Sep 13, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2023-09-13 5:30 PM

>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday, September 13, 2023. This is our work session and with a quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.32 p.m. Let the record show commissioners Smith and Villarreal are absent at this time. First item on our work session is citizen comment on consent agenda items. Do we have anyone here wishing to speak on consent? Seeing none, we will move on to our final work session item which is clarification on today's agenda. First item of business for us is approval of our minutes for the 23rd commissioners. Do you have any questions on that? That will then take us to consent agenda. Do we have questions on the consent agenda? Commissioner McDade? >> Thank you, chair. I have a question on D and E that I need to -- >> Okay. We can move through those then if anyone -- does anyone have anything A through D? Okay. Then Julie, if you will come on up. Thank you. Good evening. Julie Wyatt. All right. So this is two plats for the Kingsway subdivision. It's a single-family residential development. Has two tracks. The first -- the first plat is a final plat for a track located at King's Row and Loop 288. It is phase 1A of the subdivision. And then the second plat is phase 1B of the proposal. It does meet all of the technical requirements associated with plats within the debt and development code, so staff is recommending approval, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. The question I have, and I need you to refresh my memory, because I remember I asked this about a year ago. At the last meeting, it was withdrawn, so now that it's only consent agenda, it does not come back to this commission, correct? All right. So it's been approved? >> Well, that is a good question. So, yes, you remember this was the subject of a rezoning case last year, two years ago, 18 months or so ago. The purpose of that rezoning was for a planned development. If you recall, the developer wanted some smaller lots, some additional densities within this area, so they were proposing to rezone the property from R4 and R7 to a planned development. That was not approved by city council, and so they are now just developing it under the current zoning, which this Phase 1B, so the larger tract, that has the R4 zoning, and then the smaller tract has R7 zoning. >> Okay. I guess the reason I was asking, because I actually have friends out there, and they were confused, and I told them, you know, they're watching right now, I told them if you'll watch the program, I'll have her explain it to you how it went from being withdrawn to now being approved and not coming through P&Z, so, I mean, that way I don't have to answer all the questions. >> I understand. I understand. >> Well, I think the original PD was denied by council, correct? >> Correct. Correct. So the remaining -- the zoning just stayed in place. >> The zoning stayed as it was, since it was denied at council. >> All right. Thank you. So Julie, I'm going to keep you up there. I don't know if you saw my email. >> I did, yes, ma'am. >> So if you -- well, I'll let everybody know what my email was. So I wanted Julie to explain -- we've had a lot of communication on this, as you all know, because it's in your inboxes. So I wanted to know how CITI satisfies that Criterion 8A, which is minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding, and it says the result of citizen participation process may appropriately be considered here, the proposed development should not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding areas. So can you run us through how the city would deduce that Criterion? >> Sure. So in this case, because this is a plat, this is a ministerial action, the zoning is in place that R4 and R7 actually transitioned from our previous zoning code, the 2002 development code. So the zoning that was put in place on this property was NR4 and NRMU12 in 2002. At that time, it was determined it was consistent with the comprehensive plan, and then it met that requirement of being appropriate within the area and adjacent to the single-family residential developments to the east of the site and the north. That said, we also have criteria within the Denton Development Code for development. For example, if this were being developed with a commercial use, buffers would be required. But because this is a residential use adjacent to a residential use, a buffer isn't required. It just must meet those minimum standards within the Denton Development Code. So that criteria could be challenging for plats because they are ministerial. But with that existing zoning, developing under that existing zoning and meeting those minimum standards within the Denton Development Code, it was determined that it would not create any significant adverse impacts with the adjacent properties. >> Is traffic considered an adverse impact when being looked at? >> So we actually -- our transportation planner, I talked to her today in preparation of this meeting, and she had them update the TIA associated with this plat or with the preliminary plat to make sure that all of her ducks were in a row. If you recall, there were a lot of transportation improvements associated with that PD. That was part of that negotiation with the PD, not necessarily something that the -- could be required of a development under straight zoning. So she looked at the TIA, the existing conditions of those surrounding intersections, and the impacts that this project would have on those intersections, particularly the intersection here. It's a little hard to see, but there at Kings Row and Loop 288, that was a really big one. Currently that is operating at a level E, and this development would not make that letter grade change any lower, and so -- >> Didn't the letter grade go any lower? >> F would be the next, and that really is based on not necessarily that it's -- it's based on the number of seconds that a car has to wait at that intersection before they can either turn or go straight. So because they did analyze that intersection, the intersection's already got some challenges that we're aware of, and that they would not -- this development would have minimal impacts on that. They're just going to need to do some restriping for that intersection to make sure that it flows a little bit better, and so that was the outcome of that TIA. >> Are there any extra lanes coming in? I know that was part of the PD, and I know that was -- so that is not happening here, correct? >> Correct. >> So with this particular plat, this is coming in off of its own road off of King's Row. >> Correct. Yes. >> And the next plat, it's coming in through -- >> Dearwood. >> Dearwood. >> Dearwood. Sorry. Yes, ma'am. >> And so we don't think it's a problem that -- going back to the other plat, on King's Row, that's already a problem at certain times of day -- this has one access point. >> It does. >> And one -- yeah. That's it. >> Right. >> That road right there. Okay. Commissioner Anderson, sorry. >> Thank you, Chair. No, I agree. They're not going to widen King's Row at all because that intersection is a nightmare too. I mean, and I don't see how they say it's not going to have an adverse effect when you're adding 200 more homes. That's another minimum 400 cars. Most people have two cars, you know, a couple living in a house, so that's, you know, another 400 trips a day, one way, you know, 800 trips a day. I don't know. I'm with Margie on this, Jerry, on this because I don't see how it's not going to affect -- have an adverse effect. I guess Corina's not here or anybody here to talk about how that was analyzed. >> Well, so keep in mind when we do traffic impact analysis, our team meets with the engineer and does a scoping meeting. And so, you know, the engineer submitted their traffic impact analysis. Our team reviewed it. As Julie reported, the level of service is not changing. You know, we had the opportunity for making some additional improvements associated with this development when it was being considered as part of the plan development district request. But ultimately, it was denied. So what's before you meets our requirements as it relates to the improvements that need to be made. And therefore, hence why the plat is in an approval state. >> And I understand that part of it. It's the 8(a) that I'm trying to understand that how we get that it's not going to have adverse impact because it will unless traffic's not taken into consideration under that particular category. >> So in response to the challenge I would add is, so our evaluation criteria, particularly this 8(a) being in our general evaluation criteria for developments, in my opinion, it's not taking into consideration the state law limitations that are associated with it. So in hindsight, when it comes to platting, some of our general criteria, including the one regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan, when the property is already entitled for uses that they're allowed to develop in accordance with, then, you know, the cow's already the barn on that one, right? So it is platts when someone's property is entitled from a zoning standpoint and they are proposing a development that meets all of the current standards under the existing zoning and their plat complies also with all of our technical requirements associated with the existing zoning in our subdivision ordinance. Per state law, we are obligated to approve the plat because it complies. And so it's -- I understand that there may be some concern that there's going to be more traffic as a result of the property developing, but with our traffic impact analysis and our evaluation of it and the level of service not changing, that it is in a state that it meets our requirements and hence why it's being approved. I don't have a problem with the neighborhoods going in and stuff. I just wish there was something we could do to alleviate some of that traffic, because I think if my memory serves me correct, we've had people come up and talk about this in the past about how on school days traffic backs up all the way down Kings Road and onto Luke 288. That's a traffic hazard. Is there -- and I know 288 is a textile highway. Would they be willing to put in a turn lane-only lane going northbound for these people to get off the road? I mean, I have no problem with the platts. I mean, again, you know, they meet the criteria, they're going to get approved and all this stuff. I'm just worried about traffic. I did talk to Karina. She does have a meeting scheduled with TxDOT, so they -- we are continuing to coordinate with TxDOT to try to make sure that those roadways are functioning in a safe and as efficient manner as possible. So it's something they're continuing to refine. I can certainly provide her with the feedback to kind of let her know what's going on in that area regarding Hodge. Yeah, I mean, it's unfortunate that the PD couldn't get done because we could instill that. One moment, Commissioner McDade. Tina, if I could just have you clarify. So effectively, that particular criterion that's in our analysis is not really a -- is not really -- you're saying it complies to all state law. So that is really not anything that -- That maybe should be in there, because it seems -- Like it could be satisfied or not satisfied, and it's not going to matter. This one, as well as -- some of our criteria could be updated to better reflect what we can and can't do, particularly when it comes to platting. And so we can add that to the list of potential DDC amendments, but when the property is already entitled under the existing zoning, the property owner has the rights to be able to develop it, and if it meets all of our standards, then when we're comparing it against criteria like this, and also comparing a plat against the comprehensive plan criteria when the property is already entitled, it puts us in a more challenging situation. So hence why we look at it from the -- This is my point exactly. Yeah. I mean, it's -- I get everything that you're saying. So what I'm saying is maybe we need to relook at that, and I'll bring that up at a later time in the matrix, and we can discuss, perhaps. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner McDade. Thank you, Chair. You made the comment that the city looked at improvements, but they were denied. As part of that plan development district request, when it came forth, when we had that rezoning submission, the developer was willing to make some additional improvements to be able to help with the ingress/egress associated with these developments and some of the traffic challenges that are within the area. But because that plan development district was not approved, all of those offerings that the developer was proposing at that time are no longer on the table. So they're not obligated to provide those improvements. All right. Thank you. If that helps. Okay. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. A couple things. So the transportation criteria manual has a 200-foot minimum spacing between intersections for this with a collector and a residential street. I take it that it barely meets that to the current right-of-way of Loop 288, and it would not meet that to the planned expansion of Loop 288. Is that accurate? I don't know about the planned expansion. I assume there will be right-of-way because there is some reservation associated with this. Any Loop 288 expansions haven't been designed yet, so we don't know how that's going to shake out in the future. If I could add to that. It's not 80 percent or more designed, but we kind of know where it's going. Well, and I was just saying if I could add to that for Julie's benefit since I was at that TechStat meeting. So there are some initial schematics that have been developed, but we continue to work with TechStat on this particular interchange or intersection, if you will, and how that could potentially be designed. So there was one option that was proposed – I'm trying to think back to that TechStat meeting. If they had one option or two options that were proposed, I think it was one – that was being proposed in which they were seeking the community's feedback. And because of the way the geometry of the alignment of the existing King's Row street is with respect to 288, it's not a perfect 90-degree angle intersection, it's skewed. And so that creates some design challenges. So we continue to work with TechStat on how to best design that particular intersection because we know that that is a route that is traveled frequently for persons coming from east to west and vice versa, right? So we continue to work with them on that. They are sensitive to that design. Also, other things that we're having to factor in is how the ramps come from the direct connector of 380 into Loop 288, also how that interfaces with Windsor to the south, and then also how it relates to this, so we continue to work with them on that. So I get that. I just want to understand, is the limitations that we have on platting validity based on the current right-of-way location of Loop 288, no matter what state of planning the expansion was at until they've acquired that right-of-way or funded the project, we can't consider essentially the future alignment? Correct. So because the fact that they're not advanced enough in their work, if they were at a point where they were acquiring right-of-way, it might be a different situation, but because they're not in a position to acquire right-of-way yet, when we were working on the preliminary plat associated with this, there were a lot of conversations with respect to right-of-way reservation and then how do we work through those issues because the TechStat has a responsibility to acquire their right-of-way, but they cannot go out and acquire right-of-way until their projects are further to an advanced state, and I believe it's beyond the schematic and they have to have the environmental impact assessment completed before they can acquire the right-of-way. So we try to do our best planning right now based upon what we know, just like we did that as we worked on the preliminary plat and it was approved, and so we use that as we continue to move forward with these final plots. These final plots are consistent with the preliminary plat that was done at that time. So it is, like I said, we work through with the best information and knowns that we have at such time when they're platting their property. Okay. And I understand the limitations of platting requirements, so this is not for tonight, but just I would appreciate if I could get a copy of the TIA that associated the PD originally and the updated TIA just for future understanding because at that original public hearing for that PD, one of the big questions that I asked specifically was whether a right turn lane in this location could be required as part of the general platting requirements, and it was insinuated that, yes, that's a likely outcome, and now we're seeing that it's not. And I understand things have changed, so I'd just like to see those TIAs to understand how they differ. Sure. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Prout. Anything else for Julie on this? Hey, quick question, Julie, does DISD know about this development at all, anybody talking to them? I don't think that DISD know, they're part of our groups that we inform as projects come in. I haven't had specific discussions with them about this final plat tonight, but it is shared with them on a regular basis, all of our projects. As the project continues. Okay. Yeah. Perfect. Okay. Appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, for individual consideration, we've got 4A, I think Ashley's making her way up for that. Hello there. Good evening. Ashley Exditt, assistant planner. This is FP23-0023, this is a final plat for barrel strap residential. This is approximately 50 residential lots on approximately 14 acres, and this is at Hickory Creek and 2499. At this time, we are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension till October 11th, 2023. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for Ashley? Thank you. 4B is PP23-0019, that is Mia's project. Hello. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission. Mia Hines, associate planner. This item is a preliminary plat for Jefferson Mayhill addition located just west of Mayhill Road. The property includes approximately, or just under 40 acres. At this time, it is not ready for approval, so we are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to October 11th, 2023. Great. Any questions? I don't see any. Thank you so much. And then our last individual consideration item is 4C, that is FP23-0022, that is Julie. Good evening, Julie Wyatt. This is FP23-0022A, Townsend Green. You've seen this one before. They have had a preliminary plat approved. Phase one of this project is currently under construction. This is a final plat for phase two. We are recommending approval subject to a condition. I know that's something that we don't do very often, but because this plat meets all of the technical requirements, we felt comfortable to recommend approval with a condition. In this case, and sorry, it's a little bit, it's turned to the side, but there is a property on the south side of the site. It's in a floodplain. It's part of our parks master plan. This is something that they've been working with the developer on to dedicate this property as a park to allow trail connections. The development agreement associated with this is going to council either at the end of this month or the beginning of October. Just kind of belt and suspenders, we thought it would be best to go ahead and just do that conditional approval, make sure all of that gets finalized the way it's anticipated, and then it could come back to P&Z to remove that condition. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I understand the condition. We've done this before with other similar agreements for parkland dedication. My question is on the south end where that cul-de-sac is, why couldn't that continue as a stub with a temporary turnaround easement to the west of that? Was that just something that couldn't be found with the landowner to the west or something? It seems like that would be the more logical way to go about that. Well, this one is a little different, and we're used to our current standards today with our access. We want to make sure those neighborhoods are connected. This was actually originally plotted and devised under our old codes, and so it's really just following that old code. I don't remember the adjacent zoning, but it really is related to requirements under the old code. It does have a stub out here, so if that ever develops, and then it is also stubbed out to the property to the east, so there will be connectivity, but it wasn't a requirement under the old code. Okay. Thank you. Anything else for Julie? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. We've got three public hearings this evening. Our first is 5A, and yes, Christy is here. Hello there. Hi. Okay, so this is an alternative ESA plan for a sirene at Hickory Creek Barrowstrap Residential. We wanted to let you know they have changed their name of their project, Barrowstrap Residential, so there will be continuity with the final plot you saw earlier. The purpose and the request of this is to improve an alternative ESA plan for mitigation to remove 0.66 acres of a complex of riparian buffer and undeveloped floodplain. The plan is to restore and improve ecological services that are offered by the remainder of the ESA complex, and staff is recommending approval with the conditions that we'll talk about at the end. There was a preliminary plot that was approved in June of 2022, and it's for 14 acres, more or less, of residential development southwest of the intersection of 2499 or Barrowstrap and Hickory Creek Road. I call it a complex because there's a combination or overlap of this riparian buffer and then undeveloped floodplain, as defined by FEMA's 1% floodplain. And then that area provides ecological services to that stream, including providing habitat, organic stabilization, and water quality. And the proposal is to remove that 0.66 acres of environmentally sensitive area. Generally it's in this area right here for a couple of reasons. First of all, to align the entrance to the neighborhood with a median opening on Hickory Creek Road. There will be retaining walls to be able to build up the roadway that crosses this riparian buffer and undeveloped floodplain, as well as outfall structures to create the drainage improvement infrastructure. And then a trail that is being proposed to be constructed along the east side of the development that will later after the construction be dedicated to the -- or the intent is to dedicate it to the parks and recreation as part of their master trail system. The mitigation plan is to improve the current habitat conditions of that remainder of the ESAs, highlighting it here in the green, that will be the remainder. And in addition to the remainder of what was identified as the ESAs, there's some small spaces of open space that will be adjacent to that ESA. And so the applicant is proposing to remove that pernicious from the area and to replace that and improve the current conditions and improve that habitat with that native vegetation planting plan. Post-construction there's also some trees that are adjacent to the land disturbances that may be damaged or destroyed during the construction of the development. And so we have worked out with the applicant that they will inspect those trees and any that were damaged or destroyed will be replaced at the application rate that is already outlined in the development code. And then up to 10 percent of the remainder of the area could be disturbed to meet FEMA requirements. To help explain this a little further, the applicant is currently working with FEMA, has an application into FEMA to modify this 1 percent floodplain, and in seeking that approval from FEMA, staff has already reviewed that and is in concurrence with the applicant. But FEMA always has the right to make comments, require modifications. Our concern was to not have to bring this plan back to this body and to the City Council to request further changes to the ESA. So what we've written into the conditions is that additional 10 percent modification in that open space and/or the ESA area in order to allow for the applicant to make any other – meet any other requirements that FEMA might come up with. And there were notifications, we received three in opposition. As you can see here, the location of those who sent in opposition letters and a neighborhood meeting was held on March 11th. There were four attendees at that meeting and generally it was a discussion about the overall development. And then staff is making a recommendation to approve this project with the conditions as I've explained in this presentation and is outlined also in your packet. And with that, I will take any other questions that you might have. Thank you, Kristi. Questions? Kristi, I know we had a comment with regard to a green belt that is on an adjacent neighborhood. Can you speak to that? Sure. Let me go back to a good outline of that. So as you can see in this preliminary plot, this project will be adjacent to a neighborhood that's already established and is just to the north of that neighborhood that is established. This stream segment traverses and bisects this property. The property to the south was constructed and received their approvals prior to the Denton Development Code 2002 version. So they were not subject to the ESA regulations as the ESA's regulations were adopted in 2002 with that big update at that time. So that development to the south, that residential neighborhood, was not subject to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. So they do have area, a lot, an HOA lot that they set aside and is considered their green belt or their green space in that HOA lot. And this project will be making a connection between their development, the current development that's to the south and the one that is being proposed. So they'll be making a connection into their green belt? Well, what their vision is is to have one kind of open space that would look contiguous throughout between the two neighborhoods. And how are they doing that? So first of all, this is going to remain an open space. My understanding, there won't be a fencing place between the two developments. There's going to be that trail that's part of that master plan trail that they intend to dedicate to the city. My understanding is that they intend to also construct that portion of that trail through the neighborhood to the south. So there would be a contiguousness between the two neighborhoods. Gotcha. Okay. That's a good thing. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal. So with the development coming in for the unaffected ESA portion, it wouldn't be negatively affected in terms of storm water runoff or drainage? So the final plan is to improve what's there today. What's there today is a stand of trees and has an understory of some native vegetation. Unfortunately, at this time, the understory is being taken over by this privet plant. This privet is really invasive. It takes over very quickly. It crowds out everything else. And so none of the native vegetation has an opportunity to compete with that. And so the plan is to remove all that privet that's there today and to reestablish native vegetation. And then I also had them include a maintenance plan so that if in the future, if there's problems with the invasive plant reoccurring, that they would continue to try to tackle that. Got it. Thank you. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. So I wasn't able to fully understand exactly what catchment area this is draining into this period. But it looks like basically there will be under the roadbed, there would be buried pipe that's carrying water flow from the north down into the increased region of the riparian isa. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And the... Yes. Right now... Really, I just want to understand the triangle shown, usually those are for, you know, slowing down effluent. It looks fairly small. Triangle. Sorry, on the... It's hashed in sort of the pinkish color on the full report. It's basically at the base of right after the pipe, right? Right there. Right here? Yeah. Oh. Is that the area that's intended to slow down the water or can you just explain that a little bit more? Sure, sure. There will be a portion of this stream is already underground to the north of Hickory Creek. Okay. They will be placing the rest of it in a pipe that will be coming out at this point. This point right here, it will be the major receiving point or the outfall of the flow from under Hickory Creek Road and under the new residential road. And what you're seeing there, that little hash mark is riprap. Okay. So, riprap is a design element to help slow down water as it's coming through the pipe. There will be additional riprap at the outfalls. And so, the major other outfall that will be encroaching into the ESA area is just to the south. And then there's another one over on the southwest corner of the ESAs. And then another one that will be coming into the open space but is not encroaching into environmentally sensitive areas because they were pulled it back just a little bit. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Anything else for Christy at this time? Thank you. Okay. Okay. Our next public hearing is 5B DCA 230009. We'll let Haley give us a quick summary on that. Hi, Haley. Good evening. Haley Zygursky, Assistant Planning Director. I will just go through a quick summary and then have a very brief presentation that we can go through at the regular meeting. So the request before you this evening is to update section 2.6.3 of the Denton Development Code, which is our preliminary plat regulations. The change to the section of the code is to make preliminary plats optional for properties developing within the city limits rather than a strict requirement. The reasoning for this, if you recall our last work session, we talked about House Bill 3699 that updated the shot clock legislation. As part of that update, they took away a city's ability to require any form of a study as part of a plat application. So if you'd looked at our preliminary plat checklist in the past, you'd see it was a lot of supplementary information that went along with it, like utility studies, drainage studies. So all of those pieces we have relocated to other points of the process. So there's no loss of information. They've just been shifted to different points in our review process. So with that, the preliminary plat would have become essentially a redundant step in the development process. So rather than having every application go through that, we're requiring all of those materials on the front end with their zoning compliance plan and saying preliminary plats could be optional moving forward. They would still have to go through the final plat process before they could get building permits to develop, so we're just streamlining a little bit by taking out some redundancy that would be created by shifting those studies to the zoning compliance plan. So happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, I can go into more detail at our regular meeting. Commissioner Perot. Yeah, just in looking through the backup, I couldn't find it. So in the public hearing, if you could educate me as far as how we plan on handling determination of alignment of collector streets in a subdivision if somebody just comes in with a big plat all at once. Does that make sense? Sure. So everything... Typically, if there's a preliminary plat, those roadway alignments are shown and there's time to get that worked out. Sure. So all of that same information that you see now with the preliminary plat is shifting to our zoning compliance plan. So every bit of that same review will occur a step earlier in the process. Got it. Thank you. Haley, do you think this is going to add time to the whole process? For some developments, it will remove a step. So actually, let me see if I've got... I put together a slide just in case there was process questions. So as it stands today, the multifamily and non-residential developments do have two steps. They do a zoning compliance plan and then a preliminary plat. This would remove that step for them. For residential, it just shifts all the stuff that we get with the preliminary plat now into a different application type. So for some developments, it reduces review time because there's one less step. But overall, probably not a significant change. It just seems like the staff is getting, I guess, more information possibly all at once. So I was just wondering if that's where it was going to lag maybe. We see all the same information either way. So for us, it's just a different time at which we touch it. Gotcha. Thanks, Haley. Okay, 5C DCA 230010, I think Angie's got the presentation on this one. Hi, everyone. Good evening. Angie Manglars, senior planner. I will pull up my quick presentation. Okay, this is DCA 230010. It is DDC amendments related to agricultural and animal uses. I have a quick summary slide that I'll give to you all tonight as well as a little backup for our public hearing this evening. But this is recommended changes to tables 5.2-A, section 535 of the DDC, section 5.4.4 of the DDC, and section 9.2 of the DDC, all related to the regulation of agricultural and animal businesses. These are coming out of the state legislation, which we kind of gave you a brief recap of at our last meeting when we had our workshop. But House Bills 1750, 2308, and 2947 all spoke to the regulation, the city's ability to regulate agricultural uses within the city limits. Now, I do want to note at that time, we also talked about the animal uses and that some of those amendments may be occurring as well. However, House Bill 2127 is currently being litigated and is not yet in effect, so we're going to put a pause on those animal uses. But for tonight's purposes, we are going to focus on the agricultural uses. Should we need to, we can come back and address the animal uses at a later date. So House Bill 1750 prohibits a city from imposing any governmental requirement that applies to agricultural operations. Governmental requirements includes regulations, zonings, permitting, licenses, and prohibitions on generally acceptable practices, which could include the use of pesticides, limitation of number of livestock you could have, et cetera. It does include some exceptions, so it's not quite a free-for-all. It does allow cities to establish regulations that protect adjacent property owners from imminent danger. Cities can also base regulations on the finding of a report that is commissioned to protect public health. And then also forthcoming, we haven't seen it yet, but is the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Manual, which will give guiding principles as to the best agricultural practices. That is the manual in which cities can establish regulations from, so it could be how many acres you need to have to maintain a certain amount of livestock, but that is the manual which House Bill 1750 specifies regulations regarding agriculture can come from. House Bills 2308 and 2947 were more narrow in their scope, but they do both modify the definitions of agricultural operations. They were expanded to include the commercial sale of animals, production of livestock and vegetation for livestock forage, as well as veterinary services that are related to the keeping of livestock and poultry on site. So staff has gone through and made a number of suggested amendments that includes allowing agriculture uses to be permitted in all zoning districts in accordance with House Bill 1750 in the forthcoming Texas AgriLife Extension Manual, and then also some modifications to our definitions for both agricultural general and animal uses to accommodate the new definitions that came out in the state bills to make sure we're in line with what they're calling out and what we have in our code. With that, I can go into any more detail, or I'm happy to answer any questions. Angie, do you know when the AgriLife Manual is going to be published? I do not. I have checked a few times on the Texas A&M's AgriLife Extension Manual. We have reached out to the, I believe it's their Denton County office. I don't have a date for that. Yeah, I look pretty regularly at this point because I'm interested to know. Well, yeah, because it seems odd we're going to alter our code and mention this manual, which isn't printed yet. So I'm just trying to make sure that we're not making a change too far ahead of time. The House bill does specifically call out that this manual is to be published and is forthcoming. So to the best of our knowledge with these going into effect on September 1st, I do expect that manual to be published soon. Shortly thereafter? Just don't know when yet. They just don't give a specific date in the legislation? There is not one yet, no. Well, and to add to that if I could, and Angie, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but hence why we've included language in the proposed ordinance to also cite back to the amendments that are made in the text of the agriculture code, particularly those items related to the imminent danger, basically, Angie's dubbed it the list of dangerous things, right? So there's, I think, 11 items on that list, so at least to be able to circle back to that. So there are provisions within the state statute that offer some protection, and then once this AgriLife report gets published, then we'll know better best practices, and we will go back and look to see if there's anything that we need to make modifications to on our debt and development code. So that reference would be the safety net until you're sure that this is published? Yeah, we tried to make sure we included that to help property owners as well as ourselves be able to go back and look at that safety net. Gotcha. Thanks. Anything for Angie on this? Commissioner Cole? Thank you, Chair. So what you're saying is that the Ag extension manual is going to dictate how y'all do this or if that's where you're going to get your ideas to put further rules on this is from the Ag manual? Correct. Which comes from the legislation. Yeah, I would say it is my understanding in reading these bills a couple times and trying to grasp where we were going with this is that if a city wants to impose a regulation, apart from it being on the list of dangerous things or the city commissioning its own independent contractor to commission a report to determine the public health impacts. So apart from those two things, if you're wanting to establish a regulation, we'll say surrounding chickens because that's a hot topic, it would have to come from that manual. The guiding and leading experts is what the intent is, I think, of these bills. Thanks. Right. So I would say to expand on her example. So if that report said that if you were wanting to have five chickens on your property, then you ideally need two acres, then we could include in our ordinance that in order to have five chickens on your property, you would need to have a minimum of two acres, right? So we would look to that report because presumably it's giving us the best practices, right? If we're going to have agricultural operations happening on someone's property, then it would give us that guidance. You know, just for, you know, if it were to say if you wanted to raise winter wheat on your property and recommended you have at least 10 acres, then if we were to adopt regulations related to crops being farmed and wanted to establish a minimum 10 acre lot size, we could because that would be consistent with that. So it's a little unknown as to what's going to be put in the report. The way I see it is the state legislature obviously puts a lot of faith and effort into the AgriLife Extension Office in providing that guidance. So we've tried to put some stopgap measures in our ordinance, at least referring back to the list of dangerous things that's provided for in the code to make sure we at least have those protections in place. Okay. Thank you, Angie. Thank you guys. Thank you, Tina. Okay. With that, I'll adjourn our work session at 619 and we will reconvene as close to 630 in council chambers as we can. Thanks. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, September 13th, 2023. With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 646 p.m. Thank you for your patience. We are having a late start time. First item on our agenda this evening is Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flag. 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. On this Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one and indivisible. Thank you. First item on our agenda for consideration is approval of the minutes for August 23rd P&Z meeting. Commissioner Villarreal. So moved. Commissioner Cole. Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval discussion. Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will take us to our consent agenda items and I do have a card from a citizen to speak on item 3E. So I will be looking for a motion please to remove that from consent if that is so considered by the commission. Commissioner Villarreal. I move to remove item 3E from consent and move to items for individual consideration. And anything with regard to the rest of consent? And then I move to pass consent as written. So you're going to approve the consent agenda by removing item 3E? That's right. That's exactly right, yes. Okay. Clarifying that. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second to approve the consent agenda removing item 3E and placing that on individual consideration this evening. Commissioner Pruitt. Just for clarity given that sometimes we have comments that refer to more than one item, would you be okay with removing 3D and 3E? I accept that as a friendly amendment, yes. Commissioner Smith. Second. Okay. Amended motion would be approve consent agenda removing items 3D and E and placing those on individual consideration. Seeing no questions, let's vote on the board, please. That item carries 7-0. That will take us then to item formally 3D, FP230020B. Julie, I will have you come up here. Thank you. Good evening. Let me get to that. All right. So first we have FP230020B. This is phase 1A of the Kingsway subdivision. It is a final plat. It's consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved. It meets all of the technical requirements for a final plat and therefore staff recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I don't see any questions here. Would you like to just roll into the next one as well since they are related and then I can have Mr. Ferring come up. Absolutely. So this is FP230021B. This is phase 1B of the Kingsway subdivision. It is consistent with that preliminary plat and it meets the technical requirements of a final plat. I should mention both of these are single family residential developments and it is consistent with the zoning as well. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Julie. I don't see any at this time. Thank you. Mr. Ferring, I'm going to have you come up and speak on these items before we take any action. Good evening. Hello. Thank you. I'm Reed Ferring. I live at 4572 Coyote Point, just northeast of this plan development. I've been here before to speak with you all. I think the last time I came I suggested that I was very frustrated that there is not on the table in my mind a really comprehensive long-term plan for how Northeast Denton is going to be developed. In addition to this development where we have a pending proposal for 1,900 apartments on the Carter property, we have widening of Loop 288, we have a shunt from 380 to 288. All of those activities are going to converge right here at the intersection of Kings Row and Loop 288. One of the proposals I read would indicate that when this is all done, it would not be possible to turn left and go south on the Loop from Kings Row. That would be a nightmare. The other day I had an early appointment and the traffic was backed up from the Loop all the way to Silverdome Road. I had to make a U-turn and find another way out. I couldn't wait for six light changes to get through that intersection. This development in particular has one exit for all of these homes that has to feed onto Kings Row, in the same place where Hodge Elementary people and the many residents of that part of Denton have to travel heavily twice a day. So on a kind of idealistic note, I've been a resident of Denton for 45 years. I love this city. I care about its growth, but I worry that the intense, dense development along the Loop and in northeast Denton is going to compromise the quality of life that my family and I and all of our friends, and you, have enjoyed here for decades. So my request tonight is not to kill this proposal or anything else, but I would urge each of you to ask yourself, would you buy a home in this development? What would this mean for your lifestyle? And isn't it time that we back off and look at what can be done and not take developers' proposals one at a time and wait to see how it all turns out at the end? So in that respect, I guess I am asking you to postpone decision on this project and consider comprehensively the impact of this kind of development on our part of Denton. I appreciate the hard work you all do. I can't imagine that this is a very challenging time with the rapid growth in this city that you all have lots of decisions to make, and you hear from lots of people, but I appreciate your listening to me. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frayron. Dr. Frayron, appreciate it. Julie, I do have a question that I did not ask in work session. Seeing that we have just this one access point, I guess in both of these plots, what was the FHIR's take on this? Surely, you consulted them. Yes. FHIR reviewed it, and it's consistent with their regulations, and so they did not have any objection to this project. Thank you, Julie. I appreciate it. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. We've got to take these one at a time. They are separate on our agenda, so we are on FP230020. We have to approve them one by one. Correct. So make a motion to approve item D. Very good. Thank you. You're welcome. I appreciate it. We have a first on the floor for approval. Commissioner Cole? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of this final plot. I guess I just want more clarity. Commissioner Pruitt, I'll let you have the floor. Thank you, Chair. I have a lot harder time with this one than the other one because the other one is a fairly standard subdivision plot, nothing strange about it other than the fact that it is vested before we had the two points of access requirement. With this one, I don't see any other intersection away from an access road any closer than about 400 feet in the rest of the city, and those were done decades ago when the freeway may have been in different places or not there yet when it was built. So I understand the concern. I understand staff's reasoning for conservancy here, but I'm not going to be able to support this, and I'll just state that it's based on the reason for approval of 11A with the transportation concerns. Commissioner Villarreal? Yes. I appreciate staff's comments and the backup material. However, I don't believe this item conforms to DDC section 2.4.5.E in regards to minimizing adverse impacts to both surrounding property and adverse fiscal impacts, and I agree with Commissioner Pruitt that there are some road concerns as well, so I'll be voting no. Commissioner McDade? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just want to say that I also agree with Commissioner Villarreal and Commissioner Pruitt on this subject. I still have an issue with the traffic, and I know they've done the traffic studies, but for some reason, I just can't go ... I just can't buy into it. I don't know what it is. I just cannot buy into that this is going to be okay with adding all those homes and all those car trips per day, and for that reason, I have to vote no on this proposal. Thank you, Commissioner McDade. And I'll just ask Julie and Tina for more clarity of items that I brought up in work session and that others brought up in work session as well. Yes, knowing plats are ministerial, we've heard that so many times, unless we can point to specifics, and so Commissioner Villarreal, Commissioner Pruitt did point to specifics. Trying to understand and get clarity on that, because I as well have concerns that we haven't done our due diligence on saying that this is not going to have adverse impacts. I mean, we've already got a horrifically underperforming road in front of us now before any development happens, before any construction trucks end up trying to navigate through that intersection. We've got school buses, we've got pedestrians, we've got a real problem in this area, and I understand the developer tried to come through with a PD, and I'll say it again because I've said it before, I am really sorry that we couldn't get that done. But here we are now trying to get it done as it is zoned, but I'm trying to understand if the items are valid. So I'll start, and I'm not sure I caught everybody's citation. So I did understand from Commissioner Villarreal that he is citing section 2.2.4.5.E, did I get that correct? 2.4.5.E. 2.4.5.E, and then also Commissioner Pruitt, did you make reference to a certain section? I believe his also fell under that section. Commissioner Pruitt? Yes, but specifically it was the 11A transportation requirements for driveway spacing. I just, there aren't any other collectors that intersect with an access road. It's a very different situation. Okay, and Commissioner McDade, I just want to make sure I understood. So you mentioned that you agree with Commissioner Villarreal and Pruitt with respect to the traffic and cars, are you citing a particular section out of our development code that you're taking issue with? Okay, I just want to make sure I understood, because given the state statute requirements, if persons are voting in opposition, then we're interested in knowing what section of the code or criteria manuals that you believe that the project does not comply with. So Commissioner Ellis, back to your questions. So you're right, the challenge we have here is we have a preliminary, or excuse me, a final plat that is consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved that has bested this project and done so in accordance with the existing zoning. The applicant has submitted traffic impact analysis. The traffic impact analysis submitted does illustrate that the proposed project does comply with our development standards, hence why staff's recommendation for approval for this final plat. So with this particular project, as Ms. Wyatt reported in the work session, the applicant will be doing some restriping with respect to King's Row, and that is consistent with what we've approved and what is in our development requirements. All of the roadway improvement offerings that were offered by the applicant when the planned development request was submitted previously, those are no longer on the table, and unfortunately, with this project, we will not be able to receive those improvements. But as Commissioner Ellis did indicate, the challenge we have here is state law does say that if a plat meets the city's requirements for its development regulations, hence why we should be in a position of approving the plat. So I just want to make sure we're on record, at least from staff's perspective, that this plat as put forth meets all of our technical requirements, and hence why we should be recommending or hence why the commission should be approving it. But I appreciate the commissioners who anticipate voting in opposition of you citing the particular provision within the code. And I guess I would just ask, as it regards to the way we read the analysis and these criterion numbers, these are all from 2.4, .5, .e, correct? Is that where we're getting all of this from? Yes, I believe, yes. And so, you know, you say technical requirements, so I'm trying to understand what is technical, and that's what originally my question was, of what is technical about item 8a. As we have it, and I'll bring that up later in the meeting, but we have it listed as 8a, which is not really a, not really a, this is all from 2.4, .5, .e, but somehow we've got it in our analysis as 8a, but in any regard, how is that a technical requirement and how is it met? Okay. Do you want to address that or do you want me to? Well, I can start, and the concern is adverse impacts and the compatibility of the proposal. The property is owned R7, and that was a zoning district that transitioned from NRMU 12, which was established with the citywide rezoning in 2002. That was consistent with the comp plan that was adopted prior to the 2002 Denton Development Code, and it was rezoned because it was consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent with the vision in the surrounding context. So this project is a development that meets the zoning, both the lot size and the use, and so by that, it is consistent with the zoning, and so because that zoning was put in place, it was anticipated that it would be compatible with the surrounding development pattern. Likewise, for the other plat, it has zoning of R4, which was put in place at the outset with the 2002 Denton Development Code. Once again, that was consistent with the comprehensive plan and determined at that time that it was compatible with the surrounding development pattern and would not create adverse impacts. We also have development standards in our Denton Development Code. We have landscaping standards, we have architectural design standards, we have minimum lot sizes, and so those standards have to be met with any development, and those are the minimum standards that were adopted by the city as to indicate quality development, and so this project will be no different, and we'll have to meet those minimum standards, and by virtue of meeting the requirements in the Denton Development Code, it is compatible with the surrounding property. If this were a commercial development, they would have to meet buffering requirements, but because this is a residential use adjacent to an existing residential use, we don't anticipate that those two uses are incompatible next to each other, so by that, it does meet those standards. We also did have a TIA, I did confirm with Karina that Kings Row will be restriped as a result of this development so that there's a sufficient width within that existing right of way so that there will be restriped to have going west, you'll have a dedicated right turn to get on the loop, and then a through and a left hand, dedicated through and left hand turn. That will hopefully at least provide some relief at that intersection, so really that is our analysis associated with it, and I don't know if Tina wanted to add any more to that. Yeah, I would just add that based upon what was included in the traffic impact analysis associated with this development, that the restriping is the proportionate responsibility that the developer has associated with for this project. In the comment from our speaker, Mr. Farring, we know that in the Northeast Denton area, there is concern regarding how development will play out over time. City Council did direct us to do the work of the Northeast Denton area plan that is currently underway, which I know all of you around this dais are fully aware of that given the work that we've done thus far. One of the things that we were also looking at is mobility for the area because we know residents have expressed concern in the past regarding the mobility options that are available within Northeast Denton given how the area is starting to develop. The project before us, like I said earlier and as Julie explained, it meets our requirements for developing the property under the existing zoning that's in place. The applicant is proposing to do their proportionate responsibility with respect to improvements at Kings Row, but as we continue to experience development within this area, hence why we are doing also the Northeast Denton area plan to be able to provide some land use recommendations so that as development does occur, then it ideally would be in accordance with that plan and including any mobility improvements that would be required as part of that plan should it get adopted. Okay, so now I'll move on to the next question that Commissioner Pruitt had cited, which is what we call 11A where that fits into 2.4.5.E, I'm not sure, but that provides adequate road systems, so I'd like to know how this, you know, we have it marked as MET, so that reads adequate road capacity shall exist to serve the uses permitted under the proposed development and the proposed uses shall be designed to ensure safe ingress and egress onto the site and safe road conditions around the site, including adequate access onto the site for fire, public safety, and EMS services. So knowing that we have a road that is rated E, I believe. The intersection at Kings. Currently. Well, that's pretty much where this is, at the intersection. How did we determine? It doesn't appear we have adequate road capacity now, if it's rated E, so I'm trying to understand how we determine that MET if it's already at E, which doesn't sound to me as adequate, and that's what this says. So can you enlighten me on how we got there? Do we take, I mean, I'm trying to understand, you know, I get where this is zoned. I understand from the developer's perspective that they have every right to be doing what they're doing, and again, I'll say it again, I'm sorry that we couldn't get done what was asked the first time around, but this is where we are now, so I'm trying to understand because this intersection is awful right now, and so I'm trying to understand how we are weighing that as a city and coming to check that box that it's met, and it's not serviceable now, so help me understand that. I don't know that I can add much more than Julie, but in talking with Karina, the criteria is that they cannot worsen the conditions. Right now it's a level of service E, the data shows that they will not make it worse than a level of service E, so all we can obligate them to do is their proportionate share of the impacts, which is the re-striping that they've agreed to do. And how do they determine that it, how is that done, through the TIA, that it wouldn't make it worse? Correct, it's part of the traffic impact analysis. That's just part of that analysis. Right. So they would do analysis of the existing conditions, and they're doing analysis based upon the proposed conditions as it relates to this development. And with transportation engineers doing the work, they have submitted a report to the city. The city's transportation team has reviewed that report and has determined that, based upon the findings, that it will not worsen the situation that is there today, so it maintains the level of service E. Again, their proportionate responsibility is to do some re-striping at that intersection, and so they're proposing to do that in hopes to continue to alleviate any additional concerns and to maintain the service level, at least at a level of service E, so that it is not worsened, which is the evaluation criteria that we have in our code. And it's taken collectively, the way that was looked at, as this phase 1A and... Yes, ma'am. Yes. Next one. Okay. Commissioner Anderson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, chair. Currently, how many lanes is Kings Road? I believe it's just two lanes, one east and one west. How are they going to re-stripe and get four lanes, because you're going to have to have a road... You said they're not going to the west, they're going to have a right turn, center lane, and a left turn. And how are they going to get a east road? So it does flare out at the intersection. It would actually be the left-hand turn and the through would share in a lane. So it would be two on the westbound and then one coming in. So there is sufficient, we checked with Karina, there is sufficient right-of-way there to stripe that so that there can be a little bit of relief for cars that are going toward the west. So you may get maybe two more cars in line instead of just one car, you might get three cars. Because it narrows back in on Kings Road, so you're not going to get... That's not going to really help a whole lot. And again, I don't see how just re-striping is going to alleviate another 400 cars a day or 800 cars a day, because if we're going to... Just this one little neighborhood here, you're going to have at least 40 cars. The other one that's bigger, you're going to have a couple of hundred cars a day, just one in and out. I don't know how that's not inadvertently affecting the traffic pattern. I don't get it. I don't. But that's not for me, it isn't. Go ahead, Haley, if you have something, please. Well, not directly related to transportation, but I did want to bring up something. So I want just to make everyone aware, procedurally, no matter what occurs tonight, if the applicant resubmits these plats in the future under House Bill 3699, we would be obligated to approve them, because state law now has three criteria for what a plat must contain. And if it has those three things, the city shall approve it. And that's a meets and bounds description of the property, tying that to a surveyed corner and ensuring that it shows property lines and roadways. That's it. So, Hillary can probably chime in more. Yes, to add a little bit of color, they added a section to the approval by municipality, a segment of the code that basically specifically constrains us from adding additional requirements. So effectively, all this criteria that we're using is going away. Correct. No matter if we have it removed from the DDC or not, any applications submitted after September 1, we would be obligated to follow that section of state law. So effectively, this could get denied, get resubmitted, and we're looking at a whole different. Correct. Well, and then the other thing I would add with respect to House Bill 3699 is has further constraints on any requirements for roadway improvements. So we are even further limited as a result to any additional roadway improvements. So what's before you this evening is a proposal that includes at least a proportionate responsibility of trying to improve the lane configurations with re-striping at Kings Row and Loop 288. So at this time, we would be in a better position based upon this application and where it's filed right now in light of the changes in the state statute. Sure. Commissioner Anderson. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Haley, thank you for your statement, because basically, if we don't approve it tonight, we're just kicking the can down the road pretty much, and it's going to get approved either way, with or without them striping pretty much. I mean, so that's a little bit of a benefit if we pass it tonight. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Pruitt. Real quick. Schedule check, are we at the 30-day limit? In other words, if someone were to move to table this item to the next meeting, would it run through the 30-day shot clock law and be automatically approved? Correct. It's already exhausted, the extension, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of FP23-0020B. Not sure why that went away, but I think that it was Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Cole on a second. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. I think I'll just say, I mean, thank you, staff, for taking all of our questions. I personally think all of them were valid. We have valid concerns over this area. We have had valid concerns for quite some time that we've spoken up. Since this area has come before us for development, as we know the zoning is in place, I hope that this is a bit of a lesson in what a PD can do. It can do really good things. We can codify things. We can hold the developer accountable to do things. In my personal opinion, we'd be in a lot better shape in this development now had we been able to get that done, since we haven't and has been explained to us by staff. We don't have a whole lot of choice. What I can say is I'd urge city council to do what they can do to get this at the top of some kind of capital improvements project so we can get some kind of work done that we as a city can control, which is not a whole lot in this area, but I think we can control Kingsrow, possibly. At any rate, it needs to be addressed sooner than later. As well, I'll say at this point, because it was brought up, the Northeast Dunn area plan, which is in process, that's why it's so important that we get that done, is not a whole lot we can do for this. This has already been zoned. The developer's doing what they have the right to do, but there's a whole lot of land in the area that is unknown. That's why, if we can get an area plan in place, we can be in a lot better position as a city to plan for this, what is now a rural area of our city, and have a say in how it's going to grow and not let the developers just come in and take it a parcel at a time. We make this decision a parcel at a time. With that being said, I'll go ahead and call for a vote on the board, please. Let's see, that motion will carry 4-3. Then we've got item formerly 3E, FP23-0021B, now individual consideration. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. I will move approval on this one, as my concern for the previous item does not apply to this, because it was mostly ingress and egress of that other plat. Commissioner Anderson. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval of this plat. Any discussion? Commissioner Villarreal. Yes. I'm going to once again vote against it, as I don't believe it conforms with DDC section 2.4.5.E. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion will carry 6-1. That will further us into our individual consideration items, and we are now at FP23-0023. Hello, Ashley. Good evening. Ashley Eckstead, Assistant Planner, City of Denton. This is FP23-0023, Barrel Strap Residential. This is a final plat for 50 residential lots on approximately 14 acres at Hickory Creek in 2499. At this time, staff recommends denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension until October 11th, 2023. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ashley. I do not see any questions. Appreciate it. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the date certain extension of date certain of October 11th, 2023. Commissioner Anderson. Second. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of October 11th, 2023. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion will carry 7-0. That will take us to PP23-0019. Hello, Mia. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, Associate Planner. This item is a preliminary plat for Jefferson Mayhill Addition located just west of Mayhill Road, approximately 850 feet south of Roy Road. Right now, this preliminary plat does not meet our criteria for approval, and so we are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension, which can be granted to October 11th, 2023. At this time, I'll take any questions you have. Thanks, Mia. I do not see any questions. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the extension request to date certain October 11th, 2023. Thank you. Second. Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of October 11th, 2023. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will take us to FP23-0022A. Julie again. Hello again. Hello. Julie Wyatt. This is a final plat for Townsend Green Phase 2. The site is located on the east side of town, south of McKinney. It's a single-family residential subdivision. Phase 1 is under construction. Phase 2, they'd like to start on. We are recommending approval with a condition. They have been coordinating with parks regarding the lot at the south side of the development to dedicate that property to parks. It's part of Parks Master Plan, and they want to have it for trail development. A development agreement is moving forward to council in the upcoming weeks, and so our condition is that that development agreement must be approved by City Council. Once that is approved, or if it's approved, this comes back to P&Z to clear that condition. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Julie. And obviously, if it doesn't get cleared, I mean, well, come to us regardless, right? Right. Whether it gets cleared or doesn't. Okay. Very good. Thanks. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the staff conditions. Commissioner Pruitt? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval as presented by staff. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote, please. That motion will carry 7-0. We'll take us to our public hearings for this evening. First is 5A, AESA 22-0004A. Christy's making her way up, and I will open the public hearing. Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and tonight I'll be presenting the Alternative ESA Plan for Cyrene at Hickory Creek, also known as Barrel Strap Residential. This is a request to mitigate for the permanent removal of 0.66 acres of a complex of riparian buffer and undeveloped floodplain, and a restoration of that remainder of the ESA complex to improve the ecological services, and staff recommends approval. The preliminary plot was approved on June 22, 2022, and since then staff has been working with the property to develop this plan for the 14.176 acres of the residential development, and this Alternative ESA Plan to allow for the configuration. There was an ESA field assessment that confirmed that there was a riparian buffer, and the 1% floodplain is considered undeveloped, and these provide ecological services such as providing habitat, bank stabilization, and improved water quality. The impacts to the environmentally sensitive areas will include a residential road that aligns with the median opening at Hickory Creek Road, and there will be retaining walls to help support that roadway, and the residential roadway that will be overlaid on that stream, outfalls to the structure, including riprap, and trails on the east side of the remainder of the ESA that is intended to be dedicated to the Parks and Recreation Department. The mitigation plan is to improve the current habitat conditions in the remainder space that's shown in the green, and the plan is to remove privet and to plant a native vegetation in its place to help outcompete that privet in the future. Next construction, there will be an inspection of trees that are in the environmentally sensitive area. If those trees are found to have been damaged or destroyed during the construction of the development, then the applicant has agreed to mitigate at the ratio that is in the development code. And then up to 10% of the remainder of that area, staff is asking for some flexibility in allowing for the property, the applicant, to make disturbances within that area with mitigation afterwards to allow for that development to move forward, considering FEMA's approval of their floodplain modifications. There were notifications made in the mailers, we received three opposition letters in return, and these are indicated on the map, and there was a neighborhood meeting on March 11, 2023. And staff is recommending approval of the mitigation plan with the conditions outlined in your backup material and described in this presentation. And with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you, Kristi. Any questions for Kristi at this time? Commissioner Smith? Thank you, Chair. Kristi, sorry I missed your presentation and work session. Just to get clarification, presentation and the backup, everything was very thorough. It's going to be a bridge, that parallel to Hickory Creek Road, that's going to be a bridge over the existing culvert and waterway that runs through there. Is that correct, am I understanding that? This right here? Correct. That parallel road there is essentially, it's just going to, because Hickory Creek works as a bridge for the waterway, the pathway that runs through north and south on Hickory Creek, that parallel road will just be essentially a bridge. We're not stopping up that waterway flow, correct? Yes. It's going to run through, it's basically a, call it an extension of the pass through underneath, correct? Right, right. Yeah, it's an extension of the culvert. Gotcha. I don't think we can necessarily call it bridge. Bridge, yeah, you know what, potato, potato, no one's a potato, but yeah, cool. I get where you're going with it, and yes, it'll be an extension of that culvert from the north, yes. Culvert, got it Kristi, thanks. Any other questions at this time for Kristi? Okay, thank you very much. I don't have any cards in front of me, but this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open this for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve as staff present. Commissioner Anderson? Second. Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval as presented by staff. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote on the board please. That motion will carry 6-1, and that will take us to our next public hearing item for this evening, 5B, DCA 23-0009. Hayley is making way up to present, and I will open the public hearing. Good evening, commission. Hayley Zagorski, assistant planning director. So as we discussed at the work session, this proposed amendment to section 2.6.3 of the DDC is in response to House Bill 3699. We anticipate that this will be the first of at least one more set of amendments that will need to come before you all, possibly additional ones to clean up subchapter 2 of our debt and development code as well as our subdivision regulations to make them compliant with these changes to state law. So the request before you tonight is fairly limited in scope. We are simply looking to make preliminary plats an optional step in the development review process rather than a requirement for properties in the city limits. You may recall, I believe it was in 2021, we made a similar change and actually prohibited preliminary plats in the ETJ just to skip straight to that final plat part of the process. So this is in keeping with those changes. But to give a little bit of background, HB 3699 prohibits any sort of supporting study or analysis being required as part of a plat application for us that would include our traffic impact analysis, drainage studies, utility studies, as well as our tree preservation plans and our environmentally sensitive area assessments. So those can no longer be part of the plat application itself, therefore we have updated all of our checklists effective September 1 to relocate those requirements to either the zoning compliance plan or the civil engineering plan steps in the process, whichever was most appropriate based on the application type. So with that, as we now require that zoning compliance plan for all developments, if we were to keep preliminary plats as a requirement, it would be redundant for most applications. We would gain no new information with the preliminary plat than what we're seeing at those other steps. So therefore we are requesting approval of this amendment to make those an optional step in the event that a developer needs that preliminary plat for some sort of financing mechanism, or if they just have a very large overly complicated project and feel that there would be some benefit to that, then we would keep that option available to them. So that would streamline our development process, and as I mentioned, avoid that redundancy based on where we've moved those studies that we otherwise require. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this amendment, and I'm happy to answer any other questions. Thank you, Haley. Any questions for Haley? I have one. So is it going to be, you're just going to leave it up to the applicant, or could it be something you suggest that would help them, or is that not allowed? We could certainly make the suggestion. Part of the fun of HB 3699 is it essentially allows for someone to submit that plat, and as I mentioned before, if it meets those very limited criteria, we would be obligated to bring it forth for approval. So we see no real benefit for most projects in needing a preliminary plat, but we would keep that option open. And with all of our new applications, we encourage them to start with the pre-application conference, and as part of that, one of their takeaways is an outline of the process that we recommend they follow. So if we see there could be a benefit, we would certainly recommend that, but it would be entirely optional. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. I don't have any cards in front of me, but is there anyone wishing to speak? There's not really anybody left in the audience, so I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Cole. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval. Is there any discussion? We're going to pause for a minute, and I think we've got a technical difficulty with Commissioner McDade's screen. We'll wait for that to get fixed. You're still on her screen. Okay. Are you back? All right. Okay. Seeing no discussion, let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries seven is zero. That will take us to 5C, DCA 23-0010. Angie's here for presentation, and I will open the public hearing. All right. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglars, Senior Planner. This is a code amendment to address agricultural and animal use amendments due to recent state legislation. So a little bit of background on this, House Bill 1750 was one of the House Bills that were adopted that regulate agricultural uses. Specifically, this one goes on to state that a city may not impose a governmental requirement on any agricultural use within its corporate limits. Governmental requirements includes zoning, permitting, licensing, any sort of standards. It cannot adopt any requirement that would prohibit general best practices of agricultural operations, the use of certain pesticides. Overall this is a pretty broad bill, it does allow cities to retain some authority. Specifically, cities can still regulate the height of vegetation, specifically where an agricultural use is adjacent to a public road or a neighboring residence, where a city can require a written management plan to be commissioned by their city health official or other consultant to determine any impacts on public health. And the Texas AgriLife extension has been charged by passing of this bill to develop a manual that outlines best agricultural practices. Any regulations that cities are wanting to impose upon agricultural operations within its city limits must be derived from that manual. So from a finding that comes from this report that's forthcoming, we could derive regulations from that report. So what that means is we have to make a few amendments to our DDC. One of those is where we allow agricultural uses. So general agriculture, commercial stable, community gardens and urban farms had not been allowed in all of our zoning districts in the past with the adoption of House Bill 1715 as our recommendation that we do allow these uses in all zoning districts as part of governmental requirements does include zoning. We are keeping the use specific standards in Section 5.3.5A and 5.3.5B and referring back to House Bill 1750 where it does list out the circumstances in which a city could regulate agricultural operations. That includes an extensive list they have on practices that could create imminent danger to adjacent properties. It also references the report that a city could ask either their health official or a consultant to commission and also the AgriLife extension report that's forthcoming. So both of these rather than having our own specific use standards, use specific standards which would regulate livestock or agricultural or commercial stables, it's just going to refer back to that bill. Likewise, sale of produce and plants. We can't establish our own regulations as a city on agricultural operations. However, we can look to the guidelines in both House Bill 1750 as well as any that come out of the Texas A&M AgriLife extension report and go off of those. Those are some of the amendments being proposed due to House Bill 1750. We also saw House Bills 2308 and 2947. These are more limited in scope. They do both look at the definition of agricultural operations. They add in them the commercial sale of animals to be under the general umbrella of agricultural operations as well as makes additions to addition, including veterinary services for livestock and poultry specifically. So we've recommended some minor amendments to our current definition of agriculture and animal uses to capture some of the language that comes out of this bill. One of those was including accessory structures that are meant to support agricultural uses, now do fall under the general umbrella term of agricultural operations. So we've included that. And then we have matched the definition or staff is proposing to match the definition of general agriculture as to what is referred to in the Texas Agriculture Code to be consistent with what state law is and what is being referenced in these bills. I think that staff is recommending approval as this does meet our criteria for approval in Section 274D of the DDC. And the next step will be city council next week on September 19th. With that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Any questions for Angie? I do not see any. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. I do not have any cards in front of me. Or do I see anyone here in council chambers? So I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. And I will open the floor for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Smith. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Commissioner Pritz. >> Second. >> Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? I guess the only thing I'll say is we're going against what we discussed earlier in putting things on council agenda, that this is only a week apart. So maybe that was already put in place. But I'll just throw that out there. >> And the reason for the scheduling is due to the effectiveness of the state statutes. So hence why we're fast tracking this to council. >> Thank you. Okay. Any discussion? Further? Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will bring us to our planning and zoning matrix. And I will give the floor to Tina. >> Thank you, Chair Ellis. So the matrix has been updated to take into consideration the legislative update that we had given previously. So we removed that. That was done at the end of August. Just kind of a quick run down on some of the items. So I'll go through my list here, and actually the first item on my list addresses the minimum parking requirements item, which is on the matrix. So the DCRC has been working on parking, and after some extensive discussion with the DCRC, we have chosen to pause the amendments to the parking section, particularly as it relates to no minimum parking requirements. The city is actually undertaking a citywide parking study to address a lot of parking management challenges and issues that have surfaced within the community. And in light of interest by members of this body as well as City Council to consider potentially adopting no minimum parking requirement and allowing more or less the market to determine what might be appropriate for development, hence why we are including the evaluation no minimum parking within that citywide parking study. So this will allow the consultant that is retained to do a comprehensive analysis associated with our parking regulations and how we manage parking, and particularly parking on our public streets, and be able to provide some recommended practices associated with that for council's consideration and ultimately provide some better direction for us as it relates to addressing that particular topic. Also where the DCRC is concerned, so short-term run-offs, so several of you that serve on that group, and I know I've given some updates in the past, so we had paused that temporarily to allow us to do some public engagement as it relates to that particular code amendment. As a result, we hosted two town halls, but more recently we had an online survey where we were seeking the public's input, and happy to report that we had 224 participants within that survey. So staff is currently working through the results of the survey, and we'll be bringing that back to the DCRC to be able to finish any further refinements to the proposed amendments as it relates to that particular code, and once the DCRC feels that it's in a position to be able to deliver or move forward with a public hearing process, then we'll be bringing that forward. As it relates to our area planning, so we've kicked off the downtown update plan. As you're well aware of, that was one of the projects that council had asked us to prioritize and move forward. So the first downtown plan advisory group meeting is this Thursday at 2 p.m., so we will be doing that. We've already started some public engagement efforts, really trying to get the word out on the project. I know the team was present this past week at Arts and Auto, and they learned the magic secret sauce. That is, lure the children in with the coloring, and then the parents are standing there, so we get the parents to talk. But nonetheless, they started receiving some great feedback. One of the things that was interesting in talking with our consultant is, he's like, people in Denton love their downtown. He's like, you'd be surprised with some of the projects that they work on. They've got to get people to really like their downtown, so we're in a good position that at least our residents of Denton love downtown Denton, so we're in a much better starting point. But nonetheless, and we were starting to see that in some of the engagement from Arts and Autos, and we will be doing additional engagement. We have parking day that's this Friday down on the square. Hopefully it doesn't get rained out. And then we also have the Blues Festival that is this weekend, and so the planning team will be present at parking day as well as the Blues Festival, and seeking comments from the public on that. So we kick off our series of public engagement efforts, and I know Cameron put quite a few events on my calendar between now and at least through December, I believe, so that's really important. And so any assistance that this body can provide with helping get the word out as it relates to the work that we're doing on that downtown plan, I would really appreciate it. Southeast, we continue to progress with our analysis and work on that. We are looking at trying to schedule another public engagement event associated with that particular project. So once we get that date firmed up, we'll definitely let the commission know as to when we're doing that. And in coupling that with the information that we presented, that engagement event, I would anticipate it'll include some of the results and feedback that we've already received from the community, so we've had an extensive amount of engagement when you look at all of our efforts thus far in having over 100 respondents. When you look at not only the listening sessions, but the workshop that we did here a couple of weeks ago, the intercept surveys that the team has done, so we're really getting some good feedback from the community as it relates to our Southeast Denton project. Our Northeast Denton project, we also continue to do the work on that. For your benefit, so we're working through making some modifications to our project schedule, so one of the things that's been on your calendar, for those of you that might participate on the steering committee, was an implementation workshop with our partners, so we're no longer doing that, and staff will be doing the work as it relates to that. And really with that discussion that was meeting with our partners in terms of evaluating the action items that might be put forth, and responsible parties for implementation associated with that. So we as staff will be taking that task on. Also there is going to be no joint meeting on the 17th, so we are modifying our schedule, and once we have that firmed up, then I'll get that back out to the commission. One of the revisions that we're making is that we will be doing a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission before we do a work session with council in leading into our adoption phase, and of course we have one additional steering committee meeting, and we also have an open house, and an online survey that we'll be conducting as well. So those are some of the key major points that are still, or key tasks I should say that are still left in that project. But like I said, once we get that schedule revised, we'll be sure to get that out and report on that to the group. So in terms of any action items coming from council, council's been on hiatus for about a month since their last meeting was on August 15th, so we have not had any development and applications go before the council since that time, and so I have nothing to report from that aspect. But happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Tina. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. I just have something else for the matrix. I think as highlighted by some of the events of this evening, we've been more than two years now since the 87th session of the legislature, the shot clock came, and the additional platting restrictions and that sort of thing came. Really what I'd like to see is a legal opinion and work session to look at both the general requirements and the plat specific requirements that we have in our code, and separate them into three different buckets. So one bucket would be the requirements that we believe are technical in nature and already enforceable. The second bucket would be the requirements which we believe are not enforceable, not technical, and because of some case law or other legal proceedings that have happened over the last two years, we believe that they could not be made legally enforceable. And then the third bucket would be the items which in their content, the way they are written now could not be legally enforceable because they are not technical, however, amendments to said items for the same intended purpose could render them legally enforceable. So that was a lot of words. Any questions from staff on that? And then what I'd like to see is just we have some time as a commission to have probably a longer work session on discussing how we want to respond to the separation of those items and come up with a recommendation together to counsel about what a future actions would look like in order to clean that up and put things in less of a confusing bucket list, if that makes sense. Okay. Do you get it? Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I was going to say I've got items two and three, and Haley took notes, and I'm relying upon our friends at DTV, so I go back and watch your video. But I understand the point that you're making, though. Thank you. Commissioner McDade. Thank you, Chair. Tina, on the downtown area plan, I know I've asked this question two or three times, but this question is coming from the neighborhood. I know you said you're having your first meeting soon, and they're still concerned about the boundaries. That's what they're very concerned about, and I keep telling them, well, they haven't met yet, but now that it's getting ready to kick off, will you get with the neighborhood, or will you go through the southeast area steering committee, or will you actually come to a setting meeting and let them know that this is the boundaries that we have drawn for the downtown area plan? Yes, all of the above. We can communicate that out at such a point in time when we know what the boundaries of the plan are. We are in our initial stages on that project, and those boundaries have not been drawn. We will definitely be communicating with the Southeast Denton steering committee. Also, we will be communicating with the Southeast Denton Neighborhood Association, because I know they're very interested in that as well. We'll also be communicating out with any of our public engagement efforts to let folks know when we have those conversations. That's also one of the things that we're still trying to work with on the Southeast Denton community, is what do they consider Southeast Denton? It's interesting, given some of the responses that we've received as to what folks consider the geographic area also associated with it. We're trying to navigate through all of that, but we will definitely be communicating with the public on any information we put out related to that. I know that's an area of concern. All right. Thank you. Sure thing. Anything else for the matrix? I know I had made mention to Platts, but I think Commissioner Pruitt, I think he ticked all the boxes that I need done, so looking forward to that work session item. Also, with regard to Commissioner Pruitt, just making sure somebody took notes that he would like the TIA for the Kingsway project sent to him, so we can make sure that that happens. Okay. Seeing nothing else for the matrix, do we have any concluding items? Okay. With that, I will adjourn our meeting at 7.50 p.m. Thank you, everyone.