>> Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting for Wednesday, August 23, 2023.
This is our work session and with the quorum present, I'll call us to order at 5.01 p.m.
Let the record show that Commissioners Pruitt and Anderson are absent at this time.
First item on our work session is citizen comment for consent agenda items.
Is there anyone wishing to speak here on that?
Okay.
Seeing none, we'll move on to clarification of agenda items.
On tonight's agenda, first one are minutes from August 9th.
Any questions on those, Commissioners?
Okay.
How about on consent agenda?
Julie, I did have a quick question on 3B.
Thank you.
>> You bet.
Let me pull up the --
>> Okay.
All right.
>> I just wanted General Note 9 a little more clarified.
I don't recall seeing that before.
And I'm wondering what -- what does it mean?
>> I'm going to have to zoom in.
>> Oh, I hear that.
I just did.
If you don't mind, let me just --
Perfect.
That is related to our gas well ordinance that if you recall, we added a provision in
previous ordinances that they had to send that notification to property owners within
1,000 feet of that well.
So it really is just that standard note that Robeson negotiated as part of that.
>> Okay.
So that's something -- and it just says will be provided?
>> Yes.
It is typically -- it is something that needs to be -- a notification needs to be recorded
with the county as part of the -- with the final plat.
>> Okay.
That was my question.
>> Yes.
>> Because this is the preliminary plat.
>> Preliminary plat.
Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay.
Perfect.
That's the clarification I needed.
Anybody else?
Commissioner Cole.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Julie, you know, when we get these backups, when we try to drill in and look at the adjacent
property owners?
>> Hard to see.
>> It's hard to see.
>> Okay.
>> I need to know what the north of there, the property owner, is it?
>> Maybe this will help.
Let's -- we're going to zoom in again, if you don't mind.
And we'll look at that vicinity map.
This property is kind of buried in the center of Robeson.
Do you want me to find maybe a different map to show you?
>> I just need to know where that line is to the north.
Because I cannot get it in the backup.
>> Okay.
>> I just need to know if that's us or not.
>> Okay.
I'll find out for you, sir.
>> I'm sorry.
Mine or not.
>> Sure.
>> And I can't do that by the backup.
>> Absolutely.
I can find out.
And I'll make sure on Robeson properties from now on that I'll kind of try to make that
a little clearer for you, sir.
>> Thank you so much.
I appreciate that.
>> Are you trying to ascertain whether or not you might need to recuse yourself?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
All right.
>> Exactly.
>> Okay.
We'll get you that information.
>> I'm just trying to do the right thing.
Every time.
That's the way I operate.
>> You're always very conscientious of that.
So I appreciate it.
>> Thank you.
>> Anything else on this one?
Or anything else on consent?
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you for doing that.
Okay.
We'll go to individual consideration items for A. That's Mia's item.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner.
This item is a final replat at this time or located at the northwest corner of Panhandle
Drive and Heritage Trail inside of Razor Ranch.
At this time, they do not meet our criteria for approval for final replats, and so we
are recommended denial, but we have no objection to their requested extension, which could
be granted until September 13th of 2023.
>> Perfect.
Any questions on this one?
Good.
Thank you.
I think you've got the next one, too.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Hello, Commissioner Anderson.
>> This item, FR23-0014, is another final replat within the Razor Ranch overlay area,
but this one is north of University, located just east of I-35, again, same as the one
before.
They are not meeting all of our criteria for approval for final replats at this time, but
we have no objection to their requested extension, which could be granted to September 13th,
2023.
>> Great.
>> Any questions?
>> Questions?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
This 4C and 4D have been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will not be taking action
on those items.
So that will take us to one more individual consideration item, that's 4E, and I think
that's Julie's item.
>> Good evening, Julie Wyatt, and this is a final plat for Townsend Green.
It is a single-family residential development, located on the south side of McKinney, situated
in the east part of town.
They do have a preliminary plat approved.
They do have some items they still need to work through on this final plat, so staff
is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to their requested extension, and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
>> Great.
Questions for Julie?
>> Great.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
I think you can stay right up there, because we're on the public hearing item, which we
have one tonight, and it is yours.
I'll let you give us a summary of that, and we can take some questions.
>> I left my notes over there, so if you'll ask anything hard, I'll have to --
>> Okay.
>> All right.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt, DCA 23-0001.
This item is related to reasonable accommodation, group homes, community homes, and elderly
housing.
I won't go through the whole presentation right now, I just want to give a summary,
unless you want to go through those items, and we certainly can.
So the proposal is to update the city's regulations related to these -- to that reasonable accommodation,
group homes, community homes, and elderly housing.
It involves quite a bit of the Denton Development Code, subchapter two, that administration
and procedure section, that's related to the reasonable accommodation.
The use regulations, not only the table of permitted uses, but also the use-specific
standards and that maximum persons occupying a dwelling.
We're also proposing changes to parking related to these uses, and some changes to the definitions.
This is an item that we realized we really needed some work on in our code.
It had been -- these provisions had been modified over the years, not only with the 2002 Denton
Development Code, but then taking it forward to the 2019, and we realized we kind of had
a franking code, and we needed to kind of take a wholesale look at it and make some
recommended changes.
This has gone through our DCRC, our Development Code Review Committee.
We had five meetings.
We talked about it, probably five or six hours.
I know some of y'all are on that committee, so you know how long we talked about it.
So tonight we'll be talking kind of a truncated version of that.
I won't talk for five hours, I promise.
But based upon the DCRC recommendation, the need to make these updates to the Denton Development
Code and the criteria for approval, staff will recommend approval of these changes,
and I'll be happy to go over them in more detail if you'd like.
>> I did have one question written down here.
We've got on one where I think it's in the general office where we're changing that,
and we've got the affecting one property and needs a city-initiated zoning.
What's the plan for that?
>> Well, this will -- the next steps for this -- and you're exactly right.
And so the next steps for this is to go to these code amendments to go to the Committee
on Persons with Disabilities in September and then council thereafter.
If it's approved, we would then start as a staff that city-initiated rezoning to move
forward with the rezoning of that property.
It's kind of skipping ahead, but I'll go -- because of state law changes, we do notify those property
owners that you may become nonconforming because of this.
>> That was my next question.
>> We've actually talked to the property owner, and so we sent out the notification -- we
call it the 929 notice -- to the property owner as well as all of the residents there.
So we have fielded -- we thought we'd get a lot more calls.
We have fielded a few calls about that, and so it is -- it's not our intent to make them
nonconforming.
It really is the intent to kind of tighten up those regulations in GEO to make sure that
we've got compatible uses and then to help them move forward with a rezoning that matches
our future land use in the surrounding zoning.
>> Okay.
So you talked to that property owner.
They understand what's happening and -- >> Yes.
>> And you've got a plan going forward.
That's what I mean.
>> We do.
We don't have exact dates, but we do have a plan going forward.
>> Okay.
Perfect.
That answers my question in there.
Anybody else?
Yeah, there's a whole lot of information there, so it'll be a good presentation.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
That is our one public hearing for tonight.
So then we'll move back onto our work session agenda, which is about one report, and that's
Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion Regarding Recently Passed Legislative Bills.
And I think Ron is starting this, and then I'm going to tag team with some others.
Right?
Hi, Ron.
>> Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Commission.
Yes, there will be a number of staff members working and presenting this item as well.
So let me go ahead and pull the presentation up.
So this presentation is really to cover the 88th legislative session that occurred this
year, earlier this year.
The session started in January and ended in May, late May specifically.
During the regular session, there were two special sessions that occurred.
The main reasons for those special call sessions primarily were related to the property tax
relief that the governor wanted to have further discussions on.
So that ended.
And so what I wanted to share with you all is just a real recap, an overview of what
was heard, what was filed with the legislative.
There were 8,000 bills filed, that is, in that regular session and subsequent special
sessions.
That's approximately 14% more than what was filed last year, so significantly more.
There were about 770 bills related to cities that would potentially impact cities.
That's approximately 10% of those bills filed.
And throughout the process, throughout the session, regular session, there were 76 bills
that were vetoed by the governor.
So there is some talk about having another special session in the future to address those
76 bills that were vetoed by the governor.
The timeline for that is really unknown, but it's anticipated sometime either October or
November of this year.
So that's something that will be coming up again later this year.
Of the 770 bills that were filed that passed that are affecting -- that are related to
cities, 76 of those bills -- I'm sorry, 250 of those bills may directly or indirectly
impact the city.
So that's what we'll be talking about today.
Primarily of those 250 bills, 18 to 20 are related to the development process or regulations
that we have here.
Wanted to also share that on July 25th, 2023, I think some of you may have heard or actually
watched or even listened live.
There was a presentation by our chief staff of Ryan Adams that presented basically a more
higher level and some more information related to these bills.
Now they only presented a portion of it, but what we have today for you today is a little
bit more in terms of those bills that again affects the development processes and regulations.
So we'll get into that in the next coming slides, but I wanted to introduce this presentation
and like I said earlier and the chair mentioned, we will have a number of different staff members
presenting those individual bills, discuss what they are and how they potentially can
impact or have impacted the city's process.
So with that, I'm going to ask Charlie to come up and we'll go through these one bill
at a time.
So thank you.
Good afternoon.
Charlie Rosendahl, Development Services.
So the first bill that we have here is Senate Bill 2038, which allows for the release of
property from the ETJ.
It allows property owners to pursue that release by petition and if they meet a majority of
the signatures required for the area that they're submitting for, then the city has
to release that.
There's a second way that they can do it through election as well so they can petition the
city to hold an election for the release of that property from the ETJ.
So currently our response to that is we've developed an application to allow for somebody
to submit for that petition and then we're still assessing the impacts that those have
on NAAs and then recorded de-restriction and water rights.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Charlie, on this one, you talk about when I read the bill and said the majority of the
area, how is that defined in the bill?
They would define the area when they submit the petition.
These boundaries in this area and there's 100 residents in this area and 51 have signed
the petition and that would be a majority.
And those petitioners have to be registered voters as well.
But if it's something like it's one property owner and they sign one petition, there's
one signature, that one property could be released.
And then the only changes that would make on this because I know it's been brought up
a number of times, 2038 is going to make it to where the ETJ can be released from, people
can release their land or their area from the ETJ.
Basically it just means that there is no longer, I know there's impacts to NAAs and de-restrictions
and waste water and services in that area.
But essentially the only other thing that's not on there is what interlocal agreements
that would be.
There's no longer a need for an interlocal agreement because now they're just solely
in the county and not in an ETJ at all.
Basically it's our platting authority is the only thing that this city would lose through
this.
We have some permitting that goes along with this, but it's related to city assets like
public roadways or culverts or approaches, driver approaches.
But the platting authority through our interlocal agreement with Denton County is what would
be impacted if somebody released themselves from the ETJ and that platting would go to
the county.
- I'm gonna word this question carefully, an educated property owner or property owners
would do this so that they could avoid the platting requirements by the city, essentially,
correct?
- Potentially.
- One of the additional things, thanks for bringing that up too, is we're working on
a one-page pros and cons list for somebody that potentially wants to do something.
There's some benefit to staying within the city's ETJ, possibly annexing in the future.
So that's gonna be provided along with the petition.
- Thank you.
- That's a good idea.
- I was just saying, I would just add, I mean, one of the things that we've been working
with Hillary and her colleagues on our legal team is, especially if someone does petition
to have themselves released from the ETJ, but later on that property owner, whether it's
the same property or a subsequent property owner of that property wants to annex into
the city, then what's the vehicle to get them back in to be able to annex?
Because it's clear in statute that annexation can be done as a result of annexing in properties
from the ETJ.
So there's still some things that have to be worked through on that.
- Something else just to that, that will affect if there was a widespread annexation, I shouldn't
say so, a widespread release of ETJ that would end up impacting some of our future ETJ borders,
correct, as well?
That, 'cause the ETJ is defined as what, five miles from our city limits, correct?
- Correct.
- And so does release from the ETJ, does that then stunt or lessen that five, it's still
city limit lines, so there could be basically pockets of areas that are not the ETJ, pockets
that are, we could end up having pockets that are annexed in the city, pockets between those
that are not, correct?
- Yeah, it could be a patchwork after, if somebody were to release themselves from the
ETJ, it could be a patchwork of city limits, you know, then county ETJ on the other side.
- Okay, got it, thank you.
- Is a picture of Swiss cheese coming to mind?
I mean, it's kind of what it comes down to, but yes.
- Go ahead, Cole.
- Thank you, Chair.
But the, you know, the existence of ETJ1 and ETJ2 is still unaffected, correct?
- Right, yeah.
- So two is out of our grasp, right?
- Yeah, it wouldn't have, so effectively there wouldn't be any impact if, for ETJ2, we don't
plat in ETJ2, so this wouldn't, the platting authority that somebody releasing themselves
from the ETJ wouldn't have any impact on ETJ2.
- Okay, thank you.
- It's almost like it, if somebody was within ETJ1 and requested to release their property
from the city's ETJ, it almost is like it's treating it like very similar to ETJ2 property.
It's just we're not calling it ETJ anymore.
And to the question about our interlocal agreement, you know, I think this is something else, we've
always been talking with the county about possibly doing some updates to that interlocal
agreement, so this would just be another item that we would have to factor in as we work
on that update when that time comes.
Great questions.
- Yeah, any more questions on that one?
- Yep, go ahead, Charlie.
- All right, the next one is House Bill 3492.
So this one is preventing counties or municipalities from imposing value-based fees.
This doesn't impact development services fee schedule.
If you'll recall, in 2019, we did a fee study and adopted fees.
That fee study was based on the time spent by staff to recover our costs for fees that
we charge for development in Denton.
The one that is gonna be impacted is capital projects.
They have a public works fee that was a value-based fee, and they charge 3.5% of the public improvements
currently.
That was adopted by city council last week to be updated to an hourly rate, and then
they're gonna charge based on an hour moving forward.
- Commissioner Smith.
- How does that relate to like another one of the fees that we've updated recently was
parkland dedication?
I can't remember, it's vague remembrance of how that parkland dedication fee was done,
but if I remember it was, in lieu of dedication, it was a certain dollar amount per acre.
Is that a value-based, or is that a?
- No, this wouldn't impact the parks development fee.
- I didn't know how that, where the lines on value-based would be, if it's like, well,
if you're saying it's a per acre basis or something like that, that it would be value-based.
That's just totally outside of that, so, okay, thanks.
- All right, thank you everybody.
- Looks like Julie's up.
All right, and I'm presenting Senate Bill 929.
There's two parts to this.
There is a notification part, we kind of hinted about that earlier, and then an amortization
of non-conformities part.
So the notification, it is a new notification, so remember we have our, when we have a zoning
change that we send the mailing, we send the postcard, we send, we have the newspaper,
and we put the item on our website, as well as post on the property.
This is an additional notice that it relates to both map changes and text changes related
to use, so use only.
So if that, if that change would render a property non-conforming, we need to send them
this notice.
That requires notification to property owners, a business personal property, and the occupant
at least 12 days prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
It has to have specific language, there is, and I have an example right here, it has to
have 14 point type for that specific language, and it has to be in bold.
It wouldn't require a super majority, but it does alert those property owners and those
occupants of that potential so that they can attend the public hearing or let PNZ and City
Council know.
We do have draft SOPs for this because it is something that is currently in effect,
so we need to be doing this now.
We are still kind of working through the kinks because it's pretty new, but one thing that
we are doing is we're putting that notice on a different color of paper so staff will
know that when somebody calls in that that's that 929 notice, so really working through
that, and then we've got different templates for that, so that's really that notification
piece for 929.
Any questions on that?
The second part is related to the amortization of non-conformities, so amortization is a
tool that some cities use to move properties from non-conforming to conforming use.
The City of Denton has that provision, it's in Section 1.5.8 to my knowledge.
I've been with the city 10 years, to my knowledge it is not something that we typically use within
the City of Denton.
It might have been used at some point, but I have not seen it in my tenure.
Typically amortization is based upon a previous investment in the property, so what a property
owner put into a business in order to open up and to recoup those losses or that money
that they spent to open up that business.
This new regulation would change to cost incurred for moving the business and also reduce market
value of that original property.
It can be satisfied either through a cash payment or for a length of time that that
business can operate in that location.
It also includes notification and processes.
We are going to need to do some code amendments and clean up just to make sure we're in good
tight conformance with this.
Like I said, it's not something that we typically see, so there's not a huge panic about this,
but it is something that you'll probably be seeing coming forward at some point in the
future.
Any questions on that?
Julie, is this for things going forward or if we have a non-conforming use right now,
this is in effect?
It would be in effect right now.
Okay, so there is things we have to look at for sure.
Right, but once again, it is only related to amortization of non-conforming, so if Council
or the Zoning Board of Adjustment said business X over here, you don't meet current zoning,
we want you to skedaddle and move to another location.
But if they're allowed to continue to operate, then there's no compensation that is owed
then?
Correct.
It would just be if we wanted them to move out.
That's correct.
So keep in mind, we currently have in our development code regulations that when a property
becomes non-conforming, they're still allowed to continue operating.
The key thing comes to when they cease operating that non-conforming use for more than a year
in our code.
In other cities, it's typically six months, but we allow the one year of dark provision.
But if they shut their doors for a year or more, then they lose that right to that non-conforming
use, right?
But otherwise, I mean, our ordinance is very favorable towards non-conforming uses continuing
to be able to operate within the community.
So I can understand why the legislators have put forth this new law, because to allow property
owners, the occupants of the property owners, the business that might be operating there
to understand if an action was taken that it may result in them being non-conforming.
The other thing is our ordinance though, it's clear to understand is that if we do have
a business or a property that's non-conforming, then we do have some limitations though within
the ordinance.
We'll allow you to continue operating, but we have some limitations on expansion or modification
of the structure.
The other thing that we have in our ordinance is if you have a property that's being used
as a non-conforming use and it chooses to cease operation, but another lesser intensive
non-conforming use wants to be able to occupy the property, the DDC does allow for the direction
of the director to make that determination for that to occur.
So it's, and the other aspect I would say is keep in mind the property also still is
able to benefit from all of the other uses that are allowed under the existing zoning,
right?
Sometimes we have a tendency to forget about that.
So it's not depriving them fully of their use of the property, because there are plenty
of other uses that are allowed for the property.
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
This has always been a hot button of mine about the non-conforming properties, and because
I would be one of those, my home would be one of those.
So let's say big rainstorm came through, 50% of my house flooded, but I'm with 500 foot
of a gas well.
I mean, it's a home, but I mean, I understand.
Well, but we have the residential provision in there where you're really not non-conforming.
So it's more of a by right if you're sticking to what you were before, you know, but the
problem is, is you still have to go through the ZBA, right?
Or is it the director's discretion?
So I would say it depends.
I don't have those regulations committed to memory, so I can't address specific scenarios,
and we're really not posted for that.
But know that we've got provisions in the code that if someone's property were non-conforming
and they experienced damage to their property, if they met the certain thresholds, then we
would take them through the appropriate process to be able to either allow for their non-conformity
to continue in whatever needed to be, including if that was a reconstruction.
Many times cities do have that that process has to go through a zoning board of adjustment.
But I can't speak to all the thresholds within our ordinance and the exact process, but know
that we would take them through what we have in our code.
So again, our goal is, you know, we are very favorable to allowing for non-conforming uses
to continue operating and helping property owners to be able to move forward.
But it's, you know, if they do experience certain damage though, then there may be some
limitations on how they rebuild.
Appreciate it.
However, if something has been something for 60 years, it seems like we're processing them
to death.
They're going to a supermajority board with the zoning board of adjustment, only takes
two commissioners off that board to say no, then it's district court.
But when somebody has a lot, I mean, just their house is damaged half, we're putting
them through maybe a year process.
I mean, I don't know what the docket is on district court, but I assume it's pretty long.
You know, it all it takes is two commissioners from the ZBA to say, we don't think you need
to be.
This might not be the conversation.
I feel like we're going down a rabbit hole that we're not posted for that we're not talking
about right now.
Appreciate it.
But I would you could get some of your questions answered certainly offline and get a little
bit more clarity on that, I think, would be the direction to go.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
I heard two things, and I'm trying to glue them together in my brain, so I need some
help here.
The language here is the stuff we must the city must provide before revoking the right
to use the property.
But then later you said that that would only effectuate when the city was taking some action
to actively stop the use as opposed to removing the legal ability to use it.
Am I understanding that correct?
Correct.
You're right.
It's different items.
It's the kind of the provisions that Tina was talking about related to you can continue
to use the property.
There are limitations on expansions or repairs or rebuilding.
This provision is really related to a action that the city took to say you can't operate
there anymore because the zoning changed.
So it's kind of a difference in measure.
Okay.
And the development code does have the amortization provision, but like I said, it's not something
that we typically do here.
Okay.
Thank you.
I was going to say, you may recall, it's probably been within the last seven to 10 years, the
city of Dallas was in the news.
There was a property that was playing out in the court of public opinion on the news
with respect to the amortization that had been set forth because the property owner
had entered into presumably an amortization agreement with the city, but the time was
coming up on that period of agreement, right?
And so the city was moving forward with enforcing that amortization, and the property owner
was trying to allow for the continuation of that use.
And so it's, as Julie pointed out, I mean, it's a provision that's available many times
in city ordinances, but it's not something that's never fully executed.
I've worked in one other community where we had an amortization provision, particularly
as it related to interim specific use permits.
And so the city recognized that, you know, we realized that the property may not be ready
for its higher and better uses and given its current condition, it might be appropriate
to allow for a use to operate for a certain time period.
And then the property owner would define what that certain time period was and provide an
amortization schedule and the city was not able to grant anything less.
So that's the only other experience.
I've seen where the amortization's really come into play, but to Julie's point, it's
the city deliberately taking an action saying, no, not just we're going to allow you to continue
operating like our current codes, but it's the city deliberately taking an action saying
you must close your business and do it by XYZ date, and that's where this amortization
comes into play.
>> Did that answer your -- okay.
Anybody else on this bill?
Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
>> All right.
I have one more.
>> Okay.
>> This one's a little less involved.
This is House Bill 299.
This is the creation of voluntary accreditation for recovery housing.
This is kind of a new housing type.
We're going to be talking about similar things tonight with our group homes and community
homes.
This is separate and apart from that.
It does create this recovery house type, and this is for persons recovering from substance
abuse.
So as the spreadsheet mentions, it does have voluntary accreditation.
With our DCA2301 tonight, we have added a little bit of language in the definitions for
community homes and group homes that those are not a recovery housing.
Those are different things, and so that's really -- no other action is really needed
by the city for that.
Any questions?
>> Questions?
So voluntary accreditation, meaning it's choice?
>> It's their choice, and they set up their own programs associated with it.
>> Interesting.
Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
>> Good evening again, Chair, members of the commission.
This item, House Bill 3579, is related to regulations of massage therapists and massage
establishments by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations and political subdivisions.
For the most part, this affects the occupational code, so it's pretty simple as to how it affects
the Denton Development Code.
It mentions that with zoning regulations, a massage establishment should not be treated
with higher restrictions than other health care professionals, so medical offices, those
who -- dental offices, doctors, and stuff like that, those that we would classify as
our medical offices.
So staff at this time has determined that we don't need a DDC amendment for -- to meet
or to come into compliance with this particular piece of legislation.
Instead, we will allow for massage establishments to be classified as medical office uses when
they come in for COs and development permit applications and things like that.
So this is pretty simple.
Just an update.
>> Commissioner Smith.
>> Well, not creating any nonconformities.
Medical office falls into most of the stuff that we see with, like, MNGO, that kind of
stuff, right?
So there's nothing -- we haven't checked to see if there's any massage establishments
that are in some other type of 5,000-square-foot or less retail area that doesn't have medical
office included within there, right?
I mean, it should be good.
>> Yeah, nothing came up when I did that type of search.
And previously we've permitted -- or we've defined medical -- I'm sorry, massage establishments
under the personal service uses, which is actually permitted in less zoning districts
than the medical office is.
So by adding it to that category, we're actually increasing that.
>> Increasing the places where it could be.
>> Correct.
>> Got it.
Thanks.
>> Right.
>> So because of the -- we've got the medical office way we can classify it or the personal
services definition that we have in the district that it's allowed for.
So it really -- it helps allow for the massage establishments to be put in place.
The other thing I would add -- and great job, Mia, on explaining this -- is this treating
massage establishments similar to medical professionals, that's been around a while
within the state legislature.
So this just further reaffirms that in HESM other provisions that come into play, more
that PD would deal with than us.
But so it's really no substantial change for our code.
And like Mia said, we have the ability to accommodate this without having to make a
code amendment.
>> Any questions?
Okay.
Thank you.
>> I'll call up Ron.
>> Looks like we're on back up, yep.
I like this whole tag team thing.
It's like --
>> It's the whole team, right?
>> It's fun.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> My item here is House Bill 1707.
It relates to the applicability of certain laws to open enrollment charter schools.
Essentially what it stated is that charter schools must be treated the same as public
schools.
My understanding is that this bill was being discussed or drafted for like maybe four past
sessions, but it finally made it this time.
In addition to allowing charter schools similar to public schools, there were three amendments
that were added specifically for this.
One is that the governing body of the charter school must provide a written statement that
no one is going to be financially benefiting from the transaction of property sales or
that sort of thing.
So that was one thing added.
The other one that was added was that the charter school in 20 days prior to closing
on a property must notify the school district that they're locating in.
So again, the school district is aware of that potential charter school coming onto
said area.
And then the last thing is that any information that they have financially is open to open
records requests.
So again, the code -- I'm sorry, the House Bill states that we must treat charter schools
similar to public schools, and that is going to require a code amendment because we do
now have it separate, and in order to comply with state law, we're going to have to do
some code amendments, and that will be something that we'll bring forward to the Planning
Zoning Commission and ultimately to City Council for consideration.
Again, it applies to zoning standards with regards to landscaping, parking, everything
and that like.
Another thing that we're going to be looking at is the zoning of PF.
As you know, PF is public facilities, and that is where most of the school district's
property is located.
So when we're looking at the code amendment, we'll be reviewing that as well and how we
can apply that for charter schools as part of this code amendment.
So that concludes my presentation.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Rob.
So that would mean we need to allow them wherever we allow public schools, correct?
Essentially, yes.
Yeah, okay.
Okay.
Thank you, Rob.
Thank you.
Are you still now Haley's up?
Good evening.
Haley Zagorski, Assistant Planning Director.
The first bill that I have talked to you about is 3699.
This is an amendment to our 2019 shot clock legislation, basically.
What it does is kind of serve as both a blessing and a curse.
Parts of it are really good for the city.
Parts of it are gonna complicate things for us a little bit.
So on the positive side, it does allow the ability for council to delegate all plat approval
authority to staff.
So that is something that we'll bring forward for discussion with P&Z and council.
The other good thing that it does for us procedurally is clarifies that our civil engineering plans
and site plans are no longer part of the 30-day shot clock window.
So that allows, if needed, for us to modify our timelines on those to allow for additional
review time.
On the negative side of things, it does complicate our platting process as we have it today.
So we'll be making some procedural amendments as well as DDC amendments.
One of the most significant changes is that it specifies that we cannot require any sort
of study or analysis or agreement or any other form of document as part of a plat application.
So essentially, if someone meets the very narrowly defined minimum requirements for
a plat in the state code, we would be obligated to accept and approve that plat.
So that could create some hurdles for us, but we're modifying the process to make sure
we can still require all of those same things to our traffic impact analysis, tree surveys,
ESA assessments, all of that just at different touch points in the process.
So those will be distributed either to the zoning compliance plan, which is our version
of a site plan, or the civil engineering point in the process.
And we'll be working through those processes and rolling that out to the development community
to keep them abreast of all those changes and checklist changes that are going along
with that.
The other significant change with this is that it does limit a city's ability to require
right-of-way dedication.
So this potentially could have very serious impacts on our mobility plan moving forward,
but we are still working through what that will mean for us and what steps we could take
to maybe ameliorate some of that change so that it's not quite as bad for us.
Because what it does is specify that we can only request right-of-way with a plat if the
owner intends to dedicate the right-of-way and build the road, and if it's on a funded
capital improvement plan.
So we're looking into that, working with our city attorney's office to determine what exactly
that means, how it should be interpreted for the city of Denton, and what changes we might
need to make.
So with this one, you'll most likely see at least two different sets of code amendments
coming forward to help process these changes.
Some of the platting changes we'll bring forward pretty immediately, because this does have
a September 1 effective date, so we'll try to get those as soon after that as possible.
And then some of those bigger scale changes, like the right-of-way piece, will take us
a little bit longer to work through, so you'll see those probably at a future date.
But happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Just real quick, I'm sorry if you mentioned this earlier, but this would remove or put
all plat votes to the consent agenda or just remove them entirely?
So for now, it will not have a change because our code specifies that P&Z is the authority
on platts.
What this does is give councils the ability to delegate that authority to staff with the
ability for someone to appeal their plat denial to the P&Z or council if staff were to deny
the application.
So that would require a DDC amendment for our council to -- for P&Z and council to say,
yes, we want to make that change and have platts go to staff for approval instead of
P&Z.
So no change in the immediate -- that will come forward as a code amendment that you
all can consider.
Got it.
Thanks.
So it's not a required -- so that's an optional thing and so it would have to be changed in
our code if we wanted to opt into this bill effectively?
Yeah.
Understood.
All right.
Anybody else?
Okay.
All right.
I think you got the next one.
Yeah.
So the next one is House Bill 2127.
This one is being affectionately dubbed the Death Star Bill.
You've probably heard it -- seen it or heard about it or seen about it in the news.
There is, I believe, currently a lawsuit that started in Houston to challenge this bill.
So it's making quite the splash.
What it is, is a preemption bill that is mostly targeted at commerce regulations.
So it preempts cities from regulating any form of conduct in -- I think there's either
seven or nine different listed sections of the code that range from like the agriculture
code to the occupation and -- occupation code and several others.
The labor code is also listed in there.
For the most part, it does not affect the Denton Development Code and our development
review process.
There are a couple of parts of it that will have impacts.
One is with the agriculture code, but I'll let Angie clue you all in on more of the agriculture
specific changes that came with this legislative session.
The other big one is that it modifies a portion of the local government code related to animal
businesses and specifies that cities can in no way regulate any business that deals with
the breeding, care, or handling of animals, and that ranges from pet stores and the sale
of dogs and cats to commercial stables, veterinary offices are specified in there.
So we will have some significant code amendments to update our use table, because we'll no
longer be able to regulate where those businesses occur.
So that's the biggest piece that we've identified so far for development code regulations out
of that House bill.
The other thing it does is specify that individuals who feel they have been wrongfully regulated
by a city under any of these sections to bring suit against the city if they give them three
months notice that they intend to do so.
So it's a fun bill with wide ranging implications, but thankfully semi-limited in terms of development
code impacts.
Commissioner Smith.
You say it's relatively limited, but I just.
Well, there was like seven other categories that could have affected us that didn't.
If PetSmart wants to buy up four houses in my neighborhood and put a PetSmart there.
They could do that.
That doesn't seem like it's slightly impacted.
And I guess to that point, I mean, we're still trying to work through some of that also.
I mean, if they were predominantly a retail business, then one of the things we might
look at is, is do we have any flexibility to really classify them as a retail business?
Many times they have pet sales more as a accessory use aspect of it, but yeah, that's to your
point.
I mean, that's what we're trying to work through.
That's what I was going to get to as primary uses and everything else like that.
And there's plenty of things in the, you know, it doesn't matter what you're selling.
If you're a retail business over 5,000 square feet, you're eliminated from certain zoning
zone.
Is there any zoning areas?
I can't say zoning zones.
That's not a thing.
Sounds cool.
So yeah, I think that.
Okay.
Got it.
Thanks.
Anything else on that one?
Commissioner Villarreal.
So would we be pushing to pass those code amendment changes prior to the resolution of the Houston
suit?
That's a fine and amicus brief in support of the Houston suit, correct?
Currently, we were hoping to bring them forward relatively quickly.
Of course we're working with Hillary's team in the city attorney's office to see how we
should act on that.
So we'll be, we'll be running all of our proposed changes past them to make sure that what we're
doing doesn't interfere with any other action that the city's taking.
Got it.
Thanks.
Well, and to that point, so because they, because these code amendments in these various
categories need to be addressed sooner than later, we are just going to bring them forward.
I'm through the planning and zoning commission and city council so we can get them done because
they are needed from a legislative standpoint.
So in case you're wondering, you know, if you serve on the DCRC, whether or not we route
them through DCRC first, we are not.
So we're just going to take these straight forward through a zoning case.
All right, if nothing else on that one, I'll let Angie talk more about agriculture.
Evening chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglaris, and I'm going to talk more
about agriculture.
So there are a couple of bills that impacted agriculture uses and how they're regulated
or not regulated.
House Bill 1750 and House Bill 2947 both have different facets that they touch on in terms
of agricultural, both of them make some minor amendments to the definition of agriculture
and what that includes.
Most notably, the addition of commercial sales of animals was incorporated into the definition
of agricultural uses, as well as including the veterinary care of livestock and poultry
as part of agricultural uses.
House Bill 1715 touches on a city's ability to impose governmental regulations on agricultural
uses.
It goes on to state that in our ETJ, we cannot regulate agricultural uses, but it also applies
to uses within the city, and government regulations, as defined by this bill, is pretty broad.
So that includes zoning, that includes permitting, that includes any restrictions that we would
place on an agricultural use.
We are limited in what we can impose to what I affectionately call the list of dangerous
things.
In other words, if a use has the potential to cause imminent danger to a property adjacent
to it, if there's flammable material, radioactive material, health concerns, a city can regulate
those uses.
Any other regulation has to come through the forthcoming report from the Texas A&M AgriLife
Report.
They'll be publishing a report that I don't really know what the format will be.
I have some guesses, but it will probably list out, you know, best practices for the
care of animals or agricultural production.
We will be allowed to enforce those standards.
So some of that's to be forthcoming.
The immediate changes that we'll see to the DDC are where agriculture is allowed.
Given that we can't restrict it to any zoning district, you can expect to see a code amendment
that will update our use tables that allows agriculture in any zoning district.
Any regulation would have to come from the Ag report, which should be coming soon.
It will also modify some of our use specific standards in that we do have some in place
currently.
Those will have to come out until we see what we are allowed to enforce based on this report.
And then there will be some minor definition changes just to make sure that we're defining
agriculture as these two bills are.
You'll see some DDC amendments that amend our definition for agricultural general and
also animal uses.
The other interesting thing that came out of House Bill 2947 won't have any immediate
impacts to development services, but does relate to nuisances.
So this could affect like our CIS operation, but it effectively says that no nuisance case
could be brought against an agricultural use that has been substantially unchanged in the
last year.
So that is a shift in how those allegations of agricultural use being a nuisance could
come forward.
But that is agriculture in a nutshell.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> Commissioner Cole?
>> So does this kind of negate the chicken ordinance?
I mean, chickens, I mean, if your next door neighbor goes and has -- puts 50 chickens
next door, they're able to do that?
>> It would allow for chickens to be used as their agricultural -- any limitation on
the number that could be in existence in a neighborhood would have to come from that
AgriLife report.
>> Okay.
>> So --
>> Well, and so also like with that AgriLife report specifies that, you know, 10 chickens
thrive best on a property of X size in a coop of X or Y number of square feet and, you know,
and also these amenities provided for them, whatever that might be, right?
That's where really the -- where we're going to have to rely upon is the guidance from
the AgriLife extension report.
So it's to be determined, as Angie mentioned, as to what those requirements are.
I mean, if you want to raise goats on your property, then presumably, hopefully that
report will address what's the ideal situation of how much land area you need based upon
the number that you have and what kind of improvements might be necessary associated
with it.
So it really puts a lot of emphasis in what's in this AgriLife extension report.
So do we need a new staff position of an agricultural specialist on board?
>> Let's hope not, but so --
>> Commissioner Smith?
>> Two questions.
One, to the I have chickens in my backyard piece, this really isn't a development services
question at all.
It's more of a city revenue question of does this affect Ag exemption claiming on tax reports
then?
>> It did not appear to affect, at least in this Ag exemption claiming, that was not addressed
in these.
>> Gotcha.
Okay.
And everything we talked about so far has been livestock.
Corn falls into this, right?
>> This applies to -- yes.
>> So I got four acres in the middle of the city of Denton, and I want to plant corn and
use my combine to collect it, can't get mad at me.
>> Yes.
The definition for agricultural operation is pretty broad.
I touched on the changes, but it would include cultivation of crops.
>> Gotcha.
Thank you.
>> There's a slight asterisk in that the city can still regulate within like a certain ten
feet or so of like a public way, or if you're adjacent to a neighbor or something, there's
height -- you can regulate as to height.
So maybe not the entire four acres.
>> In regards to crops specifically?
>> Yes.
>> So if I have tall cows?
>> I really enjoy splitting hairs with you.
>> Only short ones for you, Tim.
>> Thank you, Angie, very much.
>> I think Cameron has the last one.
>> We're going from agriculture to cemeteries.
>> Oh, there's more.
Okay.
Good evening.
Chair and commissioners, Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer.
So now we're going to talk about pet cemeteries.
Just kidding.
Sorry.
That was not funny.
But I tried.
I tried.
I'm trying to lighten the mood a little bit in here.
So this is related to -- it just took us a moment, but we got a -- okay.
So this is related to privately owned cemeteries.
So due to the fact that the city of Denton is located in a county with over 750,000 residences,
we are going to be including this in our Denton development code as long -- so private entities
such as an individual, corporation, partnership, association, firm or trust, that's what's
being defined as privately owned in this sense.
So they'll be able to establish or use a cemetery within city limits.
So we're just going to be adding that privately owned cemetery to the Denton development code
as well as establishing an ordinance, so changing our table of uses.
Staff right now is looking specifically at those uses that allow -- or those districts
that allow funeral and interment facilities.
So that's what we're kind of gearing towards at the moment.
But, yeah.
Any questions?
>> Any questions?
Commissioner McDade.
[ Laughter ]
>> I'm totally confused.
I guess I just need you to give me an example of a private cemetery.
I mean, I have a private cemetery, and I can allow who I want in?
Is that what you're saying?
>> Yes.
So say you wanted to buy a piece of property, say we decided that it's allowed in the suburban
corridor zoning district, and you bought a piece of property there and you said, "I want
to start a cemetery."
As long as it's not going to negatively impact the public health or safety or welfare, you
could establish a cemetery there.
>> So I could actually turn into another I00F, I can determine who I want.
>> Yes.
>> That's ridiculous.
>> I mean, keep in mind there are regulatory provisions at the state level with respect
to operating the cemetery, so don't -- we can't forget about that aspect.
But I really think the goal of this bill really was to try -- yeah, we're obviously increasing
the number of people residing within Texas, which unfortunately then has a reverse effect
of increasing the number of people that eventually will become deceased within our state, right?
And so having a need to be able to accommodate people, right, so -- but nonetheless, so -- because
to Cameron's point, I mean, it does address private cemeteries.
I believe there were some other provisions that come into play that really -- there's
still an approval process that has to go through at the state level in order to be able to
operate a private cemetery.
So it's not as easy, I would say, to be able to open a cemetery, but nonetheless -- because
they still have to meet all the other regulatory requirements that come into play.
>> All right.
So we're not going to, like, bury great grandma in the backyard or something and call it a
legal thing to do?
>> All right.
All right.
>> Okay.
>> There's still some other controls that come into play, so.
>> Okay.
>> Any other questions or comments?
>> Historic preservation in a new form.
>> Yes.
>> Oh, my gosh.
Did they -- is it just human cemeteries?
I mean, is it -- does it mention that?
I'm just curious.
>> No, it actually -- it does not mention humans specifically.
>> Okay.
So there you go.
That's something else.
>> So we could have a pet cemetery.
>> We could.
We could.
Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Dog Days, September 9th, 2023.
>> Concluding items, Commissioner Smith.
Hello, Ashley.
Sorry.
>> Hello.
Good evening.
Ashley Eckstead, assistant planner.
So I am covering HB 4051, and this bill is relating to media production development zones.
And what this bill did was it removed the population requirement of 250,000.
So with that requirement removed, this is something that we consider.
There still are other requirements in the -- or there needs to be an adequate workforce
and infrastructure to support this production facility.
It will need to be recognized as a media produced by ordinance, and it also needs to contain
a qualified media production location.
The benefits of these zones, if they're approved by the state, is it allows for a sales and
use tax exemption for a period of two years for construction, maintenance, expansion,
and other work on a media production facility.
So our code does not currently allow film production use, so if we wanted to allow this
in the future, we would need to amend our code to include this use in the zoning districts
where it would be permitted, parking requirements, a definition, and any use specific standards
for this use.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> Again, this would be like an optional thing if a city wants to give the city the ability
to offer that.
>> Yes, if we were interested in one of these in the future, potentially.
>> To me, I really see this as an opportunity for economic development within the state,
right?
If you think about, you know, if you're one who likes to watch movie credits and goes
all the way to the end, and you might see some of them, you know, I think Georgia and
their film commission is really supportive, you know, if the state of Texas is trying
to incentivize more film production within the state, then it really helps with, you
know, that particular economic development aspect, right?
So for us, you know, to me, this would be -- this is such a low priority item, but if
economic development came to us and said, hey, we're pursuing all of these businesses
for locating here, then, you know, we'll want to make sure that we amend our development
code.
So this really could actually be a good thing.
>> Commissioner Perot.
>> Thank you, Jerry.
So currently under the DDC, if somebody wanted to open a media production film, they want
to make films for their, you know, friends and family that want to come pay them and
all that stuff, that's actually disallowed by our current code?
>> We just don't have the use.
So the closest use we have is a music studio.
>> Okay.
So currently it would be interpreted as similar enough to that, that is how it would fall
under?
>> I think we would have to look at what specifically it was, probably not, but I think it would
really depend on what they were trying to do.
>> Okay.
So it's really that doing this would give us the tools to regulate it separately from
the next most close use within the DDC?
>> Yes.
And musician studios are allowed in the mixed use zoning districts, so we would have to see
if something like this, if we would want that in those zoning districts.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> To me where this really comes into play, you know, it's one thing, if somebody was
doing film editing, right, that can be done in an office, right?
So we would work with them and classify them as an office use and all, because really that's
what they are.
But it's, you know, if somebody wants to have a large film production studio, you know,
let's say all the undeveloped land on the west side of town, right, and somebody wants
to be able to use that for filming western movies or what have you or needing something
that needs a really large pasture, maybe there's some cows in it, but it's, you know, wanting
to be able to utilize that, it is, you know, if it's really used for like a movie set,
that aspect, to me I think really that's where this would come into play and we would work
to allow for that kind of use to occur within our community.
>> I mean, they might want to film the new pet cemetery, so.
>> Any other questions on this one?
Thank you, Ashley.
>> Michelle is next on the docket, hello.
>> I am your caboose.
>> So my name is Michelle Reynolds, I'm the Developed Project Facilitator Manager, Development
Services.
So I'm here to discuss two of the bills, Senate Bill 2449.
So what that is requiring is that flats, where they're identified, groundwater, that that
be shown on those flats.
So what we'll do is update our checklist and coordinate with our wastewater.
I don't see this being a big issue as it relates to inside the City of Dentons, but where this
could have some impact are within our ETJ1s is where the biggest impact would be.
Any questions?
I like you all.
This is great.
Fantastic.
Okay.
I'll move, or you're hungry.
All right.
We'll move to House Bill 14.
Where, so this bill, House Bill is really, so it's really unique, right?
But the key to this is if we as cities refuse to review plans and refuse to inspect applicants
or the projects that that applicant has a right to go to a third party.
So what we'll do as a city is have to go out and procure and do RFP, RFQ for vendors and
so that they could use those lists.
But the key to that is if we as a city decide not to refuse to review plans or review to
inspect properties.
Commissioner Smith.
And that's just refused to review, not decline or deny, I should say.
We're just not going to do it.
We just say we're not going to look at it.
Yes, sir.
I don't think we've ever just said, hey, we don't want to look at it.
We'll look at all of it.
You might get denied.
Yeah.
We might deny your review or your inspection may fail, but to refuse to work to review.
But they can't invoke using a third party if it's denied.
No.
Correct.
That's correct.
Thank you.
That was exactly my question.
They don't like what the city said.
Well, that's a different procedure.
Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner Prud.
Thank you, Chair.
So I thought that there were instances where HB14 took effect if there was some delay or
certain time limitation where if something hadn't been expected in a timely manner, they
were allowed to go to a third party.
Is that incorrect?
Well, that comes into play, basically, if we fail to take action within a certain time
period.
Right.
So we still have the ability to -- someone can submit the request and we can still establish
our review period times or if someone's requesting an inspection and they call it on their inspection
line or do it online, what have you, we still have a reasonable time to be able to respond.
So it prevents someone saying, well, I put my request in and you didn't show up 10 minutes
later.
Yeah.
Well, because we had some others in front of you, right?
So it puts some parameter within that.
But really, to Michelle's point, it gets at if a city chooses -- if we decide that we're
just not going to review your project for whatever reason, we're just not going to review
it, then once the time window expires, right, then the applicant has the ability to be able
to go procure a third party based upon an approved list of providers that we give them
to go have that work done.
To Tim's point, you know, we were talking about the -- the likelihood of us to refuse
reviewing somebody's project or refusing to do an inspection is like --
Very minuscule.
We won't be done.
Exactly.
Right?
So -- but it's unfortunate.
Bills like this get proposed and in past, as this one did, as a result of, there are
cities out there that, let's say, you know, we don't want your development, so we're just
not going to review your plans, right?
We don't take that business approach, it doesn't.
So I mean, that is -- that is not a good way to do business.
Governor Smith?
But this could essentially say -- and I think it really comes down to the integrity of the
third parties that are being put out there, right?
But I want to come in and I want to put a strip club in downtown.
We as a city, I think we would all -- I mean, the city -- city staff's probably looking
at that saying, no, right?
We've got regulations that would address that.
Right?
What's the zoning?
Got you.
Right?
What's the zoning?
The zoning says, no, you can't do that here, so go find a zoning district in which you're
allowed.
But even then, I mean, there's -- there might be some uses that it could come up where it
falls within the zoning.
And then I'm -- I think I'm still going back to the fact that we've never refused it.
If it's in the zoning, we as a city have always been -- if it's allowed, if it's in the table
of permitted uses, we're going to review it.
It'll probably be recommended for denial or if it's recommended for approval because it
meets all criteria, city council or we will deny something like that in that scenario.
Well, and even if the use is silent within the development code, we have a process in
place to allow for new and unlisted use as classification.
So there's a process in place to be able to address that.
But this is for, you know, the submission of development applications, if the city chooses
to just fail to act on it, right, then it gives the applicant the ability to obtain
another entity to be able to review their plans and demonstrate as to why these plans
meet the city's requirements.
Not all cities are bad, they're just bad cities.
Any more questions?
If I could share, I would like to compliment the team because, you know, part of the challenge
of when the legislature is in session is being able to respond really quickly, but then also
going back through once they've been adopted, just confirming what has been passed by the
legislature.
And so I know I've tasked with -- as you can see, some of these topics are more complex
than others, but they've worked really hard on trying to work through this.
And I also have to give a shout out to Charlie as well, because I tasked him with managing
all of this aspect, given everything else we've got going on, but to help us stay on
top of making sure that we're getting each of the bills addressed, we're getting them
calendared for where we need to do ordinance amendments and also updating any other processes
and checklists and things of that nature and information on our website.
So it's been truly a great team effort by all.
>> Thank you, Ron, so -- >> I just brought up a slide, so kind of illustrate
what Tina was talking about.
So there's still work to be done.
So that concludes our presentation.
>> Yeah, I think it is very well done.
Yeah, I've had this on the matrix for a long time.
So it's -- this is fantastic and, yeah, I hope it kind of becomes a staple when I'm
not sitting here anymore and just that y'all do this, just because it's so important.
>> It was -- you know, we had -- I know Ron put 18 to 20 development bills that were on
there, but there were -- I was reviewing -- there were 40 bills that we were going through and
reviewing as it relates to our -- just development services in general.
And so it is -- you know, it -- this year, with respect to the development regulations,
there was obviously quite a few bills, as Ron pointed out, that were proposed.
And so, you know, we're always evaluating to see for consistency with the city's policies
and legislative priorities.
But then also, you know, are they in the best interest of Denton?
What are the implications?
We try to work with the legislators also on, you know, trying to understand what the issue
is, what they're trying to address, and seeing if we can help provide better language within
the statute as well.
So we've -- we're, I think, instrumental in that aspect, and in some cases, is trying
to help our legislators who represent Denton be able to help get bills possibly converted
into a yes.
>> All right.
Yeah, and Ron, while we have you up there, I don't know if everyone knows, but this is
Ron's last planning and zoning meeting, because by the time we meet again, it will be his
last day with the city.
So --
>> There will be no items on that.
>> -- you won't want to be at our meeting for some reason.
But anyway, you will be truly, Mr. Ron.
You are --
>> Thank you so much.
>> -- such an asset.
And over all these years, you have taught us all so, so much.
>> I appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
>> It has been a pleasure.
>> And I hope Ms. Dannen and everyone here as well.
So thank you.
>> Very good.
All right.
Anything else?
Okay.
Let's close the work session at 611, and we will reconvene in council chambers for our
regular meeting at 630.
Good evening, and welcome to the City and Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for Wednesday, August 23, 2023.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 636 p.m.
First item on our agenda this evening is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas
flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Honor the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.
Thank you.
Next item on our agenda is consider approval of the minutes for the planning and zoning
meeting from August 9th.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> I move approval.
>> Commissioner Cole.
>> Second.
>> Okay.
We've got a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to our consent agenda this evening.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> I move approval.
>> Commissioner Anderson.
>> Second.
>> Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval of consent this evening.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to our items for individual consideration.
First one is 4A, FR230013.
Mia is here to present that item.
Good evening.
Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission.
Mia Hines, Associate Planner.
This first item is a final replat for Razor Ranch Town Center.
Sorry, I was making sure this was the right one.
It is located at the northwest corner of Panhandle Drive and Heritage Trail.
The site itself is just under three acres.
At this time, the site does not meet all of our criteria for approval for final replats,
so we are recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension, which can be granted to September
13th, 2023.
Any questions?
>> I do not see any questions.
Thank you, Mia.
Appreciate it.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> I move approval of the extension to a date certain of September 13th, 2023.
>> Okay.
Commissioner Cole.
>> Second.
>> We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of
September 13th, 2023.
Any questions?
Discussion?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to 4B, FR230014.
>> Good evening again, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner.
This item is a final replat for Razor Ranch North.
Specifically, the site is just under 15 acres.
It's located just north of -- I'm sorry, just east of I-35, north of University.
Similarly, this item does not meet all of our criteria for approval for final replats,
so we are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension, which
can be granted to September 13th, 2023.
At this time, I'll stand for any questions.
>> Great.
Questions?
I do not see any.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Approval of the extension to date certain of September 13th, 2023.
>> Commissioner Cole.
>> Second.
>> Okay.
We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of September
13th, 2023.
Any discussion?
Questions?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0.
Item 4C has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will not be taking action there.
As well as 4D has been withdrawn by the applicant.
No action there.
4E is next, FP230022.
Hello, Julie.
>> Good evening.
Julie Wyatt, principal planner with the City of Denton, and I'm presenting FP230022.
This is for the towns and green development.
It's the second phase of that.
It's for single family residential development.
They still have some things they need to work through on this final plat, and so staff is
recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension to September 13th, and I'll be happy
to answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Julie.
Any questions, commissioners?
I'm not seeing any.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Approval of the extension to date certain of September 13th, 2023.
>> Thank you.
Commissioner Pruitt.
>> Second.
>> Okay.
First and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of September 13th,
2023.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to our public hearings for this evening.
We have one.
It is 5A, DCA23-0001.
Julie is here to present the item, and I will open the public hearing.
>> All right.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt.
I am presenting DCA23-0001, a reasonable accommodation, group homes, community homes, and elderly
housing.
So, as we discussed in the work session, this is a proposal for DENT and development code
regulations related to these items, and we're going to go over a little more detail than
we did in the work session.
I'll go over all of the detail that we did in DCRC unless you did want a further discussion
on it.
So, here we go.
First of all, before we talk about the regulations, just want to hit on a couple of key concepts.
First, what is a disability?
How is that defined by law?
It really relates to three things associated with that.
There needs to be a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major
life activities.
Two, there has to be a record of such impairment, and then three, that disability cannot include
current use of alcohol or drugs.
However, individuals in recovery may be considered disabled.
As part of that, there is a concept called reasonable accommodation, and that is intended
for a change exception or adjustment to a rule within the city that would be necessary
to remove barriers for a person with disabilities so that they can enjoy housing in a similar
manner as persons without disabilities.
The courts have determined there are two parts to reasonable accommodation.
It must be necessary, and it must be reasonable.
So as we looked at these development code regulations, that's what we kept in mind
the entire time.
And these are really related to the physical aspects of the property.
Think maybe somebody would need to encroach into a front yard setback for a covering for
a carport to allow a person with a van to allow for a wheelchair to get in and out so
they wouldn't be out in the elements of rain.
Or think about something like landscape area or lot coverage where a ramp would be needed.
So it's those physical aspects to make a property and to change a property so that
a person with disabilities could use it in a manner as a person without disabilities.
The state of Texas also has rules related to disabilities in housing, essentially.
Discrimination is not legal, so we should keep that in mind as we're thinking about
our ordinances.
And then there's two types of housing that are related to persons with disabilities that
I want to cover tonight.
One, community homes for the disabled, that is a very specific type of housing.
It was created by chapter 123 of the Texas Human Resources Code, and it is limited to
no more than six residents with two supervisors.
There are provisions for how far apart they can be.
How many bedroom or how many vehicles they can have.
So it's got to be licensed in a very specific way.
So it's a very specific type of housing.
The other type of housing is group home, and our legal department did some research on
this and found that there are 24 types of group homes within the state of Texas.
It's a really broad category.
And so we're trying to encapsulate all of those 24 items within our regulations.
So keeping those key concepts in mind, we looked at the development code to see where
we needed to make some improvements.
As we talked about in work session, our regulations related to these concepts and uses, they've
been added on and modified over the years without anybody taking a holistic view.
So that's what we tried to do with DCRC earlier this year, is to kind of take everything and
figure out how it all works together and make sure it makes sense.
So first, reasonable accommodation, we are proposing changes to that.
We found that our regulations, they're housed under the minor modification standards in
the Denton Development Code.
It was extremely limited as to what someone could do, not only in the types of modifications
but in the amount.
So for instance, you could only encroach 10 percent in a setback.
It may not get someone with a disability what they need in order to make that house livable
for them.
So we wanted to kind of take a look at that, put it in its own category, and really look
to see what we needed to be able to modify.
We also looked at the use regulations.
We not only looked at the use tables, but also the use specific standards, and made
sure that they made sense and that they were something that could be enforceable and that
they weren't confusing.
We looked at an exception for maximum persons occupying a dwelling.
We also looked at parking regulations and then our definitions.
So we'll take a little more detail on each of these.
So a little bit more about reasonable accommodation.
As I mentioned, it was under the minor modification standards.
We've gone ahead and we're proposing to pull that out, just put a separate line item in
our flexibility and relief procedures.
That way staff can find it more easily and also the community.
As part of that, we talked about the application, and so we've got a process established within
the Denton Development Code that requires owner authorization but no fees, so we wanted
to make it as easy as possible.
We also established a process, we want it to be as quick as possible.
So to ask for some information from the applicant, we want to make sure we get them what they
need, but with a limitation, that it really should be completed within 30 days.
The staff review and analysis and determination really should be completed as quickly as possible.
There are some provisions to be able to stop that clock if we need more data, but really
to get it through and get it moving on.
We are proposing to rest the approval, denial, or alternatives with the city manager or designee.
And then any appeals would follow our administrative appeal procedure.
What we tried to do with all of these is really look at processes we already had established
in the code and then try to just piggyback on those, not create new wheels, just try
to use what we had.
And then any accommodations that would be approved and installed would be subject to
our nonconforming regulations once that person who was in need of that accommodation was
no longer living on that property.
So then it would just become part of that nonconformity where it could stay in place
but it could not be expanded.
So think about if somebody needed a covering over a walkway, the next person couldn't
come in and enclose that covering.
It would be part of those nonconforming regulations, couldn't be expanded, but wouldn't necessarily
have to be removed.
We also looked at the table of allowed uses for community homes, elderly housing, and
group home.
We are proposing no changes to community home.
Our regulations are consistent with the state statute in that it is required to be every
place that residential uses are permitted, so it's consistent with state law.
Where we are proposing changes are elderly housing and then group homes.
So first of all, elderly housing.
We are proposing to add use-specific standards to MD and MR, and that will be a little clearer
on a next slide.
Add it to suburban corridor and highway corridor, and then remove it from general office.
When we talked about adding it to suburban corridor or highway corridor, those are places
that we allow things like multi-family dwellings, and when you think about an elderly housing
use, it can go all the way from just a single-family home to something that is a very institutional
type use or something that even looks like multi-family.
So there's a lot of variability within elderly housing, and so putting that within suburban
corridor and highway corridor with a specific use permit to allow a little bit of extra
review, we felt like it was appropriate because there are different physical types of elderly
housing developments.
And then to remove it from GEO, because GEO has some industrial uses.
There are some incompatibilities that could be created, and so we felt like, you know,
those just need to be separated, so it makes a lot of sense.
For group home, we did add that use to R1 and R2 with a specific use permit, and that
would be consistent with the rest of our residential zoning districts.
So when we get to use specific standards, there's quite a bit in your backup.
I won't read them, but just I want to touch on some highlights.
First of all, elderly housing.
We're proposing to remove the maximum square footage from R6 and R7.
It requires a specific use permit.
The lot sizes are smaller, so we don't anticipate that that 55,000 square foot max would really
come into play in an R6 or R7.
Those are more residential zoning districts.
We also clarified the design standards, because elderly housing sort of has one foot in residential
uses and one foot in institutional uses, we really kind of had to make judgment calls
as to what design standards in subchapter 7 would be required.
We just went ahead and codified that to say, you know, what would be required for any development.
Community homes, our current code has the use specific standards for community homes
and group homes all squished together.
And it was really hard for staff to parse out and to tease out what applied when.
And it was also probably confusing for the community as well.
So we went ahead and said, we need to break these two apart, have community home, have
its own use specific standards that are consistent with state law, and then have a group home
be its own stand alone use specific standard.
That gets us to that group home.
Not only was it combined with community home, but it also established new processes for
specific use permits, different expiration dates, things that could create confusion
in the future.
So what we're proposing to do is to simplify that, rely on those established processes
where appropriate, but add a little bit extra for group home, for example, specific use
permits for group homes, we're proposing that they are specific to the operator.
And so any new operator for a group home would need to come in and get a new specific use
permit.
Just thinking about the residents, making sure we're protecting our residents and also
those neighborhoods and communities where those uses would be.
We also wanted to remove redundancies and then clarify specific application requirements.
We looked at parking for these uses, they were confusing under our current code because
it talks about design capacity, we really didn't define that.
So what we did is just said for community home, one space per bedroom that's consistent
with state law, it's really easy to apply, it is just more straightforward.
For elderly housing, once again, because there is that variability, we went ahead and DCRC
agreed to just have that be director determination, that way we can make sure that any future
projects get the parking that they need so that they can accommodate their residents
and visitors and employees, but not make them over park, so they can get those right size
parking slots.
And then group home, follow the community home, once again, really easy to just apply
that one space per bedroom.
I won't go over, we've gone over most of this, I just want to highlight the last row
and that's that other.
We did, I touched on it at the top of the presentation, we added an exemption for the
maximum persons occupying a dwelling for community homes, group homes and elderly housing.
Our current code limits it to four unrelated persons, we've gone ahead and added that exemption
for these types of uses because they are more communal living uses.
And then we also did make some changes or proposing to make some changes within our
definitions.
One, we currently under our code do not have a definition for just disability.
We have disabled persons, we have handicapped, we have impaired, but we do not have disability.
Thought we would remove all of those redundant or other terms that aren't used in other parts
of the code for that one definition, it's a lot cleaner to apply for staff in the community.
We did add or proposing to include former use of controlled substances and or alcohol
as part of that disability, because that's kind of one of those standards that is used
within the disability regulations in some communities.
And then like I said, remove those definitions which were really redundant.
Public outreach was sent out, we sent out the newspaper ad that we typically do for
text amendments to the Denton Development Code.
We had a new notification with the House bill, sorry, Senate bill 929, and that's that notification
because we had the one property that would be made nonconforming with this project.
We sent out 272 notices to the residents and the property owner.
As I mentioned in work session, staff, if this is approved by council, staff intends
to follow up pretty quickly with a staff initiated rezoning to get this property in line with
the comprehensive plan and the surrounding zoning pattern and also the use.
So that concludes my presentation.
We have, if you have any questions, be happy to answer them.
We have the Committee on Persons with Disabilities on September 21st.
We also sent out a informal staff report to that group just to kind of let them know what's
going on.
And then that would be followed up tentatively with council schedules for September 26th.
And like I said, be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Any questions?
Everybody's screens are coming up.
Julia, I've got one.
You mentioned in there needing an owner authorization form.
Is that something that we have that is like prepared and consistent and hopefully notarized?
That is a great question.
We have an owner authorization form that we require on every application that's submitted
to the city.
So you're just using that same one?
Yes, we'll just use the same one.
Is it a notarized form?
I don't think so.
I think we used to.
No.
Okay.
So that's interesting because the applicant in this situation, if they're a tenant, is
coming to you.
The owner is never coming to you.
Well, and that is a good point.
And that is something we talked about in DCRC quite a bit about that owner authorization
because the owner and the person needing the accommodation could very well be two different
people.
Right.
So that's why we really wanted that owner authorization to make sure that everybody
was well-informed of what was taking place and what was being requested by the city.
I mean, would you ever follow up to make sure that that's the owner?
I mean, I guess I'm confused that way in the sense that, not that anyone would try this,
and I hope they wouldn't, but I'm just wondering, I mean, we've got a lot of landlords who don't
live here, and they may not know what's going on with their house, and suddenly someone
comes and changes their property.
And I'm just wondering, should we think about, I don't want to complicate it for you all,
but I'm just wondering how you know that they brought the owner's signature on that authorization
form?
Well, I would add, excuse me, sorry about that, I think with any development application
form that we have, if we have concerns regarding whether or not the owner had signed the form,
you know, we can do a basic quick check and look on DCAD records and see what's listed
and then verify with the applicant that they did receive the owner's signature.
I mean, but with the development applications that we received today, you know, we've employed
a consistent process as that, and we have the ability to cross-check with the Denton
Central Appraisal District, but we take it at face value that what is submitted is submitted
to us with property owner authorization.
Okay.
Any other questions for Julie?
Thank you.
That was a lot of information.
It looks like that was succinctly done.
I appreciate that very much.
I can tell the DCR is very hard on that.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any cards in front of me.
Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item?
Okay.
Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or
discussion.
Commissioner Smith.
I just want to say thank you to staff for the hard work on this one.
Being on DCRC, this was definitely a lot of different questions about maybe a topic that
commission and even council might even look at and say it seems kind of straightforward
and dry, but there's a lot of kinks we had to work out there.
So thanks, Julie, and thanks to Ron for the hard work on that and Tina for the work putting
into it.
So with that, make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Yeah.
I'll just say thank you commissioners for serving on that committee.
I know that takes a lot of time, extra time, and yeah, there's a lot of information here
and good changes happening.
So thank you.
I think with that, Commissioner Pruitt.
Just maybe I missed it, but have we closed the public hearing?
I did.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you for checking.
Appreciate it.
Okay.
Any other discussion?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to our planning and zoning matrix, and I will turn the floor to Tina.
Thank you, Chair Ellis.
So I have quite a bit of information to share with you.
So maybe not as long as Julie's presentation, but I will challenge her on her length.
So as to the matrix itself, so just a couple of quick updates.
So the first item on the matrix, we'll go ahead and remove that since we accomplished
that this evening.
And then with respect to the discussion about removing minimum parking requirements from
the DDC, originally we were anticipating getting to that discussion with DCRC last Monday.
Unfortunately, our other topic took the whole entire time, is my understanding.
So we will resume and initiate that conversation this coming Monday with the DCRC.
So know that we will be kicking that off.
Otherwise, we did not have any other matrix requests to be added from our previous planning
and zoning commission meetings.
So in terms of city council action on items, so we had several cases at the last city council
meeting.
If you recall, Julie presented three cases that were related with each other, a comprehensive
plan amendment, a rezoning, and a specific use permit for property, about a 24-acre property
on May Hill just north of Russell Newman.
All of those items were approved.
Part of that discussion was related to have a reconsideration of the planning and zoning
commission.
We all had submitted a request for that, and that request did not prevail.
Part of the challenge was that the zoning case had already been noticed for city council
and posted on council's agenda.
So there was much discussion related to that.
Key takeaway from that is we need to codify some procedures as it relates to reconsideration
requests, including addressing what happens if something has already been noticed for
city council's consideration.
So we will add that to our to-do list of code amendments to be able to get that accomplished.
But otherwise, all three of those applications were approved by council that evening.
We also had a zoning request, if you recall, Sean had presented it at a prior planning
and zoning commission meeting a request on Bonnie Bray north of Windsor.
If members remember correctly, that was to rezone from R2 to an MN zoning district.
Thank you, Haley.
And so that case, while it had a motion for approval and the vote was 4-3, it did trigger
a supermajority vote.
So that case was not approved.
So that took place.
Also there was an alternative ESA plan that was approved by council for the site on 380,
about 1600 feet west of Western Boulevard.
If you recall, that was to be able to address an environmentally sensitive area where some
parking improvements were going to be done.
So council did approve that.
Also at that same meeting, the downtown advisory group was appointed.
So we have initiated work, obviously on the downtown master plan update that we have ongoing.
Southeast Denton steering committee also received two attendees, or excuse me, two new committee
appointees.
So they have been since added.
And then speaking of our area plans, so this Friday evening, we have our Southeast Denton
steering committee meeting.
So that is taking place.
And then this Saturday, for those that are interested, we do have a community workshop.
It is from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., American Legion Hall, correct?
Okay.
Yes, at the American Legion Hall.
And again, it's a workshop, it's a come and go event.
There's a presentation that will be given that will be happening at two different times.
But otherwise it is a come and go event so people can participate in the activities and
then get back to enjoying the rest of their Saturday.
Also other items of interest for you all, October 17th, make sure that is on your calendar.
It is a joint meeting with the City Council regarding the Northeast Denton area plan that
is just between the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
So I believe we're planning for that to be at 11, doing a working lunch again, kind of
similar to what we did previously.
So make sure you've got that on your calendar.
And of course, Kathy is really good about sending those invites to have on your calendars
as well.
And then if that's not enough, we're also working on short-term rentals.
And so you may have seen some of the public service announcements on Channel 5 that have
been covering our work on the amendment.
So if you recall, the DCRC had requested that we do some public engagement before they made
any additional decisions related to proposed code amendments.
And so we've held two town hall events.
One was an in-person town hall event last Thursday evening.
I would say we had roughly 25 people in attendance, plus or minus.
And then we had a virtual town hall this past Monday evening where we had about 20 people
in attendance for that.
So we have all of the information posted on and discussed.
Right now we do have an online survey that is taking place as it relates to short-term
rental regulations.
So if that is of interest or if you know people where this is of interest to them, whether
they're a resident or an operator here within the community, I would encourage you to direct
them to that survey.
So we are interested in receiving feedback.
For folks that participated in the town hall meetings, we encourage them to take the survey
because there are some items that we're seeking feedback on that were not necessarily brought
up in part of the Q&A and in the presentation we did.
So know that that is live, and my apologies, I should have written down the date for when
that closes.
But I think we have it open about three weeks.
I'm sorry.
Oh, September 8th.
So yes, so September 8th we'll have that close and then we'll accumulate all that data and
then bring that back to the DCRC to make some finishing touches on the proposed code amendments
if need be.
One we know we needed to adjust was parking.
It was not easily understood as what the intent on the parking was.
So that's something that we'll need to bring back to DCRC, but otherwise know that that
is out there and we continue to work on that project and we'll be bringing that back.
So I believe that concludes, yes, that concludes my comments for this evening, so thank you.
Thank you for bringing this up to date.
Anything to add to the matrix?
I just got questions, the southeast area planning meeting on the 25th, what's the time and place
that that's going to occur?
Six p.m.
And is that at our building?
Our building, right?
So the Development Services Center, so our meeting rooms that are up there in the front,
that's where we'll have that.
All right.
Thank you.
Are those closed meetings?
I know if the community want to just come and listen, are they allowed or is that a
closed meeting?
No, they're open to the public, so we follow the Texas Open Meetings Act for the Steering
Committee meetings.
So if anybody's interested in coming and listen, they're more than welcome to, so discussion
will be limited to the Steering Committee and the project team, but anyone is welcome
to come and listen.
All right.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Yeah, just another quick question.
On the Northeast Denton area plan, is the intention to have that implementation workshop
before the next, the October dual council plus PNZ meeting or is that after or?
I don't have the calendar committed in my memory, so I'd have to follow up with you.
Yeah, so I'll have to follow up with you on that one.
Okay.
That's fine.
Anything else for the matrix?
Tina, I'm glad you had brought up that you're moving forward with some kind of changes somewhere
with what happened at City Council last week with the reconsideration.
So I mean, probably the easiest thing is to make sure that that scheduling just doesn't
happen ever where they're back to back.
I mean, reconsideration is certainly an option that this body has and I mean, it did seem
like people weren't quite sure what to do with that, with just the way it was scheduled.
It was kind of an unfortunate and unique circumstance.
So yeah, I'm glad it's being discussed and it can be rectified if possible.
Yeah, and in hindsight, having some better codified procedures as it relates to reconsideration
would be helpful because right now the DDC does not address that, so it defers to council's
procedures.
You know, normally a zoning case would follow our standard process, which is about three
weeks between the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the council, so it accommodates
for the timelines on the reconsideration, but there are times when we do need to move
a zoning case from PNZ to council at a quicker pace and so I think it would be important
that our procedures be updated to acknowledge that and what does transpire and take place
in that event.
So in that particular case, that was one of those that went to the Planning and Zoning
Commission one week and was on the city council agenda for the next week.
So we recognize the challenge there, but understood.
Thank you.
Okay, any concluding items?
Commissioner Smith?
Dog days is on September 9th, 2023.
Thank you.
Any other concluding items?
Okay, seeing none, I will adjourn this at 7.09 p.m.
Thank you very much.