Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission Work
Session for Wednesday, January 22, 2020.
Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will open the meeting at 5.05.
Let the record show that Commissioner Smith is absent at the start of the meeting.
The first item of business is a work session report, and to receive a report and hold discussion
regarding city-initiated rezoning.
I'll invite Ron McGuida to present.
Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission.
This summary or presentation is really to bring you all up to date as to what is going
on with our city-initiated rezoning that we've started last year as part of the DEN plan,
I'm sorry, DEN code update.
We did two rounds of city-initiated rezoning following that the Council requested that
we have a work session to discuss the zoning changes, city-initiated rezoning due to the
fact that there were some property owners that had some concerns with some of the city-initiated
rezoning.
We brought to the City Council a presentation on November 19th of last year.
During the work session, we asked the Council three policy questions or considerations,
and these were the three considerations.
Should the city continue with city-initiated zonings only to address non-conforming uses
and structures, or two, should the city continue with city-initiated zoning changes addressing
non-conforming, and include properties in advance of future development or redevelopment?
And last, should the city just discontinue city-initiated rezonings as it relates to
property owners as far as the zoning of their properties, and let them come in with applications?
The City Council directed staff to go with number two, which is what we had hoped for
as a staff, wanted to continue our efforts with regards to city-initiated rezonings,
but they also provided some comments, considerations that we look to when we start to bring back
our next round, which will be our third city-initiated rezoning group.
In that, we involve the public as much as possible.
Where we would have public hearing notices, we would try to make sure that we meet with
them in advance, and this is not just the property owner, this is the residents within
200 feet, within 500 feet, so that we have a better understanding of what's being proposed
prior to the public hearings.
That we have property owner buy-in, that a lot of times, you know, we will suggest a
rezoning, and not all the property owners, but the majority of them wanted the zoning
change, but not all of them, we want to make sure that we have everyone that owns property
to be in with the proposed rezoning.
No downzoning, meaning that if the property is zoned, let's say a higher intense use,
such as an MR, going to an MN or something lower than that, we should try to avoid that
as much as possible.
Hold off on proposals when needed, so basically, make sure that if someone comes in and requests
a city-initiated rezoning, we should review that on a case-by-case, and not just automatically
put that as part of our city-initiated rezoning, so really just fully vet it through with staff
and with the general public.
And lastly, to not disincentivize the zoning change request, meaning that there are property
owners that still should proceed with their rezoning requests, and that shouldn't just
fall back on the city to do the rezoning ourselves.
So in essence, the council directs the staff to proceed with city-initiated rezoning with
the understanding that we fully vet those changes, those proposed zoning changes, and
also still continue to promote other ways of getting the zoning, be it by the property
owner as an example.
That's it.
Basically, we got our direction that we were hoping for, and we have put a list, we've
had a list, we're working on that list, we are continuing to meet with property owners,
with residents within a certain radius of those properties, and we hope to bring forward
a third round of city-initiated rezoning soon.
We don't have an exact date specific, but with all of the other stuff that we're working
on, it will probably be closer to late spring or maybe early summer as far as the third
round.
Commissioner Ellis.
Ron, are you focusing on a certain area for this next round?
No, we - let me see if I have the - it's hard to see, I apologize.
It's pretty much everywhere in the city.
We are looking at properties, again, using the criteria that we've used in the past.
So the answer to that question, no, it's not in one particular area.
We focused on corridors along I-35 for the first one, and then 380 in the loop on the
second one.
This one is probably going to focus more on the inner core of the city.
You can see that there are some still outside.
That stuff that we didn't consider the last time, but we still have on our list, so those
will still carry forward as part of the next group.
And then what happened with those properties that got pulled out of a city-initiated zoning?
There were a handful of properties, I know, that would kind of -
Right.
Postponed.
Where are those?
Those will be part of phase three.
That you're bringing them back?
Yeah, it's hard to see.
This is the one off of Lillian Miller in I-35.
There was one up here, exactly.
So they're still on the list.
They're still on our radar.
When we bring them forward, we'll reevaluate them a little bit based on council's direction,
and again, we hope to bring some city-initiated rezoning in the near future.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you.
So for the ones that got delayed, were they delayed for particular reasons, or...?
There were some questions, and working with the property owner, they asked that they be
postponed or be carried forward, so it wasn't necessarily a specific reason, per se.
I know the one to the Lillian Miller, there were some public comments, and we wanted to
make sure that we addressed those before we brought those forward.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions for Ron?
Thank you very much, Ron.
I wouldn't go far.
Locked those out.
No, no, I think you're good for the consent, but you're going to be back for the rest of
the evening.
Yes.
So the next item for business will be, if there's any changes to the minutes, we have the consideration
of January 8th minutes to look at, then we'll dive into our agenda.
Just wanted to update the record to show that Commissioner Smith is in attendance with us,
so welcome Commissioner Smith.
The next items are the consent.
We have three items, A, B, and C. Is there any question on item 3A that we want to have
Haley dive further into?
Item 3B.
Can we have Cindy Jackson, is she here?
Oh, there she is.
Can we have you present on 3B?
I think we have some questions for this item.
Okay.
This is a plat for Glenwood Meadows and it contains 102 residential lots and four open
space lots.
There is a gas well currently located here and this is designated for open space.
And the remainder of the plat is right here.
There is a plug with gas well that is on this site right here.
I've had some questions regarding the side of the plug gas well, whether or not we can
permit houses to be put on that.
We advise the applicant that it should be designated as open space, but we can't require
it because we don't have that requirement in our code.
Any questions for Cindy, Commissioner Beck?
I got a bunch of questions, so I'm going to cover them a little bit at a time.
Sure.
So if you blow up that plat a little bit, those closest homes are 250 and 300 feet.
That's like the fire code distance and we're, for what, 15 months now have been dabbling.
I know we are not allowed to vote on something that doesn't exist, but it clearly is in our
mindset to increase the setback distances.
Yes, and that 1,000 foot setback is right here.
It is clearly shown that this is now the 1,000 foot setback and this plat came in before that
requirement was in place.
So what we did is we've got it marked on the plat so that people who are interested in purchasing
the homes, they can look at the plat and they can see that it is within that 1,000 foot
area that will be non-conforming.
We were talking 500 feet, as I recall, but I admit, I know that doesn't exist right now,
so I'm being a little careful.
Yeah, I know you might be able to.
But then also, there had been ongoing discussions about just as you led off with the capped
gas wells, a building on top of them.
So I guess I'm a little concerned.
Let's let Haley hop in, maybe she'll have some clarity, and then we'll continue the
questions.
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.
The 1,000 foot radius shown on there is the notification requirement in the code.
That is a requirement that on a plat in your HOA documents, in every form of notification
that we can require, that the homeowners be notified they're within 1,000 feet of a gas
well, that that well could be refracted, re-stimulated, or expanded in the future.
So that is not an actual setback distance.
It's just a notification requirement that this plat reflects.
There is shown down here, as you reference, Commissioner Beck, the 250 foot setback is
shown here with the inner dashed line.
No lots are encroaching upon that 250, which is the requirement of the code.
This outer radius is the 300 foot fire code requirement.
So no structure could be built within that 300 foot radius in terms of protected uses.
Do we know for the capped one if gas is flowing underneath that hole?
That's not something we would know.
The well has been plugged in accordance with Railroad Commission requirements to the depth
required.
Our code doesn't speak to any requirements for plugged wells, however.
I know it's -- for my interest in this issue, I know that's a tricky issue that -- I mean,
there's -- we're not under -- I understand.
So I don't want Cynthia to come screaming over the table at me right now.
So I mean, I guess I have a couple other questions about -- for whoever.
I mean, looking at the map, there looked like there was drainage wetlands in the northeast
corner.
I mean, not just the creek bed, but additional wet regions.
And I know that said we did a report for the ESA wetlands area, but it looks like we're
building homes right on top of it, or am I misseeing that?
This whole area has been designated as ESA, and it's open space.
There are no homes encroaching on this area.
You can see the limits of the ESA floodplain and drainage easement is right here.
And the homes back up to it, but they don't build on it.
And, I mean, do we know -- that's the 100-year floodplain?
Is that -- am I reading that correctly for the boundary?
Okay.
And we're going to tear all of the trees in that same area, too?
I mean, I'm assuming it's under the, whatever, 20% old guidelines?
It is.
I mean, this is just hitting thing after thing after thing, and I know they're under the
old guidelines.
But we've moved on since 2002, and this isn't really a Cindy question, it's -- you know,
we're -- I understand the idea of vesting in old things, but we're just hitting bullet
after bullet after bullet after bullet on this property where we are cramming everything
on top of each other and tearing everything out against current ordinances and against
-- I'm not at all comfortable with voting for this.
So if this is going to go forward, I'd like it to be put to an individual vote.
We actually have a -- a lot of -- we're dealing with a lot of applications right now that
have come in under the 2002 code, and they had that time period up until the code was
approved October 1st, where they could determine whether or not they wanted to go under the
old code or the new code.
So this one is old code.
We will work our way through these eventually, but right now, we're working on both codes.
I guess this -- I sort of asked this question several months ago when we had this issue
come back up with the gas well, and I'll let -- Cynthia, please direct me how -- where we
should respond to that, but it feels like we are setting ourselves up to create non-conforming
if the ordinances go the way many people anticipate that they will be going, that the entire subdivision
will be non-conforming except for maybe the southeast corner.
And that feels like we shouldn't do things like that.
That's -- it feels like it's creating problems for our development office and the city.
So you can answer that, however you want to answer that, I guess.
Commissioner Mack, if your question is related to the gas well ordinance --
Yes, ma'am.
-- as I've stated before, it's not on the agenda this evening for consideration.
So we can't discuss issues with this matter because that item isn't on the agenda?
I think more to the -- maybe more to the point is we're thinking about a hypothetical impacting
something that's -- that's before us tonight, because what happens to a ordinance whenever
it gets voted on to the future, that is just a hypothetical.
I understand, and I guess I'm not fighting that per se, and that kind of led each one
of my little paragraph statements with I understand where we sit.
But we're asked to make a reasonable, you know, assessment of how these things play
out, and you know, I'm not necessarily just going to divorce all knowledge out of my head
in this role.
Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this property at all, considering all these items.
I would at least ask that it be pulled out of consent.
We certainly do that.
It might be helpful, Richard, if you could help me out here.
The preliminary and plaths and final plaths are an administrative process that we have
as a body.
It's not a recommending process.
And with that, obviously, anyone can vote any way, but if it meets technical requirements...
It essentially needs to be approved, or I mean, it's almost a ministerial function.
I think this last House bill gives the ability for P&Z to deny a plath, but there would need
to be findings associated with that, so you would need to make a finding that would go
against the technical review of, say, the city engineer or the traffic engineer and make
your own finding associated with those criteria that are included in the backup.
That's not a...
Is that a requirement for a no vote?
Is a citation of where it doesn't meet technical requirements, or do we have the autonomy to
vote no out of conscience on plaths?
Incident can back me up, but it needs to be tied to the letter of the law, if you will.
Okay.
Commissioner Begg, I would just ask at public hearing if you just remind me if you want
that pulled...
I think I'm gonna request that we still vote individually, even if the vote is on technical
merits and even if we vote the way we would likely vote on the consent other items.
I just kind of want an actual record of that event, if we could, please.
Will do.
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
So on those plug gas wells, it's usually encouraged to make that open space, but it's not city
code to make it open space?
That's right.
Okay.
I just wanted to make sure it wasn't...
Yeah.
And they were encouraged.
I just wanted to make clarification of it.
Thanks.
Dr. Shirellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I think you might have just answered it with regard to that lot nine, block A. So you encouraged
it.
I noticed it's not designated open space, so...
No.
Their response was no?
Yes.
All right.
Thanks.
Until we have something in the gas well ordinance that addresses this, we really can't force
the issue on the applicant.
Any other questions for Sundee?
Great.
Thank you very much, Sundee.
Sure.
Next item is 3C.
Does anyone have any questions on this item for Julie?
We do.
Next item is on by Julie Upp.
Good evening.
The final plat for Sherman Crossing.
This might look familiar.
You saw the preliminary plat not too long ago.
It is a single-family residential subdivision, and I'll stand for any questions.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I noticed that the recommendation is the tree mitigation.
So with an approval of this, is that recommendation automatically being part of this?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
Any other questions?
Great.
Thank you.
That concludes our consent agenda.
We'll move into public hearings.
Item 4A is asking for a postponement, and so we will not hear presentation for 4A in chambers.
We will...
Go ahead.
Michelle Ellis.
Thank you.
Postponement.
Yes, February 5th.
Thanks.
Yeah.
So we will open...
I will open public hearing and ask for a postponement to date certain at February 5th.
Next item is 4B, and this is presented by Ron on a code amendment.
Presentation real quick.
Are these three separate ones?
They are.
Okay.
Thank you for your consideration and votes.
Chair members of the commission, this is one of three code amendments that we will be considering...
You all will be considering this evening.
The first one is a code amendment, a city-initiated code amendment regarding low-impact manufacturing
use.
As you all know, back in April, we adopted the Dunn Code Update.
As part of that effort, there was a lot of work towards the use-specific uses, as well
as creating some use-specific standards.
Some of the uses were consolidated, some were introduced as new uses, as well as some were
just renamed from one use to another.
The low-impact manufacturing was one of those uses that was renamed.
It was previously light manufacturing, and it is now low-impact manufacturing, and there
is a definition that was included as part of the Dunn Code Update.
That definition that you see here is defined in sub-chapter 9 of the DDC, and I'll just
read it for the record.
Low-impact manufacturing is defined as an industrial operations relying on the assembly,
distributing, fabricating, manufacturing, packaging, processing, recycling, repairing,
servicing, storing, and wholesaling of goods or products using parts previously developed
from raw material.
Low-impact manufacturing uses include only those uses that will not create noise, smoke,
fumes, odors, glare, or health or safety hazards outside of the building where such assembly,
fabrication, or processing takes place.
A very low-impact, mainly assembly-type uses under this type of use.
The way it is permitted in the DDC currently, it is permitted in the MD with a specific
use permit, and that is permitted in the MR, SC, HC, GO, LI, and HI with a use-specific
standard, and that use-specific standard is 536E, and that is the subject that we will
be discussing as part of this Code Amendment.
So 536E, the city-initiated amendment, Code Amendment, is really to correct what's there
today.
Currently, the section states that distribution, warehousing, or wholesaling activities are
prohibited, but by the definition that I read earlier, it says that is part of their activity.
So I'm not really sure why that was included, and that is why we're here today just to correct
that use-specific standard.
The second part of the use-specific standard is related to the maximum square feet of gross
flow area per lot.
The maximum that is specified for low-impact manufacturing is 5,000 square feet, and if
you know low-impact manufacturing and the type of uses that are allowed under that,
5,000 really is not much.
In fact, there are a number of businesses today that are now non-conforming because of that
limitation in the square footage of, again, a maximum of 5,000 square feet.
What staff is proposing, as you see here in this strikethrough and underline, is we're
getting rid of that first use-specific standard, and that distribution, warehousing, and wholesaling
activities are prohibited.
We would like to see that be part of low-impact manufacturing.
Again, it is part of their activity.
The MD would have a maximum 10,000 square feet, and MD is the area around the downtown
primarily.
-Tricia Ellis.
-Thank you, Chair.
So, Ron, with regard to the MD, you are removing the SUP.
-No, we still have the SUP.
-You're leaving it in there?
-That's still in there.
That's not changing.
-The 10,000 is just an added use-specific standard that they will still have to comply
with even with a specific use permit.
Under the MRSC and HC, which are the next three lineup of zoning districts that permit
low-impact manufacturing by right, they can go up to 10,000 square feet.
However, if they choose to exceed 10,000, they have the option to get that through a
specific use permit.
So you can see there's a tier as far as square footage based on the zoning district as we
move further to the more intense.
The remaining zoning districts, the GO, LI, and HI, have a use-specific standard.
All that is required for those zoning districts is that all activities shall occur entirely
within an enclosed structure.
They don't have any maximum square footage.
All that is required of them is that they be within an enclosed structure.
And that is the basis of the code amendment.
-Commissioner Smith.
-Thank you, Chair.
Ron, have we turned down or lost anybody who's trying to apply for a rezoning because the
code was wrong?
There was a small window there, it just didn't open.
-Yeah, we have it.
Luckily, we haven't.
I don't think we have.
I know that we've had a lot of people call in that have existing facilities that are
now not conforming, and so they asked that, right?
So this is why we're bringing this forward as we have gone through a number of development
review processes.
-Just wanted to make sure we didn't lose any new people we were looking at.
-Not to my understanding.
I believe that most of the ones that have this issue is mainly non-conforming.
-Awesome.
Thanks.
Just a follow-on from Commissioner Smith's question, do we have a feel for how many non-conforming
businesses we have right now?
-I did not do an inventory, but I can tell you...
-It's crudely.
-I tell you, most of the areas along Loop 288 in the Mayhill area, there's a number
of LI zoning districts there where there's existing Labanol, I believe, Labanol's in
that area.
There are some other larger square footage facilities that no longer comply with the
use-specific standard.
-Thank you.
-Do they, Ron, individuals that meet the second criteria, let's say, of 25,000 square feet
in HC, do they need to come back for an SUP, or how is that non-conform...
Are they considered non-conformed if they don't have an SUP, but they do fall within
an ability?
-If they don't meet, they would be non-conforming, and if they choose to expand or whatnot, then
they would have to get in a specific use-perm.
They couldn't expand because they're non-conforming, but if they choose to, they would be able
to under this standard.
-They would be non-conforming, but nothing would happen until they took action or a rebuild
or an expansion.
-Correct.
Yeah.
-They would come back.
Okay.
Any questions on this item?
Great.
Next item of business is 4C.
This is also Ron with the development code.
-Okay.
Okay.
This is the second code amendment that we'll bring forward.
It's the city-initiated code amendment.
This is related to the administrative criteria manual and some of the other criteria manuals
that we have currently in place.
Part of the effort that we are working with staff internally is to develop and improve
our development review process, and one way of doing that is to create offshore efficiency.
What we've done is identified a development handbook where it is one document where all
of the following information will be available for the development community.
The development handbook will have and contain within itself will be flow charts, submittal
schedules, application forms, checklists, calendars, and other development review documents
that are typical that you normally see during the development review process.
What we found is that what is the administrative criteria manual, which I presented to you
all back last year, a lot of the information would be included there.
There is also an application criteria manual that's referenced in the DDC, but really
it's the same document that we're talking about.
The site design criteria manual, similar.
It has a lot of the requirements that is needed for the development review process.
We feel that that is something that can be contained or consolidated within a development
handbook.
The construction criteria manual, as we began to look at the construction criteria manual,
we found that a lot of what is stated in the construction criteria manual can also be included
and consolidated into the development handbook.
Lastly, the ESA criteria manual that you all heard from our water protection team, it also
has certain information and other requirements that are related to development that again
would benefit in being part of a development handbook.
With that, we are proposing as far as code amendment that all of these references that
are listed here be referenced in the then development code as a development handbook.
Now everyone that sees that will be directed to one document, and that is the intent to
create again an efficient way, a more easier way of understanding our development review
process.
That is again what is being proposed, are these references that are listed here that
they will be renamed as part of this code amendment to development handbook.
There are a few sections where they are referenced, obviously the admin criteria manual, construction
criteria manual, and ESA criteria manual will no longer exist, so then they will no longer
be included or added or left on this list, so that's why you see a strikethrough for
those three there.
And then just to summarize, throughout the code, administrative criteria manual is mentioned
22 times, the application criteria manual five times, the site design criteria manual
is referenced 13, construction once, and then ESA is referenced four times in the DDC.
And all of these references, again if this code amendment were to be passed, will now
be referenced in the DDC as the development handbook.
Concludes my presentation, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Beck.
So thank you, Chair.
So it feels like an efficiency to me as well, and it feels like something that we should
do, but I have some questions about like unintended consequences that I'm trying to work through
in my head, and that is if we group these books together, going forward in the future
we would just, for modifications, we would just take one vote on that consolidated item?
Because right now we take like 12 different votes for every criterion manual.
Right, it would be one document in any amendment manual.
This is a handbook, and that is something that is going to be administered administratively
by staff, and so any changes to that would be done internally by staff.
So there would be no vote, I guess, I don't know if that is your question.
It wasn't, but it's informative, so I appreciate it.
So we feel that the content of the development handbook is again administrative, again flowcharts,
checklist items, procedures that is needed for the development review process.
Anything that is regulatory or policy related, we will include or have include into the development
code itself.
So just to help differentiate between a handbook and the development code, obviously the development
code is something that this body will review and has reviewed and will continue to review,
while the handbook is meant to be just that, a development handbook administered by staff.
So then why don't we put the other criterion manuals into a giant handbook?
Well that's a good question, and that's something that we will be coming to you hopefully in
the near future, there is plans to consolidate the criterion manuals into one criterion manual.
While they'll still have the transportation, the waste water and water sections and storm
water in each of, in broken down in the actual criterion manual, but that will be a separate
document and it will be just referred to as the development criterion manual.
So kind of leading to what you were saying.
So again, efficiency, right, so you have one criterion manual where you have all of those
different categories identified, but again that is a criterion manual, this is a handbook
and again the difference between the two.
The handbook is again very development review process, the criterion manual very technical
related to engineering, related to storm water, that's a little bit different from a development
handbook.
Okay, thank you Ron.
Ron in the posting, I don't know if this is a big deal or not, but in the posting it's
saying that there's going to be two handbooks, a development handbook and an ESA handbook.
That is, I apologize, that should have been updated, the caption, what we're trying to
do is consolidate into one development handbook.
Initially we were thinking that it would be a development handbook and an ESA handbook,
but towards the end of our analysis we decided that we would fold in the ESA into one development
handbook, but that is the plan.
This has no bearing on public notification or anything that what's being voted upon is
different than the item?
I don't think so.
Great, perfect.
Okay, any other questions for this item?
The next item of business is 4D, this is also Ron with the development code.
Okay, this is the third code amendment.
It's related to the location of parking areas, primarily parking in front.
Again as you all know, there was a code update.
Part of that effort, there were some standards that were created or carried forward and added
to, specifically section 796D2.
Under that section it refers to all other uses and all other uses are basically the
uses that are not single family, duplexes, ten homes, triplexes, or fourplexes, everything
else.
In all other uses, parking in front is prohibited in the MN, the MD, and the MR.
Now what was added as part of the development code update in 2019 was the addition of the
MR.
Previously in the 2002 code, the parking in front was prohibited in a protection oriented
districts, which is your MN, and it was also prohibited in the downtown, the DCG, which
is your MD.
The MR again, like I said earlier, was a zoning district that was added to this list.
What we have found through development reviews after the code was updated, we found that
properties that were zoned MR, and you can see from the zoning map, MR are these dark
purple areas.
They're primarily located along I-35 and along major arterials and collectors.
Now they're no longer allowed to have parking in front, while prior to 2002, they were in
those zoning districts.
For those that are familiar, the MR was once RCCN and RCCD, and under that zoning district
in the 2002, they were allowed parking in front, but now with the 2019, the MR, by adding
the MR into that prohibition, those areas that were once RCCN and RCCD are no longer
able to have parking in front.
What we found is that it's not appropriate to have that prohibition under the MR.
Primarily those that are along an arterial, such as the loop, such as I-35 frontage road
would be considered an arterial, and such as other collectors that are largely areas
where there's high traffic volumes and whatnot.
What staff is proposing is that we correct 7962, again, primarily because parking in front
is appropriate in the MR district, and that is also appropriate within arterials and collectors.
This is the code update that we are proposing under that section, where I'm going to read
it for the record, off-street parking areas located between the front building facade
and the adjacent street frontage is prohibited, unless the parcel satisfies the following.
It is located outside the NMD.
We struck out the MR zoning district, so all other zoning districts would be allowed parking
in front.
There is also that it also shall adjoin, the property shall also adjoin either an arterial
or collector, as defined by the mobility plan.
Those are the changes that we are proposing.
Again, if there's a specific property that's located within an MR, today they would not
be allowed to park in front.
Those properties that are MR and are on a collector also would not be permitted.
What we're saying is that they should be allowed under the MR, as well as those properties
that are both MR and along a collector and an arterial.
Any questions?
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Is there any, I guess I haven't mapped it out like you guys have, is there any place
where you're going to give the potential for an unintended, undesirable parking lot to
be plopped down and sort of because you're creating an allowed exception, where it would
just really break things, as it were?
We definitely looked into that.
We even thought about any other zoning districts that we would prohibit the parking in front.
Right now it is proposed to be just the MN and the MD.
We've looked at not only the zonings and where certain uses are permitted.
I'll use an example, general retail is permitted in the R7, right?
As long as it's not MN and MR, it's permitted in the R7, however, the R7 requires a specific
use permit.
We've kind of gone through a lot of the analysis, not only on the zoning side, but also where
it is in relationship to a arterial or collector, and a lot of what we found was these uses
that would be impacting a neighborhood or some other way of impacting an area, we found
that they were covered under a specific use permit, so our understanding and our analysis
show that if we approve this, there's still a specific use permit that would address parking
in your front if and when a property decides to do something in that effect.
Okay, thank you, Ron.
Ron, it doesn't appear that this is changing, but can you help me out on 796D, C, the corridors
that are not allowed?
There's like this weird exemption, it seems to be downtown.
Chair, those are what was carried forward from the previous code and what that represents,
they represent corridors that lead into the downtown.
Entry corridors like Dallas Drive, Fort Worth Drive, again, the intent there, Elm and Locust
as you come in from the north, is to not allow parking in front in those particular arterials
because they are classified as arterials.
If we didn't make that exception, then they would be allowed parking in front under that
segment, so we wanted to identify those specifically where we would prohibit those within those
entry corridors.
Gotcha.
Okay, thanks for that clarification.
Any other questions for Ron on this item?
Okay, that concludes our agenda for this evening.
It is 548, I'll call this meeting to a close.
We'll reconvene at 630 in council chambers.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for Wednesday, January 22, 2020.
Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order.
The first item of business is to stand if able and give a Pledge of Allegiance to the
U.S. and Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The next item of business is to consider the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission
minutes from January 8th, and as a point of order, anyone who missed that meeting is still
able to vote, so there's no need for recusal, even if you were absent, you can still participate
and should participate in the vote.
Commissioner Ellis.
I move approval.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Smith.
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
Next item of business is the Consent Agenda, and at the request of Commissioner Beck, we're
going to be pulling 3-B into a separate vote.
So the Chair will entertain a motion for items 3-A and 3-C.
Commissioner Smith.
I move approval of items 3-A and 3-C.
We have a first for 3-A and 3-C.
Commissioner Pernetta.
I second.
We have a first and a second for the Consent Agenda, items 3-A and 3-C. Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
We also will take a separate vote for item 3-B.
Any discussion or motion for item 3-B?
Commissioner Beck?
Yeah, we discussed some of this in the first session, but I think just given the proximity
and the gas volume, some of the other issues with the wetlands and the lack of tree canopy,
I feel like we're setting ourselves up for more future work.
I can't support this.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Anderson?
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 5-2.
Next item of business is item 4-A. It's item Z19-0013.
I will open the public hearing.
This applicant has requested to postpone the item until a date certain of February 5th,
2020.
It is a public hearing.
If anyone's wishing to speak, we will listen to public comment this evening.
Seeing none, I'll leave the public hearing open and ask Commissioner Smith.
Move to postpone to date certain of February 5th.
We have a first for postponement.
Commissioner Ellis?
Thank you.
We have a first and a second for postponement.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
Next item of business is item 4B, DCA 19-0025.
I'll invite Ron Maguina for presentation and open the public hearing.
This item is a city initiated code amendment regarding, that is, low impact manufacturing
in the use related to use specific standards.
As you all know, there was a development code update back in April 2019.
Part of that effort, there were work towards unifying some of the existing uses, consolidating
them for simplicity, also to introduce new ones for clarity, and then also to rename
some of the existing uses.
Light manufacturing was one of those existing uses that was renamed into or to low impact
manufacturing and also was provided a definition.
For the record, you see here is the definition for low impact manufacturing.
Just by looking at it, you see that there is distributing manufacturing and other processes
involved in the manufacturing of items as part of a low impact manufacturing use.
This slide here illustrates where low impact manufacturing is permitted.
You can see that under the MD, it is permitted with an SUP.
And then the following MR, SC, HC, G, O, L, I, and HI, it is permitted with a use specific
standard.
And that use specific standard is 536E.
For the purpose of this code amendment, we are correcting two sections of that use specific
standard.
The first one is related to the prohibition of distribution, warehousing, and wholesaling
activities.
The second of the two is the limited maximum of 5,000 square feet of gross floor area per
lot.
The staff is proposing with the following code amendment to eliminate that first use
specific standard that we would allow for distribution, wholesaling, and warehousing.
And that in the MD, the maximum square feet gross floor area per lot is 10,000.
And just for, again, MD, MD is primarily in the downtown, and that is an appropriate maximum
square footage.
The MR, SC, and HC, zoning districts would have a limitation of 10,000 square feet, where
if they choose to propose a larger square footage, they could through an SUP.
Lastly, the remaining zoning districts, the G, O, L, I, and HI, would not have a maximum
square footage, however, all of the zoning districts would have to comply with the use
specific standard, which is number three, that all activities shall occur entirely within
an enclosed structure.
That concludes my presentation.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
I do not see any questions.
Thank you for the presentation.
Okay.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.
I do not see anyone here wishing to do so, so I will close the public hearing and ask
Commissioner Burnett for a motion.
Motion to approve the amendment.
We have a first for approval, Commissioner Smith.
Second.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion to approve carries 7-0.
The next item of business is item 4C, DCA 19-0026.
I'll invite Ron McGuina back for presentation and open the public hearing.
Thank you, Chair, members of the commission.
This is the second code amendment for tonight for your consideration.
This is in relationship to a code amendment, a city-initiated code amendment related to
development handbook.
In an effort to improve our development review process, create efficiency, we are preparing
a development handbook.
What a development handbook is is a document that contains a number of information.
For example, flow charts, submittal schedules, checklists, calendars, any related development
review-related supporting documents is what a handbook will contain, will have.
We are proposing a code amendment to the development code for renaming the following criteria manuals.
We have found that a lot of the information contained in these criteria manuals have information
that are related to development review and therefore meet or should be more in line as
being part of a development handbook.
Those are the administrative criteria manual, the application criteria manual, the site
design criteria manual, the construction criteria manual, as well as the environmental sensitive
areas criteria manual, again, all of which have the same information that is related
to development review and should be part of a development handbook.
And again, part of this code amendment is to rename all of those references as a development
handbook.
We are also proposing to amend section 134B.
Again, because these will no longer be criteria manuals, they will be eliminated from this
list that you see here as part of this section.
For your purposes, administrative criteria manual is referenced in the development code
22 times, the application criteria manual five times, the site design 13 construction
criteria manual once, and the ESA is referenced in the code four times.
And all of these references, again, will be renamed as development handbook in the Denton
development code.
That concludes my presentation.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
We do have one question.
Commissioner Beck?
Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
Ron, you answered this for me, and I think I've forgotten the answer, so I'm going to
ask it again.
Sure.
Are we going to this combined handbook, and then what's the vision for how many more handbooks?
One giant handbook, or?
One consolidated handbook that will contain all the information related to development
review.
Again, items that are administratively processed or administered.
Thank you.
That answers my question.
Thank you.
I do not see any other questions, Ron.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone who wishes to speak may certainly do so, seeing none, I will close the public hearing.
Commissioner Smith?
Move to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Mr. Pernetta?
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion to approve carries 7-0.
Next item of business is item 4D, DCA 19-0028.
I'll invite Ron McGuida back for presentation and open the public hearing.
Thank you, Chair, members of the commission.
This is the last code amendment for consideration this evening.
This is related to location of parking areas, specifically parking in front.
Again, as you all know, April 2019, there was a development code update.
As part of that update, the section 796D2 was carried over from the previous code.
As part of that carryover, there was an addition to where parking in front is prohibited.
For the 2002 code, MN, which is protection-oriented related, and MD, which is the downtown area,
were areas that had a prohibition for parking in front.
What the 2019 code did was add MR as part of that prohibition zoning districts.
We have had several development reviews since April, and we have heard and seen examples
where MR is permitted, where it is proposed, that is, where development is proposed, and
where the parking in front became a concern or an issue.
Looking at the zoning map, we realized that adding that MR probably was not the best direction,
and that this code amendment is going to correct that.
The MR is primarily located along I-35, as well as primary arterials, as you can see here
on the zoning map, as well as collectors.
Having the MR, having it prohibited, or parking in front, we looked at also existing site
features that have the same location, and a lot of those areas did have parking in front,
so we feel that keeping in line with those urban characters that we would remove and
correct the MR as part of that zoning district that prohibits parking in front.
In addition, parking in front, staff has determined that it is appropriate on properties that
are along arterials, as well as collectors.
These street classifications primarily have high volumes of traffic and have a high speed
as far as miles per hour, so again, these locations would be appropriate for parking
in front.
What staff is proposing as part of Section 796(d)(2) is to amend that section to eliminate
the MR from the list where parking in front is prohibited as a zoning district, and also
to add collector as part of where parking in front would be allowed, and that is what
is shown here, and that is what staff is proposing as part of this code amendment.
Staff again is recommending approval and can stand for any questions.
Thanks for the presentation, Ron, I don't see any questions.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.
Commissioner Smith?
Move to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Pernetta?
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion to approve carries 7-0.
The next item of business is item 5A, the P&Z Commission Project Matrix.
I will ask Richard for any updates and then turn it to the dais for additions or questions.
No real updates on the matrix.
I think we've got through most of the items that have been on there.
We have no additional items that went to council at the last meeting.
The only thing I will mention is next week on the 28th, council will be rehearing the
Gaswell item, so that will be on the 28th, other than that, that's all I had.
Will they take a vote on 28th or is it just a further discussion?
It'll be to reconsider that ordinance.
It's essentially a do-over, if you will.
Gotcha.
Commissioner Beck?
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I briefly brought this up at work session, but a citizen had the idea of regarding the
notification issues, having an opt-in system on our webpage where they could enter in an
address and our general notification 200 or 500 foot distance, and for any developments
in that radius, it would automatically email them of any public hearings that we were having.
I don't know about the feasibility, the FTE, the development, anything of that sort of
thing, but I thought, as an opt-in mechanism, that it could be separate than the state-mandated
mechanism that we currently follow, but it sounded very intriguing to me because people
that were interested could be notified.
Is that something we could explore for the matrix?
We can certainly look into it.
What we have now is we have our active projects map, and then every week we submit a new or
publish a new map that shows the projects that were submitted that week.
We also do post all of the upcoming community meetings or neighborhood meetings related
to development projects.
What I can do is look to see if there's a way that -- that's something we've started
to look at already, but if there's a way that we can link when we have those community meetings,
at least tied to that project map, so if somebody is interested at any given time, if they click
on it, it might show there's a neighborhood meeting set up for whatever day that is.
I think if we could make some progress in that mechanism, I mean, even if we just took
baby steps in that direction to improve our notification, I think it would help to maybe
address some of the items that keep coming up before the commission about notification,
where people could get some level of notification in an automatic fashion.
There will be a public -- there are community hearing at -- you know, because you asked
for this.
There will be a public hearing about that property, and it's in the radius you asked.
Now, I understand that it might be more involved, hire a computer programmer or whatever, a
web developer, but if we could explore that, I certainly would like to hear information
with that regard.
Yeah.
I can look into it.
I know it -- I want to say a year or two ago there was a -- something similar, I think,
the town of Southlake does for notifications.
I know there was a ISR that was put together for council, but I can pull that together
and provide that.
Thank you, Richard.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Richard, can we get maybe a work session or maybe just a memo on removal of traffic lights
in light?
Recently, there have been several traffic lights removed, and I've gotten questions,
and I don't know the answer as to how this city makes these decisions.
So I would love to be enlightened on that.
We talk all the time about how a traffic light is needed and the steps for that, but I don't
know how the city decides to remove traffic lights.
So I would love that information.
I can get something for you.
Thanks.
Put together.
Yeah.
The only thing I have, and maybe this is just an offline update, I would love to hear how
the city is seeing any impact from the HB violence from last year, if there's construction
happening that is less than what we historically have with build materials and aesthetics,
or I know the process of the shot clock is being very well managed from what I can tell,
but I'm just curious if we've seen any projects come through in which the city, maybe it's
too short, it hasn't been long enough, but I'm curious if that has a detrimental aesthetic
to our city yet, or if fears are coming to fruition about that.
I think in the very near future we'll start to see that, and I think where it's going
to impact more is in the existing neighborhoods.
Just to give you one example, because we had it happen this week where an individual is
looking to do a carport.
So previously with carports, accessory structures, there were certain architectural requirements
where it had to match the style of the house and the building materials of the house.
What this individual wanted to do essentially was to have two shipping containers, metal
roof, corrugated metal over top of it.
That is now permitted.
It would have been prohibited now that somebody could put that in.
They still need to comply with setbacks in that, but we cannot tell them that they cannot
use that material.
Great.
Thanks for that update.
Any other things to add or questions of the MED matrix?
Okay.
Seeing none, that concludes our agenda.
I'll close the meeting at 6.50.
Thank you.