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