1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,240
 - Hi, everyone and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning meeting for Wednesday,

2
00:00:09,240 --> 00:00:16,400
 March 17th, 2021. This is our workshop session meeting and with a quorum present, I will

3
00:00:16,400 --> 00:00:24,600
 call us to order at 5.01 PM. First item on work session is citizen comment on consent.

4
00:00:24,600 --> 00:00:29,880
 I do not believe we have any. - No, ma'am, there is none.

5
00:00:29,880 --> 00:00:36,280
 - Okay, very good. Thank you. We will move then to our work session reports. We do have

6
00:00:36,280 --> 00:00:42,440
 one this afternoon. It is to receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding

7
00:00:42,440 --> 00:00:47,960
 the development code review committee roles and responsibilities. And Richard, is that

8
00:00:47,960 --> 00:00:53,760
 you presenting? - Actually, Scott will be presenting it remotely.

9
00:00:53,760 --> 00:00:58,360
 I think if we can probably queue him in and we'll get the presentation pulled up.

10
00:00:58,360 --> 00:01:03,480
 - Okay, sounds good. Hi, Scott. - Good afternoon. Scott McDonald, Director

11
00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:11,080
 of Development Services. Glad to be here. Thank you for having me this evening. And

12
00:01:11,080 --> 00:01:24,840
 Richard, if you can go to slide two. So just wanted to visit about, I assume you can hear

13
00:01:24,840 --> 00:01:25,840
 me. - We can.

14
00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:32,320
 - Okay. Thank you very much. Just wanted to talk about the development code review committee.

15
00:01:32,320 --> 00:01:36,800
 And for those of you that aren't familiar with it, it was established originally to

16
00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:42,800
 help us when we were working through the 2019 development code. So as we rewrote the code,

17
00:01:42,800 --> 00:01:47,480
 we put together three council representatives and three representatives from the planning

18
00:01:47,480 --> 00:01:54,080
 zoning commission. They've provided input and guidance to work through this. And as

19
00:01:54,080 --> 00:01:59,960
 we've had the code in use for over a year, we're now looking at making enhancements to

20
00:01:59,960 --> 00:02:05,120
 the code areas that we need to update and change as we're using it, as well as some

21
00:02:05,120 --> 00:02:12,480
 of the legislative changes. Next slide, please. As we've met, we've talked

22
00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:20,240
 about establishing this committee as a standing committee. And last night at council, I presented

23
00:02:20,240 --> 00:02:27,840
 the same item, talked with council in great detail about this, fielded a number of questions,

24
00:02:27,840 --> 00:02:35,000
 which I'll discuss somewhat. But ultimately council had consensus to establish it as a

25
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:41,640
 standing council committee. We'll continue to have meetings as necessary. So just as

26
00:02:41,640 --> 00:02:46,320
 they're needed, it won't be a standing date necessarily. And then the other, the great

27
00:02:46,320 --> 00:02:54,480
 news is that in the past, the committee was only three representatives from council were

28
00:02:54,480 --> 00:03:01,680
 the voting members. The committee had recommended that both the council members and the planning

29
00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:07,200
 and zoning commission members would also be voting members. And council did have consensus

30
00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:12,040
 to carry that forward. With that being said, part of the conversation

31
00:03:12,040 --> 00:03:19,000
 last evening revolved around dissolving the committee and utilizing the planning and zoning

32
00:03:19,000 --> 00:03:27,360
 commission exclusively for doing this very thing. I did explain, and again, for some

33
00:03:27,360 --> 00:03:33,620
 of you that have not been involved with the process, as well as those that are tuned in

34
00:03:33,620 --> 00:03:44,320
 online, the work that goes into discussing various potential code amendments or changes

35
00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:51,280
 to the code takes a considerable amount of time. And council member Ryan had used the

36
00:03:51,280 --> 00:03:58,680
 example of fences. And I believe he stated that we spent eight or 12 hours talking about

37
00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:05,320
 perimeter fences, which is accurate. We spent a lot of time in recognizing that we have

38
00:04:05,320 --> 00:04:11,840
 any number of items that really require a lot of deliberation and having the diversity

39
00:04:11,840 --> 00:04:17,060
 of thought of having elected officials and having those members that are appointed to

40
00:04:17,060 --> 00:04:22,560
 the planning and zoning commission with a differing perspective, being able to really

41
00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:28,760
 just informally be able to discuss those issues and work through them. Didn't necessarily

42
00:04:28,760 --> 00:04:34,280
 believe that it was best for this to be done through planning and zoning exclusively and

43
00:04:34,280 --> 00:04:38,920
 then going to council and council may make changes to that. And so it just seems a little

44
00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:44,880
 bumpy where it is that we have three representatives that truly represent the planning and zoning

45
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:50,240
 commission, three representatives that represent council, really can help kind of carry those

46
00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:56,040
 through each of those bodies. For those of you that are not familiar, any code change.

47
00:04:56,040 --> 00:05:01,320
 So if we change the text within the code, that's required to come before planning and

48
00:05:01,320 --> 00:05:08,680
 zoning and then go to council for final approval. So one of the questions that I couldn't answer

49
00:05:08,680 --> 00:05:13,920
 is how many members of planning and zoning would be willing to put in the extra time

50
00:05:13,920 --> 00:05:19,920
 and effort. I indicated that it would require us to start the meeting certainly earlier

51
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:25,720
 than we do currently and most likely would result in having additional planning and zoning

52
00:05:25,720 --> 00:05:32,600
 commission meetings. I also indicated, I didn't know if all of the council members were aware

53
00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:37,360
 of the volume of work that's coming through the planning and zoning commission. I did

54
00:05:37,360 --> 00:05:44,200
 indicate that work sessions typically start at 5, sometimes 4, sometimes 3 and can carry

55
00:05:44,200 --> 00:05:51,480
 on into the late night hours in any given meeting and just thought that it would be

56
00:05:51,480 --> 00:05:58,000
 burdensome for the commission. And so with that being said, I guess I'll say it for any

57
00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:04,600
 questions that there may be and then I guess if we can drop the screen and maybe have a

58
00:06:04,600 --> 00:06:10,200
 little bit of discussion, I'd really like to get an understanding from the planning

59
00:06:10,200 --> 00:06:15,840
 and zoning commission members, their thoughts. Understanding that council has made the decision

60
00:06:15,840 --> 00:06:22,160
 to keep the committee as a standing committee and that it will be made up of the three planning

61
00:06:22,160 --> 00:06:29,240
 and zoning commission members and three council members.

62
00:06:29,240 --> 00:06:35,440
 Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Commissioner Ellis. Chair Pro Tem,

63
00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:40,560
 however, whatever the right title is. That would be Vice Chair, Commissioner Beck.

64
00:06:40,560 --> 00:06:47,320
 Vice Chair, that's what we'll call it. Okay. We'll follow that. Yeah, Scott, I watched

65
00:06:47,320 --> 00:06:57,840
 the meeting last night and I kind of sort of fall in the line of Councilor Meltzer and

66
00:06:57,840 --> 00:07:03,200
 armator and some of the other questions along the similar lines of why isn't this sort of

67
00:07:03,200 --> 00:07:10,080
 what you alluded to earlier, the sort of realm and purview of planning and zoning and if

68
00:07:10,080 --> 00:07:18,080
 there's more to do, we meet weekly instead of biweekly or, you know, extended hours as

69
00:07:18,080 --> 00:07:28,040
 you just discussed. It seems like that's, you know, all part and parcel with this.

70
00:07:28,040 --> 00:07:33,680
 Well, and again, as I had indicated, just knowing the time constraints that we ask of

71
00:07:33,680 --> 00:07:44,800
 appointed officials that we're then going to ask them to do more and just for your information,

72
00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:52,000
 when we were going through this, when we were meeting regularly after the code was adopted,

73
00:07:52,000 --> 00:08:00,520
 we were meeting weekly and it was truly hours at a time. So we would set two hour blocks

74
00:08:00,520 --> 00:08:08,120
 every week and just a variety of items. And each of those items still work session through

75
00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:14,720
 planning and zoning and they still go through council work session. So it's not as if that

76
00:08:14,720 --> 00:08:21,760
 the commission nor the council, but what we have found in the past is that we'll take

77
00:08:21,760 --> 00:08:27,480
 a code amendment through a staff, let's say it's just a staff recommendation. We'll bring

78
00:08:27,480 --> 00:08:31,160
 it to the planning and zoning commission. Planning and zoning commission will have their

79
00:08:31,160 --> 00:08:38,760
 take on it. They may modify it just as you would modify any other that you have the privilege

80
00:08:38,760 --> 00:08:44,080
 of modifying. And then it goes to council and council may take that recommendation. They

81
00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:51,520
 may change that recommendation or they may throw those recommendations out. And so really

82
00:08:51,520 --> 00:08:57,720
 the purpose or the intent is really having three members from each so that we really

83
00:08:57,720 --> 00:09:04,160
 have that harmony or that balance. So when it does go to P and Z, that we minimize any

84
00:09:04,160 --> 00:09:10,320
 potential changes. And when it goes to council, likewise, we minimize any potential changes.

85
00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:16,560
 So I think it would be very frustrating for P and Z if they were to come together with

86
00:09:16,560 --> 00:09:21,520
 what they believe should go forward. It goes to council and council has a completely different

87
00:09:21,520 --> 00:09:30,080
 view on it. And I might speak to the vice chair and she can probably speak to some history

88
00:09:30,080 --> 00:09:37,200
 and sorry if I'm putting you on the spot, but we have carried some items forward that

89
00:09:37,200 --> 00:09:42,400
 council has taken an opposite approach of what P and Z has had or the council members

90
00:09:42,400 --> 00:09:50,080
 may have a very opposite approach. And being able to have that joint meeting, if you will,

91
00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:54,960
 has I think minimized much of that because we can get the perspective and where it is

92
00:09:54,960 --> 00:09:59,280
 that council might not agree with the planning and zoning commission members initially. They

93
00:09:59,280 --> 00:10:05,920
 may get there through the informal discussions and the deliberation. And then when it goes

94
00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:10,800
 to council and those council members are supportive of what those changes are. And vice chair,

95
00:10:10,800 --> 00:10:17,120
 I just ask if you want to comment to that. Yeah, I agree, Scott, that the perspective

96
00:10:17,120 --> 00:10:21,520
 that we've had over the years with having three people from council and three from P

97
00:10:21,520 --> 00:10:28,080
 and Z. Council has been able to bring forward things they've heard from their constituents

98
00:10:28,080 --> 00:10:32,160
 that we don't necessarily know about or things that might have been discussed at one of their

99
00:10:32,160 --> 00:10:41,920
 work sessions. And they bring that to light. So I think it's to your point that the collective

100
00:10:41,920 --> 00:10:55,120
 perspective is ideal. Commission or Prunetta. And before Commissioner Beck, were you done

101
00:10:55,120 --> 00:11:00,720
 for now? Oh, I apologize, Commissioner Beck. Did you have a follow up there? I did. I was

102
00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:06,160
 going to just sort of follow on from those comments, which I really appreciate. I will

103
00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:12,400
 say, you know, it's one of my favorite things to do is play devil's advocate. Council reverses

104
00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:23,040
 us all the time. So that's I appreciate it. I agree. And I take to the Scott's point that,

105
00:11:23,040 --> 00:11:29,120
 you know, it helps streamline that effort helps minimize the amount of reversals that we get to

106
00:11:29,120 --> 00:11:37,120
 have that that joint committee. But I would encourage staff and Scott to at least poll

107
00:11:37,120 --> 00:11:45,440
 the commission to see whether they'd be willing to to meet on bump together more often. And the

108
00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:56,320
 the the the other thing that I wanted to bring up is the the issue with a subset voting is that's

109
00:11:56,320 --> 00:12:02,480
 it's a really great tool to do exactly what you just described, which is streamline, dig

110
00:12:02,480 --> 00:12:09,840
 into the weeds, but also get multiple stakeholders. But the same token, if if the full reports of what

111
00:12:09,840 --> 00:12:17,520
 that subcommittee did don't go forward, then you end up with a fractional report. Let me give an

112
00:12:17,520 --> 00:12:26,320
 example. If we if there were, say, six options that staff was considering and the the DCRC met together

113
00:12:26,320 --> 00:12:32,480
 and decided to just push forward three of them without reporting on the other six and why those

114
00:12:32,480 --> 00:12:39,760
 other those other three rather were were unsuitable, then then that's really a disservice to both

115
00:12:39,760 --> 00:12:47,760
 council and PNZ, whereas is if if it's just used to sort of vet the good three and have rationales

116
00:12:47,760 --> 00:12:54,320
 for throwing out the the bad three and those are those are conveyed to council and PNZ, then it's a

117
00:12:54,320 --> 00:13:01,680
 great tool. And I think it sort of depends on on how you implement that streamlining effect. And

118
00:13:01,680 --> 00:13:08,960
 so I think, you know, devil's in the details, if that makes sense. That's the only two recommendations,

119
00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:15,120
 poll and devil's in the details. No, and and thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Beck. I

120
00:13:15,120 --> 00:13:19,440
 didn't tend on polling. I wanted to ask that very question. That's why I kind of started this.

121
00:13:19,440 --> 00:13:30,480
 But I will tell you that we absolutely want it to be as transparent as inclusive. And and again,

122
00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:36,880
 it's a public meeting. And we want what we want to do is is truly, as you say, streamline

123
00:13:37,680 --> 00:13:42,800
 and simplify so that we have really those representations from each of those constituent

124
00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:49,760
 groups in the in the varying perspectives that are offered. So I'm absolutely on board with that.

125
00:13:49,760 --> 00:13:55,600
 I'm sorry, Vice Chair, if I interrupted. Oh, that's okay. I think my point was just going to be it's

126
00:13:55,600 --> 00:14:00,800
 really a matter of having a discussion that committee and having perspectives, multiple

127
00:14:00,800 --> 00:14:06,080
 perspectives brought to that committee and have a discussion. It's not a matter of here's what staff

128
00:14:06,080 --> 00:14:11,040
 wants to do. What do you think it really is a collective discussion between the members who are

129
00:14:11,040 --> 00:14:14,560
 there from council members who are there from planning and zoning and members who are there from

130
00:14:14,560 --> 00:14:21,120
 staff and any other consultants that are brought in for discussion. So again, it's a collective

131
00:14:21,120 --> 00:14:27,360
 discussion. It's not definitely certainly not a this is what we say and you have to vote on it.

132
00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:33,680
 It's not any it's it's just about having collective discussion and moving changes forward and then

133
00:14:33,680 --> 00:14:40,880
 bringing it to a full planning and zoning and a full city council for for further vetting. So with

134
00:14:40,880 --> 00:14:44,080
 that, do you have anything else, Commissioner Buck? If not, I'm going to go to Commissioner

135
00:14:44,080 --> 00:14:50,880
 Pernetta. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Pernetta. Yeah. So I'm not opposed

136
00:14:50,880 --> 00:14:56,000
 to this remaining a standing committee. I know that, you know, prior to this, we're doing the

137
00:14:56,000 --> 00:15:01,920
 full code rewrite. That's absolutely necessary. I'm not sure, you know, the depth of which we have a

138
00:15:01,920 --> 00:15:05,760
 lot of stuff coming up, but given that we are facing historic growth in the next few years,

139
00:15:05,760 --> 00:15:12,800
 I think it's necessary to streamline. I have a couple of questions and, you know, just a couple

140
00:15:12,800 --> 00:15:20,320
 of suggestions. I'll start with a suggestion. You know, obviously, these are meetings, they are,

141
00:15:20,320 --> 00:15:27,040
 they should be noticed and everything. Would it be possible to get just a summary of what's coming

142
00:15:27,040 --> 00:15:31,280
 up on the next meeting, you know, when we do our project matrix or something like that at the end

143
00:15:31,280 --> 00:15:35,760
 of a PNZ, you know, at the end of our standard PNZ meeting, so that way we'll kind of go, oh,

144
00:15:35,760 --> 00:15:40,400
 hey, that's something that's up on the radar. I'd like to make sure I pay attention to that

145
00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:45,840
 meeting or, you know, or view it or, you know, toss in some suggestions. That'd be kind of cool

146
00:15:45,840 --> 00:15:53,440
 to have. The other thing is, so right now, as it stands, the council members are the only ones

147
00:15:53,440 --> 00:16:00,480
 who can vote on things that come through. Is that correct? Okay. The way it has been set up.

148
00:16:01,440 --> 00:16:07,840
 Okay. And the way, yeah, that's the way it has been set up. I guess the question is,

149
00:16:07,840 --> 00:16:16,640
 is there a lot, are there a lot of situations where we have a, you know, where you have situations

150
00:16:16,640 --> 00:16:23,120
 where votes would probably go in a different direction if, you know, if PNZ had voting

151
00:16:23,120 --> 00:16:30,160
 capability or voting strength on that? It's anecdotal. I know you guys don't have a, you know,

152
00:16:30,160 --> 00:16:40,240
 a list of, you know, things, but. Well, two pieces to that. I would say that it would have been very

153
00:16:40,240 --> 00:16:46,160
 rare if anything would have come out of that committee that the planning and zoning commissioners

154
00:16:46,160 --> 00:16:56,320
 were opposed to. A, but B, going forward, they do have a vote. So that's been rectified as it

155
00:16:56,320 --> 00:17:02,160
 being a standing committee. So all six members will be voting members. And then. That's not something

156
00:17:02,160 --> 00:17:07,920
 that's important for discussion right now. That's already going through, right? That is what council

157
00:17:07,920 --> 00:17:14,240
 agreed to. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I know we were being asked to deliberate that or not. Okay.

158
00:17:14,240 --> 00:17:19,040
 What was the other thing? I think those are mainly, those are mainly it. Just,

159
00:17:19,040 --> 00:17:25,520
 if, you know, we could incorporate some notice at some point to the PNZ meetings, so that way,

160
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:30,000
 you know, we could have something on the radar that, you know, we might want to chime in or

161
00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:35,840
 pay attention to that. That'd be great. Well, thank you, commissioner. And you reminded me

162
00:17:35,840 --> 00:17:41,520
 of something that I wanted to mention and absolutely staff can provide. What we do is

163
00:17:41,520 --> 00:17:48,320
 typically prepare a PowerPoint presentation to work as a, as a guide or an agenda for the meeting.

164
00:17:48,320 --> 00:17:53,200
 So the items that we're going to work through and really kind of like a strike through an

165
00:17:53,200 --> 00:17:58,960
 underline, meaning this is how the text reads. This is what we're proposing. Let's talk. So

166
00:17:58,960 --> 00:18:05,280
 we can have staff send that out to the planning and zoning commission members in advance of the

167
00:18:05,280 --> 00:18:11,520
 meeting. And the second point, and what you reminded me is a point that I wanted to mention

168
00:18:11,520 --> 00:18:20,000
 after commissioner Beck was that keep in mind when staff is preparing the agenda and when staff

169
00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:28,160
 brings forward the materials for the DCRC, we are taking input that we hear from the planning and

170
00:18:28,160 --> 00:18:34,400
 zoning commissioners and what we hear from council members. So we're not going into this

171
00:18:34,400 --> 00:18:40,480
 exclusively with what staff wants to do. It's the direction we get from the two bodies that

172
00:18:40,480 --> 00:18:50,560
 we're responsible for. So keep in mind that this is designed just to make this as simple, as truly

173
00:18:50,560 --> 00:18:58,960
 simple as we can possibly make such a complex set of topics. Yeah. And with that being said too,

174
00:18:58,960 --> 00:19:04,720
 I just wanted to add, you know, originally when this committee was established, it was a six

175
00:19:04,720 --> 00:19:10,480
 person voting committee and it did go to council and it did get changed. Not exactly sure why,

176
00:19:10,480 --> 00:19:16,480
 and it did get changed to just three council members making the quorum and being allowed to

177
00:19:16,480 --> 00:19:22,800
 vote. I'm glad it's being changed. I think it will be more productive only in the sense that

178
00:19:22,800 --> 00:19:27,680
 a three person quorum sometimes can get blown apart really easily and you've got to cancel the

179
00:19:27,680 --> 00:19:33,760
 meeting. And so I think that is definitely a good step in the forward direction for the committee,

180
00:19:33,760 --> 00:19:43,040
 for sure. Also, the agendas are posted and if y'all use your Granicus app, you can access your

181
00:19:43,040 --> 00:19:50,560
 agenda that way too. But certainly I don't see why staff couldn't send that out to planning and

182
00:19:50,560 --> 00:19:58,240
 zoning as a full body when that agenda is constructed. Correct, Scott? Richard? Absolutely

183
00:19:58,240 --> 00:20:11,600
 correct. Just a reminder, please do not reply all, just send a message to staff. Okay. I just

184
00:20:11,600 --> 00:20:15,360
 saw Richard's hand for a second. Do you need to chime in real quick? No, just to add that I just

185
00:20:15,360 --> 00:20:21,360
 confirmed and asked Selena, she's the one that sends those agendas out. So I told her just add

186
00:20:22,080 --> 00:20:28,480
 all P and Z to that distribution. I think that's perfect. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, vice

187
00:20:28,480 --> 00:20:33,360
 chair. Not to belabor the point because I think everyone's made, I wanted to sit back and just

188
00:20:33,360 --> 00:20:38,960
 listen to the commissioners since we're on the DCRC and get you guys' input on it. But that was

189
00:20:38,960 --> 00:20:47,600
 just something from having been a member on the DCRC since the code was released at the end of 2019

190
00:20:47,600 --> 00:20:52,800
 and having been through it just for some of the small cleanup items, that was probably the biggest

191
00:20:52,800 --> 00:21:00,880
 issue that we, boys, Margie, myself and Andrew did most recently was just that P and Z members

192
00:21:00,880 --> 00:21:07,200
 were essentially figureheads. We had no power whatsoever. We were there to weigh in and give

193
00:21:07,200 --> 00:21:13,920
 input. And to answer your question, Commissioner Pernetta, that yeah, the council did take on a

194
00:21:13,920 --> 00:21:19,040
 number of occasions to take our recommendations, our anecdotal evidence on certain things we're

195
00:21:19,040 --> 00:21:24,640
 cleaning up to heart on the voting. So there never was anything that was contentious that would have

196
00:21:24,640 --> 00:21:30,080
 gone differently if P and Z had a voting right. But just for our own safety of understanding that

197
00:21:30,080 --> 00:21:34,640
 we're not just there to sit in and listen in like little brothers and nod our heads and say, okay,

198
00:21:34,640 --> 00:21:38,240
 whatever you guys want to vote and do, here's our opinion, but we know it doesn't matter.

199
00:21:38,240 --> 00:21:43,280
 This is a step in the right direction. And I know Margie knows this from having been on it

200
00:21:43,280 --> 00:21:49,040
 before and after the code being amended and changed that this is a good move. And so I'm

201
00:21:49,040 --> 00:21:52,000
 happy to see it. So I won't belabor the point anymore, but thank you.

202
00:21:52,000 --> 00:22:00,560
 Okay. Any further discussion questions for Scott? Commissioner Beck.

203
00:22:00,560 --> 00:22:05,440
 Was Scott going to think, thank you, Vice Chair. Was Scott going to poll?

204
00:22:05,440 --> 00:22:09,440
 Are we going to do that later or? Okay.

205
00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:14,720
 No, no, no. Scott had intentions of that. I just making sure there wasn't any other questions that

206
00:22:14,720 --> 00:22:20,160
 we needed to work through. Okay. I just was sure if we were wrapping up.

207
00:22:20,160 --> 00:22:28,000
 Yeah, no, I was, and I guess I would be just curious by a show of hands. I know we're missing

208
00:22:28,000 --> 00:22:35,600
 a couple of bodies, but it would be useful at least from those that are on if they have an

209
00:22:35,600 --> 00:22:43,760
 interest or would want to see it different than the DCRC and that planning and zoning commission

210
00:22:43,760 --> 00:22:49,920
 would be responsible for all of these items to work sessions through. So again, whatever those

211
00:22:49,920 --> 00:22:55,680
 time constraints might look like. And just truly a simple show of hands of those that would

212
00:22:55,680 --> 00:23:00,320
 think that it would be better for it to be planning and zoning rather than the DCRC.

213
00:23:02,960 --> 00:23:07,760
 And understanding, I'm going to have a little bit of a lag. So I guess Richard, if you could

214
00:23:07,760 --> 00:23:13,440
 be my eyes, you'll have a better handle on that. So I'm not sitting here for 20 seconds.

215
00:23:13,440 --> 00:23:17,840
 Well, right now I've got a commissioner Beck's hand raised.

216
00:23:17,840 --> 00:23:20,880
 Okay. Yeah.

217
00:23:20,880 --> 00:23:23,360
 Will that help? And I know.

218
00:23:23,360 --> 00:23:31,920
 Yeah. And I guess what I would add is just, I would not want to lose the collaborative

219
00:23:33,200 --> 00:23:38,160
 uh, discussion and, and I would not want to lose council members in that discussion. That would be

220
00:23:38,160 --> 00:23:44,080
 why I would not want to do that. Commissioner Beck. Yeah, I, I, I take that point and that's

221
00:23:44,080 --> 00:23:49,680
 why I led with my discussion earlier that I see, I see the advantage of this and streamlining.

222
00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:57,520
 Um, I, I just, uh, I guess for the sake of the poll, if we're, if we're parsing this out to

223
00:23:57,520 --> 00:24:02,240
 which, which commissioners would be willing to take on a greater role is a different question

224
00:24:02,240 --> 00:24:11,200
 than should we dump this, um, entirely onto P and Z. And so if, if, if those are our options,

225
00:24:11,200 --> 00:24:17,600
 then I guess I'm going to take the, the, the one where unfortunately we lack council, but if our

226
00:24:17,600 --> 00:24:26,000
 option is P and Z takes on a more frequent role or other duties, then I completely volunteer myself.

227
00:24:26,000 --> 00:24:30,240
 I'm not going to volunteer the rest of my commissioners, but I completely volunteer myself

228
00:24:30,240 --> 00:24:36,240
 to take on a more frequent role. So that, that's sort of why I raised my hand the way I did. If

229
00:24:36,240 --> 00:24:43,120
 that makes sense, Scott, I absolutely, it does. And, and, and again, it really was, um, it wasn't,

230
00:24:43,120 --> 00:24:50,400
 it wasn't the, um, question that was poised to me. The question that was poised to me was this,

231
00:24:50,400 --> 00:24:55,840
 it wasn't even necessarily a question as much as it was a statement that, um, this should be the

232
00:24:55,840 --> 00:25:02,400
 role of planning and zoning, not the DCRC and that it should be dissolved. So it was an either or,

233
00:25:02,400 --> 00:25:12,720
 and I'm an advocate for both the collaborative groups. And, uh, certainly we, uh, like I indicated,

234
00:25:12,720 --> 00:25:19,440
 we will work sessions all of these items either way. Um, and we will willingly take anybody's

235
00:25:19,440 --> 00:25:26,080
 participation on any code related items. So, um, anybody that wants to play, um, bring it on.

236
00:25:26,080 --> 00:25:35,360
 Sounds good. Is there any further discussion question for Scott or, uh, commissioner Pernetta?

237
00:25:35,360 --> 00:25:40,800
 Yeah. And I just wanted to, you know, kind of, uh, kind of state my, my, my thoughts on this one.

238
00:25:40,800 --> 00:25:45,200
 You know, I understand commissioner Beck's concerns and everything, but, uh, for something like this,

239
00:25:45,200 --> 00:25:51,280
 you know, I know that if it wound up, you know, coming to PNZ and requiring, um, significantly

240
00:25:51,280 --> 00:25:55,600
 more PNZ meetings, it's going to be harder for everyone to, to kind of get together. We'd wind

241
00:25:55,600 --> 00:25:59,680
 up having, you know, marathon meetings after a while. Um, my, my understanding is, you know,

242
00:25:59,680 --> 00:26:04,320
 that we're not going to have a complete code rewrite like we did before where a lot was being,

243
00:26:04,320 --> 00:26:10,800
 you know, dropped at one time, that these are going to be more kind of ad hoc type things or,

244
00:26:10,800 --> 00:26:16,160
 you know, occasional things where we will get a full staff report on it, you know, on the deliberations

245
00:26:16,160 --> 00:26:20,880
 and the, and the options that were put forward. So that way we can, you know, if, if by the time

246
00:26:20,880 --> 00:26:25,920
 something gets to PNZ, uh, you know, it doesn't quite meet our eye or we have concerns, we can,

247
00:26:25,920 --> 00:26:34,640
 we can voice that in this forum, I would assume, and take votes as a full, you know, commission,

248
00:26:34,640 --> 00:26:42,080
 because basically the, these, you know, this committee is, is not, um, making any unilateral

249
00:26:42,080 --> 00:26:46,560
 decisions. Uh, everything you guys do still has to come through us before it goes to council again,

250
00:26:46,560 --> 00:26:53,920
 right? Am I missing anything? Correct. Correct. Yeah. So, uh, anyway, that's just wanted to express,

251
00:26:53,920 --> 00:26:58,240
 you know, for anybody watching who may not have caught that, that that was my impression on

252
00:26:58,240 --> 00:27:04,640
 everything. And that's why I'm, I'm fine with it. Uh, because ultimately it, it is a vetting process

253
00:27:04,640 --> 00:27:11,680
 and there's a lot of minutia that can be stretched out for hours. You know? That's true. Thank you,

254
00:27:11,680 --> 00:27:17,040
 commissioner. Um, Richard, I think you wanted to chime in. Yeah, I really just wanted to chime in

255
00:27:17,040 --> 00:27:21,760
 and kind of piggyback something that, that, um, commissioner Pernita just, just sort of hinted on,

256
00:27:21,760 --> 00:27:26,720
 you know, we have a matrix that we talk about every, every meeting. And so that would not

257
00:27:26,720 --> 00:27:32,320
 preclude anyone on P and Z from seeing what's going to be, you know, what's going to be discussed

258
00:27:32,320 --> 00:27:37,920
 at the next upcoming meeting to bring that issue up or, or bring something else up related to it.

259
00:27:37,920 --> 00:27:42,880
 You know, we have one item pending on there that, that, um, commissioner Smith brought up about

260
00:27:42,880 --> 00:27:49,200
 notification in the ETJ. As we get to that chapter that will be discussed at DCRC, uh, and then

261
00:27:49,200 --> 00:27:53,440
 ultimately brought back. So again, if there's something, as you see that brain, it certainly

262
00:27:53,440 --> 00:27:57,760
 can be discussed at that end. We'll add it to the matrix. And then we have sort of that,

263
00:27:57,760 --> 00:28:02,320
 that legislative history, if you will, of where it was brought up at P and Z discussed at DCRC,

264
00:28:02,320 --> 00:28:07,120
 brought back to P and Z and then ultimately to council. So at least we have that ability there.

265
00:28:07,120 --> 00:28:14,400
 Just wanted to, to just remind everyone of that. Perfect. Okay. Any further discussion questions

266
00:28:14,400 --> 00:28:23,360
 for Scott? If I might vice chair, one, one verification, if, and to paraphrase commissioner

267
00:28:23,360 --> 00:28:30,640
 back, I just want to make sure I understand, um, if your hand was up or down, as it related to

268
00:28:30,640 --> 00:28:39,760
 the, um, either the DCR exists or it goes to P and Z was your, did you then just change your position

269
00:28:39,760 --> 00:28:47,280
 and necessarily want to keep the DCRC? So if, if, yeah, I think there is value in the joint

270
00:28:47,280 --> 00:28:54,000
 committee. Uh, I just, uh, with, with all the clarification about the, the, the feedback and,

271
00:28:54,000 --> 00:28:59,680
 and whatnot, then, uh, I think there's value in the joint committee. So I'm, I'm fine with that.

272
00:28:59,680 --> 00:29:04,800
 If, if that's what we're discussing. So in that sense, I guess I'll, I'll put my hand back down.

273
00:29:05,520 --> 00:29:11,520
 So, okay. No, I just, I just wanted clarity. So I didn't just, uh, perceive something that

274
00:29:11,520 --> 00:29:17,360
 wasn't necessarily accurate. So no, absolutely fine. And, um, certainly I encourage, um,

275
00:29:17,360 --> 00:29:22,000
 each and every one of the planning and zoning commission members to bring forward any items that,

276
00:29:22,000 --> 00:29:27,040
 um, they'd like to be heard or changes that they proposed just as Richard did indicated.

277
00:29:27,040 --> 00:29:31,360
 Thank you for your time today. Thank you as well, Scott. Good to hear your voice.

278
00:29:33,280 --> 00:29:36,960
 Good to be heard. You all have a great evening. All right. Thanks. Thank you.

279
00:29:36,960 --> 00:29:45,040
 Okay. That is our only work session report for today. So we will move on to clarification of

280
00:29:45,040 --> 00:29:53,600
 agenda items. Uh, first on our agenda would be the minutes. Uh, any discussion questions regarding

281
00:29:53,600 --> 00:30:03,600
 minutes? Okay. Seeing none that will move us to consent. We've got a couple items on consent.

282
00:30:03,600 --> 00:30:07,520
 Anybody need those brought forward? Any questions, comments?

283
00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:17,200
 All right. Seeing none. We, oh, Richard, just a point of clarification on, on the one, um,

284
00:30:17,200 --> 00:30:23,600
 and my mouse died. Give me one second. I'm sorry. Uh, on consent item B, um, this was the item that

285
00:30:23,600 --> 00:30:29,360
 was deferred from, from last week. Um, and, and as you know, typically all of the consent items are

286
00:30:29,360 --> 00:30:35,120
 being recommended for approval. This caption just got carried over from, from the last meeting. So

287
00:30:35,120 --> 00:30:40,080
 all of the backup in the staff report are recommending approval. So the, the, the official

288
00:30:40,080 --> 00:30:45,280
 recommendation is approval. It was just an error on the, um, how it got carried over from track it.

289
00:30:45,280 --> 00:30:53,520
 So just wanted to point that out. Understood. Okay. We'll move to items for individual

290
00:30:53,520 --> 00:31:04,800
 consideration. Got four a, which is FP 21, zero, zero, zero, five a and Julie, I think that's you.

291
00:31:04,800 --> 00:31:10,400
 Good evening commissioners. Let me share my screen. We'll just take a look at that plot.

292
00:31:16,240 --> 00:31:23,360
 Okay. Um, so this may look from the wrong one. This, uh, this is for the gray wolf edition.

293
00:31:23,360 --> 00:31:28,960
 It may look familiar to you. You did see it at the last planning and zoning commission. Um, at the

294
00:31:28,960 --> 00:31:35,280
 last, uh, at the last meeting there was an extension for it. Unfortunately, they weren't able to, uh,

295
00:31:35,280 --> 00:31:40,400
 to address all of the, um, all of the needed corrections for the plat and the civil plan.

296
00:31:40,400 --> 00:31:44,320
 So staff is recommending denial and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

297
00:31:45,680 --> 00:31:55,120
 Um, looks like, uh, commissioner Beck. Thank you guys. Sure. Um, yeah, Julie, uh, no, I,

298
00:31:55,120 --> 00:32:01,840
 it seems like, um, it's real dry. I have sort of, um, a curiosity question that you can help me

299
00:32:01,840 --> 00:32:10,000
 understand is one of the items, I think it was like two one or two a one about, um, the trees that,

300
00:32:10,000 --> 00:32:15,440
 that there was an issue about the DBHs and that's not my question. Uh, that's all pro forma stuff.

301
00:32:15,440 --> 00:32:20,160
 They need their paperwork. They didn't do their paperwork. That's why we're denying it. Um, my,

302
00:32:20,160 --> 00:32:25,920
 my question is there's no trees on that property. So, I mean, I think all the trees are on the

303
00:32:25,920 --> 00:32:33,120
 adjacent property. So do you have to cite on your plat DBH for trees that are not there?

304
00:32:34,400 --> 00:32:43,760
 There are a very few are there really? Okay. Fence line trees. So, um, so they're not large,

305
00:32:43,760 --> 00:32:48,720
 but yes, there are a couple of fence line trees. And so, um, they've just, they've got a couple of

306
00:32:48,720 --> 00:32:55,360
 those, um, of, um, inches that they'll have to preserve. Okay. So just on a, on a hypothetical,

307
00:32:55,360 --> 00:33:00,000
 if the other, there was two or three other issues that are cause for denial. And so,

308
00:33:00,000 --> 00:33:05,600
 but on a hypothetical, if, and I probably shouldn't float hypotheticals to the committee,

309
00:33:05,600 --> 00:33:13,360
 but, um, if, if this was, if, if, if a couple of fence line tree DBHs were all that's missing,

310
00:33:13,360 --> 00:33:20,480
 we would still be required to go through the same, uh, staff recommending denial, right?

311
00:33:20,480 --> 00:33:26,800
 Is that correct? Well, for, for a plat to be approvable, um, they should meet all of the,

312
00:33:26,800 --> 00:33:32,720
 of the requirements in the code. And that includes that note on the plat that, that references the,

313
00:33:32,720 --> 00:33:39,840
 the, um, trees. I will say that staff works very hard to, to address all of those issues. Um,

314
00:33:39,840 --> 00:33:45,120
 we really, uh, we, we really try to work through them with the applicants to, to try to get them

315
00:33:45,120 --> 00:33:49,920
 to an approvable state. So I would imagine if it was just something like that, then it would be

316
00:33:49,920 --> 00:33:55,600
 something we could, um, we could address prior to the planning and zoning commission. Okay, cool.

317
00:33:55,600 --> 00:33:59,920
 Yeah, this, this, this wasn't a concern about the actual item. It was just sort of the,

318
00:33:59,920 --> 00:34:04,640
 the construction of the item. And I didn't realize there were actually tree, uh, you know,

319
00:34:04,640 --> 00:34:10,160
 when I Googled map that, uh, they didn't look like there were any trees at all. So not many.

320
00:34:10,160 --> 00:34:17,520
 Thank you. You bet. Uh, any further questions for Julie on this one?

321
00:34:17,520 --> 00:34:22,000
 Okay. Seeing none. Thank you, Julie. Appreciate it.

322
00:34:25,600 --> 00:34:42,000
 Next one is item four B FP 21, zero, zero, zero, four. That would be Haley's item.

323
00:34:52,640 --> 00:34:57,040
 All right. Good evening. Let me get the plat pulled up.

324
00:34:57,040 --> 00:35:16,240
 All right. Good evening. This is a plat FP 21 for, this is the residences at razor ranch. Um,

325
00:35:16,240 --> 00:35:20,880
 this again may look familiar to you all as we considered a, uh, preliminary plat extension

326
00:35:20,880 --> 00:35:26,000
 for the same site at our last meeting. Um, they were able to work through all of staff's comments,

327
00:35:26,000 --> 00:35:32,000
 um, in the last two weeks, even since the agenda was posted on Friday. So all comments have been

328
00:35:32,000 --> 00:35:36,480
 cleared on this plat and staff is able to recommend approval at this time. And I'm happy to stand for

329
00:35:36,480 --> 00:35:44,800
 any questions. Yeah. And I believe Haley, that was sent out to everyone in email. Correct. Yes,

330
00:35:44,800 --> 00:35:51,600
 that is correct. I believe it went out on Monday. Okay. Any questions for Haley on this?

331
00:35:51,600 --> 00:35:56,480
 I don't see any Haley. Okay. Thank you.

332
00:35:56,480 --> 00:36:07,360
 All right. That moves us to, um, public hearings. So five a is being postponed, um,

333
00:36:07,360 --> 00:36:16,640
 due to a notification error, um, per Richard, uh, I am to open the public hearing and then ask,

334
00:36:16,640 --> 00:36:23,840
 uh, for a motion to postpone to a date, certain of April 7th. Um, any questions on that?

335
00:36:23,840 --> 00:36:32,400
 Okay. Uh, then our next one, five B that Z 20 0014 B

336
00:36:34,560 --> 00:36:38,560
 that is back to Haley.

337
00:36:38,560 --> 00:36:52,960
 Let me get back to the beginning here. All right. Good evening again. Uh, so this is case, uh, Z

338
00:36:52,960 --> 00:36:59,600
 2014 for Gisling road industrial. The request before you this evening is, uh, concerning the

339
00:36:59,600 --> 00:37:05,440
 property that is outlined in yellow on this map. That is, uh, just under 12.7 acres of land.

340
00:37:05,440 --> 00:37:09,920
 They are seeking a rezoning from residential six or our six districts to light industrial.

341
00:37:09,920 --> 00:37:15,280
 The property is, um, there's a few things I wanted to point out while we're on this screen. It is part

342
00:37:15,280 --> 00:37:21,760
 of a larger 86 acre parent tract. Um, that is, is this property adjacent to the east? Uh, some of

343
00:37:21,760 --> 00:37:27,200
 you may all may remember, um, that we previously had a preliminary plan called the Walker edition

344
00:37:27,200 --> 00:37:32,720
 for this site that was approved, uh, for single family development. Um, that was in 2019 that

345
00:37:32,720 --> 00:37:37,840
 project, uh, never moved forward. And, and so that preliminary plan is considered, um, null and void

346
00:37:37,840 --> 00:37:41,840
 at this point, since the owner has requested this rezoning, uh, but just wanted to bring that up in

347
00:37:41,840 --> 00:37:47,200
 case some of you remembered this and thought the area looked familiar. Um, the second thing is that,

348
00:37:47,200 --> 00:37:52,960
 uh, this rezoning is kind of accessory to a use that is permitted, um, on the property across the

349
00:37:52,960 --> 00:37:58,880
 street. So the site that's in red here, um, is a 23 acre site that's currently zoned light industrial.

350
00:37:58,880 --> 00:38:04,000
 The same developer is looking to develop both of these pieces. This larger portion would be

351
00:38:04,000 --> 00:38:09,120
 developed with the distribution center type use, and this lot would be accessory to that and provide

352
00:38:09,120 --> 00:38:14,640
 some additional parking for their employees and fleet vehicles. So just wanted you to have that

353
00:38:14,640 --> 00:38:20,640
 picture before we move forward and look at the rezoning request itself. Um, so as you can see

354
00:38:20,640 --> 00:38:25,760
 here, we have the current zoning map. Um, the property is zoned R6 consistent with the majority

355
00:38:25,760 --> 00:38:30,880
 of the parent tract. Um, these area around it does have a pretty diverse mixture of zonings,

356
00:38:30,880 --> 00:38:36,000
 including PF, uh, mixed use neighborhood, light industrial, and then several areas that are still,

357
00:38:36,000 --> 00:38:41,440
 uh, have that rural residential, uh, kind of placeholder zoning from recent annexations. Um,

358
00:38:41,440 --> 00:38:45,520
 and then this is a look at what that map would look like with the site rezoned to light industrial.

359
00:38:47,920 --> 00:38:53,440
 So, um, in your backup, of course we had the full criteria for approval outlined in detail. I won't

360
00:38:53,440 --> 00:38:58,640
 go through those, but they are available, um, in the staff analysis. And then we'll look at each of

361
00:38:58,640 --> 00:39:05,520
 these, uh, zoning specific criteria for approval in a little more detail. So the first of those is

362
00:39:05,520 --> 00:39:11,280
 consistency with the comprehensive plan. Um, this area is again, as I mentioned, there's a lot going

363
00:39:11,280 --> 00:39:16,560
 on here in terms of zoning, actual uses on the ground. Um, and so what we have in terms of the

364
00:39:16,560 --> 00:39:21,760
 future land use is the start transition at this, at the property line, essentially, uh, for moderate

365
00:39:21,760 --> 00:39:28,240
 residential on the subject property to business innovation to the north and west. Um, so while the,

366
00:39:28,240 --> 00:39:33,680
 the proposed light industrial is not consistent with that res, uh, moderate residential designation,

367
00:39:33,680 --> 00:39:38,000
 it is consistent with business innovation and we are in a transitional area here. So that is

368
00:39:38,000 --> 00:39:41,600
 worth considering that if you, if you see on the map, there's kind of that fuzzy boundary to both

369
00:39:41,600 --> 00:39:46,240
 of these. So the way we look at this is those transitional areas can kind of tend to go either

370
00:39:46,240 --> 00:39:50,720
 way. Um, so light industrial would be consistent with business innovation in terms of the permitted

371
00:39:50,720 --> 00:39:55,120
 uses. And it's also consistent with the surrounding area, which we'll look at a little more closely.

372
00:39:55,120 --> 00:40:02,720
 Um, so as a, as was detailed in the staff analysis, this is really an area, uh, where

373
00:40:02,720 --> 00:40:07,840
 staff feels we need to do a deeper dive when we do the comp plan update. Um, so in the past,

374
00:40:07,840 --> 00:40:11,200
 you've seen a lot of our recent cases have comp plan amendments run concurrently with

375
00:40:11,200 --> 00:40:16,720
 zonings when we have this, uh, situation where there's not a good fit. Um, however,

376
00:40:16,720 --> 00:40:20,880
 because of the diversity of things going on in this area, we really want to look at a broader

377
00:40:20,880 --> 00:40:25,520
 scale of everything that's kind of going on with the industrial pattern that we're seeing, um, out

378
00:40:25,520 --> 00:40:30,160
 on the eastern area of town from loop 288 out to the east. Um, so because of that, we did not ask

379
00:40:30,160 --> 00:40:34,960
 the applicant to submit that, that single parcel for consideration, um, because we're already

380
00:40:34,960 --> 00:40:40,000
 underway with the comp plan and we really want to look at this area as a broader picture. Um,

381
00:40:40,000 --> 00:40:44,560
 but some of the things that, uh, that contribute to really feeling like this zoning might fit the

382
00:40:44,560 --> 00:40:49,760
 area is that diversity that I spoke about in terms of existing land uses. Um, you can see

383
00:40:49,760 --> 00:40:54,400
 here on the map, there's a lot going on. We have a pretty heavy industrial uses, uh, things like

384
00:40:54,400 --> 00:40:59,520
 safety clean and, and some other manufacturing facilities, uh, north of there. We have, uh, a

385
00:40:59,520 --> 00:41:04,560
 pretty new self storage facility, which is an industrial use here on the loop, uh, or I'm sorry,

386
00:41:04,560 --> 00:41:10,320
 on highway three 80, but then we also have a lot of nonconformities. So we have, um, I believe it's

387
00:41:10,320 --> 00:41:14,800
 four electric substations developed here on Geesling. There's an existing manufacturing

388
00:41:14,800 --> 00:41:19,760
 facility that's zoned RR that's, uh, kind of nonconforming. It was a recent annexation here

389
00:41:19,760 --> 00:41:23,680
 just across the street. And then we have some other remaining RR parcels that actually can't

390
00:41:23,680 --> 00:41:27,520
 be developed with that zoning. They will require a rezoning because the parcels don't meet that

391
00:41:27,520 --> 00:41:32,480
 minimum lot size. Um, and then of course we have some pretty intensive commercial uses to the

392
00:41:32,480 --> 00:41:37,280
 North. Haley, can I interrupt you just for a minute? Yeah. Regarding those parcels to the South,

393
00:41:37,280 --> 00:41:42,960
 those are just, those are separate, like one acre parcels or is that correct? Correct. Undeveloped

394
00:41:42,960 --> 00:41:47,760
 and with an RR zoning. That's correct. Yes. So that the RR does require that minimum of five

395
00:41:47,760 --> 00:41:56,080
 acres for development. Um, okay. I believe there's another question. Yes. Commissioner Beck. Yes.

396
00:41:56,080 --> 00:42:02,880
 Thank you. Um, Haley, so do we have a mechanism for when we have a zoning that is

397
00:42:02,880 --> 00:42:10,640
 untenable? Like for those, what is it for? My eyes are gone. Terrible. Five parcels.

398
00:42:10,640 --> 00:42:19,760
 I mean, okay. Um, is there a mechanism to where like, or, or do they really just have to be

399
00:42:19,760 --> 00:42:26,480
 individually treated as their owners want to develop them? I think there's no way to bundle

400
00:42:26,480 --> 00:42:33,600
 in a sort of larger zoning cause it seems like you'll end up with a, a donut hole here. Um,

401
00:42:33,600 --> 00:42:40,720
 and I think we would all like to avoid weird artifacts like that. Yes. And, uh, the mechanism

402
00:42:40,720 --> 00:42:44,800
 for that would be for those owners to join in this application. Um, and they did not do that

403
00:42:44,800 --> 00:42:49,760
 at this time. Um, so it would either need to be a city initiated zoning in the future to try to

404
00:42:49,760 --> 00:42:54,400
 clean that up potentially. Um, which, you know, as you may remember with the, the code update,

405
00:42:54,400 --> 00:42:58,560
 we did some of those, but they kind of got put on pause. Um, or it would need to be initiated by

406
00:42:58,560 --> 00:43:04,240
 those individual property owners in the future when, when they seek to develop. Um, but yes,

407
00:43:04,240 --> 00:43:08,800
 that would be desirable to go ahead and clean up the entire area, but, um, without those owners

408
00:43:08,800 --> 00:43:13,600
 authorization, that's not something we could do at this time. Sure. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you.

409
00:43:13,600 --> 00:43:20,800
 Is that four separate owners, Haley? I believe so. Oh, goodness. Um, I, I can double check on that

410
00:43:20,800 --> 00:43:24,880
 with DCAD during, during the break before the hearing, but I believe it is separate owners there.

411
00:43:24,880 --> 00:43:31,680
 Um, but you're really, we'd wanted to provide this broader perspective of the area, um, because it is,

412
00:43:31,680 --> 00:43:35,920
 it is diverse. There's a lot going on. There's a lot of, like I said, kind of, uh, nonconformities

413
00:43:35,920 --> 00:43:39,920
 that have been created over time with piecemeal annexation. Um, and then there's some other

414
00:43:39,920 --> 00:43:45,040
 factors as well. Um, the, the moderate density residential designation within our comp plan has

415
00:43:45,040 --> 00:43:50,240
 several goals associated with, uh, development in that area. And, you know, it really lends itself

416
00:43:50,240 --> 00:43:54,560
 to this area needing to be re-examined as maybe that's not appropriate, uh, moderate density

417
00:43:54,560 --> 00:43:59,600
 residential here because it doesn't meet a lot of those goals. Um, some of those being like areas

418
00:43:59,600 --> 00:44:04,480
 you see here on the east side of loop 288, um, it calls for those neighborhoods to be adjacent and

419
00:44:04,480 --> 00:44:08,800
 connectable to other existing neighborhoods. We wouldn't really have that here if residential

420
00:44:08,800 --> 00:44:12,720
 developed here, it would kind of be out on its own, not connected to other neighborhoods.

421
00:44:12,720 --> 00:44:17,040
 And then similarly, um, the comp plan calls for those moderate density developments to be

422
00:44:17,040 --> 00:44:21,840
 focused in areas that would be walkable to nearby services, schools, things of that nature. And so

423
00:44:21,840 --> 00:44:26,320
 really we don't have conditions ripe for that in this area. So that further lends us to thinking

424
00:44:26,320 --> 00:44:30,880
 we might need to re-examine this in the future. And then finally, um, I did want to point out

425
00:44:30,880 --> 00:44:37,280
 there is on our mobility plan, a, um, a primary arterial roadway that's intended to go here. It

426
00:44:37,280 --> 00:44:42,880
 was at 20, in 2015 dubbed, uh, future post oak Boulevard. Um, the name of that of course is still

427
00:44:42,880 --> 00:44:49,200
 up for debate, but in recent years, um, as, as this preliminary plat was examined in 2019 and through,

428
00:44:49,200 --> 00:44:54,560
 uh, discussions with text out even more recently, um, the highway three 80 corridor is going to be

429
00:44:54,560 --> 00:44:58,640
 expanded by text out in the future. They're under underway with that feasibility study.

430
00:44:58,640 --> 00:45:04,480
 And so the alignment of that primary arterial has actually shifted and, uh, staff and the developers

431
00:45:04,480 --> 00:45:08,240
 as well as tech side have all come to an agreement that really it, it would be better aligned along

432
00:45:08,240 --> 00:45:13,600
 the existing Geesling corridor. Um, so that is another factor here to consider that this

433
00:45:13,600 --> 00:45:18,320
 arterial will be shifting this way. Geesling in the future will be developed, um, as potentially

434
00:45:18,320 --> 00:45:23,520
 a six lane roadway. So it really wouldn't lend itself, uh, for this being residential development

435
00:45:23,520 --> 00:45:30,240
 and light industrial would be a better fit, um, in that sense. And then finally, with the comp plan,

436
00:45:30,240 --> 00:45:34,640
 I just wanted to, to, uh, bring this to everyone's attention in the implementation section of the

437
00:45:34,640 --> 00:45:39,280
 comp plan. It does provide for these instances where, um, rezoning requests don't meet the

438
00:45:39,280 --> 00:45:43,360
 future land use map that, that they can be recommended for approval if they meet other

439
00:45:43,360 --> 00:45:48,320
 goals within the comp plan and its overall, uh, goals for an area. So just wanted to bring to light

440
00:45:48,320 --> 00:45:52,320
 some of those other goals that are called out in the comp plan, um, economic development being one

441
00:45:52,320 --> 00:45:59,120
 of them. So really providing a suitable land areas for employment uses, um, and light industrial uses

442
00:45:59,120 --> 00:46:03,200
 is called out in the comprehensive plan. We have that here, uh, where we have a parcel that's

443
00:46:03,200 --> 00:46:08,480
 already zoned and, and has, is desirable for an industrial, um, and employment use, and they're

444
00:46:08,480 --> 00:46:12,960
 needing to expand that. Um, so that could certainly fall within those goals of providing that further

445
00:46:12,960 --> 00:46:18,800
 employment, um, and expanding that area of business innovation to make more land area available for

446
00:46:18,800 --> 00:46:23,360
 that. Um, this could also help reduce some of those conflicts we see with moderate density

447
00:46:23,360 --> 00:46:27,840
 residential not being suitable in this area because of the, the existing development pattern,

448
00:46:27,840 --> 00:46:32,080
 that arterial roadway, and some of those other, uh, factors that have changed over time since the

449
00:46:32,080 --> 00:46:36,880
 comp plan was adopted. And then finally, um, just bringing back to light that this is an area that

450
00:46:36,880 --> 00:46:41,360
 we do intend to do that deep dive on in the near future with the comp plan update to, to hopefully

451
00:46:41,360 --> 00:46:45,760
 reduce some of these conflicts between the existing development pattern and our future land use map.

452
00:46:45,760 --> 00:46:52,880
 The next criteria is whether the rezoning would be consistent with the purpose statement for the,

453
00:46:52,880 --> 00:46:57,920
 the zoning district. Um, so as we've looked at in the past, the Li district, um, has a variety of

454
00:46:57,920 --> 00:47:02,880
 goals, um, in place, such as providing, um, employment uses, light manufacturing, warehousing,

455
00:47:02,880 --> 00:47:07,600
 and distribution, and those sort of things, like what is proposed in this case. Um, and it calls

456
00:47:07,600 --> 00:47:12,240
 for those to be in areas, um, that are easily accessible and that would also be sensitive to

457
00:47:12,240 --> 00:47:17,760
 the adjacent, uh, environment in terms of the built and natural environment. Um, that is the case

458
00:47:17,760 --> 00:47:22,480
 in this instance. Uh, what they're proposing would be consistent with the, the diverse character of

459
00:47:22,480 --> 00:47:27,440
 the area that already includes several industrial type uses. Um, and it would also be appropriate

460
00:47:27,440 --> 00:47:32,000
 given the high accessibility with highway 380 and Geesling road being that future arterial.

461
00:47:32,000 --> 00:47:38,000
 The next criteria is whether there've been significant changes that would warrant the

462
00:47:38,000 --> 00:47:42,320
 request. Uh, so I wanted to give a little bit of history on this area. As I've mentioned, um,

463
00:47:42,320 --> 00:47:46,800
 that's kind of been a piecemeal annexation throughout, um, the last few decades here.

464
00:47:46,800 --> 00:47:51,520
 So the subject property and that parent tract were, were originally annexed back in the 70s.

465
00:47:51,520 --> 00:47:58,000
 It has had that R6 zoning, um, since 2002. Um, there are some existing encumbrances on the parent

466
00:47:58,000 --> 00:48:02,240
 track that I think lend us to being difficult for residential development. Um, you can kind of see

467
00:48:02,240 --> 00:48:06,400
 here those, uh, some of these transmission lines that are crossing the property. There's

468
00:48:06,400 --> 00:48:10,240
 electric transmission as well as a gas pipeline that make development of the site a little bit

469
00:48:10,240 --> 00:48:15,600
 challenging. Um, and then the surrounding area, as I mentioned, is kind of in piecemeal. So we have,

470
00:48:15,600 --> 00:48:22,240
 um, a history of recent annexations from 2013 to 2016 that have resulted in some of these non-conformities

471
00:48:22,240 --> 00:48:30,000
 within the RR district that I spoke to. Um, I believe that. Yeah. Yeah. Can I get some,

472
00:48:30,000 --> 00:48:35,840
 thank you vice chair. Uh, Haley, can I get some clarification that the, the, I, and I think you

473
00:48:35,840 --> 00:48:40,160
 said this at the beginning and maybe I'm just misremembering that the, the warehouse distribution

474
00:48:40,160 --> 00:48:47,760
 center is on the, in, on this map will be in the blue and this region is going to be, uh,

475
00:48:47,760 --> 00:48:53,360
 an accessory support parking. Uh, is that correct? That in terms of, I'm thinking in terms of what

476
00:48:53,360 --> 00:48:58,960
 you're describing right now in terms of the, the use of this entire parcel. Correct. So the,

477
00:48:58,960 --> 00:49:05,120
 the intent, um, is for a warehouse distribution center on, on the west or yes, the west side of

478
00:49:05,120 --> 00:49:10,160
 Giesling here in this property, these two parcels actually. Um, and then this would be accessory

479
00:49:10,160 --> 00:49:18,400
 parking facilities for them. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Um, so yeah, as I was saying,

480
00:49:18,400 --> 00:49:22,080
 I believe, uh, some of the RR parcels here, we do have, like I mentioned, there's a non-conformity

481
00:49:22,080 --> 00:49:26,800
 here with a manufacturing facility. We have these electric substations here. Um, and then a lot of

482
00:49:26,800 --> 00:49:32,000
 the lot sizes you can see here are less than that five acre minimum. So it does, um, it, it kind of

483
00:49:32,000 --> 00:49:36,640
 creates that non-conforming situation where we will likely see some rezonings in the future as

484
00:49:36,640 --> 00:49:42,320
 these parcels either seek to develop or expand. Um, so it really is time, um, a very diverse area

485
00:49:42,320 --> 00:49:48,080
 that we see a lot of transition. Um, and then finally, again, with that, uh, with the mobility

486
00:49:48,080 --> 00:49:53,600
 plan component, uh, this arterial roadway alignment would be shifting here to Giesling road. Um, I

487
00:49:53,600 --> 00:49:57,920
 believe, uh, tech stop, like I said, they're doing that feasibility study. Their plan is eventually

488
00:49:57,920 --> 00:50:03,360
 for there to be a direct, um, kind of takeoff from highway 380 over to the loop that would occur in

489
00:50:03,360 --> 00:50:08,000
 this area. So this existing intersection was viewed more favorably as an intersection that

490
00:50:08,000 --> 00:50:14,000
 could be expanded in the future, um, signalized so that that arterial roadway, um, wouldn't

491
00:50:14,000 --> 00:50:22,240
 interfere with that future, uh, takeoff from 380 to 288. Uh, the next criteria is whether it would

492
00:50:22,240 --> 00:50:27,280
 minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties. Um, so the LI district is generally consistent

493
00:50:27,280 --> 00:50:31,600
 with the development pattern of the area. Again, with those, those large electric facilities here,

494
00:50:31,600 --> 00:50:36,720
 other manufacturing and industrial uses, um, it wouldn't be out of character for those uses.

495
00:50:36,720 --> 00:50:42,880
 And then further, the Denton development code would ensure that anything developed, uh, where

496
00:50:42,880 --> 00:50:48,240
 we have industrial adjacent to residential would have, um, compatibility buffers in place, uh,

497
00:50:48,240 --> 00:50:52,080
 that, and as well as screening from the right of way and things like that, um, that would

498
00:50:53,120 --> 00:50:57,360
 make this more sensitive in terms of the transition here from industrial to residential,

499
00:50:57,360 --> 00:51:02,960
 if this were to develop in a residential pattern. Um, so the, the DDC does provide for that

500
00:51:02,960 --> 00:51:06,400
 and it would ensure that the context of the development would be sensitive to the area.

501
00:51:06,400 --> 00:51:14,640
 And then finally looking at the availability of public facilities and services, uh, with respect

502
00:51:14,640 --> 00:51:20,240
 to transportation, um, for the industrial or for the warehouse distribution center on the opposite

503
00:51:20,240 --> 00:51:24,800
 side of Gisling. They have prepared a TIA that's in review with our engineering department. Uh,

504
00:51:24,800 --> 00:51:29,440
 so I wanted to go through some of those numbers with you just briefly. Um, for a, an approximately

505
00:51:29,440 --> 00:51:34,400
 140,000 square foot warehouse facility, they would expect just under a thousand total daily trips.

506
00:51:34,400 --> 00:51:42,160
 And then the AM peak and PM peak would be around 200 each. Um, so that does call for some roadway

507
00:51:42,160 --> 00:51:46,800
 improvements that they would be responsible for with this development. Um, Gisling road,

508
00:51:46,800 --> 00:51:50,400
 they are planning, uh, for the right of way dedication and development of that primary

509
00:51:50,400 --> 00:51:54,480
 arterial along their frontage. And then, as I mentioned, they are working with text dot

510
00:51:54,480 --> 00:51:59,040
 right now to ensure that this would meet, uh, the traffic warrants to signalize this intersection.

511
00:51:59,040 --> 00:52:03,520
 I believe there's a question. Commissioner Beck.

512
00:52:03,520 --> 00:52:10,560
 Yes. Thank you, vice chair. So, um, your statement about the improvements that would be warranted,

513
00:52:11,200 --> 00:52:17,120
 if this is, if this, if Gisling is becoming an arterial rather than, I think it's a collector,

514
00:52:17,120 --> 00:52:24,240
 isn't that what you told me? Um, and, and we're also seeing the 380 expansion of via text dot,

515
00:52:24,240 --> 00:52:30,320
 especially as you get over to Cooper Creek and that on ramp onto 288 that they're proposing. Um,

516
00:52:30,320 --> 00:52:37,040
 I mean, so they're, these developers would be responsible for the Gisling updates or

517
00:52:37,680 --> 00:52:42,560
 text dot would be responsible for the Gisling updates. I guess I'm unclear. Sure. So because

518
00:52:42,560 --> 00:52:46,640
 Gisling is a perimeter street, this developer would be responsible for those perimeter street

519
00:52:46,640 --> 00:52:53,120
 improvements on their frontage. Um, okay. So yes. So for, for them, it would just be the frontage

520
00:52:53,120 --> 00:52:58,400
 of their parcels. In this case, um, they, they would have frontage from this point to the north

521
00:52:58,400 --> 00:53:02,320
 on this side of Gisling and the here, they would actually have that frontage on both sides. Um, so

522
00:53:02,320 --> 00:53:06,960
 there will be some transitions. Um, and I believe they've also indicated that they're willing to,

523
00:53:06,960 --> 00:53:12,080
 to seek, um, to work with the property owner to the north where the flea market's located to see

524
00:53:12,080 --> 00:53:15,840
 if they could go ahead and fully improve this intersection, uh, with their participation.

525
00:53:15,840 --> 00:53:20,960
 That's a little, um, I believe that that hasn't been finalized at this point. Um, so that piece

526
00:53:20,960 --> 00:53:25,280
 is a little unknown, but they would make those improvements along the frontage of their property.

527
00:53:25,280 --> 00:53:28,880
 Um, and then this would be coordinated with tech stop for that signalization here.

528
00:53:28,880 --> 00:53:33,680
 And, and there's sufficient, I think you said there was sufficient right away, even if it

529
00:53:33,680 --> 00:53:39,200
 expands out to an arterial. So the, they will be making right away dedications on Gisling along

530
00:53:39,200 --> 00:53:44,480
 their frontage for that, um, arterial width. And then, you know, as, as properties develop or

531
00:53:44,480 --> 00:53:50,080
 redevelop, um, that right of way would be dedicated at that time or in the future. Um, if the city,

532
00:53:50,080 --> 00:53:54,160
 you know, has a CIP project or something to, to further build out this corridor, then the city

533
00:53:54,160 --> 00:53:58,320
 would go through that right of way acquisition process for any remaining pieces that are needed.

534
00:54:00,960 --> 00:54:05,600
 But there's, oh, I guess it's undeveloped land. So yes, there's, the answer is there's sufficient

535
00:54:05,600 --> 00:54:13,280
 property. Yeah, I'm being stupid. Thank you. No, not a problem. Uh, with respect to utilities,

536
00:54:13,280 --> 00:54:17,360
 um, there, there have been some very recent improvements with the, uh, the dash lines on

537
00:54:17,360 --> 00:54:22,320
 this map indicate recent, uh, constructions of water and sewer lines. Again, the red lines being

538
00:54:22,320 --> 00:54:26,880
 sewer and blue being water. Um, so for this development on the west side of Gisling, they

539
00:54:26,880 --> 00:54:31,600
 will be extending those facilities, uh, through the site and along their frontage. And then with

540
00:54:31,600 --> 00:54:36,400
 this parcel, uh, that we're looking at for the rezoning, they're actually proposing, um, to

541
00:54:36,400 --> 00:54:40,640
 dedicate some public right of way here on the northern end to allow for better access to this

542
00:54:40,640 --> 00:54:45,440
 remainder when it develops. Um, so they will be extending utilities through that right of way as

543
00:54:45,440 --> 00:54:50,240
 well. Um, if this rezoning is approved, so there, there are adequate facilities in place, uh, that

544
00:54:50,240 --> 00:54:56,880
 can be extended for this development. And then finally, uh, notifications, uh, worsen out for

545
00:54:56,880 --> 00:55:01,520
 this request. Um, there's, there's a small number of property owners, um, with it fall within that

546
00:55:01,520 --> 00:55:05,920
 500 foot buffer, but those notices were sent and we have not received any responses to date.

547
00:55:05,920 --> 00:55:12,240
 And so finally, staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning as we found it to meet

548
00:55:12,240 --> 00:55:17,120
 the criteria. And I will pull down the screen, um, in case there are any other questions.

549
00:55:20,240 --> 00:55:24,160
 Any questions for Haley? Commissioner Beck.

550
00:55:24,160 --> 00:55:29,840
 Thank you, vice chair. So, so Haley, I know this is in the future when, when they're actually

551
00:55:29,840 --> 00:55:34,400
 getting into the engineering, the plenary plot, but, uh, for the concept that they have for the

552
00:55:34,400 --> 00:55:42,480
 parking, do you have an idea of, um, whether the, the, the acreage of parking that they're proposing

553
00:55:42,480 --> 00:55:50,160
 or square footage, however you want to do it is with, with, would be within the 30% or would allow

554
00:55:50,160 --> 00:55:58,800
 for 30% canopy retention since that parcel is highly, uh, wooded? Certainly. So they have, um,

555
00:55:58,800 --> 00:56:03,280
 with their concept plan, we'd have seen a preliminary tree preservation plan that

556
00:56:03,280 --> 00:56:09,440
 indicates they would be able to meet that 30% preservation requirement. Um, and yeah, and that

557
00:56:09,440 --> 00:56:13,680
 would also help enhance those buffers that will be required for the industrial zoning next to

558
00:56:13,680 --> 00:56:18,240
 residential. So there'll be a fair amount of existing canopy preserved, most likely on the

559
00:56:18,240 --> 00:56:22,560
 perimeters of the site, uh, to help with the buffering as well. Okay. Thank you so much.

560
00:56:22,560 --> 00:56:26,000
 Anyone else?

561
00:56:26,000 --> 00:56:30,960
 I don't see anything else, Haley. Thank you very much.

562
00:56:30,960 --> 00:56:43,840
 I believe that concludes our agenda. So with that, we'll close the work session at 5.57 PM.

563
00:56:43,840 --> 00:56:48,160
 We will reconvene at 6.30 for our regular meeting. Thanks everyone.

564
00:56:48,160 --> 00:57:00,800
 Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Meeting for the St. Patrick's

565
00:57:00,800 --> 00:57:08,960
 Day, Wednesday, March 17th, 2021. With a quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.01 PM.

566
00:57:10,000 --> 00:57:15,360
 First item on our agenda is Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags.

567
00:57:15,360 --> 00:57:18,160
 Commissioners, you are welcome to unmute and

568
00:57:18,160 --> 00:57:27,280
 state along if you would like. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

569
00:57:27,280 --> 00:57:35,520
 and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty

570
00:57:35,520 --> 00:57:44,960
 and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas,

571
00:57:44,960 --> 00:57:48,800
 one state, under God, one and indivisible.

572
00:57:48,800 --> 00:57:59,520
 Thank you. Next on our agenda is consider, uh, Planning and Zoning Minutes for March 3rd,

573
00:57:59,520 --> 00:58:06,400
 2021. Chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Beck? I move approval of the minutes.

574
00:58:06,400 --> 00:58:10,640
 Commissioner Anderson? Second.

575
00:58:10,640 --> 00:58:17,200
 Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of March 3rd, 2021 minutes. Any discussion?

576
00:58:17,200 --> 00:58:23,920
 I see none. So we will take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck?

577
00:58:24,800 --> 00:58:30,160
 Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye.

578
00:58:30,160 --> 00:58:32,800
 Commissioner Pronetta? Aye.

579
00:58:32,800 --> 00:58:39,040
 And the chair is also an aye. That motion carries 5-0.

580
00:58:39,040 --> 00:58:51,600
 And before we continue, I did fail to mention for the record, let it be shown, the chair,

581
00:58:52,480 --> 00:58:59,200
 Andrew Rosell, is not present at the meeting, nor Commissioner Jason Cole. And with that,

582
00:58:59,200 --> 00:59:07,200
 we'll move to our consent agenda. Chair will entertain a motion or if we have any discussion.

583
00:59:07,200 --> 00:59:10,800
 Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve.

584
00:59:10,800 --> 00:59:14,960
 Commissioner Anderson? Second the motion.

585
00:59:14,960 --> 00:59:19,360
 Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of consent agenda.

586
00:59:21,040 --> 00:59:24,880
 Richard, did you have? I just wanted to clarify that the second item,

587
00:59:24,880 --> 00:59:29,920
 item B, while it does state denial, it is a recommendation of approval in accordance with

588
00:59:29,920 --> 00:59:34,880
 the staff analysis and AIS. And that was just a typo on our agenda?

589
00:59:34,880 --> 00:59:37,120
 Correct. As it carried forward from the last meeting.

590
00:59:37,120 --> 00:59:41,600
 Okay. Very good. Thanks for the clarification, Richard. Okay. Again, we've got a first and a

591
00:59:41,600 --> 00:59:46,960
 second. Is there any further discussion? Okay. With that, we will take a vote via roll call.

592
00:59:47,520 --> 00:59:54,000
 Every quick question. So because it's listed as that on the agenda, do we have to put in an

593
00:59:54,000 --> 01:00:02,720
 amendment or something like that for the motion or no? No, I don't think you need to put in a

594
01:00:02,720 --> 01:00:07,360
 separate motion. I think just that clarification. I think everyone clearly knows what they're voting

595
01:00:07,360 --> 01:00:09,920
 on, which is approval of both items. Okay. Thank you.

596
01:00:10,960 --> 01:00:17,680
 Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Smith, House AU? Aye.

597
01:00:17,680 --> 01:00:19,520
 Commissioner Anderson? Aye.

598
01:00:19,520 --> 01:00:22,720
 Commissioner Beck? Aye.

599
01:00:22,720 --> 01:00:24,400
 Commissioner Pruneto? Aye.

600
01:00:24,400 --> 01:00:32,000
 And the chair is also an aye. That consent agenda carries five, zero.

601
01:00:32,960 --> 01:00:43,600
 Next item is items for individual consideration. We've got 4A FP21-0005A. Julie Wyatt is here to

602
01:00:43,600 --> 01:00:49,120
 present. Good evening, commissioners. Let me go ahead and just share my screen really quickly.

603
01:00:57,440 --> 01:01:05,440
 So the item before you, FP21-0005A. This might look familiar to you. The preliminary plot was

604
01:01:05,440 --> 01:01:13,680
 approved late last year. They are moving forward with the final plot. Staff is recommending denial.

605
01:01:13,680 --> 01:01:18,080
 An extension for the final plot was approved at the last planning and zoning commission. However,

606
01:01:18,080 --> 01:01:22,720
 they still have a few outstanding items that they need to address before it is in an approvable

607
01:01:22,720 --> 01:01:30,640
 state. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Julie on this?

608
01:01:30,640 --> 01:01:37,920
 Okay. With that, I will entertain a motion if there is one. Commissioner Beck?

609
01:01:37,920 --> 01:01:43,760
 Yes. I recommend denial as for the reasons issued by staff.

610
01:01:43,760 --> 01:01:47,920
 So you're motioning to deny? Yeah. Motioning to deny for the

611
01:01:47,920 --> 01:01:50,720
 reasons indicated by staff. Okay. Thank you, commissioner Beck.

612
01:01:50,720 --> 01:01:53,200
 Do we have a second? Commissioner Smith? Second.

613
01:01:53,200 --> 01:01:57,360
 Okay. Any discussion? We've got a first and a second for denial.

614
01:01:57,360 --> 01:02:03,600
 Okay. With that, we will take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck?

615
01:02:03,600 --> 01:02:07,040
 Aye. Commissioner Smith?

616
01:02:07,040 --> 01:02:08,960
 Aye. Commissioner Prunetta?

617
01:02:08,960 --> 01:02:12,560
 Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

618
01:02:12,560 --> 01:02:19,040
 Aye. Chair, is also an aye. That denial carries five zero.

619
01:02:21,280 --> 01:02:29,840
 Next item is 4B, FP21-0004, being presented by Haley Zygursky.

620
01:02:29,840 --> 01:02:39,840
 Good evening. Let me get the screen shared.

621
01:02:50,080 --> 01:02:56,640
 All right. Good evening. This is Final Plot FP21-0004. This is the Residences at

622
01:02:56,640 --> 01:03:02,240
 Razor Ranch edition. The most important thing to note here is that since the agenda went out on

623
01:03:02,240 --> 01:03:06,720
 Friday, the applicant has been able to resolve all of the outstanding comments. So the staff

624
01:03:06,720 --> 01:03:11,200
 recommendation has been updated to one of approval as it now meets all of the requirements of the

625
01:03:11,200 --> 01:03:20,400
 DDC. And I'm happy to stand for any questions. Any questions for Haley on this item?

626
01:03:20,400 --> 01:03:30,000
 Seeing none, I can open the floor for a motion. Commissioner Prunetta?

627
01:03:30,000 --> 01:03:33,520
 Motion to approve. Commissioner Anderson?

628
01:03:33,520 --> 01:03:40,160
 Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion?

629
01:03:42,160 --> 01:03:46,160
 Okay. With that, I'll take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Prunetta?

630
01:03:46,160 --> 01:03:48,160
 Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

631
01:03:48,160 --> 01:03:50,640
 Aye. Commissioner Beck?

632
01:03:50,640 --> 01:03:54,000
 Aye. Commissioner Smith?

633
01:03:54,000 --> 01:04:00,640
 Aye. Chair, is also an aye. That motion carries five zero. Thank you, Haley.

634
01:04:03,040 --> 01:04:15,680
 Next on the agenda is our public hearing section 5A AESA 210001A. Due to a notification error,

635
01:04:15,680 --> 01:04:23,200
 that item is being postponed to a date certain of April 7th. I will open the public hearing

636
01:04:23,200 --> 01:04:27,840
 for that item and entertain a motion for postponement. Commissioner Smith?

637
01:04:27,840 --> 01:04:31,120
 Make a motion to postpone to date certain of April 7th.

638
01:04:31,920 --> 01:04:34,400
 Thank you. Commissioner Beck? Second.

639
01:04:34,400 --> 01:04:40,480
 Okay. First and a second to postpone to a date certain of April 7th. Any discussion?

640
01:04:40,480 --> 01:04:47,920
 Okay. Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith?

641
01:04:47,920 --> 01:04:49,520
 Aye. Commissioner Beck?

642
01:04:49,520 --> 01:04:52,720
 Aye. Commissioner Prunetta?

643
01:04:52,720 --> 01:04:55,120
 Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

644
01:04:55,120 --> 01:05:00,080
 Aye. Chair, is also an aye. Motion carries five zero.

645
01:05:02,000 --> 01:05:13,120
 Next item is 5B Z20-0014B. I will open the public hearing and call Haley

646
01:05:13,120 --> 01:05:15,360
 Zegerski up for presentation of this item.

647
01:05:15,360 --> 01:05:30,320
 All right. Good evening. This is case Z2014, Gisling Road Industrial.

648
01:05:32,160 --> 01:05:36,640
 The request before you this evening is a rezoning from residential six or our six

649
01:05:36,640 --> 01:05:41,360
 district to light industrial for a property that is outlined in yellow on the map that is

650
01:05:41,360 --> 01:05:49,200
 approximately 12.7 acres. This property is part of a larger parent tract. Some of you may remember

651
01:05:49,200 --> 01:05:56,160
 this larger 86 acre area was preliminary plotted for single family residential development in 2019.

652
01:05:56,160 --> 01:06:01,440
 However, that plot never progressed into the engineering and final platting stages

653
01:06:01,440 --> 01:06:07,680
 and is considered null and void as this rezoning request would substantially change the future

654
01:06:07,680 --> 01:06:13,120
 development of the property. This rezoning, I also wanted to point out, is part of a larger

655
01:06:13,120 --> 01:06:18,320
 development. The property that you see outlined in red is an area that is intended to be developed

656
01:06:18,320 --> 01:06:23,840
 with a warehouse distribution center type use. That property already has a light industrial zoning

657
01:06:23,840 --> 01:06:29,920
 and the subject property would serve as an accessory to that and would provide additional

658
01:06:29,920 --> 01:06:35,120
 area for parking. That's the reason for the rezoning, therefore, is to make sure that the

659
01:06:35,120 --> 01:06:40,000
 use, the primary use of warehouse distribution would be permitted since that parking would be

660
01:06:40,000 --> 01:06:46,080
 accessory to it. This is a look at our current zoning map. You can see there is a diversity

661
01:06:46,080 --> 01:06:51,600
 of zoning in the area. We have light industrial, as I mentioned, just across Gisling. There's the

662
01:06:51,600 --> 01:06:56,080
 remainder of the parent tract zoned R6. There's some mixed use neighborhood to the north as well

663
01:06:56,080 --> 01:07:01,520
 as public facilities and MN immediately to the south. This is what that map would look like

664
01:07:01,520 --> 01:07:08,400
 with this rezoning to light industrial. The general criteria were discussed at length in

665
01:07:08,400 --> 01:07:12,480
 the staff analysis. We won't go through all of those here, but we will touch on a lot of those

666
01:07:12,480 --> 01:07:20,080
 same topics as we go through the zoning specific criteria for approval. The first of those criteria

667
01:07:20,080 --> 01:07:24,000
 is consistency with our comprehensive plan. The first thing that we look at there is typically

668
01:07:24,000 --> 01:07:29,120
 our future land use map, which you can see here on the screen. You see the subject property is

669
01:07:29,120 --> 01:07:33,440
 designated for moderate density residential development. However, you can see here with

670
01:07:33,440 --> 01:07:38,640
 this feathering and transition of the colors that it is also in a transitional zone with business

671
01:07:38,640 --> 01:07:45,600
 innovation to both the north and the west of the property. The light industrial, it would not be

672
01:07:45,600 --> 01:07:50,320
 consistent with moderate density residential as it stands. However, it is consistent with that

673
01:07:50,320 --> 01:07:54,800
 business innovation, and given this transitional area, we felt that that merited some further

674
01:07:54,800 --> 01:08:02,000
 analysis. Looking into the area a little more broadly, this is a part of the city that staff

675
01:08:02,000 --> 01:08:07,040
 has identified where we have a lot of inconsistencies between what's on the ground and our comprehensive

676
01:08:07,040 --> 01:08:12,160
 plan. It's an area that we see developing with a more intense industrial pattern, so we feel that

677
01:08:12,160 --> 01:08:16,960
 it merits further analysis in the future. Since we've already kicked off that comprehensive plan

678
01:08:16,960 --> 01:08:21,920
 update for the entire city, instead of having the applicant apply for a change on just this one

679
01:08:21,920 --> 01:08:27,200
 parcel, we flag this area as something that we will be looking at on a much broader scale because

680
01:08:27,200 --> 01:08:34,000
 we do see that industrial development really from 288 moving out to the eastern side of the city. So

681
01:08:34,000 --> 01:08:37,920
 there's a lot of things in this area that could be cleaned up, which we will look to do with that

682
01:08:37,920 --> 01:08:43,120
 comp plan update. Some of those things, just to look at it a little more closely, there are some

683
01:08:43,120 --> 01:08:48,960
 existing non-conformities in the area. We do have industrial uses here on Gisling that are currently

684
01:08:48,960 --> 01:08:55,120
 zoned RR and are within that moderate density residential area. Similarly, we have very intensive

685
01:08:55,120 --> 01:09:00,320
 development of electric substations here that's not consistent with the moderate density residential

686
01:09:00,320 --> 01:09:05,600
 designation, and so it appears in 2015 when this was adopted that some of these things

687
01:09:05,600 --> 01:09:09,360
 that were already existing on the ground just were not taken into account, and so that's an area where

688
01:09:09,360 --> 01:09:14,480
 we can can clean this up in the future and hopefully facilitate some redevelopment or new

689
01:09:14,480 --> 01:09:21,360
 development in this area. Some other things that are important to look at are the goals for moderate

690
01:09:21,360 --> 01:09:25,920
 density residential are really not consistent with this part of the city. When you read through that

691
01:09:25,920 --> 01:09:30,800
 description in the comprehensive plan, it calls for this moderate density residential development

692
01:09:30,800 --> 01:09:36,640
 to occur in areas where it creates extensions of existing neighborhoods, where it would be compatible

693
01:09:36,640 --> 01:09:41,360
 with, you know, neighborhood services and schools and things of that nature and create a dense

694
01:09:41,360 --> 01:09:46,320
 walkable environment, and this far out on the eastern perimeter of the city where there's really

695
01:09:46,320 --> 01:09:52,160
 already an industrial development pattern, that would not be likely. It's unlikely that we

696
01:09:52,160 --> 01:09:56,720
 would see any of these existing industrial type uses redeveloping with those neighborhood services

697
01:09:56,720 --> 01:10:02,160
 or other residential uses to create that connectivity, so this area in general might

698
01:10:02,160 --> 01:10:07,840
 not be a good fit for moderate density residential. We do of course want to maintain sensitivity to

699
01:10:07,840 --> 01:10:11,760
 the existing kind of well-established large lot neighborhoods that we have further east,

700
01:10:11,760 --> 01:10:16,000
 but there's probably a better way to transition this area, a more logical way.

701
01:10:16,000 --> 01:10:22,160
 And so the other piece I wanted to point out while we're on this slide is this future arterial

702
01:10:22,160 --> 01:10:28,400
 roadway that's through here. Really that is not something we would desire in a dense walkable

703
01:10:28,400 --> 01:10:32,960
 residential area that is consistent with the business innovation where you want that high

704
01:10:32,960 --> 01:10:36,880
 connectivity and accessibility to those large tracks, but that's not something that we would

705
01:10:36,880 --> 01:10:42,240
 typically encourage moderate density residential around. So just another piece of the puzzle here

706
01:10:42,240 --> 01:10:47,440
 that we'll look at a little more closely that leads to this area being in need of some cleanup

707
01:10:47,440 --> 01:10:54,240
 in the future. And then finally with respect to the comp plan, I wanted to share this quote

708
01:10:54,240 --> 01:10:57,840
 from the comp plan that's from the final chapter where it talks about implementing the plan and

709
01:10:57,840 --> 01:11:02,080
 how zoning should be consistent with it. And it does provide guidance on instances where

710
01:11:02,080 --> 01:11:06,560
 rezonings are not consistent with the future land use map, but meet other goals of the plan.

711
01:11:06,560 --> 01:11:12,000
 And so some of those other goals that we identified in more detail in your staff analysis were the

712
01:11:12,000 --> 01:11:17,280
 economic development components of the code. It really it calls for those areas of business

713
01:11:17,280 --> 01:11:22,960
 innovation and employment uses with light industrial uses mixed in to be on these corridors

714
01:11:22,960 --> 01:11:27,840
 with high accessibility. It also encourages areas where there's sufficient not only access,

715
01:11:27,840 --> 01:11:31,440
 but also buffering. And those are things that you could provide for on this property.

716
01:11:31,440 --> 01:11:36,320
 It would also help to clean up some of those inconsistencies we just talked about with moderate

717
01:11:36,320 --> 01:11:42,320
 density residential not being ideal for this this part of the city. And then finally, just going

718
01:11:42,320 --> 01:11:46,240
 back to what we just talked about again, this is an area that that you'll be seeing in the future as

719
01:11:46,240 --> 01:11:50,880
 we update the comprehensive plan and look to clean up some of these inconsistencies on our future land

720
01:11:50,880 --> 01:11:58,240
 use map. The next criteria is consistency with the purpose statement for the zoning district.

721
01:11:58,240 --> 01:12:02,160
 So I won't read this to you. But generally speaking, the L.I. district is intended for

722
01:12:02,160 --> 01:12:06,720
 those employment areas with light manufacturing and warehouse type activities. It's intended for

723
01:12:06,720 --> 01:12:11,760
 areas where we have adequate access and transportation options. But it's also called

724
01:12:11,760 --> 01:12:16,800
 for to be sensitive to the surrounding built and natural environment. All of those things we would

725
01:12:16,800 --> 01:12:21,920
 see with that zoning on this property, as we saw looking at those maps earlier, there there is that

726
01:12:21,920 --> 01:12:25,680
 industrial pattern already in the area. So it would continue that and be consistent with the

727
01:12:25,680 --> 01:12:32,560
 character of the area. There is that arterial roadway with with Gisling Road that will provide

728
01:12:32,560 --> 01:12:38,400
 that accessibility as well as the pretty close adjacency of Highway 380 to the north. And then

729
01:12:38,400 --> 01:12:43,520
 also with the the Denton Development Code requirements, it would be able to provide that

730
01:12:43,520 --> 01:12:48,480
 sensitive sensitivity to the residential zonings that are adjacent to it.

731
01:12:48,480 --> 01:12:54,640
 The next criteria is whether there have been any significant changes in the area that could

732
01:12:54,640 --> 01:12:58,400
 warrant the zoning change. So looking at a little bit of the history of the area,

733
01:12:58,400 --> 01:13:03,440
 the subject property has been part of the city since the early 1970s. It's had residential

734
01:13:03,440 --> 01:13:09,440
 zoning since 2002. Prior to that, it was agricultural. There are some significant

735
01:13:09,440 --> 01:13:14,240
 encumbrances on the property that I suspect led to that that previous preliminary plat not being

736
01:13:14,240 --> 01:13:19,280
 developed. There is an approximately 70 foot wide electrical transmission line that crosses the

737
01:13:19,280 --> 01:13:22,720
 the parent tract. There's also a natural gas pipeline that you can see faintly

738
01:13:22,720 --> 01:13:28,560
 there on the aerial image. So those things create some encumbrances on this property that have led to

739
01:13:28,560 --> 01:13:33,120
 it being left undeveloped for many years, even though it's been in the city limits with that

740
01:13:33,120 --> 01:13:38,880
 residential zoning. Other properties in the area, primarily those you see with the RR zoning,

741
01:13:38,880 --> 01:13:44,400
 have been more recent annexations from 2013 to 2016. For example, this manufacturing facility

742
01:13:44,400 --> 01:13:50,080
 has been in place, I believe, since the 80s, based on my research. But when it was annexed,

743
01:13:50,080 --> 01:13:54,160
 it received that placeholder, so it's actually non-conforming to the rural residential zoning.

744
01:13:54,160 --> 01:13:57,840
 Similarly, we have some smaller tracts of land, as you can see here, that don't meet the minimum

745
01:13:57,840 --> 01:14:03,120
 acreage for RR. So there's a lot of non-conformities in this area, and that means we will in the future

746
01:14:03,120 --> 01:14:08,960
 probably see those as rezoning requests. So we really need to consider that potential redevelopment

747
01:14:08,960 --> 01:14:14,560
 pattern for this area and how this could help contribute to that. And then finally, as I alluded

748
01:14:14,560 --> 01:14:20,800
 to earlier, there is this primary arterial designation that's currently shown to the east

749
01:14:20,800 --> 01:14:26,320
 on the parent tract of this property. Through discussions with the owners of this tract and

750
01:14:26,320 --> 01:14:30,320
 other developments that have been proposed there, as well as through conversations with TxDOT about

751
01:14:30,320 --> 01:14:35,920
 the upgrades and expansion of the Highway 380 corridor, it's been identified that this alignment

752
01:14:35,920 --> 01:14:41,200
 is not ideal. Really, this primary arterial would be best served shifting to the current

753
01:14:41,200 --> 01:14:45,840
 Geesling Road corridor, which is currently a collector. So our future mobility plan reflects

754
01:14:45,840 --> 01:14:50,080
 that change. That is something that TxDOT has indicated would be more desirable for this

755
01:14:50,080 --> 01:14:55,360
 intersection to be upgraded, rather than creating a new intersection here, where they're planning

756
01:14:55,360 --> 01:15:00,320
 for really a takeoff point to have a direct connection from 380 all the way to loop 288 more

757
01:15:00,320 --> 01:15:05,760
 in this area. So through that coordination, this alignment will be shifting, and that

758
01:15:05,760 --> 01:15:12,000
 further creates better accessibility to this tract, as well as lends itself to maybe R6 not being the

759
01:15:12,000 --> 01:15:20,400
 ideal zoning along that arterial corridor. And then the next criteria is whether there's ways

760
01:15:20,400 --> 01:15:25,520
 to minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties. So some things to look at there, again,

761
01:15:25,520 --> 01:15:30,880
 the development pattern on most adjacencies of this property lend itself to being compatible.

762
01:15:30,880 --> 01:15:35,680
 We have some pretty intensive outdoor commercial retail type uses to the north. I believe there's

763
01:15:35,680 --> 01:15:41,280
 also auto repair on this tract. There is industrial development across Geesling Road on both of these

764
01:15:41,280 --> 01:15:46,480
 parcels. And then to the south, again, we have those four electric substations that are there that,

765
01:15:46,480 --> 01:15:51,520
 again, are not ideal neighbors to an R6 zoning, but would not be incompatible with light industrial.

766
01:15:51,520 --> 01:15:58,000
 As I mentioned, these parcels will kind of be that little doughnut hole of RR for the time being,

767
01:15:58,000 --> 01:16:01,520
 but those are likely to be rezoned in the future as they couldn't be developed with

768
01:16:01,520 --> 01:16:07,760
 the current RR zoning due to the parcel size. And then finally, the DDC standards that I mentioned

769
01:16:07,760 --> 01:16:11,680
 for right-of-way screening, buffering, as well as height transitions and things like that,

770
01:16:11,680 --> 01:16:15,760
 would ensure that anything developed in the LI district on this property would be contextually

771
01:16:15,760 --> 01:16:20,960
 sensitive to those surrounding residential zonings that would remain on the parent tract.

772
01:16:20,960 --> 01:16:27,840
 And then finally looking at whether there are adequate public facilities to serve the site.

773
01:16:27,840 --> 01:16:32,240
 With respect to transportation, we've already discussed this corridor, this primary arterial

774
01:16:32,240 --> 01:16:36,560
 shifting here. So there will be some significant enhancements to the Geesling Road corridor over

775
01:16:36,560 --> 01:16:42,400
 time. The applicant, as part of their application for the distribution warehouse facility on the

776
01:16:43,200 --> 01:16:48,000
 western property, did provide that full traffic impact analysis. It's still under review, but it's

777
01:16:48,000 --> 01:16:52,960
 pretty solid, so we know some recommendations that will come out of it. Primarily, that would be the

778
01:16:52,960 --> 01:16:58,320
 expansion of Geesling to an arterial roadway, as the city and TxDOT have both indicated would be

779
01:16:58,320 --> 01:17:03,120
 favorable. That would ultimately be a six-lane configuration most likely through this area,

780
01:17:03,120 --> 01:17:07,440
 so they would make those improvements along their property frontages. And then they're also

781
01:17:07,440 --> 01:17:11,440
 coordinating with TxDOT to signalize this intersection. They're currently going through

782
01:17:11,440 --> 01:17:16,160
 the warrant study to show that it would meet all of TxDOT's warrants for a signal. It's expected

783
01:17:16,160 --> 01:17:20,160
 that they'll be able to meet that, so this in the future would be an improved intersection with a

784
01:17:20,160 --> 01:17:27,360
 signal there, providing much better accessibility to these properties along Geesling. And then with

785
01:17:27,360 --> 01:17:32,560
 respect to utilities, what you see on the map here, all of these dashed lines mean those are recent

786
01:17:32,560 --> 01:17:36,560
 utility improvements. They were put in place as part of this storage facility that recently

787
01:17:36,560 --> 01:17:41,920
 developed, so we have sewer lines that have been stubbed out to both tracks here where the

788
01:17:41,920 --> 01:17:46,720
 warehouse use would go, as well as water lines that have been extended across there. Those utilities

789
01:17:46,720 --> 01:17:50,720
 would be further extended along their frontage to make them accessible to others, as well as make

790
01:17:50,720 --> 01:17:56,480
 them accessible to this tract. As I mentioned at the work session, they are planning for a right-of-way

791
01:17:56,480 --> 01:18:01,040
 going across the north boundary of the site that would open up some better access to this property

792
01:18:01,040 --> 01:18:05,280
 for it to develop in the future, and there would be some utility extensions along with that to make

793
01:18:05,280 --> 01:18:12,880
 sure that we have full connectivity through this area. Notifications were posted through all of our

794
01:18:12,880 --> 01:18:17,680
 normal means. In the newspaper, a sign was posted on the property, and notices were mailed to those

795
01:18:17,680 --> 01:18:23,120
 surrounding within 200 and 500 feet. We've received no responses or inquiries with respect to those

796
01:18:23,120 --> 01:18:30,160
 notifications. And finally, staff is recommending approval of the request from an R6 to line

797
01:18:30,160 --> 01:18:35,360
 industrial zoning, as we found that it met all of the criteria. I will pull down the screen now,

798
01:18:35,360 --> 01:18:38,800
 and the applicant is also on the line and has a brief presentation as well.

799
01:18:38,800 --> 01:18:44,720
 Thank you, Haley. Any questions at this time for Haley?

800
01:18:44,720 --> 01:18:51,360
 Okay, I don't see any, so I will--oh, Commissioner Anderson.

801
01:18:54,240 --> 01:19:00,720
 Haley, I do have a question. It might be better for the applicant, but in--you were talking earlier

802
01:19:00,720 --> 01:19:08,880
 about how that's going to be--excuse me--additional parking for the place across street, but they're

803
01:19:08,880 --> 01:19:15,760
 eventually going to turn Geesling into a six-lane road. That wouldn't really make sense to have a

804
01:19:15,760 --> 01:19:21,840
 parking lot, and you're going to have to walk across six lanes of road to get to your facility. I just

805
01:19:21,840 --> 01:19:25,920
 thought about that a minute ago. Is that what they're--the long-term plan is to do is make it

806
01:19:25,920 --> 01:19:30,720
 a parking lot, and these people are going to have to cross six lanes of road to get to their work?

807
01:19:30,720 --> 01:19:36,720
 Yes, it's--I'll certainly let the applicant speak to that, but it's my understanding that

808
01:19:36,720 --> 01:19:40,400
 this lot would primarily be for those fleet vehicles, so it would really--you know, it

809
01:19:40,400 --> 01:19:43,520
 wouldn't be employees going to their personal vehicles over there, but there would necessarily

810
01:19:43,520 --> 01:19:50,240
 be some pedestrian traffic, and they are planning for some improved pedestrian crossways across that

811
01:19:50,240 --> 01:19:54,960
 full arterial section, so they're planning for that full six lanes at this point and working with our

812
01:19:54,960 --> 01:20:00,400
 transportation engineers and our staff to make sure that that would be a protected crossing for

813
01:20:00,400 --> 01:20:04,800
 those employees. That's being reviewed as part of their zoning compliance plan, and all that would

814
01:20:04,800 --> 01:20:10,160
 be finalized with their civil engineering plans, but certainly they can speak more to how they plan

815
01:20:10,160 --> 01:20:12,720
 to make that a safe crossing. Okay, thanks.

816
01:20:16,080 --> 01:20:21,520
 Okay, I don't see any other questions right now for Haley, so I can invite the applicant to speak

817
01:20:21,520 --> 01:20:29,280
 if they are there. Good evening, commissioners. This is Amy Bissett. Can you hear me? Yes,

818
01:20:29,280 --> 01:20:36,960
 Amy, we can. Stay your name and address. Well, you know the drill. Thank you.

819
01:20:36,960 --> 01:20:45,680
 Amy Bissett, 100 West Oak Street, Denton, Texas, 76201. I appreciate being here tonight,

820
01:20:45,680 --> 01:20:52,240
 and we'll make a very brief presentation, and we'll also attempt to address the questions that

821
01:20:52,240 --> 01:20:59,040
 I've heard in this regular session, as well as the discussion that took place in the work session.

822
01:20:59,040 --> 01:21:04,400
 To begin, I do want to introduce a couple of others on the team that are with us tonight in

823
01:21:04,400 --> 01:21:10,320
 case you have specific questions for them. We have Matt Boone with Scannell Properties on the line,

824
01:21:10,320 --> 01:21:15,920
 and he is the developer for this site, and we have Trey Braswell with Kimley Horne, and he is the

825
01:21:15,920 --> 01:21:23,040
 engineer on the site. Haley, if you have our presentation up, if you will go ahead and

826
01:21:23,040 --> 01:21:29,840
 go to slide two, please. I'm not going to rehash everything that Haley has presented to you, but

827
01:21:29,840 --> 01:21:37,440
 just a brief overview. We are requesting a zoning change on 12.69 acres to LI Zoning,

828
01:21:37,440 --> 01:21:44,640
 light industrial zoning. The overall development includes roughly 36 acres and 144,000 square foot

829
01:21:44,640 --> 01:21:51,600
 distribution center and warehouse, and this particular site is intended to address tandem

830
01:21:51,600 --> 01:21:57,760
 parking for employees and fleet vehicles. Haley, if you'll go to the next slide, please.

831
01:21:57,760 --> 01:22:06,720
 As Haley did mention, this is kind of a transition area in terms of the comprehensive plan and future

832
01:22:06,720 --> 01:22:14,400
 land use map. We do see some intense industrial related uses that surround this property on all

833
01:22:14,400 --> 01:22:24,320
 sides. With the developer coming in and developing the property on the west side of Gisling, this is

834
01:22:24,320 --> 01:22:31,280
 essentially an extension of that for additional parking. Haley, will you go to slide four,

835
01:22:31,280 --> 01:22:37,200
 please? We did do a full traffic impact analysis, as Haley mentioned, and I just

836
01:22:37,200 --> 01:22:42,880
 wanted to point out a couple of brief things related to that. Currently, TechSot has an active

837
01:22:42,880 --> 01:22:47,680
 project on Highway 380 in this area that's highlighted on your screen, on the left side

838
01:22:47,680 --> 01:22:55,120
 of your screen, identified as area number 13. This active construction project includes

839
01:22:55,120 --> 01:23:00,960
 adding an eastbound right turn lane at Gisling and a westbound left turn lane at Gisling.

840
01:23:01,520 --> 01:23:06,640
 Some of those improvements are already underway today. We do have a full TIA

841
01:23:06,640 --> 01:23:11,600
 and signal warrant analysis in review with the city that will comply with the city and TechSot

842
01:23:11,600 --> 01:23:17,120
 requirements. The analysis does show that this intersection will have adequate capacity for

843
01:23:17,120 --> 01:23:26,720
 the trip generation estimates that we have put together. Haley, will you go to slide five,

844
01:23:26,720 --> 01:23:32,080
 please? I just want to talk about a couple of site plan elements because there were some questions

845
01:23:32,080 --> 01:23:37,840
 that came up in the work session related to those. We do have a zoning compliance plan or site plan

846
01:23:37,840 --> 01:23:44,640
 that is in review right now for the full project. We have specifically on this eastern track that's

847
01:23:44,640 --> 01:23:53,120
 being rezoned, we're working to acquire or we've included some additional acquisition of land

848
01:23:53,120 --> 01:23:58,880
 specifically for tree preservation. As Commissioner Beck mentioned, this is a heavily treed site, so

849
01:23:58,880 --> 01:24:06,320
 we have picked up some additional properties specifically to address tree preservation.

850
01:24:06,320 --> 01:24:14,880
 The developer is also proposing electric charging stations for the fleet. Of course,

851
01:24:14,880 --> 01:24:19,280
 as Haley mentioned, we'll have landscape compatibility buffers to the areas that are

852
01:24:19,280 --> 01:24:29,360
 zoned residential today. To address Commissioner Anderson's question about the crossing of

853
01:24:29,360 --> 01:24:36,640
 Gisling in terms of pedestrian crossing, what we anticipate for this area is that this is

854
01:24:36,640 --> 01:24:46,320
 seasonal overflow parking for certain times where there may be additional drivers and an

855
01:24:46,320 --> 01:24:55,680
 additional fleet needed. It's likely that employees or associates will park on the site,

856
01:24:55,680 --> 01:25:02,800
 park their personal vehicle, and then get into a delivery vehicle in late. It wouldn't necessarily

857
01:25:02,800 --> 01:25:10,960
 mean that everybody that is coming to work is crossing Gisling Road. However, our engineers

858
01:25:10,960 --> 01:25:17,600
 here and can answer specific questions. We do plan for protected crosswalks in this area and are

859
01:25:17,600 --> 01:25:23,920
 working with the city's traffic engineer on the best way to address that. Haley, will you go to

860
01:25:23,920 --> 01:25:31,600
 slide 60? That is our last slide and that is the end of our presentation, but I'm happy to answer

861
01:25:31,600 --> 01:25:37,680
 any questions or to queue up Matt or Trey if you have specific questions for them. Thank you.

862
01:25:41,520 --> 01:25:48,240
 Thank you, Amy. Let's see if there are any questions on the applicant's presentation.

863
01:25:48,240 --> 01:25:58,160
 I do not see any further questions. Thank you for answering the ones you heard in our work session

864
01:25:58,160 --> 01:26:04,560
 and at this meeting. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Beck.

865
01:26:06,400 --> 01:26:11,200
 Thank you, Vice Chair. I guess this is a question for staff that they could clarify for me because

866
01:26:11,200 --> 01:26:21,840
 of my ignorance. Would a specially protected crosswalk like say a hawk or something like that

867
01:26:21,840 --> 01:26:32,480
 be required for the anticipated development of Gisling? It's certainly something that could be

868
01:26:32,480 --> 01:26:37,680
 considered. I don't know that that's been discussion to date, but that is something that

869
01:26:37,680 --> 01:26:44,240
 could be taken into consideration and possibly as a recommendation with the engineering design for

870
01:26:44,240 --> 01:26:50,640
 this site once they get to that fine level of detail, but I don't believe that level of

871
01:26:50,640 --> 01:26:59,120
 specificity has been discussed yet. Thank you. In general, would that be the responsibility of

872
01:26:59,120 --> 01:27:06,160
 tech stock to put in the hawk or the developer through fees or what's the orientation, I mean,

873
01:27:06,160 --> 01:27:12,720
 what's the responsibility elements of something like, let's just say hypothetically, they put in

874
01:27:12,720 --> 01:27:19,520
 a hawk. If that were something, if you're referring to that crossing here on Gisling between their two

875
01:27:19,520 --> 01:27:24,720
 properties, that would be something that would be that the applicant could propose and the city

876
01:27:26,320 --> 01:27:29,360
 may participate. It's unlikely, it would most likely be the developer that would do that.

877
01:27:29,360 --> 01:27:34,240
 If we're looking at the intersection of 380 and Gisling, then that would be within

878
01:27:34,240 --> 01:27:38,560
 Tech Stots Purview, so they would ultimately have the approval of that, but it would probably be

879
01:27:38,560 --> 01:27:43,680
 something that they would partner with the city on at that intersection. Okay, that clarifies.

880
01:27:43,680 --> 01:27:49,040
 Thank you so much. Any other questions? Well, Haley's here.

881
01:27:51,200 --> 01:27:56,640
 Okay. This is a public hearing. I do not believe we have anyone on the line to speak.

882
01:27:56,640 --> 01:28:04,240
 We do not. So with that, I will close the public hearing and entertain the floor for discussion.

883
01:28:04,240 --> 01:28:07,680
 Motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve.

884
01:28:07,680 --> 01:28:11,280
 Commissioner Anderson. Second.

885
01:28:11,280 --> 01:28:18,480
 Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of the request. Any further discussion?

886
01:28:20,720 --> 01:28:24,480
 Seeing none, we will take a vote by a roll call. Commissioner Smith.

887
01:28:24,480 --> 01:28:26,960
 Aye. Commissioner Anderson.

888
01:28:26,960 --> 01:28:31,280
 Aye. Commissioner Prunetta.

889
01:28:31,280 --> 01:28:34,000
 Aye. Commissioner Beck.

890
01:28:34,000 --> 01:28:40,400
 Aye. Here is also an aye. That motion carries 5-0.

891
01:28:40,400 --> 01:28:50,000
 That takes us to our planning and zoning commission matrix. And with that, I'll turn

892
01:28:50,000 --> 01:28:56,000
 that to Richard. Good evening. Just wanted to provide a quick update on some council items,

893
01:28:56,000 --> 01:29:02,960
 some actions from last night. They did approve the rezoning for the Loves Travel that was brought

894
01:29:02,960 --> 01:29:10,640
 before us a few months ago. In addition, the specific use permit to add sort of the bar use

895
01:29:10,640 --> 01:29:20,800
 to the horse's ax was also approved last night. The PD request for the Hirschbach terminal was

896
01:29:20,800 --> 01:29:31,120
 denied unanimously 7-0. So indication that we got today was that they were still interested in being

897
01:29:31,120 --> 01:29:39,040
 in Denton but looking at a possible alternative location, which is a great segue into the matrix.

898
01:29:40,240 --> 01:29:44,560
 We had that item on the small area plan specifically to discuss for this area. So

899
01:29:44,560 --> 01:29:51,680
 there was quite a bit of a discussion last night. And so I think it's, you know, perfect timing.

900
01:29:51,680 --> 01:30:00,320
 While I initially was planning on doing that, the first meeting in April, the way it's looking right

901
01:30:00,320 --> 01:30:08,320
 now, I think we had, depending where it ultimately ends up with completing the reviews, we might have

902
01:30:08,320 --> 01:30:16,080
 anywhere from five or six, possibly seven public hearings on the seventh. So it will be quite a

903
01:30:16,080 --> 01:30:23,280
 long day. And the way the agenda is starting to shape up for the 21st, not as much. And so I

904
01:30:23,280 --> 01:30:29,840
 thought we probably want to have a good discussion, robust discussion and allow for that time to really

905
01:30:29,840 --> 01:30:34,640
 get into that small area plan discussion just overall, but then again, specifically for this

906
01:30:35,440 --> 01:30:42,320
 area. So I moved it to the 21st, but have it on there. And with that, I'll be happy to

907
01:30:42,320 --> 01:30:47,280
 answer any additional questions. Commissioner Smith.

908
01:30:47,280 --> 01:30:55,200
 Thank you, Vice Chair. Richard, I didn't get a chance to watch the council meeting yesterday

909
01:30:55,200 --> 01:31:00,720
 or last night. What was the reason for the Hirschbach, why there was a unanimous denial

910
01:31:00,720 --> 01:31:06,560
 whenever, I think, I can't remember what our vote was and maybe Vice Chair Ellis or Commissioner Beck

911
01:31:06,560 --> 01:31:13,920
 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

912
01:31:13,920 --> 01:31:21,840
 ever seen us have a close to majority and then have a unanimous denial. So I'd like to bring it

913
01:31:21,840 --> 01:31:25,680
 up now and just see what the reasoning was, see what we missed. Was there something that happened?

914
01:31:25,680 --> 01:31:34,880
 I mean, we saw that Hirschbach case two months ago, mid-January. I think there were, you know,

915
01:31:34,880 --> 01:31:40,560
 kind of the gist of it and, you know, everyone had kind of differing opinions, but really it,

916
01:31:40,560 --> 01:31:46,800
 they felt as though it just wasn't the right use for that location. I think there was also a lot

917
01:31:46,800 --> 01:31:54,800
 of discussion about what business innovation should be or is. Interestingly enough, you know,

918
01:31:55,360 --> 01:32:01,680
 our item tonight, if you looked at that business innovation land use and you look at the zoning

919
01:32:01,680 --> 01:32:07,600
 underneath it, it's all light industrial. And so it, you know, it provides that range of uses from

920
01:32:07,600 --> 01:32:12,880
 office to research and development, whatever that means, and then, you know, light manufacturing.

921
01:32:12,880 --> 01:32:18,560
 And so there's a lot of blank space in between office and light manufacturing and research and

922
01:32:18,560 --> 01:32:24,800
 development. And so I think it was just not the right time, kind of looking at what that area

923
01:32:24,800 --> 01:32:34,720
 should be. I think there were some concerns with, ultimately with access and just not able to get a

924
01:32:34,720 --> 01:32:39,360
 commitment from TxDOT, again, because it's not approved, but whether or not there would be a new

925
01:32:39,360 --> 01:32:46,720
 median cut, a wider median cut, certainly there was, you know, greater than 20% opposition. So

926
01:32:46,720 --> 01:32:53,280
 it was requiring a super majority to begin with. They were, you know, they were very outspoken

927
01:32:54,000 --> 01:33:00,960
 in opposition. They had an attorney represent them as part of that opposition, different than

928
01:33:00,960 --> 01:33:07,200
 what was the individual that spoke at our meeting. And so I think it was a combination of all of it

929
01:33:07,200 --> 01:33:13,360
 and kind of really looking at really almost kind of sharing some of the same concerns this body had,

930
01:33:13,360 --> 01:33:19,680
 this commission had, when we added the small area plan, you know, what should this area be and

931
01:33:19,680 --> 01:33:25,280
 should we focus more of that industrial type development and really what is industrial,

932
01:33:25,280 --> 01:33:31,440
 even how do we define that? Should that be located west of 35? Interesting enough,

933
01:33:31,440 --> 01:33:36,160
 even though it still has business innovation land use. And so I think, again, it's perfect

934
01:33:36,160 --> 01:33:40,720
 time to really get into this. And it's probably something we should have had, you know, a discussion

935
01:33:40,720 --> 01:33:47,120
 10 years ago, but, you know, say that with a lot of things, but hey, here we are today. And I think

936
01:33:47,120 --> 01:33:52,640
 we're, I think we're in a good spot. I think, I think kind of council set that tone and, you know,

937
01:33:52,640 --> 01:33:59,280
 7.0 kind of sends a message. And so I think we're going to have a good, I'm looking forward to at

938
01:33:59,280 --> 01:34:05,600
 least a good discussion on the 21st and really kind of starting to truly plan for this area and

939
01:34:05,600 --> 01:34:11,280
 look at it both from a mobility perspective, but also from a utility perspective and how we can

940
01:34:11,280 --> 01:34:16,720
 grow. I will say I won't want to get into the projects ahead of time, but we are seeing, you

941
01:34:16,720 --> 01:34:24,000
 know, new types of uses all the time. You know, some of this rent to build, we're starting to see

942
01:34:24,000 --> 01:34:28,960
 more often that will be coming forward with PDs and kind of a deconstructed apartment is kind of

943
01:34:28,960 --> 01:34:34,160
 how I'm looking at it to some extent. And so I think we're going to have both from this body

944
01:34:34,160 --> 01:34:40,080
 and then ultimately even DCRC and then back to this body and council, some interesting debates

945
01:34:40,080 --> 01:34:48,000
 about new and future uses that, you know, continually to pop up and how do we treat these? And so

946
01:34:48,000 --> 01:34:53,280
 have a lot of work ahead of us. So it'd be a good, good, good coming, upcoming year.

947
01:34:53,280 --> 01:34:58,960
 Thank you. Anything, commissioner Beck.

948
01:34:58,960 --> 01:35:05,120
 Thank you, vice chair. Richard, we alluded to this at the beginning of the meeting,

949
01:35:06,320 --> 01:35:10,960
 but commissioner Smith and I were very interested in the, the notification

950
01:35:10,960 --> 01:35:16,160
 system. And I was just touching base with you to figure out where we stood on that.

951
01:35:16,160 --> 01:35:24,400
 Again, we have, we have kind of two parts of that, right? One is the kind of what we're going to be

952
01:35:24,400 --> 01:35:29,840
 incorporating in as part of the new, the new software. I think we're on set. I think we're

953
01:35:29,840 --> 01:35:35,600
 on target to have the implementation. I think April, I think we've got a little, a little delayed

954
01:35:35,600 --> 01:35:41,520
 somewhat with COVID and, and, and then the snowstorm. But I will follow up and have, have a,

955
01:35:41,520 --> 01:35:47,520
 have a, a sort of a better handle on that for, for our next meeting. The other item, as we

956
01:35:47,520 --> 01:35:54,720
 gear back up for DCRC, the discussion relative to notifying in the ETJ, that will be a discussion

957
01:35:54,720 --> 01:36:00,400
 that will, will be brought up as part of DCRC and whether or not we want to codify that in the code

958
01:36:00,400 --> 01:36:04,880
 or create a policy, but that, that is, that is one of those items that will be brought up as part of

959
01:36:04,880 --> 01:36:10,320
 that DCRC discussion. And then again, brought back to this commission and then ultimately council.

960
01:36:10,320 --> 01:36:20,560
 Okay. Thank you. Anything else added to the matrix? I do not see that anything,

961
01:36:20,560 --> 01:36:27,120
 anything for concluding items, commissioner Beck. Thank you vice chair. I just wanted to take a

962
01:36:27,120 --> 01:36:36,960
 moment and say, Laud, one of our regulars from planning Sean Jacobson, he's really worked his,

963
01:36:36,960 --> 01:36:46,080
 his keister off on the up top and rotary program for aiding kids with laptops. And, and I, I just

964
01:36:46,080 --> 01:36:52,320
 wanted to, you know, just praise him because we see him so much here in, in, in PNZ and he's really,

965
01:36:52,320 --> 01:36:57,760
 he's gone above and beyond for Denton. So I just wanted to give him a public notice of praise,

966
01:36:57,760 --> 01:37:03,920
 at least for me. Awesome. Yeah. Kudos to Sean. That's great. Thank you. Sean is Sean's definitely

967
01:37:03,920 --> 01:37:08,320
 growing into a, a, you know, it's, it's wonderful to watch him every, every presentation. He keeps

968
01:37:08,320 --> 01:37:12,640
 getting better and better. So, so it's good to hear that he's also growing in the community.

969
01:37:12,640 --> 01:37:19,440
 Thank you. Any other concluding items? I do not see any with that. I will just say

970
01:37:19,440 --> 01:37:25,520
 happy St. Patrick's day to anyone celebrating and be well, be safe. And thank you everyone.

971
01:37:25,520 --> 01:37:30,960
 I will close our meeting at 7 11 PM. Thank you.