[A. PZ26-118 Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding a proposed Denton Development Code Amendment related to Mobile Food Businesses and the Rayzor Ranch Overlay.]
[00:03:34]
AN SUP ONLY IN THE END THROUGH H I. ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS IS IN THE CODE TODAY. THERE'S NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MOBILE FOOD COURT. YOU'VE SEEN A FEW WITHIN THE CITY. WHAT IS NEW IS THE MOBILE FOOD COURT ACCESSORY. AND THIS IS A SIMILAR PREMISE TO THE PRIMARY USES A MOBILE FOOD COURT. BUT THIS DOES OPERATE AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PRIMARY BUSINESS. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO JUST THE SINGULAR MOBILE FOOD BUSINESS, WHICH MAY OPERATE ON A MORE TRANSIENT NATURE, BUT IT MAY OPERATE ON A PORTION OF A LOT OR PARCEL THAT IS OCCUPIED WITH A PERMANENT STRUCTURE. WE'RE PROPOSING TO ALLOW THIS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE M M THROUGH P F DISTRICTS. SO WITH THAT, JUST SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT ARE THE PATHS FORWARD FOR THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES AS IT RELATES TO RECENT STATE LAW CHANGES? THE CITY DOES NOT INSPECT MOBILE FOOD BUSINESSES. THAT IS DONE THROUGH THE STATE. SO IF YOU HAD A SINGULAR MOBILE FOOD BUSINESS, YOUR TRANSIENT, YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING TO STOP AT ANY ONE LOCATION WITH SITE IMPROVEMENTS. YOU WOULD GET YOUR PERMITTING THROUGH THE STATE OF TEXAS. YOU CAN OPERATE IN CITY LIMITS. YOU COULD OPERATE AT A MOBILE FOOD COURT OR ANOTHER LOCATION OF YOUR CHOOSING. MOBILE FOOD COURT ACCESSORY. YOU WOULD NEED THE OWNER'S PERMISSION. FOLLOWING THAT, YOU WOULD APPLY FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF LAND USE. FOLLOWING YOUR APPLICATION, WE
[00:05:01]
WOULD CONDUCT THAT INSPECTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF LAND USE, AND THEN THAT SITE IS SET TO OPERATE. MOBILE FOOD COURT IS A PRIMARY USE, VERY SIMILAR SITUATION, BUT THESE ARE SUP ONLY. SO THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THAT'S U P PROCESS WOULD GO THROUGH THEIR CEO INSPECTION AND THEN THEY COULD OPERATE AT THAT TIME. JUST KIND OF WANTED TO JUST FURTHERMORE, WHAT WHAT DO THESE THINGS LOOK LIKE? SO THIS IS OUR CERTIFICATE OF LAND USE PROCEDURE. IT FOLLOWS THE C O PROCESS AND TYPICALLY TAKES TWO BUSINESS DAYS TO, TO TURN AROUND. SO IT'S NOT A VERY INTENSIVE APPLICATION. WE DID GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETIMES THE, THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT IS PROVIDED WITH THESE SITE PLANS FOR MOBILE FOOD, COURT ACCESSORY OR EVEN PRIMARY. WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR IS, IS THE REQUIRED PARKING STILL AVAILABLE? IS THAT NOT BEING OBSTRUCTED BY THESE USES? IS THERE ANY ENCROACHMENTS INTO EASEMENTS? ARE THERE FIRE SETBACK CONCERNS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE LOOKING FOR SAFETY AND CIRCULATION, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S OUTDOOR SEATING COMPONENTS, BUT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR AN ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED ZONING COMPLIANCE PLAN WITH MOST OF THESE. THIS IS JUST A IT'S A IT'S A CHECK TO MAKE SURE WE'RE SITUATING THINGS WHERE THEY SHOULD BE. AND EVERYTHING CHECKS OUT FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. THAT'S IT. ON MOBILE FOOD. BEFORE I GO INTO RAZOR RANCH, DOES ANYBODYHAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THAT? >> QUESTIONS. WOW. SORRY. NONE.
OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. A COUPLE THINGS I WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE. ONE, THE EXTRA BACKUP MATERIAL AND GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE OLD STUFF KIND OF HELPED ME UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER, I THINK. ARE YOU SAYING THERE'S ACTUALLY LIKE THREE DIFFERENT DESIGNATIONS A GIVEN MOBILE FOOD VENDOR COULD OPERATE UNDER? ONE WOULD BE IN AN ESTABLISHED MOBILE FOOD COURT, ONE COULD BE IN A, IN A, AN APPROVED ACCESSORY FOOD COURT. AND THEN THE THIRD WOULD BE WITHOUT EITHER OF THOSE CEOS ON PRIVATE LAND, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THEIR HEALTH PERMIT. AND AND THEY WEREN'T LIKE CLUSTERED TOGETHER WITH FIVE OTHER TRUCKS.
>> YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S HOW IT WOULD WORK OUT IN, IN PRACTICE. SO FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, REALLY, WE WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THOSE STANDALONE MOBILE FOOD BUSINESSES THAT TRAVEL FROM SITE TO SITE. AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE THE, THE TWO KIND OF TIERS OF, OF FOOD COURT ONE THAT IS THE PRIMARY USE OF THAT PARCEL, AND THEN THE OTHER OPERATING IN
A SECONDARY CAPACITY. >> OKAY. SO, SO TWO THINGS KIND OF HELPED ME BETTER UNDERSTAND AND BE A LITTLE BIT MORE AT EASE OF THIS NOW THAN IT WAS LAST MONTH. AND THAT WAS ONE WHEN I SAW THE RED LINE. IT LOOKS LIKE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE TO GET THE CO FOR FOR THE ACCESSORY USE OR THE PERMANENT, WHICH WOULD BE AN SUP. AND THEN THE SECOND THING BEING THAT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT INTENDED TO, TO DO THE ONE OFF FOOD TRUCK BECAUSE AS I WAS READING IT BEFORE, IT SOUNDED LIKE IF YOU WANT A SINGLE FOOD TRUCK IN A PARKING LOT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY, USE CO. SO AM I, AM I CORRECT THAT?
>> YES. AND WE, WE PICKED UP ON THAT A LITTLE BIT IN OUR DISCUSSION. WE DID ACTUALLY MAKE A FEW MORE MINOR TWEAKS TO THE DEFINITIONS TO FURTHER REALLY SEPARATE THOSE AND TRY TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THIS IS NOT INTENDED FOR THAT ONE OFF. THIS IS REALLY WHEN FIXED IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING MADE TO A SITE, OR WE'RE HAVING CO-LOCATION OF SEVERAL TRUCKS
OR MORE. >> OKAY. YEAH, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. THE THE ONE THING I SAW IN THE DEFINITIONS SECTION WAS THE MENTIONS. WHERE AM I HERE? SORRY, OPERATE ON A PERMANENT BASIS. AND MAYBE WE DEFINE PERMANENCE ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE, BUT LET'S JUST THINK THROUGH THAT AS FAR AS WHETHER THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME DETAIL THERE JUST TO PROTECT STAFF FROM CITIZENS SAYING, HEY, THEY'RE THEY'VE BEEN HERE FOR THREE DAYS. IT'S PERMANENT TO ME. AND, AND THAT'S NOT THE SAME UNDERSTANDING AS STAFF. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> YES. WE CAN SEE IF THAT'S CAPTURED ELSEWHERE. AND IF NOT, PROBABLY PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
CLARIFYING STATEMENT OR TWO. >> OKAY. SO I MEAN, I'LL SAY IN GENERAL I'M. I, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE. THE PARKING STATUTE IN HERE IS GOING TO ESSENTIALLY MEAN THAT WE CAN'T HAVE THE, THE ACCESSORY OR THE NON ACCESSORY FOOD COURTS ANYWHERE OTHER THAN MD ZONING JUST BECAUSE IT I'M NOT A GIS EXPERT, BUT I IMAGINE IF WE LOOKED AT MOST OF THE DEVELOPED
[00:10:03]
COMMERCIAL LAND IN THE TOWN, MAJORITY OF IT WAS BUILT WITH LESS PARKING THAN OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE, LIKE PARKING IN A SINGLE SPACE WOULD WOULD TAKE AWAY A REQUIRED PARKING SPOT IN MANY INSTANCES. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S A THAT'S A BROADER CONVERSATION THAN I KNOW IS GOING ON. SO I DON'T WANT TO HOLD THIS UP FOR THAT. I WILL SAY, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMISSION, WHEN I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION, IT WAS IT WAS ONE OF THOSE CLASSIC DISCUSSIONS WHERE NOBODY'S SAYING EXACTLY WHY WE'RE DOING THIS. AND EVERYBODY'S TALKING AROUND THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT NOBODY WILL SPEAK. BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF US, THIS IS MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, WAS THAT THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING SIMULTANEOUSLY. ONE IS APPARENTLY THERE WAS A SINGLE INSTANCE OF A FOOD TRUCK IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT GOT CITED FOR NOISE VIOLATIONS AND SHUT DOWN VERY QUICKLY, AND THAT WAS AN ISSUE FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. THERE WAS ALSO SOME UNCERTAINTY ABOUT TAX REVENUE THAT I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY THE LAND USE THING RIGHT NOW. SO THAT'S THAT'S NOT MY PURVIEW. THE WE WANTED TO ALLOW THEM IN PH. BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO ALLOW THEM IN PARKS. SO THAT'S INTERESTING. AND THEN AND THEN APPARENTLY THERE WAS SOME LOCATION OF A GAS STATION THAT WAS REFERRED TO NOT BY NAME, WHERE A LARGER. GROUPING OF FOOD TRUCKS WAS STARTING TO AMASS. AND IT WAS LOOKING MORE LIKE A COURT. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TOOLS TO COME IN AND SAY, HEY, LIKE, LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE WHAT YOU NEED HERE. RIGHT? SO I GUESS MY FEEDBACK IS THE LIST OF REQUIREMENTS LOOKS LARGER THAN IS NECESSARY TO REALLY HANDLE THAT LAST CONDITION OR LAST SITUATION, WHICH I TAKE IT AS REALLY THE MAIN CONCERN OF STAFF. BUT THAT'S KIND OF HOW THINGS GO. SO IT'S, IT'S ONE OF THOSE IF WE WANT TO BE COVERED AGAINST PEOPLE SHOOTING ARROWS, ARROWS AT US, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A LOT MORE THAN WE DO. SO WITH ALL THAT SAID, I THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I'M VERY PUT AT EASE THAT A SINGLE FOOD TRUCK IN A PLACE WITH PERMISSION IS NOT GOING TO GET KICKED OUT, AND AS LONG AS WE HAVE A A PROCESS FOR EXPLAINING TO RESIDENTS AND, AND THOSE WHO ASK AND INQUIRE ABOUT TRANSIENT FOOD TRUCKS, IF YOU WILL, SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY HAS CHOSEN TO DO AND WHAT THE STATE REGULATES. I THINK THAT WOULD HELP GOING FORWARD. SO THIS DOESN'T KEEP REARINGITS HEAD. >> SURE. AND I MEAN, THE THE SINGULAR FOOD TRUCK THAT THAT'S A SITUATION THAT WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING AS IT RELATES TO THAT. AND SO I WOULD SAY WE'RE FAIRLY COMFORTABLE WITH FIELDING THOSE CALLS AS THEY COME IN. LARGELY, IT'S SOMEBODY HAS A PRIVATE GATHERING OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. THEY BRING IN A FOOD TRUCK.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I SAID A LOT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR YOU LIKE ERIC, LET'S MOVE ON. OKAY.
>> THIS IS I JUST ALSO WANTED TO FOLLOW UP. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE INTENT OF REMOVING THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FROM THAT PORTION OF THE RAZOR RANCH OVERLAY, WHICH REQUIRES THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BE RESTRICTED TO ONE BEDROOM? INITIALLY, THIS WAS PLATTED FOR COTTAGE STYLE HOMES. THE MARKET OF ONE BEDROOM UNITS HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE CHALLENGING. THESE ARE HOMES FOR SALE. THEY'RE NOT FOR RENT. THEY COULD BE BOUGHT BY SOMEBODY. THE AMENDMENTS AREN'T REALLY INTENDED TO REDESIGN THAT PLATTED PORTION OF THE SUBDIVISION. IT IS PLOTTED TODAY. THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE. THE PURPOSE IS REALLY JUST TO ALLOW THE AMENDMENT OF SOME OF THOSE BUILDING PLANS.
SOME OF THESE COTTAGES ARE TWO STORIES. THERE'S AN UPSTAIRS LOFT. THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO CONVERT THAT INTO A SECOND BEDROOM. SO JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL LIKE WHAT IS THE WHAT'S THE REASON BEHIND THAT? IT COMES DOWN TO SOME OF THAT MARKETABILITY.
THIS DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD A ONE BEDROOM HOME. IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND DOES WANT TO HAVE ONE IN THAT AREA, BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT IT COULD ONLY BE A ONE BEDROOM
HOME. AND THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE ON THAT ONE. >> THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, PEANUT GALLERY. EVERYBODY'S TIRED TODAY. ARE. OKAY. YEAH, I, I APPRECIATED THE, THE NARRATIVE THAT STAFF PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP. I GUESS MY, MY IMPRESSION IS THAT. IT WAS KIND
[00:15:13]
OF A DEVELOPER WHO DOESN'T DO THIS THING, THIS REALLY BUILDING TYPE THAT THEY SAID WAS GOING TO GO IN HERE GETTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, IF YOU WILL, GOING AHEAD AND PAYING TO DO ALL THE FLAT WORK AND UTILITY WORK. AND NOW WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD BE PERHAPS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT DIFFICULT TO PARCEL IT UP IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? LIKE LIKE IF THERE IF THERE WERE A DESIRE FROM COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION TO, HEY, LET'S, LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO REALLY ENABLE MORE ONE BEDROOM FOR SALE UNITS FROM THE BACKUP MATERIAL. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THAT WOULD REQUIRE SMALLER LOTS, RIGHT. AND, AND NARROWER FRONTAGES. AND, AND I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET THE WORK THAT'S GONE ON SO FAR TO, TO KNOW WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S IN THEGROUND NOW OR NOT. I WOULD. >> BASED ON WHAT I DO KNOW ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND I'M NOT THE RANCH EXPERT, BUT GIVEN THAT THESE ARE ALREADY PLATTED LOTS, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S I MEAN, THERE'S PAVING IN PLACE, I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO SOME UTILITIES, I WOULD SAY THAT REDESIGNING IT TO PROVIDE FOR SMALLER LOTS COULD PROVE TO BE CHALLENGING. OKAY.
>> YEAH. THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST ASK THE COMMISSION THAT WE REMEMBER THIS AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO COMP PLAN UPDATE PROCESSES. AND WE WE REALLY TAKE TO HEART THE. THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE, THE DEVELOPMENT MATH AND THE NUMBERS BEHIND. WELL, WE SAY WE WANT X, BUT IF THE MATH DOESN'T WORK, THEN YOU DON'T GET X RIGHT. SO. IT'S TOO HOT. SORRY.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THAT WILL SORRY. THAT'S THE LAST ITEM ON OUR WORK SESSION. SO WE WILL NOW TAKE A 12 MINUTE RECESS UNTIL 6:30 P.M. WHEN
[1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
[2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR:]
HEAD. AND SECOND, THAT. >> THE MOTION. AND A SECOND. SEEING NO DISCUSSION. CALL FOR
A VOTE. ON THE BOARD. >> SORRY. MY SCREEN IS. >> IT TAKES A MINUTE TO SWITCH.
I THINK WE'RE GOOD. AND THAT ITEM PASSES FOUR ZERO. BRINGS US TO
[3. CONSENT AGENDA]
OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING. DO I HAVE A MOTION OR ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERGARLAND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> AND COMMISSIONER CARTER SAID. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION. >> MOTION AND A SECOND SEEING NO DISCUSSION, CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT ITEM PASSES FOUR ZERO. BRINGS US TO
[A. PZ26-116 Hold a discussion regarding the Planning and Zoning Project Matrix.]
[00:20:08]
4APZ26-116. HOLD A DISCUSSION ON THE PROJECT MATRIX. >> ALL RIGHT. WE DID MAKE UPDATES TO THE MATRIX TO ADD THE ITEMS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING. AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS, IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE 2ND JULY MEETINGS, WE DID HAVE AN ANNEXATION OFF OF MILLS ROAD FOR PROPERTY THAT HAD AN EXPIRED NON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED. THE ZONING CASE THAT YOU ALL SAW MANY MONTHS AGO AT THE CORNER OF BOLIVAR AND TOLLIVER WAS DENIED BY COUNCIL. AND THEN THE ZONING CASE FOR THE PROPERTY WAS ABOUT NINE AND A HALF ACRES OFF OF FM 2153, ON THE FAR NORTH SIDE OF TOWN.
THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL AT LAST NIGHT'S MEETING. SO THERE'S THE UPDATES THAT I HAVE
FOR YOU. >> ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE MATRIX FROM THE COMMISSION? NOT
[5. CONCLUDING ITEMS]
SEEING ANY. BRINGS US TO CONCLUDING ITEMS FIVE. ANYONE? YEAH.>> NOT SURE IF EVERYONE IS AWARE, BUT COMMISSIONER MCDADE HAS STEPPED DOWN. SO IF SHE'S WATCHING, JUST WANT TO THANK HER FOR HER. A LITTLE MORE THAN ONE YEAR OF SERVICE ON THIS
BOARD. IT WAS GREATLY APPRECIATED. >> THANK YOU. OKAY, WITH THAT? WITH NO OBJECTION, AT 6:34 P.M. I WILL ADJOURN THIS
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.