>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission
meeting for Wednesday, November 15, 2023.
This is our work session and with the quorum present I'll call us to order at 5.03 p.m.
I'll let the record show that Commissioner Smith is absent at this time.
First item in our work session is citizen comment on consent agenda.
Is there anyone wishing to speak on consent?
Okay.
Seeing none we'll move on to our second item which is the clarification for tonight's agenda.
First we have our minutes from October 25th and November 1st.
Any questions, comments?
Next is consent agenda.
And I think you all saw the e-mail that came through.
There was a -- that needed to be removed on one of the plats in consent.
Okay.
Moving on to our items for individual consideration.
Our first one is our calendar for next year.
Haley, you want to -- I don't know if you want to say anything or --
>> Sure.
Yeah, I'll let Julie pull it up on the screen just in case there's anything we need to look
at.
>> Great.
I did have a question just regarding March spring break week.
>> Okay.
>> I know that that is the week of some spring breaks.
I'm assuming probably most, I believe.
In the past we've had an issue I know getting a quorum that week.
I don't know if that would be the case this year.
But I believe it's that week of the 10th.
>> Okay.
Yeah, we can look at that and confirm I believe you're right.
Our goal was to try to avoid PNZ and council meeting in the same week.
And I believe they're meeting on the 5th and the 19th in March.
>> Okay.
>> That week.
>> Yes.
Yeah.
So, yeah, I guess just bring that to your attention.
And if we have to tweak anything, because I don't know how that works even for y'all.
You're going to have absences and whatnot.
Yeah.
So, I know, it's so far out that, you know, we can all say, oh, yeah, we'll be here.
And, you know, but --
>> Sure.
And I don't know, since Sean is here, he might be able to look and see if we would run into
any shot clock issues if we do not have that meeting.
I believe that was the other thing we were trying to keep in mind is keeping our meeting
spaced for plats to be able to have that 30-day window.
>> Hi, Sean.
>> Yeah.
Hi.
Yeah.
Sean Jacobson.
Yeah.
As Commissioner Pruitt taught last year, we always have to check to make sure that we
have no more than 30 days between dates, so that would be the only part that we would
have to check.
And I'm sure we can confirm that between now and when we get to --
>> Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I guess we've got plenty of time to, like, if we saw a problem, tweak it at that.
>> Sure.
>> Okay.
Anybody else with questions on the calendar?
Okay.
Thank you.
Let's see.
Next item on our individual consideration is for B. We did have a late email come through
on that one.
I don't want to steal your thunder, Julie, you go right ahead.
>> I'll be brief, I promise.
All right.
Julie Wyatt.
And this is a preliminary plat for the prestige at Mayhill.
The subject property is there at the intersection of Mayhill and Edwards.
It is a preliminary plat for a multifamily development.
They had a couple of items that they had to address in order to get approval.
They did work diligently with staff in order to meet all those technical requirements.
And so staff is now -- has modified the recommendation from your backup material to a recommendation
of approval and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> Any questions?
Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
>> Thank you.
>> All right.
That will take us to 4C.
That would be Shawn's.
Do we have any questions on that or do you want to go ahead and say what you need to
say?
>> Absolutely.
Shawn Jacobson and this is a plat for the 100 north loop 288 edition.
So this is off loop 288 and McKinney.
And they have not quite met all of our comments yet and they're close.
So we are recommending approval of an extension.
Recommending not, but we're cool with the extension.
>> Thank you, Shawn.
4D, that's yours as well.
I think it's going to sound similar.
>> Very much so.
This is the Mayhill edition.
It is off Mayhill and again, they're very close but haven't quite locked down all of
their details including some things with surrounding neighbors and so we're not yet ready to recommend
approval.
>> Okay.
Questions?
Anyone?
No.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
4E belongs to Ashley and 4F and 4G as well.
>> Ashley, excellent planner.
This is a final plat for Sagebrook phase 2.
This is for 42 residential lots and this did originally come over as an extension but they
were able to work through all of their comments so we are now recommending approval.
Happy to answer any questions.
Just one quick one.
I recall when the preliminary plat came before us some time ago, there was some discussion
on the covering of a gas well that was capped or something and I think it was in this region.
>> It is right -- this is pointing to the gas well right here so that will be an HOA
lot that's required by their PD so it is right here.
>> Very good.
Anybody else?
Okay.
Thank you.
I know you've got the next one as well related.
>> And this is Sagebrook phase 2B.
This is for 115 residential lots and they were able to work through their outstanding
comments on this one also so we are also recommending approval for this one.
Happy to answer any questions.
>> Okay.
No questions.
Take the 4G then.
>> This is a final plat for the cottages.
This is approximately 1.8 acres.
It's one multifamily lot.
They do still have outstanding comments so we are recommending denial but we have no
objection to the requested extension.
Happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Ashley.
Thanks.
All right.
That will take us to our public hearings.
We've got two this evening.
First is 5A DCA 230011.
Hi, Cameron.
>> Hello.
>> This was one we opened the public hearing back on the 25th and left that open and then
postponed it until now.
>> Yes.
Good evening, chair and commissioners.
Cameron Robertson, principal planner.
So this is an update to our debt and development code regarding private cemeteries.
The proposal is to update four different sections of that debt and development code.
Our table 5.2A, section 5.34, table 7.9I, and our section 9.2.
The rationale for this is House Bill 783.
It does allow for private cemeteries to be established or used within the city, especially
due to the fact that we are within a county of a population of more than 750,000.
Currently, we do not regulate nor recognize this land use, and prior to this, they were
not permitted in within city limits.
So staff is recommending approval.
And I can stand for any questions.
>> Thank you.
>> Commissioner McDade.
>> Thank you.
>> This is a public hearing because I -- >> This is a public hearing, yes.
>> Okay.
I may wait.
I'm just having a big issue with those two words, privately owned.
I don't -- I mean, it says -- I really want to get a good definition of a probably owned.
I mean, are there stipulations with a probably owned?
I mean, are they -- >> Yes.
We did create a definition.
And I'm going to go into a little bit more detail, but I can share that definition right
now with you.
>> Yeah, that'd be great.
>> Here.
So it is -- what we're defining a privately owned cemetery as is it can be established
by an individual, corporation, partnership, firm, trust, or association.
So that's that private aspect of that definition.
And then the cemetery itself, it can be used or intended to be used for internment and
does include a graveyard, burial park, mausoleum, or any other area containing one or more graves.
So this is all text that was brought from that House Bill 783, as well as that Texas
Health and Safety Code.
>> Okay.
Well, I guess the issue I'm having, you know, with probably owned, you know, like established
by an individual, I mean, you may see it one way, but I see it -- I mean, I see it two
ways.
>> Okay.
>> Because, I mean, we still remember IAOF Cemetery, where, I mean, it was owned by,
I guess, a group of individuals, and they were told, hey, only certain people can be
buried here.
That's the problem I have with a probably owned cemetery today.
I mean, if I buy it, I make -- I mean, I'm allowed to make up the rules, correct?
>> Correct.
>> See, that -- I have a big issue with that.
I mean, this is 2023, and I don't see where anyone should be able to say, hey, I don't
want you buried in my cemetery.
You know, I have a real issue with that.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Commissioner McDade.
I know things that are governed within -- I forgot what that manual is.
What that is?
Yeah.
The Texas Health and Safety Code.
I don't know if anything is -- I don't know what's addressed there with regard to any
of Commissioner McDade's concerns.
>> From what I've seen, I don't believe it addresses anything with respect to who could
be buried within the cemetery.
It's more the regulation specific to how it's created and ensuring the health and safety
issues that could be associated with the cemetery.
>> Correct.
So from our understanding, going through the House bill and having legal go through the
House bill, it's essentially what is -- we're going to be establishing via ordinance will
be what regulates it, and then as part of that ordinance, we've stated that it is required
to be reviewed as a specific use permit.
So it does allow for some varying degrees of -- I guess -- there's nothing that we have
established within the ordinance that stated that people are allowed to come up with something
outside of our specific use permit requirements in terms of only X religion can be buried
here or -- so I would have to point to legal in this case, because it is a House bill and
I'm not sure of the kind of the specifics of that Texas health and safety code.
>> Okay.
Well, okay.
Yeah.
If you could somehow get a legal aspect, because, I mean, I remember IFF, but I also remember
Oakwood Cemetery when, you know, I mean, I'm almost 60 years old, well, that was almost
50 years ago where people of color could only be buried in one section of that cemetery.
And it actually filled up, and now, you know, they're being buried all over, but I just
-- I just don't want to go back to those days, and being a private-owned cemetery, I mean,
you're rolling back the clock on a time to where, you know, it -- I mean, it is what
it is back then, but now, 2023, I just -- I have a real hard time dealing with that one.
>> Understood.
So I guess during maybe our break, I can speak with legal and maybe we can try and find you
an answer so that at the public hearing portion, we can have that discussion.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
Anything else on that slide?
Okay.
Our next public hearing is 5BZ230012.
That belongs to Sean.
>> Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission.
Let me go ahead and pull up my presentation here.
And we'll hit just the highlights for now.
This is a zoning change, Z2312, that's just off Teasley, and we're going south of Robinson.
This is a request for rezoning from a planned development to a suburban corridor district
on 1.09-acre property currently vacant.
This was created as part of a PD in 1999, and that PD, as well as subsequent amendments,
have designated this to be developed commercially, but have vested it in a variety of outdated
codes.
This rezoning would allow it to develop with a suburban corridor use under all of our current
standards.
And staff has reviewed this and does recommend approval.
Happy to answer any questions.
>> Questions for Sean?
>> Just out of curiosity, I mean, I will miss the PD numbers in the backup, so forgive me
for being general in my description, but I believe the lots surrounding this, the commercial
lots anyway, are still under the PD that this one is being proposed to be zoned out of,
right?
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> Is the reason that those are not within this application also because it's a different
owner or because those are already developed and there's no need to at this time?
>> I would say both of those are correct.
There are a range of owners, and they have already developed, so they wouldn't need to
come forward with a detailed plan, whereas this property would have to do that in order
to develop.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Any other questions?
>> I'm still trying to understand exactly what the property owner is trying to do.
You know, the uses are almost the same, you know, and it's a one-acre tract of land, so
I'm not even worried about, like I think was mentioned, like, oh, they can't do heavy industrial
or something like that.
Well, they're not going 200-acre site anyway.
So the only thing that gives me pause is, you know, PD right now, it's that it has to get
looked over at the site plan and whatnot, and if we do this, that part of it's gone,
and it is right next to Wheeler Ridge, I mean, it does side to those homes.
So I'm trying to wrap my head around, you know, do we have enough in the code right
now that is protective enough?
So that's what -- I'm trying to understand exactly what the owner is trying to avoid
is just a couple of steps here.
>> I can't necessarily speak to the owner's intent, but I think at least from staff's
perspective, having this reviewed under our current standards instead of the 2003 parking
code, the 1998 landscape code, we've developed more robust standards since then.
>> Yeah.
Yeah.
And I like all of that.
>> Yeah.
>> Just the part I don't like is the review that's there in place in the PD now.
So I'm still kind of churning through that.
>> If it is helpful, and obviously they're not at all held to this, but this was -- they
came to us with a plan for commercial development, essentially a two-story medical office and
retail development on that, in that space, which would be permitted under either --
>> Yeah, but that's allowed in the PD, right?
>> Mm-hmm.
>> Now they could do that.
So that's -- see, that's where I'm going with this, is like I'm trying to -- I'm trying
to understand.
>> Yeah.
And part of what staff considered is -- so essentially the PD permits that use by right,
our code permits the use by right.
The way it would be reviewed is essentially the same.
This does take out that public hearing process, but at the same time, it's -- it would be
very hard for the commission or council to find reason to deny a site plan when the use
is already permitted by zoning and if they meet all of the standards that are in place.
So it's somewhat of a -- just putting something that should not be subjective because it's
meeting the code through a discretionary process with that detail plan amendment, since that's
really all that they have left to do under the PD at this point is get the site plan
approved.
>> Right.
So why do they want to go --
>> So it just allows them to go through the --
>> Why do they want to go through this expense?
All they had to do was put a site plan together and bring it forth under the PD.
>> This would allow them to do that site plan by right through the administrative process.
So they understood coming in that they had a public hearing in their future no matter
which path they went.
Their choice was to fall under current code and go through what would then become a staff
approval of their site plan versus bringing the site plan through the public hearing process.
>> Okay.
And you all in reviewing don't think we're losing anything that we have in that PD?
>> No, I actually looked pretty closely at it and even did try to do a comparison one-to-one
of what requirements were one versus the other, and I could tell it was either going -- as
far as I could tell, it was either going to be comparable or we would have some superior.
And actually with our parking, it allows us to potentially avoid some over parking issues
that could otherwise occur.
>> Okay.
Okay.
Question?
>> Just real quick, you've answered most of my questions already.
But is there a reason why we aren't able to update the PD through this process as opposed
to changing it to straight zoning?
Is that something that we can -- that we're able to do, or is that just cost prohibitive?
>> If the applicant had decided to pursue that, certainly that could have been an option.
I think it would have been -- it would have been a lot of changes to make to the PD because
the PD talks -- I mean, invested in uses that are set back in the '90s, landscape code back
then.
Essentially, you would have been doing almost the same thing and then saying, but you'll
still have to come back and have it reviewed.
I think it is a very complex PD.
With many factors to it, keeping that around is maybe not the best planning recommendation
if it's not needed.
>> Sure.
I guess I just have concern about setting a negative precedence that harms future communities
going forward.
If we have, you know, vote for a PD down the line and in 20 years we decide to -- or not
us, but a future commission decides to change it to straight zoning without the community's
approval, I think that would cause some grief down the line, but that's neither here nor
there.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
>> Sean, is this the last parcel in this PD?
>> It is.
>> Okay.
Any other questions?
Yeah.
I know these get complicated because, yeah, I think what Commissioner Villarao was going
for is, like, why can't we just bring them into today's code, you know?
There's still the PD with all these restrictions, but let's just bring it, you know, into -- and
I think there's a way that we could do that because, yeah, we've seen these things before
where we've got to change something because they're just outdated, they can't work, it
doesn't work, and today's code and whatnot, but anyway, okay.
Thank you.
Thank you for answering our questions.
Appreciate it.
That's the last item on our agenda for this evening, so we'll go ahead into our work session
report, which is 3A-PZ-23259, and that's Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion Regarding Capital
Improvement Project Address for Elm & Locust, Bonnie Bray, I-35, and Westgate.
Hello.
Thank you for your patience.
>> All right.
Good evening.
My name is Trevor Crane.
I work for Elm & Locust Capital Projects, and tonight I'll be giving you a few updates
on those listed projects that you just talked about.
So first, we'll start out with Elm & Locust.
So currently, Elm & Locust is a couple different phases.
So Elm & Locust Phase 1, the limits of that project were from Walnut to Eagle.
All the utilities have been completed on that project.
So Elm & Locust is a little funky.
Both those streets are actually TXDOT owned roads currently, so I'm going to get to that
here in a minute.
But TXDOT is responsible for actually fixing the street, the pavement on the street.
We have been working with them probably since I've been here, and I've been here four years,
longer than that actually, but working through kind of what that looks like, what that cross
section needs to look like, and all those things.
So we actually are bringing an agreement to council within I think the next council date.
So we've worked through, TXDOT will be starting to do that reconstruction of Elm & Locust starting
Q2 of 2024.
So they will be reconstructing both Elm & Locust from Walnut to Eagle.
Elm & Locust Phase 2, so that's going to be from US 380 down to McKinney.
That is a project that Capital Projects will be delivering.
So we have water, wastewater, drainage, and street reconstruction.
We will be looking at sidewalks, but really that project is contained to the actual roadway.
A portion of this project was funded in the 2022 county trip bond.
We're currently at 60% design, and we estimate moving forward with that construction in quarter
4 of 2024.
So we will be completing all the utilities on that section and doing the street reconstruction
on that segment.
So the Elm & Locust turn back.
So turn back is an agreement that we're going to have with TXDOT that we're working through
right now.
The resolution to city council went in November of 2023.
And then we're currently awaiting approval from the TXDOT Transportation Commission.
So once both projects are complete, both the roads will be turned back over to the city
of Denton by D transfer, and then we'll own both of those roadways moving forward.
>> Can you go back for a minute?
>> Sure.
>> Sorry.
I'm probably going to stop you there just to see.
>> No, that's fine.
Yeah, we can -- >> Do you have any questions on these items,
Commissioner Peruppe?
>> Thank you, Chair.
So maybe my math is fuzzy, but it looks like there's a gap between Walnut and McKinney
that is not incorporated in this Phase 1 and Phase 2.
>> Yeah.
Phase 2.
>> So the square is not being reconstructed as a part of any of these projects.
There is a -- we're looking at some of the utilities there and looking to try to get
those out of the square.
It really makes a lot more sense if we don't have any utilities, you know, in those streets,
so that we don't have to come back.
But we probably will have to do some construction in the square, but really, Almond Locust Phase
2, it goes around the square.
So there will be complete street reconstruction from 380 all the way to Eagle and that piece
of Eagle that goes to Dallas Drive.
>> Okay.
>> So the street will be reconstructed the entire way, minus maybe some of the square.
>> Okay.
So those little stubs north of Walnut and south of McKinney would still be incorporated?
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Because it's within the 600 feet of the intersection or something like that?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
I think that was it.
Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Good.
>> And -- no.
>> Oh, sorry.
>> No, super quick question.
>> No, you're good.
>> Yeah, so with the Phase 1, so the reason that the road is abysmal right now is just
because they've been doing drainage work and whatnot, I mean, are we going to get rid
of the --
>> Yeah, so the reason it's like that is because -- so normally TxDOT does not allow utilities
underneath their roadway.
Almond Locust is a little different animal just because there's nowhere else to put utilities
outside of the roadway.
So that's one of the reasons why we work through this turn back so that we can keep the utilities
in the roadway and then the city of Denton will be responsible for the actual roadway
itself.
So what happened was we came through, did all utilities, so you'll see kind of those
patches that go across the street.
Some of them are going with the street and they've settled and now you've got kind of
that bumpy road.
Usually what happens and what will happen on Almond Locust Phase 2 is we'll come in, do
all the utilities and then reconstruct the road so you have a brand new -- you have brand
new utilities underneath it, brand new surface.
That didn't happen because TxDOT is responsible for doing the roadway.
So that's part of the reason why -- and then we're actually supposed to do Almond Locust
the part north of the square.
We told them to wait because we have utilities to do there.
We don't want the same issue to happen.
Or we don't want them to put a new pavement down, us come in, tear it all up and then
reconstruct it again.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
So the finished product is going to be a smooth road?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, we've been working through kind of what that -- so the city of Vinton's cross-section,
so what we require like pavement thickness, subgrade is a lot more robust than what TxDOT
requires.
So we've been working through what that looks like because, of course, they want to go back
with what they do because it's cheaper.
We want it to be to our standard because we're going to have to maintain it for, you know,
from here on out.
So we've been working with them and we finally got that agreed, too, and so that's why they're
going to be moving forward in quarter two of next year.
>> Okay.
Commissioner Perot.
>> Sorry, I thought of another one.
>> That's okay.
>> The -- so you said all the utility work that's planned south of the square in phase
one has already been complete?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> As a part of phase -- as a part of phase one, yeah.
>> Okay.
This may be general comment or questions to some on the downtown area plan that's ongoing.
I know many moons ago visionaries, before we redid a lot of the square, had the money
somehow to bury a lot of the utilities, overhead utilities, right?
And that went down to Prairie, I think, and it didn't go further south, and it extends
even a shorter distance north of the square.
I didn't know if there were any thoughts along with the downtown plan to expand that area
in the future or -- >> Yeah, I'm not sure about that specifically,
so we are working with Cameron and Sean and their team as a part of that downtown plan,
specifically with Elm and Locust phase two, to understand, you know, what we can incorporate
with this project.
We don't want to kind of delay Elm and Locust phase two just because it's been, you know,
it seems like 50 years, so -- but we are working with them to understand what can be done as
a part of that project, and then, you know, kind of how that folds into what they're doing
as a part of that project as well.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Anything else on this one?
Okay.
Thank you.
>> Perfect.
>> Let's go to Bonnie Bray.
>> All right.
Bonnie Bray.
So Bonnie Bray has multiple phases, so I'm going to kind of walk through these.
Bonnie Bray phase one is from Rose Lawn to Vintage.
Project's complete.
Bonnie Bray phase two is actually Vintage itself.
That project is also complete.
Bonnie Bray phase three, Rose Lawn to I-35.
We just started breaking ground on that project within the last couple weeks.
We have an estimated completion date of quarter two of 2026.
Pretty large project.
Bonnie Bray phase four A and four B. So that was one project at one point.
They broke it out, did the roundabout, so the roundabout's actually complete.
Bonnie Bray phase four B is I-35 to Scripture.
That is that 90% design.
That project was also included as a part of the 2022 county trip bond, and we're holding
off on construction.
We're going to bring it all the way to 100%.
I don't want to start construction on that one right now, kind of the same thing with
Bonnie Bray phase five because I can't have all of Bonnie Bray under construction all
at the same time with I-35 also under construction all at the same time.
So trying to phase those out will bring them all the way to 100%, and then once we get
close on Bonnie Bray three and six, then we'll start looking at rolling those out and starting
that construction.
Bonnie Bray phase five, Scripture to US-380.
That's also at 90% design, kind of the same story, was included in that 2022 county trip
bond, and then we'll probably start both of those constructions pretty close together
once five and six are getting close.
Bonnie Bray phase six, so that's US-380 to US-77.
We're working through our final utility relocations on that and working to get our final letter
of intent from TxDOT, so that has a lot of TxDOT funding associated with it, so it's
a little longer process, but we're really close on that one, should be bidding it out
the beginning of next year and then starting construction on that one in Q2 of 2024.
And I'll pause there for any questions on Bonnie Bray.
What is your guesstimate on phase six completion?
It is a two-year project, if I remember correctly, so probably Q2, 2026.
I would probably push that to Q3 just because there's going to be a lot of coordination
with this project along with some of the other projects I'm going to go through here.
Really that whole section is about to be under construction here pretty soon, so.
Any questions for Bonnie Bray?
I'm sure it will be nice to get it done, especially with all that growth there, so.
So the I-35 utility relocation project, so these are all projects that my team is delivering
and they're in conjunction with the I-35 widening projects that TxDOT is doing, so I'll go through
those here on the next slide, but.
So we have multiple projects broken up into different segments.
We have the I-35 relocation at Mayhill, so that's Loop 288 to Mayhill.
That project is actually almost completed.
We're finishing up some final things, so we're looking at, you know, probably end of this
year maybe pushing into the beginning of next year just to work around some of the businesses
that we have right there.
Northwest Water Transmission Line, so that's Loop 288 to Nicosia.
That project is currently underway and we're looking at an estimated completion of Q3,
Q4.
Also the next one is 380 to Milam.
Construction is underway with an estimated completion of Q2 of 2024.
The merge to 380, Q2 of 2024 as well, and then we have a utility relocation at Fort
Worth Drive.
That construction is estimated to begin in quarter one of 2024 with an estimated completion
of quarter three of 2024, so those three I just talked about, we worked really closely
with TxDOT.
We have a very expedited timeline on getting their projects out, so we worked to get ours
out and get them finished before they needed to be out there.
And then the final one on this is our Milam Creek Gravity Sewer, US 77 to Ganser.
This one is going to start in Q2 of 2024 with an estimated completion of quarter three of
2025.
And the next slide kind of goes with these, so I'll run through those as well.
So these are the actual TxDOT projects.
We aren't managing these projects, but TxDOT is managing these and this is the actual widening.
So the I-35 relocations at Mayhill, they're looking to start that construction in June
of 2025.
The Loop 288 to Nicosia, they're looking to start that construction or let date.
Their wordage is a little different.
That's when they send it out to bid, it's let date.
So they're looking to do that in July of 2026.
380 to Milam, they're letting that in April of 2024.
Same with the merged to US 380s, that's one of the reasons we had to get our projects,
our utilities out of the way so they could start those projects.
Fort Worth Drive, they're looking to let that one in June of 2024.
And then 77 to Ganser, April of 2024.
How long is that bidding process typically?
30 days, usually.
30 days.
And then is there any kind of time from when they award that to start?
Yeah, usually it's pretty quick.
TxDOT has a separate kind of bidding procurement than we do at the city.
So all of their projects have to be what we call low bid.
So that's kind of whoever is the lowest bidder wins those.
We can do those.
We don't really do them anymore just because you kind of get what you pay for in that way.
So we do a lot of what we call competitive sealed proposal, which brings into some other
factors instead of just price.
Really, another word for it is best value.
So that's what we do a lot.
And we've also started doing CMAR, which is construction manager at risk.
Just a different way to deliver projects.
Any questions on Commissioner Pruitt?
So I'm guessing the I-35 EW merge, that's a fairly large project, right?
Absolutely.
It's like $500 or $600 million.
Yeah, I don't have the numbers.
It's a lot of money.
So I can tell you, TxDOT is spending a lot of money in Denton County right now in the
billions.
I'm just trying to turn my brain through how many decades longer it'll be before Bonnie
Bray is finished.
So if they're letting mid 2024, it's probably a, what, three-year project, even if it's
accelerated?
You're talking about for the TxDOT project?
Yeah.
I can get those dates for you.
So we get what we call an on-system report that we go through during mobility committee.
So you can pull it off of the mobility committee.
They have some estimates.
They'll give you all the costs with it and all that stuff.
So just to refer back to the Bonnie Bray, you had, I think it was phase three and five?
Three and six.
No, sorry.
Three and six.
No, no, no.
Four B and five.
Oh, four B and five, yes.
The to-be-determined construction start date would be aligned at the completion of that
35Y project?
I don't want to guarantee that, but those are things that we take into account of when
we're going to let those projects.
So that was one of the reasons why I don't want to, you know, technically I could move
both of those four B and five to 100% within the next couple months, get them out to bid
mid-next year.
And then I've got I-35 all under construction, Bonnie Bray from, you know, Roselon all the
way to 77 under construction.
Doesn't make a lot of sense.
So that's why we're kind of taking those things into account.
We want to see how those projects are progressing.
We can get our projects done so that we've got, we don't have the whole corridor under
construction, you know, we're very cognizant of construction fatigue, making sure you can
get from A to B. And that was one of the goals on Bonnie Bray B, or Bonnie Bray, to kind
of do it in chunks, because we knew 35 was going to be under construction.
So try to get that, you know, another north-south corridor built.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Anything else there?
Okay.
All right.
So the next one is Westgate Drive.
So I didn't put a map up here, which I should have, because it gets really confusing.
But so the limits of this project are from I-35 to Westgate.
There's a north-south Westgate that goes from Windsor and Dead Ends.
That's a part of this project as well.
And then there's an east-west Westgate that goes from I-35 and Dead Ends to Bronco Way.
So this project will actually connect I-35, the east-west Westgate, from I-35 to Bronco
Way, which means it'll be a straight connection from Bonnie Bray all the way to I-35.
Does that make sense?
Okay.
So it's kind of a square with missing the I-35 piece.
So this project includes water, wastewater, drainage improvements, roadway reconstruction,
and pedestrian improvements.
So when I say pedestrian improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes where applicable, those types of
things.
So this project will connect east-west Westgate to Bronco Way and then we'll rename that to
Bronco Way all the way so we don't have multiple brownie roads and Westgates and all those
types of things.
We're trying to clean that up.
The project will connect north-south Westgate to the new Bronco Way with limited vehicular
movement so there'll be no left turn onto Westgate.
That project is currently at 60% design and we're estimating construction start date in
quarter three of 2024.
Questions there?
So you're renaming, it's the Westgate that comes off of Bonnie Bray now, right?
Is that getting renamed?
So the Westgate comes off of, so the north-south Westgate comes off of Windsor.
It doesn't actually connect to Bonnie Bray.
Bronco Way, they've renamed that piece that they built right by the high school, the east-west.
We'll connect that and then name it Bronco Way all the way to 35.
So there's a piece.
That's the piece you're renaming.
Correct.
So there's a piece that's in between current, the Bronco Way that's in front of the school
and east-west Westgate that there is no road.
It's not constructed.
So we're going to connect those and then name that Bronco Way the entire way.
So those people have a new street name who live there?
The north-south Westgate will not be changed.
Okay.
So that's saying Westgate.
The new piece is...
Will be Bronco Way.
Will be coming.
Correct.
Bronco Way.
Okay.
Interesting.
Any other questions?
I hope all of those people know when you get started in there just because they're going
to be very surprised.
They're not going to be surprised.
Trust me, they know.
Good.
This has been a long time.
Oh, I know because I remember at one time that wasn't going to happen, that connection.
Yeah.
There used to be a road there that got closed and then it's been a long time.
Yeah.
So they know.
We have lots of community meetings.
Okay.
Good.
They've got my number.
Good.
Okay.
All right.
So that's all I have on those projects.
Are there any other questions that I can answer?
Any other questions?
Okay.
Trevor, thank you.
Yeah.
Great.
Thanks for having me.
Appreciate it.
It's incredibly helpful and I know we've been talking about wanting to have that discussion
for a bit now so...
Yeah.
Anytime.
Thanks for making the time.
Appreciate y'all having me.
And good luck and we hope for smoother roads soon.
We'll try.
Thank you.
Thank you, Trevor.
Okay, that was the last item on our work session.
So we can...
Madam Chair.
Yes.
Of course.
Can I address something very briefly?
Oh, of course.
Okay.
Of course.
So staff is very quick and got an answer to Mr. McDade's question so I just thought it'd
be good to address it.
That would be lovely.
Okay.
Yes.
Thank you.
And thank you, Cameron and Tina.
So we were all furiously looking and they're much faster than the attorney in finding the
legal basis.
So the way staff has written the ordinance says that any of these private cemeteries
have to comply with the Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 711, which specifically has
a discrimination prohibition in it, so that says a cemetery organization may not adopt
or enforce a rule that prohibits interment because of the race, color, or national origin
of a decedent and there's other provisions too, but it's covered.
What I wanted to hear, because I mean, my deal was, you know, if I build apartments
and I keep certain people out, I can be shut down and fined for that, so this should apply
to anything that's being done in the state of Texas, but that's the answer that I was
looking for.
Yeah.
Now I can put my mind at ease right now.
Absolutely.
No, staff did a great job in creating that ordinance and it's all covered.
Yep.
Thank you very much for that.
Thank you.
That is great.
Thank you.
Okay.
There's no other questions.
We're going to go ahead and adjourn at 545 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, November 15th, 2023.
With the quorum present, I will call our meeting to order at 630 p.m.
First item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one and indivisible.
Thank you.
That will move us to consider the approval of our meeting minutes from October 25th and
November 1st.
Commissioner Villarreal.
I move approval.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We've got a first and a second to approve our minutes from the 25th and the 1st of November.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to our Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Move approval.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We've got a first and a second to approve the Consent Agenda discussion.
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to our Items for Individual Consideration.
First item for APZ23260, that's the Consider Approval of our 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Calendar.
Julie, I guess you're going to put that up?
Thank you.
You bet.
So during the work session, I had brought up that we do have a scheduled meeting during
the week of spring break.
Staff was able to look things up timeline-wise.
They did say we had a couple of options if we wanted to entertain them.
We could move the 13th meeting to the 6th.
That would put us back-to-back meetings last week of February and then the 6th of March
if we wanted to do that.
Or they said they would also be okay to cancel that meeting on the 13th and just do one in
March and the timeline would still be okay.
Commissioners, do you have thoughts on that?
Commissioner Smith, I know you were not at work session, so I don't know if you wanted
to weigh in at all.
I don't have any care about the -- not that I don't care about spring break.
I have no opinion about the meeting of spring break, but if we're able to cancel it and
still be on the right timeline, I think we should do that versus doing back-to-back.
Okay.
Is there any other -- go ahead, Pamela.
I just wanted to note, if you would like to cancel the meeting on the 13th and switch to
one meeting in March, we would propose that be on the 20th.
Just balance out that month?
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you, Chair.
Really, my only question is to staff with the number of area plans that we have going
on and touch points and final hearings and all that, does going a month between meetings
there risk delaying some of that progress or would we not be the long pole in the tent,
so to speak, so it doesn't really matter?
I think Tina's going to come down and speak to that.
Hi, Tina.
Hey, Tina Fargans, Deputy Director of Development Services.
So great question.
In looking at some of our scheduling, I think we would be fine, especially if we go to one
meeting in March.
The other thing is, just past the conversation we've had, we always have the ability to call
a special meeting if we needed to, to be able to address anything to those projects.
Any other thoughts, discussion?
Okay, Commissioner Villarreal, you've got a motion.
I'm of approval of the present the PNZ calendar with the change of March to a single meeting
on March 20th.
Okay.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
Okay.
Is there any discussion with that change?
Okay.
Great.
I'm going to vote then, please.
That motion carries 6-0, and thanks to all staff for working through that and doing those
timelines and all of that.
Very much appreciated.
Okay.
That will take us to 4B, PP23-0021, and Julie is here to present that item.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt, Principal Planner with the City of Denton.
I am presenting PP23-0021.
This is a preliminary plat for a multifamily development near the intersection of Mayhill
and Edwards.
On your backup, it did have a recommendation of denial.
They did have a couple of items they needed to work through in order to meet the technical
requirements for platting.
Since the agenda posted, they have been able to work through those, and so staff is recommending
approval of the preliminary plat, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
Any questions for Julie?
Thank you.
I do not see any thanks.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Perrett.
Second.
I've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to 4C, FP23-0030.
Shawn is here to present that item.
Good evening.
Shawn Jacobson, Associate Planner.
I'm just gonna pull my item up here.
So this is a final plat for the 100 North Loop 288 edition.
This is located at the corner of Mayhill and Loop 288.
At this time, it does not meet our criteria for approval, and therefore staff is not recommending
approval, but does not have any objection to the second requested extension to a date
certain of December 13th, 2023.
Thank you, Shawn.
Any questions for Shawn?
Commissioner Villarreal.
Do we believe the second extension will provide them with enough time to?
We do.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of December 13th, 2023.
Thank you, Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of December
13th, 2023.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to 4D, FP23-0031.
Shawn is here again for presentation.
Good evening again.
Shawn Jacobson, Associate Planner.
This is a proposed final plat for the Mayhill edition.
This is off Mayhill.
At this time, it does not meet our criteria for approval, therefore staff is recommending
denial, but does not object to the first requested extension to a date certain of December 13th.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Questions for Shawn?
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Villarreal.
I move approval of the extension to a date certain of December 13th, 2023.
Thank you, Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of December
13th, 2023.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to 4E, FP23-0028.
Ashley is way up for presentation.
Hi.
Good evening.
Ashley Eckstead, Assistant Planner.
This is FP23-0028.
This is a final plat for Sagebrook Phase 2.
This is for 42 residential lots on approximately 9.5 acres.
This was originally an extension request, but they have worked through all their outstanding
comments and we are now recommending approval.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thanks, Ashley.
Any questions?
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to 4F, FP23-0029.
Ashley here again.
This is FP23-0029.
This is a final plat for Sagebrook Phase 2B.
This is for 115 residential lots on approximately 24 acres.
They also were able to work through all of their outstanding comments and we are also
recommending approval on their final plat.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
I do not see any questions.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner McDade.
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to 4G, FP23-0032.
Hello again, Ashley.
Hello.
This one is a final plat for the cottages.
This is one multifamily lot on approximately 1.8 acres.
At this time, we are recommending denials that they do not meet all of our criteria for approval,
but we have no objection to the requested extension to a date certain of December 13th,
2023.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
I do not see any questions.
Oh, yes, I do.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Just real quick.
Do we believe they're able to complete the task within the length of the second extension?
They're not going to require a third or a fourth extension?
Yes, they have very few comments remaining on this one.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve the extension request date certain December 13th, 2023.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of
December 13th, 2023.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to our public hearings for this evening.
First one is 5A, DCA230011.
Cameron's making her way down for presentation.
That public hearing was opened on our meeting on October 25th, and it was left open.
Good evening.
Cameron Robertson, principal planner.
This is for DCA230011, Private Cemetery Use.
So House Bill 783, that was passed this past summer and needs to be implemented by September
1st.
Essentially, this House Bill is allowing for individuals, corporations, partnerships, firms,
trusts or associations to establish or use a cemetery in a municipality that is located
in a county with a population of more than 750,000.
Currently, the city does not regulate nor does it recognize this land use.
Staff did feel that it was necessary to allow for this use in zoning districts where funeral
and interment facilities are permitted, with the exception of our mixed use downtown core,
as well as allow for this use in residential rural, our R2 districts, as well as our public
facilities where current non-city-owned cemeteries currently reside.
So in terms of that, the staff has made recommendations and proposed amendments to four different
debt and development code sections.
The first one was that Table 5.2-A, which I just had.
The next one is 5.3.4-I.
This is a new addition for cemetery privately owned, which relates to stating that the cemetery
does need to comply with our Texas Health and Safety Code, which does include a discrimination
clause.
In addition, it does require that a privately owned cemetery may not be maintained in a
manner that does adversely affect public health, safety or welfare.
We've also made amendments to our minimum required off-street parking.
It will be following that same city-owned cemetery use.
So it will not require a minimum parking requirement.
Lastly, we do need to define what privately owned cemeteries are.
So using that Texas Health and Safety Code, as well as that House Bill 783, staff has
implemented a place established by some individual corporation, partnership, firm, trust or association
that is used or intended to be used for internment and includes a graveyard, burial park, mausoleum
or any other area containing one or more graves.
So staff is recommending approval, as it does meet our Code Text amendments, as outlined
in our Section 2.7.4-D of the Debt and Development Code.
And staff's next steps are going to City Council on December 5th.
And I can stand for any questions.
>> Thank you, Cameron.
Any questions?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Smith?
>> I make a motion to approve.
>> Great.
Commissioner Cole?
>> Second.
>> Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
And I am going to just step back because I did actually not close the public hearing
on that item.
So I guess -- okay.
We will go ahead and close the public hearing.
I did not have any cards wishing to speak on that item.
I apologize.
That will now take us to 5-B. That's Z230012.
Sean is here for presentation.
I will open the public hearing.
>> Okay.
Good evening, Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, here to present Z23-0012.
The Teasley commercial rezoning.
This is a request for rezoning from a planned development to a suburban corridor zoning
on a 1.09-acre tract east of Teasley and south of Robinson, essentially just south of that
intersection.
Background here, this was part of a PD, PD 176, that was created in 1999.
As part of that PD and the following amendments to it, this was part of an area designated
for commercial development, and one aspect of that is that the property is now vested
in a number of outdated codes, so everything from the 1998 landscape code to the 2003 parking
code.
And a little background, at that time we created a number of PDs because the 1991 code was
essentially on its last legs.
We were getting very close to updating it, but it was fairly outdated, and so PDs were
being created in part to address the fact that we had a very old code.
At this time, this rezoning would allow development of the site under suburban corridor uses,
but under our current DDC standards.
So staff is recommending approval.
Just to give you a little, we went into just a little bit of the history there, it is currently
a vacant lot.
It's the last remaining lot in this area, surrounded by developed commercial and industrial
properties.
Industrial, that's just self-service storage, but we do classify it that way.
There is a drive aisle and infrastructure already built onto this lot that connect it
to the surrounding commercial development.
As we said, mix of somewhat outdated codes applies, you see on the table there.
We did confirm that there are no previously approved conditions of approval that still
apply to this lot.
So there have been various plans approved over the years as part of this PD, but none
of those provisions apply to this lot that have not already been met.
So the impact of this, this would enable development of a similar mix of uses as is currently permitted
by the PD.
It would exclude some uses that would not necessarily be appropriate such as vehicle
sales, commercial laundry, dormitory, and it would require that any development follow
our current standards.
So current landscape code, street trees, which were not required by the code, this would
be under, et cetera.
As you know, one of the most important things we look at is consistency with our comprehensive
plan and our future land use map.
The suburban quarter zoning district is consistent with the primary future land use designation
here, which is community mixed use.
So that's where commercial uses are predominant and it's designed to bring commercial that
raises the standard of design.
So again, keep in mind that this would ensure that any future development would follow our
current code that does align with the intent of that future land use.
In addition, this does help to further the goals of our comprehensive plan, goal LU3,
maintaining, strengthening neighborhoods, commercial employment areas.
One of our actions there is to create and apply design and development standards to
improve development quality and functionality.
So again, bringing development there up to our current code levels.
We did send out the standard notifications on this and received no responses.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting and no one was in attendance.
So with that, staff does recommend approval because this does meet our criteria for approval.
Happy to stand for any questions and the applicant is also here, although I believe it does not
have a presentation, but can certainly answer questions.
>> Thank you, Sean.
Any questions for Sean?
Sean, they would, I assume, use this drive that is currently there that services the
other spaces or would they need another one?
>> That would be my -- they could develop with the existing drive that would give them
the two points of access and cross-access that we require.
>> Okay.
I do not see any other questions.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any cards.
Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item?
Okay.
With that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion
or a motion.
Commissioner Smith?
>> Make a motion to approve.
>> Commissioner Cole?
>> Second.
>> We've got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Villarreal?
>> Yeah.
Very much appreciate all the work you all have done on this and definitely want to make
sure we are updating the standards to the current code.
However, I have apprehension at removing the public hearing requirement in the PD and perhaps
some negative precedents this may set.
So with that, I will be voting no.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Commissioner Perrett?
>> Point of clarification.
This is a public hearing now, right?
So are we removing this public hearing from the process and the public hearing that would
be present at council?
>> Well, I mean, this has to go before council.
>> Yeah.
So there's this public hearing as an opportunity for the public to speak and then there will
be another public hearing at council to speak.
>> Oh, absolutely.
>> Okay.
>> Right.
>> So, look, there are many times that we set PDs as the zoning for good reasons because
we can't achieve what we need to for that parcel.
Doing so does not guarantee that it will never change, just like any zoning change.
It guarantees our citizens to do process, the ability to come before us again if it
does change and speak their minds.
I, like many of you, wish others would have come tonight, but this was properly noticed,
the information in the back up of the notification process, and we're here tonight to be able
to clean up our code so that residents and business owners can contribute to our city
with less friction when they're really just looking to develop essentially the same thing
they're already allowed to.
I don't see why making that process more onerous on staff and the applicants has any benefit
when we still have a dual public hearing in this process as well.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
>> Definitely respect that point of view.
However, this is a bit more nebulous than a development coming before us in the community
having a chance to voice their piece on that development, so with that I'm going to stick
to my vote.
Thanks.
>> Any other discussion?
I'll go ahead and just say a few words.
I did have a couple of concerns with this request at work session that between how Sean
and Haley answered my questions and I delved further into the situation, while I appreciate
what the PD had in respect to having a public hearing on the design plan, when you think
about the fact that this is dealing with an old code, it is the last parcel that's here.
It is a one-acre site, so that's going to eliminate many things from being able to go
there.
And with our current code, I feel comfortable that the buffer to that adjacent neighborhood
will be absolutely adequate.
So yeah, I'm happy to have answered my question.
So thank you all.
There's no further discussion.
I'll go ahead and call for a vote, please.
That motion carries 5-1.
That will take us to our matrix, so I will go ahead and turn that over to Haley.
>> All right.
So with this evening's work session discussion, we will be able to strike a couple of the
understanding items off of our matrix, so we'll get that updated at our next meeting.
Just a few announcements related to council action.
There was a few items that were voted on on the November 7th agenda, and let me flip over
to that.
We do have an annexation that is working through the process that's out on East McKinney Street.
So once that process is complete, I'm sure you all will see a zoning case coming before
you soon after.
The criteria manual for street lighting as well as the associated code amendment were
approved by council.
We did have at that meeting a Tisley Lane multifamily specific use permit that was approved.
It was a pretty lengthy and lively discussion.
If you're interested in watching, there was quite a bit of debate regarding the tree preservation
on the lot, the access to the lot and things of that nature, but it was ultimately approved.
And then if you followed that meeting and the subsequent meeting, you'll notice that
the Stuart apartments, the SUP for the additional building height, was initially denied by council,
but a motion was made to reconsider, and at last night's meeting, they did approve that
motion to reconsider.
So that will be back before council in December for further consideration.
Some things for you all to keep in mind related to some of our area plans.
We do have the downtown advisory group meeting tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
That'll be at the development service center.
If you're interested in following along with that.
And then on December 4th, we do have a workshop for downtown that will be at 6 p.m. in the
evening at the UNT Cola building in downtown.
So you're welcome to stop by and participate and see how that event is progressing.
And then the following day on December 5th, there is a joint meeting with PNZ and council
and the downtown or I'm sorry, with the parks board regarding the downtown plan.
So that will also be our building at 11 o'clock.
So I'm sure you have it on your calendars already.
But if not, thank you.
You're now noticed.
Yes.
Thank you.
What was that?
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
What was that date again?
December 5th.
Okay.
Anything to add to the matrix?
I have one thing.
It comes from watching that lively discussion at the council meeting and it led me to think
that perhaps a discussion, a work session item regarding the concern over the subdividing
of commercial lots and losing tree preservation in doing so, can we maybe have a discussion
on that?
I think it could help us understand better what that means and understand that concern
by a council member, just to kind of see if we should be doing that, how often we do that,
just that kind of discussion.
Sure.
We can bring forward a discussion regarding the tree code and the subdivision process.
Okay.
Excellent.
Thank you very much.
Anything else on the matrix?
Any concluding items?
Okay.
With that I'll go ahead and adjourn our meeting at 6.57 p.m.
Thank you very much, everyone.