Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the planning and zoning commission work
session meeting for June 3rd, 2020.
Seeing that we do have a quorum, it is 5.04, I will call the meeting to order.
The first item on the agenda is just to go through the agenda items, so we can start
with the consent agenda items, item three, A, B, and C.
Do you have any questions on these that we need a presentation for or clarification on?
Yes, Commissioner Beck.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Should I talk to Julie about 3B?
Sure.
The question about the gas well setbacks and distance from the two rows of homes is my
question.
Okay.
Let me pull it up, that way we can all look at it.
So this is a final plot for unit 20 of Robeson Ranch.
You are correct.
There is a gas well site here, centrally located within the plot.
It does meet the Robeson setbacks.
Robeson has different setbacks than the rest of the city.
They were established in 2001 when that use was permitted within Robeson.
So residential uses do have to be set back 100 feet from the gas well.
These are the closest property to the gas well is about 122 feet from that gas well
the property line is.
So it does meet the minimum requirements.
Do you happen to have the distances from the gas wells for that Southeast row and the Northeast
row?
I can measure really quickly.
The Northeast row is about 230 feet and the South, so it is about 230 feet from this area.
And let me measure the next one.
And I'm sort of presuming while you do that that the Western boundaries are farther away.
They look farther away on the map.
They are.
And then the South is about 289 feet.
That was my question, Chair.
Thank you.
Okay, perfect.
Does the plat for item 3B meets all the technical requirements?
Yes, sir, it does.
Okay.
Is there any other questions for item 3B?
All right.
Let's go ahead and move to 3C and I'll turn the floor back over to Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
My question is real brief on that one, which I was just a little confused as to which guidelines
were under for that because they specify different dates and I wasn't sure whose guidelines we
were following because of the different dates.
Different dates.
Maybe a little in terms of public notification.
Is this for...
No, I'm sorry.
Which DDCs are they under?
This would be under the 2019 DDC.
Okay.
So that's the extent of my question.
Great.
Thank you.
Any other questions for this item, item 3C?
And then just to clarify, no questions for item 3A.
Great.
Before we jump into the items for individual consideration, I just want to hop real fast
back to two.
Sorry to be out of order.
Was there any questions or changes that need to be done to the minutes from May 20th?
Okay.
Look around.
Perfect.
Let's go back to item 4A, B, and C. And just a heads up, item 4A and 4B are looking for
an extension.
So we'll consider a motion there if it's possible in public hearing.
And then item 4C, they have actually asked for, the applicant has asked for a postponement.
So during a public hearing, we can look to see what date the commission wants to move
that item to potentially.
So with that, we'll go back to 4A.
I think it'd be appropriate if it's good with the commission to get a presentation and work
session for these two items.
And then in the public hearing, we might be able to skip the presentation and go to discussion
of motion, or if we need to represent, we certainly will.
But with that, Julie Wyatt, you have the floor for item 4A.
Okay, sorry about the delay.
So this is PP2011.
I just have a short presentation just to talk about the plat.
So this is a preliminary plat for a multifamily development.
You may remember it.
It was Oxford at Sherman.
This went before you last fall and it was approved by the city council for that use.
The SUP was approved in December of last year.
Now they're coming forward with the platting.
They do have some engineering issues to work through that are in your staff analysis.
So staff recommends denial because it doesn't meet the established requirements.
However, they have requested an extension to the June 17th, 2020 agenda, and we have
no opposition to that if that's what you choose to do.
Great.
Is there any questions for Julie on this item?
Christian or Bec?
Yeah.
Thank you, Chair.
Julie, I was just a little confused as to what -- can you refresh me on the qualifications
-- or not qualifications, the reasons for denial on that one?
Sure.
Well, there are quite a few.
There are -- I'll kind of start at the -- Wait.
Hold on, Julie.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Maybe I'm confusing myself.
Let me look at my notes here real quick.
Okay, actually, no, no, I did confuse myself.
I'm sorry, Julie.
I don't -- I'm good.
I'm good.
Thank you.
Right.
Any other questions for Julie on item 4A?
Great.
Let's move on to item 4B.
This is Haley Zagorski's presentation.
She's pulling it up now.
Perfect.
Okay.
Thank you.
Is she speaking, Richard?
I'm sure I'm muted.
I'm picking up from a different mic.
I think it's muted.
Is that better?
That is much better.
Hi, Haley.
Oh, sorry about that.
Yeah, so this is a preliminary plan for a future DPS facility.
It's a single lot located at the southeast corner of East McKinney Street in Mayhill.
At this time, staff is recommending denial because it fails to meet all the technical
requirements for engineering.
They are very confident that they can work through all of those and have therefore requested
the extension to the June 17th meeting to give them a chance to resolve those final
issues.
Okay, great.
Any questions for Haley on this?
Commissioner Beck?
Yeah, I'm sorry, Chair.
This is the one I had some just confusion on.
Sure.
So, Haley, can you, can you, there's, the city wanted a more complete flood plan, flood
plan plan, I got to get that in the right order.
And there was an issue.
I mean, can you, can you highlight the salient points on, on, on where they were lacking?
I was just a little confused.
Sure.
So there, there is a tiny amount of floodplain on the property.
Let me share this so that I can maybe call out that area for you.
So here in the very southern part of the property, there is some floodplain that affects this.
So there, there's a change that needs to be made to their easement.
I believe they have to, the code requires them to dedicate a 15 foot drainage easement
outside the boundaries of that floodplain.
So they're working to, to resolve that and make sure they have those boundaries correct.
And then they're still working with the city on this northern part of the property regarding
some drainage easements that are necessary for the East McKinney Street improvements
that will be coming up.
So those were kind of the highlights of their, their floodplain and drainage issues.
Do you know for the sort of course desire, this is, this is mostly going to be sort of
a cemented over practice area for DPS training with a small office.
Is that the concept?
This would be a DPS facility for driver's license testing for, I believe just standard
licenses as well as commercial in terms of their, their coverage on the site, roughly
in line with, with this corner of the property, their, their development kind of cuts across
here.
This portion of the property would not be affected by their development and it's just
a part of the tract of land that they're purchasing.
So this area is intended to be impervious as well as much of this corner up here where
they'll be dedicating those drainage easements.
So they'll be concentrated largely in the middle of the site here and then on this Northeast
corner.
Okay.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Is there any other questions for Haley on this item?
Great.
Thank you very much, Haley.
That brings us to our next item 4C is the Sagebrook PD 20-0001D.
In my estimation, this is going to be brought back for the presentation on the engineering
and the road.
So I would think presenting now would not be as helpful as to present later.
Is there any disagreement or is anyone wanting the full presentation tonight prior to hearing
it and then a couple of weeks or a month?
Commissioner Anderson.
Thanks, Chair.
They are working on rerouting the road.
Is that correct?
They have actually drawn a rerouting that was in the backup for this evening.
The applicant, I think the applicant's asking for two weeks to relook at it.
The neighbor has actually, I think you received that letter, asked for a month postponement.
So they have drafted the new road and that's kind of the sticking point from our discussion
last month.
Yeah, I agree.
I have no reason to see the presentation if it's all going to be changed.
So I agree.
Thank you.
Commissioner Anderson.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't really need to see it except and unless is the staff going to highlight the differences
between the old plan and the new plan?
Because as I read the plans, it was a little unclear to me exactly where the shift was
occurring.
Is that going to be discussed tonight?
I mean, it could be discussed tonight, but my recommendation is wait until the presentation.
That would be fine, Chair.
The timing of it is fine.
I just want to make sure that that shift is discussed tonight.
You want to discuss that?
I don't need it now.
If staff is going to sort of highlight those changes or is willing to by tonight highlight
those changes, then I absolutely wouldn't need anything right now.
I just want to make sure that they highlight those changes because it's a little unclear
to me.
Right.
And I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that could change based on the applicant
working with a neighbor before coming back.
I mean, my thought just wait till that's more finalized and hear that comparison, then hear
one tonight that's just now going to get shifted to another potential plan in two weeks.
But I defer to you.
I defer to the commission if they want to hear the interim comparison before more final
plan comes.
I mean, I take the Chair's point.
It really only behooves us to evaluate the final.
But in terms of figuring out the final, the meaningfulness of the final plan, I think
the city and the other parties obviously at some point thought this plan that's on the
original agenda was potentially reasonable.
And so any future plan would anyway, I wouldn't mind then if we don't want to discuss it tonight,
we have a very brief, like even just the maps and just show where the shifts are.
And that's all I really need is, is a sort of a highlight of the ships.
I don't need a full presentation, especially if it's not the final plan that we'll expect
to see in a couple of weeks.
Point taken.
Commissioner Bec.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't see us seeing a presentation that is kind of hypothetical.
If they really aren't ready to present whatever the changes are, then I would think we're
wasting our time.
That would be my thought.
I'm seeing a presentation because if we're going to see it again in two weeks, we kind
of really want to see what it is that they're presenting, right?
Commissioner Ellis, I agree.
For the sake of the benefit of all commissioners, though, and to Commissioner Bec's point, is
it possible for Haley just to simply pull up the road slide and just articulate where
the current shift in the road is?
No full presentation this evening, but for the benefit of Commissioner Bec, we can just
take a look at that shift because I think from my looking, it moves it away from running
into that shed and moves it a little bit north of the shed, but I think Haley can clarify
and we can keep it pretty brief.
She's pulling it up now.
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
That's exactly what I needed.
All right.
This is the original plan that we looked at.
You notice here the road is kind of aligned directly with the barn.
This is their revised plan.
I believe this measurement from the road to the barn is about 100 feet from the corner
here to the edge.
They shifted the road slightly north.
Roughly along this faint dash line here, you can see some additional green space north
of that.
That is the difference in open space that would be dedicated with this revised plan
that did result in some of the lots here on the west side of the property being shifted.
You'll notice there the amenity center shifted a little bit to the northeast and some additional
homes were added in what was formerly open space to compensate for the homes that were
lost on this side of the property.
But overall, the road is largely the same for the majority of the alignment.
The major shift comes here where they tightened this angle, I believe, from about 1,000 foot
radius was on that curve originally.
Now it's right at the minimum acceptable radius of 750.
So they shifted that north just to miss the barn by about 100 feet.
Mr. Beck?
That's exactly what I needed.
Thank you very much, Haley.
Perfect.
Thank you, Haley.
So with that, that concludes our agenda for this evening.
I will close the work session at 521.
We'll reconvene back here on this Zoom line at 630 for the regular meeting.
Thank you.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Regular Session
Meeting for Wednesday, June 3, 2020.
Seeing that we do have a quorum, I'll call this meeting to order at 631.
The first item of business is to say the US flag pledge and the Texas flag.
Commissioners, if you would like, you can certainly unmute yourself to join with me
in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American 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.
Honor the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.
Oh, perfect, guys, that went off without a hitch.
Next item of business is item two, the approval or consideration of the minutes from May 20th,
2020.
Commissioner Anderson.
I make a motion to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any notation or changes to the minutes?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Bec.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
The next item of business is consideration of the consent agenda, items 3A, B and C.
Commissioner Ellis.
I move approval.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Smith.
I second.
We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda.
Any discussion on this item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Bec.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
The next item of business is 4A, PP20-0011.
This item staff recommends denial, however the applicant has requested an extension to
the June 17th meeting.
Commissioner Smith.
I motion to continue to the June 17th meeting.
We have a first to postpone this to a date certain of June 17th.
Commissioner Bec.
I second.
We have a first and a second for postponement to a date certain of June 17th, 2020.
Any discussion on this?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Bec.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
And the chair is also an aye, vote carries 7-0.
The next item is item 4B, PP20-0010.
This item was recommended for denial by staff.
The applicant is requesting an extension to a date certain of June 17th, 2020.
Commissioner Anderson.
I make a motion to approve the extension to the date that you just stated.
June 17th.
Yes.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Smith.
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion on this item?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Bec.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
And the chair is also an aye, vote carries 7-0.
The next item on the agenda is item 4C, PD20-0001D.
This item has been requested to be postponed until June 17th by the applicant.
We do have some public comment on this, and so I'm going to read this real fast and we'll
go to some individuals holding on the phone.
For this item, we had one person make comments using the online form.
There is one in support and zero against.
All of these comments forms were emailed to all commissioners and our city secretary to
be recorded.
There is no one who called in to register their position through the phone prior to
this meeting.
Finally, there are three individuals who requested to speak over the phone on this item.
Both will be connecting to them now for the first individual.
We're just waiting for that to be patched through.
Can someone unmute the phone line?
Good evening.
Are you there?
Caller?
Yes.
Yes, I am here.
Okay.
Well, you're live with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
In just a minute, I'm going to have you state your name and you have three minutes to begin.
Just so you're aware, there is no presentation on this item tonight as it's being sought
after for a postponement to a date of June 17th, but we certainly, if you would like
to make your comments this evening, you certainly are able to, or when this item comes back,
you can make those your concerns known at that time, but tonight we're looking to postpone
the item.
However, you do have three minutes to speak if you just state your name and address for
the record.
Certainly, the name is Ray Ojewski, the address is 201 Main Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102.
Representing the adjacent property owner to the applicant to this case, Mr. Chairman and
members of the commission, the only comment I would have is that the date the case is
being continued to is June 17th.
I had advised the applicant earlier today that I am out of town on a vacation that week,
and I previously requested a 30 day continuance for additional time for my client and the
applicant and city staff to get together and talk about the concerns of my client.
So while I understand there is a motion to continue to June 17th, I respectfully request
that that go to the July, the first July meeting that the commission will hold.
So in the event that we don't work something out by June 17th, then we won't have to come
back and ask for another continuance because I will be on vacation that week.
And with that, I will conclude my comments and be happy to answer any questions.
Well, I appreciate you being here this evening.
Does any commissioners have any questions for council?
I do not see any at this time, but I appreciate you calling in and your statement has been
noted that you'd like to do seek a postponement to the first meeting in July, which I have
as July 8th on my calendar.
Okay, very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the time tonight.
Thank you very much.
We do have another caller.
Okay, just one second here.
The other individuals on the line, one was was declined to speak now and the other one
is unreachable.
We've we've attempted five times to reach that individual.
I believe they did submit comment on the item, but we're unable to reach them to be a phone.
So at this time, it's not a public hearing, it's an individual consideration.
So the chair will certainly entertain a motion discussion about Commissioner Smith, make
a motion to postpone until the date certain of July 8th of 2020.
We have a first postpone till date of July 8th.
Richard, can you confirm that is the date and my calendar is correct, July 8th.
That's what I have.
I'm confirming with Kathy now that is the published date, July 8th.
We have a first for postponing to July 8th.
Is there a second question for a second, we have a first and a second for postponement
to July 8th.
I'm not sure protocol here, but we did reach the individual on the line.
And so before we take a vote, I'd like to use the opportunity of discussion just to
provide that citizen the opportunity to speak.
Can we get him patched through?
I can still hear you, Mr. Turner, if you can hear me.
I can still hear you, but we'll see what we can do to mute you.
Hello, is this Mr. Pruitt?
It is.
Mr. Pruitt, I appreciate you holding and being available this evening.
You are live with the Planning and Zoning Commission now on our Zoom call.
Just so you're aware, you are provided three minutes to speak tonight and we'll certainly
honor that.
However, while we were trying to get a hold of you, there was a motion and a second on
the floor to postpone this item to a date certain of July 8th.
So we have a first and a second, we're in discussion on that, but we wanted to give
you the opportunity to speak.
I just wanted you to be aware that we did not have a presentation on this tonight.
And there is a motion to postpone this if you'd like to come back on July 8th and speak.
That being said, you can state your full name and address and we'll provide you your three
minutes this evening.
Good opportunity, this is Eric Pruitt, 2111 Westwood Drive.
I want to thank staff for including in backups the economic impact analysis provided by the
developer last year as part of the annexation application.
But careful planning requires careful fiscal analysis and this looks more like marketing
material focused on the one-time benefits rather than a careful analysis of long-term
revenues and liabilities.
This slide that showed a net positive impact used the 2019 fiscal year tax rate of 62 cents
and when you use the current proposed 2021 fiscal year rate of 59.6 cents that cuts that
benefit almost in half.
But even then, the analysis seems over optimistic to me because it uses an average annual cost
for new population value, which assumes each resident in the city costs the same amount.
But many infrastructure and maintenance costs are not related to the number of residents,
but rather the length and the amount of infrastructure to serve that community, roads, pipes, loose
station.
Average cost accounting underestimates public costs in developments like this and overestimates
costs in more efficient development styles.
The public costs of this development are likely much higher and would make this development
physically negative.
This is not a radical thought.
Our city manager has even said, quote, "There is not a residential subdivision built that
stands on its own, zero," end quote.
Yet this analysis claims this subdivision does just that.
We need better metrics and clear fiscal goals if we are to ensure development in Denton
follows our long range plan and doesn't raise our tax burden in the future.
If you want to subsidize the future residents of Sagebrook with higher taxes from other
areas of the city, that's your prerogative.
But Institute's sound metrics and a fiscal analysis process today, one that uses an accurate
accounting of costs based on the type of development.
We must stop lying to ourselves claiming all development pays enough taxes to sustain itself
when we know it does not.
I'm not trying to be unreasonable and say that you must deny this particular application.
But if you approve 10 more like this without establishing a practice of realistic long-term
fiscal analysis, we have a systemic problem that will likely result in higher taxes to
future taxpayers.
Thank you.
Mr. Prud, I appreciate you adding your input.
Thank you.
And if just a heads up, if this vote carries to postpone, we certainly invite you back
at that meeting to speak once again your comments.
Thank you for this evening.
Thank you.
Uh, back to the discussion on the item.
We had a first and a second, uh, someone just get patched through.
Nope.
We had a first and a second for, uh, postponements who date certain of July 8th.
Is there any other discussion on this item?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, chair.
Is the applicant with us on the call or no?
I don't see the applicant on the phone.
Okay.
I was just curious, just cause they.
Yes.
Oh, the applicant is on the phone.
Just as far as your thoughts on, on postponing to the 8th of July.
Hi there.
This is the applicant, Randi Rivera with McAdams, um, to answer your question about the postponement.
Is that correct?
Yes, correct.
Okay.
Um, yes, our client, uh, Zaina has been in discussion with the council obtained by the
neighbor to the West.
Um, and they've corresponded throughout, um, the last week, uh, with the changes that we've
made and, um, we, we felt like we've made a good attempt on, uh, reducing the impact
and that's in your packet, uh, that, uh, that is before you tonight.
And if, uh, the commission deemed it necessary to postpone it to July 8th, we are in support
of that and look forward to coming back July 8th, um, to, to present the details of the
changes to the plan that we presented to you a month ago.
Okay.
And the goal is to continue, um, discussion with the adjacent property owner in that timeframe.
Yes, ma'am.
There has been a request to set up a meeting as early as, uh, the end of this week or the
beginning of next week.
Okay.
All right.
That's great.
Thank you for answering my questions.
Thank you.
Any other discussion on this item?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote to postpone this to a date certain of July 8th via roll
call.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Beck.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Uh, the chair is also an aye.
Vote carries seven, zero.
We'll see you in a month.
Next item of business is the planning and zoning commission project matrix.
I will turn the floor over to Richard Canone and, uh, then to the commission for discussion.
Thank you, chair, uh, members of the commission.
I don't have much to update, uh, on the, on the matrix at this time.
What, what we're looking to do is, at least with the, uh, the bottom one, the rules on
platting, uh, approval and denial, what I'd like to do is, is bring that, um, to a work
session.
I know we were initially wanting to do that in April, but with, uh, with the, the COVID,
we've kind of put a halt to that.
What I'd like to do is, uh, hopefully we'll be back to a little bit more normalcy by,
by July or by the end of this month.
Um, but I was anticipating bringing that item back at that July 8th, uh, work session.
Um, in addition, um, we will have, um, staff from traffic engineering at, at the, at that
meeting as well, um, to provide any, um, uh, response, any questions specific to their
roadway.
Uh, and I'd also like, what I'll ask them to do is also talk about the traffic light
item, um, at, at that time.
So we'll, I'll include those two items for the work session on the 8th, if that's, if
that works for, um, for the commission.
Sounds good.
Thank you, Richard.
Any other questions of the matrix or anything, uh, someone would like to add to a future
work session?
Okay.
Seeing none, that concludes the planning and zoning regular session meeting for June 3rd.
I will close the meeting at six 48.
You have good night.
Night.
Hi.