May 05, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-05-05 5:00 PM

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session for Wednesday, May 5, seeing that we have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 5.05. The first item of our agenda is citizen comment on the consent agenda items. We actually have two, and so I just want to for the record note that agenda item 3AFP21-009B, there is one against. And for item 3BPP21-0002B, there is one against these comments were also emailed to the commissioners and are going to be included in the meeting record. With that, we can hop into the work session reports for this afternoon. And I believe we just have the one over the city's extra territorial jurisdiction. And Richard Canone is going to present, I do believe. Richard, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. And you are muted, Richard. Nope, still. Richard, you're still muted, someone in the back, unmute him. I think it's actually on the Zoom, the actual dashboard. There we go. I think I'm there, okay. You made it. Sorry, I don't know what's going on with this tonight. Quite a bit of slides here. Some of this stuff I'm going to kind of breeze over pretty quickly. This was a presentation that was done obviously January 26th with City Council. They had provided some direction for staff kind of working through some of the issues that we have mostly with our interlocal agreement, but just as just also how we deal with our ETJ, how we have requested times to swap areas of our ETJ with adjacent municipalities. And so this really was kind of that bringing it all together, getting some policy direction from council, and we'll be bringing a right now we're anticipating bringing back sort of the findings and kind of the draft agreement on I think it's May 25th is what we're looking at now. For me, again, just kind of the overview of what this presentation will entail. Regulatory framework, the regulatory documents, some of this stuff I think almost all of you are familiar with it at this point, so I probably won't spend any time with that. Development application types, purpose of ETJ, the authority, kind of the legislative history interlocal, legislative changes at the state, and then some of our current challenges, and then that policy direction that we were requesting from council. And so first again, this is sort of that regulatory framework that we have, obviously City of Denton Comprehensive Plan Development Code, also Code of Ordinances, there's the Lake Ray Roberts zoning that we deal with in certain parts of the ETJ, we have an existing interlocal agreement with Denton County, and then the variety of local government code sections as well as the Texas Agricultural Code. Again, our regulatory documents, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, I think most everyone kind of understands it, kind of that comprehensive plan, I kind of look at it as the base, and then everything kind of grows from there. The DDC needs to be consistent with, and then we have our subdivision regulations again, which are part of that DDC, and then obviously the building codes follow suit. Some of the major development application types that we look at, again, for platting variances site plan, kind of what's in the city, what's in the ETJ, so really it just has to do with platting, and that authority is granted obviously to Planning and Zoning Commission. And this is kind of that non-typical, or I'm sorry, the typical non-ETJ process, preliminary plat engineering plans for those public improvements, final plat construction agreements, which what we refer to as a three-way agreement, and then there's the construction inspection of those public improvements and then the ultimate acceptance of those dedications. And then the ETJ process is a little bit different, obviously we don't have annexation, future land use zoning, platting, it really just goes straight to platting. And so going back again, looking at the purpose of the ETJ, it really was established to really promote and protect the kind of the health safety welfare of the city, again, this was created some time ago and it really looked at ways that the municipality could start to plan for growth adjacent to it, obviously the rules have changed quite a bit in what and how we can annex, but really the ETJ is established by Chapter 42 of the Local Government Code, and if you're between 50 and 99,999 inhabitants, your ETJ is set at three and a half miles, if you're greater, at 100 or greater, it's set at five miles, and so our existing ILA, obviously we have the Division 1, Division 2, when that ILA was created, we were right at about almost getting close to that 100,000 mark, and really our ETJ Division 1 is that three and a half mile mark, and so anything from three and a half to five is essentially our Division 2. For the most part, what our ETJ Division 1 follows is our CCN, or Certificate of Convenience of Necessity, which establishes where we sell water and have wastewater services, so that's kind of how we've established at least the existing ETJ Division 1, and then does the ETJ expand? Yes, so as areas annex, that ETJ obviously expands out, probably a good representation of that as we grew to the north and kind of snaked up the stream, that in turn then extended our ETJ all the way into, believe it or not, it goes into Cook County, and then can it be reduced? Absolutely, it's happened before, and so at times we will trade ETJs with adjacent municipalities, but this just gives that broad view of kind of that three and a half to five mile and just how wide our net casts, and then authority to regulate in the ETJ, platting and subdivision, it prohibits us from essentially those zoning type of standards, but there is the ability to do development agreements that authorizes certain items that we can enforce. The most common that we have are non-annexation agreements, follow that 212.172 development agreement requirements, and again, just kind of touched on this already, that legislative history, '93 is when that Division 1, Division 2 was established, there were some amendments that were done in '94, two different amendments, and really what those were related to is our CCN extended, so it just followed suit with that, and then in 2003 there were some changes that we had that essentially put in place that interlocal agreement, and then in 2017 we had a peripheral annexation or a peripheral development annexation component to our DDC, and what that meant was if we were extending water and sewer to you, you were required to annex into the city. There's been changes since the annexation laws that we no longer can do that, and so again, kind of the summary of that interlocal cooperation agreement, this just gives you the idea of the city limits in green, Division 1 in blue, and Division 2 in purple. And again, some of the responsibilities, obviously we do all of the subdivision review and permitting related to that subdivision within the county, there's a standard in there that if the county standard is more stringent, that applies, this has been much debated as far as what's more stringent, they believe that their county rural road standard is more stringent than curb gutter with storm water, and so we've gone back and forth about what that actually means, there's no guidance, and in addition to that, the county does not want to maintain curb and gutter concrete roads, and so they've given an indication that while the ILA says that they will maintain roads, they take the position that it was only those roads that existed when the ILA was executed 18 years ago, and so those are the disagreements as to really what prompted the need for updating that ILA, again, it does allow us to issue floodplain and culvert permits, 9 out of 10 culvert permits, unless they are abutting a city street, we actually defer to Denton County to handle culvert permits for driveways adjacent to a county roadway, and again, some of those annexation changes, some of the action, but it really did, you know, essentially took all of our ability to require annexation for extending water and sewer, and so what we've, you know, kind of what we've seen, what's been the effect of that, obviously we've seen a proliferation of MUDs, our municipal utility districts within our ETJs, both 1 and 2, as you're aware, we've had some single family subdivision within the ETJ, council did pass the ordinance last night unanimously prohibiting going back to prohibiting preliminary plots in the ETJ, the inability for us to collect roadway impact fees as they will continue to use our roadway network, regional network, but also potential increases in calls for police, fire, EMS, as those 911 calls come in, there is some deferral of costs that the county has for fire and EMS calls, obviously it does not cover the full cost of service, we have to respond to those calls within those areas and nothing either for police. >> Chair? >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair, Richard, what happens for the overlapping ETJs, I assume the closest municipality wins? >> There's some provisions in the local government code. I don't recall off the top of my head, I know we don't have any of those, our sort of districts were pretty, when we established way back when, we were obviously the much larger city than even Krumsanger, even though they're still relatively small, they were even smaller back then, so they really haven't grown out as much as we have, so that's why when you see our boundary, it extends pretty far out, the reason it does not extend that far to the south, obviously at Ponder and some of the other communities, I think Dish and others are on the west side of 35, and then for the most part, this is built between Argyle, I can't think of the master plan community, Lantana and obviously Flower Mound and Copper Canyon. >> So the ETJs are static, ours is growing with our border, but as we grow in or around or as other municipalities grow in, get bigger, what happens to the definitions of ETJs? >> They extend and expand, so if there's not an already ETJ established, ours would continue to grow, that's what's happened to the north, where we've now grown into Cook County, but you'll see on a later slide that I have where that area up around the lake, it gets a little, there's a multitude of ETJs that kind of intersect each other, not necessarily overlapping, but you have Pilot Point, Aubrey, Denton and Sanger to some extent, kind of all converge in those areas. >> Okay, thank you. >> And then obviously everyone's aware of kind of some of these legislative game changers, where we are with the 30-day shot clock and what that's done to us and kind of where it's put us. Obviously tree preservation was another item that we discussed, it was something that we will come back to eventually, but there is a court case in San Antonio where they were challenged for enforcing tree preservation in their ETJ, it was upheld, however, we have not done a code amendment to enforce our tree code within our ETJ. And I think, again, this is really one of the items that prompted that code change, the Stuart Ridge Subdivision, this was the one that the county contended that they would not most likely not accept the dedication of those roads. And so we're continuing to work with the applicant or developer now on this property, as far as how they're moving forward, again, they have an approved final plat for phase one, they have an approved preliminary plat, so they are essentially vested, they are going to build to our standard, but again, who actually owns those roads at the end of the day, they're dedicated to the public, we will inspect them, but we will not accept those roads, that will be up to the Commissioner's Court, they take formal action on any dedications, and so whether or not they decide to vote to accept those is entirely up to the Commissioner's Court. And so we're, again, continuing to work with this applicant to make sure that we're not stuck with a situation where, whether they're now still the owner of those roads, the HOA, quite honestly, at this point, it's kind of still up in the air, but there's not much we can do about it at this point. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Richard, so in that case, I mean, if worst case scenario, the HOA would own the roads and be required to maintain them? That's probably something I would want to have legal weigh in on, I don't know if it would be the HOA, I don't know if it would be the original landowner, I think there's a much bigger discussion with probably our in-house council, real estate attorneys and the like, but I'm not aware, I'm not sure what would happen at that point. And that's a fine answer at this point, I don't want to have legal look up anything, thank you. And so again, so here, you know, some of those some of those challenges that we have with our current ILA, again, looking at as it as we look at Platts and the ETJ, those roadway standards, that difference of what's the stricter, the bar ditch versus curb and gutter, again, issuing culvert permits, we don't believe that should be the city's responsibility really should be the county, it's their roadway network, and drainage network for that for the most part, the maintenance of the roads, obviously the dedication of new roads, I think I've hit on that. And then other items we need we need to continue to work through with this new ILA is the transfer of those maintenance bonds for those new roads, location of our water and sewer lines, the county does not want those water and sewer lines within any roads that would essentially be dedicated to them. And so it's making sure that we have adequate easements to to lay those lay our water and in sewer lines. There are currently lot size requirements in the Lake Ray Roberts planning area that they've established. There has been an instance where we approved a plat it was a minor plat that did not meet the minimum lot size for that for that area. But again, it's not addressed in our ILA and so we can enforce as you saw from the local government code, we can enforce lot layouts or lot size. And so this was something then that they had to go to the Commissioner's Court and seek a variance and so these are just items we want to avoid, there's no reason that someone should have to do that. But again, we're not able to enforce it because it's not part of our part of that interlocal agreement and again, making sure that the non annexation agreements, there's just one more place that everybody's aware of. There are standards that for those those properties can remain in the ETJ but there any development that they would do, i.e. building a home, they're limited in what they could do. But building permits are issued by the city as part of those agreements, as well as following the city's development standards. Some of the other challenges that we that we face, again, not necessarily has to do with amendments to the ILA but something that we're going to want to revisit upon completion of the comp plan update. And I think I think we've talked about this as part of the 2019 DDC update is really some of these split parcels that we have, and as a result of strip annexations. This is one where you know obviously it's an industrial use. At one point in time, we annex you know the first whatever it is 500 feet off the right away. Obviously since then 380 has has grown so that that that distance that that is now in the city has shrunk. But we've now the front of their property is is zoned residential. And so, depending, you know, essentially what they need to do or can do it's all nonconforming and and it also would affect what they can can and can't do on the back of the property because they are accessing it through through a zone or residential portion. That is, I think our one or our to the majority of these. And so this is something that what we are going to need to take a look at as part of that comp plan update. Should we change the most of these have a rural if I'm not mistaken a rural future land use again as a holding pattern so again taking that hard look what should these really be land used, and then zoning them zoning them accordingly. One of the other issues that we continue to face is requests that we have from adjacent municipalities for essentially exchanging areas of E.T.J. We've had a number, at least when I first started here, we're saying or was was asking and crumb, we're asking for kind of swaps of E.T.J. areas, and there's there's been no formal policy or guidance that that we received ever from from council. I think in the past, at one point in time it was sort of a one for one so if we're going to give you an acre, you give us an acre, but there was no real guidance even even beyond that. And so really our intent was if we're going to do this, we should probably have some guidance from council at least some policy direction about how we how we do this. Should it just be acre for acre or should we look at other other alternatives and I'll get into that, but we have a current current one pending from pilot point that has asked for some exchange of our E.T.J. division two, which is adjacent to their E.T.J. division one. So this just kind of gives you that idea of this is our division one here. Actually our municipal boundary, this is our water treatment plant. All of this is our division two. And then you have city of pilot point pilot point E.T.J. and then I believe this is Aubrey E.T.J. And so getting back to that, you know, that request from pilot point, what they were looking to to really do is take on take over a lease agreement for for the Ildebo and I'm sorry for the Lake Ray Roberts Jordan unit. They're looking to take over a concessionaires agreement. There's been some other developments as we've learned that we are actually the the lease holder of this land. So I think it'll be a much different conversation when we bring this back when we bring this back to council. But what they were really kind of asking because there's no land that they would have to swap. There's nothing that we would need to take. And so the idea that they instead of a land swap, what they were looking to do it in exchange of was some type of revenue share or sales tax swap or even looking at I think there was a hotel at that marina. We had some concerns with with receiving some proceeds from hot tax in that area, just given where we have to spend it and the limitations up there, but at least entertaining a variety of rather than just a land swap, whether it be a component of sales tax revenue share from other streams or even a component of property tax. And so those were all options that that at least as we develop that policy, at least items that that we can look at prior to bringing it to council. So we're just not kind of shooting from the hip and have some clear guidance and what council is comfortable with. And so that was really the you know, one of the first questions that we had with respect to policy direction is, should we even the first was, should we even continue to regulate plats and in in Division one or just completely give all of that to to the county. And so the direction was, you know, to continue, continue to regulate a plot within within Division one and kind of that second one, second policy direction that we requested had to do with what should be that standard when we met with the county, what we really looked at was adopting their rural standard in the E.T.J. to, you know, sort of kind of that first step, I think, as I indicated, was removing the ability to do those preliminary plats. But if you are going to develop in the county or in the E.T.J. and if you if the county is going to accept those roads, which most likely we would want, then they should be built to their standard. And really what this would do is if somebody wanted them to build a subdivision with curb and gutter, sort of a traditional subdivision in order to take advantage or use the city standard, they would be required to annex into the city. And then at that point, they would go through that that process from one of the previous slides where obviously go through annexation, voluntary annexation, and then there would need to be most likely a land use plan map amendment rezoning so they would follow that public hearing process and then ultimately get to get to platting if those are approved. And so that was the direction that we got from from council. And so that's what we're currently working working through to just have that standard identified within the I.L.A. Mayor Beck. Thank you, Chair. Richard, is is there any rule about that parcel like that that wanted to annex in has to be continuous with our traditional border? Correct. There would need to be continuity unless there would need to have the border would need to be contiguous. So we would have to annex a connected piece up to a property that was separated. Correct. OK, thank you. They would have to petition, I should say. And then again, this was sort of an easier one. But again, wanted to make sure that that direction was clear and making sure that within within the I.L.A., we include those standards from the Lake Ray Roberts planning area again. We don't want to get into a situation where we're approving plats that go against the zoning standards that are established and then forcing someone to have to go to the commissioner's court for a for a subdivision variance or a lot variance, because now they can't get a building permit because it doesn't meet the the minimum lot size. And then again, the permitting of of of culverts in the E.T.J., again, this is something if we're going to go with a rural standard, we believe this is something that the county they're they're doing it now. It doesn't make sense for us to to do culvert permit driveway permits for for ranches or whatever it may be. Should the city enforce tree preservation mitigation in the E.T.J.? This is something that that they requested we come back on at a later date. Our recommendation really was to not to not enforce tree preservation and mitigation within the E.T.J. Again, that San Antonio case, I don't think is binding, and Matt can probably speak to this better than I could, you know, statewide. But again, most of you know, as as you probably are aware, most of the lands within the E.T.J. are large, kind of these larger ranches and farms that are, you know, would meet the definition of agricultural operation to some extent. And so whether or not they would even would even be subject to it, even if we were subject to the standards, might be slim to none. Additionally, most of those treat areas are are within floodplain or FEMA. And so they're not necessarily developing or removing those those trees anyways. And really just looking at the enforcement of that. This is not something that we would go through, you know, a code enforcement hearing, we would have to enforce that or if their lack of doing and cutting down all the trees and not complying, the enforcement of that would have to actually be through district court. And just given what that could potentially do to challenges to our tree code, we just looked at it as not really not really worth the what we would get in in return, the risk associated with that. And again, there was no there was no direction from from council. So it was something that they wanted to to look at further. Again, that exchange for ETJ, the direction at that point was in our recommendation was to bring back a policy that really looked at kind of let everything kind of all options on the table, not just land area exchange, but looking at that revenue share, direct payment or, you know, a variety of other options to kind of think outside the box, in some instances where it might be advantageous to to do that, but at least we have some guidance as far as the policy that that direction where council council what council is comfortable with. And then really, again, looking at that, that release of that ETJ, it's a pilot point. Quite honestly, I don't think there was a full consensus that that they were ready to say yes, but the direction was to bring back the item, at least for consideration to see what what it what it looked like, and what that sales tax revenue could even generate. But again, I think we're in a we'll be having a different conversation when when this does go back on the 25th. And part of the other is looking at, you know, looking at depending what we ultimately do with with pilot point, but looking at this area of, of division two, that's just on the other side of our water treatment plant, and really looking at should should as part of this amendment to the ILA, should we just bring that area into into our division one, our recommendation was yes, if we have if our bound if our municipal boundary already goes up the stream. If the west side of the stream is division one, why not make the east side division to that way, again, it could provide for additional opportunities for annexation, as well as plotting authority through through the through that green belt, our trail system. And then again, looking at potentially what the Army Corps wants to do, whether or not we have a state park within our, you know, within our city limits, we're pretty darn close with the with the treatment plant. But again, just looking for future future opportunities. Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Chair. Richard, I got a quick question. If we are going to annex the part of Aldabra State Park, and the Trail Corridor, why not just keep that other part, the Jordan unit, because it's going to butt up, it's going to butt up to it eventually you can do it as well. Because I lived right there in PowerPoint for years, and I don't think there's gonna be much sales tax from that area that that place has changed hands so many times up there and it's nothing really. Yeah, and we later learned, actually, after the meeting there, believe it or not, the while the land is all owned by Army Corps, and it's a state park, the state park is a sublease from the city of Dent and the city of Dallas. So we are actually the first lease holder of that land around the lake. And that had to do with really, since that's our drinking water. And so that was one of those agreements that were just buried somewhere that we later found out after the work session. And so I think that's something, you know, when we come back on the 25th Making Council where that even if we were to grant that area to pilot point, anything that they do, the way the agreements are structured, would still require sign off from the city, because we're the first lease holder of that land. And so they would almost essentially be a sublease of the state park. And so it's sort of a multitude of layers, but even more so, you know, looking at both us in first position, but equal in first position is the city of Dallas, because they're also pulling water for their drinking water from that lake. And so part of that, I think the broader policy question is do we want or should we have greater authority over platting of what goes on around our boundary of the lake where we pull our drinking water? That's something that council will have to weigh in on. And again, so this was kind of the timeline, and kind of when we were looking to bring it back. So kind of on track, but again, we're looking to bring that item back. I think what kind of through a wrench in it is learning that this agreement was out there. So we've been, again, having additional meetings with both the Army Corps, Texas Parks and Wildlife, among others. And so that's kind of where we're at is looking at bringing that policy, we set draft policy back. I suspect what's going to happen given the just brevity of this, we'll probably split this into two work sessions again. So I suspect on the 25th, the main focus will be that ETJ swap with pilot point and the policy associated with that moving forward. And then how and what our ETJ boundary should be division one, division two, and then coming back within a week or two later with the with the ILA draft agreement. And so as those move forward, we'll make sure that I'll make sure that PNZ is updated. But that was essentially the the presentation that was presented back in January to City Council. Great. Thank you, Richard. Any questions for Richard? It was a lot. It was but helpful. Appreciate it. I do not see any questions. Move on to the other parts of our agenda item. This one let the record show that Mr. Anderson has joined us this evening. Welcome, Mr. Anderson. The next item on our agenda would be the consideration for the minutes. Is there any discussion around the minutes this evening that we can make note of now? Okay, then we move into our consent agenda. We have two items. FP 21 dash 009b, which is Karina Maldonado. She actually has both this evening. So any questions for her? Do you want to bring those up? Looking around, I don't see any questions. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. So earlier, when you started the meeting, you said we had citizen comments on each of these. Is that correct? We did. For context, we had one citizen oppose every item on the agenda this evening, and the two of the items of the five opposed were the consent agenda items. Okay. And so no details other than that, right? I think the note was sent to us. She opposes I believe she was mentioning multifamily development. Understood. So that was the one we got five from the same person. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Correct. All right. Well, I don't see any questions for the consent, so we'll just hop into individual items. Starting with 4A PP 21 dash 0005. This is Sean Jacobson's item. And so I'll invite him to present this item. Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. I'm pulling up my presentation now in just a moment. Okay. Go ahead and share that. All right. So this item is PP 21 0005, request for a preliminary plat, and staff is recommending denial of this request, as it does not meet the established requirements as outlined in Exhibit 2. The applicant has requested an extension to date certain of May 19th, 2021. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have on this item. Great. Thanks, Sean. Any questions for Sean on this item? Okay. I don't see any. Next item is 4B PP 21 dash 0006. This is Julie Wyatt's item. I'll invite Julie for presentation. Good evening. Just a minute to pull up my presentation. All right. Here we go. So this is a preliminary plat for a new unit within Robeson Ranch. They are still working through a few things in order to meet the criteria for approval. And so the staff recommends denial of the request. They have requested an extension to the May 19th Planning and Zoning Commission to wrap those items up, and staff has no objection to that extension, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Julie? Christian or Beck? Thank you, Chair. Julie, as I understood the plat, it looks like it's completely within the golf course. We can't, Christian. Go ahead, Christian Beck. It's completely within the golf course region. This development is completely inside the -- I'm just confirming that. The residential lots actually kind of surround one of the golf course holes. So you're correct. It is sort of hugged up against that golf course lot. Okay. Thank you. That's all the clarity I could give you. Sure. Any other questions? Commissioner Anderson, you had your hand up. I don't know if you're just testing tech or if you had a question. Do you have any questions on this item, Commissioner Anderson? He's having technical difficulties. That's what it looks like. All right. Well, no worries. We'll hear it again in public session if you had any questions. Commissioner Cole? Yeah, I'm zooming in on this location map, on the site location map. And that might be my family's property right next to this. So I don't -- I'm not 100% sure. But I think there's a good possibility. I don't know if I should vote on this. Because I see that lake. Yeah, I think it is. Commissioner Cole, would it be possible to verify before meeting? Northeast corner? Right? Yeah, it looks like the northeast corner. It is, yes, sir. Yeah, because that lake, that big lake up there is owned by us and is split between Hillwood and us. We're on one side, they're on the other. Yeah, I feel pretty uncomfortable with this. So I think I need to punch out on the vote. Okay. I don't know if you'd be right. I mean, I'd like a legal opinion on that. Mack, you have any insight to his recusal? Yeah, I mean, obviously, if you're within 200 feet, you absolutely have to recuse. If it's in doubt, I would recommend go ahead and recuse as well and abstain. So to not participate in any deliberation as well as not vote. So yeah, if you can figure out exactly where it is, you could know for sure. But if there's doubt in your mind, I would recommend not. I'm pretty sure it touches in that corner. I'm not for sure, but I'm better safe than sorry. So I think I need to punch out. Mack, when we did this in person, the individual actually physically recused himself on Zoom. Is it just a matter of muting themselves or do they need to actually be put in the lobby during the discussion? No, I think what we've done over the past year is mute yourself and stop your video. OK, great. Commissioner Cole, we'll just take care of that in the public normal regular session. We'll notify that then. I just, you know, I zoomed in real heavy on that and I've noticed where that that lake and that I, you know, I should realize that before, but I did not. No worries. We'll continue on discussion without you right now, because your pernetta. I just had a question on how we handle the recusal and recusal with the zoom. And I guess the other thing is today, we're only having a vote on they requested an extension, right? So today we're just voting on whether or not to have an extension. Correct. OK, all right. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions for Julie on this item? OK, great. Just to confirm, I believe it is. I believe Commissioner Cole is correct. Looking at the looking at our map, it is, I believe, in the SF2 or SLF2, Cole property. So it is that I believe it is within that ownership structure. OK, great. Well, I appreciate him speaking up and I agree with legal better safe than sorry. Let's move on to the next item for CPP21-0004A and this also is Julie Wyatt's item. All right, let me share my screen. So this one you've seen before, this is for a preliminary plat off of Ganser Road. It's in our ETJ. They still have some items to work through. And so staff does recommend denial. They have already had one extension granted. You did hear from the applicant today regarding some concerns with comments, and so I just kind of wanted to briefly just talk through those and summarize those so you'll understand what those comments are related to to staff's review. I kind of look at them in a few buckets. One would be there is a road in our mobility plan that crosses the subject property on the north side. So that needs to be reflected in the plan per the requirements for that mobility plan. There's also a correction related to easement widths for offsite easements. They do need to make some updates to their TIA in order to accommodate some revisions to the plan since the TIA was first submitted. And then they have some standard notes and formatting comments. We will have -- we do have engineering on the line if they're the subject matter experts regarding those items, and we'll be happy to let them answer any questions. And they'll also be on the line during the regular session. So staff does recommend denial due to those reasons, and I will be happy to answer any questions or have engineering do so. Great. Thank you, Julie. The understanding the applicant has given us notice that they are not in agreement with this decision by staff. Is that correct? Correct. I do believe they'll be calling in this evening to discuss those comments. Okay. Great. Is there any questions for Julie on this? And just for the edification of myself and the rest of the commission, if it proves helpful, I'm not sure, Julie, can you just verify? It's not often that we have a plat being debated on the approval process. And so this evening, if they are presenting different evidence or objections to save us from a banter back and forth, Julie, you'll present -- they can present their letter or their findings, and then you have a rebuttal for them, or can you tell us kind of how that flow is going to happen this evening? I don't know if Richard wants to take that up. I believe that is the -- that's sort of the framework for the discussion. Yeah, but what we thought we would kind of set this up or at least a way to manage the conversation treated very much like we do with our Zoning Board of Adjustment if there's an appeal of a staff decision or a similar request where it's typically presentation by staff and then presentation by the applicant. So that way, at least we have the facts out there. And then obviously the rebuttal, rebuttal by staff, rebuttal by the applicant. And then if there's any questions by any -- by the commission, and then obviously the decision by the commission. I think I got it right. Hopefully I didn't miss the order up. And this, you said, has been brought before us, Julie. Is there not a 30-day extension opportunity here? Not at this time. There was a 30-day extension granted on April 7th, and so there's only a one-time 30-day extension that can be granted under the state regulations. And has the applicant been briefed about the implications of a denial and how they bring the project back to the staff? I can verify that. We have talked with them about that this would be a denial, but I can certainly verify that they understand what they would have to do in order to bring it back. Okay. I think that might help the conversation if they just understand the implications of the decision. Sure. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Richard, given the passing of the preliminary plat in ETJ Tuesday, this -- if this type of development had happened, it would still be allowed because it's a single development all at once. I mean, I'm connecting them together because this is an example of a preliminary plat in the ETJ. And this is the only one -- I think this is the only one that's kind of still pending, if you will. So it will continue as is. So it's treated like any other preliminary plat that we would -- I mean, I understand this one is vested. And so the ordinance essentially is effective in 10 days or nine days. And so once that ordinance becomes effective, then that code is changed. That law is essentially amended in our DDC. We don't have any -- given our submittal schedule, we did not receive any new preliminary plats that were submitted yesterday. So the likelihood of us having one come in is essentially slim to none because we just don't have that submittal schedule established where they're able to submit another preliminary plat in the ETJ prior to that 10-day period before the ordinance is effective. >> But that 10-day -- if they get denied, that 10-day would not impact them because this is a prior action, correct? >> Correct. It was submitted prior to the effective date of the ordinance. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions for Julie? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to the final item for individual consideration, which is item D, PZ21-064, consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding creating a small area plan for the area near Interstate 35 North and Highway 77. >> Thank you, Chair. Let me pull up a presentation. It should be a quick presentation. Hopefully you all can see the presentation on the screen. >> Yes. >> Great. As mentioned in the introduction, this is a discussion regarding a small area plan for an area north of town. Just quick background. This was heard just two weeks ago on April 21st, where we discussed the comprehensive plan as well as the small area plan. But just to go back a little bit further, January 20th, there was a request for a work session to discuss small area plan. At that time, there was several discussions over PD and zoning cases in that area, and so the Planning, Zoning Commission felt that a small area plan was appropriate for this area, again, around I-35 North and Highway 77. We had the presentation on April 21st. During that presentation, during that day, there was a request from the Planning, Zoning Commission to bring back an item for consideration for a recommendation for this area to be considered as a small area plan. I'm going to skip this slide. This is the subject area that we're talking about, again, I-35 North and Highway 77, the general area that's shown on these multiple exhibits. We've seen these exhibits before. As far as next steps, if the Planning, Zoning Commission recommends for this small area plan to be created, we will take this to City Council as a work session item. In fact, that June 21 date, we initially had that date, but I think it's going to be moved up earlier. We're thinking of a May 18th work session for City Council. So in a couple of weeks, again, if this Planning, Zoning Commission recommends that it be created, we will bring this to the City Council, again, May 18th. Following that, there will be a couple of other items, next steps that we would need to do to get the small area plan underway. One of them, of course, is to establish that boundary. So that will be part of that effort after we get direction from City Council. With that, the options for the Planning, Zoning Commission is to obviously recommend that the creation of the small area plan be done, not recommend, or just continue to design. That concludes my presentation. There you go. Yeah, and this is just kind of a basic question. I know when we had the discussion about this a couple of weeks ago, we talked about the previous plans that we've had, and generally, those plans were put into place by citizens with a vision of something that they wanted to maintain or something that they wanted to achieve. This area is kind of a bit of a tabula rasa, right? There's nothing predetermined. So when we are voting for this, are we simply voting to create something exploratory that doesn't have a predetermined idea of what we should be, or is that in the purview? Or are we just simply saying, "Hey, this is something that we should bring people together for," and then whatever the outcome is that they determine is something that we'll go for? I'm just trying to figure out what message we're sending right now, or if it's simply that we're just going to look at this. That is my understanding regarding the area. We actually have a large area, understood, and there are numerous projects that affect this area. So I think the consideration or the discussion last time we met was to explore that opportunity for a smaller area plan. We obviously need to, again, identify a boundary, and then once we do that, further look at the area as far as land use, zoning, and all the other things that come along with that as part of a smaller area plan effort. Okay. And once again, we're just saying, "Hey, generally speaking, we think we should look into this," and then whatever comes of it is a separate issue altogether. We don't have a predetermined desire to impose any type of future for this right now. Yeah, I think the exercise will happen once we start that work, and of course, the Planning Zoning Commission and other stakeholders would be involved in that process. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so just on that a little bit, really the only thing that we are doing is voting to move this to city council. In the end, it will be their decision whether a small area plan is created. Is that correct? That is correct. It's a recommendation for that area to become a small area plan or have a small area plan. Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So playing on both those questions, the concepts for it, let's say the council votes yes, that they want to do it, the concepts for the small area plan, the design concepts, the goals will come from whom? From public outreach, from the stakeholders, property owners, individuals that have interest in that area. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Ron on this item of moving the SAP forward? Commissioner Beck. Actually I hadn't muted yet. So sort of indirect, I've had citizens approach me about different regions and possibly developing a small area plan, but there was a question, some of these people that approached me were not actually Denton citizens, they were ETJ citizens. And so how does that impact requests for a small area plan? I assume that they would have to have a citizen partner. I would definitely agree with that. Obviously we would act on input from a citizen. Now, depending on the area, I'm not sure the areas that you're referring to, obviously there may be more than other individuals that are interested in that area plan. So certainly partnering with them or sharing the same sentiments with staff, we can certainly consider them at that time. But staff would be unable to respond to ETJ citizens. They would have to respond to Denton's proper citizens, proper that sounds weird, but within the city boundary of Denton. There wouldn't be much that we would be able, there wouldn't be much teeth or authority for that plan, given the limitations of what we can enforce in the ETJ, assuming it's even our ETJ Division 1 versus Division 2. If that was something they did approach us with, obviously if it's in our Division 1, we would want to be part of it, but I would probably think that planning exercise would probably be better to be handled through Denton County, taking the lead, whether or not they create a special district like they did with Lake Ray Roberts planning area, but it would definitely be something that I would think we would want to be, at least my recommendation would be, we would be part of it because it is within our ETJ, it's right next to us. But again, with our limited authority of what we can and can't do, it would just be enforcing subdivision regulations and again, we can't do anything with respect to use, lot size, anything like that. So, I'll be less coy so it is more clear, and that is, these are hardly field ETJ residents, so therefore the actual property that they would be wanting to explore would be Carter to the north, which is in our boundary. So the question is more of a, can an ETJ citizen, an ETJ citizen would have to have a citizen partner in order to initiate that, you know, even if it was for Denton property? I think it could come from a multitude of, you know, whether P&Z wanted to do that, or I think if that request came in, I don't know that, I'd have to look at the comp plan of how it would it, what it says specifically, but I don't know that there's limitations. I just can't recall off the top of my head. And I don't want to rabbit hole us, because that's not this direct item too much. So I'll just stop there. Commissioner Pernetta. And this is, and not to rabbit hole too much, but this, you know, that question that Commissioner Beck was raising, you know, that area out in your Hartley field is surrounded, you know, like we have little pockets that are Denton, little pockets that are not, generally, and this is just a general question, not as specific to this for smaller area plans. What authority do we have? If we have an area that surrounds or is adjacent to ETJ in a way, can we include ETJ in a small area plan? If we have Denton surrounding, Denton below, Denton, you know, those types of things, or can we only address what is specifically in Denton proper right now? Quite honestly, I think we can put whatever we want in our, you know, in, it's our plan. That's really part of the premise or origination of the ETJ was to, for cities to plan growth on their edge. So whether there's other policies that guide future annexation, you know, how we extend water, wastewater, capital projects, all of that could be included. I think what makes it even more unique for us is if you look at that Northern, you know, north of 380 or north of the loop, really, our boundaries zigzag in and out. So to not include, you know, we almost have to include ETJ in that planning, in addition to, you know, even Denton County, what their plans are, given the, you know, just some of the environmental sensitive areas, not necessarily calling them ESA, but they're, they're, you know, you have the green belt, there's a lot of streams. There's just a lot of different, you know, elevation changes out there that, again, kind of zigzag between whether you're in the city or you're in our ETJ. So depending where that plan, you know, if it extends to other areas, I think you almost have to include the ETJ as part of that, as part of that, again, from a limited aspect, but definitely part of that, part of that plan. And just to quickly add to Richard's comment or response, you know, the future land use plan map, you know, extends outside the city limits, the mobility plan extends outside the city limits, and it's similar in situation. This is a smaller your plan, again, as Richard mentions, the planning now, when it comes to overlay districts, which would be the next step, if that is the case, that only must be within the city limits, of course, because that's under, you know, zoning regulations or development review requirements. So that, unfortunately, would just be within the city of them. Thank you guys so much. That's all I had. I'll pull this out of that rabbit hole. I've got nothing else on this particular item. Any other questions for Ron on this item? Okay, great. That concludes the agenda for our work session. We will take a short break and reconvene back here at 630, which is at about 22 minutes. And we'll see everyone there. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting for Wednesday, May 5th, 2021. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order at 631. The first item of business this evening is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. Other commissioners are more than welcome to join me by unmuting their mics. 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 the Texas one state under God, one indivisible. The next item of business is to consider our consent agenda. Commissioner Beck. You're muted there. I think that was a motion. We'll give him one more second. Still nothing. Commissioner Beck. Commissioner Smith. Make an motion to approve. Perfect. We have a first. Commissioner Ellis. Yes, Chair, if I might. We did skip over the approval of the minutes. So I don't know if we want to handle this item and then go back or what? Yeah. Thank you for reminding me. It seems like every time you do that, I appreciate it. We'll consider the motion on the floor for the consent agenda item three and we'll head back to the minutes. Commissioner Ellis. I will second. Thank you. We have a first and second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Commissioner Beck. Can you hear me now? We can. Perfect. Yay. Fixed it. I assume that was your discussion point or did you? That was my discussion point. All right. Seeing no other discussion, we'll go ahead and call a vote via roll call, starting with Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Pronetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries seven zero. Heading back up one item is our minutes and the chair will entertain a motion on the April 21st, 2021 minutes. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Anderson. Second the motion. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Pronetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries seven zero. That moves us to our items for individual considerations, starting with 4A PP21-0005. And I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation. Good evening, Chair and members of the commission, Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner. I am pulling up my presentation now. Okay, hopefully you should now see that. All right, so this is a request by Priya Acharya of Weir and Associates on behalf of the property owner for a preliminary plot of the Yolo First Edition. The approximately 6.838 acre property is generally located on the west side of Teasley Lane, approximately 692 feet north of the intersection of Teasley Lane and Hickory Creek Road in the City of Den. Staff recommends denial of this request. However, the applicant has requested an extension to the May 19th, 2021 agenda, and staff has no objection to this request. That is my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. Thank you very much, Sean. Any questions for staff on this? Okay, seeing none, I just wanted to let the commission know and any viewers know that for this item, there was one person that filled out an online white virtual card. There was zero in support and one in opposition. These cards were emailed to all the commissioners and will be included in the meeting record. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of May 19th, 2021. Okay, we have a first for the 30 day extension to the May 19th meeting. Commissioner Anderson. I second the motion. We have a first and a second for this item. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote and be a roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is item 4B, PP21-0006. This item is Julie Wyatt's and I will let everyone know that Commissioner Cole is recusing himself from this item so he has left the meeting temporarily for that. With that, Julie, whenever you're ready, it is your floor. All right. Let me pull up my presentation. So this item is PP21-0006. It is a preliminary plat within the Robeson Ranch plan development. They still have a few outstanding items that they need to work through before staff can recommend approval of this request. So they have requested an extension to the May 19th Planning and Zoning Commission to give them time to work through those. Staff has no objection to that extension and I will be happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Julie. Any questions for Julie or staff? Okay. Just like the other item, I just want to let everyone know that for this item, there was one person that filled out an online virtual white card. That person was in opposition and this comment was emailed to all the commissioners and will be included in the meeting record. Commissioner Smith. I make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of May 19th of 2021. Great. Thank you. I second the motion. We have a first and a second to extend this 30 days to a date certain of May 19th, 2021. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Moving on to the next item, I invite Commissioner Cole back to join us and then we'll move to item 4C, PP21-0004A. This is also Julie Wyatt's item. You have the floor. Okay. This is PP21-0004A. It's a preliminary plat within the ETJ of the city. They still have some outstanding items that they need to work through. And so staff recommends denial of this request. Just want to mention, we talked about them briefly in the work session. We do have engineering staff on the line. And I do believe the applicant would like to, will be speaking in response to those comments of those outstanding items. But just to sort of summarize what those are, they are in your backup. But there is, there's a road that is shown on the mobility plan that needs to be reflected in this plat. That is one comment that needs to be addressed. There's some easement widths that need to be addressed for some off-site easements. They're showing 20 feet. I believe 25 feet is required. There's a TIA that was submitted for the project in 2019 due to some project changes and some review of that TIA. It does need to be a revision to the TIA to ensure that there's adequate turn lanes and phasing of the project. And then finally, we've just got some standard notes and some formatting issues that need to be corrected prior to staff being able to recommend approval. There was a question in the work session regarding if the applicant was aware of those processes for after denial. I did send an email in the interim between our discussion in the work session and the meeting. I haven't heard back from them. But just to kind of summarize that, if the plat is denied tonight, then they would need to resubmit. They can resubmit under this existing preliminary plat number. Additional fees would be required. 50% of that original fee amount would be required for that resubmittal. And then staff would review that preliminary plat, and it would go on to a Planning and Zoning Commission agenda 15 days after that resubmittal. So I will pull down the presentation and be happy to answer any questions. Julie, do you know what the fee amount was? If they come back, it's 50% of the original fee amount, if I understood that correctly. Do we have a dollar amount on that? I'm going to look that up right now, sir. Great. Thank you. So that fee for the preliminary plat was $7,568 for the review. Thank you so much, Julie. Sure. I'm sure the applicant is here prior to getting to them. Is there any questions for Julie in the interim? Okay. Perfect. And if the applicant is here, can we get them unmuted and then have them state their name and address for the record? My name is Aaron Ketchum with Hologun Communities. I'm Director of Development. And what did you, also the address, 14114 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, Texas. Great. I appreciate you being here tonight and you certainly have, I believe, I don't have the cheat sheet in front of me. I think you have four minutes to discuss your project. Okay. I tried to start my video. I guess that's on your end. I apologize. That's my technical difficulty there. Appreciate your time, commissioners. I do have on the call with me my project manager, Chris Fairley, as well as our engineer, Brian Dench with Land Design for any questions. I did watch briefly the work session discussion and we are aware of the ramifications of a denial tonight. However, I do ask that the commission consider some context. Just for the record, we've owned this property for two years and have been in discussions with both the city and the county for a better part of a year regarding this project, namely off-site sanitary and water extensions that ultimately tie into 77 at the TA list station. There's been quite a bit of work on this and we are before you tonight feeling as though we don't have much else of a choice than to present a preliminary plat application that we feel satisfies all the city listed preliminary platting requirements subject to some engineering comments that we just feel are either premature or that are going to be addressed at the CEP civil engineering plan approval timeline, as well as the final plat or are just not applicable outright. I'm happy to go not met by each comment by staff to address each one of them. We have reasons for each that have been discussed several times with staff on various, this is the fourth submittal of this preliminary plat at this point. But for, again, quick context, what we are seeking is a one lot preliminary plat whereby all on-site improvements are private with connections to public right away and ultimate wet utilities that we would be extending on behalf of the city approximately two to three miles to open up this area. What we do is develop manufactured housing developments where we own the entirety of the development and we lease land to homeowners who are fee simple owners of the actual homes. So between their mortgage payment and our land lease payment is their effective housing cost. As you guys are well aware, I'm sure everyone is, there is high demand for affordable housing. This is a niche that we think is a great option for potential homeowners. But where we stand today is having our preliminary plat held up by matters not that we're trying to circumvent or comments, but rather address at the appropriate stage of the design approval process. Any reference to a TIA, which we have already begun the process of, we were told originally that that would have been addressed and should be addressed at the civil engineering plan approval process. Any discussions regarding phasing was as a result of us asking the question, does it really make sense to improve 1500 feet of Gans or road while the county has bar ditch and asphalt for the remainder of the 13,000 feet of bark? So staff says we don't, the city doesn't do escrow agreements, but we do have some life safety and constructability concerns of being requested. So there's some technicalities on the engineering side that has bled over unnecessarily in our opinion to a preliminary plat discussion, especially when we are platting in the preliminary plat, the full required city right away widths in anticipation of all of that. So I'm happy to discuss again, comment by comment, every one of these objections and just kind of a request that there be some consideration given to a group that's been trying to get this advanced for the better part of a year, knowing full well we were not trying to, we have and continue to seek to work things out with staff and addressing all comments. The last thing we want to do is seek approval over noted objections. But in our case, in our case, that that has become a circular discussion and yeah, we feel like we're a little, you know, we are caught, you know, watching the work session, we are caught a little bit clearly between the county and the city ETJ conundrums and the challenges even in the ILA discussion that you had during the work session. So I know I'm running out of time, I'm trying to be sensitive to that, I would love to go through each one of these noted recommendations of denial or noting that we've not met something. But there is a reason for each one of these, you guys do, I do ask that you be made aware of that. We did submit for to hopefully be included in your packet, our latest response letter which would have been the third submittal, which noted some of the things that I would speak to as to reasons why they aren't included on the preliminary plaque, or we're asking to be deferred to the civil engineering approval timeframe for so I'm not sure if that was provided or not, but I'm happy to answer any specific questions, and or defer to my colleagues or any one of these recommendations or notations of a requirement not being met, and, and hopefully provide if if needed any more context as to why we are seeking an approval of a of a one lot preliminary plaque that we feel meets the city requirements. I certainly appreciate that context. Is there any questions with questions to begin? All right, Christian Alice. Thank you, Chair. Um, hi, Mr. Ketchum, I guess my first question to you would be, did you go over with staff line by line. This doesn't seem the right platform to be discussing line by line. So yes, staff's recommendation so I guess I'm a little bit confused. As as to to that statement by you. So yes, the simple answer to your question is yes, really on the last two rounds of submittals. We have tried to address all of these items, and the items that are before you I think are a little redundant from looking at the staff analysis report there's upwards of 17 noted not met but they really kind of cross reference each other I think Julie added accurately kind of encapsulated the the buckets of general areas where the comments kind of center around one being the traffic impact need drainage, things like that. But to answer your question, yes, we, we have discussed every one of these, if not over a team meeting or call via submittals and then just sat comment turnarounds, the last of which we only got last night until around six. But, but again, these are all items that we have kind of not gotten any resolution on for differences of opinion or just inconsistencies of what we've been told today. So is that just because you just don't like what staff is telling you. I mean, the staff analysis that that is being done on your project is the staff analysis that is done on everything that comes before them and us, and until everything's met. They can't recommend a platform for approval. So that's a good that's a good question. So let's just take examples, if you would, if you may, if I may. The traffic impact analysis requirement or recommendation for denial was a was originally presented to us from staff as a TIA will need to be re updated and resubmitted for review and approval. But that can occur at the civil engineering plan and final plat stages. That was what we were told during the course of our submittals. We have asked the question, can what can we discuss the design parameters of cancer road, as well as the timing of when those improvements would need to be made, because we have questions, not so much of the required city requirements, but of the buildability and life safety issue concerns that we have of having city, you know, paved perimeter street on the along Ganzer on our frontage, connecting 1500 feet apart, connecting back to Ganzer road as an asphalt bar ditch profile, which is county standards. So we were so in that discussion, staff then made a made a decision that we disagree with that says no, now you need to submit a TIA for the preliminary plat because of phasing. Well, we have not decided whether or not we would like to phase it. But what we intend to do is plat our lot with anticipation of building it. But if there is, but here again, we are stuck in between this county and city uncertainty limbo as to what it is we're supposed to be doing. Like Ganzer, there was a disagreement, there was only resolution like last week as to actually what right away width we were supposed to be using on our plat for Ganzer. We've been waiting quite some, you know, where we asked the question and there's this discussion that has happened outside of our, you know, purview that we're just kind of held up. But what did we do? We went ahead and assumed, in this case, the full city Ganzer right away width and on the plat. So yes, we have discussed these things. We don't feel like a TIA is necessary at this point. We feel like the plat accounts for kind of like worst case scenario on the right of ways for both Barthold and Ganzer and we'd like to ask for action to be taken on the plat. Another one is the, Julie referenced that we did not incorporate the 2015 mobility plan arterial that's supposed to bisect our property, which what you may not know, you may know, is that on the proposed 2020 mobility plan, that has been removed. And so that is why we are asking that it not be reflected on our preliminary plat. Now we understand staff cannot recommend approval if that 2020 mobility plan hasn't been adopted, but we know that that is not on the 2020 mobility plan and we can't continue just to be held just at bay, you know, hostage, not to take this, you know, but that may be not the right term, but we were kind of held in limbo. Yeah. So, Mr. Ketchum, I mean, I would say to me, in my opinion, more discussion is still needing to be had between you and staff. And yes, it is complicated between when a piece of land like this is in the ETJ, but I mean, you knew the land was in the ETJ and there would be proposed challenges. So I don't think you're being made out, being put on hold on purpose. I think that there is just more to be discussed and vetted before staff can give approval on this. And I'm not going to continue on the platform because my fellow commissioners may want to say something. Okay. Thank you. I was actually going to ask Richard to say something. Yeah, actually, sure. If I may, I like to have I know Erica Moronic is on the phone. She's our she's over our project facilitation group. This is one of her projects, and they're really the ones managing sort of that interdisciplinary review, even though Julie's right right there and the planners are. But I think Erica's added added in a much more greater depth, and I'd like her to just provide a little more context if that's okay. Hopefully we can unmute her. Good evening, chair commissioners. My name is Erica Moronic. I'm a project facilitator with the Department of Development Services, and I've been working with Mr. Kachin and Mr. Fairley from Hologun communities on this project in the city of Denton Division one ETJ. A couple things that Mr. Kachin mentioned included in our reasons, our findings of fact for why we recommended denial of this preliminary class this evening. One and probably the major one is the lack of the inclusion of the East West collector that is on the 2015 mobility plan. That plan is what is in effect at this time has been adopted by city council at the time of their pre application meeting that was held last summer in 2020. They were provided with the proposed 2020 mobility plan, and at that time they are correct. It was not shown to exist. However, that document has not moved forward for council consideration, and it has been held up for whatever reason, I believe that engineering staff may be waiting until we move forward with adopted updates to our current comprehensive and the Denton plan. So at this time we cannot approve a document that is not consistent with an adopted thoroughfare plan. So that is one reason that information has been provided to their group. In regards to offsite utility layout, we have been working with them. We've had several meetings with our water and wastewater utility staff and have provided direction as to how that should occur that design decision is up to their design team that they hire. However, we have provided feedback on the minimum easement width and per our water and wastewater criteria manual when you have both water and sewer lines within the same public utility easement, they need to be a minimum 25 width. There may be under certain circumstances, some flexibility within the easement width, but those need to be determined on a case by case basis. In regards to the traffic impact analysis, that is something that we can defer until civil engineering plan approval, definitely before final flat approval. However, the one that has been dormant for some time since 2019 included a completely different layout and it's not consistent with the current plan before you. So we have concerns about that and how that would include any additional improvements that may be required along Ganser, the extension of Barthold road and the future collector through the property. Mr. Kachan has mentioned that we have had multiple meetings, Microsoft team meetings, where we've provided feedback. There has been some time in coordination because this is in the EPJ and we do have to reach out to development services for Denton County to get their feedback. So the ultimate right away with for Ganser, he provided as an example, yes, we met with Stephen Bell Knapp, who's the assistant director of development services for Denton County to provide that feedback. We also had to meet with the county in order to determine the best utility location for this private development, whether that was to be within the right of way or outside of the right of way, under the pavement or immediately backing up to the pavement. So these conversations have been had, feedback has been provided and in some instances, their revisions have incorporated that feedback and then others they have not. And I think you can see before you that they have not incorporated all of the feedback and therefore that informs our recommendation to your commission for recommended recommendation of the miles of time. I'm available for any questions. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair, Erica or Julie, are any of the the items of contention within staff's flexibility parameters or are they all outside flexibility? I can speak to the mobility plan issue that the code requires a comprehensive plan amendment in order to make modifications to the mobility plan. So for that east-west collector, that would require a comprehensive plan amendment. I would probably defer to Erica for the other comments since she has a little more expertise in those. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question, please? The question, yes, the question was, are any of the items that are in discrepancy between the applicant and staff, are any of those within the flexibility parameters for those types of items or are they outside the range of flexibility? The items that I mentioned were connections to the city public utility system. We do have some flexibility there, the timing of the traffic impact analysis race the middle, we do have some flexibility there, but not accounting for or planning for a future change that hasn't been adopted by council as far as the east-west connector is not possible at a staff level. Additionally, I believe I'm outstanding discrepancies between phasing, we've asked for some phasing information. I don't believe they provided that they haven't determined that yet, which is their prerogative however, it makes it difficult, especially with preliminary plots, because once it's approved, if there's changes, my understanding is that would have to come back to you for future consideration. So essentially even, and I assume staff is generally willing to be flexible as governed by the DDC, but even if you wanted to be flexible, these are outside what your flexibility parameters will allow. Is that what I'm hearing? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Is there any other questions for Julie, Erica, applicant? Okay, I did not see any other questions. I wanted to make note that for this item, there were three people that filled out the online virtual white card. All three were in opposition. These comments were emailed to all the commissioners and will be included in the meeting record, but without any other discussion, I'll certainly listen to any motions. Commissioner Smith. Can I make a motion to deny the project? I think that applicant, Mr. Ketchum, I think that your arguments are compelling and I do feel for you on this project, but I do think that it is prudent that this application is denied just for the fact of the pieces that are missing and because of the shot clock, it just kind of seems like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place and it's probably best for this to be cleaned up, more discussions to be had, as Commissioner Ellis mentioned, and then to come back and be presented back to this body with plenty of ample time for additions and changes where needed. We have a motion to deny. Commissioner Cole. I'll second. We have a first and a second to deny this item. Any discussion from the commissioners? Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Chair, I just want to clarify that the reasons for the denial are the reasons in the staff report provided by staff. Is that correct? That is correct. Thank you. I appreciate that. And real quick before I call roll call, I would echo Commissioner Smith's sentiments. This is a really fun denial and there are some complications that we're trying to work out with ETJ and ILA, but there's also just items that need to be cleaned up and hopefully you can bring it back quickly and staff can work with you to get a project that we can approve unanimously, so I look forward to seeing it back in front of us. With that, Commissioner Ellis, we'll start with you. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Chair, it's also an aye. Next item of business is item 4D, PZ21-064 and Ron McGuida is going to present on this regarding small area plan. Thank you, Chair. Give me a few minutes to load my presentation. Good evening. Ron McGuida, Principal Planner with Development Services, City of Den, brought forward for your consideration this evening is a request for the creation of a small area plan located in the north part of town in the area of I-35 and Highway 77. By way of background, on January 20, 2021, there was a request for a small area plan work session to discuss potential small area plan. The area again is I-35 and Highway 77. At the time, the Planning Zoning Commission felt that a small area plan was appropriate for this area due to the activity in terms of zoning applications and PD specifically. So on August -- I'm sorry, April 21, the Planning Zoning Commission received a presentation on regards to the comprehensive plan as well as small area planning and small area plans. As a result of that presentation, the Planning Zoning Commission requested that an item be brought back for the P&Z to consider a recommendation to create the small area plan for the area that is shown generally in these exhibits, again, along I-35 and Highway 77. An exact boundary has not yet been identified. However, during the small area plan exercise, that will be determined at that time. Six steps, if, again, this were to be recommended for creation, we will take this to City Council. The date specific, we've identified one already, and it will be May 18th. Later this month, in a couple weeks, again, if it was a recommendation, we will take this to City Council. City Council will give us direction, and we will continue our work towards the small area plan, again, if that is the direction that we receive from City Council. The option for the Planning Zoning Commission this evening is, as you see here, recommend this small area plan, do not recommend, or continue this item. That concludes my presentation. I will stand for any questions. Great. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So I think it's probably clear, and I shouldn't speak for anyone, that it sounds like there's a lot of interest in this, but I will ask, what governs the limitations in the scope? We're talking about developing this for the 288 I-35 region, and I know you specifically said that the boundaries would be determined, but how far west, east, north can we go within our jurisdiction before it's not a small area plan, but it's a medium area plan? Does that make sense? That does make sense, and for those that are aware, I'll just use the way of an example, the Oak Gateway area plan. We knew it was going to be of an area adjacent to the university, but through the exercise with the stakeholders, even with the steering committee, that area grew to a little bit larger than what you would consider a small area plan, but it was needed in order to identify and address the concerns that we heard through the exercise, again, through meeting with stakeholders, with citizens and residents. We heard that it wasn't just the north side of the university, it was also on the west, as well as the south side of the university. So that area boundary grew, and again, we won't really know until we fully vet through the exercise. Again, we're going to target the area on the northeast corner of that intersection, but it can certainly grow to the south. We will obviously know more once we continue or work with and go through the public outreach effort. That makes sense. Thank you. Any other questions for Ron? All right. Fantastic. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve a recommendation to create a small area plan. Commissioner Pernetta. Second the motion. Great. We have a first and a second to provide a recommendation to city council to pursue a small area plan at 35 and 77. Any discussion on this item? Commissioner Ellis. Thanks, Chair. It's been a couple minutes since I kind of wanted this on the agenda. So I just want to say it's a great opportunity. A lot of times we create small area plans after something undesirable has moved into an area. And this is an opportunity for us as a city to create something so that we can plan what we want. We've already heard things that we know we don't want, at least at this moment in that area. So I think it's a great thing. Great. Any other discussion on this? Commissioner Smith. Sorry for stealing your thunder, Commissioner Ellis. Any other discussion? All right. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. That brings us to the Planning and Zoning Commission matrix. I will turn the floor over to Richard for any updates and then to the virtual dais for discussion. Thank you, Chair. Just quickly, nothing to add on the matrix. We will be getting some of those items as I've indicated scheduled. Just a quick update, last night City Council approved an extension of an SUP of one year for Forest Crossing. That was an individual consideration item. So because that was already an ordinance passed, it did not have to come back to PNC. It was just an extension of that approval. And then the other items that were approved were the Geesling Road industrial. If you recall, that was Geesling and 380. They did approve that as well as the Alt ESA for the Exeter-Martino project. And then in addition, the legacy multifamily SUP was approved as well as I indicated earlier, the ordinance eliminating the ability to do a preliminary planning ETJ. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Smith. Just to, one, has the City discussed a timeline yet on us returning back to doing commission or council meetings back in person? Not that I'm pushing for them. I think I think many of the commissioners like doing this from their homes via Zoom, but just didn't know if it's even been up to discussion yet, if it's even been tossed around by the City yet. It is. I think that's something Council's looking at. Just a little update. I think it's just monitoring how everyone's responding. Starting June 1st, we'll be going – staff will start coming into the office, and so we're looking at at least two days a week to start working in the office, two to even three days a week. Some of us are already here intermittently, so I think it's just monitoring that, making sure that cases – hopefully there's not new cases as a result, monitoring that. But I think the goal ultimately is to get back to meeting in person, as well as having fully staffed offices. Second item, I did send you a contact information for Jessica Robinson. She is with Discover Denton, but they are – they notified me just through a random chance meeting that Discover Denton is in the process of working with a third-party marketing firm to build a marketing brand for what Denton is and how they're marketing it. And so they're almost to the stakeholder phase of getting garnering feedback from what that consulting group has presented. And I know they're going to bring it to Council, and I invited her to be introduced to you to be able to bring it to PNZ and present it to us for feedback and stakeholder feedback. So just wanted to put that on the matrix and see if we can possibly get that for a work session item at some point in time, whenever that presentation is done. Do that. Commissioner Pernetta? Yeah, to the question about when we're going back to in-person meetings, you know, one of the things that I've noticed, and I think probably all of us have noticed, is that the number of people appearing to speak on individual items is down, right? Usually we used to see, you know, maybe it doesn't or whatever show up for particular things. Now they're not. Even though Zoom is technically, you know, more accessible to people, they don't have to show up at a certain time and wait all night to speak on something. Has staff, you know, not just for PNZ, but across the board for any committees or commissions that take public input, have we been monitoring feedback from the public on whether they find the Zooms, you know, generally speaking, beneficial if people feel like they've been underrepresented in this type of thing? Is there anything that staff or the city is kind of doing to try and figure out if we have a hybrid going forward, that kind of thing, to ensure that we have maximum engagement? I'm not 100% sure. I'll find out through our public information officer just how they're sort of tracking out if they've developed metrics for it. I will say at least our comp plan, you know, the comp plan and workshops that we had, had, you know, tremendous turnout. I don't know that we would have got that if we even had a facility that big to hold that many people. So I think it's sort of a little bit of both, you know, in some instances, I think even some of our community meetings that we've had, you know, developer, the meetings that they hold, it almost appears that we've had some, a better turnout in some instances, but just because it's, you don't have to find a sitter, you can do it, you know, you can do it from home. But I'll find out and report back if they've been able to measure that and see what feedback they've got. I'm just not sure 100%. The only thing I have to add to this evening is a congratulations to Commissioner Brian Beck. He will be, I imagine leaving us shortly, I think this is your last meeting, if I understand the calendar. I just want to say thank you for your service. It's not we all know that that it's a sacrifice to read over everything and you're going into even more of it going forward. And I've said many times that I'm not in favor of a homogenized commission. So I appreciate your counter perspective. And to me, we disagree on some things, but you've always brought in my opinion, a thoughtful discussion to the table and I sincerely appreciate it and wish you the best at council. Congratulations Brian. Thank you. I appreciate that. Congratulations. Thank you, Margie. Thanks. Without any other discussion, looking around the big board here, we will close this meeting tonight at 718. We'll see you in two weeks.