Mar 17, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-03-17 5:00 PM

- Hi, everyone and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning meeting for Wednesday, March 17th, 2021. This is our workshop session meeting and with a quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.01 PM. First item on work session is citizen comment on consent. I do not believe we have any. - No, ma'am, there is none. - Okay, very good. Thank you. We will move then to our work session reports. We do have one this afternoon. It is to receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding the development code review committee roles and responsibilities. And Richard, is that you presenting? - Actually, Scott will be presenting it remotely. I think if we can probably queue him in and we'll get the presentation pulled up. - Okay, sounds good. Hi, Scott. - Good afternoon. Scott McDonald, Director of Development Services. Glad to be here. Thank you for having me this evening. And Richard, if you can go to slide two. So just wanted to visit about, I assume you can hear me. - We can. - Okay. Thank you very much. Just wanted to talk about the development code review committee. And for those of you that aren't familiar with it, it was established originally to help us when we were working through the 2019 development code. So as we rewrote the code, we put together three council representatives and three representatives from the planning zoning commission. They've provided input and guidance to work through this. And as we've had the code in use for over a year, we're now looking at making enhancements to the code areas that we need to update and change as we're using it, as well as some of the legislative changes. Next slide, please. As we've met, we've talked about establishing this committee as a standing committee. And last night at council, I presented the same item, talked with council in great detail about this, fielded a number of questions, which I'll discuss somewhat. But ultimately council had consensus to establish it as a standing council committee. We'll continue to have meetings as necessary. So just as they're needed, it won't be a standing date necessarily. And then the other, the great news is that in the past, the committee was only three representatives from council were the voting members. The committee had recommended that both the council members and the planning and zoning commission members would also be voting members. And council did have consensus to carry that forward. With that being said, part of the conversation last evening revolved around dissolving the committee and utilizing the planning and zoning commission exclusively for doing this very thing. I did explain, and again, for some of you that have not been involved with the process, as well as those that are tuned in online, the work that goes into discussing various potential code amendments or changes to the code takes a considerable amount of time. And council member Ryan had used the example of fences. And I believe he stated that we spent eight or 12 hours talking about perimeter fences, which is accurate. We spent a lot of time in recognizing that we have any number of items that really require a lot of deliberation and having the diversity of thought of having elected officials and having those members that are appointed to the planning and zoning commission with a differing perspective, being able to really just informally be able to discuss those issues and work through them. Didn't necessarily believe that it was best for this to be done through planning and zoning exclusively and then going to council and council may make changes to that. And so it just seems a little bumpy where it is that we have three representatives that truly represent the planning and zoning commission, three representatives that represent council, really can help kind of carry those through each of those bodies. For those of you that are not familiar, any code change. So if we change the text within the code, that's required to come before planning and zoning and then go to council for final approval. So one of the questions that I couldn't answer is how many members of planning and zoning would be willing to put in the extra time and effort. I indicated that it would require us to start the meeting certainly earlier than we do currently and most likely would result in having additional planning and zoning commission meetings. I also indicated, I didn't know if all of the council members were aware of the volume of work that's coming through the planning and zoning commission. I did indicate that work sessions typically start at 5, sometimes 4, sometimes 3 and can carry on into the late night hours in any given meeting and just thought that it would be burdensome for the commission. And so with that being said, I guess I'll say it for any questions that there may be and then I guess if we can drop the screen and maybe have a little bit of discussion, I'd really like to get an understanding from the planning and zoning commission members, their thoughts. Understanding that council has made the decision to keep the committee as a standing committee and that it will be made up of the three planning and zoning commission members and three council members. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Commissioner Ellis. Chair Pro Tem, however, whatever the right title is. That would be Vice Chair, Commissioner Beck. Vice Chair, that's what we'll call it. Okay. We'll follow that. Yeah, Scott, I watched the meeting last night and I kind of sort of fall in the line of Councilor Meltzer and armator and some of the other questions along the similar lines of why isn't this sort of what you alluded to earlier, the sort of realm and purview of planning and zoning and if there's more to do, we meet weekly instead of biweekly or, you know, extended hours as you just discussed. It seems like that's, you know, all part and parcel with this. Well, and again, as I had indicated, just knowing the time constraints that we ask of appointed officials that we're then going to ask them to do more and just for your information, when we were going through this, when we were meeting regularly after the code was adopted, we were meeting weekly and it was truly hours at a time. So we would set two hour blocks every week and just a variety of items. And each of those items still work session through planning and zoning and they still go through council work session. So it's not as if that the commission nor the council, but what we have found in the past is that we'll take a code amendment through a staff, let's say it's just a staff recommendation. We'll bring it to the planning and zoning commission. Planning and zoning commission will have their take on it. They may modify it just as you would modify any other that you have the privilege of modifying. And then it goes to council and council may take that recommendation. They may change that recommendation or they may throw those recommendations out. And so really the purpose or the intent is really having three members from each so that we really have that harmony or that balance. So when it does go to P and Z, that we minimize any potential changes. And when it goes to council, likewise, we minimize any potential changes. So I think it would be very frustrating for P and Z if they were to come together with what they believe should go forward. It goes to council and council has a completely different view on it. And I might speak to the vice chair and she can probably speak to some history and sorry if I'm putting you on the spot, but we have carried some items forward that council has taken an opposite approach of what P and Z has had or the council members may have a very opposite approach. And being able to have that joint meeting, if you will, has I think minimized much of that because we can get the perspective and where it is that council might not agree with the planning and zoning commission members initially. They may get there through the informal discussions and the deliberation. And then when it goes to council and those council members are supportive of what those changes are. And vice chair, I just ask if you want to comment to that. Yeah, I agree, Scott, that the perspective that we've had over the years with having three people from council and three from P and Z. Council has been able to bring forward things they've heard from their constituents that we don't necessarily know about or things that might have been discussed at one of their work sessions. And they bring that to light. So I think it's to your point that the collective perspective is ideal. Commission or Prunetta. And before Commissioner Beck, were you done for now? Oh, I apologize, Commissioner Beck. Did you have a follow up there? I did. I was going to just sort of follow on from those comments, which I really appreciate. I will say, you know, it's one of my favorite things to do is play devil's advocate. Council reverses us all the time. So that's I appreciate it. I agree. And I take to the Scott's point that, you know, it helps streamline that effort helps minimize the amount of reversals that we get to have that that joint committee. But I would encourage staff and Scott to at least poll the commission to see whether they'd be willing to to meet on bump together more often. And the the the the other thing that I wanted to bring up is the the issue with a subset voting is that's it's a really great tool to do exactly what you just described, which is streamline, dig into the weeds, but also get multiple stakeholders. But the same token, if if the full reports of what that subcommittee did don't go forward, then you end up with a fractional report. Let me give an example. If we if there were, say, six options that staff was considering and the the DCRC met together and decided to just push forward three of them without reporting on the other six and why those other those other three rather were were unsuitable, then then that's really a disservice to both council and PNZ, whereas is if if it's just used to sort of vet the good three and have rationales for throwing out the the bad three and those are those are conveyed to council and PNZ, then it's a great tool. And I think it sort of depends on on how you implement that streamlining effect. And so I think, you know, devil's in the details, if that makes sense. That's the only two recommendations, poll and devil's in the details. No, and and thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Beck. I didn't tend on polling. I wanted to ask that very question. That's why I kind of started this. But I will tell you that we absolutely want it to be as transparent as inclusive. And and again, it's a public meeting. And we want what we want to do is is truly, as you say, streamline and simplify so that we have really those representations from each of those constituent groups in the in the varying perspectives that are offered. So I'm absolutely on board with that. I'm sorry, Vice Chair, if I interrupted. Oh, that's okay. I think my point was just going to be it's really a matter of having a discussion that committee and having perspectives, multiple perspectives brought to that committee and have a discussion. It's not a matter of here's what staff wants to do. What do you think it really is a collective discussion between the members who are there from council members who are there from planning and zoning and members who are there from staff and any other consultants that are brought in for discussion. So again, it's a collective discussion. It's not definitely certainly not a this is what we say and you have to vote on it. It's not any it's it's just about having collective discussion and moving changes forward and then bringing it to a full planning and zoning and a full city council for for further vetting. So with that, do you have anything else, Commissioner Buck? If not, I'm going to go to Commissioner Pernetta. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Pernetta. Yeah. So I'm not opposed to this remaining a standing committee. I know that, you know, prior to this, we're doing the full code rewrite. That's absolutely necessary. I'm not sure, you know, the depth of which we have a lot of stuff coming up, but given that we are facing historic growth in the next few years, I think it's necessary to streamline. I have a couple of questions and, you know, just a couple of suggestions. I'll start with a suggestion. You know, obviously, these are meetings, they are, they should be noticed and everything. Would it be possible to get just a summary of what's coming up on the next meeting, you know, when we do our project matrix or something like that at the end of a PNZ, you know, at the end of our standard PNZ meeting, so that way we'll kind of go, oh, hey, that's something that's up on the radar. I'd like to make sure I pay attention to that meeting or, you know, or view it or, you know, toss in some suggestions. That'd be kind of cool to have. The other thing is, so right now, as it stands, the council members are the only ones who can vote on things that come through. Is that correct? Okay. The way it has been set up. Okay. And the way, yeah, that's the way it has been set up. I guess the question is, is there a lot, are there a lot of situations where we have a, you know, where you have situations where votes would probably go in a different direction if, you know, if PNZ had voting capability or voting strength on that? It's anecdotal. I know you guys don't have a, you know, a list of, you know, things, but. Well, two pieces to that. I would say that it would have been very rare if anything would have come out of that committee that the planning and zoning commissioners were opposed to. A, but B, going forward, they do have a vote. So that's been rectified as it being a standing committee. So all six members will be voting members. And then. That's not something that's important for discussion right now. That's already going through, right? That is what council agreed to. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I know we were being asked to deliberate that or not. Okay. What was the other thing? I think those are mainly, those are mainly it. Just, if, you know, we could incorporate some notice at some point to the PNZ meetings, so that way, you know, we could have something on the radar that, you know, we might want to chime in or pay attention to that. That'd be great. Well, thank you, commissioner. And you reminded me of something that I wanted to mention and absolutely staff can provide. What we do is typically prepare a PowerPoint presentation to work as a, as a guide or an agenda for the meeting. So the items that we're going to work through and really kind of like a strike through an underline, meaning this is how the text reads. This is what we're proposing. Let's talk. So we can have staff send that out to the planning and zoning commission members in advance of the meeting. And the second point, and what you reminded me is a point that I wanted to mention after commissioner Beck was that keep in mind when staff is preparing the agenda and when staff brings forward the materials for the DCRC, we are taking input that we hear from the planning and zoning commissioners and what we hear from council members. So we're not going into this exclusively with what staff wants to do. It's the direction we get from the two bodies that we're responsible for. So keep in mind that this is designed just to make this as simple, as truly simple as we can possibly make such a complex set of topics. Yeah. And with that being said too, I just wanted to add, you know, originally when this committee was established, it was a six person voting committee and it did go to council and it did get changed. Not exactly sure why, and it did get changed to just three council members making the quorum and being allowed to vote. I'm glad it's being changed. I think it will be more productive only in the sense that a three person quorum sometimes can get blown apart really easily and you've got to cancel the meeting. And so I think that is definitely a good step in the forward direction for the committee, for sure. Also, the agendas are posted and if y'all use your Granicus app, you can access your agenda that way too. But certainly I don't see why staff couldn't send that out to planning and zoning as a full body when that agenda is constructed. Correct, Scott? Richard? Absolutely correct. Just a reminder, please do not reply all, just send a message to staff. Okay. I just saw Richard's hand for a second. Do you need to chime in real quick? No, just to add that I just confirmed and asked Selena, she's the one that sends those agendas out. So I told her just add all P and Z to that distribution. I think that's perfect. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, vice chair. Not to belabor the point because I think everyone's made, I wanted to sit back and just listen to the commissioners since we're on the DCRC and get you guys' input on it. But that was just something from having been a member on the DCRC since the code was released at the end of 2019 and having been through it just for some of the small cleanup items, that was probably the biggest issue that we, boys, Margie, myself and Andrew did most recently was just that P and Z members were essentially figureheads. We had no power whatsoever. We were there to weigh in and give input. And to answer your question, Commissioner Pernetta, that yeah, the council did take on a number of occasions to take our recommendations, our anecdotal evidence on certain things we're cleaning up to heart on the voting. So there never was anything that was contentious that would have gone differently if P and Z had a voting right. But just for our own safety of understanding that we're not just there to sit in and listen in like little brothers and nod our heads and say, okay, whatever you guys want to vote and do, here's our opinion, but we know it doesn't matter. This is a step in the right direction. And I know Margie knows this from having been on it before and after the code being amended and changed that this is a good move. And so I'm happy to see it. So I won't belabor the point anymore, but thank you. Okay. Any further discussion questions for Scott? Commissioner Beck. Was Scott going to think, thank you, Vice Chair. Was Scott going to poll? Are we going to do that later or? Okay. No, no, no. Scott had intentions of that. I just making sure there wasn't any other questions that we needed to work through. Okay. I just was sure if we were wrapping up. Yeah, no, I was, and I guess I would be just curious by a show of hands. I know we're missing a couple of bodies, but it would be useful at least from those that are on if they have an interest or would want to see it different than the DCRC and that planning and zoning commission would be responsible for all of these items to work sessions through. So again, whatever those time constraints might look like. And just truly a simple show of hands of those that would think that it would be better for it to be planning and zoning rather than the DCRC. And understanding, I'm going to have a little bit of a lag. So I guess Richard, if you could be my eyes, you'll have a better handle on that. So I'm not sitting here for 20 seconds. Well, right now I've got a commissioner Beck's hand raised. Okay. Yeah. Will that help? And I know. Yeah. And I guess what I would add is just, I would not want to lose the collaborative uh, discussion and, and I would not want to lose council members in that discussion. That would be why I would not want to do that. Commissioner Beck. Yeah, I, I, I take that point and that's why I led with my discussion earlier that I see, I see the advantage of this and streamlining. Um, I, I just, uh, I guess for the sake of the poll, if we're, if we're parsing this out to which, which commissioners would be willing to take on a greater role is a different question than should we dump this, um, entirely onto P and Z. And so if, if, if those are our options, then I guess I'm going to take the, the, the one where unfortunately we lack council, but if our option is P and Z takes on a more frequent role or other duties, then I completely volunteer myself. I'm not going to volunteer the rest of my commissioners, but I completely volunteer myself to take on a more frequent role. So that, that's sort of why I raised my hand the way I did. If that makes sense, Scott, I absolutely, it does. And, and, and again, it really was, um, it wasn't, it wasn't the, um, question that was poised to me. The question that was poised to me was this, it wasn't even necessarily a question as much as it was a statement that, um, this should be the role of planning and zoning, not the DCRC and that it should be dissolved. So it was an either or, and I'm an advocate for both the collaborative groups. And, uh, certainly we, uh, like I indicated, we will work sessions all of these items either way. Um, and we will willingly take anybody's participation on any code related items. So, um, anybody that wants to play, um, bring it on. Sounds good. Is there any further discussion question for Scott or, uh, commissioner Pernetta? Yeah. And I just wanted to, you know, kind of, uh, kind of state my, my, my thoughts on this one. You know, I understand commissioner Beck's concerns and everything, but, uh, for something like this, you know, I know that if it wound up, you know, coming to PNZ and requiring, um, significantly more PNZ meetings, it's going to be harder for everyone to, to kind of get together. We'd wind up having, you know, marathon meetings after a while. Um, my, my understanding is, you know, that we're not going to have a complete code rewrite like we did before where a lot was being, you know, dropped at one time, that these are going to be more kind of ad hoc type things or, you know, occasional things where we will get a full staff report on it, you know, on the deliberations and the, and the options that were put forward. So that way we can, you know, if, if by the time something gets to PNZ, uh, you know, it doesn't quite meet our eye or we have concerns, we can, we can voice that in this forum, I would assume, and take votes as a full, you know, commission, because basically the, these, you know, this committee is, is not, um, making any unilateral decisions. Uh, everything you guys do still has to come through us before it goes to council again, right? Am I missing anything? Correct. Correct. Yeah. So, uh, anyway, that's just wanted to express, you know, for anybody watching who may not have caught that, that that was my impression on everything. And that's why I'm, I'm fine with it. Uh, because ultimately it, it is a vetting process and there's a lot of minutia that can be stretched out for hours. You know? That's true. Thank you, commissioner. Um, Richard, I think you wanted to chime in. Yeah, I really just wanted to chime in and kind of piggyback something that, that, um, commissioner Pernita just, just sort of hinted on, you know, we have a matrix that we talk about every, every meeting. And so that would not preclude anyone on P and Z from seeing what's going to be, you know, what's going to be discussed at the next upcoming meeting to bring that issue up or, or bring something else up related to it. You know, we have one item pending on there that, that, um, commissioner Smith brought up about notification in the ETJ. As we get to that chapter that will be discussed at DCRC, uh, and then ultimately brought back. So again, if there's something, as you see that brain, it certainly can be discussed at that end. We'll add it to the matrix. And then we have sort of that, that legislative history, if you will, of where it was brought up at P and Z discussed at DCRC, brought back to P and Z and then ultimately to council. So at least we have that ability there. Just wanted to, to just remind everyone of that. Perfect. Okay. Any further discussion questions for Scott? If I might vice chair, one, one verification, if, and to paraphrase commissioner back, I just want to make sure I understand, um, if your hand was up or down, as it related to the, um, either the DCR exists or it goes to P and Z was your, did you then just change your position and necessarily want to keep the DCRC? So if, if, yeah, I think there is value in the joint committee. Uh, I just, uh, with, with all the clarification about the, the, the feedback and, and whatnot, then, uh, I think there's value in the joint committee. So I'm, I'm fine with that. If, if that's what we're discussing. So in that sense, I guess I'll, I'll put my hand back down. So, okay. No, I just, I just wanted clarity. So I didn't just, uh, perceive something that wasn't necessarily accurate. So no, absolutely fine. And, um, certainly I encourage, um, each and every one of the planning and zoning commission members to bring forward any items that, um, they'd like to be heard or changes that they proposed just as Richard did indicated. Thank you for your time today. Thank you as well, Scott. Good to hear your voice. Good to be heard. You all have a great evening. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. That is our only work session report for today. So we will move on to clarification of agenda items. Uh, first on our agenda would be the minutes. Uh, any discussion questions regarding minutes? Okay. Seeing none that will move us to consent. We've got a couple items on consent. Anybody need those brought forward? Any questions, comments? All right. Seeing none. We, oh, Richard, just a point of clarification on, on the one, um, and my mouse died. Give me one second. I'm sorry. Uh, on consent item B, um, this was the item that was deferred from, from last week. Um, and, and as you know, typically all of the consent items are being recommended for approval. This caption just got carried over from, from the last meeting. So all of the backup in the staff report are recommending approval. So the, the, the official recommendation is approval. It was just an error on the, um, how it got carried over from track it. So just wanted to point that out. Understood. Okay. We'll move to items for individual consideration. Got four a, which is FP 21, zero, zero, zero, five a and Julie, I think that's you. Good evening commissioners. Let me share my screen. We'll just take a look at that plot. Okay. Um, so this may look from the wrong one. This, uh, this is for the gray wolf edition. It may look familiar to you. You did see it at the last planning and zoning commission. Um, at the last, uh, at the last meeting there was an extension for it. Unfortunately, they weren't able to, uh, to address all of the, um, all of the needed corrections for the plat and the civil plan. So staff is recommending denial and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Um, looks like, uh, commissioner Beck. Thank you guys. Sure. Um, yeah, Julie, uh, no, I, it seems like, um, it's real dry. I have sort of, um, a curiosity question that you can help me understand is one of the items, I think it was like two one or two a one about, um, the trees that, that there was an issue about the DBHs and that's not my question. Uh, that's all pro forma stuff. They need their paperwork. They didn't do their paperwork. That's why we're denying it. Um, my, my question is there's no trees on that property. So, I mean, I think all the trees are on the adjacent property. So do you have to cite on your plat DBH for trees that are not there? There are a very few are there really? Okay. Fence line trees. So, um, so they're not large, but yes, there are a couple of fence line trees. And so, um, they've just, they've got a couple of those, um, of, um, inches that they'll have to preserve. Okay. So just on a, on a hypothetical, if the other, there was two or three other issues that are cause for denial. And so, but on a hypothetical, if, and I probably shouldn't float hypotheticals to the committee, but, um, if, if this was, if, if, if a couple of fence line tree DBHs were all that's missing, we would still be required to go through the same, uh, staff recommending denial, right? Is that correct? Well, for, for a plat to be approvable, um, they should meet all of the, of the requirements in the code. And that includes that note on the plat that, that references the, the, um, trees. I will say that staff works very hard to, to address all of those issues. Um, we really, uh, we, we really try to work through them with the applicants to, to try to get them to an approvable state. So I would imagine if it was just something like that, then it would be something we could, um, we could address prior to the planning and zoning commission. Okay, cool. Yeah, this, this, this wasn't a concern about the actual item. It was just sort of the, the construction of the item. And I didn't realize there were actually tree, uh, you know, when I Googled map that, uh, they didn't look like there were any trees at all. So not many. Thank you. You bet. Uh, any further questions for Julie on this one? Okay. Seeing none. Thank you, Julie. Appreciate it. Next one is item four B FP 21, zero, zero, zero, four. That would be Haley's item. All right. Good evening. Let me get the plat pulled up. All right. Good evening. This is a plat FP 21 for, this is the residences at razor ranch. Um, this again may look familiar to you all as we considered a, uh, preliminary plat extension for the same site at our last meeting. Um, they were able to work through all of staff's comments, um, in the last two weeks, even since the agenda was posted on Friday. So all comments have been cleared on this plat and staff is able to recommend approval at this time. And I'm happy to stand for any questions. Yeah. And I believe Haley, that was sent out to everyone in email. Correct. Yes, that is correct. I believe it went out on Monday. Okay. Any questions for Haley on this? I don't see any Haley. Okay. Thank you. All right. That moves us to, um, public hearings. So five a is being postponed, um, due to a notification error, um, per Richard, uh, I am to open the public hearing and then ask, uh, for a motion to postpone to a date, certain of April 7th. Um, any questions on that? Okay. Uh, then our next one, five B that Z 20 0014 B that is back to Haley. Let me get back to the beginning here. All right. Good evening again. Uh, so this is case, uh, Z 2014 for Gisling road industrial. The request before you this evening is, uh, concerning the property that is outlined in yellow on this map. That is, uh, just under 12.7 acres of land. They are seeking a rezoning from residential six or our six districts to light industrial. The property is, um, there's a few things I wanted to point out while we're on this screen. It is part of a larger 86 acre parent tract. Um, that is, is this property adjacent to the east? Uh, some of you may all may remember, um, that we previously had a preliminary plan called the Walker edition for this site that was approved, uh, for single family development. Um, that was in 2019 that project, uh, never moved forward. And, and so that preliminary plan is considered, um, null and void at this point, since the owner has requested this rezoning, uh, but just wanted to bring that up in case some of you remembered this and thought the area looked familiar. Um, the second thing is that, uh, this rezoning is kind of accessory to a use that is permitted, um, on the property across the street. So the site that's in red here, um, is a 23 acre site that's currently zoned light industrial. The same developer is looking to develop both of these pieces. This larger portion would be developed with the distribution center type use, and this lot would be accessory to that and provide some additional parking for their employees and fleet vehicles. So just wanted you to have that picture before we move forward and look at the rezoning request itself. Um, so as you can see here, we have the current zoning map. Um, the property is zoned R6 consistent with the majority of the parent tract. Um, these area around it does have a pretty diverse mixture of zonings, including PF, uh, mixed use neighborhood, light industrial, and then several areas that are still, uh, have that rural residential, uh, kind of placeholder zoning from recent annexations. Um, and then this is a look at what that map would look like with the site rezoned to light industrial. So, um, in your backup, of course we had the full criteria for approval outlined in detail. I won't go through those, but they are available, um, in the staff analysis. And then we'll look at each of these, uh, zoning specific criteria for approval in a little more detail. So the first of those is consistency with the comprehensive plan. Um, this area is again, as I mentioned, there's a lot going on here in terms of zoning, actual uses on the ground. Um, and so what we have in terms of the future land use is the start transition at this, at the property line, essentially, uh, for moderate residential on the subject property to business innovation to the north and west. Um, so while the, the proposed light industrial is not consistent with that res, uh, moderate residential designation, it is consistent with business innovation and we are in a transitional area here. So that is worth considering that if you, if you see on the map, there's kind of that fuzzy boundary to both of these. So the way we look at this is those transitional areas can kind of tend to go either way. Um, so light industrial would be consistent with business innovation in terms of the permitted uses. And it's also consistent with the surrounding area, which we'll look at a little more closely. Um, so as a, as was detailed in the staff analysis, this is really an area, uh, where staff feels we need to do a deeper dive when we do the comp plan update. Um, so in the past, you've seen a lot of our recent cases have comp plan amendments run concurrently with zonings when we have this, uh, situation where there's not a good fit. Um, however, because of the diversity of things going on in this area, we really want to look at a broader scale of everything that's kind of going on with the industrial pattern that we're seeing, um, out on the eastern area of town from loop 288 out to the east. Um, so because of that, we did not ask the applicant to submit that, that single parcel for consideration, um, because we're already underway with the comp plan and we really want to look at this area as a broader picture. Um, but some of the things that, uh, that contribute to really feeling like this zoning might fit the area is that diversity that I spoke about in terms of existing land uses. Um, you can see here on the map, there's a lot going on. We have a pretty heavy industrial uses, uh, things like safety clean and, and some other manufacturing facilities, uh, north of there. We have, uh, a pretty new self storage facility, which is an industrial use here on the loop, uh, or I'm sorry, on highway three 80, but then we also have a lot of nonconformities. So we have, um, I believe it's four electric substations developed here on Geesling. There's an existing manufacturing facility that's zoned RR that's, uh, kind of nonconforming. It was a recent annexation here just across the street. And then we have some other remaining RR parcels that actually can't be developed with that zoning. They will require a rezoning because the parcels don't meet that minimum lot size. Um, and then of course we have some pretty intensive commercial uses to the North. Haley, can I interrupt you just for a minute? Yeah. Regarding those parcels to the South, those are just, those are separate, like one acre parcels or is that correct? Correct. Undeveloped and with an RR zoning. That's correct. Yes. So that the RR does require that minimum of five acres for development. Um, okay. I believe there's another question. Yes. Commissioner Beck. Yes. Thank you. Um, Haley, so do we have a mechanism for when we have a zoning that is untenable? Like for those, what is it for? My eyes are gone. Terrible. Five parcels. I mean, okay. Um, is there a mechanism to where like, or, or do they really just have to be individually treated as their owners want to develop them? I think there's no way to bundle in a sort of larger zoning cause it seems like you'll end up with a, a donut hole here. Um, and I think we would all like to avoid weird artifacts like that. Yes. And, uh, the mechanism for that would be for those owners to join in this application. Um, and they did not do that at this time. Um, so it would either need to be a city initiated zoning in the future to try to clean that up potentially. Um, which, you know, as you may remember with the, the code update, we did some of those, but they kind of got put on pause. Um, or it would need to be initiated by those individual property owners in the future when, when they seek to develop. Um, but yes, that would be desirable to go ahead and clean up the entire area, but, um, without those owners authorization, that's not something we could do at this time. Sure. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. Is that four separate owners, Haley? I believe so. Oh, goodness. Um, I, I can double check on that with DCAD during, during the break before the hearing, but I believe it is separate owners there. Um, but you're really, we'd wanted to provide this broader perspective of the area, um, because it is, it is diverse. There's a lot going on. There's a lot of, like I said, kind of, uh, nonconformities that have been created over time with piecemeal annexation. Um, and then there's some other factors as well. Um, the, the moderate density residential designation within our comp plan has several goals associated with, uh, development in that area. And, you know, it really lends itself to this area needing to be re-examined as maybe that's not appropriate, uh, moderate density residential here because it doesn't meet a lot of those goals. Um, some of those being like areas you see here on the east side of loop 288, um, it calls for those neighborhoods to be adjacent and connectable to other existing neighborhoods. We wouldn't really have that here if residential developed here, it would kind of be out on its own, not connected to other neighborhoods. And then similarly, um, the comp plan calls for those moderate density developments to be focused in areas that would be walkable to nearby services, schools, things of that nature. And so really we don't have conditions ripe for that in this area. So that further lends us to thinking we might need to re-examine this in the future. And then finally, um, I did want to point out there is on our mobility plan, a, um, a primary arterial roadway that's intended to go here. It was at 20, in 2015 dubbed, uh, future post oak Boulevard. Um, the name of that of course is still up for debate, but in recent years, um, as, as this preliminary plat was examined in 2019 and through, uh, discussions with text out even more recently, um, the highway three 80 corridor is going to be expanded by text out in the future. They're under underway with that feasibility study. And so the alignment of that primary arterial has actually shifted and, uh, staff and the developers as well as tech side have all come to an agreement that really it, it would be better aligned along the existing Geesling corridor. Um, so that is another factor here to consider that this arterial will be shifting this way. Geesling in the future will be developed, um, as potentially a six lane roadway. So it really wouldn't lend itself, uh, for this being residential development and light industrial would be a better fit, um, in that sense. And then finally, with the comp plan, I just wanted to, to, uh, bring this to everyone's attention in the implementation section of the comp plan. It does provide for these instances where, um, rezoning requests don't meet the future land use map that, that they can be recommended for approval if they meet other goals within the comp plan and its overall, uh, goals for an area. So just wanted to bring to light some of those other goals that are called out in the comp plan, um, economic development being one of them. So really providing a suitable land areas for employment uses, um, and light industrial uses is called out in the comprehensive plan. We have that here, uh, where we have a parcel that's already zoned and, and has, is desirable for an industrial, um, and employment use, and they're needing to expand that. Um, so that could certainly fall within those goals of providing that further employment, um, and expanding that area of business innovation to make more land area available for that. Um, this could also help reduce some of those conflicts we see with moderate density residential not being suitable in this area because of the, the existing development pattern, that arterial roadway, and some of those other, uh, factors that have changed over time since the comp plan was adopted. And then finally, um, just bringing back to light that this is an area that we do intend to do that deep dive on in the near future with the comp plan update to, to hopefully reduce some of these conflicts between the existing development pattern and our future land use map. The next criteria is whether the rezoning would be consistent with the purpose statement for the, the zoning district. Um, so as we've looked at in the past, the Li district, um, has a variety of goals, um, in place, such as providing, um, employment uses, light manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution, and those sort of things, like what is proposed in this case. Um, and it calls for those to be in areas, um, that are easily accessible and that would also be sensitive to the adjacent, uh, environment in terms of the built and natural environment. Um, that is the case in this instance. Uh, what they're proposing would be consistent with the, the diverse character of the area that already includes several industrial type uses. Um, and it would also be appropriate given the high accessibility with highway 380 and Geesling road being that future arterial. The next criteria is whether there've been significant changes that would warrant the request. Uh, so I wanted to give a little bit of history on this area. As I've mentioned, um, that's kind of been a piecemeal annexation throughout, um, the last few decades here. So the subject property and that parent tract were, were originally annexed back in the 70s. It has had that R6 zoning, um, since 2002. Um, there are some existing encumbrances on the parent track that I think lend us to being difficult for residential development. Um, you can kind of see here those, uh, some of these transmission lines that are crossing the property. There's electric transmission as well as a gas pipeline that make development of the site a little bit challenging. Um, and then the surrounding area, as I mentioned, is kind of in piecemeal. So we have, um, a history of recent annexations from 2013 to 2016 that have resulted in some of these non-conformities within the RR district that I spoke to. Um, I believe that. Yeah. Yeah. Can I get some, thank you vice chair. Uh, Haley, can I get some clarification that the, the, I, and I think you said this at the beginning and maybe I'm just misremembering that the, the warehouse distribution center is on the, in, on this map will be in the blue and this region is going to be, uh, an accessory support parking. Uh, is that correct? That in terms of, I'm thinking in terms of what you're describing right now in terms of the, the use of this entire parcel. Correct. So the, the intent, um, is for a warehouse distribution center on, on the west or yes, the west side of Giesling here in this property, these two parcels actually. Um, and then this would be accessory parking facilities for them. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Um, so yeah, as I was saying, I believe, uh, some of the RR parcels here, we do have, like I mentioned, there's a non-conformity here with a manufacturing facility. We have these electric substations here. Um, and then a lot of the lot sizes you can see here are less than that five acre minimum. So it does, um, it, it kind of creates that non-conforming situation where we will likely see some rezonings in the future as these parcels either seek to develop or expand. Um, so it really is time, um, a very diverse area that we see a lot of transition. Um, and then finally, again, with that, uh, with the mobility plan component, uh, this arterial roadway alignment would be shifting here to Giesling road. Um, I believe, uh, tech stop, like I said, they're doing that feasibility study. Their plan is eventually for there to be a direct, um, kind of takeoff from highway 380 over to the loop that would occur in this area. So this existing intersection was viewed more favorably as an intersection that could be expanded in the future, um, signalized so that that arterial roadway, um, wouldn't interfere with that future, uh, takeoff from 380 to 288. Uh, the next criteria is whether it would minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties. Um, so the LI district is generally consistent with the development pattern of the area. Again, with those, those large electric facilities here, other manufacturing and industrial uses, um, it wouldn't be out of character for those uses. And then further, the Denton development code would ensure that anything developed, uh, where we have industrial adjacent to residential would have, um, compatibility buffers in place, uh, that, and as well as screening from the right of way and things like that, um, that would make this more sensitive in terms of the transition here from industrial to residential, if this were to develop in a residential pattern. Um, so the, the DDC does provide for that and it would ensure that the context of the development would be sensitive to the area. And then finally looking at the availability of public facilities and services, uh, with respect to transportation, um, for the industrial or for the warehouse distribution center on the opposite side of Gisling. They have prepared a TIA that's in review with our engineering department. Uh, so I wanted to go through some of those numbers with you just briefly. Um, for a, an approximately 140,000 square foot warehouse facility, they would expect just under a thousand total daily trips. And then the AM peak and PM peak would be around 200 each. Um, so that does call for some roadway improvements that they would be responsible for with this development. Um, Gisling road, they are planning, uh, for the right of way dedication and development of that primary arterial along their frontage. And then, as I mentioned, they are working with text dot right now to ensure that this would meet, uh, the traffic warrants to signalize this intersection. I believe there's a question. Commissioner Beck. Yes. Thank you, vice chair. So, um, your statement about the improvements that would be warranted, if this is, if this, if Gisling is becoming an arterial rather than, I think it's a collector, isn't that what you told me? Um, and, and we're also seeing the 380 expansion of via text dot, especially as you get over to Cooper Creek and that on ramp onto 288 that they're proposing. Um, I mean, so they're, these developers would be responsible for the Gisling updates or text dot would be responsible for the Gisling updates. I guess I'm unclear. Sure. So because Gisling is a perimeter street, this developer would be responsible for those perimeter street improvements on their frontage. Um, okay. So yes. So for, for them, it would just be the frontage of their parcels. In this case, um, they, they would have frontage from this point to the north on this side of Gisling and the here, they would actually have that frontage on both sides. Um, so there will be some transitions. Um, and I believe they've also indicated that they're willing to, to seek, um, to work with the property owner to the north where the flea market's located to see if they could go ahead and fully improve this intersection, uh, with their participation. That's a little, um, I believe that that hasn't been finalized at this point. Um, so that piece is a little unknown, but they would make those improvements along the frontage of their property. Um, and then this would be coordinated with tech stop for that signalization here. And, and there's sufficient, I think you said there was sufficient right away, even if it expands out to an arterial. So the, they will be making right away dedications on Gisling along their frontage for that, um, arterial width. And then, you know, as, as properties develop or redevelop, um, that right of way would be dedicated at that time or in the future. Um, if the city, you know, has a CIP project or something to, to further build out this corridor, then the city would go through that right of way acquisition process for any remaining pieces that are needed. But there's, oh, I guess it's undeveloped land. So yes, there's, the answer is there's sufficient property. Yeah, I'm being stupid. Thank you. No, not a problem. Uh, with respect to utilities, um, there, there have been some very recent improvements with the, uh, the dash lines on this map indicate recent, uh, constructions of water and sewer lines. Again, the red lines being sewer and blue being water. Um, so for this development on the west side of Gisling, they will be extending those facilities, uh, through the site and along their frontage. And then with this parcel, uh, that we're looking at for the rezoning, they're actually proposing, um, to dedicate some public right of way here on the northern end to allow for better access to this remainder when it develops. Um, so they will be extending utilities through that right of way as well. Um, if this rezoning is approved, so there, there are adequate facilities in place, uh, that can be extended for this development. And then finally, uh, notifications, uh, worsen out for this request. Um, there's, there's a small number of property owners, um, with it fall within that 500 foot buffer, but those notices were sent and we have not received any responses to date. And so finally, staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning as we found it to meet the criteria. And I will pull down the screen, um, in case there are any other questions. Any questions for Haley? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, vice chair. So, so Haley, I know this is in the future when, when they're actually getting into the engineering, the plenary plot, but, uh, for the concept that they have for the parking, do you have an idea of, um, whether the, the, the acreage of parking that they're proposing or square footage, however you want to do it is with, with, would be within the 30% or would allow for 30% canopy retention since that parcel is highly, uh, wooded? Certainly. So they have, um, with their concept plan, we'd have seen a preliminary tree preservation plan that indicates they would be able to meet that 30% preservation requirement. Um, and yeah, and that would also help enhance those buffers that will be required for the industrial zoning next to residential. So there'll be a fair amount of existing canopy preserved, most likely on the perimeters of the site, uh, to help with the buffering as well. Okay. Thank you so much. Anyone else? I don't see anything else, Haley. Thank you very much. I believe that concludes our agenda. So with that, we'll close the work session at 5.57 PM. We will reconvene at 6.30 for our regular meeting. Thanks everyone. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Meeting for the St. Patrick's Day, Wednesday, March 17th, 2021. With a quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.01 PM. First item on our agenda is Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. Commissioners, you are welcome to unmute and state along if you would like. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. Thank you. Next on our agenda is consider, uh, Planning and Zoning Minutes for March 3rd, 2021. Chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Beck? I move approval of the minutes. Commissioner Anderson? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of March 3rd, 2021 minutes. Any discussion? I see none. So we will take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Pronetta? Aye. And the chair is also an aye. That motion carries 5-0. And before we continue, I did fail to mention for the record, let it be shown, the chair, Andrew Rosell, is not present at the meeting, nor Commissioner Jason Cole. And with that, we'll move to our consent agenda. Chair will entertain a motion or if we have any discussion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Anderson? Second the motion. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of consent agenda. Richard, did you have? I just wanted to clarify that the second item, item B, while it does state denial, it is a recommendation of approval in accordance with the staff analysis and AIS. And that was just a typo on our agenda? Correct. As it carried forward from the last meeting. Okay. Very good. Thanks for the clarification, Richard. Okay. Again, we've got a first and a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay. With that, we will take a vote via roll call. Every quick question. So because it's listed as that on the agenda, do we have to put in an amendment or something like that for the motion or no? No, I don't think you need to put in a separate motion. I think just that clarification. I think everyone clearly knows what they're voting on, which is approval of both items. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Smith, House AU? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Pruneto? Aye. And the chair is also an aye. That consent agenda carries five, zero. Next item is items for individual consideration. We've got 4A FP21-0005A. Julie Wyatt is here to present. Good evening, commissioners. Let me go ahead and just share my screen really quickly. So the item before you, FP21-0005A. This might look familiar to you. The preliminary plot was approved late last year. They are moving forward with the final plot. Staff is recommending denial. An extension for the final plot was approved at the last planning and zoning commission. However, they still have a few outstanding items that they need to address before it is in an approvable state. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Julie on this? Okay. With that, I will entertain a motion if there is one. Commissioner Beck? Yes. I recommend denial as for the reasons issued by staff. So you're motioning to deny? Yeah. Motioning to deny for the reasons indicated by staff. Okay. Thank you, commissioner Beck. Do we have a second? Commissioner Smith? Second. Okay. Any discussion? We've got a first and a second for denial. Okay. With that, we will take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Prunetta? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Chair, is also an aye. That denial carries five zero. Next item is 4B, FP21-0004, being presented by Haley Zygursky. Good evening. Let me get the screen shared. All right. Good evening. This is Final Plot FP21-0004. This is the Residences at Razor Ranch edition. The most important thing to note here is that since the agenda went out on Friday, the applicant has been able to resolve all of the outstanding comments. So the staff recommendation has been updated to one of approval as it now meets all of the requirements of the DDC. And I'm happy to stand for any questions. Any questions for Haley on this item? Seeing none, I can open the floor for a motion. Commissioner Prunetta? Motion to approve. Commissioner Anderson? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Okay. With that, I'll take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Prunetta? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Chair, is also an aye. That motion carries five zero. Thank you, Haley. Next on the agenda is our public hearing section 5A AESA 210001A. Due to a notification error, that item is being postponed to a date certain of April 7th. I will open the public hearing for that item and entertain a motion for postponement. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to postpone to date certain of April 7th. Thank you. Commissioner Beck? Second. Okay. First and a second to postpone to a date certain of April 7th. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Prunetta? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Chair, is also an aye. Motion carries five zero. Next item is 5B Z20-0014B. I will open the public hearing and call Haley Zegerski up for presentation of this item. All right. Good evening. This is case Z2014, Gisling Road Industrial. The request before you this evening is a rezoning from residential six or our six district to light industrial for a property that is outlined in yellow on the map that is approximately 12.7 acres. This property is part of a larger parent tract. Some of you may remember this larger 86 acre area was preliminary plotted for single family residential development in 2019. However, that plot never progressed into the engineering and final platting stages and is considered null and void as this rezoning request would substantially change the future development of the property. This rezoning, I also wanted to point out, is part of a larger development. The property that you see outlined in red is an area that is intended to be developed with a warehouse distribution center type use. That property already has a light industrial zoning and the subject property would serve as an accessory to that and would provide additional area for parking. That's the reason for the rezoning, therefore, is to make sure that the use, the primary use of warehouse distribution would be permitted since that parking would be accessory to it. This is a look at our current zoning map. You can see there is a diversity of zoning in the area. We have light industrial, as I mentioned, just across Gisling. There's the remainder of the parent tract zoned R6. There's some mixed use neighborhood to the north as well as public facilities and MN immediately to the south. This is what that map would look like with this rezoning to light industrial. The general criteria were discussed at length in the staff analysis. We won't go through all of those here, but we will touch on a lot of those same topics as we go through the zoning specific criteria for approval. The first of those criteria is consistency with our comprehensive plan. The first thing that we look at there is typically our future land use map, which you can see here on the screen. You see the subject property is designated for moderate density residential development. However, you can see here with this feathering and transition of the colors that it is also in a transitional zone with business innovation to both the north and the west of the property. The light industrial, it would not be consistent with moderate density residential as it stands. However, it is consistent with that business innovation, and given this transitional area, we felt that that merited some further analysis. Looking into the area a little more broadly, this is a part of the city that staff has identified where we have a lot of inconsistencies between what's on the ground and our comprehensive plan. It's an area that we see developing with a more intense industrial pattern, so we feel that it merits further analysis in the future. Since we've already kicked off that comprehensive plan update for the entire city, instead of having the applicant apply for a change on just this one parcel, we flag this area as something that we will be looking at on a much broader scale because we do see that industrial development really from 288 moving out to the eastern side of the city. So there's a lot of things in this area that could be cleaned up, which we will look to do with that comp plan update. Some of those things, just to look at it a little more closely, there are some existing non-conformities in the area. We do have industrial uses here on Gisling that are currently zoned RR and are within that moderate density residential area. Similarly, we have very intensive development of electric substations here that's not consistent with the moderate density residential designation, and so it appears in 2015 when this was adopted that some of these things that were already existing on the ground just were not taken into account, and so that's an area where we can can clean this up in the future and hopefully facilitate some redevelopment or new development in this area. Some other things that are important to look at are the goals for moderate density residential are really not consistent with this part of the city. When you read through that description in the comprehensive plan, it calls for this moderate density residential development to occur in areas where it creates extensions of existing neighborhoods, where it would be compatible with, you know, neighborhood services and schools and things of that nature and create a dense walkable environment, and this far out on the eastern perimeter of the city where there's really already an industrial development pattern, that would not be likely. It's unlikely that we would see any of these existing industrial type uses redeveloping with those neighborhood services or other residential uses to create that connectivity, so this area in general might not be a good fit for moderate density residential. We do of course want to maintain sensitivity to the existing kind of well-established large lot neighborhoods that we have further east, but there's probably a better way to transition this area, a more logical way. And so the other piece I wanted to point out while we're on this slide is this future arterial roadway that's through here. Really that is not something we would desire in a dense walkable residential area that is consistent with the business innovation where you want that high connectivity and accessibility to those large tracks, but that's not something that we would typically encourage moderate density residential around. So just another piece of the puzzle here that we'll look at a little more closely that leads to this area being in need of some cleanup in the future. And then finally with respect to the comp plan, I wanted to share this quote from the comp plan that's from the final chapter where it talks about implementing the plan and how zoning should be consistent with it. And it does provide guidance on instances where rezonings are not consistent with the future land use map, but meet other goals of the plan. And so some of those other goals that we identified in more detail in your staff analysis were the economic development components of the code. It really it calls for those areas of business innovation and employment uses with light industrial uses mixed in to be on these corridors with high accessibility. It also encourages areas where there's sufficient not only access, but also buffering. And those are things that you could provide for on this property. It would also help to clean up some of those inconsistencies we just talked about with moderate density residential not being ideal for this this part of the city. And then finally, just going back to what we just talked about again, this is an area that that you'll be seeing in the future as we update the comprehensive plan and look to clean up some of these inconsistencies on our future land use map. The next criteria is consistency with the purpose statement for the zoning district. So I won't read this to you. But generally speaking, the L.I. district is intended for those employment areas with light manufacturing and warehouse type activities. It's intended for areas where we have adequate access and transportation options. But it's also called for to be sensitive to the surrounding built and natural environment. All of those things we would see with that zoning on this property, as we saw looking at those maps earlier, there there is that industrial pattern already in the area. So it would continue that and be consistent with the character of the area. There is that arterial roadway with with Gisling Road that will provide that accessibility as well as the pretty close adjacency of Highway 380 to the north. And then also with the the Denton Development Code requirements, it would be able to provide that sensitive sensitivity to the residential zonings that are adjacent to it. The next criteria is whether there have been any significant changes in the area that could warrant the zoning change. So looking at a little bit of the history of the area, the subject property has been part of the city since the early 1970s. It's had residential zoning since 2002. Prior to that, it was agricultural. There are some significant encumbrances on the property that I suspect led to that that previous preliminary plat not being developed. There is an approximately 70 foot wide electrical transmission line that crosses the the parent tract. There's also a natural gas pipeline that you can see faintly there on the aerial image. So those things create some encumbrances on this property that have led to it being left undeveloped for many years, even though it's been in the city limits with that residential zoning. Other properties in the area, primarily those you see with the RR zoning, have been more recent annexations from 2013 to 2016. For example, this manufacturing facility has been in place, I believe, since the 80s, based on my research. But when it was annexed, it received that placeholder, so it's actually non-conforming to the rural residential zoning. Similarly, we have some smaller tracts of land, as you can see here, that don't meet the minimum acreage for RR. So there's a lot of non-conformities in this area, and that means we will in the future probably see those as rezoning requests. So we really need to consider that potential redevelopment pattern for this area and how this could help contribute to that. And then finally, as I alluded to earlier, there is this primary arterial designation that's currently shown to the east on the parent tract of this property. Through discussions with the owners of this tract and other developments that have been proposed there, as well as through conversations with TxDOT about the upgrades and expansion of the Highway 380 corridor, it's been identified that this alignment is not ideal. Really, this primary arterial would be best served shifting to the current Geesling Road corridor, which is currently a collector. So our future mobility plan reflects that change. That is something that TxDOT has indicated would be more desirable for this intersection to be upgraded, rather than creating a new intersection here, where they're planning for really a takeoff point to have a direct connection from 380 all the way to loop 288 more in this area. So through that coordination, this alignment will be shifting, and that further creates better accessibility to this tract, as well as lends itself to maybe R6 not being the ideal zoning along that arterial corridor. And then the next criteria is whether there's ways to minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties. So some things to look at there, again, the development pattern on most adjacencies of this property lend itself to being compatible. We have some pretty intensive outdoor commercial retail type uses to the north. I believe there's also auto repair on this tract. There is industrial development across Geesling Road on both of these parcels. And then to the south, again, we have those four electric substations that are there that, again, are not ideal neighbors to an R6 zoning, but would not be incompatible with light industrial. As I mentioned, these parcels will kind of be that little doughnut hole of RR for the time being, but those are likely to be rezoned in the future as they couldn't be developed with the current RR zoning due to the parcel size. And then finally, the DDC standards that I mentioned for right-of-way screening, buffering, as well as height transitions and things like that, would ensure that anything developed in the LI district on this property would be contextually sensitive to those surrounding residential zonings that would remain on the parent tract. And then finally looking at whether there are adequate public facilities to serve the site. With respect to transportation, we've already discussed this corridor, this primary arterial shifting here. So there will be some significant enhancements to the Geesling Road corridor over time. The applicant, as part of their application for the distribution warehouse facility on the western property, did provide that full traffic impact analysis. It's still under review, but it's pretty solid, so we know some recommendations that will come out of it. Primarily, that would be the expansion of Geesling to an arterial roadway, as the city and TxDOT have both indicated would be favorable. That would ultimately be a six-lane configuration most likely through this area, so they would make those improvements along their property frontages. And then they're also coordinating with TxDOT to signalize this intersection. They're currently going through the warrant study to show that it would meet all of TxDOT's warrants for a signal. It's expected that they'll be able to meet that, so this in the future would be an improved intersection with a signal there, providing much better accessibility to these properties along Geesling. And then with respect to utilities, what you see on the map here, all of these dashed lines mean those are recent utility improvements. They were put in place as part of this storage facility that recently developed, so we have sewer lines that have been stubbed out to both tracks here where the warehouse use would go, as well as water lines that have been extended across there. Those utilities would be further extended along their frontage to make them accessible to others, as well as make them accessible to this tract. As I mentioned at the work session, they are planning for a right-of-way going across the north boundary of the site that would open up some better access to this property for it to develop in the future, and there would be some utility extensions along with that to make sure that we have full connectivity through this area. Notifications were posted through all of our normal means. In the newspaper, a sign was posted on the property, and notices were mailed to those surrounding within 200 and 500 feet. We've received no responses or inquiries with respect to those notifications. And finally, staff is recommending approval of the request from an R6 to line industrial zoning, as we found that it met all of the criteria. I will pull down the screen now, and the applicant is also on the line and has a brief presentation as well. Thank you, Haley. Any questions at this time for Haley? Okay, I don't see any, so I will--oh, Commissioner Anderson. Haley, I do have a question. It might be better for the applicant, but in--you were talking earlier about how that's going to be--excuse me--additional parking for the place across street, but they're eventually going to turn Geesling into a six-lane road. That wouldn't really make sense to have a parking lot, and you're going to have to walk across six lanes of road to get to your facility. I just thought about that a minute ago. Is that what they're--the long-term plan is to do is make it a parking lot, and these people are going to have to cross six lanes of road to get to their work? Yes, it's--I'll certainly let the applicant speak to that, but it's my understanding that this lot would primarily be for those fleet vehicles, so it would really--you know, it wouldn't be employees going to their personal vehicles over there, but there would necessarily be some pedestrian traffic, and they are planning for some improved pedestrian crossways across that full arterial section, so they're planning for that full six lanes at this point and working with our transportation engineers and our staff to make sure that that would be a protected crossing for those employees. That's being reviewed as part of their zoning compliance plan, and all that would be finalized with their civil engineering plans, but certainly they can speak more to how they plan to make that a safe crossing. Okay, thanks. Okay, I don't see any other questions right now for Haley, so I can invite the applicant to speak if they are there. Good evening, commissioners. This is Amy Bissett. Can you hear me? Yes, Amy, we can. Stay your name and address. Well, you know the drill. Thank you. Amy Bissett, 100 West Oak Street, Denton, Texas, 76201. I appreciate being here tonight, and we'll make a very brief presentation, and we'll also attempt to address the questions that I've heard in this regular session, as well as the discussion that took place in the work session. To begin, I do want to introduce a couple of others on the team that are with us tonight in case you have specific questions for them. We have Matt Boone with Scannell Properties on the line, and he is the developer for this site, and we have Trey Braswell with Kimley Horne, and he is the engineer on the site. Haley, if you have our presentation up, if you will go ahead and go to slide two, please. I'm not going to rehash everything that Haley has presented to you, but just a brief overview. We are requesting a zoning change on 12.69 acres to LI Zoning, light industrial zoning. The overall development includes roughly 36 acres and 144,000 square foot distribution center and warehouse, and this particular site is intended to address tandem parking for employees and fleet vehicles. Haley, if you'll go to the next slide, please. As Haley did mention, this is kind of a transition area in terms of the comprehensive plan and future land use map. We do see some intense industrial related uses that surround this property on all sides. With the developer coming in and developing the property on the west side of Gisling, this is essentially an extension of that for additional parking. Haley, will you go to slide four, please? We did do a full traffic impact analysis, as Haley mentioned, and I just wanted to point out a couple of brief things related to that. Currently, TechSot has an active project on Highway 380 in this area that's highlighted on your screen, on the left side of your screen, identified as area number 13. This active construction project includes adding an eastbound right turn lane at Gisling and a westbound left turn lane at Gisling. Some of those improvements are already underway today. We do have a full TIA and signal warrant analysis in review with the city that will comply with the city and TechSot requirements. The analysis does show that this intersection will have adequate capacity for the trip generation estimates that we have put together. Haley, will you go to slide five, please? I just want to talk about a couple of site plan elements because there were some questions that came up in the work session related to those. We do have a zoning compliance plan or site plan that is in review right now for the full project. We have specifically on this eastern track that's being rezoned, we're working to acquire or we've included some additional acquisition of land specifically for tree preservation. As Commissioner Beck mentioned, this is a heavily treed site, so we have picked up some additional properties specifically to address tree preservation. The developer is also proposing electric charging stations for the fleet. Of course, as Haley mentioned, we'll have landscape compatibility buffers to the areas that are zoned residential today. To address Commissioner Anderson's question about the crossing of Gisling in terms of pedestrian crossing, what we anticipate for this area is that this is seasonal overflow parking for certain times where there may be additional drivers and an additional fleet needed. It's likely that employees or associates will park on the site, park their personal vehicle, and then get into a delivery vehicle in late. It wouldn't necessarily mean that everybody that is coming to work is crossing Gisling Road. However, our engineers here and can answer specific questions. We do plan for protected crosswalks in this area and are working with the city's traffic engineer on the best way to address that. Haley, will you go to slide 60? That is our last slide and that is the end of our presentation, but I'm happy to answer any questions or to queue up Matt or Trey if you have specific questions for them. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. Let's see if there are any questions on the applicant's presentation. I do not see any further questions. Thank you for answering the ones you heard in our work session and at this meeting. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. I guess this is a question for staff that they could clarify for me because of my ignorance. Would a specially protected crosswalk like say a hawk or something like that be required for the anticipated development of Gisling? It's certainly something that could be considered. I don't know that that's been discussion to date, but that is something that could be taken into consideration and possibly as a recommendation with the engineering design for this site once they get to that fine level of detail, but I don't believe that level of specificity has been discussed yet. Thank you. In general, would that be the responsibility of tech stock to put in the hawk or the developer through fees or what's the orientation, I mean, what's the responsibility elements of something like, let's just say hypothetically, they put in a hawk. If that were something, if you're referring to that crossing here on Gisling between their two properties, that would be something that would be that the applicant could propose and the city may participate. It's unlikely, it would most likely be the developer that would do that. If we're looking at the intersection of 380 and Gisling, then that would be within Tech Stots Purview, so they would ultimately have the approval of that, but it would probably be something that they would partner with the city on at that intersection. Okay, that clarifies. Thank you so much. Any other questions? Well, Haley's here. Okay. This is a public hearing. I do not believe we have anyone on the line to speak. We do not. So with that, I will close the public hearing and entertain the floor for discussion. Motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Anderson. Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of the request. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote by a roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Prunetta. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Here is also an aye. That motion carries 5-0. That takes us to our planning and zoning commission matrix. And with that, I'll turn that to Richard. Good evening. Just wanted to provide a quick update on some council items, some actions from last night. They did approve the rezoning for the Loves Travel that was brought before us a few months ago. In addition, the specific use permit to add sort of the bar use to the horse's ax was also approved last night. The PD request for the Hirschbach terminal was denied unanimously 7-0. So indication that we got today was that they were still interested in being in Denton but looking at a possible alternative location, which is a great segue into the matrix. We had that item on the small area plan specifically to discuss for this area. So there was quite a bit of a discussion last night. And so I think it's, you know, perfect timing. While I initially was planning on doing that, the first meeting in April, the way it's looking right now, I think we had, depending where it ultimately ends up with completing the reviews, we might have anywhere from five or six, possibly seven public hearings on the seventh. So it will be quite a long day. And the way the agenda is starting to shape up for the 21st, not as much. And so I thought we probably want to have a good discussion, robust discussion and allow for that time to really get into that small area plan discussion just overall, but then again, specifically for this area. So I moved it to the 21st, but have it on there. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any additional questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Vice Chair. Richard, I didn't get a chance to watch the council meeting yesterday or last night. What was the reason for the Hirschbach, why there was a unanimous denial whenever, I think, I can't remember what our vote was and maybe Vice Chair Ellis or Commissioner Beck can tell me why, I don't know what our vote was. It was 5-1. It's kind of a, I don't think I've ever seen us have a close to majority and then have a unanimous denial. So I'd like to bring it up now and just see what the reasoning was, see what we missed. Was there something that happened? I mean, we saw that Hirschbach case two months ago, mid-January. I think there were, you know, kind of the gist of it and, you know, everyone had kind of differing opinions, but really it, they felt as though it just wasn't the right use for that location. I think there was also a lot of discussion about what business innovation should be or is. Interestingly enough, you know, our item tonight, if you looked at that business innovation land use and you look at the zoning underneath it, it's all light industrial. And so it, you know, it provides that range of uses from office to research and development, whatever that means, and then, you know, light manufacturing. And so there's a lot of blank space in between office and light manufacturing and research and development. And so I think it was just not the right time, kind of looking at what that area should be. I think there were some concerns with, ultimately with access and just not able to get a commitment from TxDOT, again, because it's not approved, but whether or not there would be a new median cut, a wider median cut, certainly there was, you know, greater than 20% opposition. So it was requiring a super majority to begin with. They were, you know, they were very outspoken in opposition. They had an attorney represent them as part of that opposition, different than what was the individual that spoke at our meeting. And so I think it was a combination of all of it and kind of really looking at really almost kind of sharing some of the same concerns this body had, this commission had, when we added the small area plan, you know, what should this area be and should we focus more of that industrial type development and really what is industrial, even how do we define that? Should that be located west of 35? Interesting enough, even though it still has business innovation land use. And so I think, again, it's perfect time to really get into this. And it's probably something we should have had, you know, a discussion 10 years ago, but, you know, say that with a lot of things, but hey, here we are today. And I think we're, I think we're in a good spot. I think, I think kind of council set that tone and, you know, 7.0 kind of sends a message. And so I think we're going to have a good, I'm looking forward to at least a good discussion on the 21st and really kind of starting to truly plan for this area and look at it both from a mobility perspective, but also from a utility perspective and how we can grow. I will say I won't want to get into the projects ahead of time, but we are seeing, you know, new types of uses all the time. You know, some of this rent to build, we're starting to see more often that will be coming forward with PDs and kind of a deconstructed apartment is kind of how I'm looking at it to some extent. And so I think we're going to have both from this body and then ultimately even DCRC and then back to this body and council, some interesting debates about new and future uses that, you know, continually to pop up and how do we treat these? And so have a lot of work ahead of us. So it'd be a good, good, good coming, upcoming year. Thank you. Anything, commissioner Beck. Thank you, vice chair. Richard, we alluded to this at the beginning of the meeting, but commissioner Smith and I were very interested in the, the notification system. And I was just touching base with you to figure out where we stood on that. Again, we have, we have kind of two parts of that, right? One is the kind of what we're going to be incorporating in as part of the new, the new software. I think we're on set. I think we're on target to have the implementation. I think April, I think we've got a little, a little delayed somewhat with COVID and, and, and then the snowstorm. But I will follow up and have, have a, have a, a sort of a better handle on that for, for our next meeting. The other item, as we gear back up for DCRC, the discussion relative to notifying in the ETJ, that will be a discussion that will, will be brought up as part of DCRC and whether or not we want to codify that in the code or create a policy, but that, that is, that is one of those items that will be brought up as part of that DCRC discussion. And then again, brought back to this commission and then ultimately council. Okay. Thank you. Anything else added to the matrix? I do not see that anything, anything for concluding items, commissioner Beck. Thank you vice chair. I just wanted to take a moment and say, Laud, one of our regulars from planning Sean Jacobson, he's really worked his, his keister off on the up top and rotary program for aiding kids with laptops. And, and I, I just wanted to, you know, just praise him because we see him so much here in, in, in PNZ and he's really, he's gone above and beyond for Denton. So I just wanted to give him a public notice of praise, at least for me. Awesome. Yeah. Kudos to Sean. That's great. Thank you. Sean is Sean's definitely growing into a, a, you know, it's, it's wonderful to watch him every, every presentation. He keeps getting better and better. So, so it's good to hear that he's also growing in the community. Thank you. Any other concluding items? I do not see any with that. I will just say happy St. Patrick's day to anyone celebrating and be well, be safe. And thank you everyone. I will close our meeting at 7 11 PM. Thank you.