Nov 03, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-11-03 5:30 PM (AMENDED)

>> Hello and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, November 3rd, 2021. This is our work session with the quorum present. I will call us to order at 5.34 PM. We do not have any work session reports today. We're going to go right to our agenda here, work session item one, citizen comments on consent agenda items. Staff, is there anyone on the phone for this? >> There is not. >> Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience have a comment on consent agenda? Okay, seeing none, that will move us to item two, clarification of agenda items on our agenda today. Excuse me, first one is consideration of our minutes from October 20th. Commissioners have anything on that? Okay, how about consent agenda items? Okay, seeing none there, we'll go to our individual items for consideration. That's FP210028A, Hi Hayley. >> Good evening. Yes, so the plot before you this evening for the urban logistics edition has been revised since the backup went out. So a plot was sent to you this afternoon and we are now able to recommend approval as all comments have been resolved on the plot and their civil engineering plans have been conditionally approved. So I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thanks, Hayley. Any questions on this? I do not see any, thank you. Next we have 4B, PP210023A. Is Julie here? Julie is here. Hi, Julie. >> Good evening, hello. >> Let me pull up the presentation. Sorry about that. Okay, sorry. This is PP210023A, it is a preliminary plot for a single family residential development. It may look familiar, it was a PD that you all saw come through here earlier this year. They've at this time elected to move forward with a development under the current zoning of R4 and R7. In your packet, we had a recommend denial, it's gotten one extension. They did have just a couple of comments that they needed to work through. They've actually worked through those with engineering, and so staff does recommend approval of the plan. >> Thanks, Julie. I know that was emailed out pretty late in the day. So I don't know if all of you had a chance to look at it, but it is in your email from late this afternoon. Questions for Julie on this? Commissioner Pruitt? >> Thank you, sorry, slow on the draw tonight. >> No worries. I just wanted to ask if we could hear a little bit of an explanation of what the plans for drainage are in this particular property once we get to the open meeting tonight. >> Absolutely. So I have spoken with engineering about it, and at this stage it really is kind of high level at the preliminary plot. So the preliminary plot is the first step in that plotting process. The second step will be civil engineering plans. That's where the river kind of hits the road with the design, and so there'll be a lot more detail associated with that. And that final step will be that final finalizing all of those lots. But let me, I have a slide in case, and so let's take a look at that. Let's see if this works, all right. So they are proposing two areas of detention for this property. I pulled out just those specific areas and highlighted those detention areas in blue. I can point them out on the map, they're kind of in the map, about in this location and then in this location right here. Our engineers' initial analysis is that those detention areas are sufficient to handle the drainage associated with this. And the intent is to, in particular this detention pond right here, would be to pipe that water and have it then move south through Kings Row, underneath Kings Row. There's a drainage area there. They still, of course, have to do all of the analysis to make sure there's sufficient capacity. If there's any additional capacity that needs to be achieved in that area, then that will have to be something that they'll do and that will be designed with those civil engineering plans. >> Okay, yeah, thank you. I think, sorry, getting the updated plat and trying to understand this. I think in the original one, perhaps the phasing order was different than it is now, is that correct? >> Yes, when I looked at the original one, it looked like the phases on the northwest corner of the property were earlier than on the northeast corner and the eastern side of the property. And now it looks like the eastern side is in 1B a little bit earlier on, is that, am I tracking with what has been changed correctly? >> Well, and I can talk with the applicant about how they intend to develop those phases as they move forward with the plan. So I can certainly discuss that with them. I'm not sure exactly at what point they'll develop each one of those named phases. So that's something we could certainly talk with them about. And of course, with any phase, they will have to make sure that they address all of those drainage and utility and public facility concerns. >> Okay, thank you. >> You bet. Any other questions for Julie? Julie, I have just a couple, and maybe it's where the detention pond is. With the PD, we talked about possible unknown cemetery, I remember asking that question. Is that the area where you were just pointing to from what my recollection is? >> It is in this area right here. If you can see, it's in this little area right here. And based upon the analysis, the ground penetrating radar, there didn't find any evidence of that cemetery. So prior to final plot, though, of course, we'll need to see from the Texas Historical Commission to make sure they've got everything, all the letters in the ducks in the row. But at this point, there's not any indication that there's a cemetery in that location. >> Okay, thank you for that. And the other thing is, and maybe when you're at the public meeting tonight, you can touch on it a little bit. Obviously, we've had a lot of input on this item. I would say much of it is about how the city determines adverse impact. Is there anything that you can add to how that is determined? That's obviously an undefined term. >> And what we really look at is, at this stage, they are developing under that existing zoning and in accordance with the comprehensive plan. We don't require any additional buffers between single family uses, so it really is consistent with the development standards within the debt and development code and the comprehensive plan. >> When you're looking at satisfying that criterion, which I think is eight in the form that we look at and that you all provide, is that really what you're looking at? >> Tina may want to add to that as well. >> Thank you, Julie. So right now, given that the zoning is in place on the property, the applicant is allowed to submit development plans that comply with the zoning requirements as well as our debt and development code and all of our various criteria manuals. And with this situation, we have a plat that's come before you. It meets all of our technical requirement. Therefore, state law obligates us to approve the plat. So hence why they submitted a corrected plat. It's on your agenda now. We emailed it out to let you know that we have a plat that's addressed all those requirements. But with respect to those adverse impacts, presumably our development codes, mitigate and address any concerns that we would have associated with any development, regardless of it's this project or any other project that's here within the community. So in this case, this project meets all of our development code requirements and therefore hence why we're recommending approval of it. At the time of zoning, then when we have projects come in at the time of a zoning request, then there is a little more discretion, if you will, on evaluating of whether or not there are additional impacts that could potentially be perceived associated with the development project. But now we're at the state of planning and so the zoning entitlements already in place. And so now it's either the project complies with all of our development requirements or it doesn't. So the presumably our development codes then have addressed any potential adverse impacts. So, like, I know, Commissioner, you asked about drainage. The applicant will be responsible for complying with all of our drainage requirements that are provided for in our construction manuals, but also in accordance with our DDC. And so, you know, if the improvements are constructed properly, then presumably it will not have any adverse impacts and will mitigate any additional concerns that could potentially come about. Absolutely. Thank you. Appreciate that. Anything else for Julie on this? I do not see you. Thank you very much. Okay. 4C PP 210021. Julie, that is you as well. I'm just going to stay here. All right. Let me share my screen for this one. Here we go. All right. So this plot may look familiar to you as well. This one is for a piece of road within the Robeson Ranch development. They've already had an extension granted to them. So, at this point, they do still have some comments that they need to address for this preliminary plat. So staff is recommending denial of this plat and just to familiarize yourself, Robeson Ranch is a residential development developed under a plan development situated in the southwest part of town. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Julie? I don't see any Julie. And I believe you have the next one. 4D PP 210026. Okay. So this is a preliminary plat for the Singing Oaks edition. This is really to facilitate a roadway connection and then to plat two lots. The subject property is located just west of Loop 288, kind of between Mockingbird and Loop 288. The intent of this is to connect Cardinal Drive through an existing development and then a project under development right now. They do have some comments they need to address, so staff is recommending denial. However, they have requested an extension and we have no objection to that requested extension. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Julie. In that extension, we go to a date certain of 12/1, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any questions for Julie? Thank you. Let's go to 4E PP 210017C, Carina Maldonado. Hi, Carina. Hi, I'm going to get this pulled up. All right. Good evening. This is a preliminary PP 210017 for the Pebblebrook Parkside edition. This came before PNZ recently. That had a specific use permit request for a multifamily project on the east side of South Loop 288, just south of East McKinney Street. There are a couple drainage issues that need to be worked through on this site, so staff is recommending denial of the plat as there's still some comments that need to be addressed. This plat already had an extension and has already received denial, so this would be a second denial for the plat. With that, I can answer any questions. Thanks, Carina. Any questions? I do not see any. Thank you very much. That will move us to 4F PP 210025. That is Lisa's item. Hi, Lisa. Hi. Good evening, Commission. This preliminary plat will create one lot for a residential, I'm sorry, industrial development that will develop in one phase that was recently zoned to light industrial. Staff is recommending denial as it does not meet any of the criteria for approval. However, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension so that we can have additional time to address staff comments. Staff has no problem with this and I'm available for questions. Thanks, Lisa. Any questions? I do not see any. Thank you. I'll go to 4G PP 210024. That's Sean's item. Hi, Sean. Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission, Sean Jacobson, Planning Department. I'm here to present the PROS prominence edition PP 210024. This will be a plat of a 22.608-acre site, generally located on the north side of Prominence Parkway near the intersection of Atlanta Drive and Prominence. At this time, staff is recommending denial because it does not meet our established criteria, but staff has no objection to the request of extension to a date certain of December 1st. With that, happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Sean. Any questions for Sean on this? I do not see any. Thank you. All right. That'll move us to public hearing on the agenda. We've got one item and that is 5AZ 210016. It's Ron Manguita's item. Hi, Ron. Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. Pull up my presentation. There we go. As introduced in the Chair's introduction, this is a zoning change request for a property referred to as the Harris Ranch Perot Project. Just for the Commission's information, the request is for light industrial, the light industrial applies to approximately 280 acres. The approximately 247.7 acres, which you see here, that is outlined, or is white outlined in black, was a recent annexation. The property was annexed into the city on September 14th. As being annexed, it does not have a zoning assigned to it or designated to it. So the request includes the initial zoning of L.I. for the property. Again, approximately 247.7 acres. The applicant is also requesting, as part of this request, to rezone or a zoning change of a property or properties that they also own, that is currently zoned H.C. Highway Corridor, which is shown here in red, which is included in this black box or this black area that's highlighted here. And again, that is to zone that property from H.C. Highway Corridor to light industrial. Similarly, there is a property that they also own, which is approximately 7.21 acres, that is currently zoned Mixed Use Regional, which is outlined here or shown here in purple, again, within the area that is subject to the zoning change request. And again, they're proposing to zone change that from M.R. to light industrial. The property, again, mentioned already that it was annexed, a part of it, approximately 247 acres, was annexed into the city September 14th. The other areas that were briefly described earlier were in the city back in 2019, and those transitions are now in place. The property is currently zoned Mixed Use Regional, which is also mentioned to H.C. and M.R. during that transition or that zoning, city-wide zoning exercise. The applicant is proposing to use this site, if approved, for light industrial. They're proposing seven logistics center buildings, which will total just a little bit over 4 million square feet. There is a single-family, rural detached dwelling along the frontage along I-35, and there is a small retail establishment along I-35 as well. But the purpose of their rezoning is to zone this property, light industrial, for the future development of a light industrial use, being the seven logistics center buildings. Which they're proposing. Staff did review the application under the criteria for approval for all applications under Section 245E, as well as the zoning criteria, specifically for that change request. Approval of Section 2.7.2(d), and staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the future land use map. Business innovation, the business innovation is described for large corporate buildings, but also light industrial distribution centers as well. Also, goals and policies within the comprehensive plan also are consistent with the proposal. The zoning district of LI, the purpose statement, meets the proposal as far as what they intend to do. And also, the zoning is not expected to generate any significant adverse environmental infrastructure or physical impacts. Utility and infrastructure to the site. Currently, there is not water or sewer in the area, but that is able to be brought forward or brought to the site, so that will happen when the property is developed. And I can share that the property will have access off of I-35. There will be three access points on I-35 frontage road, so there will be adequate access for that property when that property develops. Notifications were sent out to property owners within 200 feet, 24 in total, as well as courtesy postcards were sent to 45 addresses within 500 feet of the subject property. As of this afternoon, staff has not received any responses in opposition. Staff has received full responses. Those responses are in your backup. They're primarily from the property owners. There was no meetings, both virtual or in person, held on for this particular rezoning or zoning change request. Staff recommends approval of this initial zoning as well as zoning change as described earlier, as it meets the criteria as outlined in the sections referenced here. With that, I'll stand for any questions. The applicant will be here during the regular meeting if you have any questions for them. Thanks, Vern. We do have a question. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Ron, is the applicant going to have elevations of the proposed seven logistics buildings? They have not shared any elevations with us. They did share some conceptual site plans of what they proposed. Again, seven total buildings. Majority of them are going to be on the east side of the railroad. There is going to be one or two on the west side of the railroad tracks. Okay. Then the zoning change with the MR and the HC zones there, are any of those logistics buildings as a conceptual site plan, is it currently set to replace those structures that are existing there right now with those buildings as well? Are those buildings going to be removed? Those buildings, yes, those buildings will be removed. And just a point of clarification as well, TextDOT is going to be coming in with the interchange of the future Loop 2E8. So some of that area that's currently zoned HC and MR will be taken away by the TextDOT widening. So partly, yes, some buildings will be adjacent to I-35, which will be in that area specifically, but also part of that would be taken away from TextDOT. Just like we did on the project that I think we saw, it might have been June or July with just north there, we rezoned as LI. I asked for it then, but if there's any way you could include, because it has the future extension of 288, as well as the right-of-way extension 435, if you can include or show or demonstrate somehow on the presentation that here's kind of where the future right-of-way is somewhat. So how much of this property is going to be eaten up by the right-of-way in the future? That'd be helpful just to, it helps conceptualize essentially where the majority of those buildings will be located, how close they're going to be to major thoroughfares. I can pull something for the regular session. Okay, that works. Appreciate it. Okay. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. So I'm going to be Mr. Drainage today. And I completely understand that this is way early on in any sort of development plan. But I'm more curious about what our process is for how drainage infrastructure is evaluated for sizing that could impact downstream impacts of this large future development. Because so far it's been fairly permeable, right? It's been farmland and a few wells and that sort of thing. I know that it's been business innovation, which is our lovely catch-all phrase. I guess what I'm wondering is it will have some downstream flow, right, that eventually gets collected by other drainage infrastructure in the city. And this is kind of at that northwestern corner of our city that dumps everything through the rest of our city completely. And so when we have been developing other properties downstream of this area, how do we or how have we in the past determined how to size that infrastructure? And what assumptions have we made about how much effluent and how much permeable space, et cetera, because this is a very large parcel. So I'd just kind of like to understand that. Sure, sure. And I'll try to do my best. I'm not an engineer, so I'm going to at least repeat some of the things that I understand as far as what is required. I want to bring up this illustration that you can see here. Any development that comes in is not able to impose additional stormwater or water onto another property. So they have to be able to mitigate that either through working through easements or through retention or detention of some of those water that they anticipate will be generated by the flow as the development develops. So I can tell you that the property to the north will have something to that effect to not allow for any water or stormwater to impose onto the property to the south. And then the same thing for this property, they are proposing a detention pond somewhere in this general area here. There's a pond there now that's a natural occurrence of where it ponds today, so that this is where they show. And I can illustrate that with another exhibit that I'll hopefully put together for the regular session. And again, this area here is where they're proposing to detain that water, and then hopefully any development to the south would not be impacted. And then again, if there is any outflow, it will be done through some sort of stormwater system that would be under an easement or some arrangement through the city's public works department. Okay, maybe I'm not asking it accurately. I completely understand how detention works so that we save up peak flows and just let it out slowly, et cetera. My question is, eventually you have to let that water out, right? If you're increasing the impermeable surface area of the site, though you plan to collect it and then let it out slowly, and you don't have a peak flow problem, you still have a massive water that you have to convey through the stormwater system, right? Yeah, and I appreciate that clarification. I know we have a stormwater master plan. I don't know what that is for this area specifically. I know that is something that we address, and I can see if I can get an answer for you, but I'm not familiar with how that is for this particular area, but I know that there's a stormwater plan. Yeah, and really my question, I guess, is more general than specific on this area. Okay. Sorry, go ahead. No, no, no, no, I want to make sure you catch your question. I was just going to add and help Ron here. So as part of our stormwater master planning efforts, so one of the things, and we have folks that have engineering degrees that are much more educated in this than I am, but just from a high level perspective that I can share is that within the city, we have certain drainage basins. So, and typically those drainage basins are affiliated with the creeks that we have that flow through our community. And so when stormwater master planning is done to determine appropriate sizing of facilities for the longer term, the engineers will take into consideration the existing storm drainage considerations for today, but then also anticipating what future development would be. And if members serves me correctly, there's a C factor that gets applied as part of that analysis. But that so as we so that we can plan for future development and understand what our drainage capacities will be needed. There is that's that all goes into our larger master planning efforts, if you will. So, you know, they're looking at the size of the basin, the potential existing water flows that are there today as a result of existing conditions. But then as properties are developed longer term, they've taken that into consideration in terms of being able to plan accordingly. So, you know, what Ron has said is correct with respect to site development conditions that are taking place. And typically when properties are developed, then presumably the drainage situation will be better in the end, because now we have the appropriate structural facilities, if you will, that have been installed to be able to be able to address any drainage considerations of the property, you know, whether it's through just detention facilities or sometimes retention facilities have to be installed for holding water and then potentially releasing at a slower rate. But if there are any additional improvements, for example, to the creeks themselves that have to be made, or if they especially if they're only available to handle so much capacity that that's all taken into consideration in that overall stormwater master planning. So hopefully that helps address your question and provide some greater high level context on how we plan for that. It does. Thank you. I think really the only piece of question left in my mind is as you were describing, how they they make certain assumptions about future development have have the assumptions we've been making for development for the last five years, assumed that this area would eventually become much more impervious through this type of development in the future. Or are we signing ourselves up essentially in an infrastructure situation where this property developing is going to set off a fire alarm to say, oh, gosh, all these things that we just built, we need to upgrade now. Does that make sense? It does. And, you know, we we have team members on city staff that should be taking that in consideration. And my guess is they probably engage the assistance of consultants who do this for a living. Right. And so to be able to help us be able to plan accordingly for that. And periodically, we should be reviewing those master plans just like we do as part of our comprehensive plan, our mobility plan. I know which will be on the horizon. We also do this for wastewater, sanitary sewer. I'm having to take into consideration certain land use assumptions that would take place and then assuming a certain amount of impervious cover that would occur in calculating that all into what our needs are from a greater stormwater master plan and infrastructure element. OK, let me just quickly add to that. And actually, you know, 100 percent, the consultants or the staff members that are working on the stormwater master plan are consulting with the other disciplines, including planners. And so, you know, actually, we're going to take a guesstimate of, you know, what's what's going to be developed there. But we have an idea and we present that to them and they use that in their land use assumptions. OK, thank you. Any other questions for Ron on this? I do not see any. Thanks, Ron. Thank you. OK, that concludes the agenda. So I will close our work session at six o six p.m. And we will reconvene at six thirty for the public meeting. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, November 3rd, 2021. Thank you for your patience as we were a little bit late in beginning the meeting. I'll call us to order with the quorum present at six forty five p.m. Our first item on the agenda is pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. 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. I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Our first item on the agenda is to consider approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, excuse me, for October 20th, 2021. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Villarreal. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval of the minutes. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Due to technical difficulties, we will redo the motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Villarreal. Second. First and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries six zero. That moves us to our consent agenda. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. Looks like we're still having some technical difficulties here. All right. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Villarreal. Second. We've got a first and a second to approve the consent agenda as presented. Any discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries six zero. That moves us to our items for individual consideration. Before we get into those, let me just read a little statement. We've had a significant amount of public input related to one of our items tonight in individual consideration. It seems necessary to clarify the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to preliminary plats. The commission's role related to plats is dictated by state law. And although public testimony may be heard on the item, the commission is not able to deny a plat due to neighborhood opposition. Texas Local Government Code obligates the commission to approve the plat, approve the plat with conditions, or deny the plat if it does not meet all local state regulations. The action must be taken within 30 days of the plat being submitted. The commission is authorized by state law to approve a one-time extension if requested for an additional 30 days of review. Some of our plats on tonight's agenda have already received that one-time extension. Therefore, those plats, the commissioner's action will be either denial or approval. And additionally, the city does allow applicants the ability to submit corrected plats up to the day of the commission meeting. And so with that said, we will get into our first item for individual consideration, which is for AFP2128A. Haley Zygursky is up for presentation. Good evening, commissioners. The plat before you this evening is for the Urban Logistics Edition, which is for four non-residential lots located on the south side of the I-35 East Frontage Road. Just this afternoon, a revised version of the plat was sent to you all. That plat does address all of the comments that were noted in your backup, so at this time, staff is now recommending approval of the plat before you this evening, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Haley. I do not see any questions for you. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item for consideration? Seeing none, chair can entertain a motion. Commissioner Villarreal? Move to approve the item as presented. Commissioner Cole? Second. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 6-0. That will move us to 4B, PP2123A. That is Julie Wyatt's item. Hi, Julie. Good evening. Let me pull up the presentation. This is PP21-0023A. This is for a preliminary plat for a single-family residential subdivision located at Loop 288 in Kingsrow. This plat has received one extension. In the backup, staff did recommend denial. There were a couple of outstanding issues they needed to resolve. Since the agenda posted, they have resolved those issues. Staff emailed that revised plat to you this afternoon, and staff does recommend approval of the plat. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Julie. Anyone have any questions for Julie? Thank you. On this individual consideration item, we did have 31 comment forms using our online system in opposition of this. We did have one online comment form that was neutral on the request. I do have a card in front of me for someone wishing to speak, and that is Mr. Reed Faring. Would you like to speak? Yes, please. Thank you for listening to me. I stand here like a dog barking at the caravan as it goes by. I think we're accepting defeat here. Planning and zoning is going to approve this development. My objections are really immediate and then long term. I've spoken to you all before about the fact that we live in a cul-de-sac on the northeast side of Denton. We are bound by Clear Creek and the Elm Fork and by Mingo Road and the railroad. There are very few ways to get in and out, and there's a lot of land out there, a lot of flat land that developers are going to be surely looking at in the coming years. I don't see any evidence that planning for this is in force. More importantly, we've lost confidence in the system that created the 2030 plan. We find the developers can work around that almost at will. Agave is a good example, and this one is a good example. There should have been no more than three or four houses per acre. That's how big the lot should have been. They're all much smaller than the surrounding properties. The traffic is going to be horrendous. It's already bad. Only King's Row and Sherman Drive provide access to the loop from our part of town. We're terrified that if all of these properties, if the Carter Ranch and many of the other undeveloped properties out near us are populated as densely as this brown development, we're going to have a nightmare on our hands. You're going to have to build overpasses on the loop at King's Row and create a cloverleaf at Sherman Drive. So my short-term comment is I'm really disappointed that the 2030 plan can be disregarded so easily, and in the long term, I really beg you all to back off on our part of Denton and create a real doable quality plan for the development of the remaining properties out in our part of town. It's important to us, and it's important to Denton. It's going to be home to thousands of Dentonites within the next decade, and the quality of that life depends on decisions that you all make. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ferry, for speaking tonight. I don't have any other cards here. Is there anyone else wishing who's here in the City Hall to speak? Staff, is there anyone on the phone wishing to speak on this item? No, there is not. Okay, thank you. With that, the Chair can entertain a motion or further discussion. Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. I guess this is a question to staff. I was a little bit confused. Some of the notes in the original, I think, Exhibit 3, the recommendation sheet from staff talked about the access to Loop 288. One of them said it's not allowed. One of them said you have to have documents from TxDOT or you need an exemption, and what we got was the revised plat, but I didn't see on the plat how that was resolved. Can you explain sort of what the plan is for that second point of access and how this plat ensures that? Sure. So as proposed, they do have those two areas where they're going to be connecting to that future Loop 288. One is that cul-de-sac, I believe it's Palace Way, and then another is just an emergency access. So the applicant has met with TxDOT and the city, and right now they're kind of formulating plans that will be approved through kind of that next phase, the civil engineering plans. But currently, the intent is to go ahead and connect to an existing driveway that connects to Loop 288, connecting that through a parallel roadway system to connect to that emergency access point that their plat shows. So which would satisfy that secondary access point. Okay. So the plan is for an emergency access-only access, or at least that's the intention, because it would be a gravel road or something as opposed to a full second access? Correct. Correct. As that interim solution until that time where those frontage roads are constructed by TxDOT. Yes, sir. And do we know how the schedule of that proposed frontage road project overlays with the discussions with the developer on this subdivision? Well, that is something that TxDOT discussed yesterday, and Tina's raising her hand. She might have more information than I do regarding that. I was just going to add, if you needed assistance, I was happy to chime in and help on that. We did have a conversation with representatives from TxDOT. They are getting ready to move into the environmental phase associated with the Loop 288 and subsequent improvements. Ideally, that they anticipate that to start sometime next year. So they anticipate that to be about a year long phase associated with that. They still also then need to do design of the roadway because there's no approved schematic. So I believe they said the time frame associated with that was roughly 18 months. Then you also have right away acquisition that has to take place. So I think they usually plan for about a year to 18 months on that as well. And then factor in utility relocation, getting roadways under construction. So I went back and looked at my notes from our conversation and based upon the time frames that we had discussed that that puts construction beginning sometime probably late 2026, early 2027. So there will be a period of time, you know, they need to be able to go through their various approval processes, but also acquisition of right of way before they can be able to build those front of jobs. OK, thanks, Julie. Thank you. OK, back to the chair can entertain a motion or further discussion. Commissioner Smith would make a motion to approve Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you. I'll second and I'll just add a couple of thoughts if I may. You know, I think it's no surprise that I'd rather this development look very different than it is. However, it's very important that we maintain predictability in our development processes in the city. The worst thing we can do is send this mixed messages such that didn't appears closed to business. Right. You know, I think there's probably going to be some pains before it gets better in this neighborhood. And that's an unfortunate thing, but it is what it is. I think, you know, I guess I would say to the community, you know, keep keep your eye out for how drainage issues work and that sort of thing. I think that the city has a has a process to manage that. I know it feels like things have gone the wrong way at every step of the way. But, you know, this this is this is the process. We've got a first and a second for approval of this preliminary plot for the discussion. Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries six zero moving us to four C. P. P. twenty one to zero zero two one a that's Julie why it's item as well. Good evening. All right. This is P. P. twenty one dash zero zero two one a it is for a little piece of road in the robes and ranch development. It is a single family residential development in the southwest part of town. It has already received an extension, and so they still have a few comments that they need to address. The staff is recommending denial of this preliminary plat and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Julie. Thank you. I do not see any questions. Commissioner Villarreal. I'm going to deny the item as presented. We've got a first for denial. Commissioner Smith, so I got a first and a second for denial of the item. Any discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. And as a reminder, a vote yes is to deny. That motion carries six zero moving us to four D. P. P. twenty one zero zero two six. Julie why it's item again. All right. This is a preliminary plot P. P. twenty one dash zero zero two six. This is also related to a roadway connection. It is situated adjacent to Luke to eighty eight kind of between Luke to eighty eight and mockingbird. The purpose of the plot is to connect Cardinal Drive from a developing subdivision to the north to an existing subdivision to the south. They do have some comments they need to address. So staff is recommending denial. However, they have requested that extension and staff has no objection to an extension to the December 1st planning and zoning commission meeting and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Julie. I do not see any questions for you. Thanks. Commissioner Villarreal. I move to approve the extension to December 1st, twenty twenty one. We have a motion to approve the extension request to date certain of twelve one. Commissioner Pruitt. I'll second and I just want to thank staff. I remember when that platinum development just north of here came in and I saw that little stub of a roadway and I thought, what is the purpose of that? And so I'm seeing the foresight. So thank you. We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to date certain of twelve one. Any discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries six zero item. Next item is for P.P. twenty one zero zero one seven C. Carina Maldonado is up for presentation. All right. Good evening, Carina Maldonado, associate planner. The plat before you today is a preliminary plat P.P. two one dash zero zero one seven. This is a preliminary plat for a single lot for a multifamily development on the east side of South Loop 288, just south of East McKinney Street. This item came before you as a specific use permit, which was approved by council. This specific preliminary plat has also received an extension and one denial. There are still a few outstanding comments related to drainage that need to be addressed. So with that, staff is recommending denial of this plat as it does not meet the established approval criteria. And with that, I can take any questions. Thanks, Carina. I do not see any any questions. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal moved to deny the item as presented. Commissioner Cole. Second. We've got a first and a second for denial of this item. Any discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries six zero moves us to four F.P.P. twenty one zero zero two five. That is Lisa Payne's item. Hi, Lisa. OK, I don't know what I did. Sorry, I don't remember how to do this. Maybe it's only my second time. I think Ron can come up and help. Is it this one? Is it that one? All right, then this. Sorry, I'm still trying to get the hang of all the technology here. All right. So excuse me. So this item is a preliminary plot for one lot for industrial development that will develop in one phase. And that was recently zoned light industrial staffs recommending denial as it does not meet all of the criteria for approval. However, the applicant has requested an extension for 30 days and staff has no issue with this. That would take them out to the December 1st, twenty twenty one PNC meeting, and I'm available for questions. Thank you, Lisa. Any questions? I do not see any. Thank you, Commissioner Villarreal. I move to approve the extension to December 1st, twenty twenty one. We've got a first to extend to date certain of twelve one. Commissioner Pruitt. Second got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of December 1st. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries six zero, moving us to 4G, P.P. twenty one zero zero two four. That's Sean Jacobson. Good evening, chair, members of the commission, Sean Jacobson, planning department. Just going to pull up the PowerPoint here. OK, yeah. All right. Here to present a proposed plat for the prominence addition, and that is a twenty two point six oh eight acre. Just north of Prominence Boulevard next to the intersection of Atlanta and prominence. At this time, staff is recommending denial because it does not meet the status quo standard, but staff has no objection to the requested extension to a date certain of December 1st, twenty twenty one. Happy to answer any questions if you have. Thanks, Sean. I do not see any. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal moved to approve the extension to December 1st, twenty one. Thank you. We've got a first to approve the extension request. Commissioner Cole second got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of December 1st. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries six zero. That will move us to our public hearing item for tonight. It's five a z twenty one zero zero one six. I'll invite Ron Mangida up for presentation and open the public hearing. Thank you, Chair, members of commission. One second here. There we go. Hopefully that shows on your screen. There we go. Again, good evening. Ron Mangida, principal planner with Development Services. This item for you today is a combination of an initial zoning as well as a zoning change on a property that is located just west of I-35 north and south of the future extension of loop 288. The property that's shown here in black is the subject property, both on the west side and the east side of the railroad tracks. The white identified here shown here is the approximately 247.7 acres that was recently annexed into the city on September 14th of this year. The request for L.I. is requested by the applicant, light industrial zoning. In addition to the initial zoning of that 247 acres approximately, the applicant is also requesting a zoning change of highway corridor to light industrial for approximately 24, sorry, 25.84 acres. And also with the request, a zoning change of mixed use regional MR to light industrial on approximately 7.21 acres. The property, as mentioned earlier, was annexed into the city. The areas that was in the city back in 2019 transitioned to H.C. highway corridor in MR mixed use regional. The applicant is proposing to develop a seven logistics center building development totaling just over 4 million square feet. The site currently has gas well development, agricultural, rural, single family detached, as well as a retail business on I-35. During the work session, there was a question related to how much of the area will TxDOT acquire. And my understanding is that they already acquired the property that would facilitate the interchange between future loop 28 and the I-35 north. And what I understand is that this dotted line here, if you can see my cursor coming south, is the area that TxDOT has purchased. And further south to the very bottom of this subject site is what is being, or has been acquired by TxDOT. And approximately 14 acres in total is what is being, or has been already acquired. So that is to help illustrate where that front of I-35 is being taken by TxDOT. The red circles just identify the proposed access to the site. Currently, they're showing three locations along I-35. Hopefully, when the loop exchange or loop extends west, there will also be a couple access points at that time. Staff did review this against two criteria for approval, Section 245E as well as 272D, and has determined that the proposal is consistent with the future land use designation of business innovation, as well as the goals and policies outlined in the DEN Plan 2030. It is consistent with the LI Light Industrial Purpose Statement in the DEN Development Code. Zoning is not expected to generate significant adverse environmental infrastructure or physical impacts. And then utility and infrastructure, there is not any utility there now. However, the extension to that subject property will be accommodated if and when that area or that development is started. We did send out notifications. 24th, within 200 feet, was mailed out 500 postcards, sorry, 45 postcards were sent out for properties within 500 feet of the subject property. As of this afternoon, this evening, we have only received four, and four of those are the property owners, and those are included in your backup. With that, staff recommends approval of the initial zoning and zoning change to a light industrial zoning district in reference to the two sections I already mentioned, reference here on this slide. And that completes my presentation. The applicant is here, does not have a presentation, but is available for any questions if the commission has any. >> Thank you, Ron. Any questions for Ron? I do not see any. >> Okay. >> This is a public hearing. I don't have any cards in front of me to speak. Is there anyone wishing to speak? And do we have anyone on the phone to speak on this public hearing item? >> No, we do not. >> Okay, thank you. With that, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion. >> Commissioner Villarreal. >> I move to approve the zoning request. >> Commissioner McDade? >> Okay, Commissioner McDade, can you hit the second motion? No, on the board, hit your box where it says second the motion. >> Okay. >> Perfect. Okay, we've got a first and a second to approve this item. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Pruitt? >> Thank you, Chair. You know, I guess I'd like to recall earlier this year, I think it was in May or June, when we had a mobility plan amendment and a zoning change for the parcel just north of Loop 288 in this region. And I, at the time, I really didn't understand why we would cut off access across Loop 288 at that point. And I think I made a statement somewhat to the effect of, you know, if it's all just going to be light industrial, I kind of understand that. But if it's going to be general office and people want to go out to lunch, et cetera, et cetera, that seems like it's a very short sighted thing to do. And so maybe what we're seeing here is just the order of events was a little bit out of order from my preference and so, you know, seeing the mobility structure of the roadways and everything in this location, as well as the, I guess we would say, ugliness and unfriendliness of something like a major interstate. You know, I see nothing wrong with industrial development to the west of 35 here. And those are my thoughts. I will say one other thing. You know, I asked some questions about the drainage impacts. I have no doubt that as it moves towards civil engineering plans, we will do our best to mitigate that sort of thing. When I look at that, I see, like that's one of those things that can be a big factor in the future fiscal impact, which may not be, may not make it to the chart of the short fiscal impact study that the developer proposed for the annexation agreement. For instance, you know, if putting a bunch of impervious material on this land causes a lot of conveyance systems throughout the entire city to be all of a sudden undersized, then are we accounting for the fact that we're going to have to do, who knows how many millions or tens of millions of bond infrastructure improvements to carry the excess water, you know? So those are the things that concern me about it. At the same time, it doesn't make much sense to me to have a split neighborhood by a freeway that can't access the rest of the city easily, so. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. I'll be voting in favor of this, but we had this discussion when we talked about the parcel just north of it, as Commissioner Pruitt just mentioned. My point on that item, even though I motioned to approve it and did vote for that item, was that we are setting a precedent of defining a gateway area to our city by defining this section, this corridor, as being light industrial. For against it, really don't have an opinion about either one, but we are allowing external forces to define the gateway that is that northern part of Denton to be light industrial. This is more than anything else, a comment to be made on public record, as well as a directive to city staff and stuff that we'll bring up on the matrix, but wanting to see small area plans for these gateways. And instead of having developers come bring us items that fit within DDC, don't really have an issue with it, fit within the flume, don't have an issue with it, rather have the industrial be on the west side of 35, don't have an issue with it. But if we keep ignoring that piece, we're going to keep getting whatever gateway somebody else wants us to have there. So, just my public comment on that item. - Thank you, Commissioner Smith, and I'll just add to that. Yeah, I think the small area plan discussion is in motion. I do think it's important that that continues. I think this request makes sense, especially on this side of the freeway. And I do hope that the project goes forward as shown to us today, because I think it looks like a fantastic piece of work over the years to come and will be great for our city. With that, we do have a first and a second for approval of the zoning change. Is there any further discussion? If not, let's call for a vote on the board, please. That motion carries 6-0. That will move us to our planning and zoning matrix, and I will turn it over to Tina to start that off. - Thank you, Chairman Ellis. So, just a recap of three zoning cases that were on City Council's agenda last night that were considered. So, the first one was the Dollar Flowers Zoning Case on Long 380, North Side of 380. If you recall that, that's the one where we got to have some consideration multiple times on that particular project. But City Council ended up approving that zoning change request by a vote of 4-3. So, there was much discussion regarding concern that the request from the applicant was not consistent with the future land use map itself. But we also had some discussion about that's just one component of the conference, a plan that there are other goals and policies that are factored into consideration of rezoning in addition to just the map itself. There was also a fair amount of discussion regarding what is the appropriate type of development, and the Council had some discussion about, is it sprawl versus compact development, and different types of land uses that could occur that would even be promoting sprawl even further. So, in the end, like I said, they did approve that request by a vote of 4-3. We also had the rezoning request that is on the east side of Bonnie Bray, north of Windsor for the Horizontal Multifamily Project, if you recall, that was on your agenda not too long ago. This was the one that is just north of the fire station that is over in that area. And it was requested to rezone the property to Plan Development District R7 zoning to accommodate the horizontal multifamily. City Council did approve that rezoning request by a vote of 7-0. And then also we had the Selwyn or the former Selwyn School site located on south of US Highway 380 west of I-35, I believe it's roughly about 88 acres or so in total for that zoning change, and that was a rezoning to general office. And City Council did approve that request by a vote of 7-0 as well. So, those are the most recent zoning actions that we've had action. With respect to the matrix that is included in your packet, so we updated that to include the most recent request received from the commission. And just wanted to give you a brief update. We are trying to hopefully have a presentation for you from the fire department to address operational considerations as well as discuss the planning process and in particular what plots are being brought forth for denial or extension requests. And so, we're trying to see if we can get that slated for later this month for your second meeting or December, pending our agendas and everything else that we have scheduled, but just wanted to let you know that we are working on those items. And which brings me back to one other thought on the horizontal multifamily request. I know Commissioner Smith, you had suggested to the applicant that they reorient some of their buildings, one-story and two-story buildings on that south side, as well as consider some additional buffering there. The applicant did modify their plan, and so they did reorient some of the buildings to put one story closer to the southern end instead of the two-story. They also added some additional landscaping along that southern end. And then there was also some conversation with council and some discussion about whether or not the detention pond on that southern end could -- it was interesting, more of a pond-pond. So, we think their council is interested in, you know, could that potentially be made more attractive, maybe as amenity? So, the applicant is still continuing to explore that. In addition, though, still need to meet the drainage detention requirements associated with that, but I wanted to let you know that the applicant was responsive to the commission's suggestion on making those changes. So, they did incorporate that. I'm happy to answer any additional questions that you may have regarding the matrices or if there's any other requests. >> Thank you. Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. Tina, they didn't do a wall there, right? They just rearranged. They just rearranged. They had more landscape buffering there. >> That is correct. No wall. Just made the -- took into consideration some of the additional suggestions that you had had. So, they flipped the one-story versus two-story buildings, and then added some additional shrubbery, but not only along the south property line, but they even, I believe, wrapped and extended that shrubbery even along the overhead utility easement that's right there, that'll be on the east side of Bonnie Bray. So, tried to bring that around to make that a little more attractive, if you will, particularly given the detention pond. >> Well, you know, my definition of negotiation is that good negotiation is when both parties walk away both feeling like they got screwed. So, it works. I'll take it. I'll take the negotiation on that piece. The other item I was going to bring up was the comments that I made a second ago on the public hearing item. We had -- Chair and I were talking about this. We're not sure if it was underneath Richard or Haley, but we had a work session item discussion on small area plans at one point. That was just a general discussion about how small area plans get initiated, how we have those conversations, what the process is like, how can we get those to be put into order. I'd like for us to not necessarily have a work session on it, but more for development staff to -- if it's a poll or maybe during a work session to ask what areas we as commissioners see needing to have small area plans identified to start getting priority list, an action item list, whatever it is. But we need to start working on it. That there's -- the Dollar Flowers case is a good example. This LI case that we saw the night, the LI case we saw a couple months ago that was just north of that parcel there. We just were seeing so many of our gateway areas. Targeted is the wrong word. Just being a center of attention for developers, I'd like for us to be able to start identifying the ones that we think really need a small area plan now and put something in place, so I'd like to have that discussion. >> Sure. And have you added that to the list? Just in the interest of not getting into a full discussion on it, I did want to inform the commission that staff did make a presentation to city council -- actually, it was right after I started because I gave the presentation regarding a small area plan for the area along I-35 and loop 288 and extension with council, including requesting financial assistance to be able to complete that. And so council was not supportive of allocating the financial resources to be able to do so. And so we had some discussion with respect to the comprehensive plan update being underway versus, you know, a deeper dive with the small area plan. So -- but they were not willing to fully go down the path of allocating the resources for that. But happy to have that discussion with the commission further when we're posted for discussion on that item. Also, the comprehensive plan, as it currently is, the Denton 2030 plan, does have a strong focus on the creation of small area plans, if you will, or quarter plans, gateway plans, they can come by a variety of names. And I would anticipate that that direction would continue with the 2040 plan. But happy to have that conversation. We've had a lot of discussion internally also about priorities as it relates to those area plans. And so I think this would be a great discussion for this body to have, especially because you know the community extremely well and can assist with prioritizing where the needs are. And so happy to bring that back and have that discussion with you. >> The -- their denial of one to take -- to give on financial resources was just because of -- was the ask for us to go get a third-party consultant to do that? Or was it just -- what was the request for resources necessarily that they denied? >> So, well, it was just not fully convinced that we need to have the additional resources that we have talent in-house as well, which we do. We have amazing talent in-house. But we are also very taxed with the existing development and activity that's happening. So it's -- so it was -- there was some -- there was some hesitation for funding associated with that. And was -- I think the council was also interested in seeing how the comprehensive plan update process would also come out and how that parlays into any future small area plan. With area plans, obviously that's a deeper dive in analysis of an area compared to what the comprehensive plan analysis that takes place. So, but like I said, welcome that opportunity to have that conversation with the commission. I think it would be a great discussion for us to have. We can talk about the difference between area plans versus the city's comprehensive plan, how they work together, how one is a much greater level of analysis and provides a more refined direction, if you will, and then also talking about the prioritization. Because I think that would be a good discussion to have also, given a variety of different areas within the community and where development pressures are occurring or development attention, if you will, is good for assisting in the prioritization effort. So, like I said, welcome to have that conversation with you. Happy to add it to the list. But I think this group would have some really good feedback and discussion on that. >> Yeah, and -- yeah, please add that to the matrix. And one thing that I brought up probably almost five years ago was the area that we had a lot of interest in on that preliminary plat, that north side of town where so much is happening. I asked us to focus as a city on what we really want there. And so, yeah, I would love to have that discussion when it's posted. And we can dive a little bit deeper into that. That'd be great. >> Absolutely. And then the one thing additional I would add is maybe a little homework for the commission, if you're interested, is before we have that discussion, I would encourage you go watch the council meeting. Since we post all of that on our website, for whatever reason, September 14th is sticking out in my mind, but it would have been whatever a Tuesday was, about the second or third week in September, because I think I'd have been on the job about two weeks, maybe two and a half weeks when I gave that presentation. So, it was early to mid-September, but I would encourage you to watch that discussion that took place with the council and because I think that would be some good background information for you when we do have the discussion on area plans. >> Great. Anything else for the matrix or concluding items? I've just got a couple concluding items having to do with our new website, which looks great. Is there anyone you can maybe point to in the direction of helping with the online comment card being a little bit easier to navigate, i.e. some kind of bold writing about how you click on it? It's a little bit hidden the way I noticed it today. It's a great system. It seems like it's going to work well. It's just hidden a little bit, so I don't know if there's maybe someone I can talk to for comments or what have you, but that would be great, I think. >> Yeah, absolutely, and it's important that people can be able to find that. And so, I know they just rolled out the new website today, and we're working through some kinks, but I'm happy to have that conversation with the appropriate staff to make that more obvious. >> Yeah, that'd be great, and yeah, I think it's going to be great, and obviously change is always difficult, but it's definitely an improvement. I think we could just make it a little bit user-friendly for the public. >> Sure thing. >> Okay, great. Anything else? Okay, with that, I see none, so I will close our meeting at 7.31 p.m. Thank you.