Jul 14, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-07-14 4:30 PM

>> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session meeting for Wednesday, July 14th, 2021. Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order at 433. On the agenda this evening, there's no work session reports and there's not any comments on the citizen or the consent agenda item, so we'll hop right into the regular meeting agenda items. Meeting first with item two, consider the approval of the June 23rd, 2021 minutes. Is there any edits or talking points on the minutes this evening? Great. That moves us to our consent agenda. We have two, a final plat and a preliminary plat. Is there any questions on these that we can call up? City planners on this. Any questions on the consent? Okay. Great. Let's hop into the items for individual consideration, starting with 4AFP20-0027C, presented by Haley. You're presenting this one? >> I will. Yeah. Who do you mind filling up the presentation? Yeah, while Karina gets that one pulled up, this is a final plat for the woodlands on McKinney Street. It's one you all have seen several times before. A new version of the plat was sent to you just this afternoon. So since the agenda posting, the applicant has been able to work through all of their outstanding comments related to review of their deed restrictions and some just easement mislabelings and cleanup type items. So we are able to recommend approval of the plat this evening. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them on this one. Any questions for Haley? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to the next item of business, item 4B, PP21-0012. This also is Haley. Yes. So this next plat is a single lot industrial development for -- I'm sorry. This is actually three lots. This is the urban logistics facility on I-35, the frontage of the Acme property that was recently rezoned. So at this time, the plat is recommended for denial as they have several outstanding comments that they have not yet worked through. However, they have requested that extension. We don't quite have 30 days, but August 4th would put them at approximately 20 days from now. So that is the date certain that they've requested that extension to and staff has no objection to that request. So I'm happy to answer any questions on this project as well. Any questions for Haley? All right. Seeing none, we'll move to the next item, 4C, FR21-0006. This is Ron's item. I had a question. I just had a quick question. What was the date on that? I just didn't hear. It was August 4th. Okay. Thank you. A development just south of I-35, Eagle Creek. It is a residential development. It is a multi-phase development. The development or the phase that they're proposing with this final replant is phase 4. It contains 216 residential lots and three open space lots, HOA lots. The staff is recommending denial as the applicant has not met the requirements or the criteria for approval per the DDC, specifically sections 832D, 835, and 836J related to notification as well as HOA documentation. There was an extension already on this item, so there will not be an extension. Again, staff is recommending denial, and I'll stand for any questions. Ron, has the other phases already been plotted, if you can remind me? There have been approvals. I'll double check if they've been filed with the count, but yeah, phase one and two, there has already been approved. Okay. Yes. Great. Any other questions for Ron? All right. I don't see any. Next is item 4D, PP21-0011B. This is Corrina. Good afternoon. Corrina Maldonado, Associate Planner. The preliminary plat before you today is PP21-0011B. This was brought forth to you at the previous Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and you recommended an extension of this item. Staff was previously recommending denial of this item, and is now recommending approval, as they now have met all requirements, including preliminary tree preservation within our code, and I can take any questions on this. Great. Any questions for Corrina? I do not see any. Thank you. That brings us to item 4E, ZCP21-0017, and this is also Corrina. Thank you. This is ZCP21-0017 for Razor Ranch Multifamily at Heritage Trail. The request today is for a consideration of approval of a site plan for a multifamily use. The site is approximately 5.906 acres, located on Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block E of the Razor Ranch East addition. They will have to replat into one lot for this site. It is located in the Razor Ranch Overlay District. You can see that the aerial map doesn't give it justice. A lot of this is already starting to develop, but it is located here in yellow. It is surrounded by four public streets, so that would be Linden Drive to the north, Heritage Trail to the west, Panhandle Street to the south, and East Park Boulevard to the east. As I mentioned, this is located in the Razor Ranch Overlay District, which has a base zoning of RCCD that goes back to our 2002 Denton Development Code, and it is located in the South Mixed Use District of the Overlay District. The proposed use of multifamily is permitted in this area, and just wanted to point out that the last time you saw this site in particular was with the zoning case where they were revising or amending the concept plan to revise the southern portion, which was previously indicating a park use, and changed that to now allow for the multifamily use. The multifamily standards for this site, those located east of Heritage Trail, are subject to architectural landscape standards found in Ordinance Z18-0026, and that would be Exhibit C2A. Like all other site plans for the Razor Ranch Overlay District, this does require approval through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Typically, you don't see these site plans. They're administrative with staff, but for Razor Ranch, this is why you're seeing this today. So what is included in this approval today, or consideration of approval, is the site plan, landscape plan, and elevations. So the criteria for approval of site plans within the Overlay District are located on the screen. So those would be that the site plan substantially complies with the concept and schematic plan that's approved by council for the Overlay District, second that the site plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that would not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties, third that the site plan provides for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic, and that the plan fully complies with all other sections of the Overlay District. So first, I'll go through the site plan. I've tried to highlight some areas to make it easier to identify. Overall, it's 3,100, 500 square feet of building area, and so that's located in blue, as well as the administrative leasing office. So the two areas, Building A and Building B, you can see here these L-shaped buildings. It's a total of 322 dwelling units with multiple amenities on site. That includes a dock park located in this green area here, a sports court, pool amenity area, the clubhouse, and a tot park playground and plaza area. So overall, they're providing 74.9% lot coverage. That's less than the maximum of 90%. They're providing 9.6% open space, and I'll go over that in the next slide. The maximum required is 8%. The maximum allowed height in this area is 100 feet. They're actually under with 85 feet. This is about seven stories, and they're providing 515 parking spaces. That's a few spaces above the minimum of 504, but within the Razor Ranch Overlay District, they are allowed to exceed the maximum. So this is the landscape plan for the site. It does meet all the minimum landscape requirements. They are providing 21% landscape area. The minimum would be 10%. They're also providing 42% tree canopy, and the minimum being 20%. On this site, they are also incorporating some various alternatives. That would be the use of green screens on the southern parking. You can see that in these kind of these highlighted green areas along the edge, as well as some raised planters on the southern parking, which is a split parking design. I'm just very quickly going through the elevations. This is both building A and building B from Linden Drive, so that's facing south on Linden, and then these would be the outward facing elevations, facing East Park and Heritage Trail. There's a few elevations of the amenity building that can be viewed from Linden Drive, as well as the split parking that's viewable from Panhandle Street. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the request, as it does meet the established requirements of the Razor Ranch Overlay District, with the following conditions. First, that any public utility easements that are shown on the site plan is being abandoned in order to accommodate the proposed building locations, must be abandoned prior to the issuance of any building permits. And then second, that a replat must be submitted and approved to combine lots one and two of the Razor Ranch East addition into one lot, again, prior to any building permits. And with that, I can take any questions. Great. Thank you. Any questions for Karina? Karina, can you go back to any of the earlier slides that show the aerial or the actual – that's fine. This one's – nope. That one's perfect. Okay. I know in the northeast corner, the road kind of juts out there, where they have the tot park. Was there any conversation around putting the kids' park right at that intersection? It seems – I know the landscape plan has some trees, and I assume a fence, but it does seem like not the most protected spot for kids to be playing in. Was there any conversation around that? There was no direct conversation related to the placement adjacent on the east side where the senior living apartment complex is. They did a similar design where I believe it's a pool area. That conversation was had then about the placement. And so since it was a similar concept, we didn't want to rehash the same item out. So there was no specific conversation had, but it is kind of mirroring what's on the opposite side of East Park. And for clarification, there's a pool opposite the intersection here? I haven't heard of that either. Haley can speak to it better than I can. This was more when she came through with Razor. Correct. You can kind of see it on the kind of northeast corner of your screen there. The amenity – outdoor amenity area and pool at the adjacent facility on the opposite side of East Park is right there at the corner to kind of create open spaces facing the park, Razor Ranch Park to the north. So they were kind of mirroring that open space concept here at the corner, pulling the buildings back a little bit, having that amenity area at the front. And I believe it will be fenced, of course, at this location for security. Yes. And I apologize. I kind of zoomed through the presentation, but it's a little bit hard to see here. This area here is where they are fencing in around that top park. It does extend here. So the building would basically block any entrance. And then for the areas that don't have any security, there's fencing here plus retaining walls and then pedestrian entrances from East Park Heritage in the north on Linden. But this is, as Haley mentioned, a fenced-in area. Great. Thanks. Any other questions? I don't see any. Thank you, Corina. The next item of business moves us into the public hearings. We'll start with 5AZ21-0007C. And this is yours, Corina. All right. Thank you again. This is a zoning case, so Z21-007 for the Jim Crystal Road rezoning. The request is for, again, a rezoning for approximately 30.43 acres. This is going from public facilities to Light Industrial District. The site can be shown here in yellow. This is city-owned property that was acquired in 2017 to accommodate the Denton Energy Center. You can see in green, I've kind of surrounded the area of what is shown, at least on this aerial, of what is city-owned property, so the rezoning would just be two portions within that area, which I'll refer to as the northern and southern portions. So like I mentioned, this is city-owned property, and so as part of our 2019 DDC, all property that's owned by public entities, including the city, was automatically zoned PF, and these areas are, again, intended for provision of public and community services like fire stations, schools, basic utilities like the Denton Energy Center. So the rezoning is intended to support Denton Municipal Electric's proposed ground lease to a third party as part of a modular data center warehouse development. This was brought forth with city council in previous work session. And again, the PF zoning is limited to community uses, and so the rezoning is to allow for that warehouse use, which would be permitted in LI but not in the PF zoning district. So this is just previous and current zoning for this site, and I just wanted to highlight something. So the 2002 zoning map on the left hand of the slide does show the previous zoning before 2019. So you can see the area I kind of roughly drew it in was previously zoned ICG. That was one of our previous industrial zonings. When it transitioned to the 2019, which you can see here on the center portion of the slide, the PF taken out, that would have transitioned to the HI zoning district. You can see that reflected in this small area here where the Encore substation is. So anything that's not city owned property has transitioned to the HI district, and so the request today is actually for a lesser intensive zoning district of the LI, Light Industrial District. So I'll go through the general approval criteria. I won't go through all of them, but I have highlighted the ones that I will focus on today, including the comprehensive plan, impacts to surrounding property, and adequate public facilities. Again, with the zoning criteria, I'll just go over the ones highlighted that are similar to the general criteria. So first, the general criterion three and zoning criterion one related to the Denton Plan 2030. So the future land use for this area is industrial commerce. It is predominantly intended for light and heavy industrial, so the light industrial district is consistent with this designation, but it does offer a less intensive zoning than a heavy industrial district would allow. The primary uses for this industrial commerce area are for manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, and wholesale and distribution, so the proposed warehouse use is consistent with the intended uses in this designation. Next, speaking about general criterion eight and zoning criterion five, and minimizing the adverse impacts to the surrounding property. So as you can see, the northern portion is approximately 1,000 feet east and approximately 1,000 feet south. From the nearest residential zoning, it's difficult to see here, so I've provided some arrows to show. Just right here, there's an R2 zoning, and on the west side, an R2, which is actually buffered by an HI zoning. The closest, most adjacent uses to that northern portion is, again, the Encore substation, and then the Denton Electric Energy Center, excuse me, to the south, as well as flood plain on the east side. So the southern portion is very similar in adjacent uses. Actually to the south, it is abutted by the rural residential zoning. That property to the south was annexed in 2010, and under the 2002 zoning was given the placeholder zoning of RD5X. When this transitioned in the 2019 zoning, it was given that RR as a base zoning. Existing on the southern portion, or sorry, south of the southern portion, are some active gas wells that you can see kind of scattered around the site, so that area would not develop into residential in the future due to our gas well setbacks. Next, just talking about existing facilities, so to serve the site, there is existing water and sewer to both the northern and southern portions. Any extension of utilities would be looked at with any platting if this were to be approved. The subject sites do have access directly from Jim Crystal through way of private access, and for emergency services, the site is served by Fire Station 3. This is the new fire station at 1401 Underwood. We did have some public outreach notices were sent out. Due to the location of the site, there's not much that's close to it except for city-owned property with a few exceptions, so we have not received any responses. We did hold a virtual community meeting on June 17th. The radius for how many people were notified, I believe, was about 1,000 feet from the subject site. The main questions, we did have a few people in attendance, were related to noise mitigation, what the adjacent zoning looked like, and how they would be impacted by the supply for electricity. DME was in attendance to address any concerns, and the overall response from the public was positive. With this, staff does recommend approval of the request as it does comply with the general criteria and zoning criteria in Section 2.4E of the Debt and Development Code in Section 272D. The next steps after this request is that it will go to the city council on July 20th. That's next Tuesday. In relation to the project, on July 27th, city council will consider a lease agreement and a power purchase agreement for the site. With that, I can take any questions. DME will be here to answer any questions during the regular session. Great. Thank you, Carina. Any questions? I have maybe two. One, tangential to this conversation, you said the property to the west is buffered by an HI. Is HI an appropriate buffer from a LI zoning into R2? The HI is an existing zoning. It's kind of odd in the way that it looks right now because it's city-owned property, so it's PF. HI is what's already existing. The space between the HI and the proposed site, maybe I should just pull the presentation back up. But there is a significant spacing in between. If there's any development of the HI, there is mitigations when an HI development goes into an R2. Right now, the R2, there's an existing home there. I would say it's unlikely that that would develop anytime soon just because it's really all industrial in nature, even if it's city property, the existing uses are substations and gas wells. Gotcha. You mentioned on the earlier slide that it's a private company. Is that contract existing? Is it public? I think someone can answer that. That is not me. I'm just curious on who's putting a data warehouse in the city if that's public. What I can provide is the city is working with Tanaska on the development of this site through the power purchase agreement, and I'm not sure if maybe Haley or Matt can jump in, but that will be going to council, and there has been a work session on it. There is an NDA on a portion of it, so that's why I hesitate to say anything. That's why I was wondering, is the company public? I do not believe so, defer to Matt on that one. Right. My understanding at this point is it's still subject to non-disclosure agreement. Whoever Tanaska is working with, so that's still not public information at this point. Okay. Great. Any other questions for Karina? All right. Moving on to item 5B, Z20-0005B. This is Julie Wyatt's item. Good evening. Let me pull up my presentation. Here we go. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city of Denton, and I am presenting Z20-0005B, Denton Commerce Center. So the request before you is to rezone approximately 142 acres. Julie. Presentation. It's not shared. I promised I wouldn't do that, and then I did it. I apologize. There we go. Okay. So, the request is to rezone about 142 acres from mixed use regional to light industrial district. Light is located along the west side of I-35, where Loop 288 currently ends, but it will eventually be extended. It's just on the north side of that future Loop 288 alignment. The current zoning map has the subject property as mixed use regional, that MR, and they are proposing LI, which is in the light blue. The criteria for approval for a zoning case is in subchapter 2 of the Denton Development code, both the general and specific. First thing we always look at is the future land use map, the Denton Plan 2030. The subject property has a future land use designation of business innovation. That's intended for those large tracts of land to support those employment type uses, larger scale offices, employment parks, industrial type uses. It does have supporting uses such as retail, hotels, and residential that could be potentially be appropriate. Currently we see two zoning districts within business innovation, LI and GO. In this instance, LI is consistent. It does provide those types of uses that we want to see in business innovation at that scale that is typically found in business innovation. One commissioner did have questions about commercial development standards. Given that this is along one of our primary corridors, I-35 as well as Loop 288, the Denton Development code requires that any structures within 250 feet of that ultimate right of way would have to comply with our commercial design standards. This property is kind of unique in that and it's really along three rights of way that it would have to comply. I've created a little, it's not to scale, but a little exhibit here showing all of those areas that it would have to comply with those commercial design standards. Then additionally, I just wanted to point out that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have talked about a small area plan for this general area because there is a lot of development pressure and this is one of our gateways to the city. As indicated in those discussions about that small area plan, it's kind of indicated that the industrial, that west side of I-35 corridor is where we want to see our industrial centers. This is consistent with that discussion. Another criterion for approval is significant changes in the area to warrant the zoning change. We had to kind of go way back to figure out how the property was zoned the way it was. We looked at that 1999 Denton plan. At that time, the city anticipated that this part of the city would develop with a regional mixed use center, more commercial uses, and the zoning reflected that vision. The zoning was one of our regional mixed use districts that was available under that 2002 code. So that 1999 plan, that vision, and the zoning were consistent. Denton Plan 2030 kind of looked at the area and looked at the broader Denton and determined that we already had three other regional commercial centers and this really wasn't going to be a regional commercial center and so the vision for this area changed to that more employment uses, that business innovation. However, the zoning kind of stayed in place. So that zoning then transitioned with the 2019 plan to that MR district. So that's really how that zoning got in place. So you can see the subject property here. This map is from 1999. There wasn't a lot out there in 1999. The subject site has that star on it and here is just a screenshot from that 1999 Denton Plan showing that regional mixed use center along with the subject property with that star. So that vision of the area really has changed, but that zoning hasn't been updated to reflect that new vision. Another criterion minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property. LI district is appropriate in this area, not anticipated to create adverse impacts. A lot of the surrounding property is either undeveloped or maybe has agricultural uses. However, as it starts to develop, we do anticipate that it's going to develop consistent with that future land use designation and that that zoning will continue to track with that comprehensive plan. Public facilities available to serve the property. There are, there's adequate transportation currently and it will also continue to improve. They do, the site currently has access to I-35, that corridor, as well as FM 1173. However, as you're probably aware, there are improvements that are imminent in this corridor. There are improvements to the, to I-35 that TexDOT is moving forward with as well as that Loop 288. It's currently under design and they anticipate that Loop 288 is going to start around 2026, I believe. It's probably a fluid date, but it is under design now, so it is moving forward, that extension of that roadway. And there is a concurrent comprehensive plan amendment that we're going to be talking about regarding mobility in the area. There is water and wastewater available to the site. A new lift station may be required for that sewer, but that will be determined at that platting stage. Public outreach was done. That says February 27th, it was actually, and I wrote down on a note, it was actually consistent with what is required. This was a cut and paste error. It is consistent with our requirements for newspaper ads, as well as the property was posted on July 2nd of this year. So they did meet all of that notification requirements. We haven't received any responses regarding this case. So staff does recommend approval of the request, is that it complies with the criteria for approval and I'll be happy to answer any questions. And the applicant will be here with a presentation tonight. Any questions for Julie? I have a couple questions. The small area plan that you mentioned, has that been approved, or is that just like there's momentum towards that? Haley might know more than me, but I believe there is momentum that council did want to move forward with that small area plan. I don't think it's gotten underway yet, but it is. No, that's correct. There was a work session with council following the discussion that we had with you all, and they were in favor of staff moving forward with that, but that has not officially kicked off today. But we are definitely moving in that direction. And at the risk of breaking my own rule on a zoning case, is the proposed use to warehousing? They have talked about distribution. They've also talked about other employment uses. So we don't have an end user or a final reviewed site plan. They've shared some kind of conceptual plans with us, but given that this is a straight zoning case, really any of those uses permitted under that LI, if it's approved, could be developed to that scale that would be permitted under LI. And then the last question I think I have is you mentioned that under business innovation, it's LI and GO, is that codified or is that just like a working, these typically fit? That is a great question. No, so we have our typical zoning districts that we often see related to certain future land use designations, but there is flexibility within that. I know we've seen HC within business innovation when it's been adjacent to the highway corridor. So while there are kind of typical zoning districts that we often see and that really slot well within those future land use designations, there is flexibility since that comp plan is that policy document and has a lot of provisions that could inform that zoning case, but so not codified. Yeah, and maybe I'll bring this up in the regular meeting, but I have some concerns in long-term planning. I understand like there's a need or at least a market for light industrial in Denton and they like the airport in west of 35, but I don't want Denton to become the warehousing for Plano and Frisco as Plano and Frisco attract all the big headquarters and then Denton becomes this warehousing center for a lot of the corporate job opportunities that are not getting to Denton. And so I have this tension of we have an area for business innovation and cognitively warehousing distribution doesn't align with what I would think of business innovation and these kind of headquarter business parks that we had talked about years ago of drawing in. And so I'll just have to think through that, but that's where my mind is right now with that. Any... Commissioner Smith? Thank you, Chair. I wasn't present for the work session discussion that happened around the small area plan after that Hirschbach property went out and we started talking about the small area plan, would Margie or Ronnie or Andrew, would you guys maybe fill me on the discussion if you guys remember anything from that, be helpful just to see what recommendations we made as a commission that city council I know is reviewing and they said that city staff should start looking into it. What were y'all's thoughts in that process? Yeah. Haley, do you know what was reported out to council maybe to frame what actually left PNZ to council? Sure. Ron actually did that presentation and he is here tonight so he can give us a brief overview of that if that would be helpful. Yes. We took the same presentation that we did to the planning zoning commission, shared your concerns related to that area and wanting to have the small area plan for that area. The city council was also in favor of that and again as mentioned earlier by Haley and staff they directed us to move forward with it. Now the issue here, not the issue, but really the timing that we're trying to do is to make sure that the comp plan update as well as the small area plan is in concert. So we're working towards that right now and putting together a timeline for that to happen around the same time so we don't go into it without really having the comp plan really inform what that small area plan is to be. So that's where we are. So there really wasn't any recommendations by the planning zoning commission other than to initiate that small area plan. And council concurred. Yeah. So it was all mainly logistics conversation, it wasn't typical type of use what we think we would like to see that kind of stuff. No. It's too premature for that and we wanted to make sure that there was public outreach and stakeholder interviews or stakeholder involvement. Okay. Yeah, I think and Commissioner Ellis and others can correct me if my memory is failing me, but I think there was the idea that people are entering into our town right there and how do we protect and actually plan that area. And there was mention at the time that there's some industrial or warehousing needs that are kind of getting cluttered by the airport and there's a market demand kind of moving that north. But to Ron's point, we didn't talk about what we wanted to see there. We just want something, some planning to be done around that massive intersection as a gateway into the city. So as far as I understand, there's the current momentum to still continue that, but there's not any that I've seen or you're telling me now, any direction on what is contained in the SAP. That's right. Right. And part of that effort that we would be initiating is also to set the boundary of that area too. So a lot of work has to still be done in order to get to that point. Got it. I'll say the rest of my comments for public. No, I agree with the chair on this. I don't want to see that intersection. That's the main throat, you know, 35 and that new loop is going to be a major intersection. I don't want to see it become just a warehouse district. I mean, let's put that like on the, you know, further out and have like nice commercial restaurants and all that stuff along there. I mean, I know that's stuff that you're going to discuss later, but I just want to kind of reiterate what chair is saying as well, that I don't think that would look good for a city that didn't just be in a warehouse district right there on the major thoroughfare. Any other questions for Ron or statements? Okay. Great. Thanks, Ron. Next item of business is item 5C, CA21-0001. And this is back to Julie. All right, so this is a, let me get to it. This is a companion request to the previous zoning request. All right. So this is a comprehensive plan amendment, CA21-0001, Denton Commerce Center. So before we get into the specific request, I want to talk a little bit about mobility planning in the city of Denton and how all of this ties together. We haven't seen a mobility plan amendment at the Plating and Zoning Commission, I think, since 2011. So this is, this doesn't happen very often, but it is a part of the comprehensive plan. So the mobility plan is one element to our comprehensive planning efforts. It establishes our future roadway network, and that can include cars and pedestrian as well as bicycle networks. So it's, it should be looked at comprehensively. Mobility plans are updated both intermittently as well as on a regular, ongoing basis. And that can be in response to a specific request or as part of that comprehensive planning effort. So the request in 2011 was related to a specific project, as is this one tonight. However, the city is currently updating their mobility plan, and we'll talk some about that tonight. The mobility plan really establishes those transportation networks, and within that, it defines that hierarchy of roadways. And that includes the biggest roads, which are highways, and then you've got your arterials, and then a little smaller than that, you have your collectors, and then your neighborhood roadways really aren't included in a mobility plan. Those are more site-specific. Our current plan was adopted in early 2016, and that replaced our 1998 plan, which had been amended every so often, so it really is kind of that 2011 mobility plan. And as I mentioned, our current update is underway. So now I'll get to the specific request. In 2016, when we adopted our current plan, Cindy Lane, which is a neighborhood street within the Ranch Estates, was kind of reclassified and upgraded to a secondary arterial, and that mobility plan took Cindy Lane from its current location, so connecting to Highway 380 with a signalized intersection, and then connecting it all the way to the north to FM 156 as that secondary arterial. When projects develop within the city, they have to, if a mobility plan roadway is coming through their property, they have to dedicate that right-of-way associated with that roadway. Sometimes they have to build it, so I know that's something that y'all look at often with the plats. In this case, the update to the mobility plan that engineering has been working on will actually remove that Cindy Lane and sort of simplify that arterial network within this area, and so they are proposing to remove that section of Cindy Lane as it's not going to be something that our engineering staff wants to take forward with that update to the mobility plan. So you can see the subject property is the same one we talked about earlier, and here's that Cindy Lane, it's kind of difficult to see, but it's that green dotted line, and then that's where it cuts through the subject property. So we're going to look at the current mobility map and then how that relates to the proposed mobility map, that one that's under review with engineering. Subject property is, again, outlined here in yellow. Cindy Lane is that green dashed line. You can see here's where it connects to Highway 380, that's in this location, goes through that neighborhood, and then would, as proposed under the current mobility plan, would extend it toward the north through these large tracts of land and then on upward. The proposed mobility plan, Cindy Lane would actually just remain as a neighborhood street, so it wouldn't have any expansion related to that roadway, it would just end here. Windsor would cut across, and then we do have that Loop 288 corridor that's providing that connectivity through this general area. Criteria for approval for a comprehensive plan, since the mobility plan is an element of the comprehensive plan, is in subchapter 2, and then there are specific criteria for approval. There's really two subsections for the specific criteria for approval. The first subsection, it would need to meet one of that criteria, and then those additional review standards are listed after that. We'll touch on these as we move forward. So I first want to talk about how this relates to the overall comprehensive plan, and before I get into the analysis, I just want to kind of orient you toward the map. So the subject property here has that red star, so that's sort of that area we're looking at. I have the mobility plan overlaid on the future land use map here. Here's where Cindy Lane connects to Highway 380 and then cuts to the north. Business innovation is one of those dominant future land use designations in this area. It covers the subject site as well as that surrounding area, that's that light purple. One place I'd like to draw your attention to, that's that low residential, that's that ranch estates. It's sort of an island, it's a large lot, established neighborhood, it's been there for a long time, and that has that protection of that low residential future land use designation. So that does sort of give it that policy protection. And then south of that, we've got our industrial commerce, so that's our more heavier industrial area just south, kind of hugging that airport in south of Highway 380. So you can see that Cindy Lane really crosses those three future land use designations. It's rural to the north, but it would essentially sort of induce those trucks to move forward or to move toward the north through that roadway as it's proposed. So we looked at the analysis, we looked at all parts of the comprehensive plan when we analyzed this, because we don't just have that future land use map to rely on, we've got to look at other goals that we have in the city. So first, one of our mobility goals is to provide for the safe, efficient movements of motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians in a sustainable way that complements Denton's plan growth strategy. Given the divergent goals of these diverse future land use designations that are impacted by Cindy Lane, that connectivity that Cindy Lane in its location could conflict with that growth strategy. So we really, it has, that business innovation has different goals than the low density residential, yet we've got this roadway cutting through there that would essentially bind those two future land use designations together. So with that mobility plan update that engineering is moving forward with, it would remove that Cindy Lane, as I showed you in an earlier slide. It would focus then using Mosh Bit Branch, Lovers Lane Corridors, also the future Loop 288 and I-35 to move that truck traffic along those arterials, avoiding that expansion into that residential, kind of leaving them alone as an island. Other thing we did look at as related to that future land use map is business innovation in the intent. So that is intended for those employment uses and often they want really large acreage. It can range anywhere from a smaller size to 20 to 30 acres all the way up to like that hundred acre areas for those larger campuses and larger structures. So as Cindy Lane is currently proposed, and it's a little bit difficult to see, but there is a railroad corridor along the western side of the subject property and then it sort of runs diagonally, getting closer to 35 as you go toward the south. Cindy Lane sort of bisects that so that these large tracts of land that would be ideal for that business innovation and those employment uses really are bisected and it could reduce the developability of those lots. Secondary arterials require anywhere from, well they often, 65 to 110 feet of right of way so it would be a swath of land that would sort of reduce that developable area. And then finally, when we look at the implementation of the comprehensive plan, our mobility plan should really be updated every five years along with that comprehensive plan. That's kind of the goal. We don't always reach that goal, but that is the goal. And so the city is undertaking the updating of the mobility plan. You know, we want to make sure that we understand where our roads are going, but we also want to provide the flexibility and the ability to change with changing circumstances. So another criterion is the events, trends, or facts that have changed since that mobility plan was adopted. So in order to talk through this, I've provided an aerial of what was going on in this area in 2015 and then how that's changed to 2019, which is our most current aerials. So in 2015, we didn't have a lot of industrial growth in this area. We did have some industrial clustered near the I-35 split as well as the airport, but it really hadn't started moving north along Western Center Boulevard. Since then, we have seen a lot of industrial development in the area. And some of them are on the ground and some of them are still sort of in the development stage, but all of those yellow dots represent a new industrial development or an industrial development that's in the planning stages along that corridor, sort of, you know, really showing what kind of truck traffic, what kind of movement is going to be going along in this area. This current classification of Cindy Lane really would induce those trucks to move forward and potentially tag up to loop 288 north of the subject or near the subject property, cutting through that neighborhood as it's currently aligned. And that's why that draft mobility plan really has sort of changed what that road classification would be. You know, we've been really successful in our industrial sector, but there will be a lot of traffic associated with it. Additional review standards, substantial benefit to the city. This proposal is consistent with that draft mobility plan. It's also consistent with our future land use goals, as we've discussed. It would not negatively alter the existing or proposed land use pattern. It wouldn't change that. And it would not adversely impact those existing uses because of increased traffic. The -- those existing and those planned arterial network, those are sufficient to meet the demand of that traffic generated by the development of this area. And since Cindy Lane currently doesn't extend beyond Ranch Estates, there's no -- it would not change those existing traffic patterns. So there's -- that road isn't there yet. So nobody's relying on that to accommodate traffic. Public outreach was done on the request. An opposition letter was emailed to you today, and I also have hard copies if you didn't get your email. I did talk with that property owner. He said opposition on the marking, but then the text of his letter kind of sounded like he was in favor. And so I called him because I wanted to find out, you know, what his intent was. And he was a gentleman that is currently -- his property is on the alignment for Cindy Lane, and that wasn't something -- he thought we were putting the road on it instead of removing it. So I did talk with him about that. So I just want to let you know that. So staff does recommend approval of the request. It meets the criteria for approval, and it is consistent with our current planning efforts. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. And engineering is also here if you have -- if you need more technical questions answered. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Julie, back to the comment that was emailed to us. So he just misunderstood. Yes, ma'am. And it's now clarified. Yes, ma'am. And did he change his -- I haven't received an updated letter from him, but I can certainly call him prior to City Council and get that update. Okay. Second question is, does this stand alone from the zoning change? So if the zoning change, let's say, does not get approved, is this still being considered? Yes, ma'am. It stands alone. Separate on its own. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Any other questions? Commissioner Smith. And really, this might be a question for mobility. Why was it ever thought that it would be a good idea to put a primary arterial through a really low density neighborhood in the first place to connect into business innovation? I know that's a loaded question, but more of like, are there other properties that are -- that we may have a mobility draft that currently has things like this that are out there? Because, yeah. It's -- yeah. I'm going to let engineering answer that. Sounds good. Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioner. This is Chandra with Traffic Engineering. When drafting the mobility plan, the consultant we hired, they take into consideration of all the traffic at the current condition and 20, 30 years into the future. So they plug in all the models and run and see how the networks are loaded. So they will evaluate and see where appropriate arterial or a collector is needed. So that's how we arrived at those networks that it's in the draft. It doesn't really answer the question, but I get it. Yeah, that works. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Julie? Commissioner Pruitt. Yeah. Can you -- I guess I understand the considerations with the existing portion of -- I'm sorry, I'm terrible with names -- the roadway that we were talking about extending north to south. I guess my question is, if we just look at the northern portion, say, from the proposed alignment of Mosh Branch Road as it crosses the railroad tracks over to I-35 and northward of that, can you explain why having connectivity from Mosh Branch northward crossing the future Loop 288 is not desired? I'm going to have engineering answer that as well. Actually, with the proposed loop, unlike the existing loop on the eastern side, the proposed loop will contain frontage roads and then the main lanes, and also on the other designation of the roadway networks, they thought the northern section of Cindy could be removed. The frontage roads also have connectivity to the collectors and the neighborhood streets, which the eastern section, the existing loop, doesn't have it. So those network of smaller roadways can connect with the frontage and take off a lot of traffic from those north-south arterials. I guess just for clarification, if the mobility plan is amended to remove the section of Cindy Lane that we're talking about, would that change whether or not a crossing either over or under the future Loop 288 is provided, a north-south crossing right there? Yes, but based on the other network being proposed, this seems to be irrelevant anymore. Back in 2015, we didn't have any plans for frontage roads on the loop, but now Techstart has put in the frontage roads to begin with, and then later they will add the main lanes. So it's a change in policy, and also 35 is being widened with the frontage roads being extended, so that will also relieve some of the projected traffic. Okay, so just trying to understand, so the concept is that a north-south route is not required there because the main freeways are getting widened, and therefore there'd be a longer route that somebody could take along the frontage and the interstates to get around to their destination? That's right. Usually they put in arterials at approximately 1,200 feet apart, but now with these Loop 288 frontage and also the 35 widening, it seems those models doesn't seem to have those Cindy Lane required anymore. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Julie? I've got a couple. What's the draft mobility plan timeline for implementation? Haley might be able to answer that, or Chandra. I believe it's running in parallel fashion with the comprehensive plan update. We want to make sure our mobility plan and our future land use map work together well, and so I believe that that is sort of, the intent is to kind of keep them parallel, am I correct? Going to that is if we're using the rationale that the Cindy Lane northbound is going away in the draft plan as the rationale that we can take this snippet apart now out of the subject property, why are we not just going ahead right now and removing Cindy Lane entirely and aligning Cindy Lane up 100% to the draft mobility plan in the interim? I'm curious why we're just taking one section out, if we know it's all going away. Well because it was just related to this one request, so that's why we just kept it localized, but I thought about that when we were drafting it, and so we noticed for only that part that the applicant is requesting having be removed, so I'm not sure if the whole thing could be removed given the public notification piece, but yeah, it is sort of an incremental step. Yeah, and I guess you said something that I want to clarify, the applicant is filing for this to be removed, this isn't city initiated to align with the applicant. Correct. I guess going to Commissioner Ellis' question, if item B doesn't get passed for some reason, it would be up to the applicant to still pursue item C, they could pull item C theoretically, correct? That's a good point, yes, theoretically. Maybe we'll go ahead and remove it straight for us, but okay, any other questions for Julie? All right, let's move to the last item, 5D, Z21-0002, and I will invite Sean Jacobson for presentation. Good evening Chair and members of the commission. I'm just going to pull up on here, let's see, okay, all right, and there we go. Okay, good evening Chair and members of the commission. My name is Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, presenting Z21-0002, prominence. This is a request for a rezoning of approximately 58.55 acres at the corner of loop 288 in University. It's divided into requests for 24.93 acres from current planned development and light industrial zoning to general office, approximately 23.47 acres from planned development to mixed use neighborhood, and approximately 9.7 acres from planned development to light industrial zoning. Again, this property is bounded by loop 288, University Drive, Mayhill Road, and prominence way with a mix of undeveloped and commercial lots and a residential lot, all of that zone to L.I. to the northwest, and a single family neighborhood south across prominence way. About 26 acres of floodplain covers the north and center of the property, as you can see in those maps in the lower right-hand corner there. One shows the current ESA map, you have the current floodplain map, significant tree canopy in that floodplain area, as well as along prominence way. This zoning change would replace the old existing PD with current zoning districts containing similar mix of uses, some additional ones, under current DDC standards. So just to give you a little background here, this planned development was approved in 2000 under an interim zoning, an interim DDC essentially. At the time, it was a PD concept plan, subject property was divided into four areas, A, B, C, and E. You're not wrong, there was a D, but it is unrelated to the property we're dealing with, so we're not talking about it, but each was authorized for a different mix of uses, including commercial, industrial, and/or residential. And there was a remaining 18 acres, it was essentially in section C, but it was designated for future park dedication when this developed. This was vested in those standards under that interim DDC, so 1991 use table, 1988 landscape code. In 2002, the city council zoned out approximately 3.92 acres of area A to employment center commercial. That property that was included in this rezoning tonight, essentially, to bring that into line with how the PD would be rezoned adjacent to it. So in 2021, then, this proposal is taking those four areas, putting them into current zoning districts that generally match up similar uses. So A and B would be going into a GEO district, as well as a sum of C, the rest of C would be going into MN, and then E, which was designated for light industrial, would be going into light industrial. I also just note that the Parks Department is in talks still with the current developer to once again do a dedication of that parkland, about 18 acres, at the time of platting of this property. Because the property never developed, that property has never come to us as parks since the time that it was designated. And just give you a glance here, that's what that original PD concept plan looked like. So here would be the proposed zoning, see that GEO area encompasses essentially A and B, the MN in the area that was C, and then the LI, the area that was E. As you know, we have our general criteria for approval, as well as our specific zoning criteria for approval, and we'll touch on some key elements of that. So first off, look at our Denton Plan 2030 comprehensive plan. It's primarily a business innovation, future land use, but it also does have areas of moderate density residential and some neighborhood residential mixed use. So it's intended for large tracts of land to develop with a mix of commercial, supporting residential and retail, and that moderate density residential is intended for a mix of residential, particularly near retail, near parkland. These proposed zonings that are trying to mix, fit that mix of uses allowed in business innovation, and the residential uses would fit with that moderate density residential in that proposed MN area. Also note that zoning out of the current PD ensures that the property is held to all 2019 DDC standards, which of course align more fully with our comprehensive plan. It also enables a mix of uses that would be at a key corridor at the intersection of two major routes there, which is in line with our preferred growth concept, and it's providing employment moderate density housing near what would be, hopefully, a potential future park and trail area. It also allows a broader range of uses that fit our future land use map and are currently permitted under the PD. I want to highlight here, particularly minimizing adverse environmental impacts. As I noted, there's a significant amount of both trees and environmentally sensitive areas. When this PD was put in place, our current protections essentially didn't exist. They basically said, "ESAs are a thing, and please tell us how many trees you're planning to take out and maybe try not to take out too many," and that was about it. Zoning out of this PD ensures that we can apply all of our current environmentally sensitive area and tree standard protections, which aligns with our comprehensive plan to try to protect trees and increase tree canopy. With that, minimizing adverse impacts, we would have higher standards coming in. So again, it wasn't the minimum tree canopy planting requirement at that time either. These new zoning districts would bring in our current tree canopy requirements, varying by zoning district. Would also bring in our current requirements for right-of-way screening, which would help the neighborhood to the south of prominence. We now require much greater significant right-of-way screening, and that would be required under this. It would also bring in heightened commercial building standards under the current DDC. Just touching on parks, again, because of discussions with the applicant, Parks Department is actually proposing a trail, potentially on their draft trail map, through this area. So that would be one thing that would be a benefit as part of the planting process following this rezoning, to be the potential for about 18 acres of parkland to come to the city next to the proposed, well, what would develop in the future potentially. I definitely want to touch on transportation. This is an area that has a number of intersections around it that are difficult. There was a very detailed TIA done, although there's no planned uses. Estimates were done based on looking at some of the highest possible traffic generation uses that could come in. So that led to an estimate of 7,565 daily trips, as you can see there. The TIA focused on ten key intersections surrounding the site. Six out of ten of them would operate at a level of service D or better, which as you know is kind of our baseline for really paying attention to. Three of those ten currently, right now with no changes, operate at a level of service E or F. Just note, if you're looking on the map there, the circles that are not dashed are current intersections. The dashed circles are intersections proposed that may come about as part of this development. The ones in yellow, those are the four that either are currently at an E or an F, or the one that's along the loop 380 frontage road. It's anticipated that if that was put in just as one driveway there that it would operate at a level of service F. So and the TIA indicates that there would be increasing delays over until out to 2029 over the period studied. However the traffic actually generated by development of the site would be a small part of those issues. It's much more due to, it's loop 288 and University driver there. That's what's driving this. However, there were some mitigation items recommended by the TIA. A major one would be a signal light at prominence drive, which either when it's relined with Audra in the future, it may actually be warranted sooner, in part because of this development. That'd be studied when civil engineering plans came in for this development. And this site would be estimated to be responsible for about 25% of the cost of that signal. And when that signal, if that goes in, that would raise that intersection to a level of service C, would actually be higher than it is right now with no development. Also recommended a right turn deceleration lane along loop 288 going north. And that would again be looked at when civil engineering plans came in for this project. And then it was recommended that textile in the city of Denton consider allowing two driveways along that extended loop 288 ramp there in order that they would actually be able to function at a good level of service. Other long-term solutions that were noted, TextOdd is planning to extend the median at Spring Valley across from QuickTrip, and so you would no longer have cars trying to cross back and forth University Drive there. They wouldn't be able to. There's also, TextOdd is looking at a freeway bypass at 380 and 288, which would relieve some of the traffic pressure at that intersection. So overall, TI determined that the actual, with the mitigation and the actual traffic generated by this site, it's not having a significant impact that wouldn't be addressed by this mitigation. And that would be looked at more thoroughly at the CEP stage. Water and wastewater service is available, and the property owner is currently constructing additional wastewater connection. No utility capacity issues have been identified. That's within the eight minutes or less response time boundary for Fire Station 2. No law enforcement issues are expected to increase here. We did do our public outreach and received one response in opposition. It was a neighborhood meeting. Two citizens attended, asked questions, expressed some concerns about multifamily development causing traffic on prominence, about traffic on loop 288, and they expressed their appreciation for the proposed GO zoning. So with that, staff does recommend approval of the request as it complies with our criteria for approval. And I will stand for any questions. Thank you, Sean. Any questions? Krischer Smith. Thank you, Chair. Sean, what was the, this PD that's existing there, was a PD that was underneath the rezone that we did in '19, right, that became PD whenever we did the rezone in '19. So it was probably due to a zoning change that happened with like a restriction or something like that. It wasn't the way that our PDs are being done now underneath our current code. What exactly was that PD's restrictions? What happened within there? Give us some more information about specifically that PD that's being rezoned away. So that PD that was put in place in 2000 wasn't actually changed in any way by the 2019. It just moved forward as a PD. I guess the, it's a PD and it has, and correct me if I'm wrong, but being a PD zoning, meaning that it has obviously some sort of base zoning, I know it's from 2000, but some sort of base zoning and then there was changes in criteria that were specific to just that site. I guess that's my question, is what are those specific changes that were done just to that site? So the way that PDs were put in place in 2000 when this was done, there wasn't necessarily a base zoning that was put in place. They literally said, here are the uses, here's the list of uses you're allowed, here's how you can design buildings. It was actually kind of detailed in laying that out and so what we looked at was what zoning districts would generally line up with how that was set up in our current list of zoning districts we have now. But there wasn't, there's not necessarily a simple zoning district from our, a straight zoning district from previous time that I could refer to that to say, well, it was kind of like that. Okay. I'll look, I'm going to look more at the, but you guys send the backup and I'll formulate a better question during public comment. Maybe just to clarify a little bit, so in 2000 we were under an interim zoning code. It was kind of a hybrid of our '91 code and the 2002 code that came about, so it truly was a PD in the sense of PDs that we have today that created its own development regulations. The old code did not necessarily require that they have a base zoning for that, so it is truly a standalone document that doesn't necessarily follow any of the codes that we have become familiar with in the last two decades. It was kind of an interim hybrid situation at the time, so it's a very unique animal. So basically it was, and that's what I saw in the backup there, it was just more of like, it was its own zoning that had its own blend of these different pieces that are all part of it. Correct. So there wasn't any other criteria on like deviation on height or any of those kinds of things. Correct. It's not the PD overlay that we had. We didn't have a really good one that fit at all, and so it's just this mixed bag of stuff that's in that section. Correct. So okay. Right. I just didn't know what, if there were some criteria that we could do exact comparisons between like moving to geo, any differences in height versus where, basically do we have to rezone it? That's kind of where I was getting to on that piece, is that underneath its current zoning, what are we really changing in the way that it really makes a big difference, but I think I understand from Haley's answer that I understand where we're coming from now. So okay. Thank you. Certainly. Any other questions? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Sean, I know you said we're not talking about area D, but I just, I want to talk about it for a second, because I just want some clarification. I assume that that's the southern part that's remaining in PD that I see on the proposed zoning exhibit that you have in here. Do you know what those uses are for area D? So area D was primarily a residential use designation. I believe there was some retail that was permitted in that area, and some of that is actually the neighborhood to the south that you see now, that's actually used to be part of area D. Okay. So that left the PD and was zoned, I believe, R6 and R4. Okay. And right now that's remaining as area D in the PD? The neighborhood is not in PD, but yes, the other area, yes, it's remaining area D in the PD. It's a different landowner who's not part of this request. Okay. Understood. Okay. I think that's it for now. Thanks. Any other questions? First, for what it's worth, this seems more like business innovation to me, which is, makes my head a little wrap around the previous item, and B versus this one, it actually seems innovative. But the question I have is early on your slides, you had some FEMA designations and ESA designations. Does staff have any hesitation on the development of the property given that half of it is in potentially restricted development areas? Well, I will note that that is the current FEMA map. There will be some changes because the landowner has a previous approval for a letter of map revision, and so some of that in the northwestern corner is being removed from the flood plain under that previous approval. But from staff's perspective, much of that remaining area is going to parkland that will benefit the development in that area, so we think that actually helps create a beneficial mix. Great. Thanks for that clarification. Christopher? Yeah, if you don't mind, can you go back to that slide with the trail corridor that you showed? Certainly. Sorry, just a moment. Sorry. Yeah, thank you. So I'm trying to understand the implications of the parkland dedication that was made under the old PD versus the requirements of the 2019 DDC that would apply insofar as they provide an easement or dedication to allow this in the future. My understanding is that the 2019 DDC only requires an extension of a trail if it already exists at the border, and that the ESA requirements are really more geared toward development of the site as opposed to which portions of the ESA need to be dedicated versus doing a funds in lieu of or other sort of arrangement, right? So I guess my question is, what level of confidence do we have that if the zoning changes is approved that that corridor would be available to our parks department in the future, and what guarantees that if anything? Well, I will clarify first that the land was never actually dedicated under the PD. It was if this developed under the PD, then this would be provided. And so in some ways we're in a similar situation. The landowner has actually been the one that has, through this process, approached the parks department saying, "I'd like to give this to the city. Are you good with this?" And the parks department said, they thought about it, and they said, "Yeah, okay." So there's not a guarantee built into this, and that would certainly be something that city council could add as a condition of approval. But from our perspective, the landowner, the developer has expressed a strong interest in dedicating this park, and they would actually have park dedication requirement even with potential future development. And so there would be that benefit in it as well, besides the fact that we're fairly familiar with landowners preferring not to have the maintenance responsibility for land that they can't develop. So it's not a guarantee, but it is something that I believe we have a level of comfort with the desire to provide that area support plan. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Sean? Great. Thanks for the presentation, Sean. Before breaking, I would want to turn it over to Haley. She has a couple of announcements for us. Yeah. Just to put them on the spot, maybe embarrass them a little bit, I wanted to make an announcement that we are very happy to announce that both Corina and Sean have been recently promoted from assistant planners to associate planners. So congratulations are in order for their hard work. Congratulations. Well deserved. With that, I will close the work session meeting at 5.51 and we will return here at 6.30. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, July 14th, 2021. Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call this meeting to order at 6.32. And please let the record show that Commissioner Cole is not with us this evening. The first item of business is to stand and provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. 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 United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The next item of business is to consider the approval of the June 23rd, 2021 minutes. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second for approval of the minutes. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Second. Chair is an aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is to consider our consent agenda. Commissioner Ellis. I move approval. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Smith. Make a second. We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Chair is an aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is our individual consideration items, starting with 4A FP20-0027. I'll invite Haley Zagorski for presentation. All right. Good evening. Carina is getting the plat pulled up. This is a final plat for the Woodlands and McKinney Street. This is a manufactured home development with a single large lot. Since the time of the agenda posting, a new plat has been sent to you all. They were able to resolve all conditions that were -- or all staff comments that were outstanding on the plat rather related to their HOA documents and some easement and labeling items on the plat, so we are now recommending approval of this request. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Haley? Commissioner Smith. I make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Anderson. I second. We have first and second for approval. Real fast. Rachel, is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Good evening, Chair. No, there is none. Thank you. Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Thank you. Chair is an aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 4B, PP21-0012. I'll invite Haley back for presentation. Good evening. This is a preliminary plat for the Urban Logistics Edition. This property is located on the south side of I-35E. The preliminary plat includes three lots, the largest of which would be intended for industrial development, the other two left as commercial parcels. At this time, there are several outstanding comments that are outlined in Exhibit 2 of your backup, so staff is recommending denial. However, the applicant has requested an extension, and staff has no objection, and that would be to a date certain of August 4th. Thank you, Haley. Any questions for Haley? And Rachel, is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? No, Chair, there is none. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of August 4th, 2021. We have a first for the 30-day extension to a date certain of August 4th. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second for the extension. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Chairs, an aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Motion carries 6-0. Item number 4C, FR21-0006, and I'll invite Ron to present. Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. This item, for your consideration, is a final replat application for a residential subdivision, Eagle Creek. The application did come to the Commission last time you all met for an extension, and that was approved. However, between then and now, the applicant has not been able to address the comments, specifically sections 832D, 835, as well as 836J, per the development code. So therefore, staff is recommending denial of this subject item, and I will be happy to answer any questions. Great. Thanks, Ron. Any questions for Ron? And Rachel, is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? No, sir, not this. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson, I'll make a motion to deny. We have a first for deny. Commissioner Smith. Second. We have a first and a second to deny. Any discussion on this item? Okay. I'll call for a vote via roll call. Just a reminder, a vote in the affirmative is to deny. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Chair is also an aye. The next item of business is item 4D, PP21-0011B, by Karina for presentation. Good evening, Karina Maldonado, Associate Planner. The item before you today is a preliminary plat, PP21-001B. This is a preliminary plat for an eight-acre site for 35 residential lots and one common area lot. Since the posting of this agenda, the applicant has addressed all comments, so staff is now recommending approval of this request as it does meet the established requirements in the DDC. With that, I can take any questions. Great. Any questions for Karina? Rachel, is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? No, not this one. Thank you. Any other discussion? Chair, we'll make a motion for approval. Commissioner Smith. Second. We have first and second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Chair is an aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Motion carries 6-0. I call for ZCP21-0017 and I'll invite Karina for presentation. All right. The request today is for ZCP21-0017. This is for Razor Ranch Multifamily at Heritage Trail. So the request before you today is for approval of a site plan for a multifamily use. This is approximately 5.906 acres located on lot 1 and lot 2, block E of the Razor Ranch addition. This site, although it's two lots currently, will need to be replatted to combine those two lots into one for this development. The subject site is surrounded by four public streets. On the north is Linden Drive. To the west, Heritage Trail. To the south is Panhandle Street and then to the east is East Park Boulevard. So this subject site is located within the Razor Ranch Overlay District. It has a base zoning of RCCD. That is because the Razor Ranch Overlay District is based on the 2002 Denton Development Code. So the site is also located within the South Mixed Use District and the proposed use is for multifamily, which is permitted in this area. I did want to mention that the concept plan for the Razor Ranch Overlay District was amended in April 2021 to permit the multifamily use on the southern portion or lot 2 of the site. So multifamily located east of Heritage Trail are also subject to the architectural landscape standards in ordinance number Z18-0026C and that is exhibit C2A that they would need to comply with. So the reason why you're seeing this today is that site plans within the Razor Ranch Overlay District do require P&Z approval before moving forward. Traditionally, site plans do not require P&Z approval. They're approved at an administrative level. So the approval today or consideration today includes the following elements. That is the site plan, landscape plan, and elevations. The criteria for approval for a site plan for the Razor Ranch Overlay District includes four elements. First being that the site plan substantially complies with the concept and schematic plan approved by council. Second that the site plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that would not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties. Third that the site plan provides for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic and last that the plan fully complies with all other sections of the overlay district. So first I'll just go over the site plan. I did highlight some areas to make it easier to identify. Overall, 311,500 square feet of buildings on the site or building coverage on the site. That includes 322 dwelling units. Those dwelling units are located in two multifamily buildings. Those are these L-shaped buildings in blue, as well as the amenity center located here in green. So as well as the amenity center, there is also a dog park located here on the southwest portion of the site, a sports court park on the opposite end, a pool amenity area, the clubhouse, a tot park playground area and plaza that can be seen here on the north part of the site. Previously, that was not mentioned in work session, I do want to highlight that there are pedestrian entrances on the north side of Linden Street where this promenade area is on the west side along Heritage Trail and then on the east side on East Park, and these are gated areas with entrances for the residents that would be occupying this multifamily development. So overall, the site shows 74.9 percent lot coverage, that's within the 90 percent maximum on the site. They are proposing 9.6 percent open space, that's all the areas shown in green. This will be, these multifamily buildings will be seven stories with a maximum height of 85 feet, that's less than the allowed 100 feet. And then parking proposed is 515 spaces, that does exceed the minimum of 504, but within the Razor Ranch Overlay District, they are permitted to exceed that number. And the last item I wanted to bring up is the red boxes that you see here on the site. Those are existing easements that they intend to abandon to serve this site. So just briefly going over the landscape plan, they are meeting the minimum requirements and exceeding in some areas the standards. So 21 percent landscape area is proposed, the minimum required is 10 percent. And then 42 percent tree canopy is proposed and 20 percent is what's required, and as you can see they have street trees along all frontages with some raised planter beds and green screens in areas where maybe some easements are blocking the required planting locations. So just briefly going over the elevations, the applicant is here and may provide a presentation on additional elevations if you all would like. So first here is the elevations of the two multifamily buildings along Linden Drive facing south. These are the elevations along East Park and Heritage Trail, these would be the right of way facing elevations. The clubhouse which is visible from Linden Street as well as a portion of their split parking structure that you can see from Panhandle. So staff is recommending approval of this request as it meets the established requirements of the Razor Ranch Overlay District with the following conditions. First that any public utility easements shown as being abandoned on the site plan in order to accommodate the proposed building locations must be abandoned prior to issuance of any building permits. And second that a replat must be submitted and approved to combine lots one and two, block E of the Razor Ranch East addition into one lot prior to issuance of any building permits for this development. And with that I believe the applicant is here, I'm not sure if he wants to give a presentation but I can also take questions before that. Sure, is there any questions for Karina? Is the applicant Gerald Lewicki? Yes. Perfect. Can we pull up your presentation? Sure. Okay, if it won't pop up, someone might have exited out of it. Sorry, give me one second while I pull up the presentation. Thank you. Good evening, Commission. I'm Gerald Lewicki with Hodges Architecture 13642 Omega in Dallas and we're honored to be here to present the AHS Development and Razor Ranch to you. Sorry. It looks like... There you go. All right, I'll just briefly run through this. As you know, overall Razor Ranch, this is a larger section of Razor Ranch but still just a portion of that and our site is immediately south of the park as Karina has mentioned. So the design of the site is set up so that it's on the axis of the park. So as the park comes down and relates to street, to Linden Street, then the axis continues on. All right. And landscape plan that we looked at, the site is heavily landscaped or approximately double the required landscaping and shade tree coverage for the site and also have amenity areas as Karina brought up, the dog park, the sports court on the southern portion of the site and then the tot lot area and plaza on the north portion as well as the entry element as you're coming into the main clubhouse building. And Chair, to answer your question about the tot lot, yes, that was a specific request. We did not feel like we had the room needed in the other two amenity areas. It is fenced, has a fence around the entire development but especially around this area as well and the lot itself is brought in towards the building so it's easily accessible to the buildings themselves. So that was the reason for that location. Just quickly looking at some views, some perspective views, this is from the northeast corner looking back into the project and again this is the entrance off of Linden Street in between the main buildings with the amenity area back behind in this location. Then this is from the northwest corner viewing at the corner of Heritage and Linden. These are just some interior shots of the amenity areas. They have some top notch amenities within the clubhouse area. They have a business center, they have interior gathering areas, outdoor cooking areas adjacent to the pool, outdoor pool area and seating areas. I just want to give you a flavor of fitness room, fitness area as well as part of the amenity package. I just want to give you a flavor of the development and let you know that again we're pleased to be able to present this and bring this project to Razor Ranch and here to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? Just out of curiosity, you showed kind of the alignment of this particular site plan with the park across the street there and how the entrance is right in the middle between the two buildings. Yes. Is there a planned mid-block crossing crosswalk there? Initially that was contemplated but we felt that from a safety standpoint it would be better to leave the crossings at the street intersections so it encourages pedestrian circulation all along that north side of Linden. Okay so if someone were to walk out the exit through the center of this grand entrance then they have to walk all the way to the correct intersection and cross and then walk back in order to get to the middle of the park? Absolutely. Okay. Now there's kind of a curve in Linden at that point and a little bit of gray differential still we felt that it was safer at the corners. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? I don't see any. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Rachel is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? No Chair. Perfect. Any further discussion or questions for staff? Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve with staff recommendations. We have a first for approval with recommendations. Kush Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the item? See oh Kush approved. Just a comment. I think I don't oppose this but just a little bit of common sense. I think if people are living there and they exit their apartment and they want to go to the park they're going to end up walking across the middle of that street there anyway. So I would encourage staff to at least monitor what happens as this development goes up and flag this as a potential area for accommodating that in the future. So the item of concern that you brought up was actually brought up by staff as well. Unfortunately there wasn't a mechanism for us to require that of the developer. I'm not sure if it's an option in any other means of adding that but just wanted to let you know that staff did consider a mid-block crossing but again we couldn't, there was no requirement that they provide that. Okay. Thank you. Any other? Commissioner Anderson. No I'm going to vote for this as well. I just wanted to ask, it looks very nice I will say that, but I'd like to see some different angles and stuff. Instead of just a flat wall with doors and windows it would be kind of nice if it had some little setbacks and stuff like this that's just architectural stuff but instead of just a flat front wall you know. I don't know if you want me to pull up the elevation so within the Razor Ranch Overlay District they are required to have a certain amount of relief in their elevations. It might not have been pretty easy to identify. Could you pull it up again? Yeah. I'm not going to hold this up but it's just. So although it does look like just one kind of just one flat wall it's hard to see in this depiction but some of those areas are recessed back and I'm not sure if your elevations are actually the perspective may show it a little bit better. We can share the applicant's presentation again and I believe it has a better viewpoint. As it pulls up it's loading a bit slow but it is something within the Razor Ranch Overlay District within the ordinance specific to this area it does it does have requirements towards that. I mean for something that looks really nice I mean it looks really nice it's just I didn't I thought it was just going to be a flat wall. No. Okay. It has insets and projections within the façade. Yeah well thank you. You're fine. Okay yeah for some reason this is it's not working. Any other questions or discussion? We have a first and a second for approval I will call I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Chair is an aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Motion carries 6-0 congratulations. Next item of business is item 5A Z21-0007C. I'll open the public hearing and invite Carina Maldonado for presentation. It's me again it's Carina Maldonado Associate Planner with the City of Denton. This request is a public hearing for Z21-0007. This is a Jim Crystal Road rezoning. So the request today is to rezone approximately 30.43 acres from public facilities PF to light industrial LI district zoning. The subject site is located on or is city owned property and is located within a larger tract of city owned property that was acquired in 2016 to accommodate the Denton Energy Center. So just to depict it within the aerial at least within the perspective shown the area in green is all city owned property and then the subject site is two portions of that shown in yellow. So I will be referring to this as the northern and southern portions. So as I mentioned this is all city owned property and so with the 2019 Denton Development Code many public owned facilities automatically were assigned to PF zoning district. Within these districts it's intended for public community services such as fire station schools, civic buildings as well as basic utilities provided by the city. So the request today is intended to support Denton Municipal Electric's proposed ground lease to a private company as part of a modular data center warehouse development. This project was brought forth to city council earlier in June regarding the use. We won't get into that too specifically today but just to let you know DME is in attendance in case you have questions for them. So prior to any development being established on this site the property must be rezoned to a district that would permit the modular data center warehouse use and so the proposal is for the LI district. So just a little bit of zoning history on this site. So prior to 2019 with the 2002 zoning map the subject site was previously zoned ICG. That is one of our heavier industrial districts within the 2002 zoning. So again when the 2019 zoning came through all city owned property transitioned to the PF zoning however if that PF zoning was not there or if the property was not owned by the city of Denton it would have transitioned to the heavy industrial district. And as you can see with this kind of little square patch above the subject site that is the Encore substation, I'm sorry not Encore, I believe it's Encore, substation. So the zoning there of ICG did transition to HI. So again without the PF being there or without the city owning that property it would have likely transitioned to HI. However the request is to rezone to a lesser intensive zoning district of light industrial. So I will go over very briefly the general approval criteria as well as the zoning criteria and I've highlighted the items that I'll cover in bold. So first touching on general criterion three and zoning criterion one regarding the Denton plan 2030. So these subject site, the northern and southern tract both are designated for industrial commerce. This future land use designation is predominantly for light and heavy industrial. The light industrial district is consistent with this designation and it does provide a less intensive zoning within the area than the heavy industrial district would. Heavy uses within the industrial commerce area are manufacturing, assembly, fabrication as well as wholesale and distribution. The proposed warehouse does or is consistent with the intended uses in this designation. Excuse me. Next we'll talk about the general criterion eight and zoning criterion five regarding minimizing adverse impacts on surrounding property. So I do have a bit zoomed in version of the aerial here just to depict the northern portion that you see here is located at least or approximately 1,000 feet east of and approximately 1,000 feet south of the nearest residential zoning. That residential zoning would be the R2 district and so it's a little bit cut off but at the end of this arrow is Jim Crystal Road and then on the northern side of Jim Crystal is R2. If we kind of head just straight north and then to the, I would say to the northwest of the northern subject site is the HI district and then just adjacent is the R2 district. And just to make a point of clarification that came up in work session, the HI district is actually, it holds an existing residential use and I believe that that property owner also owns the property within the R2 district as well. So in relation to that northern portion, the closest adjacent uses really are the electric substations as well as existing gas wells and flood plain around that northern portion. The southern portion is located directly south of the Denton Energy Center and directly adjacent to that southern portion on the south is a rural residential zoning designation. However, that RR zoning, that property was annexed in 2010. In the 2002 zoning was assigned an RD5X which was the placeholder zoning after annexation and with the transition to the 2019 zoning was given that RR as a placeholder as initial zoning. However, I did also want to mention that that southern RR property does have significant amount of active gas wells, those are these red dots that you'll see as well as being adjacent to the substation and flood plain on the west side. So any development on the south really would not end up being a residential development due to the gas wells and the required setbacks from those gas wells. So moving on to general criteria 11 and 12 as well as zoning criteria 6 regarding public facilities and capacity to serve the site. So existing water and sewer are available to the property. Capacity in any extension of utilities would be assessed with platting and site development of the two portions of the sites and then access is provided or is accessible through Jim Crystal Road and if there were emergencies related to the use it would be served by Fire Station 3 which is the new station at 1401 Underwood which would serve any industrial developments on the west side of I-35. So we did send out notices within the 200 foot and 500 foot area as you'll see within the zoning boundaries that mostly hits just city owned property. However, staff and DME did host a community meeting. This was a virtual meeting held on June 17th. I believe the notification radius was about a thousand feet. We did have about five people in attendance. They asked questions related to noise mitigation, adjacent zoning as well as any impact that the proposed city project would have on the supply for electricity for residents. DME was available to answer those questions for them so it was less about the zoning and more about the use and the overall response was positive. So we did not receive any responses to date and with that I can get to the recommendation. Staff does recommend approval of the request as it does comply with the general approval criteria as well as the zoning criteria and then just some final next steps for the project. This will go to city council July 20th after PNC's recommendation and then July 27th city council will consider a ground lease agreement as well as a power purchase agreement related to the project. With that I can take any questions. DME staff is also available for questions as well as the third party to NASCA to answer any questions as well. Great. Thank you so much for the presentation. Any questions for staff? This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Rachel is there anyone who's called in on this item? No callers for this one chair. Thank you. Anyone present wishing to speak? Seeing none I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Anderson. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Chairs an aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 5BZ20-0005B. I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening. Let me share my presentation. All right. Good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the City of Denton and I am presenting Z20-0005B Denton Commerce Center. So request before you is to rezone approximately 142 acres from mixed use regional MR district to light industrial district that's LI. I'm just a comparison of the current zoning map versus the proposed zoning map. Currently that property has that zoning designation of MR that's that purple and they are proposing to go to that LI. The criteria for approval for a zoning case is in sub chapter 2 of Denton Development Code. It includes both the general and specific criteria. First thing we always look at is the Denton Plan 2030 so that future land use map. The site is designated as business innovation that's intended for large tracts of land that are appropriate for well planned large scale office and employment parks. It also has room for things like supporting uses like retail, hotels, and residential. The typical districts that we see kind of fit within that business innovation future land use designation is our LI and GO. In this instance they are proposing LI which is consistent with the future land use map given the permitted uses as well as development scale. There was a question about the development of the property and those design considerations. The Denton Development Code does require that properties within the LI district, they do have to conform to our commercial development standards any structures within 250 feet of the ultimate right of way. This is kind of an interesting property because there's three rights of way which impact it. You have the FM 1173 on the north. You have I-35 on the east property boundary and then loop 288. I do want to mention that loop 288 there will be a right of way dedication if this is approved and it is developed. When platting occurs they will have to dedicate right of way for that loop 288 extension which will take up a significant portion of that southern portion of the property. So all of those rights of way they would have to conform to those commercial development standards for any structures within 250 feet of any of those rights of way. Also we talked about at work session and we've talked about several times before that small area plan we have had quite a few projects come forward in this general area. There's been a lot of development toward the north side of Denton and so the planning and zoning commission as well as city council have talked to staff and directed staff to move forward with the small area plan. That hasn't yet kicked off but it is something that we are moving forward with in conjunction with our comprehensive plan amendment or I'm sorry our comprehensive plan update. We want to make sure that we have the right design standards and the right permitted uses in these areas. Another criterion for approval is significant changes to warrant the zoning change. So to determine this we had to go back a couple of decades. We looked at the 1999 Denton plan. At that time the thought was that this part of town would be a regional mixed use center. So shopping and maybe higher density residential uses. So you can see this is a snapshot of that 1999 Denton plan. All of that purple was intended to be that regional mixed use center. And the zoning at that time reflected that vision. So it was that regional zoning designation. With the update for our comprehensive plan, for the 2030 plan, we sort of looked at what regional shopping and regional centers we had and determined that those existing ones, the South Loop 288, we had a Denton Enterprise Airport and then at that time Razor Ranch was moving forward, determined that this area was unlikely to develop with that regional shopping. So they sort of kind of came up with a new vision for this area and that was that business innovation. So looking at more of those employment uses, particularly along that 35 corridor. And so that's when that future land use designation changed to that business innovation. The current zoning of MR is sort of a vestige of that 1999 plan. When we implemented the 2019 Denton Development Code, all of those older zoning districts just sort of transitioned to comparable districts or compatible districts. So it really just sort of moved that 1999 plan forward. However, that isn't consistent with the current vision of the area. This criterion minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property. The subject site, as you can see in this little inset here, is sort of kind of in the middle of a business innovation future land use designation. Currently, much of the surrounding property is undeveloped. It's either agricultural uses or just undeveloped property. However, given that future land use designation, we do anticipate that the surrounding properties will develop in a manner consistent with our future land use map and that business innovation, and that LI district, the permitted uses within it are consistent with that. And so we anticipate that that will continue to develop in a like manner. One question we had at the work session was kind of what that means and what those employment uses mean. So I put together this slide on the break just to kind of talk about especially those employment uses comparing the existing zoning with those two districts that we typically see in that business innovation. This isn't all the uses. There's an exhibit in your backup that has all of the uses in the Debt and Development Code. I just sort of pulled out some of those kind of more employment uses. And you can see that while there are some minor differences, there are – GEO and LI are fairly comparable, and it's somewhat comparable to that MR as well. These are a lot of our more intense uses in more intense districts. So they allow – all of these zoning districts allow a lot of those employment uses. GEO and LI are a little more toward that employment, a little less commercial. They don't have as many residential uses as the MR. They really kind of stick to more of those employment uses. Public facilities and services available to serve the property. We look at transportation and water and wastewater. There is adequate access to the site from I-35 and FM 1173 at this time. This is kind of turned a little funny that north is this direction. This is 1173 right here. This is that I-35 corridor. This is Loop 288, and this is a schematic from the – from the tech stop plans for that I-35 corridor and the expansion. There are future improvements planned for I-35. Those are moving along, as well as Loop 288. Loop 288 is moving along as well. It's under the design phase right now, and we'll get under construction within the decade. So that – kind of the intent is to really push that Loop 288 forward and connect that toward the south. There's also a concurrent comprehensive plan amendment related to mobility that we'll be talking about next. There are water and wastewater available to the site. Sewer – a new list station may be required. That will all be determined if this is approved at that platting stage. Public outreach was sent out. We haven't received any in favor or opposition to this project for the zoning part. So based upon the criteria for approval, staff does recommend approval of the request. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. And the applicant is here, and he also has a presentation as well. Great. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Julie, I know this is a straight zoning case, but for whatever is – whatever would be on this site if the zoning was approved, what would be the best point of access to that site itself? Would it be off 1173? Would it be entrances on a long road, I mean, out of the way of the right of way, off of the access road of 35, off of an access road, off of the 288 expansion, all three? The applicant has actually already started discussions with TextDOT to kind of figure out where those access points will be, and so they might – may be able to talk further about kind of what their – what their ideas are, but they would have access to all three of those roads. Of course, Loop 288 is not quite as much because there isn't – that road's not there yet. In terms of the mobility plan, FM 1173, that road's actually going to kind of shift to the north. However, that current alignment is going to remain in place as a secondary arterial. So under the current mobility plan or that draft mobility plan, they would have access to that road as well as 35 and then at some point in the future, Loop 288 as well. Okay. Another question. Talking about the right of way that's being taken up on that land, with 30 – with it kind of being somewhat of a U-shape with that 250-foot buffer, and then 288 having essentially probably flyovers down on the extension. So at the very beginning, if this zoning was approved, that 250 ROW would be essentially codified, right? And then if their – whenever a design comes back with the 288 expansion, that right of way would then be reset once the flyover or whatever the interchange is between 288 and 35. How does that get reset and how does that affect the zoning and the planning and everything else in this project, even if we were to approve it to go through and start that process? Well, I think the I-35 corridor, that right of way dedication could be pretty easily discernible because that design is further along and they're further along in those plans. Loop 288, that is still under design. Our city staff works pretty closely with TxDOT there. They have at least a monthly meeting. They often have more meetings than that with TxDOT. So we would try to determine what that right – that correct right of way dedication is at that platting stage and get that – at that time, if for some reason there were some minor changes, an additional right of way would need to be acquired by TxDOT in order to accommodate their final design of the road, then TxDOT would have to acquire that right of way. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Sure. Any other questions for Julie? Thanks, Julie. I'll invite the applicant to present and if you could just state your name and address for the record. I'm going to go ahead and share your presentation, okay? Is that it? I'm sorry. Andrew? I think you just state your name and address for the record. Hi. My name is Todd Finley. I'm with CLX Ventures. Thanks, first of all, for having me here. My co-founder – our co-founder, Brad Copeland, is also here, so just wanted to run through a quick little presentation and I'll answer some of your questions and whatever questions you guys may have. So let me make sure I don't mess this up. We're CLX Ventures. We are a local group. I've been doing industrial for the last 15 years prior to this, so I was with Hillwood Investment Properties. Brad Copeland and Tony Long, our co-founders – Tony was with CBRE for 30 years, Trammell Crowe as well, and Brad Copeland was also with Trammell Crowe, Crowe Holdings and Clarion Partners. And Eli Ellis is our VP of all our financials. Just development activity, this is just – we only focus in the state of Texas. We've done our share of travel over the years, so we're kind of trying to stay local. So this is just – we do multifamily and industrial, Brad and I focus mainly on industrial, and so this is just kind of the areas we're at in Texas, showing our pipeline and what we've done. This is a – Julie and I have been working on this project together for the last eight and a half months, and she thought it would be helpful to show a rendering of something we've done in the past. This is at DFW Airport. It's – the top picture on the right is the rendering, and then the picture after it is an actual – we have, you know, tons of different photos just to show the type of product we do, where, you know, a lot of times you get renderings and then the actual building comes out and it's like this – this doesn't look anything like the rendering. So typical tilt wall, everything you see from Alliance to the stuff that's going, you know, Exeter is doing, and all throughout the DFW is what we do. Yeah Amazon took this building. It's a million footer, 40 foot clear, and they leased that a year ago from us. These are just the specifications for it, just to give you kind of an idea, it's ESFR. That building was a 40 foot clear. What we're proposing is some 36 foot clear and then some smaller stuff, 32 foot clear, that fronts 35. Trailer storage. This is just talking about nothing that anyone in this room doesn't know, just how hot the economic environment is in the state of Texas and in DFW and Denton, I'm sure you guys know better than us, but it's a desired place to be and so we're looking forward to being a part of it. This was another building we did in Dallas off of Interstate 20, just similar to the one at DFW, a little bit different. We use the same designer, so it just kind of gives you an idea of the storefront, the glass, and the tilt wall. This is a project that Brad and I did in Houston off of I-45, and so same kind of look, colors. I can send you guys this package or any photos if you need any. One thing I was going to answer, Tim, your question, the right-of-way, our civil engineer is PKE and they are the civil engineer for TxDOT, so they're already working on that right-of-way at 288. The I-35 right-of-way has already been dedicated and purchased by TxDOT, so everything along I-35 that borders this has already been taken by TxDOT. The 288 right-of-way, we are working with TxDOT since we were using the same civil engineer. We know where that right-of-way line is, so we have that worked through. We have the future driveways from 288. 288 is a ways out, I'll just say that, as far as when it goes to let and when it will actually get built. I think it's in eight years from now that it potentially just the frunge rows will go all the way through, but we've already been coordinating where those future drives will be. The I-35, that works coming in the next three years, and so we've been coordinating with them as well. So we'll have access points from 1173, and then we'll have another access point just south of that that will tie into the new frontage road for I-35. And then we'll have access points once the 288 frontage road is extended in the future. So we're still working through that. I've probably had eight calls with TXDOT and the city of Denton at the same time. We're working on a temporary access through 288 to the southern part of our site now. I've got another in-person meeting with TXDOT in a couple weeks. Great. I appreciate the presentation. Any questions? Oh, Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Brad? Todd. Todd, sorry. My apologies. So a couple things just to confirm, you said access points would be off 1173 and then obviously off 35, once those access points are granted in about three years, once that starts. And then probably access points off 288 as well, once that right-of-way gets cut. We're trying to get access point off of 288 less than three years, but right-of-way we'll have two access points, 1173 and then another piece that we will, you know, where the paper clip, I don't know if you know the little U-turn that you go west on 288, we'll have a north, actually where the water tower is, just north of that, we'll have a tie-in to the future frontage. Okay. And so. So yeah, I guess with it kind of coming from all three areas, all three sides, everything, but the railroad, which you probably shouldn't have an access point there, that'd be weird. What would, kind of where would you, I know this is a straight zoning case, so we're not talking about exactly plotting and where the building would be located, but in your opinion as a developer, where would the property, if this were to be zoned, where would this property be located on that? Would it be closer, as close to 35 as you possibly can, would it be further set back away from 35, closer to the railroad? It will be, where the right-of-way is, that's been dedicated, our building, our front building will be a rear load, meaning the dock doors will be in the back, so this is something that I've worked through with Julie and her team for a long time, and so we want to make that to where there's no dock doors as you're coming across 35, and so we'll have also a detention pond in front of that. So it's gonna be pretty far, our first building is gonna be pretty far away from the frontage road. Yeah, I was looking at the map, I was measuring it out, and it looks like from where 35 exists now to that railroad, it's about give or take where you are, because the railroad comes across at an angle from west to east, and so if you're looking at it as, you know, it's about three quarters of a mile away from 35, so you're probably talking about a quarter of a mile. So we'll have a building up close to the frontage of our property set back from a detention, and then we'll have other buildings behind that, but they'll be, you know, just south of 1173, and then access points north of the future, eight years from now, 288 frontage road. Sure. And I would assume that it'd probably be designed as a more industrial actual manufacturing the backside of it, and more of whatever would be, if this development would need some sort of office or clerical pieces, it would be up front, closer to 35. I would assume that's what you guys, in your past projects, is that kind of the way you approach that? Yeah, I mean everything we do is distribution, and so this is speculative, so if an Amazon comes and leases something, so they may need, you know, 45,000 square feet of office or something like that. But we always have, you know, entrances where we believe need to be, and that's where we dress up with storefront, the glass and stuff that I was showing earlier. And so, you know, the front building, what I'm saying, was... Like, take that one that you talked about in Houston there. Yeah, so right here. There's warehousing and distribution and whatnot that's backside of it, and that's the closest point of access, or the main facade piece that people are seeing when they're traveling down main thoroughfares. What we are planning on orientating, when you drive by 35, you won't see dock doors. You'll see storefront glass, not this exact one, and then you'll also, you see where these dock doors are, you won't see that. There'll be probably two or three more storefront entrances, and so that's kind of where we said, "Okay, let's try to have that." But then buildings behind that towards the railroad will have, you know, placed. Right now, we have the dock doors not even facing an 1173 or 288, so... Okay. Be facing the railroad, pretty much. Pretty much, yeah. Okay. All right. Thanks. But we're following, you know, all the ordinances, all the guidelines, and all the... Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Chris Anderson. Thanks, Chair. You all are planning on building just strictly industrial distribution centers, right there, correct? That's our current plan, yes, sir. Okay. Thanks. I don't see any other questions at this time. I appreciate you being here for presentation and being here to answer questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Rachel, is anyone calling in for this item? No callers, Chair. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item can certainly do so, if you have thoughts or comments. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and then turn it to the dais for a motion and then some discussion. Commissioner Smith. I'm going to make a motion to approve staff recommendations. I think it's a...certainly we've seen this when we voted on the Hirschbach property that was on the east side of 35 down 77. It seems like the right of way and the way to be chiseling away that a lot of the fear that we brought up in work session might be very mitigated by the amount of right of way that's the front pushing most of this development further off 35. That makes me feel a little more comfortable that this is really in that section of town that is meant to be for that industrial piece. So with that being said, my comments being said, I think that the motion stands. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis. I'll second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on this item? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Yeah. I just had a few comments. I was a big proponent of getting the small area plan underway, and it was namely for that other side of the freeway. That's what, in my opinion, we need to figure out as a city and as people are entering that more residential and that part of Denton. This side of the freeway does seem to be headed this way into warehousing. Warehousing does bring jobs, hopefully we can get some good leases in these buildings and some good jobs for the city. But I'm okay with the zoning change on that side of the freeway. Any other discussion? Before I call for a vote, I would probably echo Commissioner Ellis's thoughts, but also Commissioner Smith's. In my finite mind, I think about the business innovation area of Denton being corporate headquarters and campuses and parks that we see down in Plano and in Southlake. I think it'd be an inviting way into the city, but to Commissioner Ellis's point, that makes a lot of sense on the east side. This plot of land is kind of quirky with the right of ways and it's kind of being tucked into a pretty, could be a big interchange in the future. I don't know if a grandiose corporate headquarters and campus is going to be found at that spot. That being said, if there's someone here who can employ locals and provide some jobs here in Denton, I'm in support of the project. With that, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Chair is an aye. Commissioner Anderson? Nay. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. This motion carries 5-1. Congratulations. The next item of business is item 5C, CA21-0001. And I'll invite Julie back out for presentation and open the public hearing. Okay, let me ... This is CA21-0001, Denton Commerce Center. Before we get too into the request, I just want to talk briefly about mobility planning in Denton. It is a component of our comprehensive plan, so it is one of the chapters of our comprehensive plan. The mobility plan is intended to establish the future roadway network, but that also includes both pedestrian and bicycle networks, not just cars. The mobility plan is intended to be modified and amended over time and updated intermittently. And that can either be in response to a specific request, like tonight, or as part of the comprehensive plan amendment. And that is something that the city has undertaken and is currently updating our mobility plan, kind of running in parallel fashion with the update of our comprehensive plan. And the mobility plan establishes our transportation networks and that defined hierarchy of roads. So we've got our large highways, which funnels to our smaller arterials, to then our smaller secondary arterials, then to our eventually collectors and neighborhood streets, which aren't always all on the plan. It's usually those larger roads, but it does create, establish that hierarchy of roads. Our current plan was adopted in early 2016, and that replaced our 1998 plan. I show it as the 2011 mobility plan. That's because it was amended over time, and the last iteration was 2011. So those two plans, or the 2016, replaced that 1998. And as I mentioned, the update is currently underway. So now we'll get to the request. With that adoption of the 2016 plan, the mobility plan reclassified what is a neighborhood street, Cindy Lane, to a secondary arterial. So that it would extend from its connection to US 380 at that signalized intersection, all the way north to FM 156. Under Denton Development Code Section 7.8.7, if a development includes a corridor that is shown on our mobility plan, that developer has to dedicate that right of way and sometimes build that road. And that's something that y'all have seen in platting from time to time. So that's pretty standard for developments. In this instance, the applicant would like to revise the mobility plan to remove that section of Cindy Lane, which runs north and south to the center of the site. So here you can see the site right here outlined in yellow. And here's that mobility plan, that Cindy Lane in that green dotted line, and they are proposing to remove it from their site. So I wanted to take a look at the current mobility plan versus that draft mobility plan. Here we show that current plan, showing Cindy Lane. Here's where it connects to US 380 and western center to the south. Goes all the way up, crosses the railroad track, and then on to parts north. The proposed mobility plan sort of simplifies it, kind of takes some of those collectors out, provides a little more simplified and grid of those arterial roadways, and it does remove Cindy Lane, kind of converts it back to what it was, that neighborhood street, and then relies on the loop 288 and I-35 corridor and at some point in the future Windsor to move that traffic around in the area. And the proposal is consistent with that draft mobility plan. Criteria for approval for all applications is in subchapter two. And because the mobility plan is a part of the comprehensive plan, it goes through the comprehensive plan amendment process, that specific criteria is also in subchapter two. There's two subsections to the criteria for approval. The first subsection, they have to meet at least one of those criterion, and then there are additional review standards. So first, I want to talk about didn't plan 2030. We're not really talking about the future land use map per se, but it does, the two things inform each other, so I want to talk a little bit about the map before the analysis. So the subject property is shown with that red star. This is the future land use map overlaid on the mobility plan. You can see that that Cindy Lane kind of snaking north from 380. And you can see there are several future land use designation colors on the map. The subject property has that business innovation that's in that kind of lighter pink. You've got rural to the north. And then there is a little island here of low residential, that's that yellow piece. And that is that ranch estates, and that low residential future land use designation is kind of a policy protection for that neighborhood, so that it does sort of, any zoning decision would be informed by that future land use designation, that yellow. And then to the south of that, of the business innovation and the low residential, we've got our industrial commerce south of 380. So now that we've sort of oriented on the map, we're gonna talk about some of our analysis. So we looked throughout the plan, it's sort of for guidance in this question, in the first, in the mobility section, to provide for the safe, efficient movements of motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians in a sustainable way that complements Denton's Plan Grow Strategy. Given that we've got these two different future land use designations with sort of divergent goals, low residential has different goals than business innovation. But then Cindy Lane sort of marries the two with this roadway cutting through, and especially cutting through that neighborhood. And that could conflict with that growth strategy, that roadway, because it doesn't really marry those two goals together very well. And that's why the mobility plan update and that draft plan really does just take Cindy out of the equation and moves the truck traffic and the industrial traffic to other areas. And so this proposal is consistent with that goal, as well as the mobility plan update. And then when we look at business innovation, as we mentioned, that's intended for large-scale, large-employment facilities. Their common lot sizes can range anywhere from 20 acres all the way to over 100 acres, as you're seeing tonight. And by splitting these parcels with Cindy Lane, you're potentially reducing the developability of them, because you're sort of just bisecting them and reducing that overall acreage. And then finally, in the implementation section of the Denton Plan 2030, we really should be looking at our mobility plan on a pretty regular basis. We do want to make sure that we know where those roads are connecting in the future. And so I-35 probably is not going to change its alignment much, but we do want to make sure that we are flexible and that we're looking at new conditions as we move forward, as we're planning for these roads. Another criterion, the events, trends, or facts that could have changed since the adoption of that Denton Plan 2030, I've got two aerial maps on your screen, one from 2015 when the mobility plan and the Denton Plan 2030 were adopted, and then one from now. And then I've got that Cindy Lane shown in that sort of-that green line. The industrial and distribution sectors have grown in this area, and that indicates that there may be some changes to the mobility warranted. And you can see that these yellow dots are either industrial or distribution-type facilities that are either already on the ground or are currently planned, so-and those weren't there in 2015. So you can see there's been a lot of growth in the last six years in that area. And then that-and that truck traffic and all the other trips that would be associated with it will impact the area as it would impact the area, and as that Cindy Lane is currently drawn, it really would induce those trucks to go north on Cindy Lane and tag up to Loop 288, which would not be appropriate for that current neighborhood to have those trucks go north through that area. And that's why the engineering staff has really modified this area with that mobility plan update, simplifying the area's arterial system, removing Cindy Lane, and then pushing that truck traffic to other roadways. Additional review standards, the proposal is consistent with that draft mobility plan. It's consistent with our land use goals. It would not negatively impact that proposed land use pattern. Those properties can still develop in accordance with that future land use designation with the-with the draft mobility plan and those existing roadways. And the draft mobility plan includes a network of future arterial roadways and highways that-that are designed to accommodate the projected buildout of that area. And additionally, Cindy Lane is not there, so cars aren't relying on it to get around in the area. It's not-it's not part of our traffic accommodation right now. Public outreach was done. We received one letter in opposition. We talked about that at work session and talked with them about the current mobility plan versus the draft mobility plan. And staff does recommend the approval of the request, as it does comply with the criteria for approval. And I'll be happy to stand for any questions, and-and the applicant is here for questions as well. Thank you, Julie. Any questions for Julie? Christopher? I have a question for staff. It may be for traffic, I'm not sure. Is-do you know what the future land use assumptions were to determine that Cindy Lane and some other secondary arterials in that area were not necessary? In other words, are-are they based on the future land use map of business innovation, are they based on the current zoning of much of it being rural, what-what was that land use assumed? I'm not sure how they adopted the 2015 and what assumptions went in, but all I know is the latest one with the draft mobility. They take into account of the future as well as what's developed so far. So sort of a hybrid between the two? That's right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff, Julie, traffic? This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. He was actually moving first, so I'm gonna give him the-if you could just state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes to speak. Michael Marshall, 2892 Marshall Road. So our property is at the very bottom from-based on the 2030 of the right of way. It encroaches just across our property. And our issue is that we're zoned general office and so-but the only access is through Marshall Road. There's no 35 access. With Cindy Lane as it is in the 2030, there's access to get from 35 to our property. Now, I wasn't excited originally about giving up our residential property for commercial purposes or a lot of industrial, but we're kind of hamstrung here because we're general office but we don't have a way to get to it because you can't bring the trucks through Marshall Road and Ranch Estates. So we can't build houses on it and we don't have access for the general use that it's approved for which is general office. Just for clarification, you own or you represent the property just south of the subject property in question here? Well, ours is a sliver that's 18 acres or 17 acres surrounded by about 70 acres, which is the Turner Trust property. So I guess the feeling is we should either be residential because we're part of Ranch Estates or we should be general office with access from 35, because if we did a development with general office now, Ranch Estates would hate it. So just so I understand, you're opposed to the removal of the full Cindy... Based on our zoning currently, yes I am. But to be even more specific, it sounds like you're not opposing the removal of Cindy way on their property, you're more concerned about the entirety of Cindy way being removed from the mobility plan. That's correct. Gotcha. Okay. That makes sense. And I would highly encourage you to talk to Julie to start with, to try to see what options are available to you. Sorry to be contacting you prior to the meeting. Okay. But I appreciate you being here. Yeah. Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. The Turner property, are you right there behind like the I-35 RV Superstore and that's your land back there? The Turner property has a sliver that goes around our property. Okay. So that's between like RV World and our property. Okay. Gotcha. Your zone, G.O.? Yes. Yep. Any staff, Julie, not for, I know we're just getting through public comment, but at some point in time, maybe after, can we visit and just see how he ended up as G.O. and not as R.R. if we move over. I don't know how, well, it should have probably been R.D. 5X or moved over to R.R. when we did the rezone, I don't know how it ended up G.O., so. Yep. I can find out. Thanks. Sir, your next view to state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes to speak. Hey, my name is Arthur Smuck, I live at 5100 Barthold Road, Denton, Texas. So we're the property on the north side of Barthold and to the extent that getting rid of Cindy Lane no longer runs it right through the center of my house, I just want to say we support the project. It's either right through our house or I was going to be able to high five people out our windows. We're thinking you guys didn't want us here, but we're in support of it given that it gets rid of it and doesn't run it through the middle of our property. Well, I appreciate you being here and letting us know. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak. My name is Ken Chambers, I live at 2099 Marshall Road, which is at the end of the private road off of Marshall Lane going north. As it's proposed right now, the new Cindy Road goes straight through my house. I'm on the south side of the proposed ETJ division development and also I'm concerned about a lot of traffic coming down through the area and dumping into the other residential area to the south. Just to confirm, you are in support of removing Cindy Lane from the mobility? Yes. Great. Thank you. Any questions for Sism? Great. Thank you for being here and letting us know your perspective. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Okay. Rachel, is there anyone wishing to speak via phone? No, Chair, not at this time. Great. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson? You've got to hold it down. There you go. I'm making motion to approve. Great. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on this? Commissioner Pruitt? I have a question for the applicant or the requester of the -- are they still here? Yes. Sorry. I think I understand that you're just trying to be a good citizen. You realize that we have some evolving plans that are not yet approved, and if we're planning on removing this roadway from the future mobility plan, why not go ahead and do that now so that you can move forward with your development? Is that a correct summarization? Yeah. And through the planning with the engineering and staff, this was discussed by maybe the previous city engineer, and so it was always discussed that, well, the current thoroughfare plan has it on there, but the future mobility plan, it's being removed, so as we're coming to the point to go through zoning, I've asked the city, hey, how -- are you guys taking care of that? How is this being handled? And so they recommended us to do it through this process. Okay. So that's -- we're just trying to clean up what the city has already decided that future mobility plan. Yeah. So I really appreciate that, and I don't fault you at all. I guess my question is, if there was some reason why the city wanted to have some through access there, but there was not a need for a full secondary arterial roadway width, say, something like a collector, is that something that would still allow you to move forward with your development? It would -- If it was a reduced right-of-way? I mean, it would be a negative, obviously, because when we plan the speculative, I mean, we're buying a lot of land, and we try to plan for what the market needs, but we also want to be able to have the flexibility to land a big facility, maybe a million-footer. So to answer your question, yeah, I mean, it could become a big problem. And that's why when we do these developments, we like to understand the thoroughfare plans, and if something is being removed, we need to know that before we go through with the zoning and close on our land, because to go through all the design, spend hundreds and thousands of dollars, and then the city say, "Hey, what about a connector street that may not really be warranted?" Yeah, it's significant. Okay. So it's not really the placement from east to west that could be shifted with the freedom of the mobility planning process? It's more just the sheer amount of land lost to the right-of-way dedication? Yeah, it's the flexibility of building a larger building versus smaller building. Say there's a huge prospect that wants to come to Denton, it would be great for Denton, and they needed to do a large building, and when it went through all the city approvals, that could be a potential impact not knowing what that is. Okay. If you could come to the microphone just so it's on record. And just for clarification, what I was alluding to is I believe in our transportation criteria manual or maybe it's in the mobility planning process, there's some amount of flexibility of the particular right-of-way that is chosen for those mobility roadways within I think 1,000 feet of the shown location on the map. So that's what I was trying to see was is the main problem the fact that it runs through the middle, or is it just a problem because of the amount of land that you would lose due to roadway dedication? The flexibility, what you're referring to is it's usually 1,000 to 1,500 feet. And so that's why you have people here like, "Hey, it's shown right going through the middle of my house. I wouldn't like that," because it's conceptual, but you still have to recognize it and understand it. And usually cities don't until developers come through and say, "Hey, I'm ready to develop. I'm ready to plat." And so that's why this comes out, but you're right. And so, I mean, I don't know where, we were told it wasn't going to be on the plan, but it's not official. And so I don't know where shifting it would go. If you shifted it, if I said, "Hey, if we can shift it further to the west, closer to the railroad, are you jumping over the railroad, then jumping over 288 with bridges, and then jumping back over the railroad?" Well, I was just going to say one other thing to, I mean, to your point and understand the rationale for wanting to maybe have maximum flexibility to maybe cut through the site somewhere there. But I mean, we're actually working with a prospect right now at this point in time that is a large user that could, manufacturing, and I believe staff's aware of it, but they've been talking to economic development and so forth. So this is not a surprise, I don't think, to anybody in Denton, but if they did that, if the facility they're trying to build or would like to do there would basically eliminate the possibility of going to this site because it would bisect the manufacturing facility that they're looking at. So again, from our perspective, it probably would be a showstopper for us. Even if it were shifted to the left with that flexibility? Yeah, I mean, if you took it all the way over, like Todd was saying, if you took it all the way over to the west side of the site, then perhaps, because we're going to have interior circulation drives, we'll have private drives that circulate traffic all through the development, but if you took it to the very western border perhaps, I would think that you could probably run something down, as long as it's not running through the main body of the site. Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah, thank you. The other, and you guys have seen this, the other issue with that is the future alignment with 1173, is it starts to curve up and it'll eventually tie into 77. So you have that working, and that's not a 90 degree deal, it's a curve right after the railroad, and so it comes up, and so I think, I believe, I can't speak for engineering, but I think that will be a new large artery that will take traffic from there, and then the fastest way to get anywhere is on 35, so, but. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Just for the edification of those listed in the dais, as a reminder, and to you, Kirsten, to prove it, a secondary arterial on a mobility plan, they have to provide the right-of-way, so I know you're confident in being a good neighbor, and you might, you very well could be, but they had to do something with that and remove it from their site, or when they came to Platting, they would have to deal with the secondary arterial if it's on the mobility plan. So the removal of that is a necessity, unless they dedicate the right-of-way from the beginning. Does that make sense? I think I lost you at the very end there, but. Even if there wasn't a road there for another decade, if it's on the mobility plan, it's a secondary arterial, they would have had to dedicate the right-of-way. Yes. And would have empty land there for a while. Right. Yeah. Any other questions or discussions? We have a first and a second for approval, is that correct? We did get that, correct? Okay. Seeing no other discussion, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Mr. Pruitt? Sorry, discussion? Go for it. Okay, thank you. So I'm really concerned about what the triangle to the south of 288, west of I-35, east of the railroad turns into. As we look at how the mobility plan impacts the developability of that land, the usability of that land in the future, it sounds like the plan is to make that an isolated triangle where the only way out is to jump on an access road and drive three or four miles in a circle before you get to something that you can turn onto. That's the way I see it. If that's an incorrect impression, then please correct me. So that concerns me. I will point out, just because I think it's good to refer to the R-2030 plan periodically, in the mobility chapter, it says, "Well-connected street networks result in more direct routes and shorter travel times as opposed to a few large multi-lane arterials which create congested intersections and longer, more circuitous routes." I think this is an example where we are planning to create more circuitous routes. Does that matter? Again, it really depends on how this land develops. If it's a lot of warehousing, truck traffic, that sort of thing, it probably doesn't matter that much. If there are some more general office, other things that are consistent with the business innovation district, say we get some corporate areas, say they want a place to go to lunch periodically, being trapped in a triangle there doesn't strike me as conducive to development in that area. So then the question is, okay, what would provide that? To me, the big deal is crossing these large freeways. When you talk about crossing a railroad, the answer is always no. When you talk about a freeway, the answer is, "Well, if you get in 10 years ahead of time, maybe yes." To me, this presents an opportunity to either make sure that this area has one or two routes out. You have Mosh Branch, if you go all the way south, to cross east, eventually we're going to great extents to create a crossing that aligns with Windsor there. But north, we're basically going to shut this off. And so that concerns me. Now maybe there's a middle ground, maybe there's a way that we can get a crossing under the future of Loop 288 without going up through this property. But what I see here concerns me that maybe we're cutting off all northern access that has some different ways to go. Just going to see if Julie could pull up a map to help orient everyone real quick. Yeah, and Julie, if you have the draft mobility, that might be the most helpful document. And Chair, I will say, I don't blame the applicant in this at all. I completely realize that this is what our draft plan shows, and I appreciate that. I think you've gone through the process as well as possible. Yeah, and Julie can point some of this out on the map, but I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. That we do still have the Windsor overpass on 35 that would cut through this area. And there's also, a little further south of here, there are some local streets and collectors that are already stubbed going towards the north. So as these larger parcels continue to develop, there's certainly nothing that would prevent and we would even require connection to some of those that are already stubbed out to provide some collectors through this area for extra maneuverability in the future. But I think the general need that our mobility plan study has shown is that an arterial through that little wedge of the pie that you identified between the railroad and 35 may not be necessary. Because local streets might be sufficient to get everyone to those major corridors. And I would add on to that, part of that proposed mobility plan, so our current mobility plan has a lot of collectors on it. Our proposed mobility plan actually pulls out some of those collectors to allow and sort of sets that arterial grid, but that would allow those collectors to be developed within that kind of more harder grid pattern to allow for that flexibility. So that's kind of one of the intents of that draft mobility plan is to kind of rely on some of those collectors within that framework. So I don't know if that helps. And just to point out this, so this is Barcelona right here. And once again, it's not shown as a collector on the draft mobility plan, but it stubs out to be extended toward the north, and then Windsor will eventually cross I-35. That's on TxDOT's radar. So I don't know if that helps kind of organize that area. Yeah. It does help. And thank you for pointing that out. I guess my perspective on this is just that a building might last 50 or 60 years, right? A zoning classification might be requested to change in 20 years or something for redevelopment. A roadway right-of-way and a crossing of a TxDOT freeway is going to last 100, 200 years. And so that's why I get concerned about this. I guess I don't want to belabor the point. Just a question to staff, if we were to agree to remove this alignment through this property, in the remainder of the adoption of the 2020 mobility plan process, is there an opportunity to say that there should still be a roadway that has a crossing so that you can get from south of 288 to westbound 288 from that segment south of there? I'm going to have engineering come up. It again depends on the land development. Say if the south of the land that they want to come and develop, their access would not be restricted. If they want to dedicate, say, 55 feet or 65 feet of roadway, then we would be able to take the dedication and provide connection to 35 or the future Windsor or to the frontage of loop 288, again, with permission from TxDOT, since we don't control their access. Right. So we wouldn't have any say over whether TxDOT would provide crossing of 288 to go westbound on 288 from south of this subject property? I have to check the final plans, but by law, they would not be restricted of access. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Yeah, and just so you know, as we go through the draft mobility plan, having been on the last mobility plan approval process, there's going to be work sessions and a ton of input subcommittees. There's going to be a lot of opportunities to speak into it, and there's an opportunity for you to highlight this area if there needs to be a deeper examination over this on the roads that at least we control. Is there any other discussion? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt? I'm going to say nay just because I think there's sufficient flexibility to move this alignment westward to still allow the development. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Nay. Chair is a aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Motion carries four, two. The next item of business is item 5DZ21-0002. I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the public hearing. And members of the commission, if you'll give me just a moment, go ahead and pull up the presentation. Okay. Good evening. Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, presenting Z21-0002, prominence. This is a request to rezone approximately 58.55 acres. It's divided out to be 24.93 acres going from planned development and light industrial to general office, 23.47 acres going from PD to mixed use neighborhood, and 9.7 acres going from PD plan development to light industrial. This property is bounded by loop 288 north, University Drive, Mayhill Road, and then prominence way. There's a mix of undeveloped and commercial lots, one residential lot, all zoned LI to the northwest, single family neighborhood south across prominence way. As you can see in the FEMA map on the lower corner there, there's about 26 acres of flood plain. It covers the north and center of the property, the extensive environmentally sensitive areas in that area, and significant tree canopy in that area, as well as along prominence way. This zoning change would be to replace this current and old PD with current zoning districts that contain a similar mix of uses, some additional ones, and then require that it all falls, develops under the current development code standards. So just to give a little history, this planned development was created in 2000. It was, there was a concept plan that divided the subject property into four areas, A, B, C, and E. There was a D, but it's not part of this request, it's to the south and has partly developed already. Each of those areas authorizes a different mix of uses, including commercial, industrial, residential. There was a remaining 18 acres that was nominally part of area C, but was intended for future park dedication from when the plan developed. All of this property was vested in standards under the 2000 interim DDC, which was an odd document that was in effect while we were trying to write the 2002 DDC, and so it essentially applies 1991 zoning and uses, 1988 landscape code, and its own mix of processes. In 2002, city council did approve zoning out almost four acres of area A to an employment center commercial zoning, which became a light industrial zoning. That property is tonight also proposed to zone to a GEO to match where the plan development is proposed to go to GEO just for consistency's sake. So this request again is to take those areas A through E to current zoning districts, general office, MN, and LI, bring them under current DDC standards. In regard to the park area, the parks department is actually in discussion with the applicant to move forward with likely about an 18-acre park dedication at the time of platting, similar location to where the park was proposed under the PT. This is that concept plan, you can see the areas there, and then how it would be proposed to be zoned. Of course, we have our general criteria and our specific criteria for zoning approval to consider. First off, we look at our comprehensive plan. The site is primarily business innovation future land use, so intended for those large tracts of land developed with a mix of commercial supporting residential and retail. It does also have a transitional moderate density residential area. It's intended for a mix of denser residential areas. It's located near retail and parks. These proposed zonings line up with future land use, bringing in a mix of uses in the business innovation area and a mix of residential uses, including multifamily in that moderate density residential area. Other ways it lines up the comprehensive plan, obviously bringing this property into compliance with the full current debt and development code for all future approvals on the site. The current DDC is much more in line with the comprehensive plan than whatever was in place in 2000. It's also ensuring development along two major corridors, which is in line with our preferred growth concept. And it's providing employment and moderate density housing near a potential future park and trail and allowing for a broader range of uses that would fit in our future land use map than is currently permitted under the PD. One key here is particularly minimizing adverse environmental impacts because under the PD there is minimal to no protection of environmentally sensitive areas and tree preservation, whereas taking it out of the PD would require full compliance with all of our environmentally sensitive area protections for future approvals as well as our tree preservation standards for future approvals on this site, which aligns with the goals of our comprehensive plan. There are also enhanced standards that come into play with our current DDC versus what would be required under the PD as you can see there. The landscape areas would be approximately the same but tree canopy, there really wasn't a requirement for that under the PD and we would have a fairly significant tree canopy requirement for all future development as well as street tree requirements and right of way screening, which would be beneficial for the neighborhood to the south of this development, providing a great amount of landscaping between them and any future development on the site, as well as improved commercial building design standards. Just looking at parks here, again the applicant is in discussion with the Parks Department to donate about 18 acres of the floodplain to the city and the Parks Department is looking at providing a trail through that area, which would of course be a benefit to the city and to that development. In terms of transportation, this is an area that has some current significant traffic issues. There was a detailed traffic impact analysis done, although there's no proposed use for the site right now and so it was, these are estimates based on possible high traffic generation uses that could develop on the site after the rezoning. Be looking at about 7,565 daily trips at full development. TI looked at about 10 adjacent intersections, 6 out of 10 of them would operate at a level of service of D or better, going out to a horizon of 2029. Three of 10 of those are intersections that currently without any additional development there already operate at a level of service E or F and then there's a proposed driveway for this site, subject detects out approval that if nothing, if that was the only driveway along loop 288, it would operate at a level of service of F. The TI indicates that there would be increased delays going to 2029 with the, if this site were to develop as estimated, however, the potential site development is actually fairly minimal in its contribution compared to the traffic that would already be occurring because of current and future growth in the area. This is on 288, it's on University. Most of the delays there are being caused by growth that's going to come one way or the other. However, there were some mitigations recommended, a major one is a signal light at prominence drive either when Audra is realigned south or possibly sooner that would be assessed when civil engineering plans came in for this site and this site is estimated to be responsible for 25% of that cost. If that's, if when that's put in place that would raise the intersection to a level of service C versus where it's currently operating often at an E or F at peak times right now. There's also recommendation for a right turn deceleration lane along loop 288, again that would be assessed when civil engineering plans came in and the TI also recommended that techs.net consider recommending, consider approving a second driveway access point along loop 288 to reduce the pressure of having just one off point there for this development. And then other long term solutions that will help reduce traffic tension in the area are the extension of the median at the intersection with Spring Valley so you won't have cars trying to cross 380 there and then the future techs.freeway bypass of 380 at 288. So essentially the TIA concluded that overall the development of this site won't materially negatively impact the area but it may be able to help contribute to future improvements. Water and waste water is available, fire response is within 8 minutes or less, law enforcement issues are unexpected to be made worse by this development. We did do public outreach and there was one response in opposition, there was also a neighborhood meeting two citizens attended expressed concerns about potential traffic generation and appreciation for proposed geo-zoning, so with that staff does recommend approval as the request complies with our criteria for approval. The applicant is here and I'll be happy to stand for any questions. Great thanks Sean. Commissioner Anderson. Sean if we vote for this, are we voting for a traffic light at Audre and 288 as well or is that just recommended? It's a recommendation but when civil engineering plans come in for this site there would be a warrant study and if it's concluded that it's needed there then there would at least be I believe a requirement that this development help pay for that if and when it's put in place. I don't mind voting for the project but I just don't want another red light right there at Audre because when you're on University of 380 and you're taking a right onto Loop going southbound you're just going to get up to speed and you're going to have to stop immediately because that's probably what a quarter of a mile, a little stretch and I thought the reason we have these major thoroughfares like Loop 288 and 380 is to keep traffic moving not putting red lights and having traffic stop. Definitely something that engineering and tech stop would look at and I believe that's part of the reason why it's something that may be delayed until Audre is realigned with prominence so that you would have one intersection where there would be light rather than having turning from Audre and then hitting that point. Thank you sir. Any other questions for Sean? Okay I don't see any, thank you very much. I do have one card, it's the applicant Mr. Lee Allison. I think you know the drill but name and address and you'll have ten minutes. I don't know if I remember but it's been awhile. Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group 2415 North Elm, Denton, Texas. With me this evening in the audience is Henry Reif, the landowner. I don't have this power point or a formal presentation but I would like to speak to some of the items that came up during the work session. One related to park dedication, I personally am excited to see a park department now that is wants these kind of dedications. When this project was started they didn't want them, the PD actually was more to make sure the city would take it not to make sure the developer would give it, but these are excellent opportunities along streams and flood plains for hiking and biking paths and help get some of that traffic off of the roadways and avoid that conflict of traffic there. So for no other reason than business reasons we're inclined for it to occur. We certainly for business decisions would like for the park dedication to count towards any required park dedication for the residential type uses as they occur and we would like for any dedication above and beyond that because the required park land dedication is not going to be the 18 acres, that's just something we're doing. We want to make sure there's a notable difference obviously for tax purposes and donations and those kind of things so that's an interest with park dedication. When it comes to the zoning history Mr. Smith, this was started back before 2000, there was a different set of rules in place, the developer had gone to a lot of work trying to make plans for this and then all of a sudden there was going to be a zoning change, well those zoning change were going to kind of undo all the plans and at the recommendation of the city he came forward with a PD to preserve his efforts at that date and time. With that though he was vested in times of the time, rules in the time, at the time, which meant he didn't have a tree preservation requirement to speak of or tree mitigation, there weren't any ESAs so those things weren't in place, in removing this zoning the PD and going to straight zoning today now the property is going to be back under the current rules so those things are there out of the way. One of the differences for example was multifamily under the PD allows for 10 units per acre, that sounds pretty low but when you figure 18 acres of floodplain there's 180 units right there and then you pack them on the remaining five, now you're up to 20, 30 units per acre on the actual developable land so that's not a good comparison between the two zonings if you look at it that directly that way but this is really more compatible. Another thing with business today marketability on a speculative development such as this one, actually straight zoning is better to promote than a PD because a PD nobody knows what you have and they got to go find the ordinance and see what's written in it and study it, especially this way it's standard city zoning, you look it up, you see what it is and you make your decisions and move forward. Relative to the traffic impact analysis I want to point out we didn't want to do one. The proposed zoning is essentially the same intensity as what there is today so we're having zero impact on traffic. What the traffic impact analysis does is it shows the issues that exist today whether we zone or not including the potential for a red light on Audra. If we didn't do any rezoning and came in developed today and did a traffic impact analysis that issue would come up and those considerations would have to be made and those will be made when the first development comes through. This TIA that we did will probably serve as the background TIA for the future developments and it will get refined every time a development comes through and we go from speculation to reality. Related to the status there was a conditional letter of map revision approved with FEMA. The grading for all of that work has been done. There's still two bridges to be constructed and when those are completed then we can go follow the letter of map revision that will change the FEMA floodplain on one of our exhibits we prepared. We showed where it's going to be revised to and that's what will come back so that'll be a little lesser amount but there's still going to be significant floodplain there. There's a sanitary sewer that the design's been approved and the applicant's about to get under construction as soon as he can get his three-way agreements out of the way and pardon me, I believe that covers the issues I heard come up. I'll be glad to respond to any other questions you might have at this time. Any questions for Mr. Allison? Commissioner Pruitt? Just a quick one. I really appreciate your efforts on this parcel. Given your enthusiasm for cooperation with parks and whatnot would you be amenable to a requirement that that corridor be preserved whether it be by dedication or easement for a future trail corridor? Mr. Reif's here. We've discussed this earlier and I believe he would be amenable to anything that would preserve that. I mean we want to make sure the Parks Department will take it so I think we'll be good with that. Thank you. I don't know if it can be done or how but we'll be good with it. Is that a recommendation to council? I'm going to consult Mack Reinwald and see what he says we can do here. There's probably several options. The most legally viable method is probably to do a park development agreement in association with the zoning when it goes to council so that's something we could work on over the next few weeks if it's the preference of this board to go ahead and take an agreement to council that would memorialize how the park development and dedication would work. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't quite catch all of that. Could you try again? Right well there's a couple of options but one being somewhat unusual would be putting a condition on a straight zoning case which I think is one idea. The other would be actually taking a park dedication agreement to council in conjunction with the zoning and that's something that council if they approve the zoning could also take a second item up and approve an agreement on the same night and that'd be probably the best way of memorializing that actual concept rather than attaching it as a condition to a straight zoning case. Our only concern with the park dedication agreement would be would it delay the timing for our zoning hearing with city council? We would really like to go with the next possible city council meeting. Certainly and I think that's something that staff could expedite. And just, practically speaking, when we put a motion on the table do we just put a motion with the recommendation of a park dedication or with the condition of a park dedication going to council? I think the preference is B, to direct staffed. I don't think necessarily needs to be a part of your motion this evening but if you wanted to direct staff tonight to take an agreement as well that way it stays separate from the actual motion on the zoning case. Understood. You understand? Are we good? Yep. Great. Any other questions for Mr. Allison or the applicant? I don't see any. All right. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Rachel, do we have anyone calling in? No, Chair. I'm not on this item. We struck out on all items. Seeing that there's no one else here to speak I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it for a motion and discussion. Commissioner Smith. I'm going to make a motion to approve with a strong recommendation to staff to have a park dedication agreement or discussion brought up at city council for it to be put a part of that. We have a first for approval, Commissioner Anderson. Second. We have a first and a second for approval with the recommendation for some staff work before council having it not delay any kind of forward progress in the project. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Chair is an aye. Commissioner Anderson. I would not hold that traffic light against you guys, so I vote as an aye. You say you're in support? Okay. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Chair is 6-0. Congratulations. That brings us to the last item this evening, which is to talk about the matrix. And I will turn it to Hayley for any updates first and then to the dais for discussion. I actually don't think I have any updates this evening. There was kind of that summer break for council, if you will, so we haven't had any items go before them yet. So no updates tonight, but happy to add anything to the matrix that you all might want to see at upcoming work sessions. Great. Any questions about the matrix or any items that we would like to place on the matrix? Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Hayley, I know we talked about a change to the mobility plan based off of what the draft mobility plan is there. Regardless of the conversation that happened the night of the dais, I'm afraid if there's other neighborhoods like Rancho States that has an arterial that's mobility planned to go right through it. Nothing obviously in it works for it, but in the mobility plan it's there, and so maybe a couple other sets of eyes of folks that know neighborhoods and whatnot might be good. If there is a draft mobility plan, you can send out to the commission, they can look over, try to see if there's any trouble spots and bring up. It's not necessarily a work session item, but more of just this is where it's at right now. Bring up any points. I know you'll be bringing them back to the commission to review, but it might save us some time during work session reports of having to see mobility plans, and it gives us a little bit more time to chew on it now and throw up some red flags if we see any. Sure, yeah. I'll talk to our city engineer and see if we can get you all a link to that. Okay. I have one item. I recently met with the individual potentially going to be taking over my seat in the short order, and I just want to encourage or reinforce or even ask that there's a formal orientation for new commissioners. I don't know what was in place for Commissioner McDade, they might have had a great one. I don't know, but I would strongly encourage some kind of structure around that. I don't know if it's Julie's boot camp that she's been working on over the years, and I'm happy now to volunteer my time to sit in those meetings or to help figure that out. For the sake of continuity and continued progress as big projects are coming on, I would love to see, and I'm volunteering any of my help to try to make commissioner transition as easy as possible. If staff could start thinking about that, I think it would be really helpful for all commissioners to have that resource as they on board. Sure. That is very much appreciated. Just so you all know, we are planning hopefully starting next meeting to once a month start up the boot camp series and get a very solid set of those completed by the end of the year so that that can become kind of a handbook for new commissioners, but in the meantime certainly I think we'd be amenable to setting up some meetings and helping the new commissioners get up to speed as well as your potential replacements. Awesome. Thank you. Any other items for the matrix, commissioner Ellis. Thank you, chair. Just actually just wanted to comment a little bit on that point. I know when I came on some five years ago, there was a one on one that I came and had. I think we got away from that a little bit. It absolutely needs to happen. I mean, it was, you know, obviously we can't go through everything, but at least there is just the high level overview of what the role is. So yeah, we need to put that back in. And I know we're shortstaffed and busy. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other items, I'm going to close the meeting at 829. Thank you.