>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission
meeting for Wednesday, October 25th, 2023.
This is our work session with a quorum present.
I will call us to order at 5.05 p.m.
Let the record show that Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Cole are absent at this time.
First item on our agenda for the work session is citizen comments on our consent agenda.
However, I do not see anyone here.
So we will move on from that and we will clarify agenda items listed for tonight's meeting.
First would be our minutes from October 11th.
Commissioners, any questions on minutes?
Okay.
Then that will move us to our consent agenda.
Do we have any questions on any of the consent agenda items?
Okay.
That will take us to items for individual consideration.
We will go ahead and bring Mia up for 4A or Julie is coming up.
I believe you are perhaps standing in, are you?
>> Correct.
I'm standing in for Mia tonight.
>> And I know we had a late email.
I don't know, commissioners, if you were able to see that.
It was recommended for denial in our backup, but an email came out this afternoon saying
they have met staff conditions and it is now recommended for approval.
And Julie, I probably just took your whole speech in that, so sorry about that.
>> No, that's great.
Hold on.
I'm not finding it in here.
Okay.
Oh, right there, sorry.
Julie Wyatt, I'm presenting FP23-0026A.
This is known as Legends Ranch.
If you're familiar with that, it's one of our mud districts, I believe, out on the west
side of town.
They're actually changing the name to Hickory Grove, so that will be the new name for Legends
Ranch.
As Commissioner Ellis mentioned, originally this was in your packet as a denial, however,
they have satisfied all comments associated with the technical review, and so staff has
changed their recommendation to approval.
I'll be happy to answer any questions that I can.
Mia will be at the regular session, so if you have additional questions, she'll be more
specific, she'll be able to help you with those.
>> Sounds good.
Any questions?
Commissioner Pruitt.
>> We'll put you to the fill-in test here.
I just wanted to check on the third sheet, which I believe is the bottom one on the left
there, and luckily we can see it right there where your arrow was.
Typically on these, when we have a stub that has a couple of lots just to the left of there,
there's required a turnaround easement.
Is there no easement here because it's the same landowner?
>> I'm going to make a guess here.
Typically that is related to the length of that roadway, and it would be for a fire truck
to turn around.
So it may be because that piece isn't quite -- isn't so long that they would need that
turnaround, but I can certainly ask Mia.
She may know more.
>> Okay.
No worries.
Thanks.
>> Anything else?
Okay.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Are you sticking around for the next one then?
Which is also Mia's?
>> Oh, yes.
The --
>> ZCP 23-0028.
>> Absolutely.
>> Our site plan and --
>> I should have read the agenda before.
Okay.
All right.
This is ZCP 23-0028.
It is a site plan for Razor Ranch, as you know.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is required to approve those site plans.
This is for a multifamily development.
It's situated kind of in the center of the development, just north of the movie theater,
if you're familiar with that location.
It's about nine acres, and it does meet all of the requirements of the Razor Ranch Overlay
District, so staff does recommend approval of the request.
Once again, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
I may have to defer to Mia or maybe Haley, if there's anything too specific.
>> You got off easy, Julie.
>> All right.
Thank you.
>> Thanks.
All right, that'll take us to 4C, V23-0006.
Ashley is here for that.
>> Good evening.
>> Hi.
>> Is it mine?
Oh, there it is.
>> Oh, here it is?
>> Yeah.
All right.
Ashley Eckstead, Assistant Planner.
This is V23-0006, and this is a subdivision variance request for 3301 North Elm Street.
This is a variance to reduce the minimum number of vehicular access points from one full access
point -- or two full access points down to one and one emergency-only access, and this
is a proposed multifamily development located on the south side of North Elm Street.
They are requesting to vary from DDC 832C1C, which requires two full points of vehicular
access for residential uses with 30 or more dwelling units, and on this plan, you can see
that this will be their full access drive, and this does align with the existing median
opening and fall meadow, and then this point of access will just be emergency access.
And Elm is a primary arterial, so we do require 200-foot spacing between full access points,
so if they were to place the full access drive in this location, they would not be able to
preserve all of these trees that you see in this area.
This is zoned R7, so this approval of this request will not vest the multifamily land
use.
There will be a specific use permit at a later date to cover the multifamily land use in
this location, and this is proposed to be a 67-unit multifamily development.
And I do have a longer presentation for later, but I'm happy to answer any questions.
Any questions?
>> I think I just have a quick question about I know there's one criteria where they have
to meet alignment of an existing -- is that alignment of an existing -- explain that to
me, because I'm trying to understand, is it aligning to that cutout, because it's certainly
not aligning to fall meadows.
>> So I did go over that with our transportation department, and that was where they decided
was the best access point with the turn lane that's going to be provided on this side.
That was where they decided was the best access into that location, but it doesn't exactly
align with fall meadow.
>> Right.
So I guess it -- but it still qualifies in meeting that --
>> Yes.
>> Interesting.
Okay.
And I know that, obviously, they talked with FIRE, and they're okay with where this is
set and with that crash gate?
>> Yes.
So if it was 200 units, they would want the second point of access.
They are going to require an omnibox on this access point, so it would open automatically
for them as they were coming down the road.
>> Okay.
Commissioner Perot.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Maybe I'm not reading it right, but it looks like Site Driveway 1, as it continues through,
could continue south there in the future, or am I not reading it right, sort of between
where the -- >> It's kind of showing that way on this plan.
It's not like that.
>> It's not -- okay.
Got it.
>> But this is still -- so the specific use permit is still under review, so this plan
may not be -- >> Yeah, it's just the number of access points.
>> Yes.
>> Understood.
No, I just -- that was confusing me, given the fact that the city owns the parcel to
the south of it, and I didn't understand.
So thank you.
>> Yes.
This is regional detention to the south of it.
>> Yeah.
Okay.
Thanks.
>> Anything else?
Okay.
Thank you, actually.
>> Okay.
And then we've got another item for individual consideration, and that is for DPP230021.
That is for real, Julie's.
>> Okay.
Good evening.
This is PP23-0021A.
This is for the Prestige at Mayhill.
This is a multifamily project.
This might be one of the first of its kind, and this is the second extension.
I don't know if we've had another one of those, but they have requested a second extension
because they have not finalized all of the revisions and the corrections to the preliminary
plat.
We have no objection to that request, and so to that extension to November 15th this
year, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> Explain the second extension thing because I thought they could only have one 30-day
extension.
>> I think I'm going to let Haley jump in on this one.
>> Yes, that would be lovely.
>> Yes, that is, I would say, one of the few good changes out of House Bill 3699 that Chapter
212 of the local government code now reads that an applicant can request more than one
extension, but they can still only be for 30 days at a time.
>> So it could be --
>> It could be as many as they need.
They just have to come back each 30 days and request essentially a renewal of that extension
for an additional 30 days.
>> I don't know if we went over that, and if we did, I apologize that I forgot about
it because I don't recall --
>> Yes, so for any plat that applied after September 1, they can now request more than
one extension moving forward.
>> Okay.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Excuse me if this goes off topic, but just off what you were saying, do we have to approve
every extension request that comes before us?
If they come back with a seventh extension request, are we expected to approve that or?
>> I suppose that would be at the commission's discretion if you feel that denial would be
more prudent at that time, but typically as long as they're working with staff and making
that good faith effort to continue to address comments and things like that, we would recommend
approval of the extensions.
>> Gotcha.
We wouldn't be running afoul of any guidelines or laws.
>> I don't believe so, but we can certainly look into that more for you all.
Gotcha.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Anything else for Julie?
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Public hearing portion tonight, our 5A staff is requesting to postpone this item, so we've
got enough time to re-notice that, correct?
Or do we need to --
>> We would prefer if we could open the public hearing and postpone it to make certain.
>> Okay, so we do want to open the public hearing, keep it open, and look to --
>> Yes, and we plan to bring that back on November 15th.
>> Okay.
Questions on that?
No?
Okay.
Then our public hearing that will happen today is 5B, I think that's an I, SI230002.
>> Yes, correct, SI230002, this is a staff-initiated rezoning, so hence that project number.
So this is a request to rezone the property from Geo District to MN District.
You might be familiar with -- or have been aware that this was coming forward to you.
It is related to the DDC changes that we made about a month or two ago related to reasonable
accommodation, group homes, community homes, and then elderly housing.
This is an elderly housing development that was constructed in 2008, and with those DDC
updates, it did make this use nonconforming.
We did do the 929 notification on this and let them know that we would be returning with
the staff-initiated rezoning.
We did review this request in relationship to the criteria for approval and the Denton
2040, and determined it is consistent with that criteria and the Comprehensive Plan,
and so staff is making a recommendation of approval for this request, and I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Questions on this one?
Julie, I know in the backup when you were doing comparisons, zoning comparisons, you
still had it checked that elderly housing under Geo, so I assume that was just an old
thing?
It is an old thing.
Thank you.
I apologize.
That's fine.
I'll make sure that's corrected for the City Council.
Yeah.
That's exactly what I brought it up.
Thank you.
Yeah, I'm looking at that and it's like, "Wait a second, what are we doing again?"
Okay.
I think that was my only question there.
Anybody else?
Pretty straightforward.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
That is our agenda for this evening, so we will move to our work session report.
We've got one today and it is 3A, PZ 23251, Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion Regarding
Municipal Airport Overlay District.
Good evening, Ashley Eckstead, Assistant Planner.
Tonight we are going to be discussing the airport height hazard overlay and the compatibility
land use district, and these are both part of the municipal airport overlay in our DDC.
So, the overlay does apply to the city and the ETJ, and these standards conform to the
current FAA regulations and the needs of the Denton Municipal Airport.
And we're having this discussion based off a specific use permit last year for a telecommunications
tower that was encroaching into the height hazard district, so we're going to go over
more detail of that later on in the presentation.
And on this image over here, you can see how large this overlay is, how far out into the
ETJ it extends.
And so, this larger one is the height hazard district, and then this one closer to the
airport is the compatibility land use district.
The height hazard district, this district establishes height limitations on structures
and natural objects within the area traversed by flight tracks of aircraft, and it does
contain four sub-districts, the approach, transitional, horizontal, and conical.
And on this image, they're color-coded, and you can see where each one of these districts
is and where they are in relation to the city.
The airport website has a lot of information for developers.
They have a tab specifically for development for on-airport and off-airport development,
and this is one form that all development within a five-mile radius of the airport is
required to fill out, and the airport website does provide information on this form and
also a link to the FAA website where the developers can fill this out.
And then the FAA will send a determination letter that's reviewed by the airport.
The airport also provides a tool to estimate if you're going to be encroaching into the
height hazard district.
This link is also on the airport site, and this is what the form looks like for developers,
and they can input the structure type, the coordinates, the site elevation, and the proposed
structure height, and this form will tell them whether they are encroaching.
And this is not a confirmed determination or anything like that, but it does help them
in the planning stages of their process.
So encroachments into the airport height hazard district, this is the general outlay of the
process.
First, they need to provide the determination letter from the FAA on the effect of the safety
of the airspace, and then the airport would review that request.
If a specific use permit is required, either for the height or the land use, that would
be the next step, and then the last step would be to request a variance from the Zoning Board
of Adjustment to encroach into the airport height hazard district.
And this is the example from last year.
An applicant had proposed a 150-foot monopole telecommunications tower, and a specific use
permit is required for all monopole towers over 85 feet.
So there was a specific use permit, and that went to planning and zoning and city council,
and that was for the height of the tower itself and not for the encroachment into the airport
height hazard district.
So because they were encroaching into the airport height hazard district, which limited
them to a height of 810 feet above mean sea level, and the proposed tower was 871 feet
above mean sea level.
So after their specific use permit, the next step in the process for them was getting a
variance approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the actual encroachment into the airport
height hazard district.
So if the specific use permit wasn't required for the monopole tower over 85 feet, that
step would not have been required in this process.
So they would have just went to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the variance to encroach
into the height hazard district.
And Erin is going to walk us through the compatibility language district.
Erin Stanley, assistant planner.
So the airport master plan that we currently have was completed in 2015.
This just didn't change anything for height district requirements or land use from the
1995 master plan, which was in alignment with the FAA regulations.
The airport will start a new master plan at the end of this year and should be completed
in about two years.
The airport doesn't anticipate any changes to the height district requirements or land
use district may have a few small changes.
So once that's completed, we will work with them and look at the master plan, do any DDC
updates as needed.
So the second airport overlay district is the land use district, the compatibility district.
So this is going to regulate land uses that could be, could conflict with airport needs.
Some land uses are prohibited and others just have certain additional standards that they'll
need to follow if they are impacted by noise from the airport.
And there are two sub districts of this compatibility district.
You can see them both here.
We have them in our DDC as well as the interactive map.
The first compatibility land use district is the inner circle.
And then the second is the outer circle.
So in the first one closer to the airport, all new residential uses are prohibited.
Both districts do also prohibit educational facilities unless they're specifically related
to aviation, and they both also prohibit healthcare facilities.
And then in the second district further away from the airport, new residential structures
are allowed, but they need to comply with the FAA standards for noise mitigation or
execute an avocation easement, just recognizing that there will be impacts on the, on the
residences, but they're accepting that.
And then again, they both prohibit the educational facilities and healthcare facilities.
And that is our presentation.
Any questions?
Thank you.
Questions?
Commissioner Perrot?
Thank you, Chair.
It's always fun learning new things.
On the height overlays, can you go back to, I think there was an early slide that showed
the geographic, yeah, that one, one, I just didn't know, but apparently it looks like
all landoffs, landoffs, landings and takeoffs come from or go to the north as opposed to
the south.
Is that accurate, I guess?
Do you want to?
Go ahead.
So the, no, the orange part that's to the south there, that's the takeoff space.
They really just, the way the planes take off, they don't need as much height district
there.
They just angle right up.
All the things move.
So it's more the approach zone.
Thank you.
That's the important part.
And then is, sorry if I didn't see this in the backup, but ballpark in those four height
zones.
What is the height limit?
I know the 85 foot was above or one of them was 85 feet because that's what we talked
about with that tower location.
And is that just for towers or is it for buildings as well?
It's for buildings and any natural objects too, like any trees would be also limited
to this, but I think it's mostly would just be buildings and tall towers.
They go up sort of incrementally.
There are different ratios for each district that they go up.
Generally, it's just further as you get away, but it's all based on the elevation of the
very like inner purple part that you see, because that's going to be the elevation of
the actual runway where the planes are.
So then it's complicated because you have to take into consideration that elevation and
compare it to your real elevation and then measure with the calculation.
So when we talked to the airport, they said, we don't even do that math.
The FAA does that math.
We just like review it and see if it will work for us with what they come back with.
We were trying to do the calculations and it's complicated because you have to reference
it to the landing strip.
We have slides with each of these districts, the zone's calculation, if you want to see
that.
No, it's just fascinating.
I was just trying to understand whether, my guess is since we haven't seen any other applications
and there's been a fair amount of development in that zone that none of the industrial developments
have run across that limitation and those are typically what, like in the 40 to 50 foot
high range?
So, okay.
I would say typically the zoning district already regulates it enough.
So it's mostly just taller towers or really tall buildings.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villareal.
Thank you.
If you could just explain for a bit why we preclude hospitals and educational facilities
in that second district but not residential?
I am honestly not sure.
Haley, do you have an answer for that?
That's how the DDC states the districts.
My understanding is it's all just related to the noise and the nuisance that that could
create for those particular uses.
For example, in the second district, we allow residential structures, but they have to execute
that easement or sign off on something that says, we're aware that our house is going
to constantly be under noisy conditions that may not be pleasant to live in.
Whereas a school or a healthcare facility, everyone that's in that building that could
be bothered by that nuisance, we wouldn't be able to get all of them to sign off on
something saying, we're aware of this and we agree to waive our right to a peaceful
learning environment or peaceful hospice environment.
So it's all noise related and nuisance potential.
Got it.
Have we had a lot of residential development in that district?
I know to the south, do you know more?
I'm not sure.
No, I don't believe there's been a lot of new development.
There are some existing homes that are generally nonconforming to the zoning that are out there.
I do believe with the development of Colt Ranch, eventually we'll see possibly some
of those uses proposed in that area and may have to navigate some of these waters.
But so far it has not been an issue, mostly because the zoning out there is already for
industrial type uses primarily.
Gotcha.
And just in that scenario that potentially new homeowners would be given the information
about...
Correct.
There would either be the FAA form that they would have to fill out or there would be an
easement placed over the property and then they would be made aware of that when they
go to close on the new home or something of that nature.
Sorry, one final point.
Is there a reason why we just don't go ahead and preclude it for new developments?
I'm just a little perplexed here.
My understanding is everything in our airport districts is based on federal statutes, so
we just adopted standards consistent with what the FAA allows around any airport nationwide.
Okay.
Thanks.
Thank you, Commissioner Villarreal.
So I guess kind of in that same thing you've got here, must comply with noise mitigation
standards that is written by the FAA?
Yes.
Yeah.
So the DDC does say that they must comply with the noise mitigation set by the FAA.
And the FAA requirement is 65 decibels level of how much you can restrict the sound I guess.
And so that's the FAA standard for their noise mitigation in that district.
Yeah, and I know I asked for this work session.
It's been a year, so I'm trying to remember exactly why.
I feel like it had more to do with the process of what they had to go through because they
had to come see us and then they had to go to the zoning board of adjustment.
And I'm pretty sure I think that's why I requested this.
So I still think we have like a process issue that is kind of burdensome.
I don't know if you --
Sure.
I guess the only thing I would add, and when we were looking through the code preparing
for this, the only use that would fall into that category of having to go to potentially
P&Z Council and ZBA is actually cell towers.
Most of the other uses in those districts, I guess there could be maybe some really obscure,
I can't think of what it might be, like really intense industrial operations someday that
wanted a super high building.
But as Ashley and Erin mentioned, the zoning districts take care of most of this issue
for us because they don't allow structures to be high enough that they would run into
an issue with the airport.
It's the cell towers that can get those exceptions to go higher than certain levels that would
be the potential encroachments that we would most likely have to regulate.
So it's a very narrow issue.
We do agree that it's a complex convoluted process for them, but it is few and far between
that we would have that occur.
And our regulations are coming direct from FAA?
Yes.
Yeah, the height standards are.
We did talk internally about this.
I guess there is a world where we could consider a code amendment in the future to change who
oversees those height adjustments and maybe switch that from ZBA to a different body in
the event that there's a concurrent SUP request, but we would have to amend the DDC to do that.
At this time, like I said, that's the only case I've seen in eight years with the city
that had to go through that three-step process, so I don't think these occur very often.
And we have an airport committee, right?
I believe so.
They will be assisting with that master plan update.
Okay.
Yeah.
They should look into that.
Especially because the subject itself is something that -- I mean, you all did a great job, honestly.
That was a wealth of information in a very short time, so thank you.
But it's odd for us to be, I feel like, seeing this kind of thing, and certainly ZBA to see
it as well.
It just, to me, the process doesn't -- it just doesn't seem to quite make sense for
the people who have a better knowledge of what we're actually dealing with here.
So yeah, I think more needs to be -- more needs to be done, for sure.
Yeah, and I will say, in the instance where this occurs, they -- in that case, the cell
tower already had full FAA approval for the height, so it was more of a -- unfortunately
kind of a ministerial function for ZBA at that point, because the Federal Aviation Authority
had already said, yes, this height is good.
It's not going to create a safety hazard of any sort.
So yeah, that's something we could look into in the future, but we would have to consider
how to amend the code to get people out of that process.
Yeah, I just -- yeah, I feel like we really are -- like, it's just kind of burdensome,
and seemingly, yeah, like, in front of the wrong body, to me.
Anyway.
Anybody else?
Commissioner Pruitt.
Yeah, I guess just along the vein of the process, one of the things I was trying to understand
by looking at the map there -- and I understand it's complicated because it's based on the
runway height, and so we don't really have a purpose-built GIS layer that just calculates
all that.
But I was trying to think through, you know, if the person or entity doing development
in this region is the one responsible to go to that FAA site and fill this thing out,
and then we're over here approving zoning compliance and that sort of thing, is there
a point at which we verify that they've filled that form out if they're doing something within
that zone?
How does that work?
Sure.
Do you want to speak to that, Ashley, if you want me to?
So the airport is involved with -- on our pre-application conferences and things like
that with all those kinds of projects, but mostly that are closer to the airport.
They said their biggest concern really is the approach zone.
That's where they're most concerned with.
So we do check for definitely a building permit, but at every step of the process when we know
it's in one of these zones, we're kind of looking out for that.
But for the most part, the buildings aren't going to be encroaching into these zones,
but the airport likes the 7460 form to alert them even if there's a temporary obstruction
so that the FAA can alert airplanes and things like that that there's a crane or something
like that.
Sure.
Yeah, because, I mean, it begs the question of, you know, do some of the industrial buildings
that are going up need, you know, an aerial easement or something to be able to have the
crane above a certain height or something?
So that sounds like there's a meeting process in place to make sure that's connected, so
thank you.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Thank you again.
Thank you.
Like I said, you did a great job simplifying complicated information and teaching us a
lot.
We appreciate it.
Thanks.
We're going to move on to the last thing on our work session.
So I will go ahead and adjourn us at 536 p.m. and we will reconvene at 630 in council chambers.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, October 25th, 2023.
With a quorum present, I will call us to order at 630 p.m.
For the record, Commissioner Smith is absent from today's meeting.
First item on our agenda is Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one indivisible.
Thank you.
Next item on our agenda is to consider approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
minutes for October 11th.
Commissioner Villarreal.
I move approval.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to our consent agenda this evening.
Commissioner Villarreal.
I move approval.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Okay.
First and a second to approve the consent agenda.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion will carry 5-0.
That will take us to our items for individual consideration.
We are going to go a little bit out of order because one of our staff members is running
a little bit behind.
So at this time, we're going to take item 4A and 4B and move them below C and D. So
we will start now with 4C, V23-0006.
Ashley is here for presentation.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.
Ashley Eckstead, Assistant Planner.
This is V23-0006.
This is a subdivision variance for 3301 North Elm Street.
This is a request for a variance to reduce the minimum number of full vehicular access
points from 2 to 1 and also provide one emergency-only access.
This is a proposed multifamily development located on the south side of North Elm Street.
They are requesting to vary from DDC 832C1C, which does require at least two full points
of vehicular access into residential uses with 30 or more dwelling units.
And staff will be recommending approval.
And on this site plan, Site Driveway 1 will be their full access point that aligns with
the existing median opening, and Site Driveway 2 will be their emergency access.
Elm is a primary arterial which requires 200-foot drive spacing, which would put their second
full access point into the area that they are wanting to use as tree preservation.
The zoning on this site is R7, and they are proposing a 67-unit multifamily residential
development.
A separate specific use permit application will follow at a later date for the multifamily
use.
Approval of this subdivision variance does not best the multifamily use on this property.
This is another view of the same design.
You can see this is their full access drive.
This is their emergency access, and this will be their tree preservation area.
And on this aerial, you can see how many trees are along their west property line that they
would like to preserve.
This was one of their alternative proposals.
The main driveway is still in the same location, and you can see the driveway that it goes
through the tree preservation area.
This does meet the 200-foot minimum drive spacing.
They would not be able to meet tree preservation requirements with this plan, and we also want
to limit access to arterials, and this would not align with that goal.
The criteria for approval for subdivision variances are in DDC subchapter 2.
Due to the property shape, the existing trees, the existing property frontage, and the existing
roadway classifications, it would be challenging for the property to meet all applicable requirements
of the DDC and TDCM.
Granting this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
and the special conditions were not based on the results or actions by the owner.
Staff does recommend approval of the request as it complies with the criterion 245E and
287D of the Denton Development Code.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Ashley.
Any questions?
I do not see any.
Thank you so much.
This time, Chair can entertain a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Move approval.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Is there any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
Now we will hear 4-D, PP23-0021A.
I'll invite Julie down to present that item.
We're going to do 4-D, Julie.
Yep.
That way we can let Mia get organized and we'll bring her up then.
Sorry about that.
All right.
Didn't mean to catch off guard.
No.
That's okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Pruitt, and I am presenting PP23-0021A.
This is a preliminary plat for a proposed multifamily development located on the north
side of Edwards, just east of May Hill.
They still do have some items that they need to correct in order to meet the technical
requirements of a preliminary plat.
However, staff has no objection to their second request for an extension to the November
15th, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Questions for Julie?
Thank you.
Chair can entertain a motion or discussion on this item.
Commissioner Cole?
I make a motion to grant the extension to November 15th, 2023.
Okay.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Second.
We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of November
15th, 2023.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
Now we will jump back up to 4A and hear FP230026A.
Hello, Mia, thank you for running through the rain.
It's all good.
Hi.
All for the love of planning.
This item, FP23, I'm sorry, Mia Hines, Associate Planner, this item, FP23-0026, is a final
plat for what is now Hickory Grove, phase 1A, from the formerly known Legends Ranch within
that Legends Ranch mud.
When this was sent out to you, staff was recommended to denial.
We have since worked with the applicant to get to a recommendation of approval.
So now that they are satisfying or meeting all of our criteria, we are recommending approval.
And with that, I'll take any questions or comments that you have.
Thank you.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Yes, sir.
I just wanted to check one thing since the amendments.
On that third sheet, I think it's that bottom thing, you can actually see it right here.
This one?
Yeah, to the left of there, where there's a street stub and there's not an easement
for a turnaround shown.
Can you just explain why there's nothing shown on the plat at that point?
For this area here?
Or an emergency turnaround easement at the termination of that road?
I believe here, so I think a fire reviewer probably would have warranted that.
I believe here that the street stub was not long enough to require that, and so that's
why it is not shown.
Thank you.
Anything else from you?
Thank you.
We can entertain a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Pruitt?
I'll move approval.
Commissioner McDade?
Second.
Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval discussion.
Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion will carry five zero.
Now we will hear four B, ZCP 230028.
So again, Mia?
Mia Hines, city planner, I'm sorry, associate planner.
This item is a zoning compliance plan for the Razor Ranch Town Center Phase 2A.
It's a multifamily development coming in as sort of an infield for that Razor Ranch Town
Center that's currently under construction.
Of course, for Razor Ranch site plans that come in in the south mixed-use district, site
plans have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
That's why this is coming before you tonight.
The site itself is 9.7 acres, generally located at the southeast corner of West University
Drive and I-35.
Again, this is the town center multifamily development.
A few months back, we approved a revised site plan for the retail, just to the north that
included Target, Dick's Sporting Goods, and then the indoor recreation establishment,
Andy B's, is to the south of this site.
So for the zoning, of course, this is within the Razor Ranch Overlay District.
The base zoning for this specific site is RCCD, part of the RR1 town center sub-area,
and again, the permitted or the proposed use is multifamily and that is permitted within
this sub-area.
For the site plan itself, we had to look at ordinances 2016-017, specifically exhibits
B, D1, and C3 for the architectural and landscape guidelines for this particular site.
With this zoning compliance plan, we looked at the site plan, the general layout, the
landscape plan, as well as four-sided building elevations, conceptual building elevations
to ensure that they are conceptually meeting the requirements of the Razor Ranch Overlay
District.
We did go through the specific criteria for approval listed in the 2002 DDC that applied
to this specific sub-area, I'm sorry, this overlay district.
The site plan does substantially comply with the concept and schematic plan approved by
city council.
The site plan also provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses as
required per this criteria.
The site plan also provides for an adequate and safe circulation of vehicles and traffic
and extends the existing roadway infrastructure as well as bicycle and pedestrian paths that
are on-site.
Finally, the plan fully complies with all other sections of the overlay district as
applicable.
This is the site plan, and of course the site plan was also included in your packet.
Just a broad overview, they are proposing 324 residences.
With that comes a proposing 577 vehicular spaces as well as 55 bicycle spaces, which is over
the required amount for bicycle spaces as well as parking, but the Razor Ranch Overlay
District does not have a cap, so they are within their rights to do that.
As far as access and circulation, the site is utilizing a budding private street system,
so this particular sub-area itself does not touch a public street, but within the Razor
Ranch Overlay District, there are private streets with public access easements on them
for anyone to access.
It also connects the main north-south drive to the north retail area to the south retail
area, so it's again that infill lot building out that access for that main north-south
drive.
That drive that they're proposing within their site is a multi-use driveway, so there is
dedicated or a shared access, so where there's bike lanes on the main point of access as
well as eight-foot wide sidewalks on either side of the access point.
Then throughout the site, there are ranging from about four feet to eight feet sidewalks
as well, connecting the site internally as well as to existing stub-out pedestrian paths
on the exterior of the site.
As far as site amenities, they are proposing a dog park, pool courtyard, and an indoor
child play area, and those items are consistent with the Razor Ranch Overlay District standard.
The landscape plan is here and providing your backup meeting your requirements.
The total landscape area coverage for this site is just under 18%.
The total tree canopy coverage for this site is 34.6% meeting the minimum requirements
for this site.
The reason that the tree canopy or one of the reasons that the tree canopy for this
site is so high is because if you recall in the first phase when the retail development
came through, we allowed that particular site to be under 25% with the insurance that the
25% for the lot, the town center lot, would still be met throughout, and so to compensate
for some of the trees that were not included in that first phase, they have included additional
tree canopy coverage here.
These are the proposed elevations.
Just wanted to give you an idea of what would be facing I-35, that to the top left there,
what would be facing the interior courtyard, as well as what would be facing the abutting
private street to the east.
This is what's facing that main north-south drive, again, pushed a little closer to the
street to hopefully discourage people from speeding straight down, straight through the
Razor Ranch overlay district, and again, I think the sort of on-street parking that's
set up here and the shared access with it being for vehicles and bicycles will also
help with that.
Here's some more elevations.
Of course, the conceptual elevations for all buildings were included in your backup as
well, and those are consistent with the requirements.
So just information, we are recommending approval, as it does comply with all of the standards
applicable criteria for approval for Razor Ranch, and with that, I will take any questions
or comments you have at this time.
Thank you, Mia.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a couple questions on that north-south spine.
It looked to me like it was, with the exception of the parallel parking on the outsides, there's
two 15-foot wide lanes reserved for travel.
It's like a 30-foot wide area.
Does that just come from the 2002 development code that this overlay is based on, and that's
why that's so wide?
Yeah, so the actual dimensions of the internal drive is pretty much up to the applicant because
it's a private drive.
We've given them some standards, but I think in this case, it's that wide to accommodate
for both bicycles traveling and cars traveling and parking, and then I think maybe the applicant
is here, and they can speak to that a little bit if they'd like.
Okay, yeah, I mean, I guess, well, you know, my concern is just that the way it's laid
out, it looks like it's got the Shero emblems kind of right next to the gutter on the side,
and then I've seen that in practice in other communities around the Metroplex, and it seems
like it gives everybody the license to be mad at somebody else as opposed to making
it clear where everybody's supposed to be, so I just wanted to understand where that
came from.
So it's a private street, so therefore the design of the cross-section is up to the developer
to pursue it, that it's within some modicum of guidelines that ... Okay, all right, thanks.
Commissioner McDade.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yeah, I just have a simple question.
It may just be a typo, but on your first page, just in case anybody's watching, you have
US 280, I don't want to ... 380, that is a typo, yes, sir.
Okay, I mean, if anybody's watching, I don't want them to be trying to ... I'm looking
up at highway 280 and I can't find it.
Okay.
It's generally located at the southeast corner of West University, US 380, and I-35.
All righty, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner McDade.
Any other questions for me, y'all?
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, at this time, we can entertain a motion or further discussion.
Okay.
Commissioner McDade.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion will carry 5-0.
That will now take us to our public hearing items this evening.
5A DCA 23-0011.
I will go ahead and open the public hearing and make mention that staff is requesting
that we postpone this item to a date certain of November 15th, 2023.
So we are looking for further discussion on that or a motion.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair, I'll move that we table this item until date certain of November 15th,
2023.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Second.
Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval to postpone this item to a date certain of
November 15th, 2023, with the public hearing remaining open.
Any discussion?
Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion will carry 5-0.
That will take us to 5B SI 23-0002.
I will open the public hearing and Julie is here for presentation.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt, principal planner.
And I'm presenting SI 23-0002, 2801 Spencer.
This is a staff-initiated rezoning.
The request is to rezone approximately 19.5 acres from general office district to mixed
use regional.
You've got two maps on the screen, or sorry, three, but two zoning maps on the screen.
This is that existing showing that existing geo color for the subject property and proposing
to rezone to that purple color.
The property is located on Spencer, on the north side of Spencer, east of loop 288, kind
of between loop 288 and Mayhill.
The intent of this rezoning is to align that existing use with the permitted uses in the
zoning district which permits its use.
It is an elderly housing development that was constructed in 2008.
We recently underwent some DDC amendments to modify our development standards for reasonable
accommodation, group home, community home, also elderly housing.
As part of that code amendment, we removed elderly housing from geo.
We felt like some of the uses in geo could create some incompatibilities with elderly
housing, so we wanted to just kind of separate those uses.
In doing that and doing that DDC update, we did make this property nonconforming.
This really is just to align that use with correct zoning.
It would just provide certainty for not only the residents, but also the property owner,
make sure that continued investment can be done on the property.
The comprehensive plan designates the property as regional mixed use, MR, is consistent with
that future land use map.
It allows a variety of uses, residential, commercial service, and office uses typically
found at that scale that you see on arterial roadways like Mayhill and Loop 288.
Also so it complies with other goals of the comprehensive planning, including our land
use one that grow compactly.
This is an existing use on an existing roadway.
We want to make sure it stays viable and vibrant, and then it's also consistent with our housing
regulations that MR district allows that existing use to remain, providing necessary housing
for the community who lives there.
You can see that the property on that future land use map, the subject site is really centered
in that regional mixed use, surrounded by what is intended to be regional mixed use
around it.
We also look at impacts to any surrounding property.
I should note that the property is not intended to redevelop at this time.
They have no intent to do so.
We just wanted to make sure that any nonconformity that we created, that we made sure that we
at least addressed.
MR district is a logical extension of that zoning to the west of the site.
As you can see on the map, there is quite a bit of that purple color west of the subject
property, so it really is just an extension of that zoning pattern.
The north and east of the site is zone G.O. district.
G.O. district does also provide a lot of uses that are compatible with MR, so we really don't
expect any incompatible development to emerge surrounding the subject site.
I won't read all of this, but as we've talked about in previous items related to that nonconformity,
just wanted to let you know just broadly what a use is nonconforming in the debt and development
code, how that impacts it.
We don't make nonconforming uses leave.
They can continue to operate at that location.
Where the challenges come in is if part of the property was damaged or they wanted to
do any expansions or substantial improvements to the property, that's where there are limitations
on that with the code.
That's really the intent of this, is to make sure that they can make that reinvestment
in the property.
Public outreach was sent out.
The newspaper ad, the property was posted.
Commissioner Ellis did alert me that she's like, "Was the property posted?"
Yes, we did get signs on the property.
There are some pictures on your screen just to confirm that with the commission.
We also sent out the mailed notices.
We have not received really any written responses either for or against.
We have received calls at the city.
We've also reached out to the property owner for that elderly housing development because
we were changing their zoning.
We wanted to make sure that they were aware of that.
We had some discussions.
They did respond back to me.
We offered to hold a neighborhood meeting for the community.
They didn't feel like that was necessary.
They didn't ask for that, but they were neutral on the request, so neither for or against
just wanted to know.
We've also talked to some residents of that community, also similar, wanting to know what
is this, just explain to them what the situation was.
Really haven't received a lot of response either for or against.
Staff does recommend approval of the request.
It complies with the criteria for approval of the Denton Development Code.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Is this tentatively scheduled for the beginning of December going to City Council?
We've got some holidays coming in, so the calendars get a little bit tricky at this
time, so we're looking at the beginning part of December for Council if this moves forward
tonight.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Any questions for Julie?
Thank you very much.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any cards in front of me, nor do I see anyone in council chambers, so I
will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Villarreal?
I move approval.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Second.
Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will take us to our Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix.
I will turn it over to Haley.
All right.
Just a couple of quick updates on the City Council front.
The Stuart Apartments SUP that you all heard a few weeks ago for the additional height,
that was postponed to the November 7th council meeting after their discussion here with the
P&Z.
They decided to try for some additional neighborhood outreach prior to going to council, so that
was postponed, and then the SUP for the multifamily on Dutchess Drive that you all heard at our
last meeting was approved four to two at last night's City Council meeting.
Just a few other things to make you all aware of.
You should have received a packet while we were at work session today for the special
called meeting next week on the 1st at 4 p.m., so you can look for that in your backup and
feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions once you start digging into those
materials.
And then our other two area plans, because next week is dedicated to Northeast Denton,
so just some quick updates on the others.
Southeast, they are continuing their outreach and doing intercept surveys around Southeast
Denton, so you may see Julie and Mia out doing surveys at some random locations throughout
the community trying to get additional feedback on visual preferences.
And then our downtown plan is also moving along, and we anticipate a joint meeting for
that with you all and City Council in early December, so you can look for that calendar
invite as well, and happy to add anything else to the matrix that you all may have in
mind.
Great.
Thank you.
Anything to add to the matrix?
Okay.
I'll just piggyback a little bit just on that November 1st meeting.
There is a lot of material there, so if you all could, yeah, just take some time, a little
bit at a time, and just so you're prepared for next week so we can -- it's going to be
a lot to go over in a very short amount of time, questions out ahead of time, or at least
be prepared with questions, that'll help that meeting to be productive for sure.
Okay.
Any concluding items?
Commissioner Villarreal?
Do you want to remind folks that early voting is continuing today through next Friday the
3rd.
You can vote anywhere in Denton County.
Vote for the propositions and the constitutional amendments.
Thank you very much.
Any other concluding items?
Commissioner Cole?
Thank you, Chair.
That packet, is that on our Outlook, or is that coming --
That would have gone to your city email.
Okay.
Yeah, came from Kathy.
Okay.
Anything else?
Okay.
I will go ahead then and adjourn us at 7 p.m.
Thank you, everyone.
Be safe out there.
[BLANK_AUDIO]