Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 3, 2008 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL November 3, 2008 After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas will convene in a Joint Work Session of the City of Denton City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday, November 3, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas. 1. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding Development Review Committee (DRC) Process Improvements and Reorganization and a variety of topics related to development regulations, procedures, and other matters within their mutual responsibilities including but not limited to work programs, code amendment process, and plan updates. 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 , 2008 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON COUNCIL WORK SESSION 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. JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION November 3, 2008 City Council Work Session Room 11:00 a.m. -1:30 p.m. Agenda 1. Status Report of March 25, 2008 Joint Meeting 2. Reorganization and Development Review Process Improvements A. DRC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART B. PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS C. REORGANIZATION OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3. Developer's Committee 4. Proposals A. MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL 5. Request Direction A. IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT 6. Project Updates A. DOWNTOWN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN B. TREE PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION ~z7 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 25, 2008 Joint Meeting of the City of Denton City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 5:00 a.m. in the Community Room of the Civic Center. Council Present: Mayor McNeill; Mayor Pro Tem Kamp; Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mulroy; Council Members Heggins, Montgomery, Thomson, and Watts. Council Absent: None Commissioners Present: Commission Chair Watkins; Vice-Chair Eagleton; Commissioners, Lyke, King, Thomas and Schaake Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Anderson 1. Call to order; announce quorum, introductions. Mayor McNeill and Commission Chair Watkins announced that a quorum of their members were present and introductions were made. 2. The Council and Commission received a report and held a discussion regarding a variety of topics related to development regulations, procedures, and other matters within their mutual responsibilities. Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development, presented the outline of the meeting's topics which included an outline of the development review processes, development code amendments, direction on facilitating future discussions and direction on presentation of public hearing items. Cunningham stated that staff would like direction on the presentation of public hearing items. If the Planning and Zoning Commission made changes to the staff recommendation, would the Council like to have both the staff recommendation and the recommendation from the Commission or just the f nal comments from the Commission? The current practice was not to include the discussion from the Commission, just the recommendation. CouncillCommissiondlscussion - Mayor McNeill felt that he would like to see the staff recommendation and the discussion that caused that discussion to occur, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mulroy felt that if the issue was controversial with citizen involvement, he would Tike to read that in the minutes and have all the information to evaluate the issue and also see what changes the Commission made. With all that information, he would be able to answer citizen calls on the issue. He felt a complete audit trail on how the issue developed was needed. Mayor Pro Tem Kamp felt that detailed minutes produced good information. Cunningham asked if staff comments should be added to the staff report or just the Commission recommendations. 528 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 25, 2aD8 Page 2 Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that she would like both. City Attorney Snyder asked about the situation of remanding issues back to the Commission. Council Member Watts stated that Council usually did not remand an issue back to the Commission unless there was true new information that the Council had received that the Commission did not. He felt that he would like to see as much information as possible in the case when the staff recommendation was different than the Commission recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Kamp felt that it was rare for the Council to send something back to the Commission and when it was done, it was because the Council had received new information. City Manager Campbell stated that when the Council held a public hearing, there might be new information from citizens and not just new information from developers. Mayor McNeill also stated that he looked at the Commission as the place where the experts were which was an additional rationale for remanding back to the Commission if new information were receive . Council Member Heggins stated that if the Council received pertinent information that the Commission had received, the Council could then reject or accept the information, Commissioner King felt that if the Council had a feeling on how to proceed with an issue, then he would like the Council to go in that direction, rather than send it back as that presented more meetings for the developer. Commissioner Lyke felt that if a developer knew the issue would be remanded back to the Commission, he might not do a poor presentation at the Commission and then present Council with new and better information. That was part of the checks and balances. Commissioner Schaake stated that sending an issue back to the Commission because of new information was good for the process and there might be a new decision by the Commission, trusting Council's judgment that there was new information. Consensus was to bring as much information as possible for public hearings. Cunningham presented information on the Development Review process. Currently the pre- application process was optional. The pre-application process provided applicants with the ability to gather information to assess the feasibility of a proposed project, as well as to attain general information about the procedures required to complete the project. The proposal was to make pre-application mandatory for all projects which would allow staff to provide information to applicants up front and reduce time and money spent on projects that could not be completed. Another consideration was apre-submittal conference which would be a broad brush overview of proposed projects. At the pre-submittal conference, a developer would present the basic project and staff would tell the developer what would be needed to do the project with the various departments such as Planning, Engineering, etc. The conference would inform the developer of what would be needed to make his project proceed smoothly. Cunningham asked if Council would like to proceed with making the pre-application meeting mandatory. 529 City of Denton City Council Minutes March Z5, 2ooS Page 3 Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mulroy stated that the original intent of this meeting was to go through the development process step by step and that he would like to review the process before starting to make chokes. Cunningham presented a flow chart of the standard review development review process. The initial review process took approximately 19 days to process. The flow chart indicated how the process proceeded depending on various options. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mulroy asked about the role of Freese and Nichols in the development review process. Brian Lockley, Planning Manager, stated that Freese and Nichols did the actual engineering review of proposed water lines, streets, etc. and produced a report as to whether they were at city standards. PS Arora, Interim Development Review Administrator, stated that all of the comments that were compiled from Freese and Nichols was a process which an associate engineer did before that position was eliminated. Council and Commissioners discussed the role of Freese and Nichols in the development process. Commission Lyke left the meeting Commissioner Eagleton asked whether there was a cost difference for Freese and Nichols to perform the review as opposed to city staff and did that affect what an applicant had to pay. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mulroy stated that the primary role of Freese and Nichols was to do an engineering validation of a proposal to make sure it was in accordance with city standards. This function was given to an outside resource on the rationale that the work load in the development review process was inconsistent and then the outside firm would deal with the peaks and valleys in the development process. Commissioner Thomas noted that the time frames on the flow chart were not necessarily accurate. There were situations when more requirements might be needed up front from the developers such as a more detailed site plan or more information on the actual building and what it would house. Also, there was nothing on the application that told a developer that he could find information on the TraklT system. Lockley stated that the Development Review Committee meeting was only for city staff and that comments from that meeting were entered into TrakIT which a developer could access. Another issue was the quality of the review. The current practice did not include a preliminary review of the plans; rather it just made sure that it had been submitted. City Attorney Snyder noted the vested rights statute which developers have used in the past against cities. He suggested not making the pre-application meeting mandatory as a developer might present a sketchy application and then claim vested right. He suggested making the pre- X30 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 25, 2~0$ Page 4 a lication rocess more available as opposed to making it mandatory. If it were required in the pp p development process, it could be considered a permit. Consensus of the Council was to draft an ordinance for consideration which would change the rocess to re uire a mandatory orientation to review how a prof ect needed to be submitted, using p q a ast ro' ect as an example of how to or how not to submit a prof ect. This would be lane prior P P J to actual submittal of a project. Cunnin am continued with the flow chart process for revisions and the secondary standard review process. Council and Commissioners discussed the possibility of a monetary incentive for developers to submit laps correct the first time rather than having to come back time after time with revisions. P Cunningham stated that there were times when comments created needed revisions and felt that a better procedure might be to have the applicant attend the Development Review Committee meeting so all were on the same page. Staff could have a staff only pre-meeting to discuss the ro'ect so all were aware of proposed commentslchanges to a development before meeting with PJ the developer. Cunningham continued with Alternative Development plans. These were intended to provide 0 ortunities for developments to deviate from certain Development Code requirements, while PP . meeting and exceeding other requirements of the Code. Staff observations of this process noted that it allowed submittal of an ADP without a plat or SUP and that it could add additional timelcost to the review process. Staff questioned whether the ADP process should be used to achieve an alternative design or could it also be used to acquire trade-offs of minimum standards during the process? After discussion, Council and Commission felt that the ADP should be used for the site plan design only with no trade-offs. Cunningham next presented information on Building Permits. Currently building permits could be submitted while other applications were in process such as an SUP, ADP or plat. Staff observations were that changes made to a site plan for an ADP or SUP were not made to building ermits in a timely manner; changes made to address Building Permit Review comments might p . be impacted by changes required for other associated applications and the timing of applications such as building permits and SUPS. Consensus of the Council and Commission was that the building permits could be parallel through the process with other applications. The Specific Use Permit process was presented by Cunningham. Staff observations questioned if an SUP authorized the use only, or did it tie an applicant to the site and also the timing of an application if an ADP were approved but a SUP was denied. 531 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 25, 2008 Page 5 Consensus of the Council and Commission was that the two could be separated, a variance was not dependent on the site plan but the site plan review should be on hold until the ADP or SUP was approved. Commissioner Schaake lei the meeting. Cunningham continued with Subdivision Variances. Staff observations questioned whether variances could be considered and approved without an accompanying plat and whether a roved variances went with the land. Staff proposed creating an Administrative Waiver pp Process that would be prof ect specific and would require plats before accepting variance ~warver} applications. If the project went away, the variance would go away. City Attorney Snyder indicated that such a process would have to be researched to determine if staff could administratively approve certain variances. Consensus of the Council and Commission was to research whether the proposed process could be done and return with optionslsuggestions. Part of the research would include whether a time limit could be placed on a variance such that the variance would expire if not built in within a certain period of time Staff review and applicant responsibility was the next category reviewed by Cunningham. This situation involved an item not s ecificall referenced in a review that must still meet Code p y requirements. Staff observation was that applicants relied on staff to direct them on all necessary changes rather than taking care of it. That put staff in the position of designing projects for developers rather than reviewing a completed plan for Code compliance. Council and Commission felt that the ro osed rocedure of the mandatory overview meeting PP p would hel with this situation. p Lockley reviewed the Aldi project as it went through the development process as an example of how the procedures worked. Staff observation during the process was that changes made to preliminary plats were not always consistent with final plats and suggested making preliminary plats optional in certain situations. Lockley then reviewed the Kroger Center project. During that project, staff observed that the TxDOT permit application review added additional time to the overall review process. Staff was proposing to explore the possibility of the applicant applying for a TxDDT permit concurrent with an initial submittal. Council and Commission suggested that it could be recommended in the mandatory orientation session. Another agency to consider would be FEMA for early submittal Cunningham presented information on Code Amendments. He stated that staff from several departments had formed an internal committee to discuss future Code amendments. The committee consisted of individuals from Planning, Building Inspections, Code Enforcement, Legal, Engineering, Fire and DME. To date, over 70 potential amendments had been identified, ranging from minor clerical corrections to the rewriting of entire chapters. The most problematic Code amendments were currently being brought forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. 532 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 25, 2o~S Page 6 Mayor McNeill stated that when the Code was passed, mandatory reviews were required every quarter with the public invited. He asked how that was being advertized. Lockley stated that the most interest came from the development community. Invitations were sent out and notices publicized. Mayor McNeill stated that there were many items in the code that dealt with enforcement and should be in an enforcement chapter. Lockley replied that a separate chapter was being developed for enforcement issues. Commissioner Thomas felt that there were still some big holes in the Development Code because of changing consumer taste and preference. He felt there was nothing in the Code dealing with redevelopment; that it currently only dealt with green field development. That issue needed to be addressed. Commissioner Eagleton felt that a topic for future discussion would be developments on a medium scale and incentives for smaller developments. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mulroy suggested additional future topics of discussion might include a small area planner and small area plans, land use planning, and future land use planning. ~Uith no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m. P RR . MCNEILL MAYDR CITY DF DENTDN, TEAS r r r J E AL RS TY SEC TARY CITY aF DENTIN, TE~4S W * Z~ WW 0~~  Ll m Ll m 4~ ~ ~ ~ a a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 U L~ ~ a~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~v1 ~ rr, O • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O H ~ O U~ U~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ N N ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ •ri ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p ~ N v~ ~ ~ ~ c~ v O ~ v1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  I I I I V1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ O ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ M~ M~ M--~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U c~ . • O~ N Q N~ O p .O 4~ ■ Q ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  i i i i i c~ ~ ~ a~i ~ U ~ ~r O ~ ~ ~r U ~ U ~3 ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ U y N ~ ~ Q ~ ~ U O ~ ~ ~ > ~ O V ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q o ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .o ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ O ~ ~ ~ O m N ,F, p V ~ J ~ > ~ v ~ ~ ~ o ~ v ~ ~ j ca v ~ i J ~ O ■ ti~ I 1. II I ' I 221 N. ELM STREET DENTON, TEXAS * (940) 349-8541 ~ FAX (940) 349-7707 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Development Review Committee -Improvements and Reorganization The Development Review Committee is comprised of various representatives from several City departments. It is the duty and responsibility of the DRC to review, evaluate, and analyze all development projects to ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan, the Denton Development Code, and all other applicable codes, regulations, laws and policies that govern subdivision platting and the development of real property within the city of Denton and in some instances, within the city's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The mission of the Development Review Committee (DRC} is: "To promote high quality, sustainable developments within the City of Denton and to provide professional and timely development review services to our customers. " The ultimate goal of the DRC is to ensure proper and timely growth management within the city of Denton. The DRC consists of two sets of reviewing departments or reviewers: primary and secondary. The primary reviewers evaluate and analyze those elements of the development plan that are standard and rudimentary. The secondary reviewers evaluate and analyze those elements of the development plan that are important, but do not occur on a regular basis. The primary reviewers are representatives from the following departments: DRC Engineering; Planning; Fire; Denton Municipal Electric (DME), and Building Inspections. The secondary reviewers include representatives from Denton Municipal Airport; Denton County; the City Attorney's Office; Watershed Protection; Economic Development; Parks & Recreation; Real Estate; and the Police Department. The DRC meets in the City Council Work Session Room located at City Hall Central. These meetings are recorded and verbatim minutes are taken to guarantee accurate record keeping and to provide a means of historic resource. The duties and services performed by the DRC are the essential element to the development review process whereby applicants receive assistance and guidance while processing proposed development projects, culminating with the issuance of horizontal and vertical construction permits such as clearing and grading permits, and building permits. Process Improvements: During recent weeks, several changes have been made to the DRC process to deliver a more effective review process, while simultaneously enhancing customer service and satisfaction. These improvements include but are not limited to the following: J---- - - J'- www. citvofdenton. com  aw 1. Reduction of the project intake processing time. Formerly, project intake took as many as six (6) days to process and distribute. Currently, the process takes only 1 %2 days. This improvement affords Staff time to prepare reports and to dedicate adequate time to meet with applicants to assist them with their projects and to respond to other Planning inquires in a timely manner. 2. The creation of a Customer Service Area. This newly dedicated area allows Staff to meet with applicant and the general public in a more professional setting and to provide uninterrupted customer service. The Customer Service Area is located on the first floor of City Hall West. 3. Applicant attendance at the DRC meetings. All applicants (including the owner) are now invited to attend the DRC meetings and are offered the added benefit of discussing their project review comments with the committee. This face-to-face dialogue affords the applicant the ability to gain clarity regarding any concerns raised by the DRC, and to ascertain what is required to ensure an expeditious project review process and subsequent approval. One of the future goals of the DRC is to provide live video conferences when needed, for the benefit of out-of town app scants. 4. Relocation of the DRC meetings. The DRC now meets in the City Council Work Session Room located at City Hall Central. Prior to this arrangement, the DRC met in the main conference room located in the basement of City Hall West. The new accommodation offers a more professional setting, and also provides more seating capacity or our customers. 5. The Creation of an Ombudsman Liaison: This liaison is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing concerns reported by applicants, individual citizens, as well as identified stakeholders. 6. Mandatory Pre Application meeting: The objective of the mandatory Pre- Application meeting is to provide an orientation process whereby applicants will gain essential information germane to the requirements associated with the city's development review process. In addition, applicants are given the knowledge to be able to make an informed decision whether to continue with an official development application submittal or to consider modifying their course of action. 7. Developer's Luncheon. In an effort to cultivate and enhance a working relationship that is beneficial to both the City and the development community, members of the DRC hosts a quarterly developer's luncheon to communicate information on pending changes to the process and solicit feedback from developers on services and processes that may need improvement. During this calendar year the DRC has hosted three luncheons. Past meetings have been well received, and attendance averages around 40-50 participants, excluding City Staff. Topics of discussion have included: amendments to the DDC; revised development review checklists, and presentations on improvements to the development review process. 8. Developers Committee. In addition to the quarterly Developer's Luncheons mentioned above, a Developer's Committee consisting of volunteers from the development community and key DRC staff was recently formed. The goal of the Committee is to work together in enhancing the development review process in Denton, for all parties. This is to be accomplished by discussing suggested changes the City and development community can evaluate and implement, as well as seeking understanding of each other's needs in the DRC process. The over-all desire is to further improve the process. The Committee meets twice each month and the meetings are facilitated by Assistant City Manager, Fred Greene. 9. Reorganization of Duties and Responsibilities: I. In addition to the aforementioned improvements, there has been a reorganization of personnel as well as certain duties and responsibilities between the Planning and Development Division and the City's Development Review Engineering (DRE) section. The purpose of this reorganization is to provide enhanced development engineering review and inspection services under one agency and to provide leadership from an experienced Professional Engineer. Mr. P. S. Arora, P.E., has taken the additional duties and responsibilities as the administrator of the DRE section and will provide the leadership, engineering expertise, and decision making skills needed of this new section. All development review engineering services, horizontal site construction inspections of all development projects, and the Freese and Nichols engineering consultants are now under the direction of the DRE Administrator. In addition, the DRE section ensures complete oversight of a development project and is expected to provide a seamless transition from project review to project construction. An added benefit is the cultivation of a more harmonious relationship with the applicant, the development engineers and the construction community. II. Mr. Brian Lockley has been appointed as DRC Administrator and will oversee the overall DRC review process. The Development Review Administrator is responsible for scheduling Pre-Application and DRC meetings, ensuring that all primary and secondary departments are actively participating in meetings and that comments are clear, concise, and entered into Trak-it on time. As DRC Administrator, Mr. Lockley will also ensure the manifestation of established objectives of the DRC. These objectives include the following: a. Draft review comments that are specific rather that general in nature and that will impart clarity and direction to aid the applicant in developing an effective resolution; b. Perform a thorough analysis of all projects during the first review and provide a Code reference when possible against which all review comments may be measured; c. Ensure that the information or action requested of the applicant is achievable without the creation of impractical difficulty or unreasonable hardship, to the greatest extent possible; d. Provide review comments that are realistic without circumventing the spirit and intent of any code; and, e. Enter all comments in the Track-It system prior to the established deadline. III. Third, the DRC Administrator also serves in the capacity of the ombudsman previously mentioned. In this capacity, Mr. Lockley is charged with representing the interests of our identified stakeholders by investigating and resolving concerns and complaints in an effective an efficient manner. As ombudsman, he will ensure that the programs and services of the DRC are Specific, Predictable, Accountable, Consistent, and Equitable. In other words, he will ensure the creation of SPACE: a. Provide review comments that are Specific and understandable; b. Implement a Predictable development review process; c. Be Accountable to our stakeholders (internal and external) and protect the health, safety and the general welfare of the public; d. Deliver Consistent administration and interpretation of all applicable Codes and policies; and, e. Be Equitable and fair in the treatment of all our customers. ER11 E FV * ! DRC Organizational Chart Brian Lockley DRC Primary DRC Secondary Reviewers Reviewers P.S. Arora, P.E. Stakeholders