Good afternoon and welcome to the planning and zoning work session for January 23rd.
It is 5.04, we'll call the work session to order.
In terms of the meeting order,
what we'll do tonight like we did last time is switch
the work session reports and then look at the agenda.
So we'll start with item 2A for the work session,
then we'll go to 2B and then we'll come back to 1,
which will walk through the short agenda this evening.
So with that being said,
the first item that we'll look at tonight will
be a discussion regarding the historic preservation plan.
I believe Roman is here for presentation.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening.
Good evening, everyone. Thank you.
I'm going to talk to you about the preservation plan that we're working on,
and then, Chair, you had asked in a previous meeting about incentives,
preservation tax incentives.
So it's two parts.
You guys haven't heard from Lakota Group before,
they're not here in town today,
but I'm going to present a little bit for them.
So we have just as an update to the City of Denton's preservation plan.
The original plan was adopted in 1985.
That's the cover of it on the right.
In the Denton plan 2030, we called for updating that existing plan.
In March of 2018, finally,
an RFP was issued which was directly mailed to
18 preservation planning firms across the country plus the normal channels.
Four teams submitted to do the plan,
Lakota Group was selected,
and then additionally, we did receive a $20,000 matching grant from
the Texas Historical Commission through our certified local government program,
which Denton is a member of.
So if we complete the plan by September 30th,
then we will be reimbursed $20,000 from the state in that grant.
So a little bit about Lakota.
Let me come down and pick up a PDF of theirs real quick.
Got it here. So the Lakota Group,
I'm really excited about the Lakota Group.
They really did a great job in their presentation and they're really well-rounded.
They're based in Chicago.
They have a three-group team that includes the regular preservation planners
and planning group which is there at the top.
The Clue Group, which is on the lower left,
which is about economic incentives.
They're specialists in the relationship between preservation and economic incentives.
Then Mosley Architects,
their specialty is sustainability and green building in relation to preservation.
They were all brought in together and they're working as a team.
Just as a quick reference,
the Lakota Group does have experience in Texas.
They worked a lot in San Antonio, Texas.
They just finished a plan about two years ago in Tyler,
Texas which was really well-received and then they do work around the country in some other places.
Their approach is two phases and we're still in phase one right now.
We're working through your community and stakeholder engagement,
which they've been working on surveying the city.
We're right here at Mapping and Analysis and on February the 18th,
so it's a Tuesday that's coming up.
We're going to have a workshop on the square on
the southwest corner in the square at 207 West Hickory in the lobby of that two-story building there.
We're going to have a big presentation there with a lot of us to gather
more information from the community about all their ideas, including incentives.
A little bit more about their background,
they look at everything that we do.
They've been reading and digging and just looking at everything that city does.
They talk to all of our groups and the universities.
We met with the chair,
we met in your office with other members of this group, Marjana, you were there.
We met with a really, really wide diverse group of the city of Denton.
This is a little bit about how they do community engagement,
including having a specialized website which is already up,
but we haven't actually broadcasted that fully.
As we put out the information about this upcoming community workshop,
we'll spread that information a little further.
Then they'll have an online survey that follows that.
The Landmark Commission, just as a note,
is the steering group over this contract, so to speak, and this project.
Because the current ordinance states that
the Landmark Commission actually brings this plan ultimately forward.
Phase 2 will be a draft plan,
another community workshops on that,
and then go to the city and then hopefully move for an approval.
They really have a really diverse wide-spectrum way of looking at preservation is why they stood out.
Preservation is evolving.
A lot of the house I grew up in was built in 1958, 60 years old.
It could be landmark today and it's a southwest suburb of Houston, Texas, according to the old standard.
But the fact is that the way we move and everything is changing and evolving,
so that's why they stood out because they get involved in all of these areas,
as well as neighborhood planning,
and they look at our organization's approach to preservation and possible partnerships, et cetera.
They get heavily into incentives, and here's a list of some types of incentives they would look at.
And then I'm going to talk about incentives in general here in just a minute.
So they also like for their plan to be easy to read and a joy to implement.
I mean, they don't want something that sits up on the shelf and is dusty and is full of words and no one looks at it.
So this is the project timeline.
We're in the upper portion here and heading towards a state of the city report.
But you see the February 18th, that's where we are now.
And then we'll go into phase two, which are the phases I talked about.
So that's what you would have heard from Lakota personally.
Let me get back to the PowerPoint here.
So I'll take questions on the whole topic at the end.
But what do we have here in Denton, Texas today?
So you guys probably know about this, but if you have a local landmark and within two years of that having property been landmarked,
if you spent $10,000, you can ask for up to 10 years,
or you get a 10 year exemption from half of your city of Denton property taxes.
At the end of that 10 year period, if you've also spent 10,000 over that period, you can ask for another 10 years.
So basically, you can go on and on with that under our current ordinance.
29 properties in the city of Denton presently take advantage of this incentive.
And it's kind of always evolving because buildings do roll off and people don't always do the work to ask for another 10 years.
The other thing we have is an incentive that hasn't been used in the three years I've been here, it hasn't been used yet.
And it's about the restoration or the rehabilitation of a historically significant site.
The way the ordinance was written, it originally applied only to our downtown area.
But recently, the economic development department in Caroline amended that ordinance so it could apply to anywhere at all in Denton.
So if you have a historically significant site anywhere in Denton, you can take advantage of that.
And if you rehabilitate that property, then you will freeze your,
that one is you'll freeze the assessed value to the prior valuation before the improvement was made.
And that's the one, so there is one project in town, it's the Fairhaven Project up on North Bell.
And that group that's doing that has the intention, I'm knocking on all the wood I can that that actually breaks ground and happens.
But they're moving forward very seriously on that.
Commissioner Sanchez, you have a question?
>> Commissioner Sanchez.
>> I was just curious, now it only applies, does it apply to say it like a cemetery or anything like that?
If you want to make that a historical site, or does it just apply, is this all just applied like to-
>> I think the key would be if it was somebody paying taxes.
So our look too local, or at least our I00F is we own, right?
And I think we own Oak, was it Oakwood?
Oakwood the other way?
And so if you had a privately held cemetery, I think you'd be entitled to paying taxes on it.
Oak would be my guess.
And then so, the cause for why we're looking at incentives today.
Commissioner Rizzo, Chair Rizzo, that's what you were really getting at.
So the cause really goes back to our Denton Plan 2030, which is just a snippet in the upper right hand corner.
But there were several places in the plan, including here,
where we talked about successful strategy needs to include incentives and
policy and then also policies to ensure compatible infill should be a part of our City of Denton program.
So this kind of came to me, I pulled this slide together really just in the last hour or two after extensive reading on all of the plans.
And if anyone wants a list, there is a Texas Historic Commission list of about 20,
25 cities in Texas in all of their different plans.
But I think you can break these plans down into four categories.
This is sort of the standard incentives or the standard exemptions that have to do with rehabilitation.
And so they all read something like that second one that we had that I showed you that we presently have.
So that will freeze your property evaluation before your improvement for five to ten years.
Or we'll give you an exemption on some part of the property taxes.
So that's the typical exemption that you see in many cities.
I would probably put it at 30 to 40, if not higher, if I could look through all those ordinances.
Then you have, I noticed, exemptions that steer development.
And then I noticed that even Paris, Texas, Little Paris, Texas has a program.
And I'm quoting from one of their texts.
It says, "Historically compatible new construction shall be exempted for a period of three years of 100% increase in the assessed value."
This might come into play on our Denton Courthouse Square District where we had the fire, for example.
So if we lay an overlay over the Denton Courthouse Square District where we want to preserve what's there.
And for anything to go back to fit with some sort of design standards or guidelines, which we're going to hopefully adopt along with that.
It could be that we have an incentive in place to encourage the developer to follow those guidelines, which is what Paris, Texas has done there.
Houston, Texas has one, and I saw this, I believe, in Fort Worth as well, where there's an incentive to convert buildings.
So in Houston, there's one that says more, it basically is talking about, let's just read it through, more than four residential units.
If you add more than four residential units to a building that was built and used as a non-residential purpose, for a non-residential purpose,
then that building may be exempted from the city ad valorem taxes for both improvements and the land for up to $30,000 a year.
And so that's clearly an incentive where you've got an old warehouse, for example, and you want more density in your inner city and you just want to make your housing value go up.
Then I call, these are not in order of significance, but I call it just the Cadillac Plan.
Plano, Texas has one, and it's really a Cadillac Plan that's specific to really lifting up preservation.
So if you have a local landmark in Plano, you can get 100% of your real property taxes taken away, and everyone participates.
The city of Plano, Plano ISD, Collin County, they're all participating in that program, and Brownsville, Texas has that.
So if you have a national or state registered landmark that you live in or you own in Brownsville, Texas, you'll have 100% of your property taxes exempted.
And then if you have a local landmark there, 50% of your property taxes are exempted.
And then finally, there's sort of the category that it just encourages creating historic landmarks, or I'm sorry, districts, the district creation.
San Antonio, when you create a new district, owners in that district can have 20% off of their San Antonio property taxes.
And in Tyler, Texas, they offer 50% of the assessed value of any building listed on their local landmark registry.
So you see there's this sort of diverse thing, and I wanted to just stimulate a conversation, or at least plant these seeds in you now.
Because on November, I mean, on February the 18th, when we have this community input, it's an opportunity for us to think about what we could do,
and how these tools might be used, or be a part of the plan, and then possibly adopted as the only part of the plan in the beginning.
So I'll take any questions that you have on that.
>> Have you presented this to council?
>> No.
>> Okay, I'd be interested to hear their thoughts on around the incentive structures for historical preservation, just curious.
Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So how would we encourage people who feel like they have property or something of historical value to connect with you, or whatever, to take advantage of these incentives?
>> I think I need to do a better job of helping us promote that these are out there.
Although the preservation program we do on the municipal channel, which includes the historic property of the month, has done a great job.
And we list properties that aren't in a particular district, we've shown properties that are not local landmarks.
And I think quite a few of those have come back and said, hey, I want to be a local landmark.
And so it's a way to get that conversation going.
But I think we can promote it on the website.
And I think doing the preservation plan, which will happen over this next nine months,
at least a lot of people should hear then about what we have to offer.
Is that what you mean, how we publicize what we have?
>> Yeah, that would be one way.
I was thinking too, we send out, the city sends out information mailers once a month or whatever.
And that would be a good source, especially if it's on the front page.
People who are interested would see historical incentives, that type of thing.
So if we haven't done that, that would be, I think, one way to promote it.
>> Yeah, we definitely should look at that.
>> Okay, thanks.
>> Commissioner Cole.
>> Yeah, would that go on top of, like I say, an ag exempt property?
So- >> I don't know how they mesh, Mr. Cole.
I don't know, I don't have experience with the overlay.
I mean, if you're already exempt, then there's nothing to gain from it.
And I think I have seen situations where there were two things happening.
And so one is benefit, doesn't do the other, so.
Because there is a little bit, each of these that I've listed, there is an application process.
You are going to have to go before that local commission, it's just not a check box thing.
So there's a little bit of work to it, you present your receipts and the work.
Usually in every case here, the landmark commission or whatever the board is called,
they have to sort of agree that the work that was done allows that building to continue on.
So it has to be substantive in nature to the longevity of the building, if it's a kind of process.
>> Just sort of another, I always caution to, because it sounds good, not that it's bad.
But there is an additional layer of, I'll call it scrutiny, if you will.
Any changes or updates that you would want to make to your property.
There is certificate of appropriateness then that is required.
So I always make sure we remind people of that.
>> Yes, having an historic landmark does require that any exterior alterations to your building,
substantive alterations need to go before the landmark commission.
On staff, we can approve a lot of things, but that's really not been burdensome.
I think for most people, but it does require that.
It's astounding to me that Plano's program, I didn't get a list of how many people participate.
But I've been to several of their commission meetings and they have, it's a strongly supported program.
And kind of one of those great little secrets, and I talked to their historic preservation officer,
you got all your county, your taxi entities involved, and they're, yeah, we're real happy about that.
And in Brownsville, I had the responsibility of going every year to those taxing authorities and asking them to continue to participate.
And the ISD there, I think in their last cycle, may have decided not to participate around.
It just took some convincing, because there's been a lot of charter schools opening up in South Texas putting a little bit more of a financial burden on the ISD.
Because every student goes to charter schools, one less, like $5,000 going to the ISD.
But I think it's, as you know, it's extremely expensive to care well for a historic building.
If it's a little smaller, it goes up in relation to the size of it.
These homes out here on West Oak, they're wooden and you can paint them, but they need a lot of upkeep.
And yet, they're part of our identity.
They're very significant to who the city is.
People don't come to see that brown brick buildings with brown roof,
houses with brown roof exactly like you see along the freeway when you're going in any direction.
So they really do give our city our identity.
And so these programs, I think, they're worthwhile.
They're worthwhile.
The way they play, I don't think we have a problem, coming from Brownsville, which is the 10th poorest county in Texas, to Denton, which is the 7th wealthiest county in Texas.
One thing that I argued for there, for example, with the ISD is that having preservation or historic districts,
it encouraged people of higher means to move into these inner city neighborhoods that were often blighted or in rougher condition.
And you encourage them to rehabilitate and move into these old homes.
They bring with them their family and their kids.
And many times, in my experience in Brownsville, they're going to school in that local school in an otherwise,
I would say, a neighborhood that's probably in the bottom 15 percentile of economic standard of living.
So you're creating diversity in that school system and you're promoting that diversity.
And here in Denton, we don't particularly have that problem.
But I think Denton has some unique conditions that we might need to look at in order to possibly use some of these tools to protect the city's identity and how it grows.
>> Commissioner Sanchez.
>> Okay. My question a while ago was when I looked at the word local landmark and when I asked about cemeteries,
I know there's, the reason I was asking about that was is there funding available for, there's a cemetery located,
and I can't remember exactly where, but I was told where Hispanic community,
Hispanics used to be buried, just primarily Hispanics in that area.
And to bring recognition to that area as far as, so that's why I was asking about that.
My other question is what about some, I live in a house that basically belongs to,
you used to live, Ms. Alexander, who was the daughter of Fred Moore.
I've been told that would be a landmark because of her importance in the community.
But we've done a lot of renovations to that house, and so, and is something like that available?
And I'm not asking for myself, but I'm just trying to understand, in Southeast Denton,
there's other homes that belong to prominent black community.
>> That's a really good question, Commissioner Sanchez.
And really, starting at the top of the national trust about eight years ago,
they realized that a lot of neighborhoods and homes and structures, people that were,
let's just say less prominent in the city for whatever reason, haven't been recognized.
So there's been a real, actually, there are grants for
underrepresented communities and things like that, but just, so that's one.
The thing about landmarking it, who lived there is as important as the structure.
The structure doesn't have to be, have all the architectural integrity of a house built in 1930 or whenever a home was built.
I mean, I think we as a city need to recognize our leaders, whoever they were.
And if that's where the person lived, and if there's a marker there, and an app, in this case, these days, it's an app.
The registered Texas landmark put the history on the marker, usually.
Locally, we just have the medallion.
But if there's some way for that, and I remember that school teacher was a very well respected school teacher.
>> Right, right, she just had a school named after her.
>> Yeah, the school, so I think it's an excellent place to have a landmark.
And so then your structure will then fall still under the, if you make significant
exterior alterations to your structure, you would have to go before the Landmark Commission.
But if the Landmark Commission is well trained and doing a good job, that just should give you just good advice.
And so it could be definitely, there are definitely places in Denton that we need to look at,
I think, and recognize the people that are the backstory to where we are now.
>> I do not see any other questions.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Okay, so hopefully I'll see you all.
You all will get an invitation for February the 18th, and then the following day,
we'll have a little smaller workshop, so if you need to come by then, so please, please come and bring your ideas.
And we will post that as a meeting, so don't worry about a quorum, thanks.
>> The next item on our agenda is to discuss the Denton Development Code update, and Ron Minguinta is here.
>> Thank you, Chair and members of the commission.
Thank you for this opportunity while I pull this up.
We are excited to bring you an update on the DVC update.
We've got a lot going on.
There's been a lot of work being done outside of the Piling and Zoning Commission, and we're really ready to bring it forward to you all.
So this is an opportunity to share with you some dates that are upcoming to get some feedback from you all on the process,
also to get some confirmation on certain times that we're going to have to have you guys consider these changes that we're proposing as part of the DVC update.
So I've got the presentation that I shared with the commission several months ago.
I'm going to go through this fairly quickly, but just to give the Piling and Zoning Commission a little bit of background where we are.
The agenda, again, we're going to talk about why we're doing this, where we are as far as the status,
the policies that the DCRC, the Development Code Review Committee, has been discussing over the past several months.
We'll also talk about some notification in the sub-chapters, particularly, I kind of skipped that.
The notification, which is going to be important as we move forward with adoption.
And then the next steps, and this is, again, where I'm going to be talking to you all about the dates and how you guys are going to be involved in that process.
So for the purpose, you know, we hear about the Den Plan 2030 a lot, which is great in that plan.
There's a action that talks about updating the DVC, so that's where we are.
We're updating it to be consistent with the Den Plan 2030, not only for the land use element,
but also the other actions that go along with development in terms of flexibility,
developability, and areas of growth of the area.
So this covers all of that.
And we hope that with the DVC update, it addresses all of what is stated in the Den Plan 2030.
We've been working on this since November 2017, I'm sorry, June of 2017 through the DCRC.
We've been holding several meetings almost on a weekly or bi-weekly set schedule,
discussing a number of different things, which we'll briefly go through in the next slide.
We've held open houses, I know some of you attended a few of those.
We've attended as many neighborhood meetings, development related organization meetings,
as well as being active out in the community markets.
Recently, we were at the state of the city, so we're trying to get as much input and feedback from the community as much as possible.
Ultimately, our goal is to have a consolidated public draft.
That is set to be published soon.
That is what we are currently working on, again, with the DCRC and with internal staff.
So the consultants, Clarion, has been working on putting that together.
They've received all our comments and are putting the revised version together.
Once they do, we will publish it online for the public to review.
So that's all upcoming.
So what is covered so far in the update?
You see this list here, it's an extensive list, but it's probably a small portion of what really has been discussed.
There's been a numerous amount of items that we have gone through, really high level policy,
but also we've gone to the level of zoning districts, where they should be as well as what type of uses are permitted and also some development standards.
So this is just a list, I'm not going to go through all of this.
But there has been a number of discussions and topics that have been discussed through, again, the DCRC, but also within the staff internally.
The main subchapters that we have proposed are here listed.
There's a total of eight.
As you all know, the current DDC has 24, so there's going to be a lot of consolidation,
mainly the development standards.
Most of the development standards that we have currently in the DDC is broken up into separate subchapters, water, transportation, and site design.
It all is going to be combined into subchapter six, which is development standard.
So not that it's going to be losing information, but it's going to be organized and outlined in a much organized way and user friendly way.
So that's the goal, and that's the hope that this DDC update will have as part of this update.
I wanted to show you this slide just to kind of present some of the zoning districts that we're considering.
And this is the far right there is the new zoning districts.
Many of you have already seen these zoning districts.
Hopefully, what we will do when we come to you in a longer work session is to go through each of those zoning districts,
explain it in more detail, and also show the associated zoning map that goes along with these zoning districts.
So just to give you an idea, we have approximately 28 zoning districts.
We're going to narrow that down to 15 to 16 zoning districts.
So we're combining a number of them, as you can see this right here.
There's five here, four in general.
That's going to go down to one, and you see there's numerous examples of two that will go into one zoning district.
So this is a first step.
This doesn't mean that this is what it's going to transfer to, but really it's just a first blush or
first step into identifying the new zoning districts for the new zoning map, for the up to date zoning map.
So anybody have any questions so far?
So another part of the DDC update will be notification.
Of course, there's going to be a lot of people that are going to want to know what's being done on their property.
So back when we first started the public open houses, we sent out a postcard to all property owners,
and that totaled up to approximately 30,000 postcards.
There are 30 plus thousand property owners that received this postcard, letting them know what's going on.
What is going to happen with their zoning map, and then also a link to the DDC, I'm sorry, the den code 2030.com, or they can get more information.
We had open houses and there were a lot of people that came, but we certainly can do better and get more people involved.
Moving forward, ultimately this DDC update and
zoning map will require a public hearing through the planning and zoning commission and ultimately the city council.
That is going to require notification requirements.
Therefore, the 30,000 plus will also be getting a letter through the mail letting them know of the public hearing.
And so I don't expect them all to show up at one time, but they will be there, I'm sure.
Based on my understanding of the past update in 2002, there were a number of people that came out,
don't have the exact numbers, but they will obviously show their support in opposition of whatever that is.
We will also make sure that it's advertised in the newspaper and posted on our website.
So again, we get as much of the public outreach as we can through this process.
>> Ron, what's the approximate timeline for the introduction postcards to go out?
>> So the top part, that went out already.
So it went out last year as we started the initial, wanting to get your feedback, your input.
The next step when we get into the public hearings, we'll have to start this process.
Like any public hearing notification, it will have to go out prior to state law.
We say 17 days, so that's going to be 17 days before the first public hearing, which is city planning zoning commission.
So what does that mean for you all?
And I don't mean to scare you, but it's going to be a busy couple months.
I wanted to give you this as a heads up, and really, there's going to be a couple of dates that we're going to require a special called meeting for the planning zoning commission.
And it will be on, a couple of them will be on certain times.
You don't necessarily have to write this, we'll make sure that we reach out to you and let you know.
But we will definitely make sure that you're well aware of when those dates are.
So that first P&Z work session is scheduled for February 13th.
That is a non-scheduled P&Z, so it will be a special called meeting.
We will make sure that that meeting agenda is posted.
We are looking at a time of four, between four and 530.
The idea here is Clarion will be in town.
They will be making a presentation to the city council on the 12th.
Really just going over highlights of the DVC update changes,
talk about some high level policy updates, also to go over the procedure, the schedule of the adoption.
So they'll be talking to city council on the 12th.
The next day, we have set meetings with internal technical staff committee members.
We will be meeting with stakeholders.
And then in between, we're going to be hopefully meeting with you all again between four and 530.
Later that evening, we're going to have a public meeting where we're going to be presenting to the public in general.
So be a busy Wednesday for Clarion and for staff.
But this is the time that we're looking for because we want to offer the public an opportunity after hours.
Again, about six o'clock is when we'll start that.
So that's why we're pushing our planning zoning commission special call meeting to start from four and hopefully in about 530.
And again, Clarion will be in town to make that presentation.
Does anybody have any conflicts on that date or that time?
Does that work for everybody?
I just want to make sure that you're aware of that, but we really need to know so that we can make accommodations if needed.
So that's the first work session.
Following that work sessions with city council and the planning zoning commission,
we will be publishing the consolidated draft, which is the draft that we were talked about earlier.
Where Clarion has revised it and taken into consideration the comments that they've received so far.
That is scheduled for February 15th.
Published that online following that publication, start hitting again the stakeholders,
the hosting meetings at our offices during business hours and then also having public meetings after hours.
The intent and the goal is to provide ample opportunity for the public to provide input.
So that's coming in February.
More meetings in February, so here's where we're going to get into the details to a certain degree of each of the sub-chapters.
Like I went through fairly quickly what they are, but in these upcoming work sessions for
planning zoning commission scheduled for February 20th and 27th,
we will have work sessions to go over the sub-chapters.
The February 20th is a scheduled P and Z, so we'll try to fit it in there with that date.
The 27th, the following week, we will have to have a special call meeting.
The time has not yet been set, but most likely it will probably be sometime in the afternoon or evening hours.
We promise not to keep you here late, but we want to make sure we have an opportunity to go through the DDC update.
Those work sessions will include a discussion on the zoning map and the zoning districts as well, so another opportunity.
>> On the 20th, that's a normal call P and Z, do you have a start time for the 20th proposed?
>> I think we should probably look at, maybe look at our calendar, because we're probably, that agenda's starting to get full.
>> So we'll probably start earlier.
>> Earlier, maybe 3.30, maybe even 3, if that works.
>> Send us an email out, okay.
>> Maybe even two.
>> It's okay, we can commission her back.
>> 11, right?
>> Is that 2 AM?
>> 2 AM, yeah, Commissioner Beck's out.
>> Just, Scott just reminded me, again, there's been a lot of work with the DCRC, the Development Code Review Committee.
And three members of the Planning Zoning Commission are part of that.
And so, not to say that they're, we're going to start from scratch, there's been a lot of work already.
So we're going to try to cover some highlights, but still offer the rest of the commissioners the opportunity to ask questions and provide input.
I just want to make you all aware that the committee has been working on this for a long time, and so it's not like we're starting from scratch.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
We've been trying to schedule a couple of DCRC meetings, and we got a quorum.
So in the last email, I think we got, they were going to shoot for this Friday.
Do we know if they're- >> There was not a quorum for this Friday.
>> Okay. >> Unfortunately.
>> I believe the consulting group- >> Clarion.
>> Clarion, they're coming in early February, aren't they?
>> They're scheduled for the 12th and 13th.
>> Okay, so are we going to try and have another DCRC?
>> We're going to try to have another DCRC.
The code discussions has kind of moved forward, but we still have a lot of zoning discussions,
zoning map discussions that we want to discuss with the DCRC.
>> You go forward, Clarion.
>> Yeah, right.
>> Okay, thanks.
>> The version that we afforded to Clarion who is currently revising is essentially closed.
And so there's no more input under the staff, but the legal department is still looking it over as well.
So between now and the consolidated draft, which is, sorry, let me go back up.
February 15th, we will have input from our legal department,
and that is the draft that is going to be published online.
That is the draft that we will be presenting to you all at the work session again on February 20th.
So it's going to be quick, February 15th, as you know, is Friday, the 20th is the next Wednesday.
So we know it's an aggressive schedule, but we are really wanting to get this done.
And of course, it's not that we don't want to make sure we get it to everybody,
but we've been working on this for some time, so we have to really move forward on this DDC update.
So following the planning zoning commission work session is going to be planning zoning commission one week and then city council.
We're going to be talking about the same topics.
And then again, planning zoning commission on the 27th, followed by city council on the 5th.
So a lot of stuff going on in the next couple months.
We will continue to have stakeholder meetings, open houses,
open hour office hours that is, public meetings.
The final adoption draft is the result of those work sessions that we have scheduled with you all.
We're going to take your input, package it up, send it back to Clarion.
They're going to send it back to us so that we can review and publish.
And that is scheduled for March 29th.
So we'll be online, published on March 29th with the hope.
And here's the big slide.
When is this going to be done?
So this is our attempt of identifying dates.
So again, this is all, I want to say the dates.
But of course, it's going to be subject to how soon we can get through plane z and city council.
The scheduled planning and zoning public hearing to consider the DDC update is April 10th.
And that is a special called meeting, it's not one of your scheduled meetings.
So we will schedule that again, and of course, we'll need to talk to you all about what times you are all available for that time.
And Scott has something to say.
>> Scott always has something to say.
I want to say that this is an incredibly aggressive timeline, and as Ron indicated,
whatever time it takes to get this completed, in order to keep the momentum that we have going, that's why we're trying to pursue this.
And if we need to drag this through this building season into next year, we can do that.
It's ultimately getting that level of comfort that this commission needs as well as council needs.
So this work group has been working all summer, virtually every Friday, meeting after meeting.
We've went through a great deal of detail, and so we're going to try to put as much of that as we can in front of you,
not expecting you to get into the same level of detail that the committee did.
But if you feel that you need more, we'll schedule additional meetings, if warranted, if wanted,
if desired, whatever the will of the commission is, or we'll take the time that we need.
So again, I've been pushing staff and Clarion to get this done for the sake that we really, really need it done.
We've got an old development code.
We've got fundamentally two development codes out there.
This is a vast improvement that's many years in the making.
To go from 2002 to today, I mean, we're almost at that 20-year marker, getting close enough that it's just time.
So again, having that level of comfort from you, the commission, as well as from council, we'll do what we need to do.
But we're taking a very aggressive approach and we're asking for your help in doing this.
And hopefully, your committee members can help support the work that's being done.
This is not really staff-driven as much as it is staff has a mission to facilitate what's being done.
So I have a quick question.
I don't know if Ron or Scott can answer this. It's more of a brainstorming thought.
Would it be appropriate during this kind of February review cycle to have the committee meet?
Because it seems like you're going to go P&Z council, P&Z council.
Would it be beneficial to have a joint meeting or rely on our subcommittee so that there is a cross talk during this?
So it's not, well, council said this Tuesday, well, let's ask them and there's another delay.
Is there any benefit to maybe organizing some sort of joint meeting either at the DRDC subcommittee or
collectively during this kind of busy February to make sure that conversation is as productive as possible?
>> Twofold, I think, to that.
That is the purpose in the development review committee, is to be that cross-pollinated committee.
Rather than having those two independent bodies meeting together.
So again, the ability for people to get in front of a commission and have that conversation and/or council if they don't get that resolution, we keep that intact.
We do intend on meeting with that subcommittee in between during this period.
What isn't here is we have a calendar.
We intend to be everywhere.
So we're going to go to HOAs.
We're going to have meetings in our building.
We're going to have meetings at the chamber.
We're going to be anywhere that we can to get out in front of people and hear what it is they have to say.
Ultimately, we need to make sure that the legal bodies have their opportunity to hear,
be heard, and to voice their concerns.
It's staff's responsibility to echo what that is.
So if there is a recommendation that comes from the Planning and Zoning Commission, then we intend to do that.
So we have this conversation today, and today you say this is garbage, we want to get rid of it.
It is our obligation, responsibility to go to council and say P&Z said start over.
Whatever that may be, that's what we're obligated to do.
That's why we're having the meeting with P&Z prior to council on each of these all the way up and through the adoption process.
>> Makes perfect sense.
Thanks.
>> Can you back up one slide?
I think I saw something there.
Yeah, March 20th.
Oh, March 29th.
I thought that was February 29th.
Okay, March 29th is valuable.
>> Valuable for who?
>> No, I was just pointing out this is not a leap year, you know, because I thought it said February 29th.
>> So that is the end of the presentation.
It's really just to give you a future look at what's coming.
And really the date for you all to remember is February 13th when Clarion will be in town,
special called meeting looking to start at four to about 530.
And we'll make sure we send out meeting invites, and of course we'll post it accordingly.
And it will be here in the work session.
Any other questions?
>> No, thanks Ron.
>> All right. >> Appreciate it.
>> Thank you.
With that, we'll go back to work session item number one, which is the clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda.
Tonight, the public hearing 5A, that item is being pulled.
It might be coming back to us in February, but it'll be fully re-noticed, so we're just removing that from tonight's agenda.
And then I'll ask Richard if there's any clarification for consent or individual items this evening.
>> No, just the one public hearing item.
>> Perfect.
With that, does anyone have any questions on the consent agenda?
There's two items, looks like they're both Haley, if there's any questions for Haley.
Perfect, and on the individual items, can we just get a brief overview of those two items?
The first one is PZ 19-9, Charlie.
>> Good evening, everybody.
I'm Charlie Rosendahl, business services manager.
So I'm for you today, seeking a recommendation from the planning zoning commission on a developer engagement policy.
City council held a work session on October 23rd of last year to discuss this matter and
ultimately approved a policy on November 13th.
What that policy does is it prohibits council members from
interacting with developers on not only development cases but
also economic development cases when the item is on
the agenda because of a tie vote or is subject to reconsideration.
And this policy also allows for a voluntary disclosure of any meetings
that council members have with developers on the upcoming cases.
So after that, on December 18th, they requested that the PNZ adopt a similar policy.
So that's what I'm bringing forward today.
And then we have planned to take that to city council on February 5th for adoption of a resolution.
So the policy here before you is very similar to the city council's that removes the language regarding economic development.
But what it would do is prohibit PNZ commission members
from having discussions with developers or interested parties on any item
that's on the agenda due to a tie vote or an item that's subject to reconsideration.
The tie vote here is an item fails passed by a majority and it goes on the next agenda.
And then is subject to reconsideration is that any time a recommendation is made by PNZ until the next meeting,
you'd be prohibited to speak with developers during that time.
>> So we wouldn't necessarily know if an item is being up for reconsideration since commissioners would have to bring that forward.
So you're saying, just so I understand the policy, going forward after an item has been voted on and closed,
we basically have a no discussion with developer for two weeks to ensure no commissioner brings up a reconsideration motion.
>> The reconsideration, once it's, it's typically done before the meeting.
And so for example, if you were on the prevailing side,
you would request that a reconsideration be placed on the agenda for discussion.
And at that time, everyone would know that that item would be scheduled and there would sort of,
at that time, it would kick in.
>> Because if the item has not been posted or given to us for
reconsideration, are we able to talk to the developer before having that knowledge?
>> Yeah, let me correct it, because first we would have to have the vote on reconsidering the item.
And so if there's any affirmative to reconsider, it then would be placed on the next agenda.
So from that point in time until it comes on to the next agenda is when that time period would hit.
>> So I guess more specifically, if we vote on an item, item passes,
the next day the developer calls me and wants to talk about the project, I have no knowledge it's being up for reconsideration.
I am not to engage in that conversation until the next meeting passes and
the reconsideration is off the table.
>> That's correct.
It's while it's subject to a motion for reconsideration.
So that motion, you can't reconsider after the next official meeting.
So from the end of your meeting, once you've made your decision, until the next official meeting,
during that, while it's subject to a motion for reconsideration,
then you wouldn't be allowed to speak with that developer about that development.
>> Perfect, and I guess for clarification, P&Z holds a different tie vote procedure than council.
So in this situation, after the second tie vote, it goes to council as a denial.
So it wouldn't be possible to reconsider.
So after the second tie vote, this policy kind of goes away.
It wouldn't be enactable.
>> Well, it's a separate standard for a zoning recommendation, if it's a tie vote.
And so that's not a final decision of the P&Z.
So I think that what we're really talking about is reconsideration of a plan or
something where P&Z has a final approval of it.
>> Like the ADP item, for example, if it were to be approved for
whatever reason tomorrow, you want to recall that item or ask for reconsideration.
>> So we could have a tie zoning vote, and we're prohibited from discussing developer
during that process too, correct?
>> It doesn't say that specifically in this language, but
I think that when the P&Z would be entitled to reconsider an item,
it would be on an item where they have final approval.
>> For reconsideration, but on a tie vote.
>> I got you, on a tie vote, right.
>> Okay.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So whenever the reconsideration is as a member as a part of the prevailing side of the vote, I make the motion.
So let's say that there's an item where it's a 5-2 and
me and Larry are the two who vote whether against the motion or whatever it is.
But the developer that approaches myself, that is pertaining to the entire council,
not just to, or the entire commission, not just to those who are on the prevailing side, correct?
Cuz the motion is only to the prevailing side, but it's to everybody on there.
>> Yeah. >> So, okay, all right.
>> Okay, oh, Commissioner Beck.
>> Okay, and we're talking about discussion between a commission member or council member and a developer.
Discussion between commission members or other, as long as it's a matter of public record, that's something.
>> Well, it says developers or interested persons.
>> Okay, that's pretty broad.
So maybe, I guess the whole commission would be interested persons then, right?
So it couldn't be discussed amongst us.
>> Well, it seems like a commissioner to commissioner can still have a discussion if it's not a walking quorum.
>> Right, so we're already blocked there by the, what's the, open meetings, right, okay, okay, okay, thanks.
So it wouldn't preclude talking to staff.
>> Okay, Commissioner Pernitta.
>> And I just want to clarify on the uninterested person.
So I know the first part discusses developers, that's pretty cut and dry, is an interested person,
someone who lives right by the development that has spoken at a meeting, that kind of thing?
>> Yeah, it would.
>> Okay, all right.
The thing is, I think that you could propose, if you wanted to limit it to, say, financially interested persons,
if you wanted to allow for speaking to neighbors, it's just a matter of clarifying what the council intends and what you intend by this.
What we wanted to do with interested persons was to create it out so
that you would still have the ability to talk to staff about the project.
Because staff is obviously disinterested in the whole issue.
But if you really want to get down to that fight of a point of differentiating
between somebody who has an interest that's pretty much like the general public or
somebody who's curious or somebody who lives next door, it could be refined.
But that was the intent of saying interested persons was to
enable you to speak with people who have no stake in the outcome.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Well, are you considering crafting it like the city council policy, which states developers or
persons entities requesting incentives or special consideration, is that?
>> That's not in our draft policy, is it?
>> You know what?
That's a good question.
>> Yeah, we do have an individual draft.
>> So let's see how that's worded.
>> Yeah, since the economic development component of that was out of here, we really wouldn't be talking incentives.
>> I don't see any other questions.
>> Okay.
>> Just to add a little more clarification on how, assuming this passes, how sort of the operation, how it would function.
Just a simple email.
Again, that's more on the voluntary disclosure.
Again, you're not obligated, but if you did want to, it's a simple email.
We collect it and have it as backup.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Richard, do you have that disclosure written yet?
>> It's not even, it's just, I had it, if you had a meeting with somebody.
>> It's not going to be a form or anything.
>> It's just a simple email.
>> I see, to you.
>> We are working on a formal process so that you guys have the opportunity to go and you see what type of information we're collecting.
We're actively trying to do that with city council and for this commission as well.
But at this point, like Richard said, if you just provide an email, date, time, location of meeting, who you met with.
>> Legal jump in here.
>> Well, and pardon me for fumbling a little bit because we don't
typically see motions for reconsideration out of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
And so I don't know that we've got kind of a well oiled process of how that would go forward.
But as Richard said, typically you could have the motion to reconsider on the next meeting and
then the actual reconsideration thereafter.
I've also seen situations in which, if you could get notice to staff early enough that they could,
that you're intending to do this, they could get it posted on the agenda with plenty of time to satisfy the public meetings act.
And so we could work the details as far as when it would come up.
But just in general, that doesn't really impact the wording of this.
It's something to refine for what the motion for reconsider process would be.
But certainly to the extent that you get your intention to ask for reconsideration to staff early,
we could shortcut that process as much as possible.
>> Thank you, Chair. >> Mr. Smith.
>> In the event, I guess a real world example.
So two weeks ago we had the rezoning case up on 428 near Hartley Field Road.
This past Saturday, I saw Lee Allison at an event and had a conversation with him about that project.
If that was to happen, once this resolution is passed, if we pass it, that then would be prohibited.
Well, let's just pretend that it was in effect as of last week or two weeks ago.
I would then have to disclose it, and then I would have to be recused from the reconsideration conversation.
What's the process if a conversation does happen, whether it's in passing and not a formal meeting.
It's something where you end up having a conversation about it, and you do break that what happened to that point in time.
>> Well, I don't believe this policy says anything about recusal, if I'm not mistaken.
I think what it talks about is that- >> It's prohibited, what happens if I break the rule?
>> Yeah, well, I don't know that that's really stated, what happens if you break the rule.
I don't know if it's really stated as far as what happens if a council member breaks a rule, for that matter.
I don't know that it gets into all those details, and I don't know how much can really be done about it, to be real honest with you.
>> What's the point of having a rule if there's no consequence for it being broken?
>> Well, I guess as an affirmation of ethical standards going forward-
>> Wow, man, I'm all in favor of ethical standards.
>> I'm certainly not in a position to judge and say whether that's worthy or unworthy.
That's simply the direction that council wanted to go with it, and council wanted the PNZ to go in that direction as well.
I think that what this is saying is that if you encounter lials and
you exchange pleasantries, you say, we can't discuss that prior issue.
>> Well, let's say I break the rule, let's say I'm a bad commissioner, I break the rule, what happens?
>> And in order to protect yourself, do a disclosure on that.
>> I get my cookie, I'll let the Chair address somebody else.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> I'm going to guess what could happen, that's why we have the new ethics board.
So what could happen is you could be brought under that, would be my guess.
>> Also, can I request a clarification just in something Commissioner Smith said?
The disclosure, I think, is not that you had the conversation and broke the rule.
The disclosure is any time, it's a voluntary disclosure, but
any time that we discuss something with a developer, correct?
>> Yeah, that's prior to an item being heard.
But I'm saying specifically in this scenario that I had on Saturday, that was after I was heard, I already voted.
Our recommendation made to PNZ, and I get it, it falls underneath the ethics deal.
I think it's not clearly stated that there's the consequence there.
So that might be a good thing, and that's the reason why I'm eating cookies right now, so.
>> Are you good?
>> Commissioner Fernanda.
>> No, I just wanted to point out, I think we've actually had an example of this already.
If I'm not mistaken, Council and Hudspeth met with one of the developers,
the property that's going up, I think about 250 houses on Bonnie Bray, right by where the school is going to be.
And we had a question about whether or not the road alongside it was going to be extended, and he disclosed that.
I don't know what came of that, but that is something that is on the record and has occurred in terms of this already, correct?
>> Yeah, that's correct.
So we've been talking about the voluntary disclosure a bit.
So anytime you have a meeting with the developer, you can disclose that.
And what will happen is we'll carry that disclosure forward on the upcoming PNC case as well as any city council cases.
So that's the same with city council.
We include that in the backup as an exhibit showing that there's disclosures to that.
>> So and then I guess regarding Commissioner Smith's question.
So there technically isn't no punitive action.
This is simply a policy to encourage transparency, right?
>> Yep.
>> Okay.
>> Question maybe that's not necessarily as important now that the policy's drafted.
But prior to this policy being approved, are commissioners not allowed to disclose?
>> No. >> Because the policy now permits us to do so.
Have we not been permitted to do that?
>> I think if you'd like to disclose, by all means disclose, it's going to be voluntary.
And so whether it's, I do know some council members, I mean even if there's an email communication,
some just disclose it just to be transparent about it.
>> Sure.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Okay, I may be a little confused here.
So we can't discuss anything with a developer, I can understand before it comes before us.
But once it comes before us, we voted on it, and we passed it on to city council.
We still can't discuss that with them until.
>> For one meeting.
>> For two weeks.
>> Until the next meeting.
>> Even though we've already made our decision on it.
Okay, that helps, thank you.
>> All right, any other questions?
>> Maybe, Commissioner Ellis?
>> Thank you.
I'm going to just maybe throw it out to legal.
Do you understand what, it's for reconsideration, right?
So, I want to make sure that you want-
>> I can use some clarification on reconsideration because as you said, we don't do that much, so.
>> But we can.
>> Maybe if you can elaborate on that.
>> Yeah, and I didn't bring the copy 2-29 with me today.
But I could try to get on that before a regular meeting and see if I could get you a better answer on that.
>> What would help me if you could give an example?
>> I'll try to find one.
>> Okay, instead of quoting the law-
>> Because I haven't seen one either, you know, and so it's, I just have to be very candid with you that I've been dealing with P&Z off and on for 20 some odd years, and I haven't seen a motion to reconsider.
>> Well, I've been here for three and a half years and I don't recall anything.
>> Yeah, so it's, don't judge me too harshly if I can't easily come up with an example.
>> Okay, if you can, that'd be great.
I'm a visual person that helps.
>> Okay.
>> Commissioner Burnetta.
>> And I just want to clarify, because before we get too comfortable with reciting two weeks, in an instance where, say, end of the year, December, where we might have a month before the next P&Z meeting, it would be a month in that case, because we are actually holding until the next meeting.
>> Right, until the next meeting.
>> Okay.
>> Typically two weeks.
>> Or in February where the next meeting might be a week later, right?
>> That's correct, we can send something out, too, that may be helpful on when that time period is.
So just for an example, anything leading up to this point tonight, you can have discussions, you can disclose it, you can choose not to disclose it, it's voluntary.
After you've made a vote, if we had a, well, I guess we still do have some items, but after you've made your vote tonight, then you wouldn't discuss that until February 6th.
You wouldn't discuss that development with that developer or any interested party until February 6th, and then you could discuss it after that.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions?
Thank you very much, Charlie, for the presentation.
The next and last item for our work session is 4B, and Haley, I'll ask you to present this item.
All right, so this case is an alternative development plan request for Blue Beacon.
So you can see the site outlined in black on the map, it's located at the intersection of I-35 and Barthold Road.
So the request before you is to consider approval of an ADP to deviate from two sections of sub-chapter 13.
That is the landscape and tree canopy requirements, and then the access parking and circulation requirements.
This property is just under 11 and a half acres.
It's located in an employment center commercial zoning district.
Some of you may remember over the past couple of years we've gone through a voluntary annexation for part of the property and then rezoning to ECC.
I believe that was last year, and then you've recently seen a preliminary plat for this site as well.
So they've been working on this consistently for a couple of years now.
And the proposed use is a Blue Beacon truck wash facility.
So to kind of show you the reason for this request, as they've gone through platting and
site planning for this location, they've come to realize that meeting the landscaping standards of our code is very difficult given the number of easements on the site.
So what you can see here is kind of their proposed site plan layout, and then they've highlighted the easements that are encumbering the site.
So this blue color is a drainage easements, there is a detention facility here in a lighter shade of blue.
There's an existing pipeline easement in yellow going around the perimeter of the site.
There is a water line easement here, and also a sanitary sewer easement and an electrical easement.
So of that 11 and a half acres, a very limited portion of the site can actually be developed.
So looking in detail at what they've proposed, the minimum for the zoning district is 20% landscaping.
Since all of these easements are grass, they have no trouble meeting that requirement.
They're at over 80% landscaping.
The code also requires for ECC 30% tree canopy.
On this site, that would be just over three acres worth of tree canopy.
What they've done is work extensively with planning staff in our engineering department to figure out where within these
numerous encumbrances they could feasibly plant trees and not interfere with something.
And what they've come up with is this plan for 45 new trees on the site as one tree is being preserved and then one tree is being relocated.
And that gets them to right around 11.6% tree canopy coverage.
So far short of the 30%, but definitely fitting things in where they can given the numerous encumbrances here.
Within the site design itself, the parking lot is really the only other place we have specific landscaping and tree canopy requirements.
And they are able to meet those within their parking lot.
So looking at the exact deviations they're asking for, the 30% tree canopy, as I mentioned, is probably their biggest challenge.
So they're falling short of that at just over 11%.
The street trees, you'll notice because of those easements, unable to plant trees along both of their street frontages as the code would require.
And then the code also requires when you have parking or vehicle maneuvering areas between your building and the street,
that you have that very specific 15 foot wide planted area that includes the berm, trees, and then either a wall or shrubs.
So again, given the easements, they were unable to provide that exact configuration that the code requires.
So while they don't have that specific planting area, and they don't have the berm, they have accommodated what they could, which is in the area in orange.
They intend to provide a minimum three foot high screening wall.
And then in front of the parking lot itself, they are providing small landscape islands planted with shrubs and trees.
So again, doing their best to meet the intent of that code requirement.
So looking at the criteria for approval of an ADP, preservation of existing neighborhoods.
And while there's not any residential neighborhoods in this area, we did look at the character of the area.
And this being a prominent highway intersection with other auto oriented uses,
this use fits well within that development pattern here.
Assuring quality development, again, over the last two years we've worked extensively with this developer.
And they're not trying to lower the design standards, they're just battling a high number of encumbrances on this site with drainage easements and utility easements.
And then focusing new development to activity centers.
This intersection's kind of already established itself as really that travel center kind of corridor here.
This whole area is intended for business innovation.
So someday we hope to see, based on our comp plan, those large campus style developments, light industrial and things of that nature.
So these auto uses like we see there with the truck stops at this location and
this truck wash would be supporting uses for that at some point in the future.
The last two criteria to ensure that infrastructure can accommodate the development.
The road frontages are already in place here.
Other developments such as the Loves here just south of them have brought utilities to this far north part of Denton.
So those are available for extension to this site.
And then again, resulting in a high quality development that meets the intent of our standards.
As you've seen here, they are trying their best to accommodate what the code requires of them.
Providing as many trees and as much landscaping as is possible within the constraints of the site.
So with that, staff is recommending approval of their request as we found it to meet those criteria.
>> Mr. Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I'm assuming because they can't meet the 30% canopy is because they can't build because of all their strengths.
And that eliminates them from putting into the tree fund too, is that correct?
In other words, to make up for it, you know, we'd say it won't kick into the tree fund, but it's not their fault.
Am I saying that right?
>> Well, the code currently only allows tree fund payment when you're mitigating for existing trees that you're removing.
>> Okay.
>> So they are meeting the tree preservation standards for the site.
Because there's not a whole lot of trees on this lot.
So those two trees that I mentioned-
>> And they're not actually removing, they're relocating one.
>> Relocating one, preserving one.
There are a couple of other secondary trees that they will be removing, and then there's some dead trees on the site that they'll be removing.
So they are meeting the tree preservation, so that payment to the tree fund for mitigation doesn't apply to this situation.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> That is something we're looking at, if you remember, with the draft landscape code, but we don't have that yet.
>> Any other questions?
All right, thanks, Hayley.
>> Thank you.
With the public hearing item being pulled, that concludes our work session.
I'll close this work session at 618.
We will have the public hearing and the full P&Z commission at 630 in council chambers.
>> Good evening and welcome to the January 23rd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
This meeting will commence at 631.
The first item on the agenda is to stand and give the pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flag.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
On this Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the United States, Texas, one state under God, one university.
>> The next item of business is to consider the approval of our planning and zoning commission minutes.
The chair will entertain any discussion or a motion.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I have motion approval.
>> We have a first, Commissioner Pernitta.
>> I second the motion.
>> We have a first and a second to approve the planning and zoning minutes for January 9th.
Is there any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
The next item for business is our consent agenda.
Chair will entertain any motion or discussion on the items.
Commissioner Smith.
>> Move to approve.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Second.
>> We have a first and a second to approve the consent agenda.
Is there any discussion on the matter?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
That brings us to the next items on the agenda.
And I want to make sure we at least announce that the public hearing item 5A,
there's a rezone case for the Hills of Argyle, has been pulled from tonight's agenda.
It will not be heard, so if anyone's watching on TV or here, that item has been pulled.
It'll be re-noticed for a future meeting.
With that, we'll go back to individual consideration, item 4A, PZ19-9.
And I will invite Charlie for presentation.
>> Good evening, commission members.
My name is Charlie Rosendahl, business services manager for the development services department.
I'm here today seeking a recommendation from P&Z regarding a developer engagement policy.
A little background on this, on October 23rd,
city council held a work session to discuss possible engagement policy for development.
On November 13th, they adopted a policy that prohibits discussions with developers or
persons regarding upcoming developments from the point in time that they've
made a motion and voted on an item until the next meeting,
which is the subject for reconsideration, and you're also prohibited during a tie vote.
On December 18th, they requested that P&Z adopt a similar policy.
So I'm here today seeking your recommendation, and
we'll take that forward to city council on February 5th.
So the draft policy you have in your backup would prohibit discussions with developers
or interested parties when an item is on a pending due to a tie vote,
or an item is subject to reconsideration.
So effectively, you would be prohibited from discussing with developers from the point
in time a recommendation is made at P&Z until the next official meeting,
or when an item is on the next agenda due to a tie vote.
The second part of the policy would be a voluntary disclosure of meetings with developers.
They must be submitted in writing to the director of development services.
We're currently working on a form that would be provided to you all so
that you can disclose those.
In the meantime, you can email staff and disclose that information, and
we'll include those disclosures in any future P&Z and city council backup.
And with that, I'm seeking your recommendation.
>> So we do have a question, Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
With the help of my fellow commissioner Ellis,
I think I understand a little bit more what's going on here.
But the question did arise, and I don't know that this happens often.
But if we vote on an issue before the next P&Z, it makes it to city council.
Once it's on the city council's agenda, then that's something we can discuss,
because we're free and clear of it, or does that make sense?
I don't know that that happens that often, where it goes, we're in P&Z, and
then next week it's on the city council's agenda.
>> So it'll be our policy and development services to make a gap between those items.
In rare instances, there may be some items that would go to council prior to your next
P&Z meeting, but we're going to put enough space in there during that time frame.
>> So once it's on the city council's agenda, and they actually vote on it,
then we don't have to wait until the next P&Z, because it's a done deal then, right?
>> So we ideally wouldn't put another case on city council agenda until
at least the P&Z held their next meeting.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> If I could come in legal, do you have an add?
>> Yes, if I could.
Typically, that's not going to be an issue because, well, of course,
we're talking about a policy where reconsideration is only incidentally brought up.
But looking at the actual rule regarding reconsideration,
it's a rule that was drafted with council in mind.
And it talks about any action taken by the city council.
Now, there's another provision that says to the extent possible all of the various boards of commission should abide by these rules as well.
And so adapting that, I think that the real intent on the reconsideration issue is an action.
That's the word that's actually set forth in 2-29,
where it says emotionally reconsider any action of, in this case, the commission.
An action of the commission would be a plat approval, an ADP approval, something like that.
A vote to recommend approval or a vote to recommend denial is not an action.
It's a report that's made to the city council, pursuant to the rules in Chapter 211.
Or the local government code and our ordinances.
And so I don't think that the situation that you're talking about is going to be one that's going to be susceptible to a motion to reconsider anyway.
>> Okay, and I think you answered another question that popped up is that if I wanted to change my vote, that wouldn't be considered an action.
Is that what you're saying?
In other words, if I were part of the minority, say it was a 5-2 vote and I was part of the minority.
>> On what kind of item?
>> So that makes a difference, huh?
>> Yes.
>> Well, a zone change.
>> I'm sorry?
>> A zone change.
>> Okay, if it's a zoning change, that's not an action.
And so I don't believe that it's really subject to reconsideration.
>> Well, what I'm saying, yeah, if I changed it and I became, but I was still part of the minority, then that wouldn't be a matter of reconsider.
>> You'd have to be on the prevailing side to do a motion to reconsider anyway.
>> Okay, okay, got you, thanks.
>> I did not see any other questions.
Appreciate the presentation.
>> Mm-hm.
>> This is an individual consideration item, it's not a public hearing.
So the chair will certainly entertain any motion or discussion on the item.
I'll go ahead and make a motion to, or I move to approve the item with the condition that a word is inserted.
I would like to see the word financially inserted between or and interested to make
it more clear on who the interested persons and entities prohibited to speaking with would be.
That's my motion.
Commissioner Sanchez.
>> I second that.
>> We have a first and a second to approve as amended by the chair.
Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair, I think that, I didn't want to mention it in work session, I thought if it was brought up then possibly.
But the financially interested, I can give you any clarification of the chair first, if you're emotionally and financially interested.
You're specifically trying to aim it towards anybody, whether it's a developer, it's an engineer, somebody who's involved in the project itself.
I feel like this policy should extend to also those who are in the neighborhood who could be affected by the case itself.
That's just my belief, that if there's, let's say there's a motion, we can't do it on a zoning case.
Let's say it is a preliminary plotting is of course, is an action, correct, legal?
>> I'm sorry.
>> Preliminary plotting is an action, correct?
Where we vote, we vote for preliminary plot, that is an action, we brought that up, the difference between those.
But if there's something that happens that we do vote on, and there's a 5-2,
that somebody who's in the majority then gets approached by somebody in the neighborhood saying, hey, you didn't see this and this and there, you need to change that.
And they have a conversation with that person in the neighborhood, and then that person comes back and says, yeah, you know what?
We do need to have reconsideration.
I feel like that's just as much of a violation of what we're trying to do as it is talking to the developer.
And so I want to make sure that if there's financials added in there, great.
I think that you'd have to extend that financial.
It has to mean those who are financially also involved being the neighborhood person as well.
If they say that, well, this development's going to hurt my property values, or not even have the financial in there at all.
Because I feel like the neighborhood people should also be included in not being able to communicate with commissioners
on an item that could be brought back up for reconsideration, much to my point.
>> Yep, that's it.
>> That's a good point.
Mr. Sanchez?
>> Well, I think anybody that's involved, even the neighbors, have a financial.
We have that, a lot of people that come here and talk to us that it's going to lower the value of their homes.
So they have a financial concern.
So I think that's something we have to look at and say, hey, are you part of that neighborhood?
And we have to consider that.
But I think it clarifies it when you say financial.
Now, if somebody's just asking you what kind of projects are you working on and have nothing to do with it,
then it's a totally different animal, I think.
But I think we have to be cognizant of asking them, where do you live?
What's your concern?
And then we make that determination.
Is it financial that, well, you don't want it?
You feel it's going to affect you financially.
>> Yeah, to Commissioner Sanchez's point, the reason I would like to keep it as just financially interested is
anyone who asks you a question about a project pertinent to this policy is showing interest.
And so I feel that there needs to be some sort of division of defining that interest.
And so I feel comfortable with financially interested, and Commissioner Sanchez brings up a good point about,
that's our discretion of what the motive is, if it's financial or not, that I think legal wants to do.
>> Yeah, if I could make a suggestion in there,
if we could communicate the idea of interested beyond the public at large.
Something along those lines, and if they have an interest that's different from the public at large.
So for example, let's say you've got a residential replant,
where you have a public hearing and the people that live within the area of the replant have
specific stake in the outcome that's different from the public at large.
That's a final action, and so that might be a circumstance in which
it might fit what Mr. Smith is concerned with.
And sort of bridge the gap between someone
who's poised to derive income from the development and someone who's merely curious about it.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> Yeah, I think that's my big point there.
In work session, it seemed like the financial piece that was being, the financial word that was meant to be added in there was to try to exclude the neighborhood.
And I want to make sure that we don't try to write the neighborhood out from also having to play into this conversation.
So I think at large, possibly you would be willing to reconsider your motion.
>> Yeah, I'd be happy to amend my motion.
So my motion would be, the amended motion would be to not include financially, but rather insert.
>> Coming up with something right now.
See if you like that.
>> To insert the words beyond that of the public at large after the word entities.
>> Or an interest beyond that of the public at large.
>> And strike persons and entities.
>> Well, yeah, with developers or maybe we relocate persons or
entities over here, persons or entities holding an interest beyond that of the public at large regarding any matter related to the development.
And I think that you could, if you wanted to discuss in this context whether that might even include people who might be within 200 feet of a zoning project or
something like that that could possibly influence a super majority vote, that might be another example.
>> So I'm comfortable with the friendly amendments add beyond that of the public at large.
Mr. Sanchez, are you okay with that amended language?
>> Yes, I'm fine with it.
>> Okay, we have a first and second for the amended language, Commissioner Pernetta.
>> I just want to clarify, because right now when we go into interest beyond the public at large,
ultimately this is all a judgment call on what we feel we should report.
Because to basically qualify that requires a specific questioning and clarification.
>> Microphone.
>> I'm sorry.
I just wanted to say, when we talk about the public at large, ultimately it's a judgment call, correct?
Because in order to ascertain that, that's going to require qualifying questions that very obviously,
if someone starts discussing financials behind it, we can identify that person as having that interest.
But beyond that, if someone just talks to us about something, ultimately that's not something that might normally be apparent, right?
So when we're talking about this, ultimately, once again, this is our judgment call and this is strictly voluntary.
This is not something that we'd be held responsible to with regard to ethics,
if we did not judge that it was beyond the interest of the public at large, is that correct?
>> That would be my understanding.
If someone came with you and asked a question about a project, you'd have to ask a qualifying question to know if they're financially involved or not.
So whether it's financially interested or beyond that of the public, there's still,
if you're engaging in that conversation about an item that's been tied or up for reconsideration,
there is an assumed dialogue happening for you to understand whether or not the conversation's appropriate or not.
>> Okay.
Are you good?
>> That's it, I just wanted to kind of see where we were just to avoid any inadvertent lack of disclosure, I guess.
>> I got you, Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
I'm going to ask for a restatement just so I can understand, please.
>> Yeah, so my restatement would be that the sentence read,
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission will not communicate outside of a public meeting with developers or
parties, entities interested beyond that of the public at large regarding any matter related to the development.
We have a first and a second for that amended motion.
Seeing no other discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries seven, zero.
The next item and final item for the individual consideration is item 4B, and I'll invite Haley for presentation.
>> All right, good evening.
So this is a request for an alternative development plan for Blue Beacon.
So the proposed truck wash facility would be located generally where you see the black outline on the map.
This property is located at the intersection of the I-35 frontage road and Berthold road on the north side of town.
It's just under 11 and a half acres, currently zoned employment center commercial.
The requested ADP is to deviate from two specific sections of the code, the landscape and
tree canopy requirements and then the access parking and circulation requirements.
So to give you an idea of the layout of the site, their access would be from Berthold road.
There is, as I mentioned, a truck wash facility.
It contains two bays that would be located here with associated parking just to the west of that.
And then there is a detention pond generally in the area shown in the lighter blue color.
The brighter blue here surrounding this is drainage easement.
And then the yellow shown on this map is an existing pipeline easement.
There is a sanitary sewer easement that would go here in the green area.
An electric easement and then also a water line easement.
So the site is significantly encumbered with the necessary easements for this development.
So looking specifically at their landscape plan where all of these deviations would occur,
the overall site well exceeds the minimum 20% landscape area for the ECC district.
All of these easements would remain basically grass or turf, so they would meet the definition of landscape area.
The ECC district does require 30% tree canopy for the site, so that's based on the total lot area.
So for a lot of this size, that would be over three acres of tree canopy required.
Because of all those easements and the code restricting planting trees within easements and
within certain distances of utility lines, it was very hard for them to accommodate those trees on the site.
So in working with staff, they have formed a plan that would involve the planting of 45 new trees,
as you can see, in these areas along with some trees in the parking lot.
And that would get them to just over 11% tree canopy total.
Within the site, our code really only has specific landscaping requirements for just your overall lot and then for your parking lot.
So they are meeting those specific parking lot landscape requirements within the code.
It's that overall tree canopy where they found some struggles.
And then beyond that, as I mentioned, they're at 11.6 compared to 30, which is required.
They were also unable to plant the required street trees along their frontages on Barthold and I-35.
So the code requires that one tree for every 45 feet, which would be about 20 trees on this site.
They were unable to plant those in the easements.
And then similarly, the code has specific requirements when there is parking or drive aisles located between a building and the street.
It requires a specific 15 foot wide planting area in front of those drive aisles and parking that contains a berm,
one tree for every 40 feet, or three small trees clustered once every 30 feet, and then either a row of shrubs or a continuous wall.
Because of the easements, again, they were unable to provide that very specific combination of things.
So what they have proposed in the area in orange is that three foot high screening wall for the drive aisles.
And then directly in front of the parking lot, which you can see here,
they have proposed these landscape islands that would contain shrubs and trees to screen the parking lot itself.
So in looking at the criteria for approval outlined in the code, the first is that the proposal would contribute to the preservation of existing neighborhoods.
While there's not actually any neighborhood in this area, we did look to see if the development's consistent with the character of the area.
And this intersection on the highway is, as I'm sure you're aware, is kind of a travel center, if you will.
It has a couple of existing truck stops in this area, some other auto oriented uses.
So this use would be consistent with that development pattern.
Assuring quality development is the second criteria.
So again, you can hopefully see through that landscape plan that they worked very hard to accommodate things where they could on the site.
So they weren't attempting to lower the development standards, just trying to work within the many encumbrances and constraints on the site.
The third criteria, focusing new development activity centers.
This entire area is designated by our future land use map for business innovation.
So that's those large office parks, employment center type uses, light industrial uses fit within that.
So this use, we thought would be consistent with that and would be one of those many supporting uses that you would eventually need as this area develops.
The last two criteria were whether there is infrastructure that can accommodate the development.
So the roadway network is already in place here.
As you can see on the map, the red and blue lines represent water and sewer lines in the area.
So as development has traveled north on the interstate, that infrastructure has been in place.
So it is there for them to extend to their site.
And then finally, will it result in a high quality development that meets the intent of the standards.
As I've mentioned, they've worked very extensively with staff over two years on this project.
And what they've come up with is the best combination of things we could find that would meet the intent of the code.
And work with the constraints on their side.
So they are planting as many trees as planning and
engineering staff found were feasible within the given easements on this property.
So staff is recommending approval of this request as it meets our established requirements for the approval of an ADP, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
And the developer is also here if you had any specific questions.
>> Thank you, Haley, for the presentation.
There are no questions for you at this time.
This is an item for individual consideration, so the chair will entertain a motion or discussion at this time.
Commissioner Beck.
>> I just want to applaud the developer for wanting to build here.
I don't think anybody else would want to build on this property, so this works out well for them.
And I want to move to approve ADP 190001.
>> We have a first, Commissioner Smith.
>> Second.
>> We have a first and a second.
Is there any discussion on the item?
>> I, too, with Commissioner Beck, I'm glad this is getting developed.
So great job somehow figuring out what can go in that space.
So I'll be supporting this for sure and wishing you the best on construction.
Seeing no other discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
Congratulations.
>> Public hearing 5A has been pulled from tonight's meeting, so that will take us to the plan and zoning matrix.
And I will ask Richard for any updates.
>> As you can see, we've kind of whittled down the list quite a bit.
I do have at our next meeting to talk a little bit about the annexation process.
I know at one point I wanted to have that in conjunction with the RD5X and rural residential.
I thought I would at least pull it out separate so we can at least have that discussion even before we get into that.
Also wanted to note on 220, DISD will be here, along with their consultant,
to give a presentation on kind of their future plans and how they, what and how they use student generation rates.
And sort of even as a precursor, I thought it would be good for the annexation because they are part of that analysis.
And so those are just some items coming up.
One thing I wanted to kind of go back to our first item, what I'll start doing just so everyone,
sometimes it's easy just to forget, when we have those actionable items being considered by the commission,
I'll just put a note on the AIS, either part of the recommendation or part of the backup.
Just so you have an idea that this is one of those actionable items and could be subject to recall just so it's kind of fresher in your mind.
Other than that, that was all I had.
>> That's a great point.
Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Any consideration about an update on the mobility plan for them?
Edification of, especially newer members on the commission?
>> Yes.
They are completely going to be redoing that mobility plan and really going to a thorough traffic thoroughfare plan.
>> Okay.
>> I think once that gets better vetted and they have an idea of when they're going to actually go out to that, that's when I'd like them to come here.
>> Okay, is there going to be PSROR again?
>> That will be through Todd Estes and Preetam.
>> Okay.
Thank you, sir.
>> The only thing I would stay at a request is generally stopped, it's a great job on this, but February 20th looks like a busy day.
So if we could just make sure there's plenty of time for a work session, it would be helpful.
Any other items for the matrix?
Seeing none, we will close this meeting at 6.58.