agenda planning and zoning commission april 20, 2011 …

1

AGENDA

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

April 20, 2011

After determining that a quorum is present, the Planning and Zoning Commission will convene a

Work Session on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at

City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which time the following items will be

considered:

WORK SESSION

1. Clarification of agenda items listed in the Regular Session agenda for this meeting, and

discussion of issues not briefed in the written backup materials.

2. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction concerning proposed

amendments to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code regarding use

restrictions for both Free-standing Monopole Support Structure and Building-mounted

Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). (DCA10-0010, Wind Energy Conversion

Systems, Kenny Banks and Ron Menguita)

Refer to Public Hearing Item 5A for backup material.

NOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting

on any item on its Work Session or Regular Session agendas at any time, consistent with Chapter

551 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, including without limitation, Sections 551.071-

551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

REGULAR MEETING

After completing the Work Session, the Planning and Zoning Commission will convene a Regular

Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas which will be held

on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 and will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City

Hall, 215 E. McKinney at which time the following items will be considered:

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

A. U.S. Flag

B. Texas Flag

“Honor the Texas Flag – I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas one state under God,

one and indivisible.”

2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES FOR:

A. April 6, 2011

Planning and Zoning Commission

April 20, 2011

of 3

2

3. CONSENT AGENDA: Staff recommends approval of the following items because they

meet the requirements of the Denton Development Code. Approval of the Consent Agenda

includes staff recommendations for approvals and authorizes staff to proceed. The

Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the applications and has had an

opportunity to raise questions regarding the items prior to consideration:

A. Preliminary Plat of the Meadows at Hickory Creek Addition, Phases 2, 3, & 4. The

approximately 48.675 acre property is located on the east side of Bonnie Brae

Street, on both the north and south sides of Vintage Boulevard. The property is

located within a Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district. (PP10-0024,

the Meadows at Hickory Creek Addition, Cindy Jackson)

B. Preliminary Plat of the Unicorn Lake Estates Addition, Phases 1, 2, and 3. The

subject property is approximately 31.14 acres in size and is generally located north

and west of Clubhouse Drive, south of Loon Lake Road and east of Ranch House

Drive. The property is located within a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning

district. (PP11-0004, Unicorn Lake Estates Addition, Nana Appiah)

4. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION:

A. Consider a variance from Subchapter 35.20.4.H (Driveway Standards) of the

Denton Development Code regarding corner clearance standards and Section 4.1.C

of the Transportation Criteria Manual regarding driveway stacking requirements.

The approximately 0.517 acre lot is located at the northeast corner of University

Drive and Carroll Boulevard. The subject site is located within a Community

Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning district. (V11-0002, Schlotzsky’s Denton,

Johnna Matthews)

B. Consider approval of an Alternative Development Plan (ADP) for a single-family

development. The approximately 31.14 acre property is located north and west of

Clubhouse Drive, south of Loon Lake Road and east of Ranch House Drive. The

property is located within a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district.

(ADP11-0002, Unicorn Lake Estates Addition, Nana Appiah)

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council

concerning proposed amendments to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development

Code regarding use restrictions for both Free-standing Monopole Support Structure

and Building-mounted Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). (DCA10-0010,

Wind Energy Conversion Systems, Kenny Banks/Ron Menguita)

Planning and Zoning Commission

April 20, 2011

of 3

3

B. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council

regarding the following matters relating to the Robson Ranch Planned

Development District (PD-173):

1. A Concept Plan amending ordinance 2009-084 to allow the relocation of two

(2) gas parks identified as gas parks 13 and 14, and show only land use

categories on the Concept Plan map.

2. A Detailed Plan amending ordinances 2000-059, 2001-247, 2003-324, 2009-

085, and 2009-103 to allow the relocation of two (2) gas parks (gas parks 13

and 14) and to allow the development of residential units, amenities, and gas

parks.

The subject site is located north of Crawford Road, south of H. Lively Road, east of

Florence Road, and west of the Hunter Ranch Master Planned Community. (Z08-

0021, Robson Ranch Gas Parks 13 and 14, Nana Appiah).

Staff is recommending this item be continued until the May 4, 2011 Planning and

Zoning Commission meeting.

6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act,

respond to inquiries from the Planning and Zoning Commission or the public with specific

factual information or recitation of policy, or accept a proposal to place the matter on the

agenda for an upcoming meeting.

NOTE: THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING

AT ANY TIME REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR WHICH IT IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE.

NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL ROOM IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS

WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL

THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF

(TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the

City of Denton, Texas, on the day of , 2011 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.)

_____________________

CITY SECRETARY

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MINUTES 1 PLANNING AND ZONING 2

April 6, 2011 3 4

After determining that a quorum was present, the Planning and Zoning Commission convened a 5 Work Session on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at 6 City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which time the following items were 7 considered: 8 9 PRESENT: Chairman Walter Eagleton, Commissioners: Jay Thomas, Thom Reece, Brian 10 Bentley, Patrice Lyke, Jean Shaake and John Ryan. 11 12 ABSENT: None. 13 14 STAFF: Mark Cunningham, Jerry Drake, Kenny Banks, Chuck Russell, Jennifer Coles, 15

Cindy Jackson, Ron Menguita, Fred Greene and Johnna Matthews 16 17 18

Agenda Backup 19 WORK SESSION 20 Chairman Eagleton opened the work session at 5:32 p.m. 21 22 1. Clarification of agenda items listed in the Regular Session agenda for this meeting, and

discussion of issues not briefed in the written backup materials. 23 No clarifications requested. 24 25 2. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction concerning the modifications to

Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code regulating the use and interconnection ofWind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). (DCA10-0010, Wind Energy Conversion Systems, Dr. Ken Banks and Ron Menguita)

26 Banks provided a brief history of this Development Code Amendment. Banks stated there was a 27 discussion with the Committee on the Environment (COE) in 2007 relating to the use of Wind 28 Energy Conversion Systems. At that time the discussion was primarily about the old design of 29 the wind turbine. New designs for the wind turbine have recently become available. Banks 30 continued that more municipalities were adopting ordinances such as presented here to this 31 Commission. 32 33 Banks stated that there have been some requests through the Planning Department to permit 34 these types of devices. The drafted Code amendment as presented to this Commission has been 35 vetted through the COE and the Public Utilities Board (PUB). The Code amendment will impact 36 Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances, Utility Standards, and Subchapter 5, Land Use Categories 37 of the Denton Development Code. The largest discussion point at this time is whether these 38 devices should be allowed by right with restrictions or by specific use permit for certain zoning 39

designations. The PUB recommended removing the Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) and 1 Industrial Commercial General (IC-G) as permitted by right with limitations. The devices must 2 comply with Denton Municipal Electric’s (DME) interconnect provisions, or demonstrate the 3 system is not interconnected. The applicant is required to provide proof of interconnect 4 agreement with another service provider if the applicant is not a customer of DME, they must 5 obtain a Wind Energy Conservation System (WECS) permit from the Building Official, along 6 with paying appropriate fees, prior to installation of the WECS and meet height requirements 7 based on zoning categories (maximum height, plus 10 ft for all zoning categories except those 8 with 40 foot maximum height. For these, requirement is max height plus 15 ft.) 9 10 Banks highlighted other key components of this proposed Code amendment as: location and 11 setback requirements regarding easements, property lines, overhead utility lines, trees, other 12 structures or impediments, etc; height and setback requirements for building mounted WECS; 13 sound pressure level requirements; lighting restrictions / FAA compliance; aesthetics, including 14 color, signage, blade glint / flicker, and design; safety issues including tower design, braking, 15 grounding / shielding, electronic interference, climbing apparatus, engineering certification, and 16 compliance with City Building Codes and Safety Standards; Environmentally Sensitive Areas 17 regulations for WECS; maintenance requirements; and removal requirements / abandonment 18 provisions. 19 20 Ryan questioned if the use of these devices on a building that is already legally, non-conforming 21 in height has been addressed. Banks stated that the application would have to take that with the 22 height restrictions to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to obtain a variance. Menguita 23 stated that the ZBA would consider any special conditions. For the draft of this document staff 24 did not make any provisions for existing legally, non-conforming uses. Drake stated that 25 Subchapter 11 of the DDC has a number of very specific provisions for legally, non-conforming 26 uses that can differ from the general principals of law. If there is a legally, non-conforming use 27 any modification of that use may signal a loss of the legality of the non-conforming use. It 28 would be risky to make any modification to any existing legally, non-conforming use. By 29 making modifications the applicant may be required to make all modifications to the structure 30 and use to operate legally in the existing zoning district. 31 32 Eagleton questioned the NR-1 restrictions. Banks stated that originally staff proposed that both 33 building mounted and pole mounted WECS would be allowed with restrictions L41 and L42. 34 Discussions with the PUB related mostly to the aesthetics and proximity to neighbors of these 35 WECS systems in an NR-1 district. Banks also added that the PUB had no problems with these 36 devices in any rural zoning designation. 37 38 Bentley questioned how staff would know if a WECS had been abandoned or now. Banks stated 39 that if it is connected to the City, the City will be able to tell if it is active or not. If it is not 40 connected to the City the burden of proof will go to the owner of the device to prove that it is 41 still generating power, whether connected to another utility or used to charge batteries. Bentley 42 also questioned what procedures were in place for the removal of abandoned devices. Banks 43 stated that the language provides for the City to remove the device and place a lien on the 44 property. 45

The Commission discussed various aspects such as cost and use of the WECS system in more 1 suburban settings. Banks stated that even though roof top mounted systems are becoming more 2 available and the cost is lowering, the expense is still there and he does not see an overwhelming 3 request to have these throughout the City being forthcoming. 4 5 Menguita stated he invited a local installer, Randy Sorrells, of these systems to the meeting if the 6 Commission would like to get more information regarding these systems. Sorrells answered 7 questions of the Commission regarding materials, logistics and cost. 8 9 Menguita asked for direction from the Commission on recommended changes to the language 10 before bringing it back at a public hearing to make the recommendation to Council. Commission 11 discussion led to the recommendation that the restrictive height of 10 feet above the structure on 12 the property with a not to exceed height of 55 feet should be reviewed for all zoning categories 13 that allow a building height of 45 feet or greater. 14 15 Chairman Eagleton closed the Work Session at 6:24 p.m. 16 17 REGULAR MEETING 18 After completing the Work Session, the Planning and Zoning Commission convened a Regular 19 Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas which was held 20 on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 and began at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 21 215 E. McKinney at which time the following items were considered: 22 23 Chairman Eagleton opened the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m. 24 25 1.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

26 27 A. U.S. Flag 28 29 B. Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag - I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas one state under God,

one and indivisible." 30 31 2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES FOR: 32 A. March 23, 2011 33 Commissioner Thomas moved approval of the minutes with a second by Lyke. On roll call vote: 34 Chairman Walter Eagleton "aye", Commissioner Brian Bentley "aye", Commissioner Jay 35 Thomas "aye", Commissioner Jean Schaake "aye", Commissioner John Ryan "aye", 36 Commissioner Thom Reece "aye", and Commissioner Patrice Lyke "aye". Motion passes (7-0). 37

1 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Staff recommends approval of the following items because

they meet the requirements of the Denton Development Code. Approval of theConsent Agenda includes staff recommendations for approvals and authorizes staff toproceed. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the applications and hashad an opportunity to raise questions regarding the items prior to consideration:

2 3 A. Amending Final Plat of Lots 1R, Block 2 and Lot 2R, Block 3 of the Golden Triangle

Industrial Park Addition. Lot 1R, Block 2 contains approximately 23.551 acres and islocated south of Morse Street, east of Loop 288, west of Kimberly Drive and north ofKarina Lane. Lot 2R, Block 3 contains approximately 18.102 acres and is located 540 feetsouth of Morse Street, east of Kimberly Drive and west of Mayhill Road. The property is located within an Employment Center-Commercial (EC-C) zoning district. (AFP10-0004, Denton County Admin Facility Phase 2, Ron Menguita)

4 5 B. Preliminary Plat of the Ryan Companies Addition, Lots 2 and 3, Block A and Lots 1, 2, 3,

and 4, Block B. The approximately 98.659 acre property is located on the south side ofAirport Road (F.M. 1515), approximately 1,292 feet east of the intersection of Airport Roadand Corbin Road. The property is located within an Industrial Center General (IC-G) zoning district. (PP11-0003, Ryan Companies Addition, Cindy Jackson)

6 Commissioner Thomas moved approval of the Consent Agenda with a second by Reece. On roll 7 call vote: Chairman Walter Eagleton "aye", Commissioner Brian Bentley "aye", Commissioner 8 Jay Thomas "aye", Commissioner Jean Schaake "aye", Commissioner John Ryan "aye", 9 Commissioner Thom Reece "aye", and Commissioner Patrice Lyke "aye". Motion passes (7-0). 10 11 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 12 13 A. Hold a public hearing and consider approval of the Final Plat of Lot 1, Block A of the Mt.

Pilgrim CME Church Addition; being a residential replat of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Alex Robertson Addition and unplatted tracts of land. The approximately 1.299 acre property is generally located at the northeast corner of Robertson Street and Cook Street and is locatedwithin a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district. (FR11-0001, Mount Pilgrim C.M.E. Church, Ron Menguita)

14 Menguita presented this request for a consideration of a residential replat with two additional 15 tracts. Menguita showed the property location, site photos and a copy of the proposed plat was 16 provided in the backup material for this item. The request is to facilitate a proposed parking lot 17 for Mount Pilgrim C.M.E Church. Notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the 18 subject site, with certified notices being sent to those within 200 feet of the subject site. No 19 notices were received in favor, opposition or neutral to the request. The Development Review 20 Committee recommends approval of this request. 21

Speaking in favor of the request: 1 2 Fred Hill 108 Bentwood Court 3 4 5 Commissioner Thomas moved approval of this request with a second by Reece. On roll call 6 vote: Chairman Walter Eagleton "aye", Commissioner Brian Bentley "aye", Commissioner Jay 7 Thomas "aye", Commissioner Jean Schaake "aye", Commissioner John Ryan "aye", 8 Commissioner Thom Reece "aye", and Commissioner Patrice Lyke "aye". Motion passes (7-0). 9 10 5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act,

respond to inquiries from the Planning and Zoning Commission or the public with specificfactual information or recitation of policy, or accept a proposal to place the matter on theagenda for an upcoming meeting.

11 12 Chairman Eagleton closed the Regular Session at 6:38 p.m. 13 14 15

1

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET

AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 DEPARTMENT: Planning Department CASE MANAGER: Johnna Matthews, 349-8176 SUBJECT : V11-0002 (Schlotzsky’s Denton) Consider a variance from Subchapter 35.20.4.H (Driveway Standards) of the Denton Development Code regarding corner clearance standards and Section 4.1.C of the Transportation Criteria Manual regarding driveway stacking requirements. The approximately 0.517 acre lot is located at the northeast corner of University Drive and Carroll Boulevard. The subject site is located within a Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning district. (V11-0002, Schlotzsky’s Denton) BACKGROUND The applicant (Cross Engineering) is proposing to renovate and remodel the existing building located at the northeast corner of University Drive and Carroll Boulevard with a restaurant and a drive-through facility. The existing building was the home of First United Bank and Trust until it was sold in 2004, according to Denton Central Appraisal District records. The proposed remodeling includes removing the covered teller on the east side of the building, the covered porch on the front of the building and the enclosed porch on the rear of the building; reducing the square footage of the building from 3,920 square feet to roughly 3,200 square feet. Renovations also include repositioning the front parking lot, due to the future TxDot widening of University Drive. The subject property has two points of access onto Carroll Boulevard and one access point onto University Drive. Pursuant to Subchapter 35.20.4 of the Denton Development Code (DDC), the driveway off of University Drive and the southern driveway off of Carroll Boulevard will both be required to be closed due to non-compliance with the minimum corner clearance requirements. The northern driveway onto Carroll Boulevard is permitted to remain. The applicant is proposing to close the driveway along University Drive, but would like for the two driveways along Carroll Boulevard to remain open. Specifically, Subchapter 35.20.4.H states that corner clearance standards shall be applied in accordance with the Transportation Criteria Manual to ensure that traffic movements from driveways do not unduly conflict with the movement of traffic on intersecting public streets. In interpreting and applying the standards, the following shall apply:

1. A reduced requirement may only be used if absolutely necessary to provide driveway access to property where no other means of access meeting the corner clearance requirement is reasonably possible.

Item 4A

2

2. The specified distances shall be measured at the right-of way line from the edge of the driveway nearest the intersecting street to the right-of-way line of the intersecting street. Where right of way corner clips exist or are proposed, the specified distance shall be measured from the edge of the driveway nearest the intersecting street and the end of the corner clop nearest to the subject driveway.

The minimum corner clearance requirement for the driveway along Carroll Boulevard is 200 feet. The southern driveway along Carroll Boulevard has an approximate 3 foot corner clearance. The northern driveway has approximately 140 feet of corner clearance. Construction of the southern driveway as an “exit only” driveway would eliminate any right turn movement from Carroll Boulevard into the subject property so close to the intersection with University Drive and thus significantly reduce the number of potential conflicts. Additionally, Section 4.1.C of the Denton Transportation Criteria Manual requires 20 feet of stacking distance measured from the first parking space or maneuverable area and the property line. The northern driveway has only 15.5 feet of stacking proposed between the property line and the first maneuverable area. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers 8th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual, the existing use of the bank produced 581 vehicle trips per day and the proposed restaurant will produce 1,796 vehicle trips per day. Since the difference in traffic is significant, a right turn lane into the northern driveway is required based on Section 35.20.2.M.2 of the Denton Development Code. By use of the right-turn lane, the stacking requirement could be met. The dedicated right turn lane would also eliminate any slowdown or backup onto the existing Carroll Boulevard. According to the Denton Development Code, Section 35.3.5.B.2.b., “Hardship Variances may be granted on a finding that the purposes of the regulations may be served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal. A variance may be approved so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured; provided that the variance shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations; and further provided the Planning and Zoning Commission shall not approve variances unless it shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case that:

1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other property; 2. The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property; 3. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the subdivision regulations is carried out; 4. The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of The Denton Plan, the Development Code, and the Denton Mobility Plan, except that those documents may be amended in the manner prescribed by law; and 5. The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the act or commission of the owner or any prior

3

owner, subsequent to the date of creation of the requirement from which a variance is sought. An assessment of the variance request is provided below using the above criteria from Subchapter 35.3.5.B.2.b of the Denton Development Code. Staff has reviewed the variance application, and is not in support of the variance: 1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or

welfare or injurious to other property; With the conversion of the existing bank into a drive-through restaurant, there will be a significant increase in traffic (581 vs. 1,796 trips) and thereby significant increased right turn movement into the subject property. Carroll Boulevard and University Drive are both classified as Primary Major Arterials and carry significant thru-traffic. With the southern driveway along Carroll Boulevard located so close to the intersection of these two arterials, there is safety concern for traffic conflicts at this driveway location.

2. The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property; The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are not unique to the subject property for which the variance is sought and is applicable to other properties within the City.

3. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere convenience, if the strict letter of the subdivision regulations is carried out; There are no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property that create a particular hardship.

4. The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Denton Plan, the Development Code and the Denton Mobility Plan, except that those documents may be amended in the manner prescribed by law; and The variance will vary the provisions of the Denton Development Code and the Transportation Criteria Manual.

5. The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the act or commission of the owner or any prior owner, subsequent to the date of creation of the requirement from which a variance is sought. The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based is a result by the act or commission of the owner, subsequent to the date of creation of the requirement from which a variance is sought. As such, it is possible for the entire property to provide alternate site designs, including points of access and internal circulation that meet the intent of the City of Denton Development Code and Transportation Criteria Manual Standards.

4

OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item.

RECOMMENDATION The Development Review Committee recommends approval of the variance request with the following conditions: 1. Construction of the southern driveway as an “exit only” driveway on Carroll Boulevard; 2. Installation of a dedicated right turn lane for the northern driveway on Carroll Boulevard. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Site Photos

Prepared by: Johnna Matthews

Johnna Matthews Senior Planner Respectfully submitted:

P.S. Arora DRC Engineering

5

EXHIBIT 1 LOCATION MAP

6

EXHIBIT 2 ZONING MAP

NR-3

NR-3

NR-3

7

EXHIBIT 3 SITE PLAN

8

EXHIBIT 4 SITE PHOTOS

Photo taken on the south side of University Drive looking north at the site and the existing

driveway on University Drive, which is required to be closed.

Photo taken along the east side of Carroll boulevard looking north at the existing southern

driveway along Carroll Boulevard

9

Photo taken on the north side of the property looking south towards the rear of the existing

building

Photo taken from the east side of Carroll Boulevard looking at the existing northern driveway

1


AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Development CASE MANAGER: Nana Appiah, 349-7785 USUBJECTU - ADP11-0002 (Unicorn Lake Estates) Consider approval of an Alternative Development Plan (ADP) for a single-family development. The approximately 31.14 acre property is located north and west of Clubhouse Drive, south of Loon Lake Road and east of Ranch House Drive. The property is located within a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. BACKGOUND The applicant, Contrast Development, is requesting an ADP to deviate from the site requirements of Section 35.13.13.1.B of the Denton Development Code (DDC). This Section of the DDC prohibits attached front entry garages of residential dwellings to extend beyond the front building wall. The applicant is requesting to allow garages to extend, at most, eight feet beyond the front building wall. According to the applicant, this request will create an opportunity to develop diverse building types. Also, the applicant states (See Exhibit 8) that a majority of the builders in the Metroplex prefer flexibility in building design as this creates the opportunity to serve their diverse clients. As mitigation for this deviation, the applicant is proposing to increase the number of minimum required design features, as outlined in Section 35.13.13.1.A of the DDC, from three (3) to four (4). The applicant is also proposing four (4) additional building design features to this development. The mitigation measures are outlined in Exhibit 2 of this report. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW

• November 17, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a preliminary plat for ninety (90) single-family units on this property.

• April 20, 2011, PP11-0004, the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a revised preliminary plat for the subject site which increases the number of lots from 90 to107.

OPTIONS

1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve subject to conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration.

RECOMMENDATION The Development Review Committee recommends approval of the Alternative Development Plan as proposed in Exhibit 2.

Item 4B

2

3BUEXHIBITS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Alternative Development Plan 3. Location Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Site Photos 6. Submitted preliminary plat (See Full Size Copy) 7. Typical House Layout 8. Letter from Applicant 9. Example of Building Elevations

Prepared by:

Nana Appiah, AICP Senior Planner

Respectfully submitted: Chuck Russell, AICP Interim Planning Manager

3

4BEXHIBIT 1

PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF ANALYSIS

CASE NO.: ADP11-0002 DATE TO BE CONSIDERED: April 20, 2011 LOCATION: North and west of Clubhouse Drive, south of Loon Lake Road and east

of Ranch House Drive APPLICANT: Contrast Development

300 E. John Carpenter Fwy Suite 940 Irving, TX 75062

OWNER:

ULE, LLC c/o Contrast Development 300 E. John Carpenter Fwy Suite 940 Irving, TX 75062

REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an Alternative Development Plan to allow a deviation from Section 35.13.13.1, Residential Buildings.

RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee recommends approval of this

Alternative Development Plan subject to the mitigation measures as outlined in Exhibit 2.

ZONING: The subject site is located in a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:

The subject site is designated Existing Land Use on the Future Land Use map.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:

The subject site is currently undeveloped.

4

Surrounding Zoning Designations and Current Land Use Activity:

Northwest: North: Northeast: Neighborhood Residential (NR-4):

Single-family residential development

Neighborhood Residential (NR-4): Single-family residential

development

Regional Center Commercial Downtown (RCC-D):

Undeveloped West: Subject Property: East:

Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3): Single-family residential

development

NR-3 undeveloped

Regional Center Commercial Downtown (RCC-D) and

Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU 12):

Undeveloped Southwest: South: Southeast:

Neighborhood Residential 4(NR-4) and Neighborhood Residential

3(NR-3): Single-family residential

development

Neighborhood Residential (NR-4): Single-family residential

development

Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU 12):

Undeveloped

Source: City of Denton Geographical Information System and site visit by City staff

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The applicant is proposing a 107 lot single-family housing development on approximately 31.14 acres which is located within a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. The subject site is undeveloped, however, there is one existing single-family house being platted as part of this development. No alteration to the existing house is proposed. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat. This plat is on the agenda for the April 20, 2011 Commission hearing.

ANALYSIS: Development Code/Zoning Analysis

The subject site is designated as “Existing Land Use” on the City of Denton’s Future Land Use Map. Per the Denton Plan, “new development within the Existing Land Use category should respond to existing development with compatible land uses patterns and design standards. The plan recommends that existing neighborhoods within the city be vigorously protected and preserved. Housing that is compatible with the existing density, neighborhood service and commercial land uses is allowed.” The proposed use is consistent with the Existing Future Land Use designation, and is conformance with the zoning regulations. If developed as proposed, the property will provide single-family homes with diverse design features to the residents of Denton. The criteria for approval of Alternative Development Plans are identified in Section 35.13.5.A of the Denton Development Code.

A. Criteria for Approval. The goals and objectives which must be met are the following:

1. Preserve Existing Neighborhoods.

5

Adjacent properties to the north, south, and west are developed with single-family residential homes. A number of these homes have front garages extending beyond the front building wall. However, these homes were constructed before the City adopted the current Development Code in 2002. The proposed single-family development would not alter the character of the existing residential neighborhood.

2. Assure quality development that fits in with the character of Denton. The applicant will be required to adhere to all requirements of the Denton Development Code with the exception of the deviation granted by this Alternative Development Plan. The intent to prohibit garage doors from extending beyond the building front is to prevent the garage from being the primary focus of the front facade. This focus on the garage would overshadow other exterior features of the building. Although the applicant is requesting to deviate from this requirement, he is proposing to add one additional building design feature in addition to the three (3) minimum design features required, as well as four (4) other building features that are not required by the Code. These additional features are listed in Exhibit 2 of this report.

3. Focus new development to activity centers to curb strip

development and urban sprawl. This development is located on undeveloped property which is surrounded by developed single-family homes. The development will fill-in this gap of undeveloped property, including improvements to access, drainage and appearance of the site.

4. Ensure that infrastructure is capable of accommodating development prior to the development occurring.

Extension of existing infrastructure facilities to the site will be required in order to support the 107 single family residential units being proposed.

6

5. Ensure that the developer’s alternative proposal results overall in a high quality development meeting the intent of the design standards in Chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code.

Although the applicant is proposing to deviate from the requirement that prohibits garages to extend beyond the front building wall, they are proposing to include one additional building design feature with the three minimum features required. In addition, the applicant is proposing to increase the minimum heated/air conditioned home square footage from 900 square feet to 1,550 square feet. They are also proposing to utilize, at a minimum, seventy percent masonry for the exteriors of the homes. The applicant proposes to build homes with a minimum roof pitch of (6:12), six units vertical, and twelve units horizontal. This roof pitch will create different modulations in roof design as opposed to a flat roof. In conjunction with the proposed roof pitch, the additional proposed design features will help to create a development with more architectural interest when compared with development which conforms to the minimum standards established in the DDC.

DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY REVIEW:

The Development Review Committee has reviewed this application, and recommends approval of the proposed Alternative Development Plan, subject to the mitigation measures as outlined in Exhibit 2.

7

EXHIBIT 2 5BALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Section 35.13.5 (Alternative Development Plan) of the Denton Development Code allows an applicant to “…propose an Alternative Development Plan which meets or exceeds the design objectives of this Subchapter but does not meet the standards of this Subchapter. The Alternative Development Plan provides the option to address the design criteria through a flexible discretionary process…”

The Alternative Development Plan for this site will deviate from the following Denton Development Code Section: § Section 35.13.13.1, Residential buildings. The applicant is requesting to allow front garages to extend a maximum of eight feet forward of the front building wall for this development. To mitigate the requested deviation, the applicant is proposing to incorporate at least four design features listed below:

1. Dormers

2. Gables.

3. Recessed entries, a minimum of three feet (3’) deep.

4. Covered front porches.

5. Cupolas.

6. Architectural Pillars or Posts.

7. Bay window, a minimum 24” projection

The DDC requires at least three of these features for single-family homes. In addition to the above features, the applicant is also proposing to incorporate the following features for each single-family unit built in accordance with this deviation:

1. Increase the minimum heated/air condition home square footage from 900 square feet to 1,550 square feet;

2. Provide seventy percent masonry on all exterior walls (excluding windows and doors);

3. Construct buildings with a roof pitch of 6;12, and;

4. Use roof composition shingles that are grey colored and have a twenty year (20 yr) warranty.

These final four features listed are not required by the DDC. The minimum square footage proposed provides large single-family units which will provide a more architecturally interesting development. The seventy percent masonry exterior as proposed exceeds the masonry content

8

required by the DDC, as there is no minimum masonry requirement for single family homes. The 6:12 roof pitch, will add more interest to the appearance of the structure when compared to the potential flat pitch that could be developed under the current DDC regulations. The use of grey composition shingles on the roof ensures consistency in roof colors. All of these design features together will help to create an aesthetically pleasing development. NOTE: This Alternative Development Plan allows only for the deviations and mitigations listed here; all other regulations in the Denton Development Code, Criteria Manuals, and other applicable regulations will apply.

The approval of this Alternative Development Plan does not explicitly or implicitly approve any Engineering issues, including but not limited to, access points, easement locations, or utility locations.

The approval of this Alternative Development Plan will require the applicant to maintain the same number of approved parking spaces (or fewer), the same landscape percentages, and the same canopy coverage, however, modifications to the approved plans may be made provided the landscaping values do not decrease, and the number of parking spaces and lot coverage do not increase.

9

EXHIBIT 3 LOCATION MAP

Site

10

EXHIBIT 4 ZONING MAP

Site

11

EXHIBIT 5 SITE PHOTOS

Looking northeast toward property

Looking northwest toward property

Looking toward existing home Looking east toward property

12

EXHIBIT 6 Submitted Preliminary Plat

See Full Size Copy

13

EXHIBIT 7 Typical House Layout

14

EXHIBIT 8 Letter from Applicant

17

EXHIBIT 9 EXAMPLE OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS

Item 5A


AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services and Sustainability/Planning CASE MANAGERS: Kenneth Banks/Ron Menguita

SUBJECT – DCA10-0010 Wind Energy Conversion Systems Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning proposed amendments to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code regarding use restrictions for both Free-standing Monopole Support Structure and Building-mounted Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). BACKGROUND On September 13, 2010, staff provided a presentation to the Committee on the Environment (COE) concerning Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). Following the presentation, staff was directed to draft a WECS ordinance and bring this information back to the Committee for further discussion and direction. Over the past several months, Environmental Services, Planning, Denton Municipal Electric, and Legal staff have worked to draft the WECS ordinance, which is provided as Exhibit 1. The draft WECS ordinance was presented to the COE on March 7, 2011. During this meeting, the COE directed staff to bring the WECS item to the Public Utility Board for consideration. On March 14, 2011, the draft WECS ordinance was presented to the Public Utility Board. The Public Utility Board recommended approval (4-0) of the proposed general regulations in Section 26-116. During their consideration, the Public Utility Board suggested that the NR-1 and IC-G land use categories be changed from “a permitted use with limitations” to “allowed with an approved Specific Use Permit (SUP).” The Public Utility Board also suggested that the PUB minutes state that the Board had extensive discussion about this issue, and realizes that there is a divergence of opinion about the aesthetics of WECS and the appropriateness of these devices in various land use categories as a “permitted use” versus “by SUP”.

On April 6, 2011 staff presented the draft WECS ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission during a work session. The Planning and Zoning Commission directed staff to move forward with the proposed amendments to Subchapter 35.5 with a request to change the maximum WECS height for the NR-1, NR-2, NR-3, NR-4, NR-6, DR-1 and RCR-1 zoning districts from 50 feet to 55 feet. All other remaining zoning districts will limit WECS to be 10 feet above the maximum building height. As a brief summary, the proposed WECS ordinance defines terms specific to WECS and then outlines general regulations in Section 26-116. Key components of the general regulations include, but not limited to: • Requirements to fully comply with DME’s interconnect provisions, or demonstrate the

system is not interconnected. Applicants are also required to provide proof of interconnect agreement with another service provider if the applicant is not a customer of DME;

• Requirements to obtain a WECS permit from the Building Official, along with paying appropriate fees, prior to installation of the WECS;

• Height requirements based on zoning categories (see Tables in Section 4 of draft ordinance); • Location and setback requirements regarding easements, property lines, overhead utility

lines, trees, other structures or impediments, etc.; • Height and setback requirements for building mounted WECS; • Sound pressure level requirements; • Lighting restrictions; • Aesthetics, including color, signage, blade glint / flicker, and design; • Safety issues including tower design, braking, grounding / shielding, electronic interference,

climbing apparatus, engineering certification, and compliance with City Building Codes and Safety Standards;

• Environmentally Sensitive Areas regulations for WECS; • Maintenance requirements; and • Removal requirements / abandonment provisions.

The draft WECS ordinance also provides proposed amendments to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code regarding use restrictions for both Free-standing Monopole Support Structure and Building-mounted WECS. The use restrictions are presented in Section 4 and 5 of the draft ordinance (Exhibit 1). Free-standing Monopole Support Structure WECS Staff is proposing to permit Free-standing Monopole Support Structure WECS with limitation of L(41) for lots found in the RD-5, RC, and NR-1 zoning districts. All remaining zoning districts will require an approved SUP. Limitation L(41) requires lots where the proposed WECS will be located to have a minimum lot area of two (2) acres. In addition, the maximum number of permitted WECS by right is one. If multiple WECS are proposed, an approved SUP is required. Building-mounted WECS Staff is proposing to permit Building-mounted WECS with limitation L(42) for lots found in the RD-5, RC, NR-1 and IC-G zoning districts. All remaining zoning districts will require an approved SUP. Limitation L(42) limits building-mounted WECS to no higher than ten (10) feet above where the WECS is mounted on the building. The height shall be measured from the base of the WECS where it is mounted on the building to the highest point of the arc of the blades' elevation. If the WECS does not use blades, then height is measured from the base of the WECS where is mounted on the building to the highest point of the WECS. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) April 2, 2007: Committee on the Environment (Presented to meet request of Committee Member Thomson). June 12, 2007: Committee on the Environment (ACM update, presented in response to requests for additional information during April 2, 2007 meeting) Sept. 13, 2010: Committee on the Environment (Item for individual consideration) March 7, 2011: Committee on the Environment (Item for individual consideration) March 12, 2011: Public Utility Board (Item for individual consideration). The Board recommended approval (4-0) of Chapter 26 elements of the draft WECS ordinance April 6, 2011: Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval as submitted 2. Recommend approval with conditions 3. Recommend Denial 4. Postpone consideration 5. Table item

RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Staff Presentation 3. Public Utility Board Minutes 4. April 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session Minutes Respectfully prepared and submitted by,

Kenneth Banks. Director, Environmental Services and Sustainability

Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS)Planning and Zoning Commission, April 20, 2011

Key Components

• Zoning limitations

• All other land use categories require a Specific Use Permit for either free standing or building mounted WECS.

• L(41) - = Lots where the proposed WECS will be located shall have a minimum lot area of 2 acres. A maximum of one WECS is permitted by right.

• L(42) - Building-mounted WECS may not extend higher than 10 feet above where the WECS is mounted on the building. The height is measured from the base of the WECS where it is mounted on the building to the highest point of the WECS

NR-1 RD-5 RC IC-G

Free standing L(41) L(41) L(41) SUP

Building mounted L(42) L(42) L(42) L(42)

Key Components• Must comply with DME’s interconnect

provisions, or demonstrate the system is not interconnected. Required to provide proof of interconnect agreement with another service provider if the applicant is not a customer of DME.;

• Must obtain a WECS permit from the Building Official, along with paying appropriate fees, prior to installation of the WECS;

• Height requirements based on zoning categories (maximum height, plus 10 ft for all zoning categories except those with 40 foot maximum height. For these, requirement is max height plus 15 ft.)

Zoning = RD-5

Maximum Building Height = 65 feet

Maximum WECS height (free standing) = 75 feet

Maximum WECS height (Building mounted) = 10 ft. above building height

75 ft

Key Components

• Location and setback requirements regarding easements, property lines, overhead utility lines, trees, other structures or impediments, etc;

• Height and setback requirements for building mounted WECS;

• Sound pressure level requirements;

• Lighting restrictions / FAA compliance;

• Aesthetics, including color, signage, blade glint / flicker, and design;

Key Components

• Safety issues including tower design, braking, grounding / shielding, electronic interference, climbing apparatus, engineering certification, and compliance with City Building Codes and Safety Standards;

• Environmentally Sensitive Areas regulations for WECS;

• Maintenance requirements; and

• Removal requirements / abandonment provisions.

Cities that have ordinances and/ or otherwise allow WECS

• Colleyville, Frisco, Garland, Grand Prairie, Little Elm, McKinney, Oak Point, North Richland Hills, and Waxahachie.

– Many of these cities only allow WECS through Specific Use Permit (SUP), although there are some that allow the devices “by right” in certain zoning districts or under certain restrictions.

– Staff’s research also indicates that several Metroplex cities are working on ordinances to address WECS, or plan to do so in the future.

Options

1. Recommend approval as submitted

2. Recommend approval with conditions

3. Recommend Denial

4. Postpone consideration

5. Table item

• Staff Recommends Option 1

DRAFT MINUTES 1 PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD 2

March 14, 2011 3 4 After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas is 5 present, the Chair of the Public Utilities Board will thereafter convene into an open meeting on 6 Monday, March 14, 2011 at 9:03 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton 7 Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton. 8 9 Present: Chair Dick Smith, Phil Gallivan, Barbara Russell John Baines, Randy Robinson 10

(arrived at 9:06 departed at 10:20) 11 12 Ex Officio Member: 13

George Campbell, City Manager 14 Howard Martin, ACM Utilities 15 16 Absent: Bill Grubbs (excused), Vice Chair Bill Cheek (unexcused) 17 18 OPEN MEETING: 19 20 ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 21 22 4) Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction concerning the creation of a new 23

Division 3 to Chapter 26, Article III of the Denton Code of Ordinances, regulating the use 24 and interconnection of Wind Energy Conservation Systems. 25 26

Howard Martin stated that Kenneth Banks, Director of Environmental Services and 27 Sustainability, has been working on this item primarily through the Committee on the 28 Environment. They are the ones that were primarily interested in this item. Banks made a 29 PowerPoint presentation. Banks stated that he was here to talk about the wind energy conversion 30 systems. Staff has been working on code language for this item. What this is about is adding 31 code language to chapter 26 of the Denton Code of Ordinances to allow for the installation and 32 operation of the WECS devices. The Committee on the Environment first heard of this back in 33 2007. At the time the issue was talked about and didn’t go much further. Recently the planning 34 department has begun to experience request of installation these types of devices. Staff has 35 conducted some studies throughout the metroplex and has determined quite a few cities that are 36 adopting these ordinances. Basically the code is fairly complicated; Banks has tried to bring out 37 the major elements of the code. Martin asked Banks to explain chapter 26. Banks stated there 38 are two main regulatory tools in the City the Denton Development Code and the Code of 39 Ordinances. The Denton Development Code predominately dealing with new development 40 occurring in the City. The Code of Ordinances is the regulatory tool that deals mainly with 41 operational type issues. Chapter 26 deals predominately with utilities. Member Gallivan 42 asked if this applies to commercial as well as residential. Banks responded that it does. 43 These types of devices have several things to about: aesthetics, safety, noise, blade glint, and 44 interconnect agreement with DME. The key components: Zoning limitations as specified in the 45 Denton Development Code. Note that RD-5, RC, NR1 land use categories allow both building 46 mounted and free standing WECS under limitations L(41) and L(42), while IC-G allows building 47

EXHIBIT 3

Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board Meeting March 28, 2011 Page 2 of 8 mounted WECS under limitation L(42). All other land use categories require a Specific Use 1 Permit (SUP) for either free standing or building mounted WECS. Applicants must comply with 2 DME’s interconnect provisions, or demonstrate the system is not interconnected. Applicants are 3 required to provide proof of interconnect agreement with another service provider if the 4 applicant is not a customer of DME. Applicants must obtain a WECS permit from the Building 5 Official, along with paying appropriate fees, prior to installation of the WECS; Height 6 requirements based on zoning categories (maximum height, plus 10 ft.). 7 8 Member Russell stated that she knows there are references of other cities that have such 9 ordinances. Did you establish these fees are they typical of what is charged in other areas? 10 How did you arrive at the fees? Banks stated that they arrived at the fees simply by going to 11 the building official and asking what types of permits would be needed in order to have one of 12 these devices installed. He had a series of permits both on the residential and commercial side 13 that needs to be obtained. The fees were simply derived from gathering those existing permits 14 and amassing the fees associated with those permits. Staff did not do any cross comparison with 15 any other city. Banks stated that he can look in to that. Member Russell stated that she 16 would be interested in knowing that. 17 18 Banks went on to say that the other key components are: location and setback requirements 19 regarding easements, property lines, overhead utility lines, trees, other structures or impediments, 20 etc.; height and setback requirements for building mounted WECS; sound pressure level 21 requirements; Lighting restrictions / FAA compliance; aesthetics, including color, signage, blade 22 glint / flicker, and design; Safety issues including tower design, braking, grounding / shielding, 23 electronic interference, climbing apparatus, engineering certification, and compliance with City 24 Building Codes and Safety Standards; Environmentally Sensitive Areas regulations for WECS; 25 Maintenance requirements; and Removal requirements / abandonment provisions. 26 27 Chair Smith asked for clarification; the NR1 is the only residential zoning that the WECS 28 would be permitted in. Banks stated that it is the only one of the neighborhood residential 29 category. RD5 is a rural residential category. NR1 is one structure located on a 2 acre minimum 30 property size. 31 32 Other cities that have ordinances and/or otherwise allow WECS: Colleyville, Frisco, Garland, 33 Grand Prairie, Little Elm, McKinney, Oak Point, North Richland Hills, and Waxahachie. Many 34 of these cities only allow WECS through Specific Use Permit (SUP), although there are some 35 that allow the devices “by right” in certain zoning districts. Staff’s preliminary research also 36 indicates that several Metroplex cities are working on ordinances to address WECS, or plan to do 37 so in the near future. 38 39 Staff is seeking direction on the following options: 40 Option 1: Recommend approval of the proposed WECS regulations, and subsequent addition to 41 Section 26 of the Denton Code of Ordinances. 42 Option 2: Recommend modifications of staff’s proposed WECS regulations and subsequent 43 addition to Section 26 of the Denton Code of Ordinances to incorporate the proposed WECS 44 regulations as modified. 45

Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board Meeting March 28, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Option 3: Recommend maintaining Section 26 of the Denton Code of Ordinances in its current 1 form, without modification 2 3 Upon approval the next stop for this item is going to be at the Planning & Zoning Commission to 4 hear the planning and zoning side. Upon approval at that meeting then it will go on to City 5 Council for a final decision. 6 7 Banks stated that staff recommends option 1. 8 9 Martin stated that the Committee on the Environment has reviewed the proposed ordinance and 10 has recommended for it to move forward to City Council for review. Staff wanted to bring this 11 to this Board and then to Planning & Zoning and then feel like it is ready for City Council. 12 13 Chair Smith asked who is on the Committee on the Environment. Martin answered Pete 14 Kamp, Chris Watts, and Dalton Gregory. 15 16 Member Baines asked in your development of this ordinance does your version mirror the 17 ones from the other cities. Banks stated it does not. Member Baines went on to ask if it is 18 significantly different. Banks stated that there are elements that are different. What staff tried 19 to do is get all of the codes together look at them and picked them for what we thought was the 20 best elements out of each one. We have attempted to extract all of the information where we felt 21 with reviewing the combination of all the codes we felt best addressed each specific issue. 22 23 Member Gallivan stated that he has no background on whether or not this is a good 24 ordinance or not. He would take comfort in knowing that in Banks research of the other 25 cities that our ordinance might be more conservatively written than the other cities or some 26 benchmark to go by. Banks asked for clarification on what Gallivan meant by conservative. 27 Gallivan stated maybe height restrictions less. Banks stated that he can say that from a safety 28 standpoint and from a standpoint of comprehensiveness of issues ours is as thorough as any 29 ordinance that Banks has reviewed. In fact, it is more thorough than the ordinances that were 30 reviewed because Banks was able to take all of the elements and combine into this ordinance. 31 Regarding conservative, Banks stated it depends on if you want to promote this type of device or 32 not. The Committee on the Environment was interested in promoting these. If you are looking 33 at by right situation there are not as many codes out there that allow for by right in certain zoning 34 categories than there are that just simply require a SUP throughout. There are a lot of them out 35 there that just simply say you will get a SUP and that is the only way one can be installed. If you 36 looked at all the others you would find that this is more comprehensive. 37 38 George Campbell, City Manager, asked if the others have interconnection provisions with power 39 providers. Banks stated that he didn’t see that addressed as much. Not sure if that represents the 40 other cities being fairly new in the process or maybe the issue of them not having their own 41 utility and their assumption that will be handled with the utility. That is an important point 42 because we do have areas that are not serviced by Denton Municipal Electric and we actually 43 have a component of the code that says you will work out an interconnect agreement with the 44 utility provider that you do have and provide evidence of that to us or a permit will not be 45 granted. The other situation is a lot of cities anticipated that these were going to be used on an 46

Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board Meeting March 28, 2011 Page 4 of 8 off grid application. They very well may be you don’t have to interconnect, they can be used to 1 charge a battery, or utilized to provide power to a small building. 2 3 Member Russell stated that we already have some noise and light restriction in our codes 4 now. Are these the same as or comparable? Banks stated that the noise restriction is 5 comparable to the most stringent noise restriction that the City has, 50 decibels day time in a 6 multi family setting. The lighting restrictions are unique to WECS basically the approach that 7 staff took was if it didn’t need a light for safety purposes from an FAA standpoint then it should 8 not have lights. 9 10 Member Russell then stated that staff has done due diligence and believe that we have the 11 very best. Let’s suppose that after a few years we see some glaring faults in this because 12 this technology continues to progress. Would an applicant have to get a variance to any of 13 these to be able to install a WECS or how would that be dealt with. Banks stated that his 14 suggestion would be if that truly presents itself staff would go back and modify the code. 15 16 Member Baines stated that he doesn’t really deal with this and has no frame of reference 17 but his thought would be if it is urgent that we pass then we need to do something. Baines 18 went on to say maybe there needs to be a discussion group of people from other vantage 19 points to scrutinize the recommendation to make sure there is effective dialog and issues 20 have been addressed by all of those impacted. Banks stated that we can certainly do that. 21 Banks knows that planning has gotten some pressure here recently to actually get this code on 22 the books because they have applicants that are interested. Ron Menguita, Planning Supervisor, 23 is here to help answer questions as well. 24 25 Member Baines asked once people put these devices in are the grandfathered in or do they 26 have to go back and be modified for the standard. Banks assumed they would be a non-27 conforming use at that point it was put in before the code was adopted. Menguita clarified if 28 Baines was talking about existing or ones that are going to be coming in before the code comes 29 to fruition. Member Baines stated he was speaking about both. His initial thought is that 30 more discussion is needed. Menguita stated that the existing will be non-conforming; they were 31 permitted before this code was approved. Staff will have public hearings with the Planning & 32 Zoning and City Council, newspaper notices will be sent out. That may bring in people that may 33 speak in favor or against and can be discussed. Baines further asked while this is being 34 dialogued if people put in these WECS will they be required to go back and modify them 35 based upon the final version that is approved. Menguita stated that is something that can be 36 discussed is retroactive but unfortunately as it is proposed they would not be required to go back 37 and retro. Member Baines stated but they would be considered non-conforming. Banks 38 answered they would be considered to be legal non-conforming. 39 40 Martin stated they would be required to have an interconnect agreement. Banks agreed they 41 would. Member Russell stated that she would think that would be in any case. Banks stated 42 that DME would require an interconnect agreement or any utility. Martin further stated or to 43 show that you are not connected to the system. 44 45

Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board Meeting March 28, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Chair Smith asked if there are any current for future regulatory mandate or benefit to 1 having this ordinance or having these within the City limits. Banks answered there is not a 2 regulatory mandate that he is aware of. These are being looked at from folks mainly to simply 3 generate power and offset their power use. Chair Smith asked is someone can expect to 4 generate, assuming the wind is blowing, all their electricity for their house. Banks stated he 5 didn’t think so. This is a category 2 wind generation area. There are scales that are related to 6 wind speed and the consistency of that wind speed. Category 0 is the lowest it goes up to 7 category 7; 2 isn’t that great we are pretty marginal. In fact in the summer it tends to slip in the 8 category 1 range because the wind is calmer. Banks stated that he doesn’t believe you will be 9 able to get a substantial amount of generation. It is very site specific. Running the numbers it 10 will take a substantial amount of time for payback even in a good location in this area. 11 12 Chair Smith asked on option 3 the way the code is currently, if a person wants one of these 13 devices so they have to get a SUP or what procedure would they have to go though. 14 Menguita stated that currently we do not have any regulations for this type of devices. Right 15 now staff considers them as accessory structures to the primary structure and they would just 16 have to comply with the height limitations. The limitations that have been presented today 17 would help staff effectively limit the impact to the neighborhood area. 18 19 Chair Smith asked if we move one step up and require a SUP for these devices. What 20 criteria would be different in the SUP than what the ordinance that is being brought 21 forward today? Would it be easier or harder to install one of these? Menguita answered it 22 would be the same because what staff would be reviewing would be similar impacts or 23 conditions regarding the noise or aesthetics. The SUP goes not only through the Planning & 24 Zoning Commission as well as City Council for their consideration and they can impose certain 25 conditions to the applicant that may arise. Chair Smith stated that from the applicant 26 standpoint he believes the SUP would be much more onerous and difficult than just simply 27 complying with an ordinance, even if the criteria is the same. Banks agreed. Menguita stated 28 that there are certain zoning districts that permit by right. There are 3 of the zoning districts that 29 we have the other remaining zoning districts will require a SUP in addition to comply with the 30 new ordinance. 31 32 Chair Smith stated that with all due respect and realizes staff has worked very hard on this 33 ordinance; he doesn’t believe that we need these within the City, from nothing else but an 34 aesthetics standpoint and because they aren’t very efficient. Chair Smith understands 35 there probably are a few that want to put one in, he would prefer to use a SUP. Martin 36 stated that what he understands from the Board, for the 4 zoning categories that we have 37 identified that you can establish a WECS by right you would make everything a SUP versus 38 having those 4 categories by right. Member Russell asked by right meaning I want one and 39 so I’m going to have one is that what by right means? Martin stated that all you have to do is 40 comply with the ordinance you don’t have to go though the SUP process. Member Russell then 41 stated that there are very few places in Denton that could use these, you can have solar 42 panels but very few people have them because they are so expensive it takes too long to 43 recoup the money and if someone is purchasing the house they don’t want to pay for them 44 because they aren’t efficient. By this one you have to have two acres, not many places in 45 Denton. There aren’t a very big window for these unless we start developing some grand 46

Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board Meeting March 28, 2011 Page 6 of 8 estates in the outlying and with which case if someone had a grand home on a couple of 1 acres it would have to be an art object before they would want it. Chair Smith stated that 2 he could put one up since he has 2.8 acres but bets the neighbors wouldn’t like it. Chair 3 Smith then stated that if an applicant has to go through an SUP process instead of just 4 complying with an ordinance he believes they would think long and hard about how bad it 5 is wanted. 6 7 Martin stated that the only other category the ICG would allow them to be built by right. Banks 8 stated with the limitation of it not extending more than 10’ above the building line. Martin stated 9 that the ICG would be more of a commercial category with the WECS mounted on the roof not 10 to exceed 10’ would also be by right but that is only one. You can only have one, most of the 11 building mount applications they wouldn’t want just they would want several which would be by 12 SUP. You can have one by right. Banks stated that staff thought long and hard about this issue 13 and the intention was to only allow by right in those areas that are zones rural, and the roof 14 mounted industrial category. Keep in mind you have the additional restrictions on the by right 15 on the height. It can’t be more than 10’ of the maximum allowed in that zoning district as a 16 mono pole and can’t extend more than 10’ above the roof line on a building mount. Staff 17 struggles with that, it is a touch decision. Do you do everything by SUP do you allow some by 18 right and if some by right is the choice what do you do to minimize the impact of those in the by 19 right situation. 20 21 Member Russell stated that in the agreement if someone produces more power that is 22 needed, DME wouldn’t buy it back. Phil Williams, General Manager Electric, answered they 23 would use up to the amount they needed to use, and the rest would be bought at a voided fuel 24 cost. Martin stated it would be at RCA, the fuel component of that charge. 25 26 Member Gallivan asked if you write a SUP regulation is that what you do instead of by 27 ordinance, the more conservative in order to protect your neighbors in a residential setting. 28 Most all neighborhoods don’t have 2 acre lots. The larger estate homes, Gallivan can 29 understand where they would be more impacted and the investment they have made. 30 Martin stated that the distinction by utilizing the SUP a benefit you have public input. You have 31 to go through a public hearing process for a SUP. Member Gallivan asked if there was a 200 32 feet rule. Campbell stated it is essentially a zoning case. Martin stated that you would be 33 notified and you would have an opportunity if your neighbor was going to put one up if you went 34 through the SUP. If you could meet the criteria just by ordinance and you are in one of the 35 categories that allow by right you wouldn’t necessarily have to do that. Menguita stated that in 36 the SUP process notices are sent out to people within 200 feet and courtesy notices to people 37 within 500 feet. If for any reason there was opposition by 20% of the people, a majority would 38 be required for City Council. 39 40 Member Gallivan asked if there was a fear in the discussions of administrative burden it 41 was by SUP. Banks stated that he doesn’t anticipate very many. The idea was if you are out in 42 the country and you have a large lot or you have a business setting were a roof mount might 43 make since, so we want to put that barrier in place. When this was discussed with the Committee 44 on the Environment at the time the committees desire was to reduce that barrier a little bit for 45 certain uses. Banks went on to say what is the right balance, do we want to say by right in large 46

Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board Meeting March 28, 2011 Page 7 of 8 lots and rural setting or on building mounts in one industrial category or do we want to say SUP 1 regardless. Member Gallivan stated that in his mind 2 acres isn’t rural, more like ranches 2 and estates. He has no problem with them if they are outside or around our ETJ. Martin 3 stated to think in terms of Ranch Estates. Chair Smith asked if it was rural zoning. Martin 4 stated no. Chair Smith then asked what constitutes the rural zoning designation. Menguita 5 stated that RD5 is what we refer to as rural and the minimum lot acre for that development would 6 be 5 acres. Menguita believes that NR2 is 2 acres. Just for back ground information we have 7 been getting calls from various property owners one particular owner owns a 70 acre ranch, and 8 another owns 7 acres out by the airport. Chair Smith clarified, if you want to take care of 9 those people by right then you would do the RD zoning and everything else would be SUP. 10 Menguita stated that if they were RD5 they would have their zoning in place and they met the 11 criteria then yes they would be permitted to go forward and apply for a building permit, through 12 building inspections. All the other zoning districts would require a SUP before going forward. 13 Chair Smith stated that is what he is in favor of. Member Gallivan stated that he 14 understands by right in a rural area with acreage. 15 16 Martin stated that the only change would be to take NR1 off the table for by right. Chair Smith 17 further noted and the industrial as well. Banks stated that if NR1 and ICG was through the 18 SUP process then effectively all that would be left would be the two rural categories. Banks 19 went on to say that rural categories have a minimum threshold. RD5 has a minimum threshold 20 of 5 acres, Menguita added if it is subdivided. He further added the City recently annexed a 21 number of properties that are not zoned RD5 but receive an RD5 classification for review. 22 Typically what happens is when someone is annexed the immediately receive an RD5 zoning 23 district and typically rezone to whatever zoning district they choose. Campbell asked what is the 24 second rural classification besides RD5, Banks responded RC (rural commercial). Menguita 25 stated that we don’t have many at that zone. Campbell asked if we have some is that one that is 26 allowed by right. Banks stated under the current draft that is correct. Chair Smith asked what 27 the minimum size acreage in that category. Menguita was unsure of the acreage. Chair 28 Smith asked if it was more than 5 acres, Menguita responded less than 5 acres; RD5 is the 29 strictest zoning district. Menguita came back with the answer that RC is two acres. 30 31 Banks stated at this point what we are looking at is removing NR1, through SUP process and 32 also ICG. Member Gallivan stated ICG is commercial do we need to be concerned about 33 aesthetics in the commercial zoned area. Chair Smith stated he believes it is an aesthetics 34 issue whether in residential or commercial. Member Gallivan stated that a residential 35 community can see a commercial zoned area; it might be offensive to that community. 36 Banks stated that keep in mind in those categories the only type allowed is a building mount. 37 Martin stated that the building mount is the only one allowed by right, Banks agreed. Martin 38 further added that you can go through the SUP process and have a free standing or if it exceeded 39 the 10’ height you would still have to go through the SUP process. Banks stated you would have 40 to go though the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance. 41 42 Member Russell added that beauty to one person is a thorn to someone else. Member 43 Russell then asked if Chair Smith’s biggest concern is that there would be public comment. 44 Chair Smith answered that is his concern is aesthetics and if someone has to go through a 45 SUP process, in Smith’s mind knowing how things work a person is less likely to get a SUP 46

Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board Meeting March 28, 2011 Page 8 of 8 than just adhering to ordinances. You have to go through Planning & Zoning and have 1 public hearings and the Planning & Zoning members can put their conditions on it, same 2 with the Council. 3 4 Member Baines stated that he can go with what is on the table with a caveat. Member 5 Russell seconded. Member Baines went on to say there is a divergence of opinion and we 6 would like to let the Council know that while in general we agree with the desire to have a 7 uniform and acceptable level of aesthetics that is subject to controversy. Member Russell 8 stated that she would like it to be noted that there was great discussion and merit to all 9 discussions. 10 11 The motion is the two categories that we are talking about RD5 and RC would remain the 12 only two zoning categories that you can have WECS by right, every other zoning by SUP 13 only. Also, noting the amount of discussion. Motion was made by Member Gallivan with a 14 second by Member Russell. Vote 4-0 approved, Randy Robinson had already left. 15

16 Adjournment was at 11:44 a.m. 17

agenda planning and zoning commission april 20, 2011 …

Documents