WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.000
 Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting

00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:13.080
 for Wednesday, November 16, 2022.

00:00:13.080 --> 00:00:18.480
 This is our work session and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.04 p.m.

00:00:18.480 --> 00:00:24.280
 The first item on our work session agenda is citizen comments on consent agenda items.

00:00:24.280 --> 00:00:29.960
 And I do have a citizen here who has filled out a card to speak on that.

00:00:29.960 --> 00:00:33.240
 And I will ask Leah Todd to come up and join us.

00:00:33.240 --> 00:00:34.240
 Hello.

00:00:34.240 --> 00:00:35.240
 Good afternoon.

00:00:35.240 --> 00:00:36.240
 Hello.

00:00:36.240 --> 00:00:37.240
 I'm Leah Todd.

00:00:37.240 --> 00:00:43.080
 I live at 3316 Roseland Drive, a taxpaying citizen of Denton.

00:00:43.080 --> 00:00:52.080
 I'm up here in relation to PP 22-0014C, Kimley-Horn approved primary plat for the Hunter Ranch

00:00:52.080 --> 00:00:53.520
 Phase 1.

00:00:53.520 --> 00:00:59.720
 I know that there's also the four-star Eagle Creek development next to me on Roseland,

00:00:59.720 --> 00:01:03.560
 which was the architects of Kimley-Horn.

00:01:03.560 --> 00:01:09.280
 At that time, they weren't required to be under the tree ordinance and it has been a

00:01:09.280 --> 00:01:15.360
 devastating experience where 50 percent of historical landmark post oak trees have been

00:01:15.360 --> 00:01:18.320
 destroyed in the development of this.

00:01:18.320 --> 00:01:25.560
 And also, currently, the development code for lights is not being complied with.

00:01:25.560 --> 00:01:32.240
 What I'm requesting is that in relation to the lights and in relation to this Hunter

00:01:32.240 --> 00:01:42.920
 Ranch Phase 1 that these developers or these architects be responsible for the tree ordinance,

00:01:42.920 --> 00:01:52.920
 which is now in effect as of 2019 7.7.4, where removal permit is required, a tree survey

00:01:52.920 --> 00:02:02.200
 is required, an application with fees, trees that are marked need to be tagged with an

00:02:02.200 --> 00:02:11.520
 orange fence around it at drip line, and preservation of historical sites like Knobbs and Bass Hill.

00:02:11.520 --> 00:02:13.320
 Who knows what's going to be in the design?

00:02:13.320 --> 00:02:19.860
 I know that the Eagle Creek has been a tragedy when it could have been an incredible hike

00:02:19.860 --> 00:02:28.040
 bike trail, still with development, in relation to right next to Dena Parks and Recreation.

00:02:28.040 --> 00:02:30.560
 But instead, it's mowed down.

00:02:30.560 --> 00:02:37.000
 Also, it wasn't terraced, there was 15 to 20 foot drops, there's not a blade of grass.

00:02:37.000 --> 00:02:40.680
 It's just dirt until they do the development.

00:02:40.680 --> 00:02:47.320
 The other thing is the lights, the development code, Section 7.11.6, that all street lighting

00:02:47.320 --> 00:02:53.480
 shall have full cutoff and design to direct light below a 90 degree horizontal plane extending

00:02:53.480 --> 00:02:56.920
 from the lowest point of the light source.

00:02:56.920 --> 00:03:02.620
 This provision of the DGC is not enforced in the Eagle Creek development, and it needs

00:03:02.620 --> 00:03:06.360
 to be in the Hunter Ranch development.

00:03:06.360 --> 00:03:12.120
 I was informed of this by Tony Puente and Michael Ganje, I guess that's how you say

00:03:12.120 --> 00:03:13.560
 the last name.

00:03:13.560 --> 00:03:21.060
 So that's, I think as a city, we have to consider trying to maintain ecological, environmental,

00:03:21.060 --> 00:03:27.120
 and aesthetic values, and not just have architects, developers come in, get their money and leave,

00:03:27.120 --> 00:03:28.720
 and then what are we left with?

00:03:28.720 --> 00:03:35.080
 And I ask you as a planning and zoning committee to consider the environmental aspects of our

00:03:35.080 --> 00:03:42.040
 community, of our town, in relation to any future developments, Hunter Ranch in particular,

00:03:42.040 --> 00:03:49.240
 and the beauty of Knob Hill and Sandbass, the last of the Mesa's coming out west.

00:03:49.240 --> 00:03:54.840
 And also enforce that developmental light code in relation to Eagle Creek development.

00:03:54.840 --> 00:03:58.240
 I appreciate your time and your consideration.

00:03:58.240 --> 00:03:59.240
 This is where we live.

00:03:59.240 --> 00:04:01.080
 This is our home.

00:04:01.080 --> 00:04:06.680
 And we may need to consider other architects other than Kimberley Harn over and over again

00:04:06.680 --> 00:04:11.680
 because I don't feel like they've worked for the benefit of this city.

00:04:11.680 --> 00:04:12.680
 Thank you.

00:04:12.680 --> 00:04:18.760
 Thank you, Ms. Thom.

00:04:18.760 --> 00:04:22.040
 Is there anyone else here wishing to speak on the consent agenda tonight?

00:04:22.040 --> 00:04:23.040
 Jennifer, do you?

00:04:23.040 --> 00:04:24.040
 I'll just, I'll just go up.

00:04:24.040 --> 00:04:25.040
 Oh, you can come on up if you'd like.

00:04:25.040 --> 00:04:26.040
 Thanks.

00:04:26.040 --> 00:04:27.040
 Thanks very much.

00:04:27.040 --> 00:04:35.840
 I wasn't expecting to speak, but rather to support 100 percent what you just heard.

00:04:35.840 --> 00:04:42.240
 I live not far from where Leanne lives and it's just devastating to see trees of that

00:04:42.240 --> 00:04:50.400
 age just mowed down for no good reason when design changes could have been implemented.

00:04:50.400 --> 00:04:57.160
 I have noticed since protesting and speaking to Kimberley Harn during their meetings with

00:04:57.160 --> 00:05:00.280
 the public that they're on practically every other agenda here.

00:05:00.280 --> 00:05:08.240
 And I begin to wonder why the city is not asking them to consider why the city is allowing

00:05:08.240 --> 00:05:13.760
 them to have their cake and eat it too, to yes, they have every right to take on their

00:05:13.760 --> 00:05:17.720
 private contracts as they wish, but if they prioritize that over the public good, why

00:05:17.720 --> 00:05:21.680
 are we hiring them basically is my question.

00:05:21.680 --> 00:05:23.080
 Thank you.

00:05:23.080 --> 00:05:26.880
 Thank you.

00:05:26.880 --> 00:05:29.440
 Just checking if there was anyone else there who was wishing to speak.

00:05:29.440 --> 00:05:30.440
 OK.

00:05:30.440 --> 00:05:31.440
 Thank you very much, ladies.

00:05:31.440 --> 00:05:32.440
 OK.

00:05:32.440 --> 00:05:33.440
 I didn't know.

00:05:33.440 --> 00:05:34.440
 I want to ask questions.

00:05:34.440 --> 00:05:35.440
 Thank you very much.

00:05:35.440 --> 00:05:36.440
 Thank you, ladies.

00:05:36.440 --> 00:05:37.440
 Have a good evening.

00:05:37.440 --> 00:05:38.440
 OK.

00:05:38.440 --> 00:05:48.520
 Next item on our agenda is our work session reports.

00:05:48.520 --> 00:05:49.920
 We've got one this evening.

00:05:49.920 --> 00:05:53.560
 It's a receiver report, hold a discussion regarding regulations and procedures related

00:05:53.560 --> 00:05:56.400
 to SUPs and PDs.

00:05:56.400 --> 00:05:58.480
 That sounds like a fun boot camp topic.

00:05:58.480 --> 00:05:59.480
 Hi, Julie.

00:05:59.480 --> 00:06:00.480
 Good evening.

00:06:00.480 --> 00:06:04.080
 Let me pull up the presentation.

00:06:04.080 --> 00:06:08.040
 We've got two of us presenting this topic tonight.

00:06:08.040 --> 00:06:12.760
 I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I have Angie Manglaris.

00:06:12.760 --> 00:06:15.840
 So we're going to team up on this.

00:06:15.840 --> 00:06:20.240
 I'm going to talk about PDs and she'll talk about SUPs and wrap it up.

00:06:20.240 --> 00:06:25.680
 So tonight in our boot camp series, we are continuing with a deeper dive discussion on

00:06:25.680 --> 00:06:31.300
 SUPs and plan developments.

00:06:31.300 --> 00:06:36.280
 Just to set the table and the development process, this graphic on your screen outlines

00:06:36.280 --> 00:06:37.280
 the development process.

00:06:37.280 --> 00:06:42.220
 And as you can see, each square contains a different project type.

00:06:42.220 --> 00:06:47.480
 So depending on the complexity of the project, quite a few applications or submittals would

00:06:47.480 --> 00:06:54.080
 be required in order to go from dirt all the way to a certificate of occupancy.

00:06:54.080 --> 00:06:57.640
 It generally starts with a pre-application conference.

00:06:57.640 --> 00:07:01.960
 For those of you who don't know, a pre-application conference is something where somebody has

00:07:01.960 --> 00:07:06.760
 a dream or an idea and a site, and they come to the city and say, "Hey, this is what I

00:07:06.760 --> 00:07:08.700
 would like to do."

00:07:08.700 --> 00:07:14.440
 City staff sits down with them and talks over the regulations that would be required or

00:07:14.440 --> 00:07:19.100
 that would apply to the project, maybe the processes that would apply to the project,

00:07:19.100 --> 00:07:25.640
 and talk about those regulations and identify areas where they might have public hearings.

00:07:25.640 --> 00:07:29.200
 So that's really the first step in a lot of projects.

00:07:29.200 --> 00:07:34.640
 But the first real application that we often see would be after the pre-application, and

00:07:34.640 --> 00:07:35.640
 that's entitlement.

00:07:35.640 --> 00:07:39.360
 And that is that second square on your screen, and that's got the little asterisk next to

00:07:39.360 --> 00:07:40.360
 it.

00:07:40.360 --> 00:07:45.580
 Entitlement is just kind of a plan or a word for zoning, an SUP or a PD.

00:07:45.580 --> 00:07:47.300
 Those are generally what we see.

00:07:47.300 --> 00:07:51.520
 And so that's what we're talking about tonight.

00:07:51.520 --> 00:07:55.920
 So within that entitlement, within that entitlement toolbox in the Denton Development Code, we

00:07:55.920 --> 00:07:57.800
 really have three options.

00:07:57.800 --> 00:08:01.720
 First we have straight zoning, then we have SUPs, and we have PDs.

00:08:01.720 --> 00:08:07.320
 So first, straight zoning, those are the zoning districts that we know and love in the Denton

00:08:07.320 --> 00:08:08.320
 Development Code.

00:08:08.320 --> 00:08:12.320
 We have our residential districts, our mixed-use districts, our corridor districts, and then

00:08:12.320 --> 00:08:15.160
 our other districts like industrial.

00:08:15.160 --> 00:08:22.880
 They establish those use and dimensional standards, and also any development standards associated

00:08:22.880 --> 00:08:27.800
 with the Denton Development Code would apply when you're looking at a straight zoning case.

00:08:27.800 --> 00:08:34.480
 And those standards were created through a lot of effort from a lot of policymakers and

00:08:34.480 --> 00:08:39.920
 decision makers within the city to create standards that would ensure compatibility,

00:08:39.920 --> 00:08:44.840
 not only among uses within a zoning district, but also when zoning districts abut each other.

00:08:44.840 --> 00:08:50.800
 So those are things like landscaping buffers and setbacks and screening, height standards.

00:08:50.800 --> 00:08:56.840
 So we have a lot of those provisions within the Denton Development Code to ensure compatibility.

00:08:56.840 --> 00:09:00.800
 And then the Denton Development Code within a straight zoning case also has deviations.

00:09:00.800 --> 00:09:04.760
 There are potential deviations that a developer could ask for.

00:09:04.760 --> 00:09:08.640
 They could request to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance.

00:09:08.640 --> 00:09:13.180
 Even the Planning and Zoning Commission has seen subdivision variances recently.

00:09:13.180 --> 00:09:17.080
 So we also have things like minor modifications, alternative landscape plans.

00:09:17.080 --> 00:09:23.640
 So there are some relief procedures within the Denton Development Code that applicants

00:09:23.640 --> 00:09:25.740
 could request.

00:09:25.740 --> 00:09:30.040
 And all of this follows Texas Local Government Code 211.

00:09:30.040 --> 00:09:35.720
 And what that states in zoning is that each district must be uniform, but it can vary

00:09:35.720 --> 00:09:37.000
 from district to district.

00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:42.160
 So for example, MN in the south part of town has to be MN in the north part of town.

00:09:42.160 --> 00:09:47.560
 So the uses and the development standards in MN are the same regardless of where it

00:09:47.560 --> 00:09:48.720
 is on the map.

00:09:48.720 --> 00:09:50.360
 MN is always the same.

00:09:50.360 --> 00:09:54.920
 Now MN and R7 may be different because we have different uses or development standards

00:09:54.920 --> 00:09:59.760
 associated with those, but they really should be standardized.

00:09:59.760 --> 00:10:02.880
 A specific use permit is nested inside of zoning.

00:10:02.880 --> 00:10:05.160
 It is something that's kind of a part of zoning.

00:10:05.160 --> 00:10:09.880
 And when you see a specific use permit, and Angie will talk about that more in depth,

00:10:09.880 --> 00:10:11.760
 but that doesn't change the underlying zoning.

00:10:11.760 --> 00:10:16.880
 It really is just related to a specific use on a specific site.

00:10:16.880 --> 00:10:17.880
 And then plan development.

00:10:17.880 --> 00:10:23.920
 So we'll talk about this more deeply, but just top line, it is a tool to address site-specific

00:10:23.920 --> 00:10:24.920
 situations.

00:10:24.920 --> 00:10:30.440
 I kind of think of it as customized zoning for a specific site.

00:10:30.440 --> 00:10:32.520
 And it would run with the land on that site.

00:10:32.520 --> 00:10:36.960
 When something is zoned to PD, that becomes the zoning of the property.

00:10:36.960 --> 00:10:42.040
 It does allow that greater flexibility because it does allow the deviations that are greater

00:10:42.040 --> 00:10:45.920
 than what those deviations are within the debt and development code.

00:10:45.920 --> 00:10:48.520
 But it should be used sparingly.

00:10:48.520 --> 00:10:52.400
 It should be for those sites that are kind of outside the box or uses outside of the

00:10:52.400 --> 00:10:53.660
 box.

00:10:53.660 --> 00:10:58.280
 So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Angie to talk about specific use permit.

00:10:58.280 --> 00:11:01.200
 Hi, everyone.

00:11:01.200 --> 00:11:02.200
 Good evening.

00:11:02.200 --> 00:11:03.200
 Angie Minglaris.

00:11:03.200 --> 00:11:08.240
 As Angie mentioned, I will be going over specific use permits a little bit more in depth.

00:11:08.240 --> 00:11:13.080
 So specific use permit is a permit for a use that is not allowed by right within a zoning

00:11:13.080 --> 00:11:18.760
 district but could be appropriate given the location that the proposed use is to go.

00:11:18.760 --> 00:11:24.000
 So it's a mechanism that we use to evaluate development of land specifically for uses

00:11:24.000 --> 00:11:27.760
 that are known to have a wide variety of operating characteristics.

00:11:27.760 --> 00:11:31.920
 The intent of the specific use permit is to ensure that where that land use is going is

00:11:31.920 --> 00:11:37.960
 compatible with adjacent existing uses and provides for adequate mitigation for any anticipated

00:11:37.960 --> 00:11:42.400
 impacts that could be expected from that use.

00:11:42.400 --> 00:11:47.720
 Specific use permits do have their own set of review criteria at the time of first submittal

00:11:47.720 --> 00:11:48.880
 of an SUP.

00:11:48.880 --> 00:11:53.820
 We expect a zoning compliance plan, a landscape plan, a tree preservation plan to be submitted.

00:11:53.820 --> 00:11:58.140
 And that is in part to ensure that they are adequately mitigating for any adverse impacts

00:11:58.140 --> 00:11:59.900
 the site may have.

00:11:59.900 --> 00:12:04.120
 Review timelines can vary greatly due to the need for a zoning compliance plan and the review

00:12:04.120 --> 00:12:07.960
 that goes behind that, but typically they run between three and six months.

00:12:07.960 --> 00:12:13.600
 When we review specific use permits, we review them against our general criteria for approval

00:12:13.600 --> 00:12:19.600
 as well as the criteria for approval for specific use permits as outlined in DDC 2.5.2.

00:12:19.600 --> 00:12:24.760
 So just a brief recap what our general criteria for approval is.

00:12:24.760 --> 00:12:28.420
 When we review an SUP, we're looking at is this consistent with the goals and objectives

00:12:28.420 --> 00:12:33.200
 of the comprehensive plan as well as the intent of the underlying zoning district.

00:12:33.200 --> 00:12:37.160
 More specifically when we're referencing that, is this use in the zoning district appropriate

00:12:37.160 --> 00:12:42.960
 given the surrounding uses and its compatibility with what's already in existence?

00:12:42.960 --> 00:12:46.760
 Also when this is reviewed, you look at are there adequate public facilities available

00:12:46.760 --> 00:12:52.600
 in the area to serve this and have potential impacts to neighboring properties been adequately

00:12:52.600 --> 00:12:53.960
 mitigated for.

00:12:53.960 --> 00:12:58.440
 This is the general review criteria that we review every application against.

00:12:58.440 --> 00:13:03.040
 And then specific use permits come with their own set of review criteria that staff reviews

00:13:03.040 --> 00:13:08.460
 when these come in that is the use compatible with existing developments?

00:13:08.460 --> 00:13:13.980
 Does this adversely impact the potential future development in the area and have any impacts

00:13:13.980 --> 00:13:20.340
 that are expected such as traffic, access, noise been adequately mitigated for this use?

00:13:20.340 --> 00:13:24.940
 So those are the standards that staff uses to review an SUP against.

00:13:24.940 --> 00:13:30.260
 And we're going to go over just two examples to kind of illustrate how this works in practice.

00:13:30.260 --> 00:13:35.020
 So the first example we have is Quincy Court, which is a multifamily development that was

00:13:35.020 --> 00:13:39.140
 seeking an SUP for additional height on their building.

00:13:39.140 --> 00:13:45.060
 So this is zoned MN multifamily buildings between 41 feet and 65 feet in this zoning

00:13:45.060 --> 00:13:48.280
 district did require an SUP permit.

00:13:48.280 --> 00:13:52.100
 So if you can see on this graphic where the blue line is, it's 40 feet where they could

00:13:52.100 --> 00:13:56.820
 build by right and where that green line is in that top graphic there is where the additional

00:13:56.820 --> 00:14:00.960
 height they were requesting would fall with their SUP.

00:14:00.960 --> 00:14:04.740
 So in this case, SUP was used to evaluate the additional height on the building and

00:14:04.740 --> 00:14:07.540
 its appropriateness in the area.

00:14:07.540 --> 00:14:13.660
 As stated, this was on loop 288 and it's Stewart Road, 288 is a major thoroughfare.

00:14:13.660 --> 00:14:18.420
 The development was adjacent to the south and to the east to existing single family

00:14:18.420 --> 00:14:19.420
 homes.

00:14:19.420 --> 00:14:22.540
 So it was reviewed for its compatibility against that.

00:14:22.540 --> 00:14:28.220
 The proposed complex was set back approximately 100 feet for many adjacent residential uses

00:14:28.220 --> 00:14:33.060
 and within those setbacks, there was adequate landscape buffering and screening that were

00:14:33.060 --> 00:14:36.940
 provided that would be expected with any multifamily development.

00:14:36.940 --> 00:14:40.820
 When this application was reviewed, it was determined that the additional height was

00:14:40.820 --> 00:14:43.660
 not expected to cause any adverse impacts.

00:14:43.660 --> 00:14:49.500
 Additionally, with this being on loop 288 and there being existing undeveloped MN zoning

00:14:49.500 --> 00:14:53.060
 and similar zoning that you would see along a major thoroughfare was determined that this

00:14:53.060 --> 00:14:58.540
 would be compatible with any future development as loop 288 continues to expand and develop

00:14:58.540 --> 00:15:02.260
 in that area.

00:15:02.260 --> 00:15:05.600
 This next example is an SUP that you guys saw relatively recent.

00:15:05.600 --> 00:15:11.340
 This was for U-Haul of East Denton where there was the request for an SUP for the equipment,

00:15:11.340 --> 00:15:12.700
 sales and rental.

00:15:12.700 --> 00:15:18.180
 The site did have a underlying zoning of light industrial which allowed for warehouse uses

00:15:18.180 --> 00:15:19.180
 as well as self-storage.

00:15:19.180 --> 00:15:24.520
 However, the equipment, sales and rental component of this did require an SUP.

00:15:24.520 --> 00:15:28.260
 When looking at the future land use designation, you can see that it was split between light

00:15:28.260 --> 00:15:32.340
 industrial and community mixed use and it was determined that the use could be appropriate

00:15:32.340 --> 00:15:39.820
 given the location along 380 and that community mixed use is a transitional zoning district.

00:15:39.820 --> 00:15:43.780
 When reviewing where the sales and rental equipment would be, you can see it kind of

00:15:43.780 --> 00:15:45.260
 notated here on your map.

00:15:45.260 --> 00:15:50.060
 The site did provide adequate landscape buffering and screening to the residential development

00:15:50.060 --> 00:15:54.780
 that was located immediately to the west and overall the development was not anticipated

00:15:54.780 --> 00:15:59.780
 to generate any noise, odor or other adverse impacts that would affect the single family

00:15:59.780 --> 00:16:05.940
 development to the west and this SUP was deemed appropriate for the area for the use of equipment,

00:16:05.940 --> 00:16:06.940
 sales and rental.

00:16:06.940 --> 00:16:13.100
 So those are kind of two examples that how we review SUPs in real time against the criteria

00:16:13.100 --> 00:16:20.780
 that we have and the different components that are looked at during the review process.

00:16:20.780 --> 00:16:25.700
 When you're approving an SUP, you're also adopting that zoning compliance plan.

00:16:25.700 --> 00:16:30.120
 There are minor modifications that are allowed to a site plan.

00:16:30.120 --> 00:16:35.340
 Those are minor decreases in buffering and screening requirements, possibly parking alterations

00:16:35.340 --> 00:16:37.620
 as well as locations of buildings.

00:16:37.620 --> 00:16:41.160
 Really the reasons these come up is after the zoning compliance plan you're going to

00:16:41.160 --> 00:16:42.660
 civil engineering.

00:16:42.660 --> 00:16:46.060
 At that time there may be some minor modifications that are needed.

00:16:46.060 --> 00:16:51.180
 Those are written into the adopting ordinance that usually plus or minus 5% is the language

00:16:51.180 --> 00:16:56.180
 that we go with for like an increase or decrease in an element that was provided.

00:16:56.180 --> 00:17:00.940
 Anything above and beyond that, a major expansion or a site redesign is what we consider a major

00:17:00.940 --> 00:17:04.540
 amendment and that requires that the applicant go back through the process.

00:17:04.540 --> 00:17:07.740
 It would come back before you all as the planning and zoning commission and then ultimately

00:17:07.740 --> 00:17:10.780
 city council to review those changes.

00:17:10.780 --> 00:17:15.060
 SUPs can also be denied or revoked.

00:17:15.060 --> 00:17:20.300
 That usually happens in instances where the plan has changed substantially or a condition

00:17:20.300 --> 00:17:25.460
 of approval has been violated if the site plan or the development is not substantially

00:17:25.460 --> 00:17:32.900
 underway 24 months after the approval or if the SUP was obtained by fraud or deception.

00:17:32.900 --> 00:17:34.620
 That's a high level overview of SUPs.

00:17:34.620 --> 00:17:38.180
 I'm going to give it back to Julie for some plan developments.

00:17:38.180 --> 00:17:44.420
 All right, now we'll talk PDs.

00:17:44.420 --> 00:17:49.260
 I may have Tina jump in if she hears me say something.

00:17:49.260 --> 00:17:50.260
 I shouldn't.

00:17:50.260 --> 00:17:51.260
 All right.

00:17:51.260 --> 00:17:54.900
 So the Denton Development Code has two areas that we really talk about PDs.

00:17:54.900 --> 00:17:59.180
 We have SUP Chapter 2, which is our processes and administration SUP Chapter.

00:17:59.180 --> 00:18:05.620
 It was recently amended for some processes as well as for PDs and we're going to talk

00:18:05.620 --> 00:18:06.940
 about that briefly.

00:18:06.940 --> 00:18:11.080
 And then SUP Chapter 3 and that SUP Chapter 3 outlines our zoning districts, PD being

00:18:11.080 --> 00:18:13.080
 one of them.

00:18:13.080 --> 00:18:16.020
 So it's addressed in SUP Chapter 3.

00:18:16.020 --> 00:18:20.620
 Both of those areas really talk about what the intent of a PD is and that is to provide

00:18:20.620 --> 00:18:28.300
 that flexibility that if their proposed uses or the site really doesn't fit within the

00:18:28.300 --> 00:18:33.620
 strictures of the DDC that they would request a PD for that flexibility.

00:18:33.620 --> 00:18:35.580
 It's that alternative zoning district.

00:18:35.580 --> 00:18:39.900
 But what we do want to see is a greater benefit to the community with a PD.

00:18:39.900 --> 00:18:45.760
 We want to see how that really fits within the Denton community.

00:18:45.760 --> 00:18:51.820
 So as I mentioned, we have recently updated SUP Chapter 2 in the Denton Development Code.

00:18:51.820 --> 00:18:54.780
 And as part of that, we have updated our PD regulations.

00:18:54.780 --> 00:18:57.500
 So we actually have two types of PDs now.

00:18:57.500 --> 00:18:59.560
 You haven't seen the first one yet.

00:18:59.560 --> 00:19:01.660
 You might see one soon.

00:19:01.660 --> 00:19:03.160
 It's an overlay PD.

00:19:03.160 --> 00:19:08.740
 I've called it PD Lite, but the Denton Development Code calls it an overlay PD.

00:19:08.740 --> 00:19:16.780
 And that really is intended to address concerns of compatibility, and with an overlay PD,

00:19:16.780 --> 00:19:23.160
 an applicant would choose a base zoning district, and then on top of that, could restrict or

00:19:23.160 --> 00:19:29.220
 expand the permitted uses, impose you specific standards, modify the setbacks, landscaping,

00:19:29.220 --> 00:19:30.780
 screening, or buffering.

00:19:30.780 --> 00:19:36.500
 Typically, when you're going to see an overlay PD, it will have a list of conditions, overlay

00:19:36.500 --> 00:19:37.500
 conditions.

00:19:37.500 --> 00:19:39.620
 You wouldn't see necessarily a map with that.

00:19:39.620 --> 00:19:43.500
 It really just would be more that text-based overlay.

00:19:43.500 --> 00:19:50.220
 If some of you remember the 2002 Denton Development Code, we had a similar type of provision in

00:19:50.220 --> 00:19:55.020
 the 2002 Denton Development Code, and we would see those from time to time.

00:19:55.020 --> 00:19:58.500
 That is different from the standard PD, and that really gets to that PD that we've seen

00:19:58.500 --> 00:19:59.940
 in the last couple of years.

00:19:59.940 --> 00:20:02.060
 And a standard PD includes two parts.

00:20:02.060 --> 00:20:06.540
 It includes the text, and that includes a base zoning district.

00:20:06.540 --> 00:20:11.260
 They always base it on an existing district that we have in the Denton Development Code.

00:20:11.260 --> 00:20:14.260
 And then that text should also include the things like the purpose statement.

00:20:14.260 --> 00:20:15.900
 Why are they doing it?

00:20:15.900 --> 00:20:17.260
 What is that public benefit?

00:20:17.260 --> 00:20:21.180
 We want to see how it fits within the fabric of Denton.

00:20:21.180 --> 00:20:23.780
 And then those deviations from the Denton Development Code.

00:20:23.780 --> 00:20:29.340
 Really, that's why they're doing that PD, is to build in those deviations.

00:20:29.340 --> 00:20:30.340
 So that's the first part.

00:20:30.340 --> 00:20:33.720
 The second part of a standard PD is the map.

00:20:33.720 --> 00:20:37.660
 That's really where we see that site plan coordinating structures, access, where the

00:20:37.660 --> 00:20:42.860
 parking is, where the lots are, where the variety of uses would be.

00:20:42.860 --> 00:20:47.900
 If there are any parks or trails, that's where we would see that come into play.

00:20:47.900 --> 00:20:54.500
 The standard PD can be phased, so it can have maybe parts of that map that aren't fully

00:20:54.500 --> 00:20:58.060
 fleshed out at the time of adoption.

00:20:58.060 --> 00:21:03.060
 But when they come back for a subsequent phase, it would still have to follow the text that

00:21:03.060 --> 00:21:06.320
 they establish with their PD.

00:21:06.320 --> 00:21:10.100
 And then the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council would have to approve any

00:21:10.100 --> 00:21:14.700
 subsequent phases through the public hearing process.

00:21:14.700 --> 00:21:18.500
 The site must be developed in accordance with the PD, regardless of ownership.

00:21:18.500 --> 00:21:27.420
 And that's something to think about, that if the zoning is changed to PD, that remains

00:21:27.420 --> 00:21:28.420
 on the property.

00:21:28.420 --> 00:21:30.080
 They couldn't develop another use.

00:21:30.080 --> 00:21:36.980
 They would have to rezone in order to develop with a different use.

00:21:36.980 --> 00:21:41.060
 So using plan developments, what are the rules of the road for that?

00:21:41.060 --> 00:21:44.740
 So if you recall at the beginning of this discussion, we talked about the Texas Local

00:21:44.740 --> 00:21:50.140
 Government Code and how the zoning must be applied consistently throughout the city.

00:21:50.140 --> 00:21:52.460
 That MN should be the same everywhere, right?

00:21:52.460 --> 00:22:01.460
 But if you get too many PDs, if you get too many individualized zoning districts, you're

00:22:01.460 --> 00:22:03.280
 really running afoul of that, right?

00:22:03.280 --> 00:22:07.900
 Because now you've got separate zoning for every single parcel.

00:22:07.900 --> 00:22:10.540
 So therefore, PDs should be used sparingly.

00:22:10.540 --> 00:22:12.700
 They should not be used for every project.

00:22:12.700 --> 00:22:17.180
 We really should be relying on our Debt and Development Code to guide our development

00:22:17.180 --> 00:22:18.580
 in the city.

00:22:18.580 --> 00:22:19.580
 They can be useful.

00:22:19.580 --> 00:22:22.300
 They can be useful in challenging situations.

00:22:22.300 --> 00:22:27.460
 Where straight zoning just doesn't work, maybe small redevelopment lots, some unlisted uses,

00:22:27.460 --> 00:22:29.020
 or coordinating those diverse uses.

00:22:29.020 --> 00:22:33.180
 So it really does have a place within that toolbox, but it should not be our primary

00:22:33.180 --> 00:22:34.180
 tool.

00:22:34.180 --> 00:22:38.780
 But it should not be used just to vary a couple of standards or uses.

00:22:38.780 --> 00:22:39.780
 Anything?

00:22:39.780 --> 00:22:42.820
 Is that -- any questions on that?

00:22:42.820 --> 00:22:44.660
 All right.

00:22:44.660 --> 00:22:52.780
 Now, in an instance where we've had multiple requests for a similar issue, think horizontal

00:22:52.780 --> 00:22:53.780
 multifamily.

00:22:53.780 --> 00:22:54.780
 You saw what?

00:22:54.780 --> 00:22:57.180
 Three or four of those come through.

00:22:57.180 --> 00:23:01.340
 In that instance, maybe that was a sign we need to add that use to the Debt and Development

00:23:01.340 --> 00:23:02.340
 Code.

00:23:02.340 --> 00:23:08.340
 So if we're seeing a lot of PDs for the same thing, that's when we probably need to talk

00:23:08.340 --> 00:23:13.380
 to DCRC and maybe think of ways that we could incorporate that in our Debt and Development

00:23:13.380 --> 00:23:14.380
 Code.

00:23:14.380 --> 00:23:18.820
 So, okay, let's talk about -- we talked about SUPs, kind of the process with that.

00:23:18.820 --> 00:23:22.540
 We're going to go over this just briefly in PDs.

00:23:22.540 --> 00:23:24.420
 So an applicant comes to us.

00:23:24.420 --> 00:23:26.060
 They've had a pre-application conference.

00:23:26.060 --> 00:23:30.100
 They realize they have one of those unique sites or uses where they really do need a

00:23:30.100 --> 00:23:31.100
 PD.

00:23:31.100 --> 00:23:32.740
 What happens next?

00:23:32.740 --> 00:23:34.100
 These are complex documents.

00:23:34.100 --> 00:23:37.180
 They have the text and the map.

00:23:37.180 --> 00:23:42.740
 So they can take, you know, sometimes six to nine months to go through that review process,

00:23:42.740 --> 00:23:43.740
 because they can be challenging.

00:23:43.740 --> 00:23:46.620
 It's a lot of back and forth with staff.

00:23:46.620 --> 00:23:51.620
 The approval criteria is in subchapter two of the Debt and Development Code.

00:23:51.620 --> 00:23:52.940
 I won't go over all of those.

00:23:52.940 --> 00:23:53.940
 Y'all can read those.

00:23:53.940 --> 00:23:58.820
 But just in summary, the things that we think about when they first come to us with the

00:23:58.820 --> 00:24:04.420
 pre-application all the way through the public hearing process, we really try to keep that

00:24:04.420 --> 00:24:06.460
 approval criteria in mind.

00:24:06.460 --> 00:24:09.220
 So the first thing we always think about is the comprehensive plan.

00:24:09.220 --> 00:24:11.340
 What does the future land use map say?

00:24:11.340 --> 00:24:17.540
 Are there other goals or objectives in the comprehensive plan which would be served by

00:24:17.540 --> 00:24:19.260
 this proposal?

00:24:19.260 --> 00:24:22.920
 Are there area plans that affect the subject property?

00:24:22.920 --> 00:24:24.940
 We also look at the context.

00:24:24.940 --> 00:24:27.760
 What are the nearby uses and development patterns?

00:24:27.760 --> 00:24:29.860
 What is the nearby zoning?

00:24:29.860 --> 00:24:32.180
 Are there parks or schools near?

00:24:32.180 --> 00:24:34.540
 Are there potential incompatibilities?

00:24:34.540 --> 00:24:36.000
 What are the physical site conditions?

00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:37.000
 We look at that.

00:24:37.000 --> 00:24:39.220
 Eases, topography, floodplain.

00:24:39.220 --> 00:24:40.580
 What is the tree canopy on site?

00:24:40.580 --> 00:24:43.140
 And how does that affect the layout?

00:24:43.140 --> 00:24:45.180
 And then connectivity.

00:24:45.180 --> 00:24:50.360
 Not just cars, but also trail systems and bike and ped.

00:24:50.360 --> 00:24:52.700
 We want to think about all of those things as we're reviewing.

00:24:52.700 --> 00:24:55.060
 So we put all of that together.

00:24:55.060 --> 00:24:58.260
 And permeating the entire process should be community outreach.

00:24:58.260 --> 00:25:03.460
 We recommend to all applicants that they reach out to the community early in the process

00:25:03.460 --> 00:25:07.300
 and let that community outreach inform their process.

00:25:07.300 --> 00:25:12.020
 And then that comes together with the proposed development regulations and the proposed map.

00:25:12.020 --> 00:25:18.060
 And once again, that should have that increased development quality or community benefit.

00:25:18.060 --> 00:25:20.780
 So we're going to take a look in practice.

00:25:20.780 --> 00:25:24.580
 I've chosen a couple of examples that you've seen in the last couple of years just to kind

00:25:24.580 --> 00:25:29.100
 of show you how a project started and then how it got and then what it looked like when

00:25:29.100 --> 00:25:31.180
 it got in front of you.

00:25:31.180 --> 00:25:36.520
 So I don't know if this will be easy to see, but this was a multifamily project that recently

00:25:36.520 --> 00:25:38.340
 came in front of you.

00:25:38.340 --> 00:25:44.740
 They submitted in February of this year and it came before you in August, so it was about

00:25:44.740 --> 00:25:48.140
 six months that it took through the review process.

00:25:48.140 --> 00:25:53.260
 You can see on your screen this right here, those are the markups that planning had and

00:25:53.260 --> 00:26:00.460
 then other departments had other markups, lots of access and engineering and tree preservation.

00:26:00.460 --> 00:26:05.980
 We all mark up these plans and we give them guidance and tell them where they're meeting

00:26:05.980 --> 00:26:10.700
 the code requirements and where they are and where they should think more thoroughly about

00:26:10.700 --> 00:26:11.700
 a project.

00:26:11.700 --> 00:26:16.740
 For instance, at the beginning, their building was pulled up near I-35 and we talked to them

00:26:16.740 --> 00:26:17.740
 about that.

00:26:17.740 --> 00:26:19.420
 There's a really big tree stand there.

00:26:19.420 --> 00:26:22.260
 Maybe you should pull the building back and get that buffer.

00:26:22.260 --> 00:26:25.160
 So they also provided the text.

00:26:25.160 --> 00:26:26.500
 You can see the area in pink.

00:26:26.500 --> 00:26:27.500
 Those were our markups.

00:26:27.500 --> 00:26:31.460
 So we went -- we go through these iterations with the applicant and that's why it could

00:26:31.460 --> 00:26:33.260
 take a long time.

00:26:33.260 --> 00:26:38.020
 And then you could see how it ended, where it ended up in front of you and those changes

00:26:38.020 --> 00:26:39.020
 that were made.

00:26:39.020 --> 00:26:41.940
 You know, they moved the building away from I-35.

00:26:41.940 --> 00:26:46.140
 They moved that trapped open space out of the parking lot to more meaningful open space

00:26:46.140 --> 00:26:50.020
 either in that tree area or with a dog park.

00:26:50.020 --> 00:26:56.620
 They modified their access to make sure it was safe for vehicles entering and leaving

00:26:56.620 --> 00:26:57.620
 the site.

00:26:57.620 --> 00:27:01.140
 So those are all things that we look at when we're looking at these PDs.

00:27:01.140 --> 00:27:08.060
 And then keep in mind the conditions or provisions that we discuss with the applicant and that

00:27:08.060 --> 00:27:13.020
 we work through with the review should all have a reasonable connection to the development

00:27:13.020 --> 00:27:14.020
 impact.

00:27:14.020 --> 00:27:19.500
 So, for example, an additional tree buffer would be used to minimize noise or light to

00:27:19.500 --> 00:27:20.540
 adjacent properties.

00:27:20.540 --> 00:27:23.460
 So there's always got to be that connection.

00:27:23.460 --> 00:27:28.220
 In planning, we call it a rational nexus, but really it's just -- they just have to

00:27:28.220 --> 00:27:30.560
 make sense and it has to be connected.

00:27:30.560 --> 00:27:34.900
 And then those requested improvements also have to be proportionate to the proposed impact.

00:27:34.900 --> 00:27:38.060
 So for example, in this, it was 60 dwelling units.

00:27:38.060 --> 00:27:42.380
 A signalized intersection there when they leave the property really wasn't proportionate

00:27:42.380 --> 00:27:44.620
 to the impact, right?

00:27:44.620 --> 00:27:50.740
 60 dwellings would not generate the amount of traffic that would require a signal in

00:27:50.740 --> 00:27:51.740
 this location.

00:27:51.740 --> 00:27:58.300
 But in other instances, there have been situations where there could have been a larger proportionate

00:27:58.300 --> 00:27:59.300
 impact.

00:27:59.300 --> 00:28:02.640
 So those are the things we look at on this one.

00:28:02.640 --> 00:28:04.780
 On this one, this is another one you saw.

00:28:04.780 --> 00:28:07.200
 This one actually didn't end up getting approved.

00:28:07.200 --> 00:28:12.580
 But just to let you know, this was a different type of plan development, how it started.

00:28:12.580 --> 00:28:18.660
 They had, for example, they had detention ponds at the entrance to the property.

00:28:18.660 --> 00:28:22.260
 They had a lot of lots on a really treed area.

00:28:22.260 --> 00:28:25.920
 There wasn't really a buffer or screening at Loop 288.

00:28:25.920 --> 00:28:32.340
 So we worked through that with them to modify that plan, to change that detention pond to

00:28:32.340 --> 00:28:37.060
 a retention pond with a five-acre park at the entrance.

00:28:37.060 --> 00:28:44.900
 We asked them to move those lots out of that treed area to have that substantial tree stand

00:28:44.900 --> 00:28:47.600
 that would be preserved.

00:28:47.600 --> 00:28:54.340
 We went through and talked about getting buffers along Loop 288 to ensure that, for the comfort

00:28:54.340 --> 00:28:58.740
 of those residents and to ensure that that had adequate screening.

00:28:58.740 --> 00:29:03.840
 And then with their public outreach, they heard from the community that there were transportation

00:29:03.840 --> 00:29:06.260
 challenges within the area.

00:29:06.260 --> 00:29:09.700
 And so the developer offered to make offsite transportation improvements.

00:29:09.700 --> 00:29:13.060
 Now, those weren't necessarily proportional to their impact.

00:29:13.060 --> 00:29:16.540
 But as part of the review, that was something that the applicant offered up.

00:29:16.540 --> 00:29:22.760
 So that was all during that review timeline from our first look in January all the way

00:29:22.760 --> 00:29:25.100
 to when it got to P&Z in June.

00:29:25.100 --> 00:29:30.660
 So there were substantial changes to that project, once again, keeping in mind the review

00:29:30.660 --> 00:29:39.540
 criteria in the Denton Development Code, as well as that rational nexus and that proportionality.

00:29:39.540 --> 00:29:43.540
 So once a PD is approved, they do have to develop in accordance with that PD.

00:29:43.540 --> 00:29:47.940
 But the DDC does have provisions where you can make changes.

00:29:47.940 --> 00:29:50.900
 There's a major change provision, a major amendment.

00:29:50.900 --> 00:29:54.200
 And essentially that, it would have to go back through public hearing again.

00:29:54.200 --> 00:29:59.540
 So if they are making a-- if they're increasing the number of dwelling units by more than 10%,

00:29:59.540 --> 00:30:02.780
 increasing the square footage by more than 10%, essentially, they're going to have to

00:30:02.780 --> 00:30:03.780
 go back to public hearing.

00:30:03.780 --> 00:30:08.300
 If they're going to do something to increase the intensity that could potentially impact

00:30:08.300 --> 00:30:13.100
 the area surrounding it, it really does need to go back for public hearing and approval--

00:30:13.100 --> 00:30:16.460
 a recommendation from P&Z and an approval from council.

00:30:16.460 --> 00:30:21.580
 If it's not one of those things, if it's a minor change within it, and it really wouldn't

00:30:21.580 --> 00:30:26.540
 impact the surrounding area, that could be staff level approved as a minor amendment,

00:30:26.540 --> 00:30:31.020
 would just be reviewed and approved at the staff level.

00:30:31.020 --> 00:30:35.020
 So Angie's going to come up for a wrap up.

00:30:35.020 --> 00:30:37.460
 OK.

00:30:37.460 --> 00:30:41.580
 So just to kind of review everything we've talked about and sum it up a little bit, as

00:30:41.580 --> 00:30:46.360
 a reminder, everything we talked about today, SUPs and plane developments, they fall within

00:30:46.360 --> 00:30:51.700
 the entitlement portion of our development phase, and SUPs, along with straight zoning

00:30:51.700 --> 00:30:56.820
 and plane developments, are all critical tools that we have in our entitlement toolbox.

00:30:56.820 --> 00:31:00.580
 We went over a lot about specific use permits and plan developments, so to kind of sum it

00:31:00.580 --> 00:31:06.620
 up, some of the key differences-- SUPs, you're not changing the underlying zoning district.

00:31:06.620 --> 00:31:10.980
 It's used to evaluate certain uses within a district to ensure that they're compatible

00:31:10.980 --> 00:31:12.780
 with what's in existence.

00:31:12.780 --> 00:31:19.820
 Those zoning compliance plans need to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the DDC.

00:31:19.820 --> 00:31:24.100
 Plan developments, more specifically, the standard plan developments that you would see with this.

00:31:24.100 --> 00:31:27.220
 You're modifying setbacks or landscape buffering.

00:31:27.220 --> 00:31:32.380
 These are not uses or site design standards that are typically allowed within the DDC.

00:31:32.380 --> 00:31:37.060
 However, these deviations are intended to provide a benefit to the community.

00:31:37.060 --> 00:31:42.020
 With these, you're adopting zoning regulations along with a development plan.

00:31:42.020 --> 00:31:45.620
 And then while these are two very different things, there are some similarities that kind

00:31:45.620 --> 00:31:46.620
 of fall within them.

00:31:46.620 --> 00:31:50.660
 These are critical tools within our zoning toolbox that help us to evaluate uses and

00:31:50.660 --> 00:31:53.620
 their appropriateness in any given location.

00:31:53.620 --> 00:31:57.060
 With these plans, we're adopting a zoning compliance plan that should be adhered to

00:31:57.060 --> 00:31:58.620
 as they move forward.

00:31:58.620 --> 00:32:03.340
 We evaluate the appropriateness of an SUP or a plan development based on the comprehensive

00:32:03.340 --> 00:32:10.740
 plan, access, landscape requirements, any incompatibilities that may exist, and any

00:32:10.740 --> 00:32:15.820
 significant deviation that may occur from an SUP or a plan development does require

00:32:15.820 --> 00:32:21.620
 both of these types of plans to go back through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City

00:32:21.620 --> 00:32:27.860
 Council in order to determine if that's appropriate and if that amendment is acceptable.

00:32:27.860 --> 00:32:32.580
 Those are kind of some of the ways that plan developments and SUPs are similar.

00:32:32.580 --> 00:32:35.620
 And with that, we're happy to answer any questions you guys may have.

00:32:35.620 --> 00:32:36.660
 Excellent.

00:32:36.660 --> 00:32:37.660
 Thank you.

00:32:37.660 --> 00:32:38.660
 Commissioner Villareal.

00:32:38.660 --> 00:32:39.660
 Thank you.

00:32:39.660 --> 00:32:41.060
 I think this was very enlightening.

00:32:41.060 --> 00:32:45.860
 Could you describe the tipping point between going straight zoning versus deciding to go

00:32:45.860 --> 00:32:49.460
 towards that plan development?

00:32:49.460 --> 00:32:53.020
 If there is a tipping point, I'm not sure if it's just case by case.

00:32:53.020 --> 00:32:54.020
 I don't know if it's best to answer that, but I'll look.

00:32:54.020 --> 00:32:55.020
 Definitely site-specific, I would say.

00:32:55.020 --> 00:32:56.020
 Yeah.

00:32:56.020 --> 00:32:57.020
 Definitely site-specific.

00:32:57.020 --> 00:33:00.580
 Tina, do you want to weigh in on that?

00:33:00.580 --> 00:33:01.580
 Sure.

00:33:01.580 --> 00:33:04.580
 Happy to do so.

00:33:04.580 --> 00:33:05.580
 That's a really good question.

00:33:05.580 --> 00:33:11.620
 So typically we try to stay with our straight zoning districts if the development can be

00:33:11.620 --> 00:33:16.660
 achieved as Julie did a really good job of laying out.

00:33:16.660 --> 00:33:24.140
 When there are challenges associated with how the property may develop, we ask ourselves

00:33:24.140 --> 00:33:29.140
 whether or not, okay, can this be accomplished under the straight zoning districts, or is

00:33:29.140 --> 00:33:34.900
 this something that really needs to seek relief from our development standards and then we

00:33:34.900 --> 00:33:43.040
 evaluate that to see if it's appropriate to go the plan development route.

00:33:43.040 --> 00:33:46.100
 There's no mathematical equation or anything like that that comes into play.

00:33:46.100 --> 00:33:51.220
 Unfortunately, it's not that easy sometimes, but it's really based upon our professional

00:33:51.220 --> 00:33:55.860
 judgment and training, our understanding of our ordinance.

00:33:55.860 --> 00:34:00.340
 There are developments that are really good developments to have, but that cannot be achieved

00:34:00.340 --> 00:34:04.860
 under our Denton Development Code, and so that's when it's appropriate to utilize the plan

00:34:04.860 --> 00:34:06.700
 development district tool.

00:34:06.700 --> 00:34:09.140
 I know neighborhood input.

00:34:09.140 --> 00:34:13.020
 Sometimes if there's a lot of neighborhood opposition or concerns, there could be neighborhood

00:34:13.020 --> 00:34:19.740
 support for development if certain aspects were achieved, wanting more affirmed outcomes

00:34:19.740 --> 00:34:24.460
 or predictable outcomes associated with it, then it might be appropriate to engage in

00:34:24.460 --> 00:34:29.260
 a plan development district process to be able to meet not only the needs of the residents

00:34:29.260 --> 00:34:33.460
 in their neighborhood, but also the proposed project.

00:34:33.460 --> 00:34:36.460
 Anything else to add, ladies?

00:34:36.460 --> 00:34:42.100
 Just to follow up, is there a reason why we prefer straight zoning as opposed to having

00:34:42.100 --> 00:34:45.580
 a more, I guess, patchwork plan development model?

00:34:45.580 --> 00:34:46.580
 Yes.

00:34:46.580 --> 00:34:51.140
 This goes back to one of the comments that Julie included early in the onset of our presentation.

00:34:51.140 --> 00:34:52.300
 One is state law.

00:34:52.300 --> 00:34:56.380
 State law says that if we're going to enforce zoning, then we need to have zoning districts

00:34:56.380 --> 00:35:00.200
 provided for throughout the city, and the standards and uses within the zoning districts

00:35:00.200 --> 00:35:02.540
 need to be the same regardless of where it's located.

00:35:02.540 --> 00:35:06.420
 For example, I'll use Commissioner Pruitt's favorite zoning district, MN.

00:35:06.420 --> 00:35:10.740
 MN has a variety of uses and standards that are within it.

00:35:10.740 --> 00:35:16.340
 The uses and standards in MN need to be appropriate if MN was situated in the north side of town

00:35:16.340 --> 00:35:19.940
 versus the south side of town, the east side of town, the west side of town.

00:35:19.940 --> 00:35:23.760
 If MN zoning is appropriate for a piece of property, then its uses and standards must

00:35:23.760 --> 00:35:25.760
 be consistent.

00:35:25.760 --> 00:35:27.940
 That's the first aspect associated with state law.

00:35:27.940 --> 00:35:30.740
 I had a second item, and I just do a blank on it.

00:35:30.740 --> 00:35:32.740
 My apologies.

00:35:32.740 --> 00:35:33.740
 Your question again?

00:35:33.740 --> 00:35:34.740
 I think that's part of it.

00:35:34.740 --> 00:35:35.740
 My apologies.

00:35:35.740 --> 00:35:36.740
 Ask your question again.

00:35:36.740 --> 00:35:42.140
 The question was, why do we go with straight zoning as opposed to north side?

00:35:42.140 --> 00:35:43.140
 Yes.

00:35:43.140 --> 00:35:44.140
 Okay.

00:35:44.140 --> 00:35:45.140
 Thank you.

00:35:45.140 --> 00:35:46.140
 One is the state law aspect.

00:35:46.140 --> 00:35:51.540
 The second thing is being able to effectively administer our debt and development code,

00:35:51.540 --> 00:35:53.940
 especially given a city of our size.

00:35:53.940 --> 00:35:57.780
 The third thing would be is that we want to be able to rely upon our zoning districts

00:35:57.780 --> 00:36:02.020
 that we provided for in the debt and development code, because it provides more predictable

00:36:02.020 --> 00:36:07.040
 expectations and outcomes in people's understanding of the zoning and how the community may develop.

00:36:07.040 --> 00:36:12.120
 If we were to negotiate every single zoning action that took place within the community,

00:36:12.120 --> 00:36:18.380
 then we have a very much patchwork, is the word to use it, provided throughout our community.

00:36:18.380 --> 00:36:21.060
 That becomes very challenging for us to administer.

00:36:21.060 --> 00:36:23.240
 I came from a city that was 12 square miles.

00:36:23.240 --> 00:36:25.420
 We were a PD factory like you wouldn't believe.

00:36:25.420 --> 00:36:30.660
 We had used planned development districts for generations, and it was really very challenging

00:36:30.660 --> 00:36:36.820
 to be able to administer it because of the fact that, because of just how we used planned

00:36:36.820 --> 00:36:38.560
 development districts at that time.

00:36:38.560 --> 00:36:41.200
 We were modifying development processes.

00:36:41.200 --> 00:36:45.700
 You could sort of see the wave of what we kind of latched to it on a particular time,

00:36:45.700 --> 00:36:48.460
 and you'd see kind of the cluster of planned development districts that were adopted around

00:36:48.460 --> 00:36:49.460
 the same time.

00:36:49.460 --> 00:36:52.780
 It's like, wow, we liked that particular process.

00:36:52.780 --> 00:36:56.460
 Or we would address, you know, work through certain challenges, but nonetheless, it became

00:36:56.460 --> 00:37:00.980
 very difficult for us to be able to administer our zoning within that community.

00:37:00.980 --> 00:37:02.820
 It creates a lot of gotchas, right?

00:37:02.820 --> 00:37:05.180
 We got tripped up on procedural aspects, right?

00:37:05.180 --> 00:37:12.340
 We also had zoning that was just, was not appropriate for the policies that we have

00:37:12.340 --> 00:37:13.340
 put in place.

00:37:13.340 --> 00:37:18.780
 So, you know, in a city of Denton, given that we're 98 square miles and we continue to grow,

00:37:18.780 --> 00:37:23.820
 and we have a really good DDC to work from, it's really important that we utilize those

00:37:23.820 --> 00:37:26.060
 tools and stick with our zoning.

00:37:26.060 --> 00:37:32.860
 If we find that variances are having to be requested for our standards on a regular basis,

00:37:32.860 --> 00:37:37.100
 or requests are being made for certain types of uses or that are not accommodated within

00:37:37.100 --> 00:37:42.500
 the district, then it's most appropriate to amend your, in this case, our Denton development

00:37:42.500 --> 00:37:44.540
 code to be able to provide for that development.

00:37:44.540 --> 00:37:47.340
 So hopefully that helps address some of your questions.

00:37:47.340 --> 00:37:52.380
 Well, and I think, I'll just add to that if I could, is just, I think now that we've kind

00:37:52.380 --> 00:37:58.420
 of differentiated the PDs, because, you know, a PD, because there's constraints on the land,

00:37:58.420 --> 00:38:02.620
 is very different than an overlay PD, where it's an infill property and you've got all

00:38:02.620 --> 00:38:06.980
 this existing stuff around, and you're really trying to protect what's around there.

00:38:06.980 --> 00:38:11.980
 And so it's definitely a case by case basis, and I think they're certainly great tools

00:38:11.980 --> 00:38:17.820
 to have, and they're very different for the reasons that you would use one or the other.

00:38:17.820 --> 00:38:21.860
 You know, and another thing I'll add is that, you know, in terms of why using our Denton

00:38:21.860 --> 00:38:25.300
 development code versus doing the planned development district, you know, when we adopted

00:38:25.300 --> 00:38:29.580
 the Denton development code, we said, this is the bar of the standards for development

00:38:29.580 --> 00:38:30.860
 within our community, right?

00:38:30.860 --> 00:38:34.420
 We set the high standards within our community that we are expecting to achieve.

00:38:34.420 --> 00:38:36.540
 So therefore, we've set that bar.

00:38:36.540 --> 00:38:40.520
 We shouldn't be achieving that with every form of development that comes through.

00:38:40.520 --> 00:38:45.300
 If we find that our development is not achieving that, and people are seeking planned development

00:38:45.300 --> 00:38:48.540
 districts to get around that bar, whether they're trying to, you know, elevate it, most

00:38:48.540 --> 00:38:50.980
 of the time they're trying to drop that bar a little bit, right there.

00:38:50.980 --> 00:38:55.980
 But if they're wanting to try and get around that, then to me that raises the question

00:38:55.980 --> 00:39:01.220
 of, okay, are standards still relevant with how we're wanting development to occur?

00:39:01.220 --> 00:39:05.620
 The other thing we have to keep in mind also is, are our standards within the Denton development

00:39:05.620 --> 00:39:09.700
 code consistent with our long range policies that the city has adopted?

00:39:09.700 --> 00:39:14.260
 So we're typically looking to our comprehensive plan, because zoning is the tool that we utilize

00:39:14.260 --> 00:39:16.060
 to implement the comprehensive plan.

00:39:16.060 --> 00:39:20.240
 But for example, council adopts a policy on affordable housing, right?

00:39:20.240 --> 00:39:25.140
 So then do we have tools within our zoning ordinance that help with implementing that

00:39:25.140 --> 00:39:29.100
 affordable housing policy that council's adopted, or do we have tools in the zoning ordinance

00:39:29.100 --> 00:39:31.520
 that are prohibiting that plan from being adopted?

00:39:31.520 --> 00:39:37.040
 And so it's important for us to look at our zoning ordinance to see, is it consistent

00:39:37.040 --> 00:39:38.040
 with those policies?

00:39:38.040 --> 00:39:42.740
 So that's why you'll find that we're continuously looking to update it, but also why we look

00:39:42.740 --> 00:39:46.980
 to keep our Denton development code in the top-knop shape that is needed for development

00:39:46.980 --> 00:39:50.740
 within our community, so we can provide for that expected quality form of development

00:39:50.740 --> 00:39:51.740
 happening.

00:39:51.740 --> 00:39:52.740
 Other questions?

00:39:52.740 --> 00:39:53.740
 Commissioner McDade.

00:39:53.740 --> 00:39:54.740
 Thank you, Chair.

00:39:54.740 --> 00:40:02.140
 I just have a question, when you were talking about the SUP and the fraud and deception,

00:40:02.140 --> 00:40:07.100
 if a applicant is being deceptive, what are the ramifications of that?

00:40:07.100 --> 00:40:10.340
 Do they have to start over from ground zero, or do they just have to correct?

00:40:10.340 --> 00:40:11.340
 Sure.

00:40:11.340 --> 00:40:18.020
 So I've never run into somebody being accused of fraud or deception, but that is a way that

00:40:18.020 --> 00:40:19.020
 you could lose it.

00:40:19.020 --> 00:40:24.420
 Correct me if I'm wrong, if you lose your SUP by fraud or deception, or if that's determined

00:40:24.420 --> 00:40:28.460
 to be the case, your SUP is not valid.

00:40:28.460 --> 00:40:29.460
 It does not exist.

00:40:29.460 --> 00:40:34.660
 So it's still straight zoning, however, that conditional approval for the use or the added

00:40:34.660 --> 00:40:37.340
 height, that's not valid at that time.

00:40:37.340 --> 00:40:41.220
 Okay, so they're not allowed to come back?

00:40:41.220 --> 00:40:46.140
 They lose it one time, and that's it, they're not allowed to come back, and so I made a

00:40:46.140 --> 00:40:47.140
 mistake.

00:40:47.140 --> 00:40:48.660
 That I'm going to look to smarter people than I.

00:40:48.660 --> 00:40:49.660
 Okay.

00:40:49.660 --> 00:40:56.500
 I was going to say, yeah, I don't think I've ever had any experiences zoning that resulted

00:40:56.500 --> 00:41:00.700
 in fraud and deception, but yeah, if for whatever reason there were conditions that were put

00:41:00.700 --> 00:41:04.280
 in there and they did not satisfy them, they would have to come back with a modified form

00:41:04.280 --> 00:41:10.780
 of the zoning, whether that was a specific use permit or probably a most likely case

00:41:10.780 --> 00:41:13.860
 of a planned development district I can think of because if there's conditions included

00:41:13.860 --> 00:41:17.900
 within it, they would have to come back with a modified request on their zoning.

00:41:17.900 --> 00:41:18.900
 You're welcome.

00:41:18.900 --> 00:41:19.900
 Anybody else?

00:41:19.900 --> 00:41:20.900
 Commissioner Perot.

00:41:20.900 --> 00:41:21.900
 Thank you, Chair.

00:41:21.900 --> 00:41:27.340
 A couple things on PDs.

00:41:27.340 --> 00:41:28.340
 So first, the easy one.

00:41:28.340 --> 00:41:29.860
 I think this is the easy one.

00:41:29.860 --> 00:41:37.940
 I recall some past discussions about split zoning and intricacies of how that could happen.

00:41:37.940 --> 00:41:45.440
 Do we have a preferred plan for instances where someone owns a parcel that has PD zoning

00:41:45.440 --> 00:41:49.740
 on it, and for whatever reason, part of it is not fully developed and they would like

00:41:49.740 --> 00:41:54.500
 to subdivide and get straight zoning for that parcel?

00:41:54.500 --> 00:41:59.080
 It seems like, for instance, we recently had one where the entire parcel hadn't been developed

00:41:59.080 --> 00:42:02.140
 under the PD, and so it was requested to be rezoned.

00:42:02.140 --> 00:42:03.900
 So that's fairly straightforward.

00:42:03.900 --> 00:42:11.340
 I'm just wondering whether our DDC speaks to what the process is in that case.

00:42:11.340 --> 00:42:16.700
 It sounds like, and forgive me, that you made a modification to the PD, or?

00:42:16.700 --> 00:42:23.500
 Well, I was going to say, an example comes to mind, and correct me if I'm wrong on this,

00:42:23.500 --> 00:42:27.620
 so a planned development district is adopted for a parcel of land.

00:42:27.620 --> 00:42:35.260
 Let's say it's a 50-acre tribe, but for whatever reason, they don't develop 20 acres of that,

00:42:35.260 --> 00:42:39.820
 and they want to rezone that 20 acres to a straight zoning district.

00:42:39.820 --> 00:42:44.340
 They could come in and request to rezone that 20 acres to a straight zoning district.

00:42:44.340 --> 00:42:47.740
 One of the things that we would have to do, though, is look at the original planned development

00:42:47.740 --> 00:42:53.640
 district and see how the development rights were provided for in that PD, because it may

00:42:53.640 --> 00:42:58.860
 be where the remaining 30 acres, in my example, can still have the planned development district

00:42:58.860 --> 00:43:04.540
 and that zoning remains fine, or it may be that we have to amend that planned development

00:43:04.540 --> 00:43:07.940
 district to adjust the development that was allowed for it.

00:43:07.940 --> 00:43:14.260
 Let's say 500 units of multifamily were granted, right, and now we've wiped out 20 acres out

00:43:14.260 --> 00:43:17.260
 of this original 50-acre PD.

00:43:17.260 --> 00:43:21.480
 Do those 500 units of multifamily get to be concentrated on that remainder 30-acre parcel,

00:43:21.480 --> 00:43:26.220
 or do we need to modify the standards accordingly to reduce the number of multifamily units

00:43:26.220 --> 00:43:27.220
 on that 30 acres?

00:43:27.220 --> 00:43:30.220
 So is that what you're asking about, or something similar?

00:43:30.220 --> 00:43:34.720
 Yeah, and I mean, that helps me kind of understand how it's processed through the application,

00:43:34.720 --> 00:43:36.820
 so that's fine.

00:43:36.820 --> 00:43:47.060
 Second thing, I heard lots of mentions of why PDs should be used as sparingly as possible.

00:43:47.060 --> 00:43:53.260
 I've heard that the overlay may be viewed as a PD light, at least by some staff.

00:43:53.260 --> 00:44:03.300
 And then at the same time, there was a mention of PDs should not be allowed to modify only

00:44:03.300 --> 00:44:06.460
 one or two uses, for instance.

00:44:06.460 --> 00:44:12.460
 So I'm trying to connect that with the history that I've seen of existing PDs that we see,

00:44:12.460 --> 00:44:16.260
 and the future that I haven't seen yet of the overlay PDs.

00:44:16.260 --> 00:44:25.180
 I guess with that background, my question is, should we expect future overlay PDs, or

00:44:25.180 --> 00:44:32.300
 even regular PDs, to be less prescriptive about the uses that are allowed, and trying

00:44:32.300 --> 00:44:43.460
 to modify only the things that are necessary to make that development possible?

00:44:43.460 --> 00:44:51.820
 How do you determine how much a PD should restrict the use versus how much a PD should

00:44:51.820 --> 00:44:56.420
 just nibble at the edges, if you will?

00:44:56.420 --> 00:45:01.420
 I'm going to try to answer this, and Tina may kick me.

00:45:01.420 --> 00:45:04.500
 A standard PD should probably not be nibbling.

00:45:04.500 --> 00:45:10.420
 If you need to use a standard PD, it's probably because you can't make that...

00:45:10.420 --> 00:45:15.940
 The project is either so unique or challenging in terms of the site conditions or the mix

00:45:15.940 --> 00:45:25.220
 of uses on site that you really would need that kind of full planning effort at the outset.

00:45:25.220 --> 00:45:27.740
 I don't know if...

00:45:27.740 --> 00:45:35.560
 The overlay PD may be more of that nibbling at the edges, and I think of it in terms...

00:45:35.560 --> 00:45:42.880
 When we look at the review, when we're keeping in mind why we have PDs and what the criteria

00:45:42.880 --> 00:45:52.580
 for approval are and what we're trying to achieve with that, there may be not necessarily

00:45:52.580 --> 00:45:58.420
 challenges with the proposed use, but maybe the context that it's in, maybe it is a gateway

00:45:58.420 --> 00:46:02.580
 to a neighborhood, and so we want to make sure there are elevated landscape standards,

00:46:02.580 --> 00:46:09.220
 or maybe there are some uses that are incompatible in that area, or maybe we do want to expand

00:46:09.220 --> 00:46:13.660
 those uses for a different zoning district to ensure that there is compatibility, because

00:46:13.660 --> 00:46:19.380
 the development standards within a different district might be more appropriate.

00:46:19.380 --> 00:46:25.980
 It's going to be on a case-by-case basis, I would imagine, but did that answer your

00:46:25.980 --> 00:46:26.980
 question?

00:46:26.980 --> 00:46:27.980
 Yeah, I think so.

00:46:27.980 --> 00:46:31.860
 That helps me conceptualize what the difference is between the traditional PDs that we've

00:46:31.860 --> 00:46:37.460
 seen and what we are looking forward to in the future with some of those additional tools.

00:46:37.460 --> 00:46:39.220
 Last question, I hope this is a brief.

00:46:39.220 --> 00:46:47.140
 If it's not, I can just take it offline, but especially with the PD rezoning requests,

00:46:47.140 --> 00:46:53.620
 I think our public hearings have some sort of consistent statements, so I guess it's

00:46:53.620 --> 00:47:00.260
 somewhat legalese that the commission or the council, once it gets there, has the ability

00:47:00.260 --> 00:47:07.300
 to approve a zoning district equally or more restrictive than what is listed.

00:47:07.300 --> 00:47:15.340
 Can you help us understand how that legally is viewed when you're looking at a PD application?

00:47:15.340 --> 00:47:20.660
 As far as if council or a body was looking at a PD, and they say, "Okay, I like most

00:47:20.660 --> 00:47:26.500
 of it, but there's a couple things that we would recommend changing," how much could

00:47:26.500 --> 00:47:32.940
 we change before it would be not more restrictive from a public hearing perspective?

00:47:32.940 --> 00:47:33.940
 Does that make sense?

00:47:33.940 --> 00:47:34.940
 It does.

00:47:34.940 --> 00:47:35.940
 That's a good question.

00:47:35.940 --> 00:47:44.940
 I've got some thoughts if you want to go first.

00:47:44.940 --> 00:47:49.660
 Part of the things we have to watch for is our notification associated with it, so you're

00:47:49.660 --> 00:47:57.060
 accustomed to, we have a request for, as you mentioned, to let's say, rezone to light industrial,

00:47:57.060 --> 00:48:01.180
 but the commission feels that light industrial is not appropriate, that general offices can

00:48:01.180 --> 00:48:05.860
 achieve the same thing and has higher level of standards and is more appropriate.

00:48:05.860 --> 00:48:10.120
 That's within our notification restrictions to allow for that change.

00:48:10.120 --> 00:48:14.860
 When it comes to a planned development district, an example I'll use is one that we had here

00:48:14.860 --> 00:48:19.060
 recently that the Planning and Zoning Commission actually saw as a request to rezone to light

00:48:19.060 --> 00:48:20.060
 industrial.

00:48:20.060 --> 00:48:26.440
 It was the Orson Holdings property north of Hampton Road, north of the Ranch Estates development.

00:48:26.440 --> 00:48:29.220
 When it came to the Planning and Zoning Commission, they were advocating for wanting straight

00:48:29.220 --> 00:48:31.100
 LI zoning.

00:48:31.100 --> 00:48:35.680
 After the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the request, the applicant made some modifications

00:48:35.680 --> 00:48:43.980
 and agreed to some concessions that essentially increased their landscaping buffering requirements.

00:48:43.980 --> 00:48:47.460
 They did some height reduction limitations.

00:48:47.460 --> 00:48:51.140
 They restricted, I believe, some access, and I was thinking there was another one, I'm

00:48:51.140 --> 00:48:54.500
 drawing a blank, but they made it more tight than what they would otherwise get under straight

00:48:54.500 --> 00:48:56.140
 LI.

00:48:56.140 --> 00:48:59.940
 We were able to make that shift to the planned development district following the Planning

00:48:59.940 --> 00:49:04.900
 and Zoning Commission going into council because the requirements are much more restrictive,

00:49:04.900 --> 00:49:09.540
 so they were giving up items instead of, so that allowed us to comply with our public

00:49:09.540 --> 00:49:11.220
 notice requirements.

00:49:11.220 --> 00:49:16.580
 If they would have wanted to say, "So we're willing to do all of those things, but we

00:49:16.580 --> 00:49:20.820
 want to add these additional uses that are not allowed in the light industrial zoning

00:49:20.820 --> 00:49:25.140
 district," then that's when we say time out, call foul, and we have to re-notice and go

00:49:25.140 --> 00:49:26.740
 back to the beginning.

00:49:26.740 --> 00:49:31.660
 We have to really watch our notifications when it comes to a planned development district.

00:49:31.660 --> 00:49:36.020
 Normally when we notice a re-zoning to a planned development district, our noticing is somewhat

00:49:36.020 --> 00:49:37.020
 broad.

00:49:37.020 --> 00:49:40.900
 It acknowledges it's a re-zoning request to a planned development district.

00:49:40.900 --> 00:49:47.340
 It doesn't go into all the nuances associated with the request, but at least it puts the

00:49:47.340 --> 00:49:52.140
 community on notice that they're seeking a request to a planned development district.

00:49:52.140 --> 00:49:57.420
 Then as we work through the standards and uses associated with it, our notification

00:49:57.420 --> 00:49:58.780
 still gives us that flexibility.

00:49:58.780 --> 00:50:03.260
 It gives the Planning and Zoning Commission flexibility to, as you're having conversations

00:50:03.260 --> 00:50:08.700
 with the developer, taking into consideration public comment, that if you're wanting to

00:50:08.700 --> 00:50:16.700
 restrict some of the uses or give them something else in return, or maybe restrict them on

00:50:16.700 --> 00:50:23.380
 their height, but give them a reduced setback option that would work to their benefit.

00:50:23.380 --> 00:50:28.500
 Because of our noticing being flexible, it gives you the ability to work through that.

00:50:28.500 --> 00:50:31.940
 In my opinion, that's one of the key things that we always have to watch, and especially

00:50:31.940 --> 00:50:37.240
 on the RM squared zoning, the one from Orson Holden, we really had to watch is what was

00:50:37.240 --> 00:50:41.900
 in our noticing, and even as we were going through with council.

00:50:41.900 --> 00:50:44.900
 Hillary, I don't know if you have any other thoughts that come to mind.

00:50:44.900 --> 00:50:55.380
 I think the element of the question was probably related to PD mark one and then PD mark two.

00:50:55.380 --> 00:50:56.380
 Yeah.

00:50:56.380 --> 00:51:02.820
 The PDs that I've seen in Denton usually have a base zoning of what have you.

00:51:02.820 --> 00:51:09.500
 I think in the analysis that Tina talked about, we would wonder and inquire very critically

00:51:09.500 --> 00:51:19.180
 whether we think the base zoning has fundamentally changed so far that it doesn't meet that criteria

00:51:19.180 --> 00:51:26.020
 of being more restrictive, or if the give and take has gotten to such a horse trading

00:51:26.020 --> 00:51:35.740
 level that we feel like it needs to be discussed in greater detail, or the concept of the deal

00:51:35.740 --> 00:51:41.460
 that you guys saw is so different than what council might be seeing, it may be appropriate

00:51:41.460 --> 00:51:42.460
 to re-notice then.

00:51:42.460 --> 00:51:48.540
 It is ultimately a case-by-case analysis, and I think that as Tina discussed, a real

00:51:48.540 --> 00:51:54.820
 commitment to making sure that notifications are accurate and give the public everything

00:51:54.820 --> 00:51:55.820
 they need to know.

00:51:55.820 --> 00:52:00.960
 We probably err a little bit on the side of re-noticing more than we might technically

00:52:00.960 --> 00:52:04.220
 need to, just in the interest of public information.

00:52:04.220 --> 00:52:06.500
 I appreciate that, and I appreciate that it's case-by-case.

00:52:06.500 --> 00:52:11.560
 I think that really helps me going forward.

00:52:11.560 --> 00:52:16.540
 What I'm hearing is basically if we see a PDR 6, then adjustments that might change

00:52:16.540 --> 00:52:24.340
 that to a PDR 7 would be out, but smaller things we can talk about and see, and I trust

00:52:24.340 --> 00:52:31.120
 you to give us feedback real time as those things happen, so thank you.

00:52:31.120 --> 00:52:36.740
 We take very seriously, especially when we start negotiating on the fly at the dias.

00:52:36.740 --> 00:52:40.880
 Not that that has happened a whole lot here, but at least in my tenure here, but in any

00:52:40.880 --> 00:52:44.940
 community I've worked in, always being cognizant of what was our notice that we sent to the

00:52:44.940 --> 00:52:49.180
 public, because in the interest of transparency, we want to make sure that we've provided adequate

00:52:49.180 --> 00:52:51.420
 public notice to meet the state statute.

00:52:51.420 --> 00:52:56.300
 The other aspect that we're always concerned about is the way zoning can get overturned

00:52:56.300 --> 00:53:01.620
 or thrown out in a court of law is from a technicality standpoint, and so that's the

00:53:01.620 --> 00:53:05.620
 last thing we also want to have happen, so hence why we're very cognizant and watch for

00:53:05.620 --> 00:53:09.620
 that.

00:53:09.620 --> 00:53:10.620
 Any other questions?

00:53:10.620 --> 00:53:17.740
 Clearly, we could talk about this for a lot more time, but the bad thing is it's getting

00:53:17.740 --> 00:53:22.620
 a little late, and I think we're going to have to call the discussion.

00:53:22.620 --> 00:53:25.340
 Great presentation, both of you.

00:53:25.340 --> 00:53:28.220
 Thank you very much.

00:53:28.220 --> 00:53:33.020
 Why don't we take a pause, get food really fast so that we can come here and go through

00:53:33.020 --> 00:53:34.020
 the rest of our agenda.

00:53:34.020 --> 00:53:35.940
 Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going to have like a five-minute dinner.

00:53:35.940 --> 00:53:42.460
 I don't want anybody to have to do that, so let's pause here at 5.58, and please let's

00:53:42.460 --> 00:53:52.580
 get back here less than 5 if we can, thanks.

00:53:52.580 --> 00:53:56.100
 Okay thank you, and welcome back to our planning and zoning work session.

00:53:56.100 --> 00:54:02.420
 I'll call us back at 6.07 p.m., and we will continue with our work session agenda, which

00:54:02.420 --> 00:54:06.980
 is clarification for our public meeting tonight.

00:54:06.980 --> 00:54:11.280
 First item on that agenda are minutes.

00:54:11.280 --> 00:54:13.740
 Any questions on the minutes?

00:54:13.740 --> 00:54:20.140
 And Hillary, we can take those as a group, or do we have to take them individually?

00:54:20.140 --> 00:54:25.500
 They're posted under 2A, all together as a group, as one.

00:54:25.500 --> 00:54:26.500
 Okay.

00:54:26.500 --> 00:54:28.540
 If we don't have questions or concerns.

00:54:28.540 --> 00:54:29.540
 Okay.

00:54:29.540 --> 00:54:30.540
 Everybody all right with that?

00:54:30.540 --> 00:54:31.540
 Okay.

00:54:31.540 --> 00:54:37.020
 With regard to our consent agenda, I am going to ask one question.

00:54:37.020 --> 00:54:38.020
 You're okay to stay?

00:54:38.020 --> 00:54:46.140
 I already checked with legal on that, just don't – Shawn, is that you?

00:54:46.140 --> 00:54:48.620
 No, who is that?

00:54:48.620 --> 00:54:49.620
 That's you.

00:54:49.620 --> 00:54:50.620
 Hello.

00:54:50.620 --> 00:54:51.620
 It is me.

00:54:51.620 --> 00:54:52.620
 I'm filling in for Cameron today.

00:54:52.620 --> 00:54:53.620
 I'm sorry.

00:54:53.620 --> 00:54:54.620
 Oh, very good.

00:54:54.620 --> 00:54:55.620
 You know what?

00:54:55.620 --> 00:54:58.700
 I just had a quick question with regard to our person who spoke, so I was a little bit

00:54:58.700 --> 00:55:00.540
 confused on what she said about lighting.

00:55:00.540 --> 00:55:02.540
 Can you enlighten me?

00:55:02.540 --> 00:55:05.100
 Did you hear it or not?

00:55:05.100 --> 00:55:07.900
 Yes, I did hear her talk about the lighting.

00:55:07.900 --> 00:55:13.580
 I would assume that everything would have been to our DDC standards.

00:55:13.580 --> 00:55:18.020
 So are we dealing with a different code with this development?

00:55:18.020 --> 00:55:19.020
 Slightly.

00:55:19.020 --> 00:55:20.020
 Okay, we are.

00:55:20.020 --> 00:55:21.020
 We are.

00:55:21.020 --> 00:55:22.980
 Which has a master plan community agreement.

00:55:22.980 --> 00:55:27.660
 Okay, which just – yeah, so it is their own unit that they're working within.

00:55:27.660 --> 00:55:33.100
 They're special DDC with various – Okay, and that plays into everything basically

00:55:33.100 --> 00:55:34.100
 about the development?

00:55:34.100 --> 00:55:36.140
 That's the document that the planner would have reviewed it under.

00:55:36.140 --> 00:55:37.140
 Okay.

00:55:37.140 --> 00:55:38.140
 So that's it.

00:55:38.140 --> 00:55:39.140
 That's it for this and answers my question.

00:55:39.140 --> 00:55:40.140
 Thank you very much.

00:55:40.140 --> 00:55:41.140
 Anybody else on this one?

00:55:41.140 --> 00:55:42.140
 No?

00:55:42.140 --> 00:55:43.140
 Okay.

00:55:43.140 --> 00:55:46.420
 I feel like you were – okay, you're just chewing.

00:55:46.420 --> 00:55:47.860
 Very good.

00:55:47.860 --> 00:55:48.860
 Okay.

00:55:48.860 --> 00:55:55.580
 Individual consideration, 4A, any questions on that?

00:55:55.580 --> 00:56:02.020
 That is a request for an extension to a date certain of 12/14, okay?

00:56:02.020 --> 00:56:05.100
 And then 4B has been withdrawn.

00:56:05.100 --> 00:56:09.420
 We did get an email late on that, but that item is withdrawn, so we will not be taking

00:56:09.420 --> 00:56:11.840
 action on that one.

00:56:11.840 --> 00:56:16.980
 Public hearings for tonight, so 5A, that's Z220017.

00:56:16.980 --> 00:56:20.140
 Sean, that is you.

00:56:20.140 --> 00:56:23.980
 Do you want to just give us kind of a – We'll keep it quick.

00:56:23.980 --> 00:56:28.460
 Yeah, just an overview and we'll see if anybody has any questions on that.

00:56:28.460 --> 00:56:29.460
 Okay.

00:56:29.460 --> 00:56:46.940
 Okay, so this is Z220017.

00:56:46.940 --> 00:56:53.220
 This is a request for a zoning change from rural residential to a light industrial zoning

00:56:53.220 --> 00:56:58.820
 district, two tracks totaling approximately 29 acres, mostly undeveloped or agricultural

00:56:58.820 --> 00:56:59.820
 uses.

00:56:59.820 --> 00:57:05.520
 There is a gas well on the south track, and if it is approved, of course, all uses within

00:57:05.520 --> 00:57:07.980
 the LI zoning would be permitted.

00:57:07.980 --> 00:57:13.060
 The applicant has indicated interest in industrial use development, but that's what we're

00:57:13.060 --> 00:57:14.060
 proposing.

00:57:14.060 --> 00:57:15.060
 Happy to answer any questions.

00:57:15.060 --> 00:57:16.060
 Any questions?

00:57:16.060 --> 00:57:23.500
 And I know the only question I had posted earlier to Sean on this one was, because it's

00:57:23.500 --> 00:57:27.740
 adjacent to that track that we approved that – actually, you mentioned when we had the

00:57:27.740 --> 00:57:30.700
 discussion about PDs.

00:57:30.700 --> 00:57:37.020
 I was wondering why we were not looking at it like that again, and perhaps – and I'm

00:57:37.020 --> 00:57:46.140
 assuming it is because of the way, I guess, that it fronts lovers, and I'm trying to

00:57:46.140 --> 00:57:51.140
 wrap my head around this because we had so much discussion with that tract, and then

00:57:51.140 --> 00:57:56.340
 – let's see, one to the third tract to the south of it is actually embedded, I believe,

00:57:56.340 --> 00:57:58.140
 in that PD, correct?

00:57:58.140 --> 00:57:59.140
 Yes, ma'am.

00:57:59.140 --> 00:58:04.220
 So, as I'm looking at it, we just seem a little bit inconsistent because it is like

00:58:04.220 --> 00:58:11.280
 right there, and we didn't say you could have straight light industrial on those tracts,

00:58:11.280 --> 00:58:17.620
 but we're saying you can on here, so I've got some reservations with this one just because

00:58:17.620 --> 00:58:22.500
 it seems inconsistent, and it is the same developer, so I know that they're aware

00:58:22.500 --> 00:58:27.940
 of all the discussion we had on that adjacent property, so anyway, I'm going to just throw

00:58:27.940 --> 00:58:31.660
 that out there because I'll probably say it again in public hearing.

00:58:31.660 --> 00:58:35.860
 Well, and Sean, feel free to add to this, but the reason why we did not consider the

00:58:35.860 --> 00:58:41.060
 plan development district for this property is it still has the same base zoning, light

00:58:41.060 --> 00:58:46.540
 industrial, as the larger tract to the east that did have it, but also so many of the

00:58:46.540 --> 00:58:51.940
 conditions or restrictions that were put in the zoning or the plan development district

00:58:51.940 --> 00:58:56.020
 for the property to the east really dealt with restrictions in proximity to Hampton

00:58:56.020 --> 00:59:01.180
 Road and not appear on the north end of the property, so when we looked at this request

00:59:01.180 --> 00:59:06.180
 and we did not feel that a plan development district was warranted for this area because

00:59:06.180 --> 00:59:10.340
 essentially the uses and standards that would be occurring on this property are comparable

00:59:10.340 --> 00:59:15.660
 to what's happening immediately to the east because the portion of the property where

00:59:15.660 --> 00:59:20.900
 it's adjacent to the east is not subject to any of those conditions that were really restricted

00:59:20.900 --> 00:59:22.880
 to the southern portion of that tract.

00:59:22.880 --> 00:59:30.060
 Yeah, and I hear that and that's what I'm still trying to grasp it and hope, okay, they're

00:59:30.060 --> 00:59:33.940
 just going to come 1173, they're going to come that way, because that is my concern

00:59:33.940 --> 00:59:37.540
 is like, well, Hampton Road is right there too for them and we had all that concern for

00:59:37.540 --> 00:59:39.660
 those other tracts and so.

00:59:39.660 --> 00:59:45.540
 Yeah, and I definitely would add in addition to that, not only would it be not simple to

00:59:45.540 --> 00:59:52.060
 get to Hampton Road from this, you could actually more easily reach the Mosh Branch and 380

00:59:52.060 --> 00:59:59.020
 Light from this site versus the PDLI where it was fronting directly on Hampton.

00:59:59.020 --> 01:00:04.180
 Yeah, right, right, yeah, yeah, I agree and that helps me greatly to kind of study that

01:00:04.180 --> 01:00:05.540
 map again too.

01:00:05.540 --> 01:00:06.540
 Thank you.

01:00:06.540 --> 01:00:07.540
 Anybody else?

01:00:07.540 --> 01:00:08.540
 Okay.

01:00:08.540 --> 01:00:18.940
 Yeah, you have the next one, so I will call 5B then and let you give your little, oh.

01:00:18.940 --> 01:00:32.780
 Okay, so yes, this is S22-0003, speed of light and I'll just make sure we start that there.

01:00:32.780 --> 01:00:36.900
 This is a request for a specific use permit for a broadband communication tower not to

01:00:36.900 --> 01:00:43.180
 exceed 150 feet above ground level and 871 feet above median sea level.

01:00:43.180 --> 01:00:50.900
 We'll note that this is a site that is currently approved for a broadband communication tower.

01:00:50.900 --> 01:00:56.940
 It has an SUP but it is not permitted to go more than 88 feet, so this is an increase

01:00:56.940 --> 01:00:58.460
 over the previous approval.

01:00:58.460 --> 01:01:04.060
 The site is located south of Barcelona Street and the tower is proposed at the southwest

01:01:04.060 --> 01:01:08.020
 corner of the existing building on the site.

01:01:08.020 --> 01:01:13.380
 It is important to note that part of what you are determining primarily is within the

01:01:13.380 --> 01:01:19.740
 MR district, an SUP is required for a monopole tower that exceeds 85 feet in height.

01:01:19.740 --> 01:01:23.740
 So that's, you're primarily looking at the land use impacts of a tower that goes above

01:01:23.740 --> 01:01:25.660
 85 feet in height.

01:01:25.660 --> 01:01:30.700
 Now in this case, it's permitted to go about three feet higher by the current SUP.

01:01:30.700 --> 01:01:36.780
 The SUP brought to you allows a significantly higher height and so you're looking at that.

01:01:36.780 --> 01:01:42.820
 However, this site is also within the airport height hazard district which has a separate

01:01:42.820 --> 01:01:49.900
 set of restrictions which is that a tower cannot exceed, a structure cannot exceed 810

01:01:49.900 --> 01:01:52.820
 feet above sea level.

01:01:52.820 --> 01:01:58.580
 Therefore, if this was recommended for approval by P&Z and approved by city council, the applicant

01:01:58.580 --> 01:02:03.060
 would then need to go to the zoning board of adjustment and request a variance which

01:02:03.060 --> 01:02:06.380
 is permitted within the airport height hazard district if they can bring a letter from the

01:02:06.380 --> 01:02:12.620
 FAA that says there's no, we've determined that this structure will not cause damage

01:02:12.620 --> 01:02:17.660
 to our, will not cause an issue with our airport operations and the zoning board of adjustments

01:02:17.660 --> 01:02:23.700
 is permitted by the DDC to say we will permit a variance to have a height exceeding 810

01:02:23.700 --> 01:02:28.660
 feet above sea level because we have this FAA letter stating that that structure and

01:02:28.660 --> 01:02:34.260
 that height going above our normal restriction will not have a negative impact on the operations

01:02:34.260 --> 01:02:35.420
 of our airport.

01:02:35.420 --> 01:02:41.860
 So it comes to you, it comes to city council and then based on the conditions we recommend

01:02:41.860 --> 01:02:46.060
 then it can go to zoning board of adjustments and only after that would the tower be fully

01:02:46.060 --> 01:02:50.820
 approved and I'm happy to answer any questions because I realize that maybe it is complicated.

01:02:50.820 --> 01:02:59.820
 Yeah this one made my brain hurt and I get it, here's my question, it might be Hillary's

01:02:59.820 --> 01:03:09.060
 question, the AAHD which I am not an expert in at all, so is that treated as like an overlay,

01:03:09.060 --> 01:03:10.060
 what is that treated as?

01:03:10.060 --> 01:03:17.540
 Yeah functionally it's an overlay district relating to advanced safety concerns related

01:03:17.540 --> 01:03:19.040
 to airport problems.

01:03:19.040 --> 01:03:25.020
 So my whole problem with this request is that we have a piece of property that has an overlay,

01:03:25.020 --> 01:03:29.140
 that's in the overlay, says can't be above a certain height and we're being asked to

01:03:29.140 --> 01:03:34.820
 approve an SUP that has a certain height and that's where I'm getting tripped up.

01:03:34.820 --> 01:03:39.380
 Even though I understand it's got to go to ZBA but then I don't understand why we're

01:03:39.380 --> 01:03:46.620
 saying yes we can approve this SUP even though the AAHD clearly says you can't do that and

01:03:46.620 --> 01:03:54.180
 so I feel like we're doing this and it doesn't make any sense to me to recommend to city

01:03:54.180 --> 01:03:59.180
 council which they didn't do the first time that we recommended it and it's because we

01:03:59.180 --> 01:04:05.860
 didn't know that the AAHD said the height restriction and so they set the SUP currently

01:04:05.860 --> 01:04:17.900
 at what is allowed under the AAHD and so I'm trying to understand how to reconcile that.

01:04:17.900 --> 01:04:22.740
 So there's a little bit of do you want to and you know feel free to pop in but there's

01:04:22.740 --> 01:04:27.700
 a bit of a you know which board should we start with and I think we just.

01:04:27.700 --> 01:04:32.700
 Well it's how do we treat the overlay because it's not like if somebody came to us in other

01:04:32.700 --> 01:04:37.140
 overlays in our city and said we want to do this and the overlay clearly says you can't

01:04:37.140 --> 01:04:38.980
 do that.

01:04:38.980 --> 01:04:44.500
 We're not going to do that and so what we've tried to do and I don't want to speak for

01:04:44.500 --> 01:04:50.660
 you Sean is to state that is to kind of limit the scope of the approval here to the base

01:04:50.660 --> 01:05:00.100
 zoning district and to state that for the AAHD wow that's hard to say it is that's

01:05:00.100 --> 01:05:05.180
 outside of the scope of the present approval it needs to go before the ZBA.

01:05:05.180 --> 01:05:11.460
 So it may feel a bit like we're saying sure go ahead and violate that overlay right but

01:05:11.460 --> 01:05:18.740
 in effect and what we've tried to draft is yes for as much as what we can approve this

01:05:18.740 --> 01:05:23.460
 is fine but this is not completely approved right and I and you have the condition on

01:05:23.460 --> 01:05:26.260
 it that they have to get the approval from ZBA.

01:05:26.260 --> 01:05:32.380
 I guess it's just it just feels very strange and I feel bad that they're coming before

01:05:32.380 --> 01:05:37.380
 us in the first place for something that we really can't say yes to because the overlay

01:05:37.380 --> 01:05:38.860
 says we can't.

01:05:38.860 --> 01:05:45.420
 So anyway it's a little confusing it might be easier I guess with the conditions but

01:05:45.420 --> 01:05:51.460
 again I'm it's just it doesn't there's something that just doesn't make sense about it in my

01:05:51.460 --> 01:05:57.140
 brain. Anyway anybody else have questions is it just it's just my brain yes Commissioner

01:05:57.140 --> 01:05:58.140
 Anderson.

01:05:58.140 --> 01:06:06.780
 Thank you Sean so they are asking to be 61 feet above the AAHD height limit?

01:06:06.780 --> 01:06:07.780
 That is correct.

01:06:07.780 --> 01:06:16.620
 So they do have FAA letter that states it's okay they do they do and so I guess they did

01:06:16.620 --> 01:06:18.500
 not have that the first go around?

01:06:18.500 --> 01:06:19.500
 They did not.

01:06:19.500 --> 01:06:24.180
 So so the FAA is saying it's okay for them to build this tower?

01:06:24.180 --> 01:06:25.180
 That is correct.

01:06:25.180 --> 01:06:26.180
 Okay that's all I mean thanks.

01:06:26.180 --> 01:06:32.420
 Yeah but you know then we've got the FAA FAA like managing our code maybe we need to

01:06:32.420 --> 01:06:40.060
 look at the AAHD I'll bring that up in the matrix anyway I was just saying to me that

01:06:40.060 --> 01:06:44.620
 does and then trust me we Sean and I struggled working through this and I think Hillary was

01:06:44.620 --> 01:06:49.580
 involved in a call when we were working on this as well you know what what I don't have

01:06:49.580 --> 01:06:54.020
 a good appreciation I'll be honest with the Commission is whether or not you know conditions

01:06:54.020 --> 01:07:01.620
 have changed with respect to that AAHD area or let's say let's set aside that for a moment

01:07:01.620 --> 01:07:08.020
 just the overall operational aspects associated with the airport that would warrant a re-review

01:07:08.020 --> 01:07:13.860
 of that AAHD overlay district right because for whatever reason you know that was put

01:07:13.860 --> 01:07:19.740
 in place to protect the airspace around the airport right and if operational conditions

01:07:19.740 --> 01:07:25.780
 have changed that allow for you know like this project that we have on your agenda this

01:07:25.780 --> 01:07:33.380
 evening to encroach that overlay area or I view it kind of as a cap right so then then

01:07:33.380 --> 01:07:42.740
 it would be appropriate to go back and re-review that AAHD to see if it does need to be modified

01:07:42.740 --> 01:07:49.660
 because it to me it comes back to have conditions change for airport operations that or we were

01:07:49.660 --> 01:07:58.900
 just very conservative with whatever provisions were put forth in place for the AAHD at that

01:07:58.900 --> 01:08:05.140
 time and wanted to include a relief valve in the code in the event that it would be

01:08:05.140 --> 01:08:11.540
 appropriate to have structures or or it even references permit the natural growth of an

01:08:11.540 --> 01:08:16.260
 or permit the growth of any natural object or buildings to be able to encroach within

01:08:16.260 --> 01:08:17.260
 that area.

01:08:17.260 --> 01:08:22.020
 Yeah and I mean I'm not going to FAA obviously knows more than I do what I'm trying to work

01:08:22.020 --> 01:08:26.220
 is kind of within our code and the fact that it just seems like they should be able to

01:08:26.220 --> 01:08:32.540
 take this existing SUP and go to ZBA and get their height restrictions so that's weird

01:08:32.540 --> 01:08:38.540
 too to me that we're kind of doing this again twice just from their perspective but anyway

01:08:38.540 --> 01:08:42.740
 the and I think the challenge we have is that the Zoning Board of Adjustment is not the

01:08:42.740 --> 01:08:47.740
 decision-making authority with respect to specific use that lies with you and I do yeah

01:08:47.740 --> 01:08:53.100
 and I understand that but it just seems like we already kind of have an SUP that that we

01:08:53.100 --> 01:08:59.540
 can approve within the parameters of the overlay which then the adjustment would go to ZBA

01:08:59.540 --> 01:09:04.460
 because you know what I mean it's so it's it's just we're doing this that's that's

01:09:04.460 --> 01:09:09.020
 all I'm saying so that and that's nobody's fault other than we need to look at why we're

01:09:09.020 --> 01:09:13.860
 doing that and what needs to be rewritten to me.

01:09:13.860 --> 01:09:15.900
 Anybody else on this one?

01:09:15.900 --> 01:09:16.900
 Commissioner Prout.

01:09:16.900 --> 01:09:17.900
 Thank you Chair.

01:09:17.900 --> 01:09:20.340
 Just real briefly.

01:09:20.340 --> 01:09:28.380
 Did we check into whether there are proximity slash height concerns near the railroad right

01:09:28.380 --> 01:09:30.580
 of way?

01:09:30.580 --> 01:09:40.140
 It was not raised it is outside both of the railroad right of way as well there is a significant

01:09:40.140 --> 01:09:46.220
 drainage area in which development is not possible between the side of this tower and

01:09:46.220 --> 01:09:48.260
 the railroad right of way.

01:09:48.260 --> 01:09:54.740
 Sure that's fine I'm not super concerned but it looks like it's about 300-ish feet away

01:09:54.740 --> 01:10:04.100
 from the railroad bed and it's 150 feet tall what happens with the guy wires I'm not all

01:10:04.100 --> 01:10:07.540
 that concerned about it I'm just I'm more concerned with maintaining good relationships

01:10:07.540 --> 01:10:13.460
 with our railroad partners honestly with everything we need from them so yeah.

01:10:13.460 --> 01:10:20.820
 Certainly and the actual area in which even this any obstruct any land impact development

01:10:20.820 --> 01:10:29.340
 impact from this is very limited in fact I can show you the box right here northeast

01:10:29.340 --> 01:10:33.060
 corner yeah okay right there that's fine that's where they're allowed to develop thank you

01:10:33.060 --> 01:10:40.020
 is the applicant going to be here I would expect the applicant will be here excellent

01:10:40.020 --> 01:10:47.900
 any other questions on this one okay thank you very much well Ron we've got we got six

01:10:47.900 --> 01:10:53.980
 minutes so let's bring you up for the last one all right we got 20 slides to go through

01:10:53.980 --> 01:11:04.380
 so I promise I won't take too long I'll just share one slide to kind of summarize what

01:11:04.380 --> 01:11:09.660
 the purpose is for this city initiated code amendment is related to access requirements

01:11:09.660 --> 01:11:16.500
 and based on some of the recent applications that you all have seen either a PD or an SUP

01:11:16.500 --> 01:11:22.160
 related to a multifamily development the question about accesses has come up and so we looked

01:11:22.160 --> 01:11:28.360
 at the code and there is a requirement that to access be provided and it also includes

01:11:28.360 --> 01:11:33.980
 where feasible well what is where feasible mean so what we've done is prepared a code

01:11:33.980 --> 01:11:39.680
 amendment that we met with the DCRC several times and we've got a proposal to share with

01:11:39.680 --> 01:11:44.220
 you all I can go through that now or we can do it during the public hearing but basically

01:11:44.220 --> 01:11:51.820
 it's providing more parameters and also establishing when that two points of access is required

01:11:51.820 --> 01:11:57.740
 establishing when it can be waived or it can be varied from it also includes exceptions

01:11:57.740 --> 01:12:02.820
 exemptions that is so all of that will be part of the the code amendment moving forward

01:12:02.820 --> 01:12:08.100
 we also have other sections of the code as we were looking at access to to see where

01:12:08.100 --> 01:12:15.620
 we can also clarify some some issues or concerns and so those are also included in this set

01:12:15.620 --> 01:12:22.620
 of code amendments so with that I stand for any questions any questions at the moment

01:12:22.620 --> 01:12:29.820
 look forward to the full presentation thank you very much that is the end of our agenda

01:12:29.820 --> 01:12:37.920
 so with that I will close our work session at 625 and we will reconvene in council chambers

01:12:37.920 --> 01:12:48.420
 as close to 630 as possible.

01:12:48.420 --> 01:12:51.620
 Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning Commission meeting for

01:12:51.620 --> 01:13:00.340
 Wednesday November 16 2022 with a quorum present I will call us to order at 632 p.m. first

01:13:00.340 --> 01:13:20.420
 item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags.

01:13:20.420 --> 01:13:37.100
 Under the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to thee Texas one state under God one and indivisible.

01:13:37.100 --> 01:13:43.540
 Next item on our agenda is the consideration for approval of the minutes for October 8th

01:13:43.540 --> 01:13:50.940
 meeting the October October 18th is the PNC and City Council a joint meeting the minutes

01:13:50.940 --> 01:14:01.860
 for the PNC meetings for October 26th CIAC and our regular PNC.

01:14:01.860 --> 01:14:07.700
 Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve Commissioner Villarreal second thank you and

01:14:07.700 --> 01:14:15.020
 commissioners that is to approve all of those minutes correct okay very good any discussion

01:14:15.020 --> 01:14:25.860
 let's vote on the board please.

01:14:25.860 --> 01:14:31.140
 That motion carries seven zero that will take us to item three on our agenda we've got one

01:14:31.140 --> 01:14:35.380
 thing on our consent agenda I will give Commissioner Cole a moment to recuse himself from this

01:14:35.380 --> 01:14:46.300
 item.

01:14:46.300 --> 01:14:51.580
 Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve Commissioner Pruitt second we've got a first

01:14:51.580 --> 01:14:57.620
 and a second for the consent agenda for this evening any discussion okay let's vote on

01:14:57.620 --> 01:15:09.340
 the board please.

01:15:09.340 --> 01:15:15.020
 That motion carries six zero that'll move us to individual consideration items I'll

01:15:15.020 --> 01:15:23.540
 give Commissioner Cole a moment welcome back first item on the agenda for this section

01:15:23.540 --> 01:15:47.220
 is 4a pp220025 I will invite Ashley up hi Ashley just closer to the mic there you go

01:15:47.220 --> 01:15:52.980
 this is a preliminary plot for a warehouse use on approximately 20.3 acres at this time

01:15:52.980 --> 01:15:57.220
 staff is recommending denial but we have no objection to the requested extension until

01:15:57.220 --> 01:16:09.540
 December 14th 2022 okay great any questions for Ashley okay thank you very much.

01:16:09.540 --> 01:16:15.000
 Chair can entertain a motion or discussion at this time.

01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:18.180
 Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of December

01:16:18.180 --> 01:16:24.940
 14 2022 Commissioner Pruitt second we've got a first and a second for approval of the extension

01:16:24.940 --> 01:16:33.740
 request to a date certain of December 14th 2022 any discussion let's vote on the board

01:16:33.740 --> 01:17:02.660
 please interesting okay do we want to just can you rerun it so

01:17:02.660 --> 01:17:22.340
 she can't go back it didn't record my vote oh it is letting us now let's do that again

01:17:22.340 --> 01:17:28.020
 there we go okay that motion carries some zero thank you our item 4b that was listed

01:17:28.020 --> 01:17:33.340
 on our agenda has been withdrawn so we will not be taking action tonight on that item

01:17:33.340 --> 01:17:39.940
 which will take us to our public hearing portion of the evening first one our agenda is 5a

01:17:39.940 --> 01:17:47.860
 z22-0017 Shawn is here to present I will go ahead and open the public hearing hi Shawn

01:17:47.860 --> 01:17:53.820
 good evening chair members of the commission just gonna open the presentation here there

01:17:53.820 --> 01:18:02.100
 you go all right good evening this is z22-17 the Johns Rood Ranch proposed rezoning this

01:18:02.100 --> 01:18:05.900
 is a request for a zoning change from a rural residential district to a light industrial

01:18:05.900 --> 01:18:12.220
 district on two tracks totaling about 29 acres these tracks are mostly undeveloped there is

01:18:12.220 --> 01:18:18.100
 there are some agricultural uses and there is a gas well on the south tract of course

01:18:18.100 --> 01:18:21.220
 one of the most important things we look at is consistency with our comprehensive plan

01:18:21.220 --> 01:18:27.100
 and future land use map the future land use designation for this property is light industrial

01:18:27.100 --> 01:18:32.600
 and that is intended for a range of uses like manufacturing assembling warehousing it's

01:18:32.600 --> 01:18:40.380
 also in a comprehensive plan that it should have adequate infrastructure and overall it's

01:18:40.380 --> 01:18:45.700
 intended for those uses that the light industrial zoning is intended to align with so therefore

01:18:45.700 --> 01:18:51.220
 the intent of the LI zoning is to provide those uses that the light industrial future

01:18:51.220 --> 01:18:55.700
 land use designation calls for and therefore this proposed rezoning would be consistent

01:18:55.700 --> 01:19:02.860
 with our comprehensive plan it does also help to achieve our comprehensive plan action 3.1.1

01:19:02.860 --> 01:19:07.620
 which is to ensure that we have adequate land for future economic development activity and

01:19:07.620 --> 01:19:16.540
 particularly non-residential land available so aligning with that comprehensive plan goal

01:19:16.540 --> 01:19:20.380
 it's also important as we're looking at zoning changes to see if there are significant changes

01:19:20.380 --> 01:19:25.100
 in area that warrant a rezoning one thing to be aware of is at the time of the annexation

01:19:25.100 --> 01:19:29.620
 interim zoning of this site there was minimal light industrial development or zoning in

01:19:29.620 --> 01:19:34.540
 this area we've seen increasing industrial development and light industrial zoning in

01:19:34.540 --> 01:19:42.300
 this area since then and as you're aware we had a recent zoning change from RR to PDLI

01:19:42.300 --> 01:19:45.420
 just to the south and west of this site so we're seeing a change in the development

01:19:45.420 --> 01:19:50.900
 pattern here in addition our mobility plan and tech stop plans indicate that loop 288

01:19:50.900 --> 01:19:56.420
 will be extended through this area and that will significantly impact the future development

01:19:56.420 --> 01:20:01.060
 patterns in this area including helping to support a potential development of those uses

01:20:01.060 --> 01:20:05.580
 like light industrial commercial uses that benefit from access to a transportation network

01:20:05.580 --> 01:20:11.540
 so the zoning change aligns with the changes we have seen and are expecting to see oh I'm

01:20:11.540 --> 01:20:15.140
 sorry I had two slides there my bad but as you can see there that does show you the difference

01:20:15.140 --> 01:20:21.700
 between what the zoning will look like even in 2019 versus the increased LI zoning in the

01:20:21.700 --> 01:20:32.060
 area so overall this does meet our criteria for approval we did notice out to the 200

01:20:32.060 --> 01:20:37.780
 and 500 foot limits and did receive two responses in favor and the applicant did also hold a

01:20:37.780 --> 01:20:44.220
 neighborhood meeting and there are notes about that in your backup so with that staff does

01:20:44.220 --> 01:20:49.980
 recommend approval of this zoning change as it does align with our approval criteria both

01:20:49.980 --> 01:20:56.140
 for zoning changes and for applications in general that is my presentation happy to stand

01:20:56.140 --> 01:21:03.620
 for any questions and the applicant is present and does have this card right thank you Sean

01:21:03.620 --> 01:21:12.880
 any questions at this time for Sean okay thank you very much so with that I will invite Mr.

01:21:12.880 --> 01:21:26.220
 Fletcher up here as I have his card in front of me

01:21:26.220 --> 01:21:30.740
 good evening good evening commissioners my name is Thomas Fletcher with Kimmy Horne 6160

01:21:30.740 --> 01:21:36.180
 Warren Parkway Frisco Texas appreciate the opportunity to be here before you tonight

01:21:36.180 --> 01:21:43.900
 I am the engineer for the Johns Rudd Ranch properties LLC for this zoning request I think

01:21:43.900 --> 01:21:48.860
 that Sean's presentation we've been working with staff on this application was pretty

01:21:48.860 --> 01:21:52.780
 thorough I'll go I have a quick presentation I'll go through and then happy to stand for

01:21:52.780 --> 01:21:58.900
 questions again here's a picture of the site it's kind of on a larger aerial that kind

01:21:58.900 --> 01:22:03.540
 of shows the location the properties on the east side of Lover's Lane Lover's Lane is

01:22:03.540 --> 01:22:10.660
 the north-south road 1173 is the east-west road to the north interstate highway 35 is

01:22:10.660 --> 01:22:17.220
 just to the east and then US 380 is to the south as Sean mentioned on the comp plan this

01:22:17.220 --> 01:22:22.220
 area is intended in the future to develop as light industrial and a lot of those properties

01:22:22.220 --> 01:22:28.900
 have been starting to transition from existing zoning categories to the light industrial

01:22:28.900 --> 01:22:36.620
 or PD light industrial zoning this is the site this shows the existing zoning that's

01:22:36.620 --> 01:22:42.540
 around the property the properties that don't have a color to the background are still located

01:22:42.540 --> 01:22:47.180
 within the city's ETJ it's my understanding that some of these properties may have not

01:22:47.180 --> 01:22:54.660
 in annexation agreements attached to them this is an exhibit just showing what the proposed

01:22:54.660 --> 01:22:59.860
 zoning would look like and then this is showing the comprehensive plan that shows that the

01:22:59.860 --> 01:23:06.380
 properties all around surrounding the property subject track tonight in the future comp plan

01:23:06.380 --> 01:23:15.500
 would be eventually light industrial if they're to be rezoned per that comp plan we did put

01:23:15.500 --> 01:23:20.300
 together a conceptual plan at this time there's no plans for development in the immediate

01:23:20.300 --> 01:23:26.180
 future just looking to get the zoning in place for when the property is ready to develop

01:23:26.180 --> 01:23:33.060
 you can also see we've put in there from the schematic loop 288 plans the actual right

01:23:33.060 --> 01:23:39.420
 away width so you can see that the loop 288 extension is taking up a large portion of

01:23:39.420 --> 01:23:47.380
 this property there's a gas well that's located it'll be adjacent to loop 288 we anticipate

01:23:47.380 --> 01:23:54.060
 that there would be detention with increased impervious cover through development detention

01:23:54.060 --> 01:23:59.740
 is pretty much a standard practice on all development so that we can maintain the existing

01:23:59.740 --> 01:24:06.860
 runoff rates for the property this is just kind of an overall kind of of the western

01:24:06.860 --> 01:24:13.040
 area of the city just kind of showing the overall loop 288 and how the city is going

01:24:13.040 --> 01:24:18.920
 to change in this area in the future once loop 288 is constructed with the airport and

01:24:18.920 --> 01:24:26.020
 the industrial uses in this in this area and that's the presentation I have for you tonight

01:24:26.020 --> 01:24:30.940
 this is the mobility plan which does show that lovers will eventually be a secondary

01:24:30.940 --> 01:24:36.900
 arterial so at some point in the future it will be improved to a four lane divided roadway

01:24:36.900 --> 01:24:43.820
 and then 1173 will also be a secondary arterial as well so as development occurs the thoroughfares

01:24:43.820 --> 01:24:52.020
 within this area will be transformed from small two lane roadways to major thoroughfares

01:24:52.020 --> 01:24:58.620
 with the designation of secondary arterial that's my presentation I'm happy to stand

01:24:58.620 --> 01:25:03.140
 for any questions appreciate your time great thank you Mr. any questions

01:25:03.140 --> 01:25:13.180
 I do not see any thank you very much you presentation was very thorough appreciate that this is

01:25:13.180 --> 01:25:17.900
 a public hearing I don't have any other cards to speak but you are welcome to speak on this

01:25:17.900 --> 01:25:26.380
 item and you can fill out a card later is there anyone else wishing to speak okay seeing

01:25:26.380 --> 01:25:33.600
 none I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and open the dice for discussion or

01:25:33.600 --> 01:25:41.220
 motion Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve Commissioner McDade second we've

01:25:41.220 --> 01:25:49.340
 got a first and a second for approval any discussion okay let's vote on the board please

01:25:49.340 --> 01:26:06.260
 that motion carries seven zero that will take us to our next item 5b s two two zero zero

01:26:06.260 --> 01:26:13.780
 zero three invite Sean back up here and open the public hearing thank you I'll get my presentation

01:26:13.780 --> 01:26:21.340
 opened here all right good evening chair and members of planning his own Commission Sean

01:26:21.340 --> 01:26:27.900
 Jacobson associate planner presenting s 22 - three the speed of light this is a request

01:26:27.900 --> 01:26:33.140
 for a specific use permit for a broadband communication tower not to exceed 150 feet

01:26:33.140 --> 01:26:39.460
 of ground level or 871 feet above mean sea level site is located south of Barcelona Street

01:26:39.460 --> 01:26:43.860
 near the intersection of Barcelona and Mesa and the tower is proposed as you can see the

01:26:43.860 --> 01:26:50.620
 red star there at the southwest corner of the existing building currently there is an

01:26:50.620 --> 01:26:56.340
 SUP that approves a monopole tower on this site not to exceed 88 feet in height so the

01:26:56.340 --> 01:27:01.940
 question the SUP come for you now is for that increase in height from not to exceed 88 to

01:27:01.940 --> 01:27:09.380
 a tower not to exceed 150 and the land use consideration here is that our code states

01:27:09.380 --> 01:27:15.380
 that a monopole tower exceeding 85 feet does require an SUP it's also important to be aware

01:27:15.380 --> 01:27:19.820
 that we have the airport height hazard district as well which sets a limit of eight hundred

01:27:19.820 --> 01:27:26.580
 and ten feet above mean sea level for any structure and in order to surpass that a variance

01:27:26.580 --> 01:27:31.420
 is required from the zoning board of adjustment if the applicant can provide a letter of determination

01:27:31.420 --> 01:27:37.540
 from the FAA indicating that a tower exceeding the airport height hazard district height limitation

01:27:37.540 --> 01:27:42.900
 will not negatively impact airport operations the applicant does have such a letter and

01:27:42.900 --> 01:27:47.900
 if they are approved recommended for approval and approved by PNZ and city council they

01:27:47.900 --> 01:27:52.600
 would have to proceed to ZBA in order to get that variance approved before they could proceed

01:27:52.600 --> 01:27:59.380
 so just keep me in mind that would be a subsequent approval should this be approved and just

01:27:59.380 --> 01:28:04.660
 providing a little background here the original approval of the tower planning and zoning

01:28:04.660 --> 01:28:11.820
 commission city council approved the SUP but set that 88 height level in order to comply

01:28:11.820 --> 01:28:16.700
 with the airport height hazard district the applicant then went to the FAA in order to

01:28:16.700 --> 01:28:21.580
 get a determination letter and is now returned with a request for an SUP for the additional

01:28:21.580 --> 01:28:28.780
 height here is the site plan just showing the area in yellow is the only area intended

01:28:28.780 --> 01:28:32.980
 for development through this SUP and that would be where the tower would be constructed

01:28:32.980 --> 01:28:39.140
 with a six foot high wooden fence around it in compliance with our standards showing the

01:28:39.140 --> 01:28:46.060
 tower elevations here monopole tower and just noting the light at the top would be omnidirectional

01:28:46.060 --> 01:28:50.440
 per FAA standards it would be a white strobe during the day switching to a red blinking

01:28:50.440 --> 01:28:56.560
 light at night it's the lighting that is required and designed to have minimum impact while

01:28:56.560 --> 01:29:02.440
 still meeting legal standards of course it's always important to consider our comprehensive

01:29:02.440 --> 01:29:08.660
 plan and alignment with it the future land use designation here is again for light industrial

01:29:08.660 --> 01:29:12.740
 and one of the things that is discussed in that is the importance of providing adequate

01:29:12.740 --> 01:29:18.140
 infrastructure and as communication infrastructure is one part of adequate infrastructure providing

01:29:18.140 --> 01:29:24.820
 this in an LI future land use area would align with the intent of that future land use in

01:29:24.820 --> 01:29:29.780
 addition the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan has a goal to coordinate with service providers

01:29:29.780 --> 01:29:33.980
 to ensure the availability of communication infrastructure throughout the city so what's

01:29:33.980 --> 01:29:39.460
 been provided by the applicant there you can see on the left hand side is the coverage

01:29:39.460 --> 01:29:43.480
 that could be provided with the currently approved tower on the right hand side is the

01:29:43.480 --> 01:29:47.900
 greater amount of coverage that would be available if this increased height is approved so the

01:29:47.900 --> 01:29:51.780
 expanded broadband coverage would help to contribute to our comprehensive plan goal

01:29:51.780 --> 01:29:57.100
 of increased communications infrastructure compatibility with the surrounding area so

01:29:57.100 --> 01:30:01.900
 this is surrounded by some industrial some commercial significant amount of undeveloped

01:30:01.900 --> 01:30:08.700
 land the near single-family residential property is about point two miles away near single-family

01:30:08.700 --> 01:30:13.220
 residential neighborhood you can see in green there about point three miles away the topography

01:30:13.220 --> 01:30:19.540
 would somewhat limit the visible amount of the tower but the tower would be visible and

01:30:19.540 --> 01:30:24.700
 so we look at mitigation through design so again they own the only lighting they will

01:30:24.700 --> 01:30:29.880
 have is FAA required lighting as discussed no additional this is a monopole tower rather

01:30:29.880 --> 01:30:35.580
 than a lattice tower limiting the visual impact it would be three feet wide at the lowest

01:30:35.580 --> 01:30:40.260
 point it would be visible narrowing to about one foot wide and in addition at the proposed

01:30:40.260 --> 01:30:43.700
 tower complies with many of the voluntary guidelines from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

01:30:43.700 --> 01:30:49.060
 Service for minimizing impact on migratory birds because it does allow co-location not

01:30:49.060 --> 01:30:52.620
 only will this be a broadband tower but it will also permit self-service providers to

01:30:52.620 --> 01:30:56.300
 use the tower as well which limits the overall number of towers we're approving within our

01:30:56.300 --> 01:31:02.740
 city minimizing the environmental impact and the land use impact so overall this does meet

01:31:02.740 --> 01:31:11.220
 our criteria for approval we did do our standard notifications receive no responses so staff

01:31:11.220 --> 01:31:16.500
 is recommending approval with conditions and one of the very important conditions in there

01:31:16.500 --> 01:31:20.940
 is that the applicant if approved will know you need to go to the ZBA with that letter

01:31:20.940 --> 01:31:25.560
 from the FAA and receive approval of a variance for the additional height and that will have

01:31:25.560 --> 01:31:29.820
 to be approved before any building permit can be released for height above what's currently

01:31:29.820 --> 01:31:34.020
 permitted and then there are additional conditions related to flexibility to have a lower tower

01:31:34.020 --> 01:31:37.980
 if staff were to approve and just making that site plan and structure elevations part of

01:31:37.980 --> 01:31:43.860
 the ordinance with that that is my presentation happy to stand for any questions great Shawn

01:31:43.860 --> 01:31:54.260
 thank you any questions for Shawn at this time thank you very much this is a public

01:31:54.260 --> 01:31:59.460
 hearing I don't have any cards in front of me on this item but you are welcome to speak

01:31:59.460 --> 01:32:08.820
 on this item if you wish to do so okay seeing none I will go ahead and close the public

01:32:08.820 --> 01:32:16.720
 hearing and open the floor for discussion or emotion commissioner Smith make a motion

01:32:16.720 --> 01:32:23.260
 to approve with staff conditions with staff conditions Commissioner Cole second okay we've

01:32:23.260 --> 01:32:33.020
 got a first and a second for approval as presented with staff conditions Shawn I appreciate your

01:32:33.020 --> 01:32:38.140
 thorough presentation and answering my multiple questions that I posed to you over the last

01:32:38.140 --> 01:32:45.080
 day and a half or so yeah you answered my questions greatly I still feel like we've

01:32:45.080 --> 01:32:50.460
 got a little bit of this going on as I talked about in work session with what our AHHD says

01:32:50.460 --> 01:32:57.860
 we can do and and what we're doing I do feel comfortable with this recommendation knowing

01:32:57.860 --> 01:33:06.060
 we've got the the letter that is needed but I'm gonna work on on staff trying to improve

01:33:06.060 --> 01:33:10.500
 this whole situation here going forward but anyway thank you for being patient with my

01:33:10.500 --> 01:33:15.620
 questions as well as you Tina appreciate it okay if there's no other discussion let's

01:33:15.620 --> 01:33:29.340
 go ahead and vote on the board

01:33:29.340 --> 01:33:34.060
 that motion carries seven zero that will take us to our final public hearing of the night

01:33:34.060 --> 01:33:41.420
 on that is five cdca to two dash zero zero zero seven Ron is going to present this item

01:33:41.420 --> 01:33:45.300
 and I will open the public hearing thank you chair members of the Commission raman get

01:33:45.300 --> 01:33:51.940
 up and supply development services this request is a city initiated code amendment related

01:33:51.940 --> 01:33:57.140
 to access requirements and as mentioned during the work session the reason for this code

01:33:57.140 --> 01:34:04.780
 amendment was to address some of the questions and concerns raised in previous reviews of

01:34:04.780 --> 01:34:11.780
 applications specifically as it relates to access there were a number of projects I won't

01:34:11.780 --> 01:34:17.580
 name those projects but PD where there was a single family development multifamily where

01:34:17.580 --> 01:34:23.100
 it required a specific use permit and again discussions related access were brought up

01:34:23.100 --> 01:34:29.060
 we do have in the code a requirement that to access vehicle access be provided however

01:34:29.060 --> 01:34:36.740
 it also provides the caveat that we're feasible so what staff went to work with the DC RC

01:34:36.740 --> 01:34:42.180
 and as you can see here they've met four times on this particular item was to set a little

01:34:42.180 --> 01:34:49.380
 bit more explanation clarification on what is required under the code so we've put that

01:34:49.380 --> 01:34:53.740
 together and that's really that the summary of code amendments that you see here listed

01:34:53.740 --> 01:35:00.580
 is that first item amending section eight three two c one requiring two full unrestricted

01:35:00.580 --> 01:35:06.180
 access we also look worked on expanding the review criteria for waivers and I'll go I'll

01:35:06.180 --> 01:35:12.260
 go into further on what those are on my next slide the next four are related to access

01:35:12.260 --> 01:35:18.340
 as well primarily just making it more consistent with what we are proposing and what's currently

01:35:18.340 --> 01:35:24.980
 our practice but also as it relates to double frontage lots where I currently allows are

01:35:24.980 --> 01:35:31.860
 sorry we're only permits one access off of one frontage we're removing that requirement

01:35:31.860 --> 01:35:37.380
 but also referencing different codes and criteria manuals of the of the code of the DC that

01:35:37.380 --> 01:35:43.660
 is where that will be referenced access to a site across the property this has been a

01:35:43.660 --> 01:35:49.540
 long time city policy it has not been codified what we're proposing is to include this in

01:35:49.540 --> 01:35:55.500
 the into the DDC in those two particular sections sections five point two and as well as eight

01:35:55.500 --> 01:36:01.900
 three two eight eleven and then lastly amend section eight three two eight six as it relates

01:36:01.900 --> 01:36:06.860
 to driveway spacing just adding a little bit more language there to have the applicant

01:36:06.860 --> 01:36:13.260
 and potential developer understand that they need to make more space or be cognizant of

01:36:13.260 --> 01:36:17.900
 that spacing requirements so that when they develop or design their plan they're aware

01:36:17.900 --> 01:36:24.260
 or they're they're incorporating those spacing requirements so we'll go with the first one

01:36:24.260 --> 01:36:31.300
 this is a long code amendment here I wanted to spend some time here with the the commission

01:36:31.300 --> 01:36:35.660
 but also with the viewing public as you can see here what's highlighted or what's in

01:36:35.660 --> 01:36:42.980
 an orange it states at least two full points of access vehicle access into the proposed

01:36:42.980 --> 01:36:48.780
 development shall be provided now we've broken that up into two different categories residential

01:36:48.780 --> 01:36:53.300
 uses and non-residential uses I'll start with the non I'm sorry well start with the residential

01:36:53.300 --> 01:36:58.420
 uses these are all residential uses that are listed in our development code under table

01:36:58.420 --> 01:37:04.340
 five point two dash eight so any can any new construction where there are 30 dwelling units

01:37:04.340 --> 01:37:11.860
 or more are required to provide that to full vehicle access ones that are 29 or less they

01:37:11.860 --> 01:37:18.980
 do not they're just they can provide just one point of access B is that if there is

01:37:18.980 --> 01:37:25.180
 a development that has 29 but decides to add on to that as part of another phase then that

01:37:25.180 --> 01:37:30.500
 would then require that to full point of access at that point of their development we're also

01:37:30.500 --> 01:37:36.300
 providing two exemptions one that if those properties are in the MD they are not required

01:37:36.300 --> 01:37:42.460
 to provide that to full points of access and then D as well is an exemption of sites two

01:37:42.460 --> 01:37:48.580
 acres or less and has a parking structure they are exempt from this requirement I want

01:37:48.580 --> 01:37:53.260
 to point out as well while I'm here is that there are other code requirements related

01:37:53.260 --> 01:37:59.420
 to the fire code as well as to the transportation criteria manual so if those are applicable

01:37:59.420 --> 01:38:05.020
 they will still need to provide whatever is required for those particular codes now if

01:38:05.020 --> 01:38:12.980
 a developer or our builder cannot or decides to not comply with this code or wants to vary

01:38:12.980 --> 01:38:19.500
 from this particular section under residential uses they do have an option and that option

01:38:19.500 --> 01:38:24.540
 is through a subdivision variance and that will come to this body or this commission

01:38:24.540 --> 01:38:32.380
 for consideration switching on to non-residential uses any development that is 20,000 the lot

01:38:32.380 --> 01:38:38.620
 that is square feet or higher would require that two points of access and again cumulatively

01:38:38.620 --> 01:38:44.300
 if they exceed that on a large replating or another phase then that would need to be included

01:38:44.300 --> 01:38:49.820
 in their plans we're also carrying forward those exemptions related to MD as well as

01:38:49.820 --> 01:38:56.420
 the size of the property if it's two acres or less with a parking structure now the developer

01:38:56.420 --> 01:39:01.540
 if they choose not to follow this requirement they have an option and that is which is listed

01:39:01.540 --> 01:39:08.500
 in D and that is through our city engineer they can submit a request for a waiver and

01:39:08.500 --> 01:39:13.980
 we've proposed the language that you see here add a little bit more parameters as to what

01:39:13.980 --> 01:39:22.740
 would be what they would be able to for reasons for that waiver listed as shown again that

01:39:22.740 --> 01:39:27.980
 is a will then be up to the city engineer to decide letter E as I mentioned earlier

01:39:27.980 --> 01:39:33.380
 relates to the fire code and transportation criteria manual all of that will still be

01:39:33.380 --> 01:39:40.540
 applicable for all the developments and lastly F is just to again illustrate that full access

01:39:40.540 --> 01:39:49.100
 is an ingress and egress of that access and in order to be able to meet these requirements

01:39:49.100 --> 01:39:54.420
 so I'm going to then go into the next slide the other items that I listed as far as code

01:39:54.420 --> 01:39:59.620
 amendments you have in your backup so I won't go through them but based on the presentation

01:39:59.620 --> 01:40:04.140
 staff recommends approval of this as it meets the criteria as listed in the development

01:40:04.140 --> 01:40:13.440
 code section 2 7 4 D and with that I'll stand for any questions thank you Ron questions

01:40:13.440 --> 01:40:25.320
 for Ron on this think everybody still had their screens going so are we taking these

01:40:25.320 --> 01:40:29.660
 amendment at a time because there's other things that we're considering correct is that

01:40:29.660 --> 01:40:34.260
 they're they're they're all part of this right yes and okay they're they were included

01:40:34.260 --> 01:40:39.180
 in the back right yeah so you don't have further presentation on any of those okay so if you've

01:40:39.180 --> 01:40:44.500
 got questions on any of the backup material with regard to the other now would be the

01:40:44.500 --> 01:40:52.420
 time for that I do not see any thank you Ron this is a public hearing I don't have any

01:40:52.420 --> 01:40:56.700
 cards here in front of me to speak but you are welcome to speak on this item if you would

01:40:56.700 --> 01:41:05.220
 like okay seeing none I will go ahead and close the public hearing and I will open the

01:41:05.220 --> 01:41:11.860
 floor for discussion or a motion Commissioner Smith I'll make a motion to approve as recommended

01:41:11.860 --> 01:41:17.900
 Commissioner Villarreal second we've got a first and a second for approval any discussion

01:41:17.900 --> 01:41:24.260
 well I'll just say I know I was at the beginning discussions of some of this on the DCRC and

01:41:24.260 --> 01:41:29.060
 I know the rest of you furthered the way here and I know great thought and consideration

01:41:29.060 --> 01:41:36.420
 and much work by staff and the committee were done in this so thank you very much with that

01:41:36.420 --> 01:41:52.380
 let's go ahead and vote on the board that motion carries 7-0 that will take us to our

01:41:52.380 --> 01:41:57.140
 planning and zoning matrix for this evening I'll go ahead and turn it over to Tina first

01:41:57.140 --> 01:42:03.460
 thank you chairman Ellis with respect to the matrix there have been no changes made since

01:42:03.460 --> 01:42:10.980
 the last meeting under there was some discussion chairman Ellis you had requested that staff

01:42:10.980 --> 01:42:15.820
 as part of their zoning analysis considerations take a look at why conditions were put in

01:42:15.820 --> 01:42:19.580
 place previously but you did acknowledge that that did not need to be included on the matrix

01:42:19.580 --> 01:42:25.220
 so we didn't we did not add it so but otherwise there have been no changes made to the matrix

01:42:25.220 --> 01:42:30.340
 itself and then with respect to recent council action on items so we had a council meeting

01:42:30.340 --> 01:42:35.720
 last night and we did have several items on the agenda for consideration so let me let

01:42:35.720 --> 01:42:43.140
 me get to those so we do currently have an annexation that is tracking through council

01:42:43.140 --> 01:42:48.620
 right now that Ron has been working on and and this is in relation to a zoning case that

01:42:48.620 --> 01:42:55.300
 you have seen not too long ago north of 380 off of Thomas Egan Road and if you recall

01:42:55.300 --> 01:42:59.420
 we had taken zoning action and taking care of the zoning on the portion of the property

01:42:59.420 --> 01:43:04.060
 that was within the city limits and then they had a remaining track to the north and so

01:43:04.060 --> 01:43:08.020
 that remaining track to the north is what is tracking through from an annexation request

01:43:08.020 --> 01:43:12.580
 so eventually that property will come before the planning and zoning commission if it's

01:43:12.580 --> 01:43:17.100
 successfully annexed so the the municipal services agreement associated that was approved

01:43:17.100 --> 01:43:22.300
 last night also we had the first public hearing in the reading of the ordinance on that.

01:43:22.300 --> 01:43:31.940
 Additionally we had a couple of zoning cases one of which was a rezoning request from mixed

01:43:31.940 --> 01:43:37.620
 use regional to light industrial zoning district for about 53 acres of land located south of

01:43:37.620 --> 01:43:45.180
 Barthol road north of FM 1173 and about 700 feet west of the intersection of FM 1173 and

01:43:45.180 --> 01:43:52.280
 north I-35E so with that city council did vote to approve that rezoning and went by

01:43:52.280 --> 01:43:57.940
 a vote of seven zero and then we also had the specific use permit request which was

01:43:57.940 --> 01:44:02.420
 to allow for multifamily use on and on property that was located generally at the southeast

01:44:02.420 --> 01:44:07.940
 corner of Locust Street and loop 288 just north of Hercules if you recall that zoning

01:44:07.940 --> 01:44:13.180
 case and O'Shawn had worked with the applicant on that project and that was approved by council

01:44:13.180 --> 01:44:16.920
 with the conditions that were included within the specific use permit ordinance as as recommended

01:44:16.920 --> 01:44:22.220
 from the planning and zoning commission and that was approved seven zero so that takes

01:44:22.220 --> 01:44:27.020
 care of the actions on items that we had with council but happy to entertain any additional

01:44:27.020 --> 01:44:31.620
 requests additions being made to the matrix I know Commissioner Ellis you made mention

01:44:31.620 --> 01:44:35.340
 in work session maybe we need to look at that AHHD and the provisions related to that.

01:44:35.340 --> 01:44:40.780
 As a matter of fact yes that I am gonna so and I don't even know if it's for our matrix

01:44:40.780 --> 01:44:48.600
 or just we have an airport advisory committee correct I'll be honest with you I don't know

01:44:48.600 --> 01:44:54.380
 that I do believe that there is that okay so my thinking is maybe that's the body for

01:44:54.380 --> 01:45:07.020
 the AHHD look at I guess what I would maybe want for us to maybe discuss further is if

01:45:07.020 --> 01:45:15.500
 that if that particular thing is considered an overlay then how we look at things like

01:45:15.500 --> 01:45:23.060
 what we did today is something that I would entertain further discussion on just because

01:45:23.060 --> 01:45:27.660
 if we have an overlay in place it does seem like it it's something that should be respected

01:45:27.660 --> 01:45:34.100
 in and not for us to just approve that if it goes outside of that overlay so that was

01:45:34.100 --> 01:45:39.460
 kind of wordy and a lot of things there but if I need to clarify anything with you let

01:45:39.460 --> 01:45:45.500
 me know well I think between all the discussion that we've had this evening we've got a pretty

01:45:45.500 --> 01:45:48.380
 good idea of what we need to do but we can always follow up with you excellent great

01:45:48.380 --> 01:45:53.860
 Commissioner Villarreal I'm sorry if you mentioned this already but do you know how council reacted

01:45:53.860 --> 01:46:01.860
 to the CIA sees impact fee discussion so that presentation did occur yesterday I'll be honest

01:46:01.860 --> 01:46:06.260
 with you I did not catch all of the action related to it so Commissioner Elizabeth do

01:46:06.260 --> 01:46:10.780
 you have anything to add yeah I did watch it I thought that the discussion actually

01:46:10.780 --> 01:46:16.340
 went a little bit awry from I think what needed to probably is probably what you want an answer

01:46:16.340 --> 01:46:21.700
 to and that's what I was watching so I could get they honestly did not discuss the direction

01:46:21.700 --> 01:46:29.060
 of where they might land on some kind of fee they were looking forward to the final report

01:46:29.060 --> 01:46:36.960
 coming before them discussion got I think a little bit derailed on talking about infill

01:46:36.960 --> 01:46:45.260
 development and how we're going to deal with that exemption and then adding other exemptions

01:46:45.260 --> 01:46:52.160
 and so I almost feel like the discussion was going you know with what we actually kind

01:46:52.160 --> 01:46:58.220
 of focused on which I think is what needs to be eventually decided by council I thought

01:46:58.220 --> 01:47:04.780
 the discussion went a little bit off and went to more focus on what can be exempted which

01:47:04.780 --> 01:47:13.540
 I think is separate in a much different discussion and a future discussion so that's how it went

01:47:13.540 --> 01:47:18.100
 you'd have to probably get done with Becky well I think our timeline is the same they're

01:47:18.100 --> 01:47:23.100
 going to have the full report we're going to do that meeting I believe before our next

01:47:23.100 --> 01:47:29.140
 planning and zoning meeting but yeah so yeah yeah the portion I did see there was some

01:47:29.140 --> 01:47:33.500
 discussion potentially is whether or not they were going to take further consideration on

01:47:33.500 --> 01:47:37.780
 December 6th but I believe we're still staying the course with respect to the calendar and

01:47:37.780 --> 01:47:41.700
 I saw the latter part of the conversation and Chairwoman Ellis is correct with respect

01:47:41.700 --> 01:47:47.380
 to they did get in a fair amount of discussion especially regarding how we address infill

01:47:47.380 --> 01:47:51.660
 development what does that look like the term greenfield development was being kicked around

01:47:51.660 --> 01:47:55.620
 as well and whether or not they would be subject to that but which I do believe is is a much

01:47:55.620 --> 01:48:02.300
 bigger conversation and so we will be interesting to see how it continues to move forward yeah

01:48:02.300 --> 01:48:10.820
 anything else for the matrix any concluding items I think I'll just say happy Thanksgiving

01:48:10.820 --> 01:48:14.320
 because we will not meet before then and it's very hard to believe that is Thanksgiving

01:48:14.320 --> 01:48:20.540
 next week but it is so happy Thanksgiving you all have a wonderful holiday and with that

01:48:20.540 --> 01:48:25.300
 I will adjourn us at seven oh eight p.m. thank you very much everybody.