.
,
.
>>
All right.
So this item is a site plan for a chase bank at razor ranch
.
So you can see the subject property is outlined in yellow
on the map.
This site is approximately 1.3 acres.
It's a site that's been in use for a long time.
So this site is approximately 1.3 acres.
It is located on the south side of University Drive at the
intersection of town center boulevard which is just down
from
heritage trail which you all may be more familiar with by
name
there.
So the base zoning for the property is regional center
commercial
downtown.
However, this map here reflects the boundaries of what's
known as
the south side of the property.
So this property is part of what's known as the south RR2
district
which is kind of the commercial perimeter for what will
someday
be the town center as this develops here in the RR1 region.
And then the balance of the south side you have seen
recently as a
general development plan and preliminary plat which is kind
of
known as razor ranch east which is the south mixed use
district
that will be a mixture of residential and commercial.
So as some of you are familiar with all site plans for
razor ranch
are required to come before the planning and zoning
commission for
approval.
Specifically within the south RR2 district we have what's
called
exhibit C1 and D1 that dictate the architectural and
landscape
standards for these sites.
So the site plan elements that come before you all are the
site
plan itself which shows the layout of the building and
parking, the
landscape plans and the building elevations.
The overlay district does outline several criteria for
approval.
So it dictates that the P&Z shall approve a site plan and
the
P&Z shall approve a site plan if it finds that the plan is
in
substantial compliance with that concept plan that we just
saw for
the razor ranch overlay.
So this is in conformance with the commercial uses
permitted in
the south RR2 district.
The second criteria being that the site plan provides for a
compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that
wouldn't
adversely affect any adjoining neighborhoods or properties.
That it provides for adequate and safe vehicular
circulation.
And that it fully complies with all other sections of the
overlay.
So I'll kind of walk through the site plan and the
different
elements now so that you can see how it is in compliance
with those
requirements.
So here's the site plan for this property.
So you can see just one building of approximately 4800
square feet.
The use is considered professional service as well as
drive-through.
Both of those are permitted in the south RR2 district.
They're proposing just over 40 parking spaces.
So about 42 are shown here.
They are only required 16.
As you've heard me say before, razor kind of wrote into the
overlay that they don't have to comply with the city's
maximum
parking requirements.
So they can't overpark a site without having to go through
the
ADP process that a normal site plan would.
And they are providing one point of access here that will
be from a
shared driveway with the restaurant next door.
So no direct access concerns because they're not directly
tying into 380 or Town Center Trail here.
They'll just have that one internal driveway.
Looking at their landscaping, so this site's required a
minimum
of 10% landscaping and 25% tree canopy.
So they are in excess of both of those requirements.
The area outlined in yellow is where they would provide the
required plaza elements.
So they are exceeding the minimum plaza area.
And this area will contain benches, shade trees,
and planters to make it a more pedestrian-friendly space.
And one of the other key components when there is a
drive-through is the required screening.
So to screen this from the adjoining drive aisles,
they provided some extra landscaping in the form of
shrubs here in front of the drive-through.
And then they provided a low masonry wall here on the south
side to kind of screen that, the drive-through lanes from
the
adjoining drive aisle.
Here are the proposed elevations for the buildings.
This is the west side on top and then the north elevation
is there
on the bottom.
The primary building materials are limestone brick and stuc
co.
So these are in compliance with the architectural standards
for
RAZOR and consistent with the general theming of the native
Texas stone and limestone throughout the town center area.
Here you can see the other two sides of the building.
So this is what the drive-through would look like.
And that low masonry wall would sit approximately here just
outside those drive aisles to screen the cars from the
right-of-way.
So staff is recommending approval of the request.
We found it to be compliant with all of the applicable
regulations within the overlay district as well as the
criteria for approval.
And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
-Christine or Becky?
-Just a quick question.
Is this a relocation for Chase Bank?
I believe they have one down on Inklund University.
-I'm not aware of it being a relocation.
But I believe the developer for RAZOR will be here this
evening
so you can answer that question.
-Thank you, Abe.
-Christine or Alice?
-Thank you, Chair.
Just curious on the 42 parking places, that is a lot for a
bank.
Did you ask?
-It did seem like a high number.
I'm not sure what their driving factor is for that, but
they
felt that that was the amount of parking they needed
because
there was some question about whether there should be a
second
dumpster location on the site.
And that would have required them to lose parking, and they
were very opposed to losing any parking spaces for their
customers and staff.
-Thank you.
With that, with the drive-through traffic, is that
coming in off of the Chili's parking lot?
Is that how they're getting to the drive-through?
-Correct.
So the traffic would enter here from the shared driveway,
and
then when they exit, either loop around to the south or to
the
north back through the parking lot.
-And they can go around the building when they exit?
-Correct.
They could maneuver either way when they come out of that
drive-through.
I would imagine most of them would go here to the south
straight out back to the driveway.
-Is the stacking on the site plan, is that accurate?
-Yes.
-At high times, I wonder how that's going to go as far as
the line waiting for drive-through.
-Yeah, I believe they did meet the adequate stacking
distance
for our engineers when they reviewed this.
But I think with the four driveways, there wasn't generally
a concern that it would back up too much because there's
multiple options there.
-It worked as long as it was looked at.
Thanks.
-Any other questions?
I have two.
One is along the lines of Commissioner Ellis.
The bank operation is kind of inverse to the Chili's
operation in terms of uses of parking.
42 seems like a whole lot to put a lot of concrete out
there.
So maybe I could talk to the applicant about that.
If they put more green space or I don't know what options
we have.
But with that, I didn't hear, but can you talk about where
they're putting bike stands?
-I don't recall seeing bike racks.
I'll try to look a little more closely here.
-With their overlay, are they required to?
-No, it's an option that they can include within the plaza
area.
But it's not a strict requirement that they have bicycle
parking.
It may be something that they'd be amenable to adding if
you think
that would make the site more consistent with the
surroundings.
I know many of the restaurants in the area do have bike
racks.
-I'm also thinking of Razor Rance East, which is about to
be residential.
They could easily ride their bike over to the bank.
-Yeah, I'm not seeing bike racks.
I don't recall if they have them.
I'm not seeing them called out here on the plan.
That's something I can look into for the regular meeting.
-Awesome.
Any other questions?
Great.
So that moves us on to our public hearing items.
Item 5A has been postponed until the October 24th meeting.
So has Item 5C has also been postponed to the October 10th
meeting.
So the only item for public hearing tonight is 5B, which is
S18-6, which is Haley.
-All right.
So this is a specific use permit request related to a drive
-through for McDonald's.
So you can see the subject property outlined here in yellow
.
As I mentioned, the request is for a specific use permit to
allow for a drive-through on this site.
The site, as you can kind of see here with the faint white
lines, is a combination of three kind of remainders
after all of this frontage here was taken by textile to
future right-of-way.
So what was left was approximately 1.69 acres where
McDonald's is proposed to go.
So the zoning for the site is Downtown Commercial General.
Within this district, the McDonald's itself is permitted by
right.
It's the drive-through that requires the specific use
permit.
And as we've looked at before, the criteria for approval of
an SUP are very lengthy.
Those are enumerated in your staff analysis, and I'm happy
to go through them if you'd like.
But kind of in summary, the main component of an SUP is
requiring compatibility between this use and surrounding
properties.
So looking to see whether this use would impede any sort of
normal and orderly development on surrounding properties,
whether it would generate any nuisances in terms of access,
traffic, odors, lighting, that sort of thing,
as well as landscaping and architectural compatibility.
So we'll kind of walk through the details of what's
proposed here.
So you can see outlined in blue, the building itself is
just over 5,000 square feet.
What they're proposing is a two-lane drive-through here on
the east side of the site.
So you can see cars would enter here on the south side.
And then there are two lanes.
I kind of use the yellow stars to indicate where those
ordering points would be at the drive-through.
And then this would funnel down into one lane that would
wrap around the building.
And there are two windows here, as is typical at a McDonald
's, where you pay at one window and then pick up at the
other.
They do have all the required parking for the site.
So the size of the development requires 50 parking spaces,
which they've accommodated.
They do have three points of entry into the site.
So you can see here one of the existing driveways is being
maintained.
If you drive by the site, you'd see there's also a driveway
here that will be closed with this development.
So they would maintain this driveway, as well as the
existing pavement that's here off of South Locust Street
would be another entry point.
And then, as is required by code for commercial development
to have cross access,
they would have one point of shared access with the bank
property to the north.
In looking at the drive-through itself, the DDC has
requirements for drive-throughs being screened from the
right-of-way when you're in a pedestrian-oriented district.
This isn't actually in a pedestrian district, but to make
it more compatible and consistent with the area,
we talked to the applicant about ways that they could
provide screening along the right-of-way, you know, to just
limit any visual nuisances that may occur here.
It is typical highway development, but we thought enhancing
it with landscaping would be appropriate.
So what they were able to provide is the required type C
buffer between commercial and multifamily development.
They've included all of those elements here in the area in
light green.
And then they've accommodated the required street trees, as
well as required parking lot screening here on the front,
as well as providing some enhanced landscaping in some of
these areas you can see around their signs,
as well as some additional bushes and shrubbery here at the
entrances to kind of enhance the visuals of this from the
right-of-way.
So they've accommodated all of the required landscaping, as
well as provided excess in the number of total landscaping
that's required.
Fifteen percent is the minimum. They're at almost 30
percent.
And then you can see here they've also proposed some
enhanced landscaping along the drive-through to make that
more visually pleasing as you're going through.
So there are some color elevations, so just wanted to show
the schematic drawings of the site here for your reference.
The building is approximately 20 feet tall with a
combination of masonry and architectural metal as the main
materials.
So looking here at the colored renderings, fairly typical
prototype for a McDonald's.
As I mentioned, they do have a combination of brick, some e
phas on the upper portions of the building, which is a stuc
co-like material,
and then these architectural metal panels that have become
rather popular at the McDonald's facilities.
You can see here on the bottom what the drive-through
itself would look like, so kind of the standard McDonald's
prototype, as I mentioned.
So some of the further analysis that we did for this case
was looking at our future land use plan.
So this area is deemed on our future land use map for
community mixed use, so that is a predominantly commercial
designation.
It's an area where we're encouraging infill and attractive
redevelopment, so that's fairly fitting.
Three parcels were taken with the Tex-Dot right-of-way
acquisition.
And just in general, this is kind of a typical highway-
style development that we would see in these areas at the
intersection of two major arterials.
Looking at surrounding land uses, as I mentioned, we have a
bank just to the north. This is Impress Graphics, as the
other northern adjoining property.
And then we do have quite a bit of multifamily density here
behind this use.
So, like I mentioned, the McDonald's is not only consistent
with what we typically see along a highway, but generally
compatible with the mixture in this area.
There's a gas station and other fast food just across the
street from it.
So it's consistent with kind of the auto-oriented
development that's in this area.
Notifications were sent out about this. We've received no
responses to date.
The applicant did post the required signs on the property,
so you've probably seen those. They've been up since late
August.
And there wasn't a neighborhood meeting held for this case.
They didn't really see that they would get a whole lot of
response from the surrounding commercial development, which
is consistent with what we saw with our legal notices.
But I'm happy to answer any other questions. We are
recommending approval of the case with one condition.
Commissioner Beck.
Go ahead and cite the condition.
Okay. It's kind of our standard condition for SUPs that we
consider these preliminary drawings as they go through the
remainder of replatting the property.
We would look at that time a full site plan would come in
for review to make sure it's consistent with all of the
other requirements of the code.
Okay, thanks. Thank you, Chair.
Concerning the text dot right-of-way, go back to your site
location picture.
So the yellow line, everything up the yellow line is the
text dot right-of-way?
That's correct. All of this property between the existing
service road and here has been acquired by text dot.
And that's for future use?
Correct.
Okay, which we don't know what that is right now, right?
Yeah, I think they have some schematic plans out. But the
future widening of both the actual I-35 corridor as well as
the service roads.
My only concern, and it may not be that big of a deal, is
it'll draw in some extra cars there at feeding time
especially.
And you've got the three lanes. You've got one where you've
got to turn left, one where you got to go straight, and the
other one you've got to turn right.
And I can see that stacking up at certain hours. It's too
bad that McDonald's won't have the opportunity to put a
little access lane there to keep the traffic flowing.
So, I don't know. We'll just have to see how that goes. And
I guess they're parking on the would be the north side. Are
they sharing that with the bank next to them? Or is that
theirs along that north line? Yeah.
This is actually the bank property up here. So they're just
showing that for...
That's not in their parking account?
No, sir. All of their parking spaces are accommodated on
site.
How many they got on site?
They have 50, so you can see they have, you know, kind of
parking on all sides as well as actually some parallel
spaces, even over here and some back by the dumpsters.
Are they over their limit?
They're at exactly the required number.
Okay, great. Thank you.
And with respect to the driveways, they did do a full
traffic impact analysis for this. And they've worked with
PreTam extensively to make sure that these driveways are at
appropriate locations.
So, the spacing was a little difficult, but they were able
to meet everyone's goals in providing what PreTam considers
safe access to the site.
Commissioner Sanchez.
On what you talk about the vegetation, on the south side
you have some trees right there. Now, is there any concern
that as those trees mature, they'll hide the McDonald's and
it won't be as visible?
You know, it is possible, but as is typical with McDonald's
, they have plans for all of their normal signs to make sure
that their site is adequately visible from the right away.
So they would have not only the sign here on Fort Worth
Drive, they also have plans to apply for permits for signs
along the freeway to make sure the site visibility is
maintained.
And then of course all these existing trees in this area
are within the text out right of way. So, you know, that
would be up to text out as to how long those trees maintain
on the site.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. That raises another question. Are we
going to put the tree protections around those existing
trees, even though it's on text out, but I mean, because
they could be impacted by construction.
So are we, is the city going to be responsible for
protecting those trees or is it text out?
The tree protection would apply to the area that they're
disturbing, which would just be within the boundaries of
this lot. So there are several trees.
There's one existing tree here within the buffer area as
well as a few others that you can see called out here with
these large circles, that they would be required to have
protection around because those are on their tree
preservation plan.
So, if some of those existing trees on text out right away
gets damaged, nobody's going to take responsibility for
that?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe they would have
any impact with their development in this area.
It shouldn't, it should all be outside of their area of
impact.
Most of them do look like you've got the cluster right
there.
This driveway, the paving is already there, so they may do
some improvements there, but their construction would be
just within their lot.
Okay, thank you.
So a couple questions.
The current exit ramp, is it right at, I'm trying to
visualize.
Okay, it got moved back. Okay, it used to be a lot closer
before this.
So that's good.
The other question I have is, we just widened I-30, well we
, not me.
Text out is widened I-35 and the service roads seem to be
in place, so it seems, I don't know the timeframe of
extending that any further.
But what's, who's required to keep that plot of land decent
looking?
Because it could be years before anything happens there,
and we're going to have this text out owned property that
is a pretty prime location to the entrance of our city,
that no one has responsibility to put nice grasses or
anything in?
It is fully owned and maintained by TextDOT, it's my
understanding.
They have kind of the same situation all over the city
where they've acquired all this future right of way, but it
is owned and maintained by TextDOT.
That's concerning. And then the last question I have is,
just because we had McDonald's, maybe the same people come
a couple years ago, closer to campus or on campus,
depending on who you ask.
There's a large backlash on signage. There's a lot of talk
about the signs they get put up and how tall and where they
go.
Is that to be determined in this SUP or is that just, they
just have to approve staffs or the city's requirements? How
does the signage work?
Yeah, so signs are, each individual sign would be a
separate permit application, so it's not like if they apply
for three signs that they'd all get approved or denied
together.
They're all looked at independently.
And those, even though they showed their intended sign
locations here on this plan, those are each subject to
individual review and approval as they get further through
the process.
But correct me if I'm wrong, the signage on the primary
arterial has a different standard than the freeway side, or
is it based on zoning?
It is both. It's by zoning and type of roadway. So the Fort
Worth Drive sign would have different criteria than the
freeway signage.
I'm happy to look into what those limits are if you're
interested before the regular meeting.
Not a big deal. And then they are continuing to drive
through TxDOT property. Are they required to maintain all
the way up to the curb? Or where is their requirements to
maintain that exit?
I believe, you know, until something occurs here that this
would be their driveway to maintain. They are, or they will
be required to get a TxDOT permit for any work that they do
on this property, but it would be their driveway to
maintain, is my understanding.
Okay, thank you.
Christian Pernetta.
So, I believe one of the entrances is shared by the bank,
the one off of Locust. Is that entrance into the McDonald's
, do they share an entrance with a, it looks like an
apartment complex?
I see if it shows up well on the aerial.
I have a more zoomed in version. Their driveway would be
just south of the apartment. So you can see here it doesn't
show up very well. This, where I'm pointing with the cursor
, is actually the apartments driveway, and theirs is just
south of that.
Okay.
Kind of right in the in the bend of South Locust Street. So
, it's not ideal.
But, but it was the best suited location and it is actually
existing paving for whatever used to be on that property.
It was an existing driveway. Because that's kind of like a
tight fit because, because I get around traffic all the
time by bailing at Locust and going there.
And that's, so it means a lot to me.
But, but, so, so what you're describing is like right off
the turn right before the bend would be the entrance into
the McDonald's. Correct. And that's kind of two quick turns
. I'm not, it seems like it might be a little bit dangerous.
It was looked at in part of their traffic impact analysis,
and what they found is the the apartment driveway has very
low traffic volume so they didn't see that there would be
any any you know inconsistencies or hazards there if you
will between traffic competing between the between the two
driveways.
It is a quick motion but it being an existing driveway.
It was kind of hard to say no you can't use the paving that
's already on your property. But, but all of this was looked
at in depth because they were trying to determine, you know
, which one of these two driveways here on the service road
would be more appropriate.
And this was found the southern one closest to that Locust
Point was found to be kind of the safer where people would
have more time to determine what they're doing as they're
entering and leaving the McDonald's with these three lanes
on the on the frontage road.
But, but yeah that was a concern, but the volume of traffic
that uses that apartment entrance wasn't high enough that
they thought there would be any conflict there between
people trying to get to McDonald's versus the apartments.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions on this item.
Is the applicant going to be present tonight. I believe so.
Thank you. That ends our public hearing items so we will
move on to our work session item to to a would be receive a
presentation and discussion about project types.
I believe this is a continuation from last meeting.
Good evening I'm Julie Wyatt.
And I am presenting the second half of boot camp for the
second half of the introduction of boot camp. So, last
meeting we, we started talking about the project type so my
task was to talk to you to you about what types of projects
that the city typically season that you see,
whether or not that project type requires a public hearing,
and then who approves it so if I if I repeat myself tell me
to keep skipping forward but I think we talked about the
pre development meeting and what that meant and what how
developers use that pre development
meeting.
And we had, we started talking about the entitlement
process.
Had we finished it. I'll dive in and we'll, and we'll, if I
repeat myself. That's all right so. So in the development
process kind of the next step would be entitlement so.
First of all, if a property isn't within the city of Denton
, an applicant may choose to pursue an annexation. That's
not something that comes before the planning and zoning
Commission it would go straight to city council.
But as you probably are aware when a property is annexed
into the city of Denton, it gets kind of a place holding
zoning designation it's not actually zoned.
So, so they may have to do a zoning for that property,
particularly if they're going to develop something other
than a single family home on a five acre lot.
So, the first thing the staff does when we receive a rez
oning request is to look at the future land use map and the
comprehensive plan.
If the if a rezoning doesn't match the comprehensive plan.
There are a couple ways that could be addressed. One is a
comprehensive plan amendment. This is not something that we
see terribly often within the city of Denton.
The code is pretty specific that it can only be done four
times a year and it actually lays out what months can be
the comprehensive plan can be amended.
But the code does allow for zoning changes that are not
consistent with the comprehensive plan to move forward
provided that they have additional criteria for approval
that they have to, they have to meet so.
So the second project type would be that comprehensive plan
amendment, it would follow that that process you typically
see where there is a public hearing.
This group would recommend make a recommendation and then
city council would either approve or deny that request a
zoning change is something you frequently see and that is,
it requires a public hearing.
And this, this commission is a recommending body, and then
city council would approve or deny that request.
Master plan community is something you don't see often as
well. If you're curious in sub chapter seven of the Denton
development code it lays out that master plan community
project type.
It really is kind of, it's a plan development but it's a
very large scale plan development so the code requires a
minimum of either 300 contiguous acres, or 125 contiguous
acres provided that it's under one ownership so it's a
really large project.
It includes the entire zoning, in that it would lay out the
text as well as a map for that area the text would include
the uses permitted, maybe the development standards,
cohesive design, design standards.
So, and then it would include a map that would say where
those those uses would go so it is really just a very large
plan development. We don't have a lot of those I think we
have a couple of them within the city but to my knowledge
we haven't had one actually developed.
So, but they may come forward.
Specific use permit, you just, you just talked about one,
we see those from time to time. As you're probably aware
specific use permit is is required for some uses within
zoning districts that may be compatible, but that require a
little extra scrutiny.
Often there are design considerations associated with it so
you saw that Haley talked about that we looked at that that
McDonald's is kind of a pedestrian oriented so what kind of
landscaping would be associated where would the driveways
go how would we, how would
those vehicles move safely in and out of the site to ensure
that it is compatible with the adjacent development, and
when all with also with the, the general character of the
area so all those zonings often are just looking at the use
and the development scale
kind of that high level that specific use really does get
into the weeds about where those trees are where those
driveways are what the building looks like.
That is reviewed by staff. It requires a public hearing, a
recommendation and then council will approve a specific use
permit plan development.
You may or may not be aware we we had planned developments
within the city of Denton in the 2002 code they got rid of
plan developments but they retained a few of them, I think
16 or 15 of them.
So, so we don't have a lot but we do have some and so this
plan development amendment sometimes come before you.
And typically what you see is the detail plan so it often
looks kind of like a specific use permit it's really, there
's a lot of design considerations associated with that not
necessarily talking about the use but of course the use
would inform the design so.
And how it's compatible with the adjacent property so that
plan development amendment follows that that public hearing
process that staff reviews it, it comes before y'all after
that public hearing notification and then council approves
or denies it.
Yes, sir back.
And I could be wrong this along the DC rewrite.
The master plan communities. They're going away, aren't
they, and being replaced by plan development. I believe so,
yes. Okay. Okay, so the ones that exist now though, we
still hold them to that criteria that they were formed
under right, I'm going to, I would imagine that they're
going to continue on as a plan development with those
design criteria.
Okay, yes.
Thank you. All right, so if a developer has got their entit
lement in place they've gone through those public hearings,
they're looking to forward to developing the property.
We start actually looking at the land and how it's going to
be split apart or developed.
So, so then plotting and environmentally sensitive areas
come into play. If the property has an environmentally
sensitive area something like a riparian buffer or upland
habitat some forested area, they may need to do an
environmentally environmentally sensitive
area assessment that is approved at the staff level. But
what it does is allow staff to go out and look for
biological markers that would indicate that an
environmentally sensitive area is in place, and then maybe
what those boundaries are so that we can actually map it.
So, so that would be one step that that the applicant may
have to go through a subdivision variance would come before
the planning and zoning Commission if they wanted to vary
from sub chapter 16 of the Denton Development Code we don't
see those very often.
But it is a possibility if they wanted to vary from one of
those criteria in there, it would, it would require a
public hearing, and then, but the decision would be made
here.
So, the advance plots are a plot that would subdivide the
property it doesn't give any development rights for
developer it just merely cuts a large tract into several
pieces, and that is approved by the planning and zoning
Commission, as well as the general development plan,
that's also approved by the planning and zoning Commission
that would be for large tracks, where we talk about
infrastructure and make sure that infrastructure is in
place or where it's going to go preliminary plots are
approved by the planning and
zoning Commission, as are, and then amending and minor
plots those are approved by staff, y'all don't ever see
those. So just to let you know what a minor plot is a minor
plot is a is a plot that subdivide the property into four
or fewer lots that no public infrastructure
is required, except for a sidewalk, and that would generate
fewer than 1000 vehicle trips per day so that's what our
code allows that to be approved at the staff level. And so
does the Texas local government code.
So if an applicant does find that they have an ESA and
environmentally sensitive area on their property, they,
they may want to impact it, because per the code they can't
impact it unless they get approval of an environmentally
sensitive area plan so I know we've seen a couple
of them I think you just recently saw one that they, they
needed to cross that so if if that's the case, staff would
review it public hearing is required PNC recommend is a
recommending body and then Council would approve civil
engineering
plans are not something that come here they're part of the
final plot review. It's to review things like water and
sewer extensions to any perimeter street improvements, any
regional drainage.
So replats.
You're seeing a couple tonight, and that is approved here
and then replats and residential replats. Those require a
public hearing and they are approved by PNC.
We're getting close to the end of an alternative
development plan. So, so, a developer has their entit
lements they have their planning and now they're looking to
develop the site.
If, if they cannot meet all the site design requirements or
if there's something unique you know, something about their
project that they can't meet all of them that are in sub
chapter 13 and the development code.
They can do something called an alternative development
plan. And this is really site specific, it's you specific
it's design specific and it is approved or approved or
denied or approved with conditions are denied by the
planning and zoning commission so essentially
an approval by the planning and zoning commission. Often
you'll see that maybe they can't meet a certain screening
with, but they would come in here and say well I can't meet
that with but I'm going to add this mini landscape elements
so you can't.
So, so there's there's a lot of discussion within the
review of that to make sure that the intent of those design
criteria are met, but that it provides some flexibility for
that applicant, and that would be approved here.
No public hearing, but it is a public meeting so that's
that that's this razor ranch site plan that's approved you
saw one tonight approved by PNC, and then a site plan if an
applicant was coming in and they were going to meet all
site design requirements
in sub chapter 13, then it would just be a staff level
approval.
These. The next group doesn't come to you it goes to the
zoning Board of Adjustment but a hardship variance just for
your edification is reviewed by planning or by staff.
It does require a public hearing, and then the zoning Board
of Adjustment would approve that approve it with conditions
or deny it. And then an appeal of an administrative
decision is reviewed and approved by PN by ZBA.
The historic landmark we see a couple of those come through
every year or so that has an extra step to it and that it's
it's they make an application with staff. It's reviewed by
staff, it goes to the HLC the historic landmark commission,
then it comes here and
then it goes to city council because it's actually an extra
layer of zoning on it on an individual property.
So that is mostly all of the project. It generally the ones
that we see most often. So this is just a summary and this
is kind of a restating of section 35.4.1 and the
development code, just as a shorthand PNC approves GDPs and
plots, alternative
eases plans razor ranch site plans and subdivision var
iances. The planning and zoning recommends a is a
recommending body and city council approved company
comprehensive plan amendments zoning master plan
communities SUPs plan development
amendments alternative uses, and DDC text amendments, and
then city council only looks at annexations.
Any questions about that.
Okay, I'll be very fast I know y'all are might be boot camp
ed out but public hearing requirements we'll talk very
briefly about those because I know it comes up from time to
time and I know it's a really important part of that of the
process.
So just to recap there are four elements to the public
hearing require or notification requirements. It has to be
in the newspaper. There's a mailing component, the sign
posting and then the website and then we'll talk briefly
about the protest.
So first of all newspaper. I don't know if y'all are aware
but this is what the newspaper ads look like it has the
caption. It has a map contact information and then the
meeting information.
It has to be in the paper. The day before the day before 15
days before the meeting so essentially 17 days before the
meeting.
We also have a mailing. The city of Denton goes above and
beyond with the Texas local government code requires so the
Texas local government require Texas local government code
requires that the newspaper, and then a mailing to property
owners within 200 feet of the subject property.
The city of Denton does do that mailing, and here is kind
of a just to pull out of what that looks like. Recent
projects have have caused some confusion for the public
about what was actually being considered so we're always
trying to improve our public notification
and our public outreach and so recently we've added to our
notification letters, a little blurb about kind of what the
project, what's really being considered not just the
caption the captions, fairly vague so we're trying to
improve that make sure that we're providing the public
with enough information to make decisions to make decisions
about what kind of feedback they want to give. So, this,
the 200 foot notification by the city of Denton is sent
certified mail that is above and beyond with the Texas
local government code requires.
And it does have to be sent it 12 days, two days, the day
before the day before 10 days before the meeting so
essentially 12 days before the meeting, and that it's, it's
male to each owner as indicated by the most recently
approved city tax roll that can create some confusion,
because houses are bought and sold all year long, and so,
but this tax rolls are only certified once a year. So it.
There can be some lag time and that, you know, sometimes
you don't always get the most current information on there.
Julie.
Is there a reason that the city doesn't use the central app
raisal district that seems to have more updated information
about ownership. We do get that information once a year.
I believe it's our DDC that that talks about that it has to
be the most recently approved city tax roll so, and we've
talked internally about having some sort of rolling where
we get that most up to date information, but under current
regulations,
it's got to be that that once a year shot at those at those
tax rolls, so.
We also go beyond but this may, I think this helps it a
little bit because the city requires an additional mailing
that goes to the property address so we send it to the
property owner, and then we also send it to the property
address so if we don't capture them
within that property owner, we at least get them on the
address and they get the postcard and I think we worked
pretty closely with this group here about how to best
notify property owners within the 500 feet.
And that does go both to the people within 200 and 500. Yes
, sir, that whole so that entire boundary Yes, sir. So, so
if you're within 200 feet you're getting a certified letter
and you're getting a postcard from us.
So we do residents. The postcard there was a lot of
discussion about what do people open, how can we make sure
that they see it. And it was the postcard we felt like was
the best, the best way because it's it provides the caption
.
It provides a map, and it's a quick snapshot that they can
look at and know that it probably. They probably need to
pay attention to it.
We also require the applicants to put signs on the property
, so that as people pass by I know we've we've recently u
pped the size of the signs because they were quite small and
we're difficult to read.
So we've, we've, they've generated a lot of interest and
that's a good thing. And then our website, the all upcoming
public hearings are put on our website so those are four
ways we try to try to alert the public to what's coming up.
So there's a protest component to this. And just to, we see
this map a lot, and I don't know how often we explain it
but just to go over it briefly. So, just this is a recent
case this is the property in yellow.
The boundary there is in red and then there's the 500 foot
boundary per the Texas local government code property
owners within 200 feet of the subject site, have the
ability to protest, the, the action or the request.
They have to provide the protest in writing.
And, and the only portion that counts is the part that is
actually.
That 200 feet so.
If you're this property owner only this part here counts
toward that protest so it is, it is the the land area
within that. If there is a protest that exceeds 20% of that
land area, then it does require a supermajority at City
Council.
I would also say if this, if this group votes to deny or
recommend denial of a request that would also trigger a
supermajority at City Council, and that's six out of seven.
Any questions.
All right.
I'm going to talk about maybe how that goes. Excuse me, up
until the meeting. So it doesn't just stop it after the PNC
hearing. That's a really good point those that goes up
until when City Council votes and we've, we've been sitting
at City Council before with our calculators
so we've we've had some where they really got up to the
wire, and then tie vote, I don't know if I could speak elo
quently on tie vote I might ask legal or Scott to jump in
here and
just one piece that's important when we talk about the
supermajority Scott McDonald director of development
services that we're going to be bringing forward a piece
that's going to address the tie vote provision that it will
still continue to be a denial as this
report is recognized to the past we've had a tie vote that
ultimately was just going to continue perpetually unless we
address this. So Council had been provided with the
presentation, addressing the issue how they want to address
it with a variety of boards or just
specifically with PNC. Their recommendation was to bring
forward that we would address it with PNC only we are going
to provide a text amendment, which is going to address the
fact that if there is in fact a tie vote.
That tie vote would be a denial, and it would go forward to
counsel.
And then it would just be a regular majority with counsel.
So, just kind of cool questions, Christopher Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Did we model that ordinance or that text amendment on other
cities who have that already put in place or where did we
decide, not that I disagree with the deciding to make it a
denial just that that is finite to the applicant that if
there's a tie perpetual tie.
Is, is it only in the case where there's a perpetual tie or
is it, you know, Andrew's missing that one meeting, or type
boom it's a denial whereas if we wait two weeks, Andrew's
back, we could have a final decision, and perhaps we should
leave this not not to steal any of your
time away from what we're doing here today I just wanted to
mention that that will be coming before you as a work
session, or as it as an item that has to go through the
process just like any other text amendment.
I just wanted to reference that as we talk about simple
majority that make sure that you're aware of where we're at
this happened on September 11, September 11 meeting we just
haven't had an opportunity to discuss that I think we have
October 24 slated that that I don't will be come before you
with a presentation.
We'll grow you on them. Perfect.
We're back. Thank you chair and to tag on to that, I guess.
So if we do have a tie here, you're saying it can go on.
Or let me, let me put this way, the applicant. Do they have
the choice to not take it to city council at that time, and
in anticipation of having a full PNC coming back later, or
do they have to go forward at that point.
I think I'll defer to our legal counsel but I would make
the assumption that they ultimately could withdraw that
item, but I don't know. I think that's one that we probably
just have to research and bring back to you.
I think we'll have to work out the details on that. But one
of the interesting things also is, once it gets up to the
city council that six out of seven or whatever the superma
jority is if one of them is out.
That doesn't matter. It's, it's, you have to have the super
majority of the, the council members who are eligible to
vote.
So unless they're disqualified, you use the same percentage
.
Just for clarification, you mentioned, I just want to make
sure I heard you right. If there's potentially a tie that
goes to council it's just a regular majority as opposed to
an outright denial at the commission.
So, those denials kind of represent different voting at the
council level. Did I hear that right.
It will leave as a denial, but it will go, it will go to
council and the staff recommendation will be the same or it
'll be clear that it's, that was a tie vote reason for the
denial because in, I think it's in the local government
code that states as a denial the tie.
So, but rather than getting in too much of the detail just
wanted to bring that back to light so that we weren't just
so it was clear. Yeah, appreciate that.
Thank you.
All right.
So we've talked about the land development process about
the zoning and then the plotting comes zoning first and
plotting and site plan.
So, we won't, we'll kind of skip over this slide and just
talk about what projects we've had in the last few years.
Richard made this presentation at City Council I'm going to
try to at least slightly describe it or I don't he might
want to jump in and
you want to give me.
I can go ahead.
All right.
So, so this really lays out the types of projects that we
've seen and the numbers of scene that we've seen in the
last few years so as you're probably where it didn't pretty
busy and didn't growing so like for instance in 2016.
We had 206 plats.
This year we were up to 159 so far.
This year.
For zoning cases. We've had 35 this year so far, those may
not have all come to you yet but applications that we've
had 2016 was 57. And then last year was 43 of the zoning
cases so you know you can see that we have a lot of
projects coming through the city,
Christian back. I'm sorry I'm confused. Did you say you had
to hunt the blue. You said those are plants. Yes, sir.
The indication is that there are alternate development plan
. Oh, there's little time, the blues.
Yeah, the ADP is the is the very orange.
So we have a lot we see a lot of variety come through not
only the city of Denton but that come before you as well.
And then as part of our process we've we've tried to look
at how, how long projects are taking to go through the city
, and then how we can improve on that we want to make sure
that we're moving things forward appropriately and that we
're not creating delays.
So, for instance, pre development meetings in 2016 they
were taking an average of 30 days for someone to get in and
meet with staff for an hour. This year so far it's it's
about 10 days.
So from when they they call us and say I have a dream.
And they can sit down with staff and and talk about it.
Complete this review that's part of all of the applicant
when we receive an application the first thing staff does
is make sure all the parts are there that we need to review
it and so that can, and then
send it out to all the necessary reviewers in 2016 that
process took 17 days in 2018 we're down to two. So, our
leadership has made a lot of process improvements and and
and in order to get things moving through the process more
quickly, Julie
what what happened in September 17.
Oh, Richard.
There was a change in leadership.
And then this is the average days to approval.
The blue is is 2016 the orange is 2017 and then the yellow
is, is this year so rezoning cases are about 76 days, and
you think about what goes into a rezoning they apply then
staff has to review it make sure we've got all the
necessary the legal description
the correct project narrative, and then we've got to send
out the public notification staff report staff analysis it
's got to go to PNC, and then about a month after PNC it
goes to counsel so that's that's in about 76 days this year
, SUP is down to 42 days.
ADP is about 51 days site plans are about 74 days there's a
lot that goes into reviewing a site plan and you know not
only the planning part but also there's some engineering
fire looks at those.
So, our water administration group preliminary plots are
about 85 and then final class so you can see that our, our
review times are trending in a good direction.
And then application types we compared some cities around
us. So Denton's in the yellow and then and then the other
communities are in other colors.
So you can see how we stack up to to the surrounding
develop or the surrounding communities rezoning Denton's
about about average with what what the other communities
are doing preliminary plots were a little, little, little
higher than.
Are these the numbers. These are on per month. Okay, sorry,
the numbers per month see there's where I failed. So,
Richard, you want to chime in here.
So, applications per month. These, these were the, the, the
length of review in months. So, okay, so what we did is we
converted because some gave us numbers on business days
some gave on calendar days.
And so what we did is we just looked at it as on a monthly
basis as, as opposed to trying to.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, chair. What makes why why is you know
if you look at some of those cities up there pretty all low
like Louisville, why is it that that Louisville can keep
their length of time shorter than hours, or, you know,
another, another city what is it that makes a city faster
more efficient with their processing time than it is
another city.
What what goes into that second chance how the sausage is
made a little bit. I think a lot of that has to do with,
with just how the code is drafted.
Also on number of number of staff. One thing I want to
point out, because I think it's, it's, it's really
something that you know you saw those changes within that
that I guess the last quarter of last calendar year, we
only had two people doing the review so as we
kept that ship around. I mean it really was just Haley and
Julie that were handling all of those reviews I think they
were at one point had like 70 cases each.
So, it's a lot. It was a lot for those to handle so it's
sort of a combination of both I think really when it gets
down to when you start looking at at at platting that that
's probably the substantial.
I would say reason is just processes and how the code has
been updated.
And I think I would add to that with our, our rewrite of
our development code. I think with the, with the better
organization of the code it will, it will further continue
these improvements on being able to find where the reg,
what regulations apply and when
you're looking at the number of reviews. The goal is to
kind of keep something at two reviews. That is the, that's
that red line, or that's, that's what we're at right now.
Correct.
All right. Okay.
So those just the average number of reviews and the type of
application. So you see site plan ADP from that preliminary
plat and final plat. We were at least at the average number
of reviews for 16 and 17 or three.
Right now we're at about two average of two reviews. One
thing that's important.
We'll get to the slides next is after the second review
there's a third review fee that comes in. So there is an
additional cost that gets passed off to the applicants who
are trying to keep that within within the two reviews.
All right. So here's the number of reviews by year. And
that when you do go into that third review it can get kind
of expensive, especially when you've got an engineering
review fee. So, and the colors are just not.
So, for instance, in 20 sorry, in 2018.
And this is representative of projects that had greater
than greater than three reviews. So we'll see where that we
're trending down that in 2016. We had 63 projects that had
three or more reviews.
And last year, it went down to 52 and now we're down to 34
so we're really trying to streamline that make sure we give
them really good feedback up front, make sure that we help
help them through that process, and that, and that we can,
we can make sure that we're not creating process delays.
So, you've gone through the hard part of the boot camp so.
Why do I keep sorry.
All right.
So we'd like to keep this going, we'd like to continue the
conversation with you about topics and planning, and what
what you do here on Wednesday nights what what staff is
doing, and then the types of the types of analysis that we
're doing within the city so really,
suggesting some upcoming sessions first of all, talk about
the comprehensive plan it's been several years since it was
adopted to really have an in depth conversation about what
all the parts are the comprehensive plan what we look at
what the vision is and the goals of that comprehensive plan
what did I do, can you put in a presentation mode just so
the TV picks it up.
I can. Thanks. There you go. Next, talk about zoning really
dive into what we look at in a zoning and an SUV and a plan
development amendment and, and what what compatibility
means what the, you know what a rational nexus means for
for conditions.
All of those elements associated with those types of
projects fundamentals of subdivision, when you look at a
plat what are you actually looking at what are the parts of
the plat. What does a plat do how does it help the city.
grow and develop in an organized way.
What urban design principles.
We look at what urban design principles are within the code
and what are good urban design principles mobility. It's
not just for cars anymore. We have a bike peg coordinator.
We've got transit oriented development within the city of
Denton we have, we have rail so what does the mobility in
the city look like what what mobility options do we have
for our citizens, and how do those play into the decisions
that are made here.
Some creative zoning interventions that other communities
have done things like form based code incentive code
conservation and performance, and then topics in urbanism
things like tactical urbanism or kid friendly cities.
The benefits of street trees so all of those so like to
keep this conversation going do some really fun topics and
talk about how these topics play into the to the projects
that we have so be coming forward soon.
And then, finally, if you have any questions and then I've
just suggested some further reading we have American
Planning Association Texas APA.
If you've never gone to the north central Texas Council of
governments website, you should go it's got a ton of
information on their Texas local government code it's kind
of the standard by which we, we, we conduct ourselves and
that that our code flows from some
websites I don't know if you've ever looked at planet is in
but it's got some really cool topics in planning strong
towns and city lab or other one.
And streets blog is another website street mix I don't know
if you've ever been on street mix but you can create your
own street street section which is really fun you can put
put your bike lanes in there and your, your parking and
your travel lane so that's sidewalks.
And then some other places you may want to look just some,
some planning interventions that have happened within our
community recently near south side incorporated you may
want to look at their website.
They just want an award from APA for one of the great
places in the in America, that Magnolia Street, I don't
know if you've ever been down there in Fort Worth, but it's
pretty cool.
And then also the Trinity River vision authority in Fort
Worth that was the plan they started making 20 years ago
that's now starting to come to fruition so it kind of helps
you see how the plans and those comprehensive plans really
eventually do end up to be a place you can visit so that's
all I have unless you have any questions.
Commissioner Beck. I just want to do a big head tip to the
staff are doing an excellent job of Lauren these numbers
and these reviews and those developers appreciate it but
time wise I think you've done a great job of election you
so keep it up.
Thanks. Thank you very much, Julie.
So at 544 we're going to take a break for some food and
then we'll return at 555.
We'll return at 555 for presentation on trees.
Thank you and welcome back to the plan and zoning
Commission, it is 554.
And I will turn it over to Richard presentation on the tree
preservation and landscape code.
Good evening, I just wanted to provide sort of another
update. As far as where we are with the tree code update
just kind of giving the running the running timeline.
As you remember we were here about a month ago, and went
went over some of the, some of the proposed concepts. We're
still continuing to to refine those, we met with the
committee on the environment on the 17th.
And we have some additional additional homework to do that
I'll get into, but at least wanted to provide kind of that
that running running update as well as get get some
guidance and input early on from from the commission.
So now we were looking at going back to committee on the
environment on the fifth of November.
And then shortly thereafter, bringing it back, perhaps, you
know work session but maybe it might, depending where we
are at that point, it might warrant also having it as part
of a discussion with the regular PNC meeting to get some
initial input from from from residents and stakeholders.
And so some of the discussion items again this this is some
of the stuff you might have not have seen it already from
from the last presentation but just kind of wanted to go
over some of the discussion items that we had at the last,
at least at the last meeting.
Applicability canopy goal again tree tree classifications,
and then really the revisions to the draft from this last
draft that we had, and it was focusing really on limiting
limiting clear cutting, but allowing for some mitigation,
and then guiding the priorities to to preserving larger
trees tree stands and habitat.
And so we kind of took a step back also in preparing this
and and kind of talked about let's let's think of these
concepts in terms of being pragmatic and and and how how
how can we actually enforce them.
But also being practical and can they can they be
implemented. And so let's let's have some common sense as
we as you bring these forward but again guiding those
priorities to towards larger trees tree stands and habitat.
And then really looking at preservation restoration repl
anting or payment in lieu.
And so I still get asked a lot of you know is the current
code that bad or or or things that we just haven't followed
. And like most things I would say it's a little bit of both
.
So these are at least my my highlights of some of the
negatives with with the current code inconsistent
conflicting language. Oftentimes there's confusing or text
is buried in sections where you don't necessarily think it
should be.
There's a lot of just insufficient to really support our
overall goals of if we really do want to increase the
canopy.
There are components that are hard to enforce. There have
been components that haven't been implemented as a result.
There's not much in terms of mitigation.
And where it really gets confusing is you have the choice
of doing it by DB or canopy. And sometimes it's it's more
beneficial to do canopy because it actually ends up being
less DB which would actually require a greater greater
canopy and I'll show some of the some of those examples.
Positive of course it was well intentioned. It does require
that that a notation on the plat be there identifying where
those preserved trees are.
I mean actually the code actually requires a bond for
replacement trees and the city's required to hold on to
that bond for three years and after that after that three
years.
If 90 percent of those replacement trees are in healthy or
good condition and that bond is returned. If not, then that
those that bond is there to to pay for those trees. This is
something I don't believe we have have been doing.
But again these are just requirements that we haven't done
there. There is the ability to do a tree trust. Again I don
't think that's ever been ever been implemented.
And this is one that I literally found about three weeks
ago. The code does provide for administrative parking
reductions for tree preservation.
It doesn't dictate where it has to be. It just gives you a
credit.
One space for 12 inches of DBH and it allows really for an
automatic 15 percent reduction.
And then with the approval of the director up to 30 percent
reduction in parking. And so that that was something that
was buried underneath the table that that it just kind of
caught my eye.
And again just kind of that organization of it. If you're
not really searching hard you can just kind of over
overlook some of these things.
And so again looking at at the applicability I know we had
a discussion on this last time and what you see in red.
These are changes as a result of the last discussion with
with C.O.E.
One thing that we did include into the applicability
section rather than I think it was part of the permitting
section is the exemption for single family and duplex lots
with trees under 10 inches of DBH.
And again this was this was something that's in the local
government code as a result of that that bill.
And so for me as we continue to go through it it just made
more sense of rather than having it buried in in the permit
section.
Let's just put it right off at the beginning for applic
ability.
Commissioner back. Thank you chair. I still have a problem
with exempting completely the me.
I think there's time and I understand they need to have
that room but it seems like we need to look at it as they
move along.
And if they run into a big tree or something like that that
somehow we can work around.
I think we ought to you know set something aside for that
too instead of just giving them carte blanche and they're
not anymore.
So the directive was that's why I had it in red and with
the strike through. So we did we also did strike DME from
from.
Okay. From the exempt list capital improvement projects and
you saw the way to sell these two. So right now it would
just be the agricultural operations.
City Airport, and then the single family and duplex.
Thanks.
Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So from the current draft that
's in our backup. These are changes from the result of that
last correct.
They're good changes. Thank you.
And we, you know, we still have quite a quite of a lengthy
discussion on on tree canopy goal and the 30%.
I think you saw this. You saw the slide last time I think
when I had presented looking at 2014 to where we are now.
We did do some some additional analysis and I thought I
thought this was interesting.
We looked at when we first prepared this map. We then annex
ed as a result we annexed the Creekside development the 47
acres.
And just wanted to see how that how that 47 acres, because
there was a substantial amount of those trees being
preserved.
And interestingly enough, it actually it reduced the
overall canopy not by a lot. But again, it went from point
nine seven twenty seven point nine seven to twenty seven
point nine six.
And so, again, as we continue to annex properties that that
number that number starts to starts to go down again.
This was a property that I think was preserving 80 80% of
the canopy from that, if I'm not mistaken.
So, again, that will slightly go down. But this was just
purely based on on what we what we annexed and what's on
the ground today.
Again, so we then we looked at can interrupt real fast. Can
you help me with the math there?
The 47 acres have 80% coverage. How could that lower the
city percent wouldn't that that 47 acres would have to be
lower than 27.
I'm sorry. Wasn't 80% of the of the can was 80% of the
trees on the property. Gotcha. OK. Thanks.
Yep. And then we looked at what's in the E.T.J.
So so within the division one of possible annexations in
the near future and how much of that area has a tree canopy
tree canopy coverage.
And it's approximately twenty seven twenty eight twenty
percent twenty seven point six two.
Then we looked again at city proper and then including that
E.T.J. division one boundary just seeing again this is just
purely kind of holding the line.
And what that does for overall numbers and it does bring it
up.
But again, at that twenty eight point just over twenty
eight twenty eight percent.
And then we went we went further and looked at platted
versus unplatted lots with with within the area and how
much of that has canopy and and or what's the percentage of
the canopy.
Interestingly, the platted lots have have a greater percent
of canopy coverage.
I think part of that is a result of our landscape
requirements.
And so you'll start to see that that difference versus unpl
atted lots.
Twenty eight twenty eight roughly twenty eight and a half
percent.
Then we did look at at just our own city on properties that
are that are undeveloped.
And what do we have as far as tree canopy on our on our own
properties.
And currently we're almost at forty five percent forty four
point eight.
And so as we discussed this, we kind of went through the
analysis of where kind of where we came up with a 30
percent and looking at U.S. Forest Services, particularly
for the Eastern Cross Timbers and Grand Prairie.
And since it kind of splits, I say we got very scientific.
And when we came up with the thirty and really to split the
difference between twenty and forty.
That that brought up a an interesting conversation at COE.
And they talked about having a really having a split.
Interestingly, when I met with Texas A&M Extension Service,
one of the comments that they gave to me is, have you has
has the city looked, although it's not so like tree
preservation, but actually preserving some of the prairie
area out west.
And that was that was a the same sentiment that that COE
shared.
And so what we looked at is what we're looking at right now
is essentially having I-35W and I-35 North as kind of that
dividing line with a canopy on the east side at 40 percent
and prairie twenty percent.
I know there was also a concern with with some of the
species that are growing kind of in the prairie area that
that really aren't beneficial for for that.
Chris Rebecca.
Thank you, Chair.
Elaborate on that.
What do you mean by not beneficial?
Because are we talking about the way they look?
Mesquite cottonwood, some of the trees that that really
aren't aren't.
Okay.
And I, again, I don't have a problem when you're talking
about trees that are going to be detrimental to other
landscape areas, but are all mesquite trees and the hack
berries in here.
We're concerned about the thorns and the shallow rooting.
Are all the mesquite trees and hackberries, you know, are
they not the other type that are deep rooted and without th
orns because those types do exist.
Is dentin plagued with the thorn shallow rooting types?
We're still going through the going through that tree list.
We're doing an inventory.
Okay. Good. Thank you.
Chris Sanchez.
Yeah. When you're talking about the prairie, you're talking
more about grasses rather than woody vegetation.
So you're talking about species that will be more
susceptible or if you if you try to maintain those is more
of a fire ecosystem because that's what the maintain the
prairie.
So if you're talking about something like your Indian
grasses, those type of grasses, I mean, that's what you'll
find in the prairie.
And I think that's why it wouldn't be very beneficial.
You don't want those type of grass inside the cities and
burn the cities down.
At least that's the way I look at it.
And so this was another another change.
This was one Heywood actually I thought had a good idea.
There's there's what's called the Texas Big Tree Registry.
And this is through again through through Texas A&M Forest
Services.
One thing I did want to make a clarification is from from
what I understand.
And again, I'm trying to get a little bit more information
on this.
But rather than just have the historic tree, we included it
as a landmark tree.
And so the landmark tree would include still the historic
designation, which currently we have none.
But also if if you are on this Texas Big Tree Registry
again.
So if an owner wanted to designate their property or design
ate a tree on that on on their own property, it would
provide for that that again another layer of or level of
protection.
Heritage trees, 18 inches or greater at DVH in all post o
aks and blackjack oaks.
I think Commissioner Sanchez, that was one thing you had
mentioned at the last PNZ meeting.
And then quality trees, six inches to to 17.9.
I'll just say 17 because we tend around anyways.
But those those would be the tree types.
And so I know that we're as I said, we're continuing to
sort of hone in on this list and have much debate about
what what should or shouldn't be on or or not on the list.
But again, looking at it in terms of what our what our
existing canopy is.
And so I know Haywood had initially come up with with the
list that you see here on on the right and some of the
concerns that he had shared related to those.
But if you kind of look at all of those, as I have
highlighted together, they do represent approximately 41
percent of the existing canopy.
And so, again, there's also that trying to balance it out.
There is also that concern with just allowing these to be
completely removed.
It does represent 41, 41 percent of the existing canopy.
Richard, have you looked at where that lines up to the
potential I-35 corridor split?
It seems like some of the Mesquite would be in the areas in
which you're maybe potentially be preserving less.
And we're that's where we're starting to go on. I just
finished.
We just got the map today this afternoon on the split.
And so that's where we're continuing to do some some
additional some that additional analysis and exactly what
that means.
Chris, you're cold. Do you have a question?
The honey Mesquite is that that's the thorny Mesquite.
I believe so. I think that's.
What's the other time? I haven't even seen the other type.
Every one I see as a thorn in it. So that's all over.
Is there a.
Is there another there's another.
Other than the honey.
So what is this this year?
This this this came from from this from the study that was
done in 2016.
They did a tree inventory.
Is that 21 percent? I can guarantee is a lot higher now.
Yeah, then it was two years because they do.
Yeah, thank you.
And so rather than we kind of change it to rather than have
exempt just really protected trees and non protected trees.
So, of course, any dead or unhealthy trees Mesquite, we
initially had it as part of a conservation easement when we
presented this to see we we took that off.
If you recall, we had a concept of that preserved habitat,
which was adjacent to an ESA.
And so as we looked at it and so if it is a continuation of
an ESA area and those trees, whether they be Mesquite,
honey, locust,
if they are providing some sort of benefit to to a habitat
area, maybe it makes sense not to not to completely have
those exempt if they are if they are included with with
that extension.
Again, that would be the extension of the ESA.
Again, the boat are hack bearing cottonwood that continues
to be the the three trees that are discussed the most.
We looked at part of the discussion that we had at the last
meeting with C.O.E.
We had it that is that's less than six inches would be non
protected.
I know there was a concern with just the growth rate of I
think the cottonwood and the hackberry that they grow
pretty pretty rapidly.
And so we we looked at one thing we're looking at now is if
it's less than 18 inches, I think that's what we had on one
of the initial drafts.
And we kind of are coming back around on this.
And so, again, we're still still analyzing this and seeing
exactly what what it means and eventually wanting to get
input from from a multitude of of individuals on on
particularly these trees.
Mr. Beck.
Thank you. What was the rationale for taking these trees
out of conservation easement.
There was a concern that that we had, again, trying to
promote the saving of a larger of the larger species,
particularly the post oak or blackjack.
If it wasn't a continuation of a habitat, if if if it
happened to be part of a conservation area that only had
mosquitoes on a section of that property, then you wouldn't
consider it then then under this scenario, they would be.
Again, the likelihood of that happening. But again, I would
hate for it to happen.
They could preserve the mosquitoes and not the oaks, it
would still have to actually there would be no mitigation
the way of conservation. And so we didn't want to have it
as as as the possibility of being being abused.
And so really if it was a continuation of the habitat.
That was that was the intent.
Thank you.
And again, just going like to just recap again on on on the
existing code and what we have today.
Again, so this is these are our current info standard inf
ill standards.
So you see the the less than half acre half to one and then
one one to two of what's required.
So less than a half acre. There's really unless you have
have a historic tree, there's no preservation requirement,
no mitigation.
And then if you're two acres, again, no minimum required.
It's just a mitigation for protected trees and then quality
quality tree stands is really not.
So you have no no minimum requirement, no mitigation
outside of the outside of or or non info lots again quality
trees quality tree stands is where you kind of get into
again less than an acre.
None. And then once you get up to greater than two and a
half acres, it's a minimum of 20 percent for single family
duplex and 25 percent for multi family non residential.
And then those can be reduced by 50 percent at a one to one
and a half ratio.
And so you could you could essentially drop that 25 percent
down to twelve and a half percent.
So it's not not a whole lot.
This is current. And then this is the here's kind of that
breakdown.
Another another one that came up with respect to tree
stands.
This was a parcel that had a lot of blackjack and post oaks
.
They did have some preservation area, but they weren't
required to to mitigate any any of the because they had to
eat.
There was no mitigation requirement for for the tree stand
of current of the current remaining oaks on a property.
And so, again, that'll be another one. Another area that's
substantially lost.
But again, they are they are complying with the code.
And again, so we looked at at what should it be? Should we
really should this really be the focus again?
And I think I talked to to see initially kind of on the
policy side of this.
How do we want to what do we what are our goals?
What do we want to achieve from this? Are we really looking
to have sort of a mitigation approach to this or are we
really looking at at restoration?
And what's what's the focus? Because you can kind of go two
different ways in how you how we structure it.
And so we kind of took the we kind of took the approach of
restoration.
So if we're really trying to increase our tree canopy
rather than have that that payment or some other method,
let's look at ways that one we can we can meet our goals of
trying to preserve the type of trees that you keep that
aren't commercially available.
Number one, but also then some of those other larger trees
and again, looking at replacement of trees, whether they be
on or off site, but still having that that payment in lieu
option.
And again, there's still that that policy question that we
continue to discuss and how should those funds be spent
from the from the tree fund.
And so, again, this is just that that example current code.
This is a site that went with a 25 percent of the of the
canopy zero protected trees.
But when you look at when you look at if they would have if
they would have been required to go by DBH, it's
substantially different.
So it it result that 25 percent can be resulted in 11
percent DBH.
This was part of an ESA. So there was credit for it.
So as long as they as long as that was preserved, there
were no additional tree preservation requirements required.
Just to give you a proposed code example again, this is
again looking at this practically minimum preservation 30
percent of DBH, which is essentially almost twenty two
hundred inches restoration.
Five thousand one hundred and fourteen.
And then with that multiplier depend depending on the tree,
it puts it up to fifteen thousand three hundred and forty
two inches. Now, the likelihood of that even being able to
be planted is slim to none.
But again, the focus is allowing for credits to get focused
on a certain type of tree size or species.
But just thinking in terms of having to plant that many
inches, you're looking at at almost seventy seven hundred
two inch trees, which is quite a lot and probably not
practical.
And so that's where we started to look again at allowing
for those credits for that restoration.
And then so if you're depending on what you're preserving,
being able then to pull a credit from what you're
preserving.
And so while while it's getting counted against you, you're
also getting credited back.
And so if you if you the larger you preserve or the type
you preserve, the greater credit you get.
So if you're a post or blackjack, you get a three three
inches for every inch preserved and then and then kind of
on down the list and then and then you get into into the
restoration requirements.
So the goal really is to is to try to focus on on again the
larger trees and the post of blackjack and not requiring so
much mitigation.
We also looked at including some additional incentives,
looking at an energy conservation credit for either mitig
ated or preserved large canopy trees if they're on the
western or southern exposure.
If it's a landmark tree, really, really bumping up that
that replacement credit to give them four times the DBH,
which is which is pretty, pretty substantial.
And then again, that that conservation easement allowing if
those restoration trees or even preserve trees are are
included, allow for a allow for a credit, a tree cluster
credit.
And this was another a newer one. And we still thought
keeping that parking space reduction is is is is worthy.
We didn't include the 30 percent, but we are we are
recommending that we keep that that 15 percent required.
And then this just gives you an example.
We ran this one out again based on based on the incentives
and this was this one was fairly easy to run because it was
all blackjack and post oak.
So we can understand what the credits were.
And so with this, we get to a mitigation of 10,000 nine
hundred and fifty nine inches.
The mitigation credit again, because you have the preserved
habitat.
Again, this goes back to if you recall, we talked about the
development impact area. So the ESA is excluded and then it
will also be excluded from the from the landscape required
area as well as preservation habitat.
So if you look at what that what it brings it down to is
this would actually result in a in a credit of 21 inches
towards towards landscaping.
And so that could be used whether it's on the buffer to the
north or some other some other method.
Christian Beck. Thank you, Chair.
When we mitigate these trees, are they going on this
development or are we putting those trees somewhere else
that they're well, this one there would be no they would
not they would not have to they would not have to plant any
new trees as a result of preservation.
So we're going to be playing them on some other area within
the city.
Well, they was well there would be no trees that would be
required to be planted, because they would because they
preserve the blackjack oak and post oaks right and then
dedicated dedicated it within the preserved habitat.
So as a result of the credits that they would receive.
There would not be any additional trees that they would
have to plan. In fact, they would actually result in a in a
21 inch credit.
Okay.
Thanks.
And then this is just another example.
This was one that had the majority of the trees on this
site.
This is sort of off a box this is Bonnie break south end of
the city.
Majority of the trees here were pack buried sugar berries.
Total DBH 3260 inches.
And so looking at, and I'll jump to the red first under the
current code.
They were required 14% of the DBH, there were some quality
trees.
So that amounted to 461 inches they mitigated, or, which
was the equivalent of 1.14% of the canopy. And so they had
to mitigate 150 inches, which resulted in a payment for $18
,750.
The proposed preservation 30% of DBH. Again, this is going
to change but it just wanted to paint paint the example
that restoration required, and then incentives for the
conservation area, if they were to dedicate these areas
that would account for 27.71%.
And remember, as we discussed at the last meeting, you can
take the 30% requirement down to 20%. If you, if you do
either a conservation area or a preserve habitat.
And so looking at, at, at the exempt tree so assuming that
if we just looked at all of the hackberry and cottonwood
and everything on that list, just as being exempt just to
kind of give that example of what what that equates to of
the total DBH 3260.
A total quality trees of 200 inches. And so that that that
was 6.13% of the total DBH.
And so, 30% minimum required preservation off that 26060
inches.
So you can see it's it's substantially less than than
anything else so that's where we're, we're still in that
discussion about which which trees and what size and.
But again, there is this does not include the length in the
landscape requirements that do have a percentage of of
canopy that's required as a result of the landscape Richard
help me understand, or maybe I already understand.
It seems as though this this proposed preservation or
restoration plan would actually allow properties to have
less than a 30% tree, if they're all preserving landmark
trees so if they have to gigantic landmark trees.
So basically they could take away a ton of trees because
the four to one credit is is one is that interpretation
correct and two, does that mean the city is okay with not
meeting like a 30% canopy coverage, as long as the 18% we
have are all awesome trees.
I think I think it's too but well one one theoretically it
could happen if there's, you know, large large trees.
It's a substantial. If you look at it kind of that that
list. I went through it I don't think there's at least from
I think it was last week was the last time I looked at it
there's not one tree and Denton County.
That's on that that's on that list currently, not to say
there's not a tree that could make it there's just none
that have been put on that trend, I do know Tarrant has
some in Dallas County.
Tell me the second part of class sorry. Well it just seems
that the goal of 30% canopy could be less if we're
increasing the quality trees and is the city. Okay with
that under this.
It would again they would still have their they would still
have the the canopy requirements from the landscape code.
And so this is just this is just one one component of it.
And then again looking at the mitigation alternatives this
is this is essentially the same language that we have today
with respect to, to what the tree fund can can be used for.
And then we're still having a.
Chris are back.
Thank you, go back. Okay.
Let's talk about preserving property meaning naturalistic
state and that's one thing I've touched base with you on I
'd like to expand on if we could.
We have. I'm sure we do we have areas that we need to
preserve as development comes into it.
To be specific I'm talking about those trees between Br
inker and mayhill, where there's a lot of development going
on that's part of the upper habitat.
And if we keep munching away at that.
We're gonna lose a lot there so do. Are we trying to design
ate some areas now that would qualify to preserve, we haven
't got to the point where we're, we've identified here's
properties that we should, you know, identify for for
purchase.
We can we can certainly get to that point but but I haven't
, I haven't, we haven't gone out and said here's, you know,
here's a great stand up of post and I understand we have
and that's my concern what, because the delay just prevents
us from preserving
a lot of these trees so what is the delay why can't we set
something in motion now and designate some areas, and then
debate it, you know, not say, okay, we're definitely going
to do this, but let's pinpoint some areas right now one I
've already mentioned to you,
and kind of go from there because if we just continue
putting it off and putting it off. We lose a little bit by
a little bit and we're dealing with it in these conditions
when they come before us.
We have these minimum requirements. So, don't mean to put
you in the spot, but I mean, is there some way we could
initiate something on this post haste. Yeah, what I can do
is, is I will relay that back to the committee on the
environment.
Okay. I do know that that have they have they brought it up
.
It's about still having the ability to purchase land but we
haven't got into a discussion about identifying specific
properties. I do know that was discussed at one point in
the past, but nothing, nothing.
I don't believe anything resulted from that. No part of the
concern is going to be cost and we've got so much money in
the tree fun.
Do we have any protection as a city in order to protect
these trees to pay.
What is the appropriate value for it instead of somebody
jacking the price up and trying to get as much as they can
which we understand but we're in a situation where we're
trying to preserve trees for safety and health reasons, and
we would pay them for it.
And a realtor could probably help me.
Thank you.
Do we have anything.
Does the city have any other than then, you know, an em
inent domain proceedings I think would be difficult for
market value.
Right. And I'm okay with that what I'm worried about is we
go in and we're trying to preserve an area, and somebody,
you know, decides what they want more than that, because
they have other plans for probably to and I understand that
but.
So we don't have any protection other than an eminent
domain. Not not that not that I'm aware of. Okay.
Thank you.
Chris or Alice.
Thank you, Chair. So y'all know I'm not a big fan of the
tree fund.
Just, it just makes it way too easy.
The idea of just training people is okay but it doesn't
help towards the goal of planting trees. So I would hope
that if we're going to keep this as an option.
Since we're giving them an option to pay into a tree fun.
And then they can remove trees.
We've got to have some kind of parameters that we're using
that money to plant trees, it doesn't make any sense why we
would use it for much else.
That's the option is we're going to take these trees and we
're going to give you money into the tree fund, you would
think that would go towards planting trees.
And I, and it just has not been consistent in any kind of
way and I would hope that if we're going to keep it that
something gets written into there that we are planting a
significant amount of trees with the tree fund every single
year.
I think I think the the the missing link to that is, is the
sort of the tree management plan that was intended to be
done. I think there was money budgeted last year again we
requested it for this year.
And really the goal of that plan is to identify where and
what should should be planted. And so, so once we have sort
of this, this tree management plan and where we're going to
plant on within street trees or on city property, then it's
easy to.
Okay, here, here's what the plan identified of where we can
and what should be planted where.
And, you know, that was also just going through is
concerned well how are we, where are we planting them in
parks, and, and do we know that they're then going to be
preserved and they're not going to be taken down at some
some other in the future.
And so I think that's where it goes back to having that
having that plan and being able then to to go through okay
yeah here here's what we accomplish here's here's where
those funds were expended.
I mean a plan is what I'm asking for because it just isn't
one, we're just collecting money.
And it's not helping the goal of what our tree code is
supposed to be doing.
And that that's something that with with engineering's
latest.
If you remember when they did the, the criteria manual they
did change some of the street sections to go to more of the
context sensitive corridors, which included having that
having that streetscape design.
But again, the missing component of that is is really that
the plan.
Richard I know it's, it's 630 and you have landscape code
to go is that.
Do you want to try to breeze through that or we can
probably bring that.
Bring it back at the next at the next meeting.
What I just want to highlight really quick.
I'm going to jump.
There was some additional analysis I think I hit him into
some of the stuff that we're doing but one of the things
that we're that we were asked to do is, with respect to
restoration again the type, the type of tree to be planted
in the area needed, particularly a square, square foot of
dirt.
And then the cost for planning a tree and maintaining it.
And then again where where these trees could be planted off
site including within the rights of way and and and street
trees kind of going back to back to that plan.
Again, consider a credit for the prairie preserved area.
If there if there's an ESO or some other mechanism so that
's something we're, we're looking at. Again the protected
and non protected what species and size, native adapted and
non native is really kind of looking at, at those three
categories.
And then getting into landscape credits and one one that
came up at, at, at the last year we I guess we have the
monarch City USA designation monarch butterfly.
And so including a credit for a butterfly habitat or garden
within your within your landscape, eliminating the ESA
credits for for landscape and tree preservation, and then
really finalizing how those preservation credits, then
apply to the landscape credits
just to kind of work work through those, and whether it's a
full credit partial credit so those are some of the things
that that we're going to be working on over the next over
the next month, and then and then coming back.
But I think I still would like to come back on the
landscape code because this is one of those. It's always
part of the presentation we never get to it so at least
wanted to perhaps put that on for the next meeting.
Christopher, do you have a question.
Yeah, so I was a couple of things. So how do we assign
value to the trees because I work in Frisco and there was a
thing a few days ago where they were actually moving trees
like full grown trees and it was a beautiful site.
So I'm coming down the street. And, you know, these things
full grown trees were somewhere around $25,000 each to put
on a property yet we don't charge people $25,000 to take
down, you know, these types of things out here.
discussing canopy and what's removed and what's not.
So I think that's where we go back to, to that to that list
and that species list. There are some there are.
There are some values that were assigned from that 2016
report. Interestingly, I came across a web application
today need to dig into it a little bit more.
But if you go if you go on the Texas and and Forestry
Service.
They actually have a.
I think around. I still need to dig in. I don't know what
the what all of the data means. I know they are looking at
at 2012.
I think property lines.
But, but it does give you. I thought it was interesting
because it gives you the current canopy, which was actually
lower than a lot lower than where we are.
But then it also there's a value that's assigned to it. And
then it gives a regional canopy sort of canopy goals. And
so it's just one of those things that I want to dig in a
little bit more and see.
But but it does assign a value to that to that canopy. What
I haven't done is peel that back to see what that what that
translates to.
Again on on the speech. I think that was also one of the
concerns with with the sugar bearer hackberry. If you go
into the if you look in the report, it does provide a
higher level than some of the trees for carbon sequest
ration and other benefits.
Of course, stormwater. And so again, it's just trying
trying trying to balance that. But then again, tie a value
to it.
I had another thing you mentioned it or was on the slide a
minute ago when we talk about landscaping and there was a
whole idea of you know monarch butterflies and I don't know
if anyone's ever kind of created a butterfly garden or
whatever.
Basically, it just looks like a bunch of weeds, you know,
that attracts butterflies.
I know as we develop more and we have more, you know, we
have more houses coming in. HOA tend to not like things
that look like weeds around their properties, even though
they're great for the environment.
Does the city have any plans or any approaches to ensuring
that those types of things are not discouraged.
I mean, what what what they ultimately put in in in HOA
restrictions we don't we don't enforce it. Obviously, it
would be up to up to the up to those two parties, but it's
something that that at least we would we would include in
in in the code.
Chris shells. Thank you, Joe. Real quick, Richard. I know
we had a draft in our backup. Do you want any comments from
us on that.
Please. Please. And again, it's continually changing. So it
is a rough draft. But please, any any and all comments are
would be greatly appreciated.
Good point, Commissioner. Before we close out this would
your presentation. So your backup is available to everyone
online. Is there any other opportunities for the public to
get involved apart from email and city staff or what are
opportunities for the public to start feeding into this.
I think as we as we continue to move forward, because this
has kind of been on on on almost a parallel path with the D
DC update.
And so because this is such a has been a high priority and
hot button topic through obviously it's been since 2014 and
we're still talking about amendments to it.
And so it might it might be just beneficial to include as
part of the Web site where we have the the DDC update page,
either having a sub page specifically for for tree
preservation and landscape or just having having a
standalone.
So it's a little easier to navigate to navigate for folks.
And then what we can do is and send that sort of send our
blast email out to the to the folks that we have on our
sort of on our, our ongoing collection of emails.
Great.
We'll look forward to the landscape.
Next time.
With that we'll close the work session at 636 and in
interest of time for those waiting will reconvene in
council chambers at 640.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the
planning and zoning commission meeting for September 26 at
2018.
It is six forty seven.
I'll call this meeting to order.
First item on the agenda is to stand and give a pledge
allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag.
Allegiance to the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivis
ible, with liberty and justice for all.
Honor the Texas flag.
Pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one and
indivisible.
And before we get into the vote for the minutes, I just
wanted to announce as a point of order on the agenda,
public hearing item five a has been postponed to October 24
th.
And so we won't have a public hearing or discussion on that
matter tonight.
And item five C has been postponed to the October 10th
meeting.
There won't be a public hearing or discussion on that item
either.
With that, we'll move it to agenda item two, which is a
consider approval for planning and zoning minutes.
We'll take these separately as we have one absent.
Chair will entertain a motion or discussion.
No buttons will do voting and motions by hand this evening.
Commissioner Beck.
Can you hit your mic?
I move we approve the minutes for.
What date are we talking about?
August 22nd.
I was here for both of them.
Thank you, Commissioner Beck.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Second.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion on the matter?
We'll call for a vote on the board for the minutes of
August 22nd.
That carries seven zero.
We have minutes for September 12th.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I move approval of the minutes of September 12th.
Thank you, Commissioner Sanchez.
I second that motion.
Perfect.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion on the minutes?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That carries six zero with one recusal.
We'll move this to the consent agenda.
We can have discussion or a motion on the item.
Commissioner Smith.
Motion and approval of the consent agenda.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Second.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, we can vote on the board.
Motion carries seven zero.
That moves us to items for individual consideration.
The first is SP18-0028.
We do have a conflict on this, so I'll give Commissioner
Pernetta a minute to clear.
And the floor is yours, Haley.
All right. Good evening.
This is a site plan for a Chase Bank at Razor Ranch.
The request before you is for approval of a site plan for
the site outlined in yellow on the map.
The use is a proposed Chase Bank location, as I mentioned.
The property is approximately 1.36 acres, located on the
south side of University along Town Center Boulevard.
The base zoning for the property is Regional Center
Commercial Downtown.
However, there is an overlay for this particular area that
you see colored and shaded on the map.
This is all part of the Razor Ranch Overlay District.
The subject property is part of what's called the South RR2
District,
which is a primarily commercial kind of highway style
development that outlines the town center of Razor Ranch.
All site plans for properties within Razor Ranch are
required to come to P&Z for approval.
In particular, the South RR2 District is subject to the
standards for architecture and landscaping with an exhibit
C1 and D1 of the overlay.
As part of the site plan, you will see not only the site
plan itself, but also the landscape plan and the building
elevations.
The Razor Ranch Overlay District does outline criteria for
approval.
There are four, the first being that the site plan complies
with that concept plan,
which we just saw which outlined the districts and where
the general use types would go within the overlay.
The second being that the plan provides for a compatible
arrangement of buildings and land uses that wouldn't advers
ely affect adjoining properties.
Third being the site plan provides for adequate and safe
vehicular circulation.
And then finally that it complies with all other sections
of the overlay.
So now we'll go through these pieces in detail so that you
can see how it is in compliance with these standards.
So looking at the site plan, you can see the building
itself is outlined in blue.
It's approximately 4,800 square feet.
The use itself is permitted within the RR2 District.
Banks are considered both a professional service and in
this case also a drive-through because it has four drive-
through lanes you see there on the south side of the
building.
The site plan reflects 42 parking spaces.
16 are required based on the city's parking standards as
the minimum.
Razor Ranch is a little bit different than the rest of the
city, whereas our minimum is our maximum for site plans
elsewhere in the city.
The overlay district for Razor Ranch actually excludes that
maximum and allows for excess parking within the
development.
In terms of access to the site, they would have one primary
entrance that's circled in red.
This is off of an internal drive aisle within the overlay.
It would be a shared driveway with the restaurant that adjo
ins them to the west.
And then off of that you can see where the cars would enter
the drive-through here on the west side.
There are four lanes there that would provide for adequate
stacking space for vehicles.
And then there is this kind of loop around the site,
whereas once those vehicles exit, they could go either
north or south to get out of the property back to the main
drive aisle.
Looking at the landscaping for the site, the overlay
requires a minimum of 10% landscaping and a minimum of 25%
tree canopy.
So the site is providing 32% landscaping and 32% tree
canopy, so well above that minimum.
Another component of Razor is the requirement for plaza
area to be pedestrian-friendly spaces.
So outlined in orange on the map is where that plaza area
would be.
So it will include benches for pedestrian seating outside
of the bank, as well as shade trees and landscaping plan
ters to enhance the exterior area.
An additional requirement that I wanted to point out is
that the overlay requires screening of the drive-through
from adjacent drive aisles.
So they have provided additional landscaping in the form of
shrubs and low plants here on the exterior in addition to
their perimeter trees.
And then they are providing a low masonry wall on the south
side of the drive-through to screen it from that drive
aisle.
Also within Razor, there are architectural standards that
requires kind of a uniform theming of the buildings.
One of the key components being the usage of native Texas
stone and limestone on the building.
So you can see here they are using a mixture of limestone,
brick, and stucco that are within the color palette for Raz
or Ranch and generally consistent with the area.
Just looking at the other side of the building here for
reference, that low masonry wall would be located somewhere
in this area just outside of the drive-through canopy.
So staff is recommending approval of the site plan.
We found it to be compliant with all the standards of the
Razor Overlay District as well as the criteria for approval
.
I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
I do not see any. Thank you, Haley.
This item is an individual consideration item.
However, if you do wish to speak, we can certainly allow
for speakers.
Is there anyone wishing to speak on the item?
If you could just state your name and address for the
record.
My name is Matthew Craig and I'm with CUNY List Design. We
're here representing the bank.
My address is 2080 North Highway 360 in Grand Prairie.
There was a couple items brought up and I wanted to just in
the planning meeting.
First, yes, it is a relocation of the branch that's at West
University in Hinkle.
The second one on the parking, because it's a retail and a
financial center, it will be staffed from 11 to 18
employees.
So there's the 42 spaces. We were expecting 20 of them to
be used by staff.
So that's why there's such a large number of parking spaces
.
The other item that was brought up, the bike racks.
Yes, something we can definitely will add to the plan when
we come forward with the CDs.
Perfect. I appreciate addressing those issues brought up.
Is there any other questions of the applicant? Commissioner
Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. Actually, not a question, but just thank
you for listening to our concerns and thank you for
addressing them. We appreciate it.
Thank you.
Seeing no other discussion, we can talk amongst ourselves
or motion. Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion for approval. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you,
Chair. Second.
We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries six zero with one recusal.
That moves us to the Republic hearing. Now invite
Commissioner Pernetta back to the dais.
With five a being postponed, we will move to five B S
eighteen dash zero zero six. I will open the public hearing
and invite Haley for presentation.
All right. Good evening. This is a specific use permit
request for a McDonald's drive through.
The subject property is outlined in yellow on the map. It
is approximately one point six nine acres in size. As you
can see, it's located at the northeast corner of the
intersection of I thirty five east and Fort Worth Drive.
I wanted to point out that the property and the one point
six nine acres is actually comprised of pieces of three
parcels that were all bisected by text dots right of way
acquisition for their ultimate build out of I thirty five.
The property is zoned downtown commercial general. So this
is one of our kind of mixed use high dense high intensity
districts. The restaurant use is permitted by right. The
drive through is the component that requires the specific
use permit.
The DDC outlines numerous criteria for approval for an
issue. They all kind of center around the idea of
compatibility and consistency.
So just to summarize these some of the key elements are
that the use wouldn't impede the development of surrounding
properties that adequate parking is provided for the site
as well as adequate access.
Nuisance prevention is a key element. So looking at things
like odor fumes lighting nuisances that may be generated as
well as landscaping and screening and architectural
compatibility.
So I want to kind of walk through the specifics of what's
proposed here for this. So you can see in blue the building
footprint would be just over 5000 square feet.
They are proposing along with the building a two lane drive
through. So the kind of yellow stars on the map indicate
where those order points would be.
So you can see it is two lanes of a drive through that
funnel down to one with two windows in the building. So you
would have the cash window and then the pickup window as
separate locations on the building.
They are providing 50 parking spaces which meets the DDC
requirement for a restaurant of this size.
And then there are three driveway locations which are circ
led in red on the map.
So one driveway would be this access point off of the I-35
frontage road here on the south side.
The second point would be off of South Locust Street.
And then the third would be a cross connection to the bank
property to the north which is required by the Denton
Development Code for commercial properties to interconnect.
And then just also wanted to point out there is kind of a
fourth access point if you look further north on the site
there is a northern driveway in the bank property where
traffic could also cut through and exit further up on Fort
Worth Drive.
Looking at the landscape plan, one of the key elements that
staff analyzed on this case was kind of that screening and
compatibility to kind of limit any visual impacts that the
drive through may have.
So I wanted to point out the site is exceeding the minimum
landscape requirement of 15%.
They have approximately 27% landscaping on the site.
They are required a type C buffer because there's a multif
amily use that adjoins them to the north and east.
So outlined in light green is that buffer area where they
've provided all the required plantings.
And then as I mentioned the screening at the right of way
was one of our key concerns.
So you can see here they've provided the minimum parking
lot screening that the code requires which is kind of a shr
ub row, some screening trees as well as a berm.
They've also provided all of the street trees that are
required as well as some enhanced landscaping around things
such as their proposed signs and then the drive through
itself has some enhanced landscaping that you can see there
.
Looking at the building itself, these are kind of the sch
ematics for it.
So it is a mixture of masonry and architectural metal
components.
It is one of the prototypes that McDonald's has out
currently.
So here are the color renderings of that.
So you can see a neutral color palette with some accent
colors of yellow on the building keeping with their
branding.
And then on the bottom side here you can see the actual
drive through features themselves.
So fairly standard for a restaurant of this type.
Some of the additional analysis that staff did was look at
the future land use designation of the property which is
community mixed use.
So this is a designation that applies to predominantly
commercial areas.
So it's something you would typically see along our major
thoroughfare such as Highway 377 and the interstate.
In this area we encourage infill and attractive redevelop
ment of sites.
So this checks that box as well since this is three sites
that were taken out of commission with TechStops right of
way acquisition.
And then we found that the proposed commercial use is
consistent with the parameters for community mixed use
areas.
Looking at what's surrounding the property we have a
mixture of commercial and multifamily uses in this area.
There's a bank as well as a graphic design facility to the
north.
Multifamily as I mentioned here to the north and east.
And then across Fort Worth Drive we have a service station
as well as some other fast food restaurants.
So this is consistent with this type of development in the
area.
Unlikely to generate any nuisances for those properties
since the uses are so similar.
And it's also consistent with just kind of the auto
oriented pattern that we have in this part of the city.
Notification was sent for this request.
We received no responses to that legal notice to date.
The applicant didn't hold a neighborhood meeting in this
case.
And they did however post the required signs on the
property since the end of August.
Those signs have been up to alert the neighbors and drive
by traffic.
Staff is recommending approval of the request with one
condition.
That the provided site plan, landscape plan and building
elevations be considered preliminary.
Therefore a full site plan submittal would be required to
ensure that the development complies with all requirements
of the DDC.
As they move through the engineering and design of the site
with their platting.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you Haley.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you Chair.
Haley one thing we didn't talk about in work session was
there was a drive through fast food place on one of these
sites right?
Correct.
The middle one I think or something like that.
If you look at the map I believe the taco comando is here.
So there was previously a drive through that actually pred
ated our current development code that requires the SUP.
Okay thanks.
I do not see any other questions.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
We do have one card requesting to speak.
It is the Red Plains professionals.
If you could come down.
As a group there's a total of 20 minutes to speak but 10
per speaker.
10 minutes per speaker.
If you could state your name and address for the record.
Greg Massey with Red Plains professionals 2933 South Bryant
Edmond, Oklahoma representing the applicant McDonald's.
Haley did such a wonderful job introducing this.
I don't want to occupy your time regurgitating what she's
already told you.
Please be aware this is a relocation from their previous
site which was located on North Texas Boulevard
approximately a mile northwest of this location.
There's been a lot of work done to come up with this
location as an acceptable alternative for McDonald's.
We will be happy to answer any questions that Planning
Commission has of us.
We do have a couple questions.
Commissioner Ellis are you still?
Okay.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you Chair.
Thank you Mr. Massey.
Yes.
Thank you for your presentation.
Personally I'm glad to see that you're getting rebuilt
there and filling in this area that's been vacant for so
long.
I'll miss the taco bueno.
Looking forward to as you as you do develop this thing in
the landscaping everything I appreciate the fact that you
're not only meeting city criteria but exceeding as far as
putting your tree landscape up front.
Just quick question about signage.
What are you looking at for your I 35 frontage road sign
and the Fort Worth Street site.
Well, again, we're expecting. We're anticipating following
city code as far as signage and based on the fact we have
frontage on essentially three public streets we are only
looking for two signs.
We're looking for I believe 40 foot is the maximum on the I
35 frontage, and then a secondary sign. Excuse me, on
Highway 377 Fort Worth Boulevard, 20 foot, I believe, and
both of those.
The one on Fort Worth Boulevard I believe is required to be
a monument sign with, and we will be providing significant
amount of landscaping around the base of both of those so
you'll be doing the monument sign on the Fort Worth Street
side.
Yes. Okay, which is going to be 20 feet. I believe that's
for that's the maximum.
It will be per code and I believe that was identified as
the highway sign could be 40 foot, and then the monument
sign would have to be 20 foot maximum. Okay, very good.
Thank you.
I do not see any other questions. Thanks for coming in and
being here available. Thank you.
This is a public hearing, if anyone else wishes to speak on
the item, more than welcome to do so.
Seeing no one else to speak I will close the public hearing
and open it for a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Smith motion to approve s 18 dash 0006 with
the condition. Yes, with the staff condition I apologize.
Commissioner Ellis.
Second.
We have a first and a second is there any discussion on the
item.
Seeing none I will call for a motion on the board.
Motion carries seven zero. Congratulations.
Five see again has been postponed till October 10 meeting
that moves us to our final item, which is our project
matrix.
Just wanted to provide just a little bit, a little bit
update on. There were two memos that were attached, one
from solid waste, and the other from from Heywood regarding
.
Excuse me.
Regarding the tree protection standards.
I know that that in speaking with public. I'm sorry solid
waste. If there was additional information needed from that
, in addition to that to what was provided in the memo.
They could, I think would be willing to come. I just wanted
to, I think what they want to do is at least provide that
provide that memo to you.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Jim. Thank you for that memo
in there, Richard. I did have questions on it. So should I
dress Mr Cox directly or or if you just want to, if you don
't mind just keeping me keeping me in the loop that way.
I just have an idea. And then even for my own. Yeah, my own
knowledge. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. Thanks.
One other thing I want to point out. I know we initially
were looking at having traffic engineering, most likely
going to have them.
I'm going to try to have them come on on 1024 for that
update. And then with that I'll also include that update
for for the notification process on on infrastructure
projects.
There are a number of traffic studies that the city is
undertaking. I think it's probably a good idea at that
point in time to have an update from from pre tem. One of
those areas that we're looking at is along the Sherman
corridor.
North of essentially just south of the loop and north and
just looking at the overall impacts as a result of the
development that was really from Stark farms. If you
remember.
Additionally, a traffic study. It's actually somewhat begun
. We are collecting traffic counts again. So this would be
the area from Ryan Road south and then from Country Club
over to
I think it goes all the way over to T.C. I have to remember
what that what the eastern eastern road is. But we are
looking at that. We'll be looking at that area
comprehensively. And so I know there we've actually
planning staff has been
I think this for the first time meeting with traffic
engineering and talking planning and future and how to how
to do this. So it's kind of it's it's daunting but it's fun
in the same in the same token.
And then we'll be gearing up to do the same same on the for
that southern study.
Trish or else. Thank you. Chair Richard with that. You know
we used to have traffic engineering here back in the day at
our meetings. I missed that because we often have have lots
of questions with regard to that.
But knowing that that may not be able to happen. I think if
we could get engineering in our work sessions a handful of
times a year maybe quarterly something like that to update
us and keep us apprised of what's going on I think that
would help tremendously and certainly help all of our
knowledge bases.
Especially as these projects come forward. And there's so
many things sort of happening and changes I think it's it
would be beneficial to just have that that update of what's
going on and where the plan is.
Chris Sanchez this will be what he issued. I know last time
last meeting we had was an individual here and he was
talking about how we're keep building and pushing all the
traffic onto existing roads but we haven't I haven't seen
anything any kind of planning.
What's the long term plan on creating new roads to take not
just push all traffic into the.
Is there anything going on out there to address that issue.
Yes.
So there is my.
There there's currently the city has a mobility plan that
that we often refer to.
It really needs it really needs to be updated and
engineering I believe council had approved a request. I
think they've already started putting the RFP together to
do a traffic waste plan for the city.
But but looking at all components of it so what roads need
to be built and what which locations and where what's and
what what what with but with that.
So it's a little bit broader than just just the mobility
but also then incorporating bike and pedestrian as part of
that.
And so that way we it's a little bit more there's a little
bit more science to it. I think we often are challenged
with looking at the mobility plan and if you ever look at
it there there's lines on there that.
Whether they make sense or not. It is what it is but but it
definitely needs to be updated. And so that that's where
they're looking at and particularly with the north sort of
that North Sherman study and then the study off Orion Road
particularly on
Orion Road because there's that north north south there's
there's it's limited. And so prior to product additional
growth coming in there, really looking at what can be done
for an additional north south collector.
Question back. Thank you, Chair.
Just a monkey on back there maybe it might not be a bad
idea to hit is it PS that would come in and talk to us
about the mobility plan.
It would be pre temp.
We work that into a work session sometime down the road
because I think me and Andrew the only ones here now that
we had any kind of presentation on that.
What I'd like to do is have them come I'm going to try to
get them here on 1024. Okay. Just to kind of give a kind of
the lay of the land and all of the things that that that
they're they're working on.
And then perhaps at maybe after the first quarter of the
year. Once we have the results from some of those studies
with respect to Ryan road and then on Sherman, just to give
an update.
Because again, those are the questions that often shouldn't
say often always come up when your task with with
recommending a project within those areas.
So they could be good to have have that have you involved
in that earlier than later.
The only thing I would add is 1024 setting up to be a an
active meeting. If we just like to make sure the work
session starts early enough.
That's what I want to check this. Yeah, we're all available
to get here earlier because.
Anything else.
Okay, with that we will close the plan and zoning
Commission meeting at 710. Thank you.