tree stand there.
Maybe you should pull the building back and get that buffer.
So they also provided the text.
You can see the area in pink.
Those were our markups.
So we went -- we go through these iterations with the applicant and that's why it could
take a long time.
And then you could see how it ended, where it ended up in front of you and those changes
that were made.
You know, they moved the building away from I-35.
They moved that trapped open space out of the parking lot to more meaningful open space
either in that tree area or with a dog park.
They modified their access to make sure it was safe for vehicles entering and leaving
the site.
So those are all things that we look at when we're looking at these PDs.
And then keep in mind the conditions or provisions that we discuss with the applicant and that
we work through with the review should all have a reasonable connection to the development
impact.
So, for example, an additional tree buffer would be used to minimize noise or light to
adjacent properties.
So there's always got to be that connection.
In planning, we call it a rational nexus, but really it's just -- they just have to
make sense and it has to be connected.
And then those requested improvements also have to be proportionate to the proposed impact.
So for example, in this, it was 60 dwelling units.
A signalized intersection there when they leave the property really wasn't proportionate
to the impact, right?
60 dwellings would not generate the amount of traffic that would require a signal in
this location.
But in other instances, there have been situations where there could have been a larger proportionate
impact.
So those are the things we look at on this one.
On this one, this is another one you saw.
This one actually didn't end up getting approved.
But just to let you know, this was a different type of plan development, how it started.
They had, for example, they had detention ponds at the entrance to the property.
They had a lot of lots on a really treed area.
There wasn't really a buffer or screening at Loop 288.
So we worked through that with them to modify that plan, to change that detention pond to
a retention pond with a five-acre park at the entrance.
We asked them to move those lots out of that treed area to have that substantial tree stand
that would be preserved.
We went through and talked about getting buffers along Loop 288 to ensure that, for the comfort
of those residents and to ensure that that had adequate screening.
And then with their public outreach, they heard from the community that there were transportation
challenges within the area.
And so the developer offered to make offsite transportation improvements.
Now, those weren't necessarily proportional to their impact.
But as part of the review, that was something that the applicant offered up.
So that was all during that review timeline from our first look in January all the way
to when it got to P&Z in June.
So there were substantial changes to that project, once again, keeping in mind the review
criteria in the Denton Development Code, as well as that rational nexus and that proportionality.
So once a PD is approved, they do have to develop in accordance with that PD.
But the DDC does have provisions where you can make changes.
There's a major change provision, a major amendment.
And essentially that, it would have to go back through public hearing again.
So if they are making a-- if they're increasing the number of dwelling units by more than 10%,
increasing the square footage by more than 10%, essentially, they're going to have to
go back to public hearing.
If they're going to do something to increase the intensity that could potentially impact
the area surrounding it, it really does need to go back for public hearing and approval--
a recommendation from P&Z and an approval from council.
If it's not one of those things, if it's a minor change within it, and it really wouldn't
impact the surrounding area, that could be staff level approved as a minor amendment,
would just be reviewed and approved at the staff level.
So Angie's going to come up for a wrap up.
OK.
So just to kind of review everything we've talked about and sum it up a little bit, as
a reminder, everything we talked about today, SUPs and plane developments, they fall within
the entitlement portion of our development phase, and SUPs, along with straight zoning
and plane developments, are all critical tools that we have in our entitlement toolbox.
We went over a lot about specific use permits and plan developments, so to kind of sum it
up, some of the key differences-- SUPs, you're not changing the underlying zoning district.
It's used to evaluate certain uses within a district to ensure that they're compatible
with what's in existence.
Those zoning compliance plans need to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the DDC.
Plan developments, more specifically, the standard plan developments that you would see with this.
You're modifying setbacks or landscape buffering.
These are not uses or site design standards that are typically allowed within the DDC.
However, these deviations are intended to provide a benefit to the community.
With these, you're adopting zoning regulations along with a development plan.
And then while these are two very different things, there are some similarities that kind
of fall within them.
These are critical tools within our zoning toolbox that help us to evaluate uses and
their appropriateness in any given location.
With these plans, we're adopting a zoning compliance plan that should be adhered to
as they move forward.
We evaluate the appropriateness of an SUP or a plan development based on the comprehensive
plan, access, landscape requirements, any incompatibilities that may exist, and any
significant deviation that may occur from an SUP or a plan development does require
both of these types of plans to go back through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council in order to determine if that's appropriate and if that amendment is acceptable.
Those are kind of some of the ways that plan developments and SUPs are similar.
And with that, we're happy to answer any questions you guys may have.
Excellent.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villareal.
Thank you.
I think this was very enlightening.
Could you describe the tipping point between going straight zoning versus deciding to go
towards that plan development?
If there is a tipping point, I'm not sure if it's just case by case.
I don't know if it's best to answer that, but I'll look.
Definitely site-specific, I would say.
Yeah.
Definitely site-specific.
Tina, do you want to weigh in on that?
Sure.
Happy to do so.
That's a really good question.
So typically we try to stay with our straight zoning districts if the development can be
achieved as Julie did a really good job of laying out.
When there are challenges associated with how the property may develop, we ask ourselves
whether or not, okay, can this be accomplished under the straight zoning districts, or is
this something that really needs to seek relief from our development standards and then we
evaluate that to see if it's appropriate to go the plan development route.
There's no mathematical equation or anything like that that comes into play.
Unfortunately, it's not that easy sometimes, but it's really based upon our professional
judgment and training, our understanding of our ordinance.
There are developments that are really good developments to have, but that cannot be achieved
under our Denton Development Code, and so that's when it's appropriate to utilize the plan
development district tool.
I know neighborhood input.
Sometimes if there's a lot of neighborhood opposition or concerns, there could be neighborhood
support for development if certain aspects were achieved, wanting more affirmed outcomes
or predictable outcomes associated with it, then it might be appropriate to engage in
a plan development district process to be able to meet not only the needs of the residents
in their neighborhood, but also the proposed project.
Anything else to add, ladies?
Just to follow up, is there a reason why we prefer straight zoning as opposed to having
a more, I guess, patchwork plan development model?
Yes.
This goes back to one of the comments that Julie included early in the onset of our presentation.
One is state law.
State law says that if we're going to enforce zoning, then we need to have zoning districts
provided for throughout the city, and the standards and uses within the zoning districts
need to be the same regardless of where it's located.
For example, I'll use Commissioner Pruitt's favorite zoning district, MN.
MN has a variety of uses and standards that are within it.
The uses and standards in MN need to be appropriate if MN was situated in the north side of town
versus the south side of town, the east side of town, the west side of town.
If MN zoning is appropriate for a piece of property, then its uses and standards must
be consistent.
That's the first aspect associated with state law.
I had a second item, and I just do a blank on it.
My apologies.
Your question again?
I think that's part of it.
My apologies.
Ask your question again.
The question was, why do we go with straight zoning as opposed to north side?
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
One is the state law aspect.
The second thing is being able to effectively administer our debt and development code,
especially given a city of our size.
The third thing would be is that we want to be able to rely upon our zoning districts
that we provided for in the debt and development code, because it provides more predictable
expectations and outcomes in people's understanding of the zoning and how the community may develop.
If we were to negotiate every single zoning action that took place within the community,
then we have a very much patchwork, is the word to use it, provided throughout our community.
That becomes very challenging for us to administer.
I came from a city that was 12 square miles.
We were a PD factory like you wouldn't believe.
We had used planned development districts for generations, and it was really very challenging
to be able to administer it because of the fact that, because of just how we used planned
development districts at that time.
We were modifying development processes.
You could sort of see the wave of what we kind of latched to it on a particular time,
and you'd see kind of the cluster of planned development districts that were adopted around
the same time.
It's like, wow, we liked that particular process.
Or we would address, you know, work through certain challenges, but nonetheless, it became
very difficult for us to be able to administer our zoning within that community.
It creates a lot of gotchas, right?
We got tripped up on procedural aspects, right?
We also had zoning that was just, was not appropriate for the policies that we have
put in place.
So, you know, in a city of Denton, given that we're 98 square miles and we continue to grow,
and we have a really good DDC to work from, it's really important that we utilize those
tools and stick with our zoning.
If we find that variances are having to be requested for our standards on a regular basis,
or requests are being made for certain types of uses or that are not accommodated within
the district, then it's most appropriate to amend your, in this case, our Denton development
code to be able to provide for that development.
So hopefully that helps address some of your questions.
Well, and I think, I'll just add to that if I could, is just, I think now that we've kind
of differentiated the PDs, because, you know, a PD, because there's constraints on the land,
is very different than an overlay PD, where it's an infill property and you've got all
this existing stuff around, and you're really trying to protect what's around there.
And so it's definitely a case by case basis, and I think they're certainly great tools
to have, and they're very different for the reasons that you would use one or the other.
You know, and another thing I'll add is that, you know, in terms of why using our Denton
development code versus doing the planned development district, you know, when we adopted
the Denton development code, we said, this is the bar of the standards for development
within our community, right?
We set the high standards within our community that we are expecting to achieve.
So therefore, we've set that bar.
We shouldn't be achieving that with every form of development that comes through.
If we find that our development is not achieving that, and people are seeking planned development
districts to get around that bar, whether they're trying to, you know, elevate it, most
of the time they're trying to drop that bar a little bit, right there.
But if they're wanting to try and get around that, then to me that raises the question
of, okay, are standards still relevant with how we're wanting development to occur?
The other thing we have to keep in mind also is, are our standards within the Denton development
code consistent with our long range policies that the city has adopted?
So we're typically looking to our comprehensive plan, because zoning is the tool that we utilize
to implement the comprehensive plan.
But for example, council adopts a policy on affordable housing, right?
So then do we have tools within our zoning ordinance that help with implementing that
affordable housing policy that council's adopted, or do we have tools in the zoning ordinance
that are prohibiting that plan from being adopted?
And so it's important for us to look at our zoning ordinance to see, is it consistent
with those policies?
So that's why you'll find that we're continuously looking to update it, but also why we look
to keep our Denton development code in the top-knop shape that is needed for development
within our community, so we can provide for that expected quality form of development
happening.
Other questions?
Commissioner McDade.
Thank you, Chair.
I just have a question, when you were talking about the SUP and the fraud and deception,
if a applicant is being deceptive, what are the ramifications of that?
Do they have to start over from ground zero, or do they just have to correct?
Sure.
So I've never run into somebody being accused of fraud or deception, but that is a way that
you could lose it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, if you lose your SUP by fraud or deception, or if that's determined
to be the case, your SUP is not valid.
It does not exist.
So it's still straight zoning, however, that conditional approval for the use or the added
height, that's not valid at that time.
Okay, so they're not allowed to come back?
They lose it one time, and that's it, they're not allowed to come back, and so I made a
mistake.
That I'm going to look to smarter people than I.
Okay.
I was going to say, yeah, I don't think I've ever had any experiences zoning that resulted
in fraud and deception, but yeah, if for whatever reason there were conditions that were put
in there and they did not satisfy them, they would have to come back with a modified form
of the zoning, whether that was a specific use permit or probably a most likely case
of a planned development district I can think of because if there's conditions included
within it, they would have to come back with a modified request on their zoning.
You're welcome.
Anybody else?
Commissioner Perot.
Thank you, Chair.
A couple things on PDs.
So first, the easy one.
I think this is the easy one.
I recall some past discussions about split zoning and intricacies of how that could happen.
Do we have a preferred plan for instances where someone owns a parcel that has PD zoning
on it, and for whatever reason, part of it is not fully developed and they would like
to subdivide and get straight zoning for that parcel?
It seems like, for instance, we recently had one where the entire parcel hadn't been developed
under the PD, and so it was requested to be rezoned.
So that's fairly straightforward.
I'm just wondering whether our DDC speaks to what the process is in that case.
It sounds like, and forgive me, that you made a modification to the PD, or?
Well, I was going to say, an example comes to mind, and correct me if I'm wrong on this,
so a planned development district is adopted for a parcel of land.
Let's say it's a 50-acre tribe, but for whatever reason, they don't develop 20 acres of that,
and they want to rezone that 20 acres to a straight zoning district.
They could come in and request to rezone that 20 acres to a straight zoning district.
One of the things that we would have to do, though, is look at the original planned development
district and see how the development rights were provided for in that PD, because it may
be where the remaining 30 acres, in my example, can still have the planned development district
and that zoning remains fine, or it may be that we have to amend that planned development
district to adjust the development that was allowed for it.
Let's say 500 units of multifamily were granted, right, and now we've wiped out 20 acres out
of this original 50-acre PD.
Do those 500 units of multifamily get to be concentrated on that remainder 30-acre parcel,
or do we need to modify the standards accordingly to reduce the number of multifamily units
on that 30 acres?
So is that what you're asking about, or something similar?
Yeah, and I mean, that helps me kind of understand how it's processed through the application,
so that's fine.
Second thing, I heard lots of mentions of why PDs should be used as sparingly as possible.
I've heard that the overlay may be viewed as a PD light, at least by some staff.
And then at the same time, there was a mention of PDs should not be allowed to modify only
one or two uses, for instance.
So I'm trying to connect that with the history that I've seen of existing PDs that we see,
and the future that I haven't seen yet of the overlay PDs.
I guess with that background, my question is, should we expect future overlay PDs, or
even regular PDs, to be less prescriptive about the uses that are allowed, and trying
to modify only the things that are necessary to make that development possible?
How do you determine how much a PD should restrict the use versus how much a PD should
just nibble at the edges, if you will?
I'm going to try to answer this, and Tina may kick me.
A standard PD should probably not be nibbling.
If you need to use a standard PD, it's probably because you can't make that...
The project is either so unique or challenging in terms of the site conditions or the mix
of uses on site that you really would need that kind of full planning effort at the outset.
I don't know if...
The overlay PD may be more of that nibbling at the edges, and I think of it in terms...
When we look at the review, when we're keeping in mind why we have PDs and what the criteria
for approval are and what we're trying to achieve with that, there may be not necessarily
challenges with the proposed use, but maybe the context that it's in, maybe it is a gateway
to a neighborhood, and so we want to make sure there are elevated landscape standards,
or maybe there are some uses that are incompatible in that area, or maybe we do want to expand
those uses for a different zoning district to ensure that there is compatibility, because
the development standards within a different district might be more appropriate.
It's going to be on a case-by-case basis, I would imagine, but did that answer your
question?
Yeah, I think so.
That helps me conceptualize what the difference is between the traditional PDs that we've
seen and what we are looking forward to in the future with some of those additional tools.
Last question, I hope this is a brief.
If it's not, I can just take it offline, but especially with the PD rezoning requests,
I think our public hearings have some sort of consistent statements, so I guess it's
somewhat legalese that the commission or the council, once it gets there, has the ability
to approve a zoning district equally or more restrictive than what is listed.
Can you help us understand how that legally is viewed when you're looking at a PD application?
As far as if council or a body was looking at a PD, and they say, "Okay, I like most
of it, but there's a couple things that we would recommend changing," how much could
we change before it would be not more restrictive from a public hearing perspective?
Does that make sense?
It does.
That's a good question.
I've got some thoughts if you want to go first.
Part of the things we have to watch for is our notification associated with it, so you're
accustomed to, we have a request for, as you mentioned, to let's say, rezone to light industrial,
but the commission feels that light industrial is not appropriate, that general offices can
achieve the same thing and has higher level of standards and is more appropriate.
That's within our notification restrictions to allow for that change.
When it comes to a planned development district, an example I'll use is one that we had here
recently that the Planning and Zoning Commission actually saw as a request to rezone to light
industrial.
It was the Orson Holdings property north of Hampton Road, north of the Ranch Estates development.
When it came to the Planning and Zoning Commission, they were advocating for wanting straight
LI zoning.
After the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the request, the applicant made some modifications
and agreed to some concessions that essentially increased their landscaping buffering requirements.
They did some height reduction limitations.
They restricted, I believe, some access, and I was thinking there was another one, I'm
drawing a blank, but they made it more tight than what they would otherwise get under straight
LI.
We were able to make that shift to the planned development district following the Planning
and Zoning Commission going into council because the requirements are much more restrictive,
so they were giving up items instead of, so that allowed us to comply with our public
notice requirements.
If they would have wanted to say, "So we're willing to do all of those things, but we
want to add these additional uses that are not allowed in the light industrial zoning
district," then that's when we say time out, call foul, and we have to re-notice and go
back to the beginning.
We have to really watch our notifications when it comes to a planned development district.
Normally when we notice a re-zoning to a planned development district, our noticing is somewhat
broad.
It acknowledges it's a re-zoning request to a planned development district.
It doesn't go into all the nuances associated with the request, but at least it puts the
community on notice that they're seeking a request to a planned development district.
Then as we work through the standards and uses associated with it, our notification
still gives us that flexibility.
It gives the Planning and Zoning Commission flexibility to, as you're having conversations
with the developer, taking into consideration public comment, that if you're wanting to
restrict some of the uses or give them something else in return, or maybe restrict them on
their height, but give them a reduced setback option that would work to their benefit.
Because of our noticing being flexible, it gives you the ability to work through that.
In my opinion, that's one of the key things that we always have to watch, and especially
on the RM squared zoning, the one from Orson Holden, we really had to watch is what was
in our noticing, and even as we were going through with council.
Hillary, I don't know if you have any other thoughts that come to mind.
I think the element of the question was probably related to PD mark one and then PD mark two.
Yeah.
The PDs that I've seen in Denton usually have a base zoning of what have you.
I think in the analysis that Tina talked about, we would wonder and inquire very critically
whether we think the base zoning has fundamentally changed so far that it doesn't meet that criteria
of being more restrictive, or if the give and take has gotten to such a horse trading
level that we feel like it needs to be discussed in greater detail, or the concept of the deal
that you guys saw is so different than what council might be seeing, it may be appropriate
to re-notice then.
It is ultimately a case-by-case analysis, and I think that as Tina discussed, a real
commitment to making sure that notifications are accurate and give the public everything
they need to know.
We probably err a little bit on the side of re-noticing more than we might technically
need to, just in the interest of public information.
I appreciate that, and I appreciate that it's case-by-case.
I think that really helps me going forward.
What I'm hearing is basically if we see a PDR 6, then adjustments that might change
that to a PDR 7 would be out, but smaller things we can talk about and see, and I trust
you to give us feedback real time as those things happen, so thank you.
We take very seriously, especially when we start negotiating on the fly at the dias.
Not that that has happened a whole lot here, but at least in my tenure here, but in any
community I've worked in, always being cognizant of what was our notice that we sent to the
public, because in the interest of transparency, we want to make sure that we've provided adequate
public notice to meet the state statute.
The other aspect that we're always concerned about is the way zoning can get overturned
or thrown out in a court of law is from a technicality standpoint, and so that's the
last thing we also want to have happen, so hence why we're very cognizant and watch for
that.
Any other questions?
Clearly, we could talk about this for a lot more time, but the bad thing is it's getting
a little late, and I think we're going to have to call the discussion.
Great presentation, both of you.
Thank you very much.
Why don't we take a pause, get food really fast so that we can come here and go through
the rest of our agenda.
Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going to have like a five-minute dinner.
I don't want anybody to have to do that, so let's pause here at 5.58, and please let's
get back here less than 5 if we can, thanks.
Okay thank you, and welcome back to our planning and zoning work session.
I'll call us back at 6.07 p.m., and we will continue with our work session agenda, which
is clarification for our public meeting tonight.
First item on that agenda are minutes.
Any questions on the minutes?
And Hillary, we can take those as a group, or do we have to take them individually?
They're posted under 2A, all together as a group, as one.
Okay.
If we don't have questions or concerns.
Okay.
Everybody all right with that?
Okay.
With regard to our consent agenda, I am going to ask one question.
You're okay to stay?
I already checked with legal on that, just don't – Shawn, is that you?
No, who is that?
That's you.
Hello.
It is me.
I'm filling in for Cameron today.
I'm sorry.
Oh, very good.
You know what?
I just had a quick question with regard to our person who spoke, so I was a little bit
confused on what she said about lighting.
Can you enlighten me?
Did you hear it or not?
Yes, I did hear her talk about the lighting.
I would assume that everything would have been to our DDC standards.
So are we dealing with a different code with this development?
Slightly.
Okay, we are.
We are.
Which has a master plan community agreement.
Okay, which just – yeah, so it is their own unit that they're working within.
They're special DDC with various – Okay, and that plays into everything basically
about the development?
That's the document that the planner would have reviewed it under.
Okay.
So that's it.
That's it for this and answers my question.
Thank you very much.
Anybody else on this one?
No?
Okay.
I feel like you were – okay, you're just chewing.
Very good.
Okay.
Individual consideration, 4A, any questions on that?
That is a request for an extension to a date certain of 12/14, okay?
And then 4B has been withdrawn.
We did get an email late on that, but that item is withdrawn, so we will not be taking
action on that one.
Public hearings for tonight, so 5A, that's Z220017.
Sean, that is you.
Do you want to just give us kind of a – We'll keep it quick.
Yeah, just an overview and we'll see if anybody has any questions on that.
Okay.
Okay, so this is Z220017.
This is a request for a zoning change from rural residential to a light industrial zoning
district, two tracks totaling approximately 29 acres, mostly undeveloped or agricultural
uses.
There is a gas well on the south track, and if it is approved, of course, all uses within
the LI zoning would be permitted.
The applicant has indicated interest in industrial use development, but that's what we're
proposing.
Happy to answer any questions.
Any questions?
And I know the only question I had posted earlier to Sean on this one was, because it's
adjacent to that track that we approved that – actually, you mentioned when we had the
discussion about PDs.
I was wondering why we were not looking at it like that again, and perhaps – and I'm
assuming it is because of the way, I guess, that it fronts lovers, and I'm trying to
wrap my head around this because we had so much discussion with that tract, and then
– let's see, one to the third tract to the south of it is actually embedded, I believe,
in that PD, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
So, as I'm looking at it, we just seem a little bit inconsistent because it is like
right there, and we didn't say you could have straight light industrial on those tracts,
but we're saying you can on here, so I've got some reservations with this one just because
it seems inconsistent, and it is the same developer, so I know that they're aware
of all the discussion we had on that adjacent property, so anyway, I'm going to just throw
that out there because I'll probably say it again in public hearing.
Well, and Sean, feel free to add to this, but the reason why we did not consider the
plan development district for this property is it still has the same base zoning, light
industrial, as the larger tract to the east that did have it, but also so many of the
conditions or restrictions that were put in the zoning or the plan development district
for the property to the east really dealt with restrictions in proximity to Hampton
Road and not appear on the north end of the property, so when we looked at this request
and we did not feel that a plan development district was warranted for this area because
essentially the uses and standards that would be occurring on this property are comparable
to what's happening immediately to the east because the portion of the property where
it's adjacent to the east is not subject to any of those conditions that were really restricted
to the southern portion of that tract.
Yeah, and I hear that and that's what I'm still trying to grasp it and hope, okay, they're
just going to come 1173, they're going to come that way, because that is my concern
is like, well, Hampton Road is right there too for them and we had all that concern for
those other tracts and so.
Yeah, and I definitely would add in addition to that, not only would it be not simple to
get to Hampton Road from this, you could actually more easily reach the Mosh Branch and 380
Light from this site versus the PDLI where it was fronting directly on Hampton.
Yeah, right, right, yeah, yeah, I agree and that helps me greatly to kind of study that
map again too.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Okay.
Yeah, you have the next one, so I will call 5B then and let you give your little, oh.
Okay, so yes, this is S22-0003, speed of light and I'll just make sure we start that there.
This is a request for a specific use permit for a broadband communication tower not to
exceed 150 feet above ground level and 871 feet above median sea level.
We'll note that this is a site that is currently approved for a broadband communication tower.
It has an SUP but it is not permitted to go more than 88 feet, so this is an increase
over the previous approval.
The site is located south of Barcelona Street and the tower is proposed at the southwest
corner of the existing building on the site.
It is important to note that part of what you are determining primarily is within the
MR district, an SUP is required for a monopole tower that exceeds 85 feet in height.
So that's, you're primarily looking at the land use impacts of a tower that goes above
85 feet in height.
Now in this case, it's permitted to go about three feet higher by the current SUP.
The SUP brought to you allows a significantly higher height and so you're looking at that.
However, this site is also within the airport height hazard district which has a separate
set of restrictions which is that a tower cannot exceed, a structure cannot exceed 810
feet above sea level.
Therefore, if this was recommended for approval by P&Z and approved by city council, the applicant
would then need to go to the zoning board of adjustment and request a variance which
is permitted within the airport height hazard district if they can bring a letter from the
FAA that says there's no, we've determined that this structure will not cause damage
to our, will not cause an issue with our airport operations and the zoning board of adjustments
is permitted by the DDC to say we will permit a variance to have a height exceeding 810
feet above sea level because we have this FAA letter stating that that structure and
that height going above our normal restriction will not have a negative impact on the operations
of our airport.
So it comes to you, it comes to city council and then based on the conditions we recommend
then it can go to zoning board of adjustments and only after that would the tower be fully
approved and I'm happy to answer any questions because I realize that maybe it is complicated.
Yeah this one made my brain hurt and I get it, here's my question, it might be Hillary's
question, the AAHD which I am not an expert in at all, so is that treated as like an overlay,
what is that treated as?
Yeah functionally it's an overlay district relating to advanced safety concerns related
to airport problems.
So my whole problem with this request is that we have a piece of property that has an overlay,
that's in the overlay, says can't be above a certain height and we're being asked to
approve an SUP that has a certain height and that's where I'm getting tripped up.
Even though I understand it's got to go to ZBA but then I don't understand why we're
saying yes we can approve this SUP even though the AAHD clearly says you can't do that and
so I feel like we're doing this and it doesn't make any sense to me to recommend to city
council which they didn't do the first time that we recommended it and it's because we
didn't know that the AAHD said the height restriction and so they set the SUP currently
at what is allowed under the AAHD and so I'm trying to understand how to reconcile that.
So there's a little bit of do you want to and you know feel free to pop in but there's
a bit of a you know which board should we start with and I think we just.
Well it's how do we treat the overlay because it's not like if somebody came to us in other
overlays in our city and said we want to do this and the overlay clearly says you can't
do that.
We're not going to do that and so what we've tried to do and I don't want to speak for
you Sean is to state that is to kind of limit the scope of the approval here to the base
zoning district and to state that for the AAHD wow that's hard to say it is that's
outside of the scope of the present approval it needs to go before the ZBA.
So it may feel a bit like we're saying sure go ahead and violate that overlay right but
in effect and what we've tried to draft is yes for as much as what we can approve this
is fine but this is not completely approved right and I and you have the condition on
it that they have to get the approval from ZBA.
I guess it's just it just feels very strange and I feel bad that they're coming before
us in the first place for something that we really can't say yes to because the overlay
says we can't.
So anyway it's a little confusing it might be easier I guess with the conditions but
again I'm it's just it doesn't there's something that just doesn't make sense about it in my
brain. Anyway anybody else have questions is it just it's just my brain yes Commissioner
Anderson.
Thank you Sean so they are asking to be 61 feet above the AAHD height limit?
That is correct.
So they do have FAA letter that states it's okay they do they do and so I guess they did
not have that the first go around?
They did not.
So so the FAA is saying it's okay for them to build this tower?
That is correct.
Okay that's all I mean thanks.
Yeah but you know then we've got the FAA FAA like managing our code maybe we need to
look at the AAHD I'll bring that up in the matrix anyway I was just saying to me that
does and then trust me we Sean and I struggled working through this and I think Hillary was
involved in a call when we were working on this as well you know what what I don't have
a good appreciation I'll be honest with the Commission is whether or not you know conditions
have changed with respect to that AAHD area or let's say let's set aside that for a moment
just the overall operational aspects associated with the airport that would warrant a re-review
of that AAHD overlay district right because for whatever reason you know that was put
in place to protect the airspace around the airport right and if operational conditions
have changed that allow for you know like this project that we have on your agenda this
evening to encroach that overlay area or I view it kind of as a cap right so then then
it would be appropriate to go back and re-review that AAHD to see if it does need to be modified
because it to me it comes back to have conditions change for airport operations that or we were
just very conservative with whatever provisions were put forth in place for the AAHD at that
time and wanted to include a relief valve in the code in the event that it would be
appropriate to have structures or or it even references permit the natural growth of an
or permit the growth of any natural object or buildings to be able to encroach within
that area.
Yeah and I mean I'm not going to FAA obviously knows more than I do what I'm trying to work
is kind of within our code and the fact that it just seems like they should be able to
take this existing SUP and go to ZBA and get their height restrictions so that's weird
too to me that we're kind of doing this again twice just from their perspective but anyway
the and I think the challenge we have is that the Zoning Board of Adjustment is not the
decision-making authority with respect to specific use that lies with you and I do yeah
and I understand that but it just seems like we already kind of have an SUP that that we
can approve within the parameters of the overlay which then the adjustment would go to ZBA
because you know what I mean it's so it's it's just we're doing this that's that's
all I'm saying so that and that's nobody's fault other than we need to look at why we're
doing that and what needs to be rewritten to me.
Anybody else on this one?
Commissioner Prout.
Thank you Chair.
Just real briefly.
Did we check into whether there are proximity slash height concerns near the railroad right
of way?
It was not raised it is outside both of the railroad right of way as well there is a significant
drainage area in which development is not possible between the side of this tower and
the railroad right of way.
Sure that's fine I'm not super concerned but it looks like it's about 300-ish feet away
from the railroad bed and it's 150 feet tall what happens with the guy wires I'm not all
that concerned about it I'm just I'm more concerned with maintaining good relationships
with our railroad partners honestly with everything we need from them so yeah.
Certainly and the actual area in which even this any obstruct any land impact development
impact from this is very limited in fact I can show you the box right here northeast
corner yeah okay right there that's fine that's where they're allowed to develop thank you
is the applicant going to be here I would expect the applicant will be here excellent
any other questions on this one okay thank you very much well Ron we've got we got six
minutes so let's bring you up for the last one all right we got 20 slides to go through
so I promise I won't take too long I'll just share one slide to kind of summarize what
the purpose is for this city initiated code amendment is related to access requirements
and based on some of the recent applications that you all have seen either a PD or an SUP
related to a multifamily development the question about accesses has come up and so we looked
at the code and there is a requirement that to access be provided and it also includes
where feasible well what is where feasible mean so what we've done is prepared a code
amendment that we met with the DCRC several times and we've got a proposal to share with
you all I can go through that now or we can do it during the public hearing but basically
it's providing more parameters and also establishing when that two points of access is required
establishing when it can be waived or it can be varied from it also includes exceptions
exemptions that is so all of that will be part of the the code amendment moving forward
we also have other sections of the code as we were looking at access to to see where
we can also clarify some some issues or concerns and so those are also included in this set
of code amendments so with that I stand for any questions any questions at the moment
look forward to the full presentation thank you very much that is the end of our agenda
so with that I will close our work session at 625 and we will reconvene in council chambers
as close to 630 as possible.
Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday November 16 2022 with a quorum present I will call us to order at 632 p.m. first
item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags.
Under the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to thee Texas one state under God one and indivisible.
Next item on our agenda is the consideration for approval of the minutes for October 8th
meeting the October October 18th is the PNC and City Council a joint meeting the minutes
for the PNC meetings for October 26th CIAC and our regular PNC.
Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve Commissioner Villarreal second thank you and
commissioners that is to approve all of those minutes correct okay very good any discussion
let's vote on the board please.
That motion carries seven zero that will take us to item three on our agenda we've got one
thing on our consent agenda I will give Commissioner Cole a moment to recuse himself from this
item.
Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve Commissioner Pruitt second we've got a first
and a second for the consent agenda for this evening any discussion okay let's vote on
the board please.
That motion carries six zero that'll move us to individual consideration items I'll
give Commissioner Cole a moment welcome back first item on the agenda for this section
is 4a pp220025 I will invite Ashley up hi Ashley just closer to the mic there you go
this is a preliminary plot for a warehouse use on approximately 20.3 acres at this time
staff is recommending denial but we have no objection to the requested extension until
December 14th 2022 okay great any questions for Ashley okay thank you very much.
Chair can entertain a motion or discussion at this time.
Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of December
14 2022 Commissioner Pruitt second we've got a first and a second for approval of the extension
request to a date certain of December 14th 2022 any discussion let's vote on the board
please interesting okay do we want to just can you rerun it so
she can't go back it didn't record my vote oh it is letting us now let's do that again
there we go okay that motion carries some zero thank you our item 4b that was listed
on our agenda has been withdrawn so we will not be taking action tonight on that item
which will take us to our public hearing portion of the evening first one our agenda is 5a
z22-0017 Shawn is here to present I will go ahead and open the public hearing hi Shawn
good evening chair members of the commission just gonna open the presentation here there
you go all right good evening this is z22-17 the Johns Rood Ranch proposed rezoning this
is a request for a zoning change from a rural residential district to a light industrial
district on two tracks totaling about 29 acres these tracks are mostly undeveloped there is
there are some agricultural uses and there is a gas well on the south tract of course
one of the most important things we look at is consistency with our comprehensive plan
and future land use map the future land use designation for this property is light industrial
and that is intended for a range of uses like manufacturing assembling warehousing it's
also in a comprehensive plan that it should have adequate infrastructure and overall it's
intended for those uses that the light industrial zoning is intended to align with so therefore
the intent of the LI zoning is to provide those uses that the light industrial future
land use designation calls for and therefore this proposed rezoning would be consistent
with our comprehensive plan it does also help to achieve our comprehensive plan action 3.1.1
which is to ensure that we have adequate land for future economic development activity and
particularly non-residential land available so aligning with that comprehensive plan goal
it's also important as we're looking at zoning changes to see if there are significant changes
in area that warrant a rezoning one thing to be aware of is at the time of the annexation
interim zoning of this site there was minimal light industrial development or zoning in
this area we've seen increasing industrial development and light industrial zoning in
this area since then and as you're aware we had a recent zoning change from RR to PDLI
just to the south and west of this site so we're seeing a change in the development
pattern here in addition our mobility plan and tech stop plans indicate that loop 288
will be extended through this area and that will significantly impact the future development
patterns in this area including helping to support a potential development of those uses
like light industrial commercial uses that benefit from access to a transportation network
so the zoning change aligns with the changes we have seen and are expecting to see oh I'm
sorry I had two slides there my bad but as you can see there that does show you the difference
between what the zoning will look like even in 2019 versus the increased LI zoning in the
area so overall this does meet our criteria for approval we did notice out to the 200
and 500 foot limits and did receive two responses in favor and the applicant did also hold a
neighborhood meeting and there are notes about that in your backup so with that staff does
recommend approval of this zoning change as it does align with our approval criteria both
for zoning changes and for applications in general that is my presentation happy to stand
for any questions and the applicant is present and does have this card right thank you Sean
any questions at this time for Sean okay thank you very much so with that I will invite Mr.
Fletcher up here as I have his card in front of me
good evening good evening commissioners my name is Thomas Fletcher with Kimmy Horne 6160
Warren Parkway Frisco Texas appreciate the opportunity to be here before you tonight
I am the engineer for the Johns Rudd Ranch properties LLC for this zoning request I think
that Sean's presentation we've been working with staff on this application was pretty
thorough I'll go I have a quick presentation I'll go through and then happy to stand for
questions again here's a picture of the site it's kind of on a larger aerial that kind
of shows the location the properties on the east side of Lover's Lane Lover's Lane is
the north-south road 1173 is the east-west road to the north interstate highway 35 is
just to the east and then US 380 is to the south as Sean mentioned on the comp plan this
area is intended in the future to develop as light industrial and a lot of those properties
have been starting to transition from existing zoning categories to the light industrial
or PD light industrial zoning this is the site this shows the existing zoning that's
around the property the properties that don't have a color to the background are still located
within the city's ETJ it's my understanding that some of these properties may have not
in annexation agreements attached to them this is an exhibit just showing what the proposed
zoning would look like and then this is showing the comprehensive plan that shows that the
properties all around surrounding the property subject track tonight in the future comp plan
would be eventually light industrial if they're to be rezoned per that comp plan we did put
together a conceptual plan at this time there's no plans for development in the immediate
future just looking to get the zoning in place for when the property is ready to develop
you can also see we've put in there from the schematic loop 288 plans the actual right
away width so you can see that the loop 288 extension is taking up a large portion of
this property there's a gas well that's located it'll be adjacent to loop 288 we anticipate
that there would be detention with increased impervious cover through development detention
is pretty much a standard practice on all development so that we can maintain the existing
runoff rates for the property this is just kind of an overall kind of of the western
area of the city just kind of showing the overall loop 288 and how the city is going
to change in this area in the future once loop 288 is constructed with the airport and
the industrial uses in this in this area and that's the presentation I have for you tonight
this is the mobility plan which does show that lovers will eventually be a secondary
arterial so at some point in the future it will be improved to a four lane divided roadway
and then 1173 will also be a secondary arterial as well so as development occurs the thoroughfares
within this area will be transformed from small two lane roadways to major thoroughfares
with the designation of secondary arterial that's my presentation I'm happy to stand
for any questions appreciate your time great thank you Mr. any questions
I do not see any thank you very much you presentation was very thorough appreciate that this is
a public hearing I don't have any other cards to speak but you are welcome to speak on this
item and you can fill out a card later is there anyone else wishing to speak okay seeing
none I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and open the dice for discussion or
motion Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve Commissioner McDade second we've
got a first and a second for approval any discussion okay let's vote on the board please
that motion carries seven zero that will take us to our next item 5b s two two zero zero
zero three invite Sean back up here and open the public hearing thank you I'll get my presentation
opened here all right good evening chair and members of planning his own Commission Sean
Jacobson associate planner presenting s 22 - three the speed of light this is a request
for a specific use permit for a broadband communication tower not to exceed 150 feet
of ground level or 871 feet above mean sea level site is located south of Barcelona Street
near the intersection of Barcelona and Mesa and the tower is proposed as you can see the
red star there at the southwest corner of the existing building currently there is an
SUP that approves a monopole tower on this site not to exceed 88 feet in height so the
question the SUP come for you now is for that increase in height from not to exceed 88 to
a tower not to exceed 150 and the land use consideration here is that our code states
that a monopole tower exceeding 85 feet does require an SUP it's also important to be aware
that we have the airport height hazard district as well which sets a limit of eight hundred
and ten feet above mean sea level for any structure and in order to surpass that a variance
is required from the zoning board of adjustment if the applicant can provide a letter of determination
from the FAA indicating that a tower exceeding the airport height hazard district height limitation
will not negatively impact airport operations the applicant does have such a letter and
if they are approved recommended for approval and approved by PNZ and city council they
would have to proceed to ZBA in order to get that variance approved before they could proceed
so just keep me in mind that would be a subsequent approval should this be approved and just
providing a little background here the original approval of the tower planning and zoning
commission city council approved the SUP but set that 88 height level in order to comply
with the airport height hazard district the applicant then went to the FAA in order to
get a determination letter and is now returned with a request for an SUP for the additional
height here is the site plan just showing the area in yellow is the only area intended
for development through this SUP and that would be where the tower would be constructed
with a six foot high wooden fence around it in compliance with our standards showing the
tower elevations here monopole tower and just noting the light at the top would be omnidirectional
per FAA standards it would be a white strobe during the day switching to a red blinking
light at night it's the lighting that is required and designed to have minimum impact while
still meeting legal standards of course it's always important to consider our comprehensive
plan and alignment with it the future land use designation here is again for light industrial
and one of the things that is discussed in that is the importance of providing adequate
infrastructure and as communication infrastructure is one part of adequate infrastructure providing
this in an LI future land use area would align with the intent of that future land use in
addition the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan has a goal to coordinate with service providers
to ensure the availability of communication infrastructure throughout the city so what's
been provided by the applicant there you can see on the left hand side is the coverage
that could be provided with the currently approved tower on the right hand side is the
greater amount of coverage that would be available if this increased height is approved so the
expanded broadband coverage would help to contribute to our comprehensive plan goal
of increased communications infrastructure compatibility with the surrounding area so
this is surrounded by some industrial some commercial significant amount of undeveloped
land the near single-family residential property is about point two miles away near single-family
residential neighborhood you can see in green there about point three miles away the topography
would somewhat limit the visible amount of the tower but the tower would be visible and
so we look at mitigation through design so again they own the only lighting they will
have is FAA required lighting as discussed no additional this is a monopole tower rather
than a lattice tower limiting the visual impact it would be three feet wide at the lowest
point it would be visible narrowing to about one foot wide and in addition at the proposed
tower complies with many of the voluntary guidelines from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for minimizing impact on migratory birds because it does allow co-location not
only will this be a broadband tower but it will also permit self-service providers to
use the tower as well which limits the overall number of towers we're approving within our
city minimizing the environmental impact and the land use impact so overall this does meet
our criteria for approval we did do our standard notifications receive no responses so staff
is recommending approval with conditions and one of the very important conditions in there
is that the applicant if approved will know you need to go to the ZBA with that letter
from the FAA and receive approval of a variance for the additional height and that will have
to be approved before any building permit can be released for height above what's currently
permitted and then there are additional conditions related to flexibility to have a lower tower
if staff were to approve and just making that site plan and structure elevations part of
the ordinance with that that is my presentation happy to stand for any questions great Shawn
thank you any questions for Shawn at this time thank you very much this is a public
hearing I don't have any cards in front of me on this item but you are welcome to speak
on this item if you wish to do so okay seeing none I will go ahead and close the public
hearing and open the floor for discussion or emotion commissioner Smith make a motion
to approve with staff conditions with staff conditions Commissioner Cole second okay we've
got a first and a second for approval as presented with staff conditions Shawn I appreciate your
thorough presentation and answering my multiple questions that I posed to you over the last
day and a half or so yeah you answered my questions greatly I still feel like we've
got a little bit of this going on as I talked about in work session with what our AHHD says
we can do and and what we're doing I do feel comfortable with this recommendation knowing
we've got the the letter that is needed but I'm gonna work on on staff trying to improve
this whole situation here going forward but anyway thank you for being patient with my
questions as well as you Tina appreciate it okay if there's no other discussion let's
go ahead and vote on the board
that motion carries seven zero that will take us to our final public hearing of the night
on that is five cdca to two dash zero zero zero seven Ron is going to present this item
and I will open the public hearing thank you chair members of the Commission raman get
up and supply development services this request is a city initiated code amendment related
to access requirements and as mentioned during the work session the reason for this code
amendment was to address some of the questions and concerns raised in previous reviews of
applications specifically as it relates to access there were a number of projects I won't
name those projects but PD where there was a single family development multifamily where
it required a specific use permit and again discussions related access were brought up
we do have in the code a requirement that to access vehicle access be provided however
it also provides the caveat that we're feasible so what staff went to work with the DC RC
and as you can see here they've met four times on this particular item was to set a little
bit more explanation clarification on what is required under the code so we've put that
together and that's really that the summary of code amendments that you see here listed
is that first item amending section eight three two c one requiring two full unrestricted
access we also look worked on expanding the review criteria for waivers and I'll go I'll
go into further on what those are on my next slide the next four are related to access
as well primarily just making it more consistent with what we are proposing and what's currently
our practice but also as it relates to double frontage lots where I currently allows are
sorry we're only permits one access off of one frontage we're removing that requirement
but also referencing different codes and criteria manuals of the of the code of the DC that
is where that will be referenced access to a site across the property this has been a
long time city policy it has not been codified what we're proposing is to include this in
the into the DDC in those two particular sections sections five point two and as well as eight
three two eight eleven and then lastly amend section eight three two eight six as it relates
to driveway spacing just adding a little bit more language there to have the applicant
and potential developer understand that they need to make more space or be cognizant of
that spacing requirements so that when they develop or design their plan they're aware
or they're they're incorporating those spacing requirements so we'll go with the first one
this is a long code amendment here I wanted to spend some time here with the the commission
but also with the viewing public as you can see here what's highlighted or what's in
an orange it states at least two full points of access vehicle access into the proposed
development shall be provided now we've broken that up into two different categories residential
uses and non-residential uses I'll start with the non I'm sorry well start with the residential
uses these are all residential uses that are listed in our development code under table
five point two dash eight so any can any new construction where there are 30 dwelling units
or more are required to provide that to full vehicle access ones that are 29 or less they
do not they're just they can provide just one point of access B is that if there is
a development that has 29 but decides to add on to that as part of another phase then that
would then require that to full point of access at that point of their development we're also
providing two exemptions one that if those properties are in the MD they are not required
to provide that to full points of access and then D as well is an exemption of sites two
acres or less and has a parking structure they are exempt from this requirement I want
to point out as well while I'm here is that there are other code requirements related
to the fire code as well as to the transportation criteria manual so if those are applicable
they will still need to provide whatever is required for those particular codes now if
a developer or our builder cannot or decides to not comply with this code or wants to vary
from this particular section under residential uses they do have an option and that option
is through a subdivision variance and that will come to this body or this commission
for consideration switching on to non-residential uses any development that is 20,000 the lot
that is square feet or higher would require that two points of access and again cumulatively
if they exceed that on a large replating or another phase then that would need to be included
in their plans we're also carrying forward those exemptions related to MD as well as
the size of the property if it's two acres or less with a parking structure now the developer
if they choose not to follow this requirement they have an option and that is which is listed
in D and that is through our city engineer they can submit a request for a waiver and
we've proposed the language that you see here add a little bit more parameters as to what
would be what they would be able to for reasons for that waiver listed as shown again that
is a will then be up to the city engineer to decide letter E as I mentioned earlier
relates to the fire code and transportation criteria manual all of that will still be
applicable for all the developments and lastly F is just to again illustrate that full access
is an ingress and egress of that access and in order to be able to meet these requirements
so I'm going to then go into the next slide the other items that I listed as far as code
amendments you have in your backup so I won't go through them but based on the presentation
staff recommends approval of this as it meets the criteria as listed in the development
code section 2 7 4 D and with that I'll stand for any questions thank you Ron questions
for Ron on this think everybody still had their screens going so are we taking these
amendment at a time because there's other things that we're considering correct is that
they're they're they're all part of this right yes and okay they're they were included
in the back right yeah so you don't have further presentation on any of those okay so if you've
got questions on any of the backup material with regard to the other now would be the
time for that I do not see any thank you Ron this is a public hearing I don't have any
cards here in front of me to speak but you are welcome to speak on this item if you would
like okay seeing none I will go ahead and close the public hearing and I will open the
floor for discussion or a motion Commissioner Smith I'll make a motion to approve as recommended
Commissioner Villarreal second we've got a first and a second for approval any discussion
well I'll just say I know I was at the beginning discussions of some of this on the DCRC and
I know the rest of you furthered the way here and I know great thought and consideration
and much work by staff and the committee were done in this so thank you very much with that
let's go ahead and vote on the board that motion carries 7-0 that will take us to our
planning and zoning matrix for this evening I'll go ahead and turn it over to Tina first
thank you chairman Ellis with respect to the matrix there have been no changes made since
the last meeting under there was some discussion chairman Ellis you had requested that staff
as part of their zoning analysis considerations take a look at why conditions were put in
place previously but you did acknowledge that that did not need to be included on the matrix
so we didn't we did not add it so but otherwise there have been no changes made to the matrix
itself and then with respect to recent council action on items so we had a council meeting
last night and we did have several items on the agenda for consideration so let me let
me get to those so we do currently have an annexation that is tracking through council
right now that Ron has been working on and and this is in relation to a zoning case that
you have seen not too long ago north of 380 off of Thomas Egan Road and if you recall
we had taken zoning action and taking care of the zoning on the portion of the property
that was within the city limits and then they had a remaining track to the north and so
that remaining track to the north is what is tracking through from an annexation request
so eventually that property will come before the planning and zoning commission if it's
successfully annexed so the the municipal services agreement associated that was approved
last night also we had the first public hearing in the reading of the ordinance on that.
Additionally we had a couple of zoning cases one of which was a rezoning request from mixed
use regional to light industrial zoning district for about 53 acres of land located south of
Barthol road north of FM 1173 and about 700 feet west of the intersection of FM 1173 and
north I-35E so with that city council did vote to approve that rezoning and went by
a vote of seven zero and then we also had the specific use permit request which was
to allow for multifamily use on and on property that was located generally at the southeast
corner of Locust Street and loop 288 just north of Hercules if you recall that zoning
case and O'Shawn had worked with the applicant on that project and that was approved by council
with the conditions that were included within the specific use permit ordinance as as recommended
from the planning and zoning commission and that was approved seven zero so that takes
care of the actions on items that we had with council but happy to entertain any additional
requests additions being made to the matrix I know Commissioner Ellis you made mention
in work session maybe we need to look at that AHHD and the provisions related to that.
As a matter of fact yes that I am gonna so and I don't even know if it's for our matrix
or just we have an airport advisory committee correct I'll be honest with you I don't know
that I do believe that there is that okay so my thinking is maybe that's the body for
the AHHD look at I guess what I would maybe want for us to maybe discuss further is if
that if that particular thing is considered an overlay then how we look at things like
what we did today is something that I would entertain further discussion on just because
if we have an overlay in place it does seem like it it's something that should be respected
in and not for us to just approve that if it goes outside of that overlay so that was
kind of wordy and a lot of things there but if I need to clarify anything with you let
me know well I think between all the discussion that we've had this evening we've got a pretty
good idea of what we need to do but we can always follow up with you excellent great
Commissioner Villarreal I'm sorry if you mentioned this already but do you know how council reacted
to the CIA sees impact fee discussion so that presentation did occur yesterday I'll be honest
with you I did not catch all of the action related to it so Commissioner Elizabeth do
you have anything to add yeah I did watch it I thought that the discussion actually
went a little bit awry from I think what needed to probably is probably what you want an answer
to and that's what I was watching so I could get they honestly did not discuss the direction
of where they might land on some kind of fee they were looking forward to the final report
coming before them discussion got I think a little bit derailed on talking about infill
development and how we're going to deal with that exemption and then adding other exemptions
and so I almost feel like the discussion was going you know with what we actually kind
of focused on which I think is what needs to be eventually decided by council I thought
the discussion went a little bit off and went to more focus on what can be exempted which
I think is separate in a much different discussion and a future discussion so that's how it went
you'd have to probably get done with Becky well I think our timeline is the same they're
going to have the full report we're going to do that meeting I believe before our next
planning and zoning meeting but yeah so yeah yeah the portion I did see there was some
discussion potentially is whether or not they were going to take further consideration on
December 6th but I believe we're still staying the course with respect to the calendar and
I saw the latter part of the conversation and Chairwoman Ellis is correct with respect
to they did get in a fair amount of discussion especially regarding how we address infill
development what does that look like the term greenfield development was being kicked around
as well and whether or not they would be subject to that but which I do believe is is a much
bigger conversation and so we will be interesting to see how it continues to move forward yeah
anything else for the matrix any concluding items I think I'll just say happy Thanksgiving
because we will not meet before then and it's very hard to believe that is Thanksgiving
next week but it is so happy Thanksgiving you all have a wonderful holiday and with that
I will adjourn us at seven oh eight p.m. thank you very much everybody.