WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.240 - Hi, everyone and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning meeting for Wednesday, 00:00:09.240 --> 00:00:16.400 March 17th, 2021. This is our workshop session meeting and with a quorum present, I will 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. 00:00:24.600 --> 00:00:29.880 I do not believe we have any. - No, ma'am, there is none. 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 00:00:36.280 --> 00:00:42.440 one this afternoon. It is to receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding 00:00:42.440 --> 00:00:47.960 the development code review committee roles and responsibilities. And Richard, is that 00:00:47.960 --> 00:00:53.760 you presenting? - Actually, Scott will be presenting it remotely. 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. 00:00:58.360 --> 00:01:03.480 - Okay, sounds good. Hi, Scott. - Good afternoon. Scott McDonald, Director 00:01:03.480 --> 00:01:11.080 of Development Services. Glad to be here. Thank you for having me this evening. And 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 00:01:24.840 --> 00:01:25.840 me. - We can. 00:01:25.840 --> 00:01:32.320 - Okay. Thank you very much. Just wanted to talk about the development code review committee. 00:01:32.320 --> 00:01:36.800 And for those of you that aren't familiar with it, it was established originally to 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, 00:01:42.800 --> 00:01:47.480 we put together three council representatives and three representatives from the planning 00:01:47.480 --> 00:01:54.080 zoning commission. They've provided input and guidance to work through this. And as 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 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 00:02:05.120 --> 00:02:12.480 of the legislative changes. Next slide, please. As we've met, we've talked 00:02:12.480 --> 00:02:20.240 about establishing this committee as a standing committee. And last night at council, I presented 00:02:20.240 --> 00:02:27.840 the same item, talked with council in great detail about this, fielded a number of questions, 00:02:27.840 --> 00:02:35.000 which I'll discuss somewhat. But ultimately council had consensus to establish it as a 00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:41.640 standing council committee. We'll continue to have meetings as necessary. So just as 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 00:02:46.320 --> 00:02:54.480 news is that in the past, the committee was only three representatives from council were 00:02:54.480 --> 00:03:01.680 the voting members. The committee had recommended that both the council members and the planning 00:03:01.680 --> 00:03:07.200 and zoning commission members would also be voting members. And council did have consensus 00:03:07.200 --> 00:03:12.040 to carry that forward. With that being said, part of the conversation 00:03:12.040 --> 00:03:19.000 last evening revolved around dissolving the committee and utilizing the planning and zoning 00:03:19.000 --> 00:03:27.360 commission exclusively for doing this very thing. I did explain, and again, for some 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 00:03:33.620 --> 00:03:44.320 online, the work that goes into discussing various potential code amendments or changes 00:03:44.320 --> 00:03:51.280 to the code takes a considerable amount of time. And council member Ryan had used the 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 00:03:58.680 --> 00:04:05.320 perimeter fences, which is accurate. We spent a lot of time in recognizing that we have 00:04:05.320 --> 00:04:11.840 any number of items that really require a lot of deliberation and having the diversity 00:04:11.840 --> 00:04:17.060 of thought of having elected officials and having those members that are appointed to 00:04:17.060 --> 00:04:22.560 the planning and zoning commission with a differing perspective, being able to really 00:04:22.560 --> 00:04:28.760 just informally be able to discuss those issues and work through them. Didn't necessarily 00:04:28.760 --> 00:04:34.280 believe that it was best for this to be done through planning and zoning exclusively and 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 00:04:38.920 --> 00:04:44.880 bumpy where it is that we have three representatives that truly represent the planning and zoning 00:04:44.880 --> 00:04:50.240 commission, three representatives that represent council, really can help kind of carry those 00:04:50.240 --> 00:04:56.040 through each of those bodies. For those of you that are not familiar, any code change. 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 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 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 00:05:13.920 --> 00:05:19.920 and effort. I indicated that it would require us to start the meeting certainly earlier 00:05:19.920 --> 00:05:25.720 than we do currently and most likely would result in having additional planning and zoning 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 00:05:32.600 --> 00:05:37.360 of the volume of work that's coming through the planning and zoning commission. I did 00:05:37.360 --> 00:05:44.200 indicate that work sessions typically start at 5, sometimes 4, sometimes 3 and can carry 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 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 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 00:06:04.600 --> 00:06:10.200 little bit of discussion, I'd really like to get an understanding from the planning 00:06:10.200 --> 00:06:15.840 and zoning commission members, their thoughts. Understanding that council has made the decision 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 00:06:22.160 --> 00:06:29.240 and zoning commission members and three council members. 00:06:29.240 --> 00:06:35.440 Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Commissioner Ellis. Chair Pro Tem, 00:06:35.440 --> 00:06:40.560 however, whatever the right title is. That would be Vice Chair, Commissioner Beck. 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 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 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 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 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 00:07:18.080 --> 00:07:28.040 you just discussed. It seems like that's, you know, all part and parcel with this. 00:07:28.040 --> 00:07:33.680 Well, and again, as I had indicated, just knowing the time constraints that we ask of 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, 00:07:44.800 --> 00:07:52.000 when we were going through this, when we were meeting regularly after the code was adopted, 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 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 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 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 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 00:08:27.480 --> 00:08:31.160 it to the planning and zoning commission. Planning and zoning commission will have their 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 00:08:38.760 --> 00:08:44.080 of modifying. And then it goes to council and council may take that recommendation. They 00:08:44.080 --> 00:08:51.520 may change that recommendation or they may throw those recommendations out. And so really 00:08:51.520 --> 00:08:57.720 the purpose or the intent is really having three members from each so that we really 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 00:09:04.160 --> 00:09:10.320 potential changes. And when it goes to council, likewise, we minimize any potential changes. 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 00:09:16.560 --> 00:09:21.520 what they believe should go forward. It goes to council and council has a completely different 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 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 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 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, 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 00:09:54.960 --> 00:09:59.280 that council might not agree with the planning and zoning commission members initially. They 00:09:59.280 --> 00:10:05.920 may get there through the informal discussions and the deliberation. And then when it goes 00:10:05.920 --> 00:10:10.800 to council and those council members are supportive of what those changes are. And vice chair, 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 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 00:10:21.520 --> 00:10:28.080 and Z. Council has been able to bring forward things they've heard from their constituents 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 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 00:10:41.920 --> 00:10:55.120 perspective is ideal. Commission or Prunetta. And before Commissioner Beck, were you done 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 00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:06.160 going to just sort of follow on from those comments, which I really appreciate. I will 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 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, 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 00:11:29.120 --> 00:11:37.120 have that that joint committee. But I would encourage staff and Scott to at least poll 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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, 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 00:13:37.680 --> 00:13:42.800 and simplify so that we have really those representations from each of those constituent 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. 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 00:13:55.600 --> 00:14:00.800 really a matter of having a discussion that committee and having perspectives, multiple 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 00:15:12.800 --> 00:15:20.320 of suggestions. I'll start with a suggestion. You know, obviously, these are meetings, they are, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 00:16:16.640 --> 00:16:23.120 where votes would probably go in a different direction if, you know, if PNZ had voting 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, 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 00:16:40.240 --> 00:16:46.160 rare if anything would have come out of that committee that the planning and zoning commissioners 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 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 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 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. 00:17:14.240 --> 00:17:19.040 What was the other thing? I think those are mainly, those are mainly it. Just, 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, 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 00:17:30.000 --> 00:17:35.840 pay attention to that. That'd be great. Well, thank you, commissioner. And you reminded me 00:17:35.840 --> 00:17:41.520 of something that I wanted to mention and absolutely staff can provide. What we do is 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:18:28.160 --> 00:18:34.400 zoning commissioners and what we hear from council members. So we're not going into this 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 00:19:50.560 --> 00:19:58.240 zoning as a full body when that agenda is constructed. Correct, Scott? Richard? Absolutely 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:21:00.880 --> 00:21:07.200 were essentially figureheads. We had no power whatsoever. We were there to weigh in and give 00:21:07.200 --> 00:21:13.920 input. And to answer your question, Commissioner Pernetta, that yeah, the council did take on a 00:21:13.920 --> 00:21:19.040 number of occasions to take our recommendations, our anecdotal evidence on certain things we're 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 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 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, 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. 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 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 00:21:49.040 --> 00:21:52.000 happy to see it. So I won't belabor the point anymore, but thank you. 00:21:52.000 --> 00:22:00.560 Okay. Any further discussion questions for Scott? Commissioner Beck. 00:22:00.560 --> 00:22:05.440 Was Scott going to think, thank you, Vice Chair. Was Scott going to poll? 00:22:05.440 --> 00:22:09.440 Are we going to do that later or? Okay. 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 00:22:14.720 --> 00:22:20.160 we needed to work through. Okay. I just was sure if we were wrapping up. 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 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 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 00:22:43.760 --> 00:22:49.920 would be responsible for all of these items to work sessions through. So again, whatever those 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 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. 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 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. 00:23:13.440 --> 00:23:17.840 Well, right now I've got a commissioner Beck's hand raised. 00:23:17.840 --> 00:23:20.880 Okay. Yeah. 00:23:20.880 --> 00:23:23.360 Will that help? And I know. 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 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 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 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. 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 00:23:57.520 --> 00:24:02.240 which, which commissioners would be willing to take on a greater role is a different question 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, 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 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. 00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:30.240 I'm not going to volunteer the rest of my commissioners, but I completely volunteer myself 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 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, 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, 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 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, 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, 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 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. 00:25:26.080 --> 00:25:35.360 Sounds good. Is there any further discussion question for Scott or, uh, commissioner Pernetta? 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. 00:25:40.800 --> 00:25:45.200 You know, I understand commissioner Beck's concerns and everything, but, uh, for something like this, 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 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 00:25:55.600 --> 00:25:59.680 up having, you know, marathon meetings after a while. Um, my, my understanding is, you know, 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, 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, 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 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 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, 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, 00:26:34.640 --> 00:26:42.080 because basically the, these, you know, this committee is, is not, um, making any unilateral 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, 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, 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 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 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, 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 00:27:17.040 --> 00:27:21.760 and kind of piggyback something that, that, um, commissioner Pernita just, just sort of hinted on, 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 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 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. 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 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 00:27:49.200 --> 00:27:53.440 ultimately brought back. So again, if there's something, as you see that brain, it certainly 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, 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, 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. 00:28:07.120 --> 00:28:14.400 Just wanted to, to just remind everyone of that. Perfect. Okay. Any further discussion questions 00:28:14.400 --> 00:28:23.360 for Scott? If I might vice chair, one, one verification, if, and to paraphrase commissioner 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 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 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 00:28:47.280 --> 00:28:54.000 committee. Uh, I just, uh, with, with all the clarification about the, the, the feedback and, 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. 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. 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 00:29:11.520 --> 00:29:17.360 wasn't necessarily accurate. So no, absolutely fine. And, um, certainly I encourage, um, 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, 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. 00:29:27.040 --> 00:29:31.360 Thank you for your time today. Thank you as well, Scott. Good to hear your voice. 00:29:33.280 --> 00:29:36.960 Good to be heard. You all have a great evening. All right. Thanks. Thank you. 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 00:29:45.040 --> 00:29:53.600 agenda items. Uh, first on our agenda would be the minutes. Uh, any discussion questions regarding 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. 00:30:03.600 --> 00:30:07.520 Anybody need those brought forward? Any questions, comments? 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, 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 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 00:30:29.360 --> 00:30:35.120 being recommended for approval. This caption just got carried over from, from the last meeting. So 00:30:35.120 --> 00:30:40.080 all of the backup in the staff report are recommending approval. So the, the, the official 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. 00:30:45.280 --> 00:30:53.520 So just wanted to point that out. Understood. Okay. We'll move to items for individual 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. 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. 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. 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 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, 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. 00:31:40.400 --> 00:31:44.320 So staff is recommending denial and I'll be happy to answer any questions. 00:31:45.680 --> 00:31:55.120 Um, looks like, uh, commissioner Beck. Thank you guys. Sure. Um, yeah, Julie, uh, no, I, 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 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, 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. 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, 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 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? 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, 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 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, 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, 00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:05.600 but on a hypothetical, if, and I probably shouldn't float hypotheticals to the committee, 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, 00:33:13.360 --> 00:33:20.480 we would still be required to go through the same, uh, staff recommending denial, right? 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, 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, 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, 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 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 00:33:49.920 --> 00:33:55.600 something we could, um, we could address prior to the planning and zoning commission. Okay, cool. 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, 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, 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. 00:34:10.160 --> 00:34:17.520 Thank you. You bet. Uh, any further questions for Julie on this one? 00:34:17.520 --> 00:34:22.000 Okay. Seeing none. Thank you, Julie. Appreciate it. 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. 00:34:52.640 --> 00:34:57.040 All right. Good evening. Let me get the plat pulled up. 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, 00:35:16.240 --> 00:35:20.880 this again may look familiar to you all as we considered a, uh, preliminary plat extension 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, 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 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 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, 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? 00:35:51.600 --> 00:35:56.480 I don't see any Haley. Okay. Thank you. 00:35:56.480 --> 00:36:07.360 All right. That moves us to, um, public hearings. So five a is being postponed, um, 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, 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? 00:36:23.840 --> 00:36:32.400 Okay. Uh, then our next one, five B that Z 20 0014 B 00:36:34.560 --> 00:36:38.560 that is back to Haley. 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 00:36:52.960 --> 00:36:59.600 2014 for Gisling road industrial. The request before you this evening is, uh, concerning the 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. 00:37:05.440 --> 00:37:09.920 They are seeking a rezoning from residential six or our six districts to light industrial. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 00:37:58.880 --> 00:38:04.000 The same developer is looking to develop both of these pieces. This larger portion would be 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 00:38:09.120 --> 00:38:14.640 some additional parking for their employees and fleet vehicles. So just wanted you to have that 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 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 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, 00:38:30.880 --> 00:38:36.000 including PF, uh, mixed use neighborhood, light industrial, and then several areas that are still, 00:38:36.000 --> 00:38:41.440 uh, have that rural residential, uh, kind of placeholder zoning from recent annexations. Um, 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 00:39:28.240 --> 00:39:33.680 the proposed light industrial is not consistent with that res, uh, moderate residential designation, 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 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 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 00:39:46.240 --> 00:39:50.720 way. Um, so light industrial would be consistent with business innovation in terms of the permitted 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. 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 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, 00:40:07.840 --> 00:40:11.200 you've seen a lot of our recent cases have comp plan amendments run concurrently with 00:40:11.200 --> 00:40:16.720 zonings when we have this, uh, situation where there's not a good fit. Um, however, 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 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 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 00:40:30.160 --> 00:40:34.960 the applicant to submit that, that single parcel for consideration, um, because we're already 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, 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 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 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 00:40:54.400 --> 00:40:59.520 safety clean and, and some other manufacturing facilities, uh, north of there. We have, uh, a 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, 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 00:41:10.320 --> 00:41:14.800 four electric substations developed here on Geesling. There's an existing manufacturing 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 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 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 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 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, 00:41:37.280 --> 00:41:42.960 those are just, those are separate, like one acre parcels or is that correct? Correct. Undeveloped 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 00:41:47.760 --> 00:41:56.080 acres for development. Um, okay. I believe there's another question. Yes. Commissioner Beck. Yes. 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 00:42:02.880 --> 00:42:10.640 untenable? Like for those, what is it for? My eyes are gone. Terrible. Five parcels. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 00:42:58.560 --> 00:43:04.240 those individual property owners in the future when, when they seek to develop. Um, but yes, 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 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. 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 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. 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, 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 00:43:35.920 --> 00:43:39.920 that have been created over time with piecemeal annexation. Um, and then there's some other 00:43:39.920 --> 00:43:45.040 factors as well. Um, the, the moderate density residential designation within our comp plan has 00:43:45.040 --> 00:43:50.240 several goals associated with, uh, development in that area. And, you know, it really lends itself 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 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 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 00:44:04.480 --> 00:44:08.800 connectable to other existing neighborhoods. We wouldn't really have that here if residential 00:44:08.800 --> 00:44:12.720 developed here, it would kind of be out on its own, not connected to other neighborhoods. 00:44:12.720 --> 00:44:17.040 And then similarly, um, the comp plan calls for those moderate density developments to be 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 00:44:54.560 --> 00:44:58.640 expanded by text out in the future. They're under underway with that feasibility study. 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 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 00:45:08.240 --> 00:45:13.600 the existing Geesling corridor. Um, so that is another factor here to consider that this 00:45:13.600 --> 00:45:18.320 arterial will be shifting this way. Geesling in the future will be developed, um, as potentially 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 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, 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 00:45:34.640 --> 00:45:39.280 comp plan. It does provide for these instances where, um, rezoning requests don't meet the 00:45:39.280 --> 00:45:43.360 future land use map that, that they can be recommended for approval if they meet other 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:46:12.960 --> 00:46:18.800 employment, um, and expanding that area of business innovation to make more land area available for 00:46:18.800 --> 00:46:23.360 that. Um, this could also help reduce some of those conflicts we see with moderate density 00:46:23.360 --> 00:46:27.840 residential not being suitable in this area because of the, the existing development pattern, 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 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 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 00:46:41.360 --> 00:46:45.760 reduce some of these conflicts between the existing development pattern and our future land use map. 00:46:45.760 --> 00:46:52.880 The next criteria is whether the rezoning would be consistent with the purpose statement for the, 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 00:46:57.920 --> 00:47:02.880 goals, um, in place, such as providing, um, employment uses, light manufacturing, warehousing, 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 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 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 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 00:47:22.480 --> 00:47:27.440 the area that already includes several industrial type uses. Um, and it would also be appropriate 00:47:27.440 --> 00:47:32.000 given the high accessibility with highway 380 and Geesling road being that future arterial. 00:47:32.000 --> 00:47:38.000 The next criteria is whether there've been significant changes that would warrant the 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, 00:47:42.320 --> 00:47:46.800 that's kind of been a piecemeal annexation throughout, um, the last few decades here. 00:47:46.800 --> 00:47:51.520 So the subject property and that parent tract were, were originally annexed back in the 70s. 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 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 00:48:02.240 --> 00:48:06.400 here those, uh, some of these transmission lines that are crossing the property. There's 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 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, 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 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, 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 00:48:35.840 --> 00:48:40.160 said this at the beginning and maybe I'm just misremembering that the, the warehouse distribution 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, 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 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, 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 00:49:05.120 --> 00:49:10.160 Giesling here in this property, these two parcels actually. Um, and then this would be accessory 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, 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 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 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 00:49:32.000 --> 00:49:36.640 creates that non-conforming situation where we will likely see some rezonings in the future as 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 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 00:49:48.080 --> 00:49:53.600 plan component, uh, this arterial roadway alignment would be shifting here to Giesling road. Um, I 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 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 00:50:03.360 --> 00:50:08.000 this area. So this existing intersection was viewed more favorably as an intersection that 00:50:08.000 --> 00:50:14.000 could be expanded in the future, um, signalized so that that arterial roadway, um, wouldn't 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 00:50:22.240 --> 00:50:27.280 minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties. Um, so the LI district is generally consistent 00:50:27.280 --> 00:50:31.600 with the development pattern of the area. Again, with those, those large electric facilities here, 00:50:31.600 --> 00:50:36.720 other manufacturing and industrial uses, um, it wouldn't be out of character for those uses. 00:50:36.720 --> 00:50:42.880 And then further, the Denton development code would ensure that anything developed, uh, where 00:50:42.880 --> 00:50:48.240 we have industrial adjacent to residential would have, um, compatibility buffers in place, uh, 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 00:50:53.120 --> 00:50:57.360 make this more sensitive in terms of the transition here from industrial to residential, 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 00:51:02.960 --> 00:51:06.400 and it would ensure that the context of the development would be sensitive to the area. 00:51:06.400 --> 00:51:14.640 And then finally looking at the availability of public facilities and services, uh, with respect 00:51:14.640 --> 00:51:20.240 to transportation, um, for the industrial or for the warehouse distribution center on the opposite 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, 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 00:51:29.440 --> 00:51:34.400 140,000 square foot warehouse facility, they would expect just under a thousand total daily trips. 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 00:51:42.160 --> 00:51:46.800 improvements that they would be responsible for with this development. Um, Gisling road, 00:51:46.800 --> 00:51:50.400 they are planning, uh, for the right of way dedication and development of that primary 00:51:50.400 --> 00:51:54.480 arterial along their frontage. And then, as I mentioned, they are working with text dot 00:51:54.480 --> 00:51:59.040 right now to ensure that this would meet, uh, the traffic warrants to signalize this intersection. 00:51:59.040 --> 00:52:03.520 I believe there's a question. Commissioner Beck. 00:52:03.520 --> 00:52:10.560 Yes. Thank you, vice chair. So, um, your statement about the improvements that would be warranted, 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, 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, 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, 00:52:30.320 --> 00:52:37.040 I mean, so they're, these developers would be responsible for the Gisling updates or 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 00:52:42.560 --> 00:52:46.640 Gisling is a perimeter street, this developer would be responsible for those perimeter street 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 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 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 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, 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 00:53:12.080 --> 00:53:15.840 if they could go ahead and fully improve this intersection, uh, with their participation. 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 00:53:20.960 --> 00:53:25.280 is a little unknown, but they would make those improvements along the frontage of their property. 00:53:25.280 --> 00:53:28.880 Um, and then this would be coordinated with tech stop for that signalization here. 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 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 00:53:39.200 --> 00:53:44.480 their frontage for that, um, arterial width. And then, you know, as, as properties develop or 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, 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 00:53:54.160 --> 00:53:58.320 would go through that right of way acquisition process for any remaining pieces that are needed. 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 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, 00:54:13.280 --> 00:54:17.360 um, there, there have been some very recent improvements with the, uh, the dash lines on 00:54:17.360 --> 00:54:22.320 this map indicate recent, uh, constructions of water and sewer lines. Again, the red lines being 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 00:54:26.880 --> 00:54:31.600 will be extending those facilities, uh, through the site and along their frontage. And then with 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 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 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 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 00:54:50.240 --> 00:54:56.880 can be extended for this development. And then finally, uh, notifications, uh, worsen out for 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 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. 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 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. 00:55:20.240 --> 00:55:24.160 Any questions for Haley? Commissioner Beck. 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 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 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 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 00:55:50.160 --> 00:55:58.800 for 30% canopy retention since that parcel is highly, uh, wooded? Certainly. So they have, um, 00:55:58.800 --> 00:56:03.280 with their concept plan, we'd have seen a preliminary tree preservation plan that 00:56:03.280 --> 00:56:09.440 indicates they would be able to meet that 30% preservation requirement. Um, and yeah, and that 00:56:09.440 --> 00:56:13.680 would also help enhance those buffers that will be required for the industrial zoning next to 00:56:13.680 --> 00:56:18.240 residential. So there'll be a fair amount of existing canopy preserved, most likely on the 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. 00:56:22.560 --> 00:56:26.000 Anyone else? 00:56:26.000 --> 00:56:30.960 I don't see anything else, Haley. Thank you very much. 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. 00:56:43.840 --> 00:56:48.160 We will reconvene at 6.30 for our regular meeting. Thanks everyone. 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 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. 00:57:10.000 --> 00:57:15.360 First item on our agenda is Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. 00:57:15.360 --> 00:57:18.160 Commissioners, you are welcome to unmute and 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 00:57:27.280 --> 00:57:35.520 and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty 00:57:35.520 --> 00:57:44.960 and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, 00:57:44.960 --> 00:57:48.800 one state, under God, one and indivisible. 00:57:48.800 --> 00:57:59.520 Thank you. Next on our agenda is consider, uh, Planning and Zoning Minutes for March 3rd, 00:57:59.520 --> 00:58:06.400 2021. Chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Beck? I move approval of the minutes. 00:58:06.400 --> 00:58:10.640 Commissioner Anderson? Second. 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? 00:58:17.200 --> 00:58:23.920 I see none. So we will take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck? 00:58:24.800 --> 00:58:30.160 Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. 00:58:30.160 --> 00:58:32.800 Commissioner Pronetta? Aye. 00:58:32.800 --> 00:58:39.040 And the chair is also an aye. That motion carries 5-0. 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, 00:58:52.480 --> 00:58:59.200 Andrew Rosell, is not present at the meeting, nor Commissioner Jason Cole. And with that, 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. 00:59:07.200 --> 00:59:10.800 Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. 00:59:10.800 --> 00:59:14.960 Commissioner Anderson? Second the motion. 00:59:14.960 --> 00:59:19.360 Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of consent agenda. 00:59:21.040 --> 00:59:24.880 Richard, did you have? I just wanted to clarify that the second item, 00:59:24.880 --> 00:59:29.920 item B, while it does state denial, it is a recommendation of approval in accordance with 00:59:29.920 --> 00:59:34.880 the staff analysis and AIS. And that was just a typo on our agenda? 00:59:34.880 --> 00:59:37.120 Correct. As it carried forward from the last meeting. 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 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. 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 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 01:00:02.720 --> 01:00:07.360 separate motion. I think just that clarification. I think everyone clearly knows what they're voting 01:00:07.360 --> 01:00:09.920 on, which is approval of both items. Okay. Thank you. 01:00:10.960 --> 01:00:17.680 Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Smith, House AU? Aye. 01:00:17.680 --> 01:00:19.520 Commissioner Anderson? Aye. 01:00:19.520 --> 01:00:22.720 Commissioner Beck? Aye. 01:00:22.720 --> 01:00:24.400 Commissioner Pruneto? Aye. 01:00:24.400 --> 01:00:32.000 And the chair is also an aye. That consent agenda carries five, zero. 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 01:00:43.600 --> 01:00:49.120 present. Good evening, commissioners. Let me go ahead and just share my screen really quickly. 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 01:01:05.440 --> 01:01:13.680 approved late last year. They are moving forward with the final plot. Staff is recommending denial. 01:01:13.680 --> 01:01:18.080 An extension for the final plot was approved at the last planning and zoning commission. However, 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 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? 01:01:30.640 --> 01:01:37.920 Okay. With that, I will entertain a motion if there is one. Commissioner Beck? 01:01:37.920 --> 01:01:43.760 Yes. I recommend denial as for the reasons issued by staff. 01:01:43.760 --> 01:01:47.920 So you're motioning to deny? Yeah. Motioning to deny for the 01:01:47.920 --> 01:01:50.720 reasons indicated by staff. Okay. Thank you, commissioner Beck. 01:01:50.720 --> 01:01:53.200 Do we have a second? Commissioner Smith? Second. 01:01:53.200 --> 01:01:57.360 Okay. Any discussion? We've got a first and a second for denial. 01:01:57.360 --> 01:02:03.600 Okay. With that, we will take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck? 01:02:03.600 --> 01:02:07.040 Aye. Commissioner Smith? 01:02:07.040 --> 01:02:08.960 Aye. Commissioner Prunetta? 01:02:08.960 --> 01:02:12.560 Aye. Commissioner Anderson? 01:02:12.560 --> 01:02:19.040 Aye. Chair, is also an aye. That denial carries five zero. 01:02:21.280 --> 01:02:29.840 Next item is 4B, FP21-0004, being presented by Haley Zygursky. 01:02:29.840 --> 01:02:39.840 Good evening. Let me get the screen shared. 01:02:50.080 --> 01:02:56.640 All right. Good evening. This is Final Plot FP21-0004. This is the Residences at 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 01:03:02.240 --> 01:03:06.720 Friday, the applicant has been able to resolve all of the outstanding comments. So the staff 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 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? 01:03:20.400 --> 01:03:30.000 Seeing none, I can open the floor for a motion. Commissioner Prunetta? 01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:33.520 Motion to approve. Commissioner Anderson? 01:03:33.520 --> 01:03:40.160 Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? 01:03:42.160 --> 01:03:46.160 Okay. With that, I'll take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Prunetta? 01:03:46.160 --> 01:03:48.160 Aye. Commissioner Anderson? 01:03:48.160 --> 01:03:50.640 Aye. Commissioner Beck? 01:03:50.640 --> 01:03:54.000 Aye. Commissioner Smith? 01:03:54.000 --> 01:04:00.640 Aye. Chair, is also an aye. That motion carries five zero. Thank you, Haley. 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, 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 01:04:23.200 --> 01:04:27.840 for that item and entertain a motion for postponement. Commissioner Smith? 01:04:27.840 --> 01:04:31.120 Make a motion to postpone to date certain of April 7th. 01:04:31.920 --> 01:04:34.400 Thank you. Commissioner Beck? Second. 01:04:34.400 --> 01:04:40.480 Okay. First and a second to postpone to a date certain of April 7th. Any discussion? 01:04:40.480 --> 01:04:47.920 Okay. Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? 01:04:47.920 --> 01:04:49.520 Aye. Commissioner Beck? 01:04:49.520 --> 01:04:52.720 Aye. Commissioner Prunetta? 01:04:52.720 --> 01:04:55.120 Aye. Commissioner Anderson? 01:04:55.120 --> 01:05:00.080 Aye. Chair, is also an aye. Motion carries five zero. 01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:13.120 Next item is 5B Z20-0014B. I will open the public hearing and call Haley 01:05:13.120 --> 01:05:15.360 Zegerski up for presentation of this item. 01:05:15.360 --> 01:05:30.320 All right. Good evening. This is case Z2014, Gisling Road Industrial. 01:05:32.160 --> 01:05:36.640 The request before you this evening is a rezoning from residential six or our six 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 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 01:05:49.200 --> 01:05:56.160 this larger 86 acre area was preliminary plotted for single family residential development in 2019. 01:05:56.160 --> 01:06:01.440 However, that plot never progressed into the engineering and final platting stages 01:06:01.440 --> 01:06:07.680 and is considered null and void as this rezoning request would substantially change the future 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 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 01:06:18.320 --> 01:06:23.840 with a warehouse distribution center type use. That property already has a light industrial zoning 01:06:23.840 --> 01:06:29.920 and the subject property would serve as an accessory to that and would provide additional 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 01:06:35.120 --> 01:06:40.000 use, the primary use of warehouse distribution would be permitted since that parking would be 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 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 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 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 01:07:01.520 --> 01:07:08.400 with this rezoning to light industrial. The general criteria were discussed at length in 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 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 01:07:20.080 --> 01:07:24.000 is consistency with our comprehensive plan. The first thing that we look at there is typically 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 01:07:29.120 --> 01:07:33.440 designated for moderate density residential development. However, you can see here with 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 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 01:07:45.600 --> 01:07:50.320 consistent with moderate density residential as it stands. However, it is consistent with that 01:07:50.320 --> 01:07:54.800 business innovation, and given this transitional area, we felt that that merited some further 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 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 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 01:08:12.160 --> 01:08:16.960 it merits further analysis in the future. Since we've already kicked off that comprehensive plan 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:08:48.960 --> 01:08:55.120 zoned RR and are within that moderate density residential area. Similarly, we have very intensive 01:08:55.120 --> 01:09:00.320 development of electric substations here that's not consistent with the moderate density residential 01:09:00.320 --> 01:09:05.600 designation, and so it appears in 2015 when this was adopted that some of these things 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 01:09:09.360 --> 01:09:14.480 we can can clean this up in the future and hopefully facilitate some redevelopment or new 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 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 01:09:25.920 --> 01:09:30.800 description in the comprehensive plan, it calls for this moderate density residential development 01:09:30.800 --> 01:09:36.640 to occur in areas where it creates extensions of existing neighborhoods, where it would be compatible 01:09:36.640 --> 01:09:41.360 with, you know, neighborhood services and schools and things of that nature and create a dense 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 01:09:46.320 --> 01:09:52.160 already an industrial development pattern, that would not be likely. It's unlikely that we 01:09:52.160 --> 01:09:56.720 would see any of these existing industrial type uses redeveloping with those neighborhood services 01:09:56.720 --> 01:10:02.160 or other residential uses to create that connectivity, so this area in general might 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 01:10:07.840 --> 01:10:11.760 the existing kind of well-established large lot neighborhoods that we have further east, 01:10:11.760 --> 01:10:16.000 but there's probably a better way to transition this area, a more logical way. 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 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 01:10:28.400 --> 01:10:32.960 residential area that is consistent with the business innovation where you want that high 01:10:32.960 --> 01:10:36.880 connectivity and accessibility to those large tracks, but that's not something that we would 01:10:36.880 --> 01:10:42.240 typically encourage moderate density residential around. So just another piece of the puzzle here 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 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 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 01:10:57.840 --> 01:11:02.080 how zoning should be consistent with it. And it does provide guidance on instances where 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. 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 01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:17.280 economic development components of the code. It really it calls for those areas of business 01:11:17.280 --> 01:11:22.960 innovation and employment uses with light industrial uses mixed in to be on these corridors 01:11:22.960 --> 01:11:27.840 with high accessibility. It also encourages areas where there's sufficient not only access, 01:11:27.840 --> 01:11:31.440 but also buffering. And those are things that you could provide for on this property. 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 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 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 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 01:11:50.880 --> 01:11:58.240 use map. The next criteria is consistency with the purpose statement for the zoning district. 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 01:12:02.160 --> 01:12:06.720 those employment areas with light manufacturing and warehouse type activities. It's intended for 01:12:06.720 --> 01:12:11.760 areas where we have adequate access and transportation options. But it's also called 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 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 01:12:21.920 --> 01:12:25.680 industrial pattern already in the area. So it would continue that and be consistent with the 01:12:25.680 --> 01:12:32.560 character of the area. There is that arterial roadway with with Gisling Road that will provide 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 01:12:38.400 --> 01:12:43.520 also with the the Denton Development Code requirements, it would be able to provide that 01:12:43.520 --> 01:12:48.480 sensitive sensitivity to the residential zonings that are adjacent to it. 01:12:48.480 --> 01:12:54.640 The next criteria is whether there have been any significant changes in the area that could 01:12:54.640 --> 01:12:58.400 warrant the zoning change. So looking at a little bit of the history of the area, 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 01:13:03.440 --> 01:13:09.440 zoning since 2002. Prior to that, it was agricultural. There are some significant 01:13:09.440 --> 01:13:14.240 encumbrances on the property that I suspect led to that that previous preliminary plat not being 01:13:14.240 --> 01:13:19.280 developed. There is an approximately 70 foot wide electrical transmission line that crosses the 01:13:19.280 --> 01:13:22.720 the parent tract. There's also a natural gas pipeline that you can see faintly 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 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 01:13:33.120 --> 01:13:38.880 residential zoning. Other properties in the area, primarily those you see with the RR zoning, 01:13:38.880 --> 01:13:44.400 have been more recent annexations from 2013 to 2016. For example, this manufacturing facility 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, 01:13:50.080 --> 01:13:54.160 it received that placeholder, so it's actually non-conforming to the rural residential zoning. 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 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 01:14:03.120 --> 01:14:08.960 probably see those as rezoning requests. So we really need to consider that potential redevelopment 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 01:14:14.560 --> 01:14:20.800 to earlier, there is this primary arterial designation that's currently shown to the east 01:14:20.800 --> 01:14:26.320 on the parent tract of this property. Through discussions with the owners of this tract and 01:14:26.320 --> 01:14:30.320 other developments that have been proposed there, as well as through conversations with TxDOT about 01:14:30.320 --> 01:14:35.920 the upgrades and expansion of the Highway 380 corridor, it's been identified that this alignment 01:14:35.920 --> 01:14:41.200 is not ideal. Really, this primary arterial would be best served shifting to the current 01:14:41.200 --> 01:14:45.840 Geesling Road corridor, which is currently a collector. So our future mobility plan reflects 01:14:45.840 --> 01:14:50.080 that change. That is something that TxDOT has indicated would be more desirable for this 01:14:50.080 --> 01:14:55.360 intersection to be upgraded, rather than creating a new intersection here, where they're planning 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 01:15:00.320 --> 01:15:05.760 in this area. So through that coordination, this alignment will be shifting, and that 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 01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:20.400 ideal zoning along that arterial corridor. And then the next criteria is whether there's ways 01:15:20.400 --> 01:15:25.520 to minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties. So some things to look at there, again, 01:15:25.520 --> 01:15:30.880 the development pattern on most adjacencies of this property lend itself to being compatible. 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 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 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, 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. 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, 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 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 01:16:07.760 --> 01:16:11.680 for right-of-way screening, buffering, as well as height transitions and things like that, 01:16:11.680 --> 01:16:15.760 would ensure that anything developed in the LI district on this property would be contextually 01:16:15.760 --> 01:16:20.960 sensitive to those surrounding residential zonings that would remain on the parent tract. 01:16:20.960 --> 01:16:27.840 And then finally looking at whether there are adequate public facilities to serve the site. 01:16:27.840 --> 01:16:32.240 With respect to transportation, we've already discussed this corridor, this primary arterial 01:16:32.240 --> 01:16:36.560 shifting here. So there will be some significant enhancements to the Geesling Road corridor over 01:16:36.560 --> 01:16:42.400 time. The applicant, as part of their application for the distribution warehouse facility on the 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 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 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 01:16:58.320 --> 01:17:03.120 favorable. That would ultimately be a six-lane configuration most likely through this area, 01:17:03.120 --> 01:17:07.440 so they would make those improvements along their property frontages. And then they're also 01:17:07.440 --> 01:17:11.440 coordinating with TxDOT to signalize this intersection. They're currently going through 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 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 01:17:20.160 --> 01:17:27.360 signal there, providing much better accessibility to these properties along Geesling. And then with 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 01:17:32.560 --> 01:17:36.560 utility improvements. They were put in place as part of this storage facility that recently 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:18:05.280 --> 01:18:12.880 sure that we have full connectivity through this area. Notifications were posted through all of our 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 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 01:18:23.120 --> 01:18:30.160 notifications. And finally, staff is recommending approval of the request from an R6 to line 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, 01:18:35.360 --> 01:18:38.800 and the applicant is also on the line and has a brief presentation as well. 01:18:38.800 --> 01:18:44.720 Thank you, Haley. Any questions at this time for Haley? 01:18:44.720 --> 01:18:51.360 Okay, I don't see any, so I will--oh, Commissioner Anderson. 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 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 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 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 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 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? 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 01:19:36.720 --> 01:19:40.400 this lot would primarily be for those fleet vehicles, so it would really--you know, it 01:19:40.400 --> 01:19:43.520 wouldn't be employees going to their personal vehicles over there, but there would necessarily 01:19:43.520 --> 01:19:50.240 be some pedestrian traffic, and they are planning for some improved pedestrian crossways across that 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 01:19:54.960 --> 01:20:00.400 transportation engineers and our staff to make sure that that would be a protected crossing for 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 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 01:20:10.160 --> 01:20:12.720 to make that a safe crossing. Okay, thanks. 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 01:20:21.520 --> 01:20:29.280 if they are there. Good evening, commissioners. This is Amy Bissett. Can you hear me? Yes, 01:20:29.280 --> 01:20:36.960 Amy, we can. Stay your name and address. Well, you know the drill. Thank you. 01:20:36.960 --> 01:20:45.680 Amy Bissett, 100 West Oak Street, Denton, Texas, 76201. I appreciate being here tonight, 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 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 01:21:37.440 --> 01:21:44.640 light industrial zoning. The overall development includes roughly 36 acres and 144,000 square foot 01:21:44.640 --> 01:21:51.600 distribution center and warehouse, and this particular site is intended to address tandem 01:21:51.600 --> 01:21:57.760 parking for employees and fleet vehicles. Haley, if you'll go to the next slide, please. 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 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 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 01:22:24.320 --> 01:22:31.280 essentially an extension of that for additional parking. Haley, will you go to slide four, 01:22:31.280 --> 01:22:37.200 please? We did do a full traffic impact analysis, as Haley mentioned, and I just 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 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 01:22:47.680 --> 01:22:55.120 of your screen, identified as area number 13. This active construction project includes 01:22:55.120 --> 01:23:00.960 adding an eastbound right turn lane at Gisling and a westbound left turn lane at Gisling. 01:23:01.520 --> 01:23:06.640 Some of those improvements are already underway today. We do have a full TIA 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 01:23:11.600 --> 01:23:17.120 requirements. The analysis does show that this intersection will have adequate capacity for 01:23:17.120 --> 01:23:26.720 the trip generation estimates that we have put together. Haley, will you go to slide five, 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 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 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 01:23:44.640 --> 01:23:53.120 being rezoned, we're working to acquire or we've included some additional acquisition of land 01:23:53.120 --> 01:23:58.880 specifically for tree preservation. As Commissioner Beck mentioned, this is a heavily treed site, so 01:23:58.880 --> 01:24:06.320 we have picked up some additional properties specifically to address tree preservation. 01:24:06.320 --> 01:24:14.880 The developer is also proposing electric charging stations for the fleet. Of course, 01:24:14.880 --> 01:24:19.280 as Haley mentioned, we'll have landscape compatibility buffers to the areas that are 01:24:19.280 --> 01:24:29.360 zoned residential today. To address Commissioner Anderson's question about the crossing of 01:24:29.360 --> 01:24:36.640 Gisling in terms of pedestrian crossing, what we anticipate for this area is that this is 01:24:36.640 --> 01:24:46.320 seasonal overflow parking for certain times where there may be additional drivers and an 01:24:46.320 --> 01:24:55.680 additional fleet needed. It's likely that employees or associates will park on the site, 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 01:25:02.800 --> 01:25:10.960 mean that everybody that is coming to work is crossing Gisling Road. However, our engineers 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 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 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 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. 01:25:41.520 --> 01:25:48.240 Thank you, Amy. Let's see if there are any questions on the applicant's presentation. 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 01:25:58.160 --> 01:26:04.560 and at this meeting. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. 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 01:26:11.200 --> 01:26:21.840 of my ignorance. Would a specially protected crosswalk like say a hawk or something like that 01:26:21.840 --> 01:26:32.480 be required for the anticipated development of Gisling? It's certainly something that could be 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 01:26:37.680 --> 01:26:44.240 could be taken into consideration and possibly as a recommendation with the engineering design for 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 01:26:50.640 --> 01:26:59.120 specificity has been discussed yet. Thank you. In general, would that be the responsibility of 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, 01:27:06.160 --> 01:27:12.720 what's the responsibility elements of something like, let's just say hypothetically, they put in 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 01:27:19.520 --> 01:27:24.720 properties, that would be something that would be that the applicant could propose and the city 01:27:26.320 --> 01:27:29.360 may participate. It's unlikely, it would most likely be the developer that would do that. 01:27:29.360 --> 01:27:34.240 If we're looking at the intersection of 380 and Gisling, then that would be within 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 01:27:38.560 --> 01:27:43.680 something that they would partner with the city on at that intersection. Okay, that clarifies. 01:27:43.680 --> 01:27:49.040 Thank you so much. Any other questions? Well, Haley's here. 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. 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. 01:28:04.240 --> 01:28:07.680 Motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. 01:28:07.680 --> 01:28:11.280 Commissioner Anderson. Second. 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? 01:28:20.720 --> 01:28:24.480 Seeing none, we will take a vote by a roll call. Commissioner Smith. 01:28:24.480 --> 01:28:26.960 Aye. Commissioner Anderson. 01:28:26.960 --> 01:28:31.280 Aye. Commissioner Prunetta. 01:28:31.280 --> 01:28:34.000 Aye. Commissioner Beck. 01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:40.400 Aye. Here is also an aye. That motion carries 5-0. 01:28:40.400 --> 01:28:50.000 That takes us to our planning and zoning commission matrix. And with that, I'll turn 01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:56.000 that to Richard. Good evening. Just wanted to provide a quick update on some council items, 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 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 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 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 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. 01:29:40.240 --> 01:29:44.560 We had that item on the small area plan specifically to discuss for this area. So 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. 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 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 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 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 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 01:30:29.840 --> 01:30:34.640 get into that small area plan discussion just overall, but then again, specifically for this 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 01:30:42.320 --> 01:30:47.280 answer any additional questions. Commissioner Smith. 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 01:30:55.200 --> 01:31:00.720 or last night. What was the reason for the Hirschbach, why there was a unanimous denial 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 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 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 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? 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, 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, 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 01:31:46.800 --> 01:31:54.800 of discussion about what business innovation should be or is. Interestingly enough, you know, 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 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 01:32:07.600 --> 01:32:12.880 office to research and development, whatever that means, and then, you know, light manufacturing. 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 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 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 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 01:32:39.360 --> 01:32:46.720 median cut, a wider median cut, certainly there was, you know, greater than 20% opposition. So 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 01:32:54.000 --> 01:33:00.960 in opposition. They had an attorney represent them as part of that opposition, different than 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 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, 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 01:33:19.680 --> 01:33:25.280 should we focus more of that industrial type development and really what is industrial, 01:33:25.280 --> 01:33:31.440 even how do we define that? Should that be located west of 35? Interesting enough, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:34:34.160 --> 01:34:40.080 and then ultimately even DCRC and then back to this body and council, some interesting debates 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 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. 01:34:53.280 --> 01:34:58.960 Thank you. Anything, commissioner Beck. 01:34:58.960 --> 01:35:05.120 Thank you, vice chair. Richard, we alluded to this at the beginning of the meeting, 01:35:06.320 --> 01:35:10.960 but commissioner Smith and I were very interested in the, the notification 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. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 01:36:04.880 --> 01:36:10.320 that DCRC discussion. And then again, brought back to this commission and then ultimately council. 01:36:10.320 --> 01:36:20.560 Okay. Thank you. Anything else added to the matrix? I do not see that anything, 01:36:20.560 --> 01:36:27.120 anything for concluding items, commissioner Beck. Thank you vice chair. I just wanted to take a 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, 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 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, 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, 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 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 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. 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 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. 01:37:25.520 --> 01:37:30.960 I will close our meeting at 7 11 PM. Thank you.