AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

1

AGENDA

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

April 6, 2011

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

Work Session on Wednesday, April 6, 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 the modifications

to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code regulating the use and

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

Energy Conversion Systems, Dr. Ken Banks and Ron Menguita)

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 6, 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. March 23, 2011

Planning and Zoning Commission

April 6, 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. 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 is located south of Morse Street, east of Loop 288, west of Kimberly

Drive and north of Karina Lane. Lot 2R, Block 3 contains approximately 18.102

acres and is located 540 feet south 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)

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 of Airport Road (F.M. 1515), approximately 1,292 feet east of the

intersection of Airport Road and Corbin Road. The property is located within an

Industrial Center General (IC-G) zoning district. (PP11-0003, Ryan Companies

Addition, Cindy Jackson)

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

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 located within a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning

district. (FR11-0001, Mount Pilgrim C.M.E. Church, Ron Menguita)

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 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.

Planning and Zoning Commission

April 6, 2011

of 3

3

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

1

Work Session Item 2

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET

AGENDA DATE: April 6, 2011 DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services and Sustainability / Planning and Development CASE MANAGERS: Kenneth Banks / Ron Menguita

SUBJECT 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 of Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). BACKGROUND On September 13, 2010, staff provided a presentation to the Committee on the Environment concerning WECS. Following the presentation, staff was directed to create a draft WECS code and bring this information back to the Committee for further discussion and direction. Environmental Services, Planning, Denton Municipal Electric (DME), and Legal staff worked over the last several months to create the draft ordinance, which is provided as Exhibit 1 of this agenda information sheet. This information was presented to the Committee on the Environment on March 7, 2011. During this meeting, the Committee directed staff to bring the WECS item to the Public Utility Board for consideration. The WECS item was presented to the Public Utility Board (PUB) on March 14, 2011. During this presentation, the PUB recommended approval (4-0) but suggested that the NR-1 and IC-G land use categories be changed from a “permitted use with limitations” to “only allowed through Specific Use Permit (SUP)”. The Board also requested 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”.

2

As a brief summary, the proposed ordinance defines terms specific to WECS and then outlines general regulations in Section 26-116. Key components of the general regulations include: • Zoning limitations as specified in the Denton Development Code (see Tables in Section 4 of

Exhibit 1 for land use categories. See Section 5 for limitations L(41) and L(42)). The original staff proposal was to allow both building mounted and free standing WECS in the RD-5, RC, NR-1 land use categories under limitations L(41) and L(42), and to allow building mounted WECS under limitation L(42) in the IC-G category. All other land use categories required a Specific Use Permit for either free standing or building mounted WECS. During the March 14, 2011 Public Utility Board meeting, the Board suggested modifying the draft ordinance so that NR-1 and IC-G would require a SUP, and only RD-5 and RC would remain as a permitted use under limitations L(41) and L(42). The following table summarizes these suggested changes.

Landuse Category Draft ordinance presented to PUB PUB direction

NR-1 Building mounted and monopole WECS permitted under L41 and L42

Building mounted and monopole WECS require SUP

IC-G Building mounted WECS permitted under L42. Monopole requires SUP

Building mounted and monopole WECS require SUP

RD-5 Building mounted and monopole WECS permitted under L41 and L42

No change

RC Building mounted and monopole WECS permitted under L41 and L42

No change

All others Building mounted and monopole WECS require SUP

No change

• A requirement 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.

• A requirement 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). • 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.

3

Staff members are seeking direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the next steps for this draft ordinance. If the Commission approves the draft ordinance, the next step will be to present the ordinance at a public hearing during a regular session of the Commission. Upon approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission during the public hearing, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the proposed WECS regulations as presented and subsequent

amendments to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code. 2. Recommend modifications of the proposed WECS regulations and subsequent amendments

to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code incorporating these modifications. 3. Recommend maintaining Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code in current form,

without modification. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Staff recommends Option 1. 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 recommends approval (4-0) of the modified WECS code) EXHIBITS 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Presentation 3. Public Utility Board Minutes Respectfully prepared and submitted by,

Kenneth Banks. Director, Environmental Services and Sustainability

s:\planning\p&z related\year 2011\04 ‐apr\04.06.11\wesc work session\exhibit 1 wecs chapter 26 code amendment final pz 040611.docx

Page ‐ 1

ORDINANCE 2011-_____________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, CREATING A NEW DIVISION 3 TO CHAPTER 26, ARTICLE III OF THE DENTON CODE OF ORDINANCES, REGULATING THE USE AND INTERCONNECTION OF WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS; AMENDING SUBCHAPTER 35.5 OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE TO SPECIFY ZONING RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS AS A USE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, wind energy is an abundant, renewable, and nonpolluting energy resource and its conversion to electricity may assist with reducing dependence on nonrenewable energy resources and decrease air and water pollution resulting from conventional energy sources; and

WHEREAS, wind energy conversion systems may assist with reducing peak power

demands and help diversify citizens’ energy supply; and WHEREAS, while the City encourages renewable and nonpolluting energy sources,

wind energy conversion systems used to produce electricity must meet the City’s goal of protecting and promoting public health, safety, and welfare of the community; and

WHEREAS, the City recognizes that it is in the public interest to permit wind energy

conversion systems consistent with the regulations hereinafter adopted by this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, based upon a survey and review of experiences in other communities, the

City finds that the unregulated installation of wind energy systems within the City carries the potential for threatening the health safety and comfort of the citizens, and can have negative impacts due to noise and visual aesthetics. Due notice was given to the public of a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas should enact an Ordinance controlling Wind Energy Conversion Systems in the City of Denton, Texas; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas has considered the matter

and deems it appropriate and in the best interest of the public and the City to regulate the installation and operation of Wind Energy Conversion Systems by passage of this Ordinance; NOW THEREFORE,

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained and cited in the preamble hereof are

hereby found and determined to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council finds that is it in the best interests of public health,

safety and welfare to define standards governing the installation and operation of wind energy conversion systems.

Exhibit 1


Page ‐ 2

SECTION 3. Article III, Division 3 of Chapter 26 of the Denton Code entitled “Wind Energy Conversion System” is herby added, commencing with section 26-115, to read as follows:

DIVISION 3. WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS 26-115 Definitions. For the purposes of this division, the following terms, phrases, words, abbreviations, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in their present tense include the future tense, words in plural include the singular, and words in the singular include the plural. The word “shall” is always mandatory and not merely directory. Words not defined shall be given their common and ordinary meaning. ANSI means the American National Standards Institute. Blade arc sphere is the three-dimensional sphere in the air created by the 360 degree rotation of the blades combined with the 360 degree rotation of the WECS nacelle. Building-mounted WECS is any WECS that is mounted directly to a building's roof, chimney, vent stack, cooling tower, dome, spire, or other similar structure, rather than a free-standing monopole support structure. Decibel means the unit of measure used to express the magnitude of sound pressure and sound intensity. Free-standing WECS is any WECS that is self-supporting via a monopole support system or is and not mounted to a building or structure in any way. FAA means the Federal Aviation Administration. Height, for the purposes of this section, is measured from the average natural ground level to the highest point of the arc of the blades' elevation for free standing WECS. If a free-standing WECS does not use blades, then height is measured from the average natural ground level to the highest point of the WECS. For building-mounted WECS, 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 building-mounted 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. See “Limitations”, Subchapter 35.5 of Denton Development Code, for additional information regarding height of building mounted WECS. Nacelle is a streamlined enclosure that connects the blades and WECS hub to the WECS support device and houses specific mechanical parts including, but not limited to braking mechanisms, shafts, gearboxes and generators.


Page ‐ 3

Sound Pressure means the average rate at which sound energy is transmitted through a unit area in a specific direction, as measured at a receiver. Sound Pressure Level means the sound pressure as measured on a logarithmic scale and reported in decibels. Tower Height shall mean the height above grade of the fixed portion of the tower, excluding the wind turbine and blades. Turbine shall mean the parts of a Wind Energy System including, but not limited to, the blades, generator and tail. Wind Energy Conversion System or WECS shall mean a system that converts wind energy into electricity through the use of a wind turbine, a nacelle, associated control or conversion electronics, and (depending on design) a tower. A WECS is intended for on-site production of electricity. 26-116 General Regulations The following general regulations apply to all WECS located within the city limits. Pre-existing WECS installations lawfully in existence at the time of the enactment of this Ordinance shall not be required to meet the requirements established herein, other than those contained in Subsections (z), (aa) and (ab) below. To be considered lawful, the owner of the WECS must provide documentation proofing that the subject WECS was in existence at the time of the enactment of this Ordinance. If no documentation is available, the burden of proof shall be on the owner of the WECS. (a) Zoning restrictions imposed upon WECS installations are as specified in the Denton Development Code.1 (b) Compliance with Denton Municipal Electric (DME) Interconnection Provisions. The installation of any WECS that is within the service area of Denton Municipal Electric (DME) shall comply with the DME “Agreement for Interconnection and Parallel Operation of Distributed Generation” and shall abide by the conditions of the “Agreement for Interconnection and Parallel Operation of Distributed Generation”. No WECS shall be installed prior to submitting an Application for Interconnection and Parallel Operation of Distributed Generation with DME and having a fully executed Agreement for Interconnection and Parallel Operation of Distributed Generation with DME. (c) WECS Permit Required. No WECS shall be installed without first obtaining a WECS permit from the Building Official, or his/her designee. The permit's application shall be submitted with the required numbers and types of plans as deemed necessary by the Building Official to adequately review the proposal. An application for building permit must be accompanied by:

1 CROSS REFERENCE – Zoning restrictions, generally, see Subchapter 35.5 of Denton Development Code.


Page ‐ 4

(1) The appropriate permit fees as established by the City; (2) A site plan of the proposed WECS at a scale no smaller than 1” = 30’. The site plan shall include:

(i) A survey and legal description of the parcel where the proposed WECS will be located;

(ii) A plan view layout of the proposed WECS clearly showing: • The location of the System; • All components of the System; • Distances to property lines; • Required setbacks; • Adjacent land uses and zoning designations; • Existing structures on the site; • Required screening of the base of the tower structure; • Natural features such as watercourses, trees, and Environmentally

Sensitive Areas (ESAs); • Existing overhead and underground utility lines including any pad

-mounted equipment and appurtenances; and • Easements;

(3) Elevation drawings showing: • The design and height of the proposed WECS; • Detailed drawings of all System components; and • A profile view of the setback distances and distances to property

lines;

(4) A line drawing of the electrical components of the System in sufficient detail to allow for a determination that the manner of installation conforms to the Electrical Code; (5) Standard installation drawings of the WECS, including the tower, base, and footings. An engineering analysis of the tower showing compliance with the Building Code and certified by a licensed professional engineer registered in the State of Texas shall also be submitted; and (6) Evidence of notice to utility company as required by Subsection (t) below.

An issued permit shall expire if the WECS is not installed and functioning within six (6) months, including completion of the required inspection, from the date the permit is issued; or, if the WECS is out-of-service or otherwise unused for a continuous 12-month period. (d) Construction Standards. A WECS must be installed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations and under the seal of a professional engineer registered in the State of Texas, and may not exceed the manufacturer’s recommendations for maximum tower height.


Page ‐ 5

Additionally, all components of a WECS shall comply with applicable state and local building codes. (e) Location and Setback.

(1) Free-standing monopole support structure:

a. Free standing WECS shall be located behind the front elevation of the primary structure on the lot.

b. No part of the WECS, including blades, may extend into any required yard

setback or utility easement. c. The horizontal separation from all property lines shall not be less than the

height of the WECS, plus 10 additional feet.

d. Free standing WECS shall have a setback distance equal to 1.25 times the height of the WECS from any overhead utility lines.

e. Free-standing WECS blade arc spheres shall have a minimum thirty (30) foot clearance from any structure or any other impediment.

f. Free standing WECS shall have a minimum thirty (30) foot setback

distance from any tree.

(2) Building-mounted:

a. Building-mounted WECS shall be located behind the front elevation of the primary structure on the lot.

b. No part of the WECS, including blades, may extend into any required yard

setback or utility easement. c. The horizontal separation from all property lines shall not be less than the

height of the WECS, plus 10 additional feet. Building-mounted WECS shall have a setback distance equal to 1.25 times the height of the WECS from any overhead utility lines.

d. Building-mounted WECS blade arc spheres shall have a minimum five (5)

foot clearance from any structure or any other impediment.

(f) Principal Structure Required on Lot. A WECS shall be erected on a lot only after a principal structure has been constructed on the lot. The WECS shall serve the structures (principal or accessory) on the lot.


Page ‐ 6

(g) Sound Pressure Levels. Sound Pressure Levels shall not exceed fifty decibels (50dBA) measured from the property line closest to the WECS. If the existing ambient noise is suspected of exceeding 50dBA, that applicant shall establish and submit to the City, a continuous seventy-two (72) hour Ambient Noise Level measured from the property line closest to the proposed location of the WECS. The seventy-two (72) hour time span shall include at least one (1) twenty-four (24) hour reading during either a Saturday or Sunday. If the Ambient Noise Level established and submitted to the City is higher than fifty decibels (50dBA), the noise generated from the WECS may not exceed the established Ambient Noise Level by more than five decibels (5dBA). (h) Lights. Lighting not required by the FAA is prohibited. When lighting is required by the FAA, such lighting shall not exceed the minimum requirements of said administration. A tower structure may be artificially lighted ONLY with steady-burning red obstruction lights (FAA type L-810) or flashing red obstruction lights (FAA type L-864) flashing no faster than 20 flashes per minute. Flashing red obstruction lights (FAA type L-864) flashing faster than 20 flashes per minute, medium intensity flashing white obstruction lights (FAA type L-865 or L-866), high intensity flashing white lights (FAA type L-856 or L-857) or dual flashing red obstruction lights and medium intensity flashing white obstruction lights (FAA types L-864/L-865) may be used ONLY when the FAA specifies that the specific lighting pattern is the ONLY lighting pattern acceptable to promote aviation safety and when the FAA refuses the applicant’s request for authorization to use the lighting required by the City herein. Upward lighting, flood lights or other lighting not strictly required by the FAA is prohibited. If lighting is required by the FAA, the applicant shall submit written evidence of this requirement as a part of the application. (i) Signs. No advertising or other signs shall be allowed on a WECS, other than operational warnings and instructions affixed by the manufacturer. (j) Prohibited in Easements. No portion of a WECS shall be placed in any public easement. (k) Screening. WECS are exempted from the screening requirements outlined in Section 35.13.9.B of the Denton Development Code. (l) Electronic Interference. All WECS shall be filtered, shielded or otherwise designed and constructed so as not to cause electrical, radio frequency, television, and other communication signal interference. Should interference occur or be detected in the future, the WECS shall cease operation until said interference has be addressed and corrected by the WECS owner and operator. (m) Color. All WECS shall be white, grey, or silver color. The finish shall be a dull or matte finish so as to reduce the possibility of any glares or reflections and to minimize the visual obtrusiveness of the WECS. (n) Tower Design. A WECS tower shall be constructed in a monopole design of tubular steel and shall be self-supporting without the use of guy wires or other similar features.


Page ‐ 7

(o) Braking. All WECS shall be equipped with a manual and/or an automatic braking device capable of stopping the WECS operation in high winds. (p) Grounding and Shielding. All WECS shall be grounded and shielded to protect against natural lightning strikes and stray voltage, including the blades, in accordance with the Electrical Code. (q) Load Requirements. All WECS shall be designed to withstand loads including, but not limited to ice and wind, as detailed in the Building Code. (r) Location in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. If located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area ESA categories defined by Denton Development Code 35.17.4, WECS may only be allowed in Developed or Undeveloped floodplain, and must be located outside of any designated stream buffer or water related habitats. All WECS proposed to be installed within floodplains shall have approval of the City of Denton Floodplain Administrator or his/her designee and, where applicable, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Applicants requesting such approval shall undertake all measures required by the Floodplain Administrator or his/her designee to protect the WECS from damage from potential flooding, and compensate for any loss of valley storage resulting from the installation of the WECS. Following installation, the applicant shall re-vegetate the site in accordance with the specifications of the Watershed Protection Manager, or designee. (s) Flicker and Blade Glint. WECS shall be sited to prevent the impact of blade glint and minimize the impact of shadow flicker any inhabited structures (except for the owner’s) or City roadways. WECS found to be in violation of this condition shall be shut down until the flicker or glint problem is remedied. (t) Notice to Utility Company on Grid-Interconnected Systems. No WECS, proposed for interconnection to the power grid or electric utility infrastructure, may be installed until an agreement authorizing such interconnection has been finalized and approved by the electric utility providing service to the owner. Completely off-grid systems shall be exempt from this requirement only upon demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the electric utility serving the owner, that the system is truly off-grid and cannot inadvertently be tied into the electric utility grid. (u) City Building Codes / Safety Standards. To ensure the structural integrity of a WECS, the owner of such System must ensure that it is maintained in compliance with all provisions of the City of Denton’s building code and zoning regulations. If, upon inspection, the City concludes that a WECS fails to comply with such codes and regulations, or otherwise constitutes a danger to persons or property, then upon written notice to the owner of the WECS, the owner shall have thirty (30) calendar days to bring the WECS into compliance with applicable standards. Failure to bring the WECS into compliance shall constitute grounds for the removal of the WECS at the owner’s expense. This notice requirement shall not preclude immediate action by the Building Official as allowed by law, if required in the interest of public safety.


Page ‐ 8

(v) Certification by Engineer. The application shall include a standard drawing and engineer analysis of the WECS tower or building attachment, and certification by a professional mechanical, structural, or civil engineer. (w) Climbing Apparatus. No free-standing WECS shall include a ladder or any other tower climbing apparatus within 12 feet of the ground, unless such device is secured from access by a locked device approved by the Building Official. (x) Other Regulations. All WECS shall be adequately designed structurally, electrically, and in all other respects to accommodate the safety and general well being of the public. All WECS shall be required to meet all applicable regulations specified in the Building Code, Electrical Code, and any other applicable regulatory documents. All tower heights, plus the additional height associated with blades, must be in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements. (y) Maintenance. All WECS shall be maintained at all times according to the manufacturer's specifications and all other applicable regulations including, but not limited to the Building Code and the Electrical Code. The appearance of a WECS shall also be maintained, including, but not limited to, painting, fencing/screening, and maintenance of structural integrity. (z) Removal of Unsafe Wind Energy Conversion System. WECS that have, due to damage, lack of maintenance or repair, or other circumstances, become unstable, lean significantly out-of-plumb, or pose a danger of collapse shall be removed or brought into repair within 30 days following notice given by the Building Official. If the Wind Energy System is not made safe or removed within 30 days of notification from the City, the City may remove the WECS and place a lien upon the property for the costs of the removal. However, at any time the Building Official may order immediate action to prevent or remove an imminent threat to public safety or property. (aa) Abandonment.

(1) At such time as an owner abandons, discontinues, or is required to discontinue, the operation of a WECS, such owner must notify the Building Official of the City of Denton by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Owner shall also provide written notification to all interconnected electric service providers, in accordance with the terms of the governing interconnection agreement. (2) In the event that an owner fails to give such notice, the WECS shall be considered abandoned if the WECS is not used to generate electricity for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, unless the owner of said WECS provides proof of operation, on at least a quarterly basis, for the period that the WECS is being considered abandoned. (3) Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the person who constructed the WECS or the person who operated the WECS or the property owner shall physically remove the


Page ‐ 9

WECS within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use. “Physically remove” shall include, but not be limited to:

(i) Removal of the tower, turbine and all other components of the WECS; and (ii) Transportation of the tower, turbine and all other components of the WECS to an appropriate disposal site.

(4) The owner of the WECS shall restore the site to its pre-construction condition.

(5) If a party as stated in Subsection (3) herein fails to remove a WECS in accordance with this Section, the City shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically remove the WECS as a nuisance, consistent with statutory authority and the procedures established in Article XI, Chapter 17 of the Denton Code. Costs for the removal of the WECS shall be charged to the landowner of record in the event the City must remove the WECS, and the City may place a lien on the property for such costs of removal.

SECTION 4. The use tables set forth in subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code shall be amended to reflect the additional use restrictions reflected in the table below (existing use restrictions remain as written). The Code publisher may modify the manner in which these use allowances and prohibitions are presented and published, to maintain clarity and consistency with other Code provisions.

Institutional Land Use Categories RD-5 RC

WECS (Free-standing Monopole Support Structure) L(41) L(41)

WECS (Building-mounted) L(42) L(42)

P= Permitted, N=not permitted, SUP= Specific Use Permit Required, L(X) = Limited as defined in Section 35.5.8

General Regulations RD-5 RC

Maximum building height 65 feet 65 feet

Maximum WECS height 75 feet 75 feet

Institutional Land Use Categories NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 NR-4 NR-6 NRMU-12 NRMU

WECS (Free-standing Monopole Support Structure)

SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP


Page ‐ 10

WECS (Building-mounted) SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP


General Regulations NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 NR-4 NR-6 NRMU-12 NRMU

Maximum building height 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 65 feet

Maximum WECS height 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 75 feet

Institutional Land Use Categories DR-1 DR-2 DC-N DC-G

WECS (Free-standing Monopole Support Structure) SUP SUP SUP SUP

WECS (Building-mounted) SUP SUP SUP SUP


General Regulations DR-1 DR-2 DC-N DC-G

Maximum building height 40 feet 45 feet 100 feet/ L(33)

100 feet/ L(33)

Maximum WECS height 50 feet 55 feet 110 feet/ L(33)

110 feet/ L(33)

Institutional Land Use Categories CM-G CM-E

WECS (Free-standing Monopole Support Structure) SUP SUP

WECS (Building-mounted) SUP SUP


General Regulations CM-G CM-E



Institutional Land Use Categories RCR-1 RCR-2 RCC-N RCC-D

WECS (Free-standing Monopole Support Structure) SUP SUP SUP SUP


Page ‐ 11

WECS (Building-mounted) SUP SUP SUP SUP


General Regulations RCR-1 RCR-2 RCC-N RCC-D

Maximum building height 40 feet 50 feet 65 feet 100 feet

Maximum WECS height 50 feet 60 feet 75 feet 110 feet

Institutional Land Use Categories EC-C EC-I




General Regulations EC-C EC-I



Institutional Land Use Categories IC-E IC-G




General Regulations IC-E IC-G



SECTION 5. Section 35.5.8 shall be amended to add the following limitations.

L(41) = Lots where the proposed WECS will be located shall have a minimum lot area of two (2) acres. A maximum of one (1) WECS is permitted by right. Multiple WECS are permitted only with approval of a SUP.


Page ‐ 12

L(42) = Building-mounted WECS may not extend 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 SECTION 6. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the _____ day of __________________, 2011. ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY:_____________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY:_____________________________

Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS)

1357677

Text Box

Exhibit 2

Key Components

• Zoning limitations as specified in the Denton Development Code (see Tables in Section 4 for landuse categories. See Section 5 for limitations L(41) and L(42)).

• Note that RD-5 and RC land use categories allow both building mounted and free standing WECS under limitations L(41) and L(42).

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

• Suggestion by PUB to remove NR-1 and IC-G as permitted under limitations

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.)

WECS must be located in ways that minimize any obstruction of the prevailing winds*Illustration provided by the American Wind Energy Association.

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 preliminary research also indicates that several Metroplex cities are working on ordinances to address WECS, or plan to do so in the near future.

Staff is seeking direction on the following:• Option 1: Recommend approval of the proposed WECS

regulations as presented and subsequent amendments to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code.

• Option 2: Recommend modifications of the proposed WECS regulations and subsequent amendments to Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code incorporating these modifications.

• Option 3: Recommend maintaining Subchapter 35.5 of the Denton Development Code in current form, without modification (No action).

Staff Recommendation

• 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

1

MINUTES 1 PLANNING AND ZONING 2

March 23, 2011 3 4

After determining that a quorum was present, the Planning and Zoning Commission convened a 5 Work Session on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room 6 at 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 and John Ryan. 11 12 ABSENT: Commissioner Jean Shaake 13 14 STAFF: Mark Cunningham, Jerry Drake, Chuck Russell, Jennifer Coles, Cindy Jackson, 15

Ron Menguita, Fred Greene and Johnna Matthews 16 17

Print File

18 19 WORK SESSION: Opened by Chairman Walter Eagleton at 5:30 p.m. 20 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 requests for clarification. 24 25 2. Consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the voluntary annexation and

Service Plan of approximately 1.148 acres of land in accordance with Chapter 43 of theTexas Local Government Code. The property is appraised for ad valorem tax purposes asland for agricultural use and is located on the west side of Country Club Road, just north ofthe Education Center at Denton. (A11-0001, Burch Property Annexation, Johnna Matthews)

26 Matthews presented this item. This is a voluntary annexation of 1.148 acres of land on the west 27 side of County Club Road between Ryan Road to the north and Brush Creek Road to the south. 28 The property was originally included in a non-annexation agreement in Donut Hole 5 (DH5) of 29 the recent annexation plans. Section 5A of the non-annexation agreement states: “If an owner 30 files any application or plan of development or otherwise commences development of any 31 portion of the property inconsistent with the Development Plan provided in Section 2, then 32 Sections 1 and 3 of the Agreement shall become null and void.” The property owner improved 33 and expanded a parking lot associated with an existing school on the site. 34 35 The non-annexation agreement for this property included 220 acres and the owners presented a 36 60 month surface use lease. The recommended voluntary annexation includes only the 1.148 37

2

acres that were impacted by the parking lot improvements and expansion. Matthews presented 1 the service plan and schedule of annexation. The Development Review Committee recommends 2 approval. 3 4 Drake stated that the Commission’s recommendation should be recorded by vote. Thomas 5 moved to recommend staff continue the annexation process and go forward for a Planning and 6 Zoning Commission public hearing with a second by Ryan. Motion approved (5-0). *Bentley 7 arrived after this item. 8 9 3. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the implementation of

a Wayfinding Signage Network. 10 Menguita presented this item. Menguita provided information to the Commission regarding the 11 Wayfinding Signage Network system that staff has been working on in conjunction with the new 12 A-Train. The Commission questioned the time frame for the start of the A-Train service to 13 Denton and the recycling programs downtown. Menguita stated the A-Train is still on schedule 14 to begin service in June and that the pilot program for Downtown Recycling is underway. Ryan 15 stated that about 60% of what was trash is now going to recycling for his business downtown. 16 17 Menguita presented proposed signs for entries to the City and downtown. There were three 18 themes provided in the backup and presented labeled Theme A, Theme B, and Theme C. The 19 Commissioners provided various feedbacks on the appearance of the signs. Commissioners 20 suggested combing elements from Themes A and B and suggested using a dark brick that is 21 similar to Texas Woman’s University. Lyke stated that the City is not big enough to handle 22 diverse signage appearance. Eagleton stated he likes the idea of the signs on the entrances to the 23 City being tied to downtown. Ryan questioned the source of funds for these signs. Menguita 24 stated that the difference in the estimate and the final cost of the Downtown Implementation Plan 25 would provide some funding. Additional funding may be garnered from the last time signage 26 was approved by the Capital Improvements Program Oversight Committee and those signs were 27 never constructed. 28 29 Eagleton questioned if the downtown signage that was constructed in 2003 would be changed out 30 with the new signs, once approved. Menguita confirmed they would be. Additional discussion 31 was held regarding the problems at one time with TxDOT and right-of-way restrictions. 32 Menguita stated that TxDOT is more flexible now on what it will allow. Phase I of the new 33 signage would begin with the downtown and work its way outward. 34 35 Menguita stated that the next step is to present this to City Council and vet through all of the 36 suggestions. Additional discussion was held regarding the street sign color, which will be blue 37 to differentiate from the Historic District Streets and regular City streets and will be internally 38 illuminated. Lyke also made the suggestions that the entry signs should have a “Welcome” or 39 the like. 40 41 Chair Eagleton closed the Work Session at 6:12 p.m. 42 43 44

3

Chairman Eagleton opened the regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. 1 2 REGULAR MEETING 3 After completing the Work Session, the Planning and Zoning Commission conveded a Regular 4 Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas which was held 5 on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 and began at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City 6 Hall, 215 E. McKinney at which time the following items were considered: 7 8 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 9 A. U.S. Flag 10 B. Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag - I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas one state under God,

one and indivisible." 11 2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES FOR: 12 A. March 9, 2011 13 Ryan motioned approval of the minutes with a second by Lyke. On roll call vote: Chairman 14 Walter Eagleton "aye", Commissioner Brian Bentley "aye", Commissioner Jay Thomas "aye", 15 Commissioner Patrice Lyke "aye", Commissioner Thom Reece "aye", and Commissioner John 16 Ryan "aye". Motion passed (6-0). 17 18 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:

19 A. Final Plat of Lots 1R-7R, Block A and Lots 8R and 9R, Block B of the Greater Denton

Industries Addition, being a replat of Lot B, Block 1 of the Greater Denton Industries Addition. The 9.08 acre site is located on the west side of the intersection of Blake Streetand Market Street, within an Employment Center Industrial (EC-I) zoning district. (FR10-0005, Market Street Development, Cindy Jackson)

20 Thomas motioned approval of the Consent Agenda with a second by Ryan. On roll call vote: 21 Chairman Walter Eagleton "aye", Commissioner Brian Bentley "aye", Commissioner Jay 22 Thomas "aye", Commissioner Patrice Lyke "aye", Commissioner Thom Reece "aye", and 23 Commissioner John Ryan "aye". Motion passed (6-0). 24 25 26 27 28

4

4. 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 theagenda for an upcoming meeting.

1 2 No future agenda items to discuss. Chairman Eagleton closed the regular meeting at 6:33 p.m. 3 4 5

Page - 1

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET

AGENDA DATE: April 6, 2011 DEPARTMENT: Planning Department CASE MANAGER: Ron Menguita, 349-8328 SUBJECT - FR10-0008, Lake Cities Addition 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 located within a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district. BACKGROUND The applicant, Fred Hill, is proposing to re-plat the existing Lot 1, Block 1, of the Alex Robertson Addition and two un-platted tracts, see Exhibit 4. The purpose of the re-plat is to combine all three into one lot in order to expand parking for the existing C.M.E Church to the east, see Exhibit 1. The Planning Department sent certified notices of the public hearing to property owners within 200 feet of the site and courtesy notices to residents within 500 feet of the site. Public notification information is provided in Exhibit 3. As of this writing, staff has received no notices within 200 feet of the site.

The Denton Development Code (DDC) defines a re-plat as “a change in a map of an approved or recorded subdivision plat if such change affects any street layout on such map or area reserved thereon for public use or any lot line or if it affects any map or plan legally recorded prior to the adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions.” In addition to the above, Section 212.014 of the Texas Local Government Code states that a re-plat of a subdivision or part of a subdivision may be recorded and is controlling over the preceding plat without vacation of that plat if the replat:

1. is signed and acknowledged by only the owners of the property being re-platted; 2. is approved, after a public hearing on the matter at which parties in interest and

citizens have an opportunity to be heard, by the municipal authority responsible for approving plats; and

3. does not attempt to amend or remove a covenants or restrictions.

Public Hearing Item 4A

Page - 2

PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW No prior action/review. 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 proposed re-plat. EXHIBITS

1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Notification Information 4. Proposed Final Re-plat (refer to full size plat document in your back-up)

Prepared by: Ron Menguita, AICP Development Review Liaison Respectfully submitted:

Chuck Russell, AICP Interim Planning Manager

Page - 3

EXHIBIT 1 LOCATION MAP

Page - 4

EXHIBIT 2 ZONING MAP

Page - 5

EXHIBIT 3 NOTIFICATION INFORMATION

Public Notification Date: March 20, 2011 200 ft. Legal Notices sent via certified mail: 23 500 ft. Certified Notices sent via regular mail: 107 Number of responses to 200’ Legal Notice

• In opposition: 0 • In Favor: 0 • Neutral: 0

AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION