Okay. Welcome everyone to this November 11th meeting of the Denton Code Review Committee.
It is 1.04. We do have a quorum present. The mayor has informed me that he will not be
here today, so Keely and I will have to stay on screen the whole time to keep quorum present.
The first item on the agenda is consider approval of the minutes for November 4th, and there
was one correction on there that we did not say the pledges as it states in the minutes
that were provided to us. So with that correction, I'll move approval.
I'll second. All right. And since we only have two, I don't
know that we really need to have a vote, since we have the motioner and the seconder are
both are the only two that really need to vote. So we will move on to item B, receive
a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding code amendments related to subchapter
two, administrative and procedures of the Denton Development Code.
Thank you, Chair. Let me share my screen and we can get started.
Hope you all can see the screen and can hear me. As introduced, this is our continuation
of our DDC amendments discussion with the DCRC Development Code Review Committee, which
you see on your screen is just the list of what we hope to discuss this afternoon.
Seems like there's a lot, there's some that are a little bit more lengthy than others,
but there are some that are hopefully straightforward and we can get through those fairly quickly.
Just a point of correction or clarification. The items listed as number 12 and 13 will
not be discussed. Staff just needs additional more time to have discussion internally to
prepare a code amendment to discuss with the DCRC. So unity of title and declaration in
lieu of a unity of title will be discussed at our next meeting. So those two will not
be discussed this afternoon. So we'll go ahead and get started with the
first development code topic and this is related to the ZBA composition and operational procedure.
This is in section 234A, again, part of the subchapter two code amendments. We have in
the current DDC, the composition and operational procedures. And as you can see in green, the
reference is that it's referenced to the municipal code of orange. The hope was to move all of
the composition and operational procedures that pertain to the ZBA to the municipal code
of orange. However, that is no longer the direction we have changed that direction.
We're now bringing that information to the DDC. So since it's not in the DDC today, the
proposed code amendment is to amend that section and add the following. So the first of the
number of composition is what you see on the screen, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment
will make up or consist of seven members. And as you can read there, their terms will
be staggered so that as they are appointed, we will have the memberships that we need.
And I won't read the whole language, but the one or the two things that are highlighted
in bold are what we are proposing and it's consistent to what we have today. The other
two is related to the alternate, alternates that is. We currently have three alternates
and these are alternates that are appointed by the city council. And as mentioned earlier,
they are this is our current practice and these three alternates serve on the ZBA if
and when the members of the seven members are either absent or cannot participate. The
alternates are numbered by first, second and third. And as a member of the ZBA is absent
or cannot participate, the next person or the person in first will step in and then
continue again. If there is a second person, then the second alternate will serve in that
capacity. The alternates also serve a two year term and are appointed again by the city
council. Other, so let me stop there. Any questions? Again, these are just what we practice
today and we're just making sure that it's in the development code. Do you have any questions
for this portion of the code amendment? Any questions? I do have one because I'm guessing
it's still in our regular ordinance requiring that they are a resident of the city of Denton,
but I did not see that in any of this lineup. Is that elsewhere in our code or is that something
we may need to look at adding? Let me double check and it may be in our code of ordinances.
I know that we do have some language there, but let me check and I'm 100% sure, but we'll
double check that they have to be a resident of the city. Whatever requirements we currently
have as long as they make their way through into this. Yes, Margie. Thank you, chair.
I feel like that's addressed on the application that we have with the city that gets vetted
with the city secretary. So that may take care of that issue if it's not written somewhere,
but I just thought I'd offer that. Aaron? It doesn't directly say you have to be a resident
per se, but what chapter 2-61 of the city code, which is qualifications for members
of boards and commissions, each person shall be a qualified voter of the city. You can
only be a qualified voter in the city of Denton if you are a resident of Denton. That's election
law. So that's how the requirement for anybody who serves on the board has to be a Denton
resident. So it may not be particularly in the ZBA section of the code of ordinances,
but it's covered under boards and commission generally. Okay. And is there any part of
our codes and ordinances that we'll repeal since it's now going to be in the DDC? No,
the ones that we're proposing, chair, currently are not in conflict or in the code of ordinances
now, so there will be no need to repeal anything. Okay. Okay. All right. So we'll move on to
the operation. Again, most of this was or is current practice, and again, we're just
making sure that it's covered under the DDC. I won't go through all of this, but just highlight
it again in bold, that there needs to be a minimum of six, primarily because the vote
in order to approve a variance is super majority. So in order to hold a meeting and be able
to vote, there needs to be a minimum of six members. The other list of procedures here
are just procedural, you know, administrative requirements or provisions for the ZBA. One,
for example, is actually keeping minutes, and that's consistent with all boards and
commission in that a ZBA meeting can be held at the call of the chairman or chairperson,
and also they can adopt governing rules regarding proceedings that they would like to have.
Again, as long as it's not conflict or in conflict or inconsistent with the subchapter
of state law. Additionally, talking about anything that's related to the Zoning Board
of Adjustments decision that is particularly related to a house bill that was passed in
that now not only does the person that has any appeal to a decision have to have to be
related to a project, anybody that is, you know, wants to provide or appeal a decision
can take that position and file with the city. This is something that was recently adopted
or approved per state law. So that's why this section or these two sections that you see
here have been added to the procedures of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Again, more
or less the top one, letter A, is what we're focusing on. Again, the bill that was passed
does allow anybody, even not related to specific application address or project, can take action
or can file an appeal to the city. Similarly, the bill that was passed also changed when
the appeal can be submitted. It set the date or the number of days. So now it's no later
than the 20th day after the decision is made. Prior to that, it did not have a specific
timeframe. So that is now under state bill, and we're just making it consistent in our
development code. So the next few sections here, again, highlighting, I won't read the
whole thing, but again, an appeal. Basically, the first one under this slide, letter D,
if there is a appeal, any other action that is being done or has been approved will have
to remain as a status would still remain the same. Nothing can move forward until that
appeal has been heard. That's what D really is saying. And then letter E is that the appeal
can't be acted, another appeal that is a separate appeal can't be submitted if it is the same
appeal. There must be at least six months in between the first appeal. I think these
are the last two. F basically states that at a public meeting or related appeal, any
interest of party may appear as part of the discussion or consideration to discuss that
specific appeal process. And then letter G is that the board -- this is another law
that was -- or this was passed last summer where if there's an appeal, the ZBA cannot
act on that first meeting. They have to wait for a second meeting, but has to happen within
60 days. So typically what we've done since that bill was passed is present to the Zoning
Board of Adjustment. They hear it. We then move on to the next consideration on the agenda.
The following meeting, the ZBA will then make their decision on that previously discussed
appeal application. So this again is consistent -- is consistent, that is, with what the bill
that was passed last summer. So with that, I know that that was a lot, and again, these
are just partly bringing the procedures that were currently -- that are currently being
applied to as far as the Zoning Board of Adjustment, but also adding a couple of the sections that
pertain to House Bill, the House Bill that was passed specifically, who can appeal and
when an appeal can happen, and how the appeal process works as far as having two meetings
versus having it at the same meeting -- a decision at the same meeting. Any questions
with regards to these sections or these provisions? Sorry, let me --
>> Councilmember Briggs. >> Not a big question, but I assume that these
appeals are not free. So I'm curious, is there a pricing in our code of ordinance? I mean,
is there another place where someone would have to go to look at that, and it would not
be in one location, or is there a reference to where they could go to find out?
>> That's a good question. I'm drawing a blank. Richard, do you recall, and maybe we can look
it up, as if there is a application -- I know that there is a -- there has to be a letter,
and a formal letter, obviously, sent within the time frame that's allowed, but I can't
say for sure if there's a fee and/or application. >> There is. I just don't recall. I'm pulling
it up now. I know that we've only had one, and Sean might have that.
>> Yeah. Zoning Board of Adjustments non-subdivision variance and appeals is $351.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, my question would just be, is there
-- I mean, if we're trying to get all the information in one location, do we need to
make reference to that somewhere, or is it -- or is it, you know, not needed?
>> I think, as we look at updating our table where we talk about applications, and I can
pull up our code. Sean, do you know if there is a -- I think there is an appeal, so --
>> Yeah, 2.83 is the appeal of an administrative decision. That is what goes to ZBA.
>> So we have it. If it is -- let me look at my section real quick. And those are good
questions. One second. >> And, Ron, in some cases, we have added
specific references just saying that the fee will be as provided in our fee schedule. I'm
not sure that we added that here. That might be useful.
>> Okay. So, right. So we do have it in 2. -- so this -- what we're adding is 2 -- I'm
ending 2.34, and this is pertaining to the ZBA composition. So, Keely, the section that
talks about the appeal process and procedure and application is further in the same subchapter,
but it is not listed under this section 2.34. And we can certainly discuss adding some reference
to look at that section where it talks about the application in the discussion of appeal.
We can certainly look into that. Does that make sense with what we're proposing? It does
not have it in that particular section 2.34, but as Richard mentioned, it's further down
in the development code or further in the same subchapter, but not necessarily in that
particular section. >> Okay. Yeah, I mean --
>> And if we need to reference it, we can reference it.
>> Right. Well, I mean, as long as it's in there and it's easily found, I just wanted
to make sure we weren't forgetting it or overlooking that. For someone who's going through a process
like this, having information available and easy to find is always helpful.
>> Understood. I'm just going to take real quick notes here, reference application. Okay.
Let me go ahead and continue the presentation. So the next section or the next topic is similar
to the ZBA. This is for the HLC, Historic Landmark Commission, Composition and Powers
and Duties. As you can see identified here, again, we intended to place all of this in
the Code of Ordinances. However, that direction has changed, so we are now bringing it back
into the DDC. So we're striking this section or that language that you see here in green
in adding the following. Similar to ZBA, we have the composition. The HLC is made up of
nine members, and again, appointed by City Council. Of the nine, the list that you see
below here, they must be represented by the following. So when we -- and when the City
Council looks to appoint or add a member or commissioner, we will make sure to let them
know, let you all know that we need a public accountant. We need a registered architect.
For now, I think we have everybody here. I believe maybe letter A, Denny County Historical
Commission. No, I stand corrected. Melody Kohot is representing that position. So I think
for now we are good, but again, wanted to make sure we have in the DDC the list of representatives
that are required to be a HLC commissioner. As far as the other members, they can make
up of any other parts of that. So four of the remaining five -- I'm sorry, three of
the remaining nine can serve in any of those positions or be of those other positions.
And then similar to the ZBA, the HLC commissioners that are appointed serve a two-year staggered
term. As far as powers and duties, we have provided a list. This list is a carryover.
There may be some additional ones, but for the most part, this was covered under the
2002 -- again, we're just providing this list to give guidance as far as what the powers
and duties are available for the HLC. I won't read all of this other than obviously establish
criteria for determining historic landmarks, recommending to the planning zoning commission
historic landmarks and ultimately city council for consideration. Establish guidelines for
determining how to provide certificate of appropriateness. The preservation plan, historic
preservation plan that was approved last year was something that the HLC had reviewed, considered
and recommended to the planning zoning commission. So that is another power that they have in
duty. And then suggest resource of funding to help historic preservation in the city.
In addition, we have a lot more under this particular section. Again, not going to read
through all of this other than make, again, recommendations, provide staff direction on
surveys and maintenance of inventory, that is. There is an opportunity to create committees
made up of the members of the commission for carrying out other purposes of the ordinance.
Prepare specific design guidelines and ultimately also review and provide comments as it relates
to national register of historic places. So it's a long list, but again, wanted to make
sure we cover all of the powers and duties that the HLC has in relationship to historic
preservation for the city. So with that, that is the end of that particular topic. Do you
all have any questions as far as the composition and powers of duties for the historic landmark
commission?
Just to clarify that they have not changed, correct? I mean, it's we're just transferring
all the information over.
Correct. There may be one or two that were added. I know when Roman was here with the
city, he may have added a couple. But again, as you can see from that list, it's basically
consistent in providing additional clarification as far as their duties. Nothing that was out
of the only that I can specifically speak to. Thank you.
Okay. Sure. Fine. If there's no other questions, I'll just go ahead and proceed. Any other
questions or comments? I'm seeing. Okay. Next. Sorry. Next topic on the agenda is expiration
of approval. And this applies to all of the applications. So it's not particular to any
set of application. This is for all applications. And what you see underlined is what's being
added. What's not underlined is currently in the DDC. So just want to make sure that
that's clear. Number two, we're adding says all previously approved applications for the
same land shall also expire. So as an example of this would be if there was a final plat
that was approved or was in process of being approved and a preliminary plat was tied to
it. If the final plat was not approved within the timeframe or never was approved, a preliminary
plat that's associated with that final plat would also expire. So just to make sure that
that was in our development code. Number three refers to the term or the status of a project.
We have under here that a project expires. If on the fifth anniversary of the date of
the first permit application was filed and no progress has been made, the application
of that or that project would not be carried forward. So for example, a project would,
for example, a subdivision variance or subdivision plat would be deemed a project if, you know,
they were to continue. However, after five years, if they don't submit any other applications,
that application or that particular project would no longer be considered a project. So
five years is similar or very, it's consistent with state law and that's why you see that
fifth anniversary identified as the timeframe. Ron, just a quick question. On that five years,
I think that maybe you've mentioned state law, but didn't we discuss something expiring
in two years before in our code discussions? That's specifically pertaining to applications.
Okay. What we're talking about here is projects. So a project like, you know, that has maybe
multiple applications. So if, for example, that project never fully develops, you know,
there's certain parts of it would no longer be. I think vesting is part of this, but five
years is really what we use to determine vesting. But what you're referring to, Keeley, is particularly
related to applications. And we'll get into that in a few slides down.
Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Yes. And Aaron, if there's anything, I saw you,
you know, if you had any additional comments to that five year.
It just relates to the project. So if they get the final plat approval and they just
never come back and five years pass and they don't meet the exceptions on the state statute,
then after five years that final plat would expire, so to speak, it'd be considered dormant
and the applicant would have to start all over again and comply with any new rules and
regulations that the city has amended from the time of their final plat approval. So
that's just the protection that state law provides to developments to make sure that
the rules aren't changed on them during the development process.
Perfect. Thank you. It continues to go further on the project. So now we've, you know, made
sure that project is explained a little further. This next one, number six, any new application
under sub-chapter or application modified shall be deemed to commence a new project.
So for example, if they submit a plan for a project and they come in with a new application
or something completely different, that basically starts a new project. So their five years
would not start from the original in which they've changed since. So what we're saying
is if you're coming in with a new application or a new modified plan, that time frame for
that project starts at that time of that new application is submitted.
And so I'm sorry, just to make sure. And so when they do resubmit a new plan, then that
means that if our codes or anything has changed, then they resubmit under those new codes,
not the older ones, right? The new codes or that time frame is the start.
And so say after five years after they submitted their modification, if they haven't added
any or had any progress, say it expires, they would be counting five years from that date
when that modification was submitted. It's more or less timing. And as Erin mentioned,
five years is important because, again, per state law, that kind of follows when vesting
starts and ends for a project.
So these are just to add to the development code, as mentioned earlier, so that it's clear.
We often have these provisions, but having a section of the code that explicitly explains
it helps us and the development community.
All right. Let's move on to the next item. Very, very, I'm going to say more of a cleanup.
I was trying to think of a word here. We're changing the term site plan to zoning compliance
plan. And the reason for that is to be sure that we're in compliance with the state bill
that's passed and just try to isolate or differentiate between the site plan and the zoning compliance
plan. For the most part, they're pretty much the same.
In this particular section, we are swapping a lot of the term state site plan with zoning
compliance plan, but we're also making sure that we're adding some clarification to when
a zoning compliance plan is required. And letter B, applicability, we initially had
a list of when the zoning compliance is required. Rather, what we are proposing is that they
would be only required if they meet the following examples covered under what we call tier two.
And so if a project is proposing an expansion or alteration or modification that increases
the gross floor area by 50%, they would be required to submit a zoning compliance plan.
Similarly, if the expansion or modification increases the total number of dwelling units
on a lot by more than 25%, they would be required to submit a zoning compliance plan. Anything
below 25, also anything below 50%, they would not. But again, looking at the tier requirements
for tier two, if they meet and exceed these requirements, then they would be required
to submit a zoning compliance plan. We go further and added a little bit more requirements
as far as what is that needs to be in the contents of the zoning compliance plan. Again,
listing out the following, you know, graphical and site data information, dimensions of existing
and proposed improvements, as well as any environmental tree preservation and landscape
area. The idea for a zoning compliance plan is to have an idea of what is being proposed
and review it against certain code requirements so that when the next step of platting is
done, we are clear on what is being proposed and we wouldn't have to make any corrections
on the plat because it's already been established and approved by the zoning compliance plan.
So the hope here is with adding this particular section, the three I's is to make sure that
when someone submits a zoning compliance plan, they have all of the following. That's pretty
much it for the zoning compliance plan. Again, to summarize, we're just cleaning up where
the term site plan is being replaced with zoning compliance plan and we're also making
it where it's required, have to follow what's listed in tier two in the development code.
So these are the examples of what tier two falls under. And lastly, just showing what
is required under a zoning compliance plan, what needs to be submitted with that application.
If there are no other questions, I'll go ahead and move forward to the next code amendment
topic. I've got a quick one, Ron, on the tier two number two. It says expansion alterations
or modifications that increase the total number of existing dwelling units on a lot by more
than 25%. Is that multifamily only? Typically, yes. Yes, it'll be multifamily. Obviously,
anything less than that would not qualify. But yes, the intent there is for multifamily.
Now, I'm trying to think with fourplex is that you wouldn't be able to do that possibly.
But more than one for sure would apply for this particular tier. And more likely, it's
multifamily. Okay. How would that affect accessory dwelling
units? It would not, because we don't require a
zoning compliance plan for single family. So that would just be done part of the planning.
Okay. Yeah, I was just in my head trying to think
of the fourplexes and the triplexes. But I think for the most part, this more or less
pertains to multifamily. Will pertain to multifamily. Okay. Here's another one that we have had
a situation with and we just wanted to be clear. And we're adding this particular section
under section 252C as it relates to specific use permits. Right now, it's current practice,
but we wanted to put it in the development code. And approval of specific use permit,
authorizing the specific use to develop does not preclude the development or the property
to develop other uses that are otherwise permitted under that zoning district. So for example,
the zoning or the specific use permit that we heard last night for the multifamily say
that that developer, for whatever reason, chooses not to move forward with that specific
use permit. And instead, under their zoning district, they want to propose something different,
they would be able to, it does not preclude them from submitting an application or development
for a use that's already permitted or currently permitted under that zoning district. I know
it seems like, well, that makes sense, Ron, but why do we have to put in the DDC? I think
it's important to list it out here so that it's clear for everybody. I think this is
the only one as far as this particular specific use application approval, effective approval.
This is all that we're proposing. Do you all have any questions how this is going to be
applied or is applied? Any questions? Pretty straightforward in that particular case. And
as I was saying earlier, a lot of these are more or less trying to provide clarification,
nothing much. We didn't think that this would be a lot of discussion, but wanted to bring
it forward to you all, the DCRC, so that when we bring it forward, hopefully it doesn't
raise any questions to the Planning, Zoning Commission, City Council. The next part of
this particular topic is related to the approval criteria. Again, the SUP that was heard yesterday,
there was criteria for approval for applications of all applications, that is, and then we
also had approval criteria for specific use permits. A lot of what was discussed is repetitive
duplications of those approval criteria, so what we're doing is eliminating what is already
under the approval criteria under all applications. So primarily what you are looking at here
is a deletion of number 3, 5, and 6, as those already are approval criteria under the all
application section of the code. That one is pretty short and quick. Again, we wanted
to just make sure that you all understood what this code amendment was about, so if
there are no other questions, I will move on to the next topic. Next sections are related
to traffic impact analysis and real estate applications, similar to what we heard at
our last meeting with regards to business registration and zoning verification letter.
This is current practice and what we're trying to provide with these code amendments is a
reference in the development code, so under Table 2.2A, which lists all of our applications,
we're just adding, again, the two or the traffic impact analysis and providing procedures of
how they are submitted, reviewed, and hopefully approved. I don't intend on reading, obviously,
the purpose for a TIA, I think we all know that it's to assess the development of the
roadway system and if there are any impacts, that the TIA will provide any mitigations
that will help negate or lessen the impact identified. It obviously follows under any
mobility requirements in any city den model that our engineering department has. Applicability,
this is a long list. What we wanted to provide here, and again, I won't read through all
of this, is to kind of illustrate and show our development community what we will be
looking for and what would be triggered under a, or what will be, what will trigger a TIA,
that is. So a TIA will be required for the following conditions. So if you meet one of
these conditions under the development code, if this were to be approved, we will require
you to prepare and submit a TIA to be reviewed. So again, wanted to provide that procedure
in the applicability portion of the development review process in which a TIA is required.
So this is the full section that we're proposing. I did not want to just provide you the whole
code update, but please note that in addition to the purpose, the basis and the applicability,
there's a whole section that will include the process as well as any actions and criteria
for acceptance. I can certainly bring that up if you'd like, or again, if you want to
just kind of understand or give direction to staff that what our purpose is to bring
a procedure into the DDC, which it is currently not for a TIA, a traffic impact analysis.
Again, if the DCRC would like to see the full procedure, I can certainly provide that with
you all, but I thought it was just important to share the purpose and when it is applicable.
So I'll seek direction from the DCRC. I did not want to just go through this without mentioning
that there are other sections under this development code amendment.
Ron, is this just moving it into the DDC, or are we changing what we're actually?
No, sir. We're adding it to the DDC, yes.
Okay. So it's our current practice is just moving to a different section, different area.
Our engineering department, we're the primary author of that section, as well as any other
section that the engineering department uses such as the civil engineering plans, they've
been involved in. So whatever we're adding, we are adding is part of what we are doing
today in our reviews of TIAs and other engineering applications.
Any questions or comments? Margie?
Thanks. I just have a question for clarity, Ron. So with the procedure and the determination,
is that made by the development review committee on that project, or is it the engineering
or head engineer who makes that decision? As far as it's a city engineering department
that would make that decision once they establish. So typically what happens is that there is
a trip generation study that's done. And based on that analysis or that information, again,
if it meets the list of criteria for TIA, then the city engineer or his or her designee
would then require the applicant to submit a full TIA.
So it's the city engineer that's making the decision with what we just looked at. Okay.
Understood. Thank you. Okay. So we'll move on to the next topic. And
again, real estate applications, these are encroachment agreements. These are easement
encroachments, use of right away. These are some of the examples of what real estate applications
are. Again, we do them now and have current practices that we apply or applications or
applicants apply for. We're trying to make sure that it's clear in what is required and
when it's required. And so we're proposing to add this particular type of application
and applications under the development code. Similar to all the other applications, there
is a purpose. And the purpose here, again, as you read is the propose of an applicant's
proposal to use some of the public lands such as easements that's been dedicated. Or they
choose to abandon if they would like to abandon an easement that the city no longer uses,
that can be also a real estate application. Right away abandonment. What I was talking
about earlier was encroachments into easements, also encroachments into right away use or
the right away as well. And any other oil and gas pipeline license requests. So these
would be the typical real estate applications that a applicant can request to either abandon
or encroach into. So these types of applications will fall under real estate applications.
I wanted to just highlight some of the applicability. Obviously public land rights requests from
an applicant or property owner to have direct, that has a direct interest in the land use
or the land itself. The second part of this is that when staff reviews these applications,
we don't just look at what is the current need for the city, but rather if in the future
there is public needs or necessity for that, that would make a strong consideration and
often decide if it is going to be approved or not. If staff determines that there is
no current and future necessity of said easement or right away, then that particular application
is then forwarded to the appropriate board and committee. Typically sometimes it's presented
to the planning zoning commission, but most likely it's presented to the public utilities
board, the PUB, and ultimately city council. In some instances where it would go to the
PNZ is, sorry, if the dedication of that easement or that right away was done by plat, it needs
to be abandoned by plat. And so PNZ would be considering those. If it is done and conveyed
by a separate instrument, then that abandonment will have to be approved by a separate instrument
and most of the time that is approved and considered by the PUB. Anything further than
that, the city council will be involved as far as any other request. Again, just to provide
you all, the application procedure has the following sections. I didn't want to go through
all of them. They're very similar to what you already know is applied to all applications,
but just really covered the purpose, the applicability, and then the following code amendment will
also have the particular sections as it relates to procedures. So if you all have no questions,
I can move on to the next one. But again, wanted to mention that it's not just the purpose
and applicability that we're looking at. We're also actually looking at the procedure and
that is something that we'll bring forward to the planning zoning commission and city
council ultimately, but did not want to go through it unless you all want to. We can
certainly go through them, but very, very similar to other procedures as far as what
is required. Chair, I don't want to go through all of these at all. I'm just curious because
when we went through the code before, and I know that this is stuff that we were realizing,
is there a reason why before it wasn't in the code that we just approved? I mean, because
I know that these applications, these are things that we've always done and other things
that we've reviewed so far, we've had a reason why they weren't in. So why wasn't this in
before? Good question. With the 2002, we didn't have
the table. We didn't have procedures. So with the 2002 in helping our development community
understand our procedures and providing them a way of knowing what we have as far as type
of application, we created this table. But in 2019, when we approved the DDC, we just
listed a few. We didn't expand it to all of the applications. So that's why you don't
see the TIA, you don't see the civil engineering plans, and that's why you don't see the real
estate application. So that's why we're adding it to what we have today. So Keely, it wasn't
even in the 2002 code, because again, we didn't have a list outlined in that part. It was
basically covered generally. Right. No, I was just referring to the 2019.
I think we were just focused on the ones that we were focused on, the main applications.
And as we go through the development review process, we find that we need to have those
applications in the sub chapter. And that's why we're adding it. I think we just didn't
include it just because we were focused on the others.
Right. Okay. Well, I mean, it makes sense. And it needs to be in there. So, right. Appreciate
that question. Yeah, Ron, I do have a question on this. Because
you talk about it's a slide that wasn't in my, my backup that that I saw about dedication
had to be done by platting, if it was originally done by platting. Yes. And I know that or
I believe that when we change the gas well ordinance to 500 foot, any, you couldn't plat
any protected use within that 500 foot after that, if the plat already existed, you could
still build on it, but you couldn't do any replatting. So if someone needs to replat
within that distance, or they can't replat in that distance, but yet we never trying
to do something that might require a dedication or a reclaimed right of way, how will that
be handled? So if I understand the question correctly,
this, this particular application type, real estate application type is, is any encroachment
abandonment or I'm sorry, easement abandonment, any right of way abandonment, any encroachment
into the easements. So I think this is two separate things. If, if I'm understanding
and I'm trying to understand your question, John, are you talking about the setback requirements
or you said, yeah, the way I understood what, what got passed was you cannot, you cannot
build within 500 foot of a gas well unless it had been previously plotted for that use.
So during that time period that we're at 250 and we switched to 500, if it got plotted
during that time period, they could still build within that, in that distance between
the 250 and the 500. But if you needed to go back and change your plat, all that was
one of the things that was happening is that you're, you're taking anybody that's in that
area and if they have to, for whatever reason, do a replat, they can't do it because we've
now said you cannot plat a residential lot. We didn't say anything about replat necessarily,
but to me, replatting is a plat, is a, an act of platting. So yeah, I, sorry, I didn't
understand at first. I really don't know the answer to that question. I think that's more
of a, a, a vesting or under maybe a gas well question that I'm not familiar with how that
procedure works. I don't know if Aaron can help me out with this one or Richard.
If such a situation like that arose, council member Ryan, I would probably provide legal
advice to close session, to the city council in closed session.
Okay. So moving on to the next topic, we get into subdivision application procedures. This
covers all platts. So again, moving on to the section of the code that talks about platting.
This is section two six and two six further on right now two six one, which is again subdivision
applications. Our platting does not have an applicability section. So what we're adding
is the section that you see or the language that you see here highlighted or underlined
that is just to provide that clarity that we were talking about. As you all know that
any development within the city shall submit and apply under the subdivision procedure
section any plat application that is applicable, preliminary plat, final plat. If it's a replat
or an amending final plat or anything of the like, they will need to submit under this
particular section. And as you all know, with the cities in a local agreement with the county,
we also process application for platting in division one of our ETJ. And this is again
to help illustrate that that's in our code to make sure that anyone that's developing
has a section or in the ETJ has a section that they can refer to, to make sure that
they understand that they need to submit to the city of Denton. And also as it relates
to the inner local agreement, any civil engineering plans may be applied to areas within division
one as well. So continuing on with the subdivision application. So again, two six and on this
particular section refers to the recording of plat applications and particularly any
replat or final plat. What I wanted to focus on here is that the 180 days, this is something
that we initially included, but we are now changing. We are changing it to 24 months
to be consistent with other expiration or filing dates for, for plats. So again, going
from 180 days to 24 months. So if someone had a plat that was approved by P and Z, they
have up to 24 months to file that plat. Prior to that, they can keep it, you know, unrecorded,
but in order to move forward with their development, they would have to file it or record it. But
what we're saying is they have up to 24 months rather than what it is currently shown here
of 180 days. Very consistent, again, trying to make sure that we cover every section of
the code where it talks about 180 days. We want to make sure that it's now 24 months
again to be consistent with all the filing of and expiration dates of any of the plots
under this subsection. Again, 180 days to 24 months. This is this particular section
that we're proposing to amend is it's more or less a cleanup. We know that a preliminary
plat in the ETJ is not required, but it is permitted if the applicant chooses to. We
are just making this more clear by adding it to the first line and deleting the second
line. I think that was the intent of this particular code amendment. Again, a very,
very minor change in our code just to be a little bit more clear. Again, we initially
had 180 days or six months. What we're doing is changing the effectiveness of a preliminary
plat. If it was approved by P&Z, it would be effective for up to 24 months until they
final plat either the whole site or parts of it. We're saying that six months is just
too short in that 24 months is a little bit more practical, and that's why you're seeing
this proposed change. It is a very important change, and again, we wanted to make sure
that the DCRC did not have any question as we bring forward this set of code amendments
to the P&Z and City Council.
Rob, sorry to interrupt, but before we get too far ahead of it, go back one more. Where
you took the permitted, but not required, to me that is a change because now it's reading
that within the city limits or the ETJ, so are we saying we don't require? Right now
is not required, is not required in the city. I'm sorry, in the ETJ. In the ETJ, but with
the way that this is rewritten, it would not be required in the ETJ or the city limits.
That's correct. I think there was an option, more so I think for commercial properties
for non-residential, if they wanted to just go straight to construction engineering plans
and final plat to have that option available to them. I think most residential subdivisions
would go the preliminary plat route just because of the phasing, but we thought for a non-residential,
this could be an option rather than sending them through both processes.
Richard, if I may, I'm taking note of this section. We may probably need to add that
explanation just to be clearer because as the chair mentioned, it does say city limits
as well, so just didn't want to keep this from us a lot. We're requiring say residential
development from submitting a preliminary plat.
Yeah, I agree. Thank you, chair, for catching that.
All right. Great. We can, we can move on. Great. Okay. So the next part of the subdivision
application procedure is related to final plots. Again, adding the effects of the approval.
I think this particular section or this piece right here under A was just moving it down
to here, but again, the second part D talks a little bit more of the expiration of approval.
Again, two years, 24 months is what we're saying is what we want to be consistent with
the code with the other sections of the code that is. So again, this is just going to provide
more clarification.
So that is the end of that topic, subdivision application procedures. If you all don't have
any questions, we can move on to the next one.
I'm not seeing any movement by anyone. So go ahead and move on.
So replat procedures. We have a very short version of a replat procedure currently. And
what we're trying to do is be consistent with all the other application types. So we're
adding purpose and applicability. Again, anything that's underlying you see here is something
that we are adding to the development code. It's shown in red primarily because it's obviously
a high priority for us and we want to make sure that we get this code amendment to you
all as soon as possible. Again, we all know that the replatting process of what it's intended
for is to amend or vacate a plat. I'm sorry, to replat a property, of course. And then
applicability, it applies to any part of a subdivision or any part of a subdivision.
Next slide is just what we discussed earlier. In addition to the purpose and applicability,
we have the following sections. And again, they pretty much follow very similar steps
in the process and the procedures that is. I do want to make mention that there is a
particular section I wanted to share with you all. Again, this is under Step 6. So going
through all of this, the pre-application activities are similar to the submittal and handling
of the application, staff review and action, scheduling notices of public meetings and
hearings and review and decision and post-decision actions and limitations are a little different
for replats. So I'm going to go ahead and share that with you. So if there is a replat
that requires a variance or an exception, it has to go through a public hearing process
with the Planning and Zoning Commission, just the Planning and Zoning Commission. And this
is under 212.05 in the Texas Local Government Code. It has to be a public hearing. There
has to be notices sent out. And if there is written protest from those, the Planning and
Zoning Commission is required to vote in the supermajority. And again, this is partly as
applies to state law under 212. We wanted to illustrate that or provide that in our
development code. So the decision of a replat that has a variance or an exception would
need to follow this procedure. However, if there is a replat that does not have a variance
or exception, they will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but does not
require a public hearing. And the only notification that would be presented or shared for that
particular property would be a notice after the decision has been made. So these, again,
a residential replat that does not require a variance shall be noticed to the public
by no later than 15 days of the replat. The public being just those properties within
200 feet of the subject site within that subdivision. We've had several replats already that went
to the Planning and Zoning Commission that did not have a variance. Those were considered
under items for individual consideration. Those that were actually approved, staff has
been sending out notices to those individuals or those property owners within the 200 foot
or properties within 200 feet of that subject property. And again, that is per a new state
law that was passed last summer. Again, just want to make sure that that was clear and
that was presented because this is different from all the other applications because it
is something that was recently passed by state law for replats. Any questions with regards
to replat procedures? Just for me, because it is something new because of state law,
but does that differ from the procedure that we did in the past? Yes. On the notification
aspect of it? On the notification aspect, yes, ma'am. Okay. And the notification is
specifically called out in state law? Correct. The difference between ones that require a
variance or exception and ones that do not require a variance. Okay. And that was added
again, added to state law under, I forget the house bill, I think I have it in the presentation,
it was last summer. That is okay. Thank you. Sorry. Going back the other way. Okay. Subdivision
variance is our next topic. And for those in planning and zoning, this is something
that is decided only at planning and zoning commission. And with the 2019 development
code, the subdivision variance was changed to the ZBA. It went to the ZBA and we realized
that, or any variance, sorry, any variance, not subdivision, but just any variance would
go to ZBA, including subdivision variance. We felt that something that we overlooked
and something that we need to change and bring back to the planning and zoning commission.
So you see here, the decision is planning and zoning commission as opposed to the zoning
board of adjustments. So again, subdivision variance is anything that pertains to a variance
to a subdivision. And we've got a list under the applicability. But again, I wanted to
share the purpose of the subdivision variance just to share with you if it resulted in unnecessary
hardship or any other variance that the applicant is seeking to grant relief outside of what
is required under the current DDC subdivision requirements. So here's the applicability
section or part of the section that we wanted to include. We are saying that any property
owner seeking relief for standards contained in the following sections of the DDC. So streets,
driveways, lot planning, and block layout. These are what would be only required or may
be requested as a variance for their development. And again, we are saying that the planning
and zoning commission shall decide the request for subdivision variances rather than the
zoning board of adjustment, which is what is currently in our 2019 development code.
It currently falls under the ZBA. What we're trying with this proposed code amendment is
to bring it back to the planning zoning commission. I won't read through this again. I just wanted
to share with you that the subdivision variance approval criteria so that anyone that's looking
to do a subdivision variance will need to make sure that they follow or know that these
are the criteria in which the planning zoning commission will use in granting that variance.
And I know there's a lot there, and I didn't want just to go past this, but I wanted to
make sure that you knew that there is a long list of criteria for a subdivision variance
that would be considered, and hopefully, if approved by the planning zoning commission.
And if you all need more time, please let me know, or if you want me to go through this
individually, I can do that as well. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental. The
conditions of which the request variance is based on a uniqueness of the property, but
because the particular physical surroundings, shape or topography or condition is a particular
hardship, and it's not just an inconvenience, the subdivision will not in any manner vary
from the Den Plan 2030 or the Den Plan Comprehensive Plan, the Den Mobility Plan, and other documents.
And that the special and peculiar condition of which the request is based did not result
from or were created by the act or commission of the owner or any prior owner. So very similar
to other variances, approval criteria, but again, wanted to make sure that the subdivision
variance has its own approval criteria. Ron? Yes, ma'am. So this was planning and zoning,
and then it went to the zoning board? Correct, by way of, yes, 2019 development code. Okay.
So it went to the zoning board, and we're realizing that that didn't work out the best,
and so we're moving it back to planning and zoning? Right, right. We feel that the planning
and zoning commission reviews, plots, subdivisions, obviously a lot more than the zoning board
of adjustments. So they're more, I guess, prepared or aware of what to look for. Okay.
And was it the word variance that was in there that made us feel like we needed to send it
over to the zoning board? I'm trying to remember this conversation, and I... Yeah, we just,
again, trying to make it simple, trying to make it, you know, it's the right word. Streamlined,
we thought the variance would, any variance would just be ZBA. However, this was a special
variance because of the nature of it, subdivision regulations, and felt that the P&Z would be
the better board or commission to look through these. Okay. Thank you. Ed, we don't have
very many of these. I don't think, at least in the three years that I've been here, that
we've processed one. They're very rare when we do have one. Yeah, I know in the past one
or two have been block lengths or other, you know, transportation-related variances, driveway
separations, that sort of thing. Okay. Okay. We are hopefully getting close. I know that
we have a couple more. Here's one that I think requires a lot of review from the DCRC. It's
rezoned to a planned development. Similar to the replat, we carried forward some language
related to PD, you know, rezoning to PD, but it wasn't a full comprehensive procedure,
and so we are adding the following sections, again, similar to the other ones having a
purpose, applicability, and other sections. So, again, as you can see here, and you can
read that obviously a PD is a special type of zoning where the applicant or property
owner would like to propose a type of development that may not necessarily meet the development
code, but by way of design and proposal, they have a little bit more unique concept and
would like to consider it as a PD. I know we have had several PDs already approved or
amended recently. I think the true PDs are the ones that have a design submitted that
vary up front, is specific to a uniqueness and is different. Then there's also a different
type of PD, which we'll get into in a little bit here, is where what we consider rezoning,
when we reconsider rezoning and we add conditions, ultimately a PD or a zoning with condition
or even overlay, they're all the same in nature, but different in their scope. So I'll go to
the next slide. So what we have are two types of PDs. We have an overlay PD. An overlay
PD may just be like we discussed and have done recently with the Planning and Zoning
Commission is restrict a use that's permitted under the base zoning because it's not a zoning
that was going to be approved straight zoning and that there was some conditions. We wanted
to make it distinct and so this is what we would refer to as an overlay PD. A standard
PD is a little bit more intended by the applicant and they realize that they are not going to
meet a specific zoning dimensional standard or a specific requirement and would like to
propose a PD, create their own standards and their development standards and have the P&Z
and City Council consider it. This is what we're determining or defining as a standard
PD. So just wanted to share that because again, we see these two types of PDs or have seen
these two types of PDs and we anticipate on seeing more of them as we continue to develop
in the city and wanting to see some of our infill development occur. I think this is
a tool that we can certainly use and not just infill but any other areas of the city if
again, we in the development community finds a need for them. And so that would be, I remember
we talked about tiny homes, would that be as a PD, would that be a standard? Correct,
correct under tiny homes, you're absolutely correct Keely because it's unique and we want
to make sure that the design of them are consistent with the goals and the objective of the Complan
and the development code. A PD would be the appropriate method for getting those types
of developments approved. Any other questions?
And again, the PD has, again, we wanted to make sure we followed the same outline of
procedures. Again, I wanted to spend time a little bit more on step two because it is
different from the other ones. There is also approval criteria for PDs. Again, all of this
which is you see here are very similar. The ones that are called out, I wanted to make
sure that you understood the differences. So that's why you saw that or had that discussion.
Any questions on rezoning to PD? Again, I don't know if you all want to look at what's
the approval criteria but what I would say is very similar to a rezoning. You just want
to make sure that it's compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, it's consistent
with our comprehensive plan and so on and so forth. But again, the process or procedure
is very similar to the other process or applications.
And the notification is the same, right? Correct. So 20%, you know, or denial, it requires a
super majority for the City Council to approve. Okay.
Yes, ma'am. Right. That brings us to the end of three set of code amendments. I just wanted
to kind of give you some idea as to what to expect next week if we have a meeting. Again,
the unity of title and declaration in lieu of unity of title may be part of this meeting
next week or the meeting next week, or maybe some meeting in the future. Following that
discussion we'll have additional discussions on annexation procedures as we move forward.
Again, the next four, five, and six, and seven are basic cleanup like we saw earlier, nothing
major, but I wanted to share that with you because obviously it does have some implications.
I want to make sure that everyone under the DCRC is aware of them. As far as the other
column, we get to a little bit more specific changes and a little bit more discussion,
in my opinion, dimensional standards as it relates to setback changes, as it relates
to height clarifications, table of allowed uses. We recently went through a discussion
on tattoo and piercing parlors. There are some uses that we want to address and clear
up and address nonconformities as well. Use specific standards, those are specific to
a particular use and there are some standards that we want to either change or clarify by
eliminating some duplications and or adding more clarification or clarity. And last, 11
and 12, I know that the DCRC, that prior to the DCRC, and I know that Tim's on the call
or on the Zoom link may not have been purviewed to this, but we have had a lot of discussion
probably more than we want to, but we wanted to bring this back to you all just to have
a refresher. And these are important because we know that these are concerns from the community
that we have been aware of and been brought to our attention. And we just want to make
sure that when we bring this forward, you all are okay with what's being proposed or
recommended. If there is anything else that you all know of that you would like to bring
forward, please let me know. We can certainly add to the list. I was telling someone earlier,
as we get further down in our meetings, the priorities, high priorities, will soon go
away and we'll be focusing more on just regular code amendments, that is under our non-substantive
changes and then also substantive changes as well. And then our criteria manual transition
or transfer, we will also be getting into in our next set of couple, our next couple
of meetings in the next couple of weeks or months. Whenever we have them scheduled, that
is. So with that, I'll stand for any questions and/or if you have any recommendations or
would like to see any other code amendments that you know of that we should be researching,
we should be prioritizing, or that we should be bringing forward.
I think Margie had a question.
Well, it actually had to do when we were talking about PDs. So if I can ask it now, you just
talked over me and I couldn't stop you, Ron. You just kept going.
Just super quick question with regard to rezoning to PD. So would that just be considered for
standard PD? I mean, or are you trying to say there's two PD rezoning options now?
There will be two different PD options. So if it is something that say it's all we're
looking at as far as restricting the uses, we should consider those PDs rezoning.
We're still considering that a PD.
Right. If we know ahead of time, that's the hope, right? I know that there was one rezoning
that was brought forward and we didn't catch it before, but certainly those would be still
considered. And Richard, remind me again, if the P&Z has a recommendation for restricting
uses, would we consider those, I mean, we should, PDs?
Right, right. And so what's happening now is if you remember when we transitioned to
the 2019 PDC, all of those little, I'll call them the parcel overlays that we had from
the mixed use overlay, those transitioned to with a PD designation. And so essentially
what this will do is codify that, but then have a better way. So now we don't have overlays
and then PD overlays. So it's just really consolidating into one thing. So it essentially
is the old mixed use overlay just reconstituted into a PD, because that's how we have them
mapped today.
Yeah. And that I understand. I guess what my question is, is if we're rezoning to, let's
say a recent request we had, and I can't remember what the rezone was, but there ended up being
a condition put on it. It wasn't brought to us as a PD overlay rezoning. So I'm trying
to get clarification.
Yeah, so this would function just like that. So they could apply under that with rather
than going through the whole PD, because I think the one you're talking, I think it's
coming back next meeting, because then there was another condition that they wanted to
add at council, unbeknownst to staff. And so that's when council had kicked it back for
B and Z to reconsider again. But that was the one where they were rezoning to R4 and
had requested an overlay or conditions be put on it.
Right. So what are we calling that? Are they rezoning to R4 with conditions?
With an overlay condition then that gets mapped as, because I think we've had one or two others,
there was the one off of 35W that had some restrictions after the community meeting that
ultimately went as an overlay.
Right. So we're calling it a PD overlay, but it really would come to us originally as that,
right? Because oftentimes these overlay discussions don't even get talked about until we're discussing
the rezone request in our meetings.
Correct. It could. There are those instances where, a lot different from where we were
before with the, you know, before we had some residential, if you were over two acres, you
didn't have those minimum sizes. And so there were times where we could support an R6 provided
certain uses weren't more involved. And that may be the case, but I think it'll be more
likely that it would get brought up after we have the, there's a neighborhood meeting
or community meeting and some issues are raised. So very well could come before, but I suspect
that the majority of them will either happen at the meeting or right between the neighborhood
meeting.
Okay. So, so to understand, so you're going to try to vet a lot of these things ahead
of time and possibly and bring them before P and Z as a PD overlay request?
If possible, because right now the code doesn't allow staff to.
Right. We have to kind of get, have the applicant ask for an overlay. So does, so if you don't
catch that ahead of time, but we catch it in a discussion, do we have to, what do we
do at that point? Are we still allowed to approve a rezone with some kind of a condition
if it's not called PD overlay?
I think it would just have that PD overlay applied to it. So it would be say R or MN
with that PD overlay. I think that's how Ron, if you can pull the language back up.
I think I understand what you're trying to say Margie, if it's not brought to you as
a PD, you know, as far as an application, it's a straight zoning and there was a condition
placed after, you know, or during P and Z, what, what do we move? How do we move it forward
to what is moved to city council? What is forwarded to city council?
Exactly. So if it comes to us as you know, wanting to rezone, you know, from R2 to R4,
but then we want to put something on it or I guess it maybe it wouldn't be R4, but maybe
R2 to R6 or something. We want it eliminated or say you can only have single family detached
or what have you. If we, if we discuss that in our, our meeting, then what, yeah, what
is going to city council because it is PD over, you know, I'm confused.
Yeah. I think, I think, uh, what we would do is obviously bring forward what you're
recommending or what the P and Z is recommending. The only thing that I think we need to work
on and I've noted here and we'll talk, uh, internally with Richard and legal is how do
we notice it? Because obviously is it a PD or is it a rezoning or are they all the same
or are they different? How do we clarify that for the public? That's the, I think that's
the only thing. That's exactly my question. Yes. So I guess Richard and maybe Erin, I don't
know the answer right now. I mean, maybe, uh, again, these are the ones that are, are
conditions on a rezoning that are, that are, that are recommended by the city, um, by the
planning zoning commission. How do we move that forward? Is that a rezoning or do we change
it midstream as a PD overlay or PD? And is it notice, how do we notice that? And it may
require re-noticing. And most of the time when those come up, it is a function of they're
trying to go from an R2 to an R4 and then we put conditions on them. So as I, as I read
through this, it talks about on the zoning map, it will be designated as PD dash and
whatever the base zoning is. So the PD is just simply saying that we put an overlay
on it on the zoning map when it's that style. Similar to the old, yeah, the mixed use overlay
is exactly how we did that prior. So unless there's some, it's just kind of denoting that
there is something different about, it's not just your basic MN or basic R4 that there's
something special about it. I think it's just a notification. In my, in my opinion, I think
it's just a notification. How do we want to make sure it's clear? Because to the best
of my knowledge, we cannot make it less restrictive than what the zoning requires. We can only
make it more restrictive. That is correct. Yes. Councilmember Briggs. So this is really
good conversation and a lot of really great things come out of planning and zoning when
you guys are discussing things together on the dais that when it comes to us at council
are really great conditions. My question would be, so if an item comes to P and Z and it's
already marked a PD overlay and the staff has put conditions on it, can those conditions
be changed by P and Z or added to? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. Ultimately city council will take
the recommendation by P and Z and by staff and then decide on what conditions would be
placed. Right. I just wanted to make sure their hands weren't tied if something like
that already came to them. So as, as the PD, okay. Yes, Tim. Hey chair. So I know on most
of the PDs, Ron, and I think I missed it on the, not most, all PDs, I missed it possibly
in the change to the PD overlay. Most of the PDs require that, and I probably used the
wrong term, the site plan, preliminary plan to be codified in the zoning change. Is it
the same on the overlay? Is it going to be a codified piece within there? Cause that's
something that I haven't liked so far by even having the PD in the first place, but I understand
it if we're doing a, you know, a 100% true blue PD, but in this type of scenario, it's
a PD overlay and we're just restricting some of the conditions in the, in the base zoning
that the codified site plan, preliminary plan, whatever the wording is, seems, it seems to
add even more restrictions to it. Right. Right. No, I understand what you're saying. I think
that's why we had those two types of PDs. So on the overlay, I think I missed it, in
the PD overlay that codified site plan, preliminary plan wouldn't be required. Correct. If it's
just the uses that we're talking about, then yes. However, with any condition, if it speaks
specifically to a lot layout or whatever, then we would need to have that documented
somehow. Just a clarification. Thank you for that. Yes. Andrew. Thank you, chair. I don't
know if this is appropriate to move on to another item, but I had a question about something
else that might be applicable to the DCRC to cover, but I certainly don't want to take
the floor from the PD conversation. So, I'll just go ahead and ask it. And if someone wants
to circle back to PD, I apologize for interrupting that conversation. I came up in PNZ last week
about the opportunity for property owners to petition the city to abandon a road. And
I don't, it didn't seem like there was, I didn't get clarity on how the city actually
provides a mechanism for road abandonment for property owners. And I don't know if the
DCRC is the appropriate mechanism to review that. But I would like to figure out a way
to outline to property owners who own both sides of a road, what petition they have available
to them to look at. I don't know if it's TIA to see if a road can be removed or if it's
road quality. I don't know those things that go into play about how a property owner can
do it, but I certainly want to follow through on that conversation we had at PNZ last week
on what the city can do to set up structures for that process.
Richard, I don't know if you want to respond to that, but I know that we have part of the
real estate application is a road right away abandonment. And that is an application that
they can submit either property owners on both sides or obviously you would hope that
both sides would request for that abandonment. So, Andrew, we do have an application already
in place. Okay, great. That's helpful. I didn't get
that information last week. Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't under process it enough. Richard,
if you want to. The only thing I was going to add is that's
really the we do, but it's not really as formal as it needs to be. Going back to the real
estate application that we were that Ron had talked about earlier, I guess it doesn't make
sense to lump everything under real estate applications or should we break those out?
Maybe it is better to have separate items for right of way abandonment or vacation easement
abandonment. That way it's clear in the code and it just doesn't get hidden under one catch
all phrase. There really isn't a formal process for road abandonments. They have just been
handled through the real estate division. So that could be something that probably not
development services but maybe the engineering department can work on and with real estate.
The cases that I have seen over the years have included where we have taken like for
example with Mayhill where we have redone realigned the road, there's going to be a
piece of Mayhill that is still a street, but it has no function anymore. That's not related
to anything regarding a physical development that development services will be involved
with, but the people there may want to request that that portion of the nonfunctional roadway
piece to be abandoned so that they can use it for whatever purposes. That will impact
them as they develop that property in the future if they wish to do that. But that's
typically what we see with road abandonments. It's an old road that no longer has any function
and the people just want to abandon it. Sometimes it does spill over into the development on
gated subdivisions that predate the rules that we used to have and they want to have
that road abandoned and so that's a different story. But typically these requests come after
a development has occurred for the most part. Not always, but for the most part they think
that's how they usually occur. Yeah, I appreciate that insight. I mean more
specifically the item that came into P&Z was Shady Shores west of Lakeview in which there's
the northern part of the property is basically half ESA and the southern part of the property
which the owner owns both parcels is I-35 frontage road and Shady Shores, I'm not sure
what the rating of that road is but I can't assume it's high and so I would like to see
what mechanisms are available to remove Shady Shores, that portion of Shady Shores road,
allow the developer to put in what we it seemed like retail or grocery store there and give
him access or them access to I-35 frontage road so that they can have more developable
property outside that ESA. So in this specific example it's not necessarily that the road
needs to be abandoned because of development that's already taken or that there's been
a realignment of roads that road I imagine gets driven on, I'm not sure by whom or how
many but in this case this is what I was looking for is the ability for the city to proactively
encourage the development of properties that because of ESA or otherwise have limitations
and this specific example it seems to benefit everyone that the neighbors, the city, the
developers, to look into what mechanisms they would have to combine those two parcels on
the north and south side of Shady Shores. That's what I appreciate historically how
a right away abandonment is taking place. I was looking for more like proactive to encourage
development where a right away is preventing it potentially.
That's a very good example, something that we can discuss internally.
That would be great. Thank you.
I would like to re-discuss or talk about parking minimum and maximums. I don't know if this
committee would be interested in that but I know that since we upgraded our or changed
our ordinance a while ago different things have happened and we have some flexibility
in there for the planners to work with the developments which is really great but I'm
just curious if we could have that conversation to see where we used to be, where we are now
and if there's -- if what we have, the new ordinance is working or not.
Kayla, we have that on our list and that is part of subchapter 7 so as we move down we'll
certainly get to that and we do have some recommendations.
Okay, thank you. Anyone else? I've got one. And that is I think
somehow it got misinterpreted when we're dealing with perimeter fences and we said you could
use wood if it was raised above -- we meant to say above masonry where it was like a wood
panel up inside the masonry so your bottom was all solid and just to make sure that that
kind of gets corrected if it hasn't already. That too will be brought forward in subchapter
7 and if we need to clarify that further we'll make sure the DCRC has an opportunity not
only to get a refresher but to hopefully if there was any miscommunication we can clear
that up. Yeah, I believe fences, perimeter fences were
about a six-hour conversation the first go. More like six days.
Days versus hours. Yeah, so I have one more suggestion. If we
could get these presentations that we see uploaded to the backup so that the public
can review them, I think that would be helpful to you.
We'll do that, yes ma'am. Okay, thanks.
Anything else on this item? All right, any concluding items?
Well, I'll just say happy Veterans Day and I want to thank all the service members for
what they have done for us. And if there's nothing else we will adjourn
the meeting at 2 41. Thank you everyone.
- Thank you. - Thank you.