Aug 10, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2022-08-10 5:00 PM

>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday, August 10th. With the quorum present, I will call our work session to order at 5 p.m. For the record, commissioners Cole, Anderson and Smith are absent at this time. Let's see, our first item on our work session agenda is citizen comment on consent agenda items. I don't know that I have anyone in here for that. Waiting a moment. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to our work session reports. This printed a little bit odd. So we've got agenda item two, work session reports, then under agenda item three, clarification of agenda items, we've got our work session, which is under 3A. So I'll call that. It's receiver report, hold a discussion regarding drainage and floodplain development requirements. Hello, Sean. >> Good evening, members of the commission. All right. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> We'll just pull up the presentation here. That started. All right. So yes, my name is Sean Jacobson, associate planner, and I'm here to give you a boot camp on drainage. So real quickly, we're going to touch on the standards that we hold our private development to. We're also going to look at the public side, how we review our public projects, as well as how we invest in continuous improvement resources, and then possibly most importantly we'll discuss, who do I call if I have a flood or drainage problem? So taking a step back, what are our drainage and floodplain goals with our regulations? On the private side, we're reviewing those projects to make sure that they comply with a number of things. We want to make sure that we're minimizing that risk of flooding properties around you, downstream of your property. We also are reviewing to make sure that we're limiting the cumulative impact of development over time, so that as more and more properties develop, we don't end up with a situation where each one of them didn't cause a problem, but think of mind, impact causes a problem. We're prepared for that with our regulations. We're also looking to minimize the risk that you'll flood the building you're building. So we're making sure that you're actually building it high enough above any surrounding floodplain. We're making sure that there's a maintenance plan for any private detention that you're proposing, and we're making sure that we're preserving those areas of FEMA floodplain, and that where it is getting modified, that we're doing those through the proper processes. On the public side, we're making sure that our projects are designed to manage and minimize drainage impacts, and also that we're investing in continuous improvement, so continuing to update our criteria manuals, our design details to make sure that we have the best resources and regulations available. So let's jump into that. First of all, in development review, don't flood thy neighbor. So for any project we're submitting, whether that's your civil engineering plans, your flats, a building permit for a building that's within the floodplain, we're going to require you to submit some type of drainage study, and there's two broad categories of that. One of them is the downstream assessment, and that's what you do when you're wanting to prove that you don't need to have a detention pond. And so it's a very detailed study, and essentially what you're needing to prove is that you're not going to have an adverse impact on properties downstream of you. So you have to model all the way down to the point where no further impact from floodwater in your development is being seen in the model. And it's not enough to just model what your impact would be now, because what if everything south of you is farmland right now? We actually require that you model all of that area within, you know, where you may have an impact, based on fully developed conditions. So you actually have to look at the future land use map and model every one of those properties based on how the future land use map says that will develop. So that's one of the ways we account for those potential cumulative impacts over time. We're making sure that if you're proving you're not going to have a negative impact, that's not having a negative impact when everyone else develops, to the best that that can be modeled. The other major type of drainage study is if you are proposing detention on your sites. You're proposing a detention pond, the goal of that being to slow or control the flow of water off your site. You still have to do a study. It's not a downstream assessment, but you still have to show that that detention pond will actually do what it's supposed to do, which is basically make sure that the flow off your site matches the pre-development flow, where if it changes, it's only within a very minimal permitted amount of change. So either way, we're making sure that you're submitting a study that shows you're not having an adverse impact. The second step is don't flood thyself. So we're looking at your drainage plans on your site to make sure, one, that we're minimizing rerouting of drainage so that where water comes onto your site and leaves it, as much as possible, that's staying the same. We're not having water suddenly leaving your site in a wildly different location. And that we're making sure that drainage is routed to the appropriate point, so it's getting to the right culvert, the right inlet, et cetera. And then we're also making sure that any proposed detention is adequate to the site needs. Is that detention pond deep enough, wide enough, constructed to do what it's supposed to do to handle the drainage for your site? The other crucial area is floodplain. The question is, can you build there? And it depends on the type of floodplain and the size of the floodplain that the floodplain on your property is a part of. And I will note here, the city of Denton holds higher standards than federal standards. We actually go above and beyond. And the benefit of that is that it lowers flood insurance costs for our residents, 10% for those that may have a building in the floodplain, 5% for buildings that are outside the floodplain. So it's important that we have those high above and beyond standards. So just going through those types of floodplain, floodway is no-build. You do not build there. You don't mess with that. You don't touch it. Then there's a group of floodplain types, AAE, shaded zone X, it depends. You may be able to modify some of those areas, but that has to go through a conditional letter of map revision process. That's reviewed by us. That's reviewed by FEMA. If that's approved, we're saying you can do some work. You can move some dirt to move where the floodplain is. When you've done it, you submit a letter of map revision, FEMA approves that. They actually change the FEMA floodplain map, and now you have more space that you can develop in. Yes, ma'am? Shawn, on that note, what is the time frame? I know it doesn't fall into a perfect time frame, but on average, what is... For a letter of map revision? I am not going to try to answer that because that's well outside my area. However, we do have some folks here with much more expertise than that, and I'll be happy when we get through that to bring them up to address that question. Very good. Thank you very much. We can... Or we can do that. Yeah. So Mike Linder is here. He is our floodplain guy. Hello. Yeah. After a letter of map revision is submitted to FEMA, it generally takes three months for that to get reviewed and approved, and it varies on whether it's very closely aligned with the conditional letter of map revision that preceded it, or if there were significant changes between those two, so it could take considerably longer. Before it's going to FEMA, it's coming through a review here first? Correct. Okay. And how... What's that process? That's reviewed by HR Green, our development consultants that do the majority of our heavy lifting review for floodplain modeling. So month, two months before it would... I'm trying to get cumulative. What would that look like? Yes, sorry, I can't give you exact certainty on that timeline. I imagine it's generally within a few weeks, and they work through that process, so it's not just one big data dump. They're working side by side through that. Got it. Okay. Thank you for answering my question. Absolutely. I was going to say, if anything, what they would do is... Our partners at HR Green that assist us with that review, they would bring that to the applicant's attention, letting them know that the conditional letter of map revision would be necessary as part of their review. So with the civil engineering plans, we are bound by a certain number of days under the state statute, in which we have to respond. So it's presumably included in all of that review, but we would bring it to the applicant's attention. Got it. Okay. Thanks. All right. The last category is our 200-foot permit buffer, and I've actually provided an example of that on the screen there. You can see the area that's shaded in purple. That is an area, and it's what it sounds like, outside of our floodplain. There's a 200-foot area within which you can build, but when you build with your building permit, you need to have a certification provided that you have built the finished floor of that building high enough above the floodplain. There's actual certificates saying you built it high enough to minimize that flood risk. And as part of that, you may actually be required to do a study to determine what the base flood elevation there is. So just as an example, I've shown, provided an example of a plat there, and you can see on some of those, it says MINFF. What that's saying is for that particular lot, what does the minimum finished floor elevation above sea level have to be? Others don't have that because they're outside of that permit buffer area. So that's one of the many things we review in this realm before it gets to y'all. And lastly, we do make sure that we have an easement requirement around any floodplain or floodway that's not being modified in order to make sure, you know, there's no building in there and that there's actually the ability to access that in case maintenance ever needs to be done. And just as a brief kind of a resource and education item, if you're aware of our interactive GIS map, there's actually a way you can go on if you click on the FEMA checkbox and then click the little black arrow next to it and go down and turn on permit buffer. You can actually see in a general sense where these various types of floodplain are on a property. Now, I'll caution you, this is not the official FEMA map. It's not going to be perfect, but it is a good resource for being generally aware. You can see there the dark blue of the floodway, the lighter blue of some of the other zones, and then the permit buffer, which is the purple slashes, so just a useful resource. The third part of development review is so maintenance and making sure that we're providing for maintenance. So private detention, and that's where you have a detention pond on your property that's just handling ground off from your side alone. We require you to provide maintenance documents so that if someone buys that in the future and we need to provide that to tell them, hey, here's what your responsibility is for maintaining this detention pond, we have that on file. We also require an access easement so that if the city ever needed to go in and resolve a problem, we do have the legal ability to do that. There's also public detention and drainage, and that's where you may have a drainage pond that's taking water from multiple lots or a drainage feature that is taking water from one lot to another. And I've provided an example there. The dark blue is a drainage pond that's serving multiple lots. The light blue is a drainage easement that is allowing water to go from one lot to another. Those are input then easements that permit both public access and public maintenance so that, again, if we ever needed to address that, we have the legal ability to do that. Overall, the intent of all of this is to ensure that the responsibility for access to and permission to maintain is clearly stated and documented. We know what everyone is responsible to do, and we have the ability to remedy if necessary. So that sums up the private side. I want to go now and look at the public side of drainage and floodplain. With all of our capital improvement projects, we hold ourselves, with roads, bridges, et cetera, to the same standards that we hold private development. If a study is required on the private side, it's required on the public side. Drainage studies, flood studies, if you're modifying a floodplain to put in a road, which we did recently, it requires the Clomar and Lomar, exactly the same standards. And at the end of that, we have our public works inspection folks going in and inspecting that. If there's something that's not been done correctly, they'll require that it's fixed before it's allowed to go from there. So holding ourselves to the same high standards that we do on the private side. We also invest specifically in drainage infrastructure and continuous improvement. Now, like we said, our private review is designed to avoid those cumulative impacts over time, but there are also historic problem areas, issues of the past that need to be solved, and that's where you may see us investing in major infrastructure problems related, projects related to drainage. Also sometimes if we're doing a project, road bridge, et cetera, there is drainage, work drainage infrastructure that is required as a part of that. So again, in those cases, we as the city would be investing in specific drainage infrastructure or floodplain modification. Another key thing here is ongoing process and improvement. So we are actually developing a stormwater master plan right now. When that's completed, that'll give us a much clearer picture of what all of our infrastructure is for drainage and stormwater citywide, and it'll enable us to do the best possible job of investing in future drainage infrastructure. We're also a part of the National Flood Insurance Program Rating System, which Mike puts a lot of effort into updating, and the benefit of that is we're letting the federal government know here's everything the City of Denton is doing to protect floodplain, and when we update that regularly, that also helps to keep those flood insurance costs as low as possible for our citizens. And then as you may be aware, we're also now updating our criteria manuals on an annual basis to make sure that we are keeping up with the best possible regulations, keeping that updated. And we also do have some new resources available for citizens and for the development community, and I'll touch on that another slide. Again, just briefly noting here that process now we're going through annually to keep those criteria manuals updated. Those resources I mentioned, one of them, I love this site, Discuss Denton, all of our major capital improvements are listed on there. It lists the contact information for the project manager, lists the general timeline, a lot of great information there, and if you wanted to learn more, you have the contact information for the person that will know more, so definitely recommend using that, I use it when questions come in, and it's also something you can share with folks that have questions for you. The other is our capital improvement projects GIS map, and that's basically a map of the city that shows all the major capital improvement projects, so if you're wondering what's going on on that road there, you can pull that up, zoom in on it, click on it, find out what that project is, have more information, so again, just a useful resource. Finally we want to touch on who do we call in case of a flooding emergency, a flooding issue, a question about drainage, et cetera, and the answer is that the Engage Denton app and website is the best response, because that is a clearing house, rather than trying to reach out to one department or another, there's a team there that makes sure that that question is targeted to the best department or departments to address the issue, that it's tracked and that it's resolved effectively, so highly recommend that, whether it's downloading the app or whether that's going to the website, that's the best way to resolve those questions and issues. The one exception is during rain, if you're observing a flash flooding event, there is a dedicated phone number for that, and I put that on the screen there, but in general, Engage Denton app is the way to go. So with that, that is the presentation, but I'm happy to stand for any questions. That's great, Sean, thanks. Hey, when's that master plan going to be done, do you know? That's a great idea. I do not, it is in progress. Yeah, that's awesome. That's really, really great. I'm happy to hear that. Any questions for Sean? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the great presentation and the information. Just a couple of things I'm curious about, and if they're wrapped up in that master drainage plan, then just tell me to read it when it comes out and that's fine. You mentioned that the private development has to do a downstream assessment or has that option in option one, I guess it was, to evaluate what the outflow of their property after the development will be impacting downstream areas, assuming the future land use. So I think that my question is there's two things that we do as a city, I think, and I'm wondering whether we do that same downstream assessment during those processes. One of those would be CIP projects that would increase runoff, like building a new road or widening lanes or something like that, and then the second would be when we choose to make a revision to the future land use map that would change the assumptions that are used by private development at that time. Does that make sense? I believe so. So as I said, my understanding is that we require the same standards for our projects as we do for any project on the private side, so if a project required a downstream assessment, then my expectation is we would be requiring that on the public side as well, if that's helpful. The expectation is that we're doing that same work and that same forward-looking progress, if that's helpful. And when we amend the future land use map, most of the times we don't have large changes to it, but I think with the comp plan change, there were some areas that had significant changes. I'm just wondering whether we take a look during that process at how that impacts the, if you would say, the unused capacity within the system. Does that make sense? Yeah. So Brett Poujois, Capital Projects Engineering. So in situations like that, when those projects come in, they are changing the land use, it's their obligation to look at how their impact is, so when they do their modeling, they look at what was done upstream of them, and then they do their analysis of what their land use changes and how the impacts are downstream. So it's also part of the downstream assessment, it's just because they're changing their land use, that means that their flows on that land use will change and it'll affect the downstream part of their assessment. Completely understand that. I must be misspeaking here. So prior to the 2040 comprehensive plan update, we had a future land use map that is used for the assumptions within that downstream assessment. Then we passed the 2040 comprehensive plan that had some modifications to that map. So presumably after that, now private development, when they come in, they have to use those new assumptions on the future land use. I guess my question is, maybe we haven't done it yet and it's part of the drainage study is at what point do, when we're changing large future land use designations, independent of a particular development application, do we look at whether, how much we're raising the bar of the assumed future impact because of our land use, future land use designations? Does that make sense? Yeah, and so I think the answer is that when you're looking at it from a fully developed, fully built out scenario, anything from farmland to a developed site is going to have a significant increase in runoff. And so if you're changing from a situation where you're looking at a housing development versus a retail center, there's going to be some small changes, but you look at the full built out situation of that. And when you're looking at the analysis of that, you're assuming that that development essentially hasn't mitigated their own flooding. And so when they look at the analysis of it, most sites choose to do the onsite detention because the cost of doing the downstream assessment is pretty complicated and pretty expensive. And so they do the onsite detention, the requirement is that they cannot have any change in the peak flow off of their site. And so because of those unknowns and the cost associated with that, it's easier for most developers and most projects to say, "Hey, let's just detain the water on site because all we have to do is just make sure we don't change anything." And so even if the land use changes, you're not changing the outflow off that site then. - Just because the majority of the development applications we see do their own internal detention. - Yeah, correct. - Okay. Thank you very much. That answers that. - You're welcome. - Thank you. Commissioner Dade? - Thank you, Chair. Hey, Sean. I think on one of your earlier slides, you had the little caption, "Can you build there?" And I'm just curious because you say there is a way if it's in a floodplain, there is permanent things you can do to actually take it out of the floodplain? - In some cases, yes, and that's where you'd submit that conditional letter of map revision that would have to be reviewed by our folks in engineering as well as FEMA to determine whether that would be an acceptable change to the floodplain or not. - Okay. The reason I'm asking, I know a few years back, there was probably a dozen lots over in Southeast Denton that the neighbors were told they would never be able to build on. So they just gave up trying to buy it. And then one individual came through and bought all 12 and now there's houses on them. And they were trying to figure out, so what did he do that we couldn't do? - So because this is kind of a broad-based topic, I'm not gonna be able to address a specific situation. - I understand. - We're happy to come back to that later today, but I don't wanna touch on something that I haven't had a chance to work at fully. - Right, right, right. Okay. - So it's hard for us to be able to address those site-specific questions just because we're not prepared for it. But the only thing I would put out there though is that the subsequent owner may have done some additional improvements that allowed for them to be able to do the improvement that the previous landowners were either one, not aware that that was an available option to them, or it's possible that some conditions may have changed in the area that helped facilitate building on those properties. But that's usually at a high level, that's potentially what you're going to see is that there was some other major improvement done within the area that other properties have managed to benefit from when in the past they had their unfortunate situation of being encumbered by the floodplain. - All right, thank you. - Yeah, and I would think that he could, Commissioner McDade could get with you offline and then talk more specific about that. If you want like a past history or something like that, they would have that. - Okay. - Absolutely. - Yes. - Sean, excellent. Thank you very much. - Thank you. - Okay, we will continue with clarification on our agenda. So that will take us to the minutes for July 13th. Any discussion on the minutes? Okay. Then let's move on to our consent agenda. Is there anything to discuss or pull from the consent agenda this evening? Okay. Then we will move to our items for individual consideration. For A, that is being withdrawn. The applicant made a late call, so they are withdrawing that. We will not be taking any action on for A. For B, PE 220001, I will invite Julie up for this one. - Good evening. - Hi. - Hi. Let me open my presentation. All right. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton, and I am presenting PE 220001, Agave Ranch. So the request before you is for an extension of a preliminary plat. It was approved in August of 2020. The Denton Development Code talks about the expiration of preliminary plots in that they have 24 months from the date of approval to get a final plat approved or it expires. But the DDC does allow for the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve an extension for up to one year. And the Planning and Zoning Commission can impose conditions to ensure that the land will be developed in a timely fashion and that the public interest is served, including compliance with one or more of the new adopted standards. Before we get too far into this particular request, I want to talk a little bit about the background. I know some of you are here when this was originally approved, but it's been a while. So the zoning for the property was approved in July of 2019. The City Council approved a rezoning to NR2 and NR3 with overlay conditions, and those were related to the use, open space, landscaping, screening. The map shown on your screen shows that the area in yellow is the NR2 and the area in a little bit darker shade is the NR3. Those names may sound a little different, the NR, because that was a previous code. It was actually approved under our 2002 Denton Development Code. And within that code, we had different regulations regarding single-family residential subdivision development. So this project was reviewed and approved under that 2002 Denton Development Code. And within that, any subdivision over two acres had a maximum density, not a minimum lot size, which is a little different than what we see today. So in this instance, NR2 allowed for two dwelling units per gross acre, and NR3 allowed 3.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Now when I talk about that acreage, that includes all open space, roadways, drainage areas, so that's that gross total acreage. And that resulted in 252 single-family residential lots, and they ranged in size from about 5,800 square feet to about 15,000 square feet, depending on where they were. This does comply with the maximum density, and this preliminary plot also complied with the overlay conditions that were established with that zoning. Then came the 2019 Denton Development Code, and that was implemented shortly thereafter. And that's where this then transitioned to a planned development. So now the zoning is PDR2 and PDR3. Is that kind of clear? It gets kind of confusing. This is one of the weird between-the-codes projects. Julie, can I interrupt? Absolutely. So it really just changed by name. Nothing else changed. So it didn't change to a planned development. It just changed names to PDR2, right? I mean… Yes. So we're not changing, like… Correct. That is a little misleading, so I just wanted to clarify that. No, that's very good. Yes. We're just changing the label on the map, because we didn't have a way with the new development code to talk about overlay conditions in zoning. There was no way to do that. So any zoning, any lot that had zoning overlay conditions became PD, blah, blah, blah. You're exactly correct. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. It was just a name change. Correct. So all of the remaining standards that the Council approved at that given time still remain in effect. So none of that has been modified. Okay. Commissioner Cole. Thank you, Chair. Sure. So, Julie, the 252 number has never changed, right? Correct. I mean, that's what we settled on during the hard fought. I mean, it was, I mean, in my opinion, some of the best work we've done as a board. I mean, they originally wanted, what, 460-something lots? I don't remember the exact number, but it was… I mean, it was over 400. And so we got them down to about half that density, right? So I mean, really, it's still the same amount of homes. Yes. It's the same project that was contemplated at that time. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Julie. Yep. So we don't see these plat extensions very often. They're kind of, they're pretty rare. So we thought it would be best to talk about the criteria for approval to just take a little more time on this. So the criteria for approval for a plat extension are in sub-chapter two of the Denton Development Code, and there are four of them. The first one, the reasons for the requested extension, the applicant's narrative was included in your backup material, but according to that narrative, they have remained active. They have continued progress toward completion of the project, but there was an interruption. They did change engineering firms midstream, so it has created some delays for them. The applicant will be here tonight to answer any follow-up questions you may have related to that. The second criterion is the ability of the applicant to comply with any conditions attached to the original approval. The preliminary plat was approved without conditions, so that one doesn't apply. Criterion three, whether the extension is likely to result in the timely completion of the project, since it was approved, they have made progress. There are three projects. There was an alternative development plan that was approved in November of 2020. Some of you may remember it. The 2002 Denton Development Code had a special process and application associated with it called an alternative development plan, and that allowed the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve deviations to the design standards within subchapter 13 of the 2002 DDC. That was related to those individual houses or buildings on those lots. There's a civil engineering plan for one phase of the development. That would be 92 lots. It was submitted in December of 2020, and it is still under review. The comments were sent out on the most recent review in July of this year. And then CEP 2240, that is related to a force main lift station. It was submitted in June of this year, and it is currently under review. According to the applicant, they're anticipating approval of their CEPs, and so they're hoping to submit the final plat this month. The fourth criterion is the extent to which newly adopted regulations should be applied to the proposed development. And we thought it would be best to talk about this as a table and kind of just break it down by kind of elements. So your first row is lot size. If the plat extension is approved, then it could remain under its current configuration with the 252 lots with those varied lot sizes that I mentioned at the top of the presentation. So that design of the project would remain the same. If the plat expired, then they may have to redesign the site. And under current code, the DDC would require lot sizes in that R2 of 16,000 square feet and in the R3, 10,000 square feet. There is an asterisk on that column, and we're going to talk about that in the next slide, so keep that in mind. The engineering standards, I know you had a question regarding engineering standards. The civil engineering plans for each type, so the civil engineering plans for that phase one or the lift station are reviewed under the criteria regulations that are in place at the time that they were submitted. So for example, the lift station is being reviewed under the 2021 criteria for approval. And then planning and design standards, the 2002 Denton Development Code regulations were a little bit different related to tree preservation, street trees, and then they had that ADP. Tree preservation was a little different than what we have today. They were required to preserve a little bit less. And then we also required fewer street trees to be planted. At that time, we required one every 45 feet. That ADP, as I mentioned, was related to design standards for the individual homes, but even with the plat extended, they would still have to comply with all of the overlay conditions associated with the zoning. If the plat did expire, then the 2019 DDC regulations may apply, and that would include current tree preservation, landscaping, those updated street tree requirements, lot tree requirements. That ADP would still be in place, so they would still follow that, but they would still have to comply with those PD conditions, those overlay conditions associated with the zoning. So now I want to talk about that asterisk unless you all had any questions. Okay. So if the extension is not approved, I want to take a minute to talk about that. The applicant does have another option. They could seek relief through the vested rights regulations within the Denton Development Code and with Texas Local Government Code. So this isn't something we talk about very often, but Texas Local Government Code 245, it establishes rules upon which property owners and developers can rely once they have submitted the first permit in a series of permits on a project. So it essentially kind of freezes some rules for them once they submit. A preliminary plat, because it is a required application, is considered a permit. So a preliminary plat could be a vesting act that would establish those rules. So rules or regulations that could vest, that could potentially be frozen under Texas Local Government Code, that could be landscaping or tree preservation, open space, property classification, and in this instance, lot size and lot dimensions, because that's one of the issues related to the plat extension. The Denton Development Code also has procedures related to vesting within sub-chapter two. And if the plat extension was not approved tonight, the process for this would be to submit for a vested rights petition. We would review that, and then they would potentially submit a preliminary plat consistent with that vested rights determination. So even if the plat did not, even if the plat extension was not approved tonight, they could potentially get a determinant of a vested rights that would maintain the lot sizes that you see in the plat today. Did I make, did that, that make sense? Did I say that right? Yeah, and who makes that decision, Julie? I'm sorry? Who makes that decision? That, under the, it's the city manager ultimately, so staff would analyze that request based upon the state law, and then we would talk to our legal department about it, and then ultimately it goes to the city manager's office. Commissioner Villarreal? I'm sorry. It's appealable to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Okay. So I'm just trying to clarify, so we are not as restricted when it comes to voting on this plat extension as we are when it comes to other plats, correct? Because I know we are strict restricted under state law when it comes to a traditional plat approval denial or extension, but. I'm looking to Tina. And I was, I'm also looking at Hillary. Back up here. So you raise a good question. Typically on plats, it is a very ministerial function. In this case, you have four criteria of consideration that are provided for in the DDC, so you should be evaluating the request based upon those four criteria. Is there a level of subjectivity that might be able to be applied? Possibly. But again, it's, you know, we're evaluating the request based upon the four criteria, and so it's, it is, it may have maybe a little more flexibility to it compared to when we consider plats from a ministerial standpoint, and I'm going to look to my city attorney to see if she concurs. So I'll concur with what you're saying, and what I would further add is that it's important to keep the nature of the request in mind, because what you're being asked to consider is very narrow. It doesn't relate to whether we like the project or agree with the decisions in 2019, it relates to whether we should give them another year, and if so, if there are any conditions, we would attach to that. And I would concur, and that's why the conversation also earlier about the zoning, that the zoning has not changed. So we're not here to, again, discuss whether or not we like the outcome of what the zoning was that was proved, and I know you all have received quite a bit of correspondence from folks that have been interested in this project all along. And so the zoning has not changed. The name has changed, but the zoning hasn't, and the applicant has a preliminary plat that was submitted that is consistent with the zoning regulations that are in effect. And so to me, that's why we have a little bit more narrow focus on this as a result of the four conditions that are established for evaluation, but also because of the nature of this being a plat. So I think we do need to be careful from that perspective, because we're evaluating now whether it's a plat was submitted, it was reviewed and approved, it met all of the requirements of city ordinances at that time. Now we have a situation where time has transpired, and the applicant is seeking an extension, and now we're having to evaluate it based upon these four conditions. - Gotcha. So even though our legal liability is lessened, there's still a pretty narrow decision we're making today. - There is a narrow decision in my opinion, and given what Hillary mentioned in evaluating this request, because you have four items in which to evaluate it on, and that's what Julie had laid out in her presentation. - Thank you. - So based upon that discussion, staff does recommend approval. The applicant has continued to make progress towards completion since that preliminary plat has been approved. So we do recommend approval, and I'll be happy to answer any other questions. - Question I have is, do we have to extend it for a year? Do we have any kind of? - I believe the code says up to one year. - Okay. And then secondly, you had mentioned placing conditions. So could it be some kind of condition like the civil engineering plans have got to be approved? I mean, that's gonna be my question, and I know the applicant's gonna be here, right? - Right. - Yeah, I mean, 'cause it's like, what is going on? What is taking so long that it is August of '22? So would that be something that we could play, like you have to do that within a, I don't know, four months, six months, something like that, by the end of the year? - My interpretation would be that a time-based condition would be appropriate, because one of the rationale for imposing conditions is to ensure timely development. - Yeah, 'cause I mean, I guess what I'm trying to avoid here is like, you can't just have another year locked up in this 2002 development code while you try to think of other things that, you know, what I wanna do is make sure that things are moving along, you know, well, and as they're supposed to, and that it's not some kind of like, here, let's give you another year under this old code, very old code at this point in 2022, you know? - And that's also, I mean, that's something that we talked about extensively amongst staff is if the commission wanted to impose conditions, what types of conditions would be appropriate as it relates to this. So here are some suggestions that we came up with as it relates to this, if you're wanting to try and consider keeping this moving along and nudging the applicant. So one of them was that the two civil engineering plan submissions that we have in-house right now would be approved within six months. We feel that that's a reasonable timeframe to be able to finish up the engineering. We know they had to change engineers midway through this project, but given where we are in the review, we think that that could be reasonably accomplished. Hopefully that would be accomplished much sooner than that, but we wanna also ensure that we have quality engineering happening, right? And sometimes the state statute doesn't lend towards that with the shot clock provisions. So the second condition then we have would be that the final plot for the phase one would be approved within one year of the preliminary plot extension. That is already in the debt and development code, but we feel like in this case, it's always good to go back and point out the obvious of what's in the code so that the applicant knows very much. We feel that this is the belt and suspenders condition, if you will. The third one then is, I think as Julia explained it earlier, is the Velcro, and that is, if the applicant fails to perform the two conditions above, then that preliminary plot would immediately expire. So it puts the, really two and three are putting the applicant on notice, 'cause the key thing is obviously gonna be getting number one accomplished, and then it's already in the DDC that you'd have to get a final plot approved for the initial phase within a year's time of that preliminary plot extension. So if the commission is interested in establishing conditions, we would think that these would be appropriate conditions to include, and if you feel that the timeframes need to be different, then you're welcome to modify those as well. However, I would recommend that as it relates to the final plot, that you not extend it beyond one year, because then you're trying to modify existing DDC regulations that you don't have the ability to in this case. - Right. Yep. Okay. Questions? Commissioner Pruitt? - Thank you, Chair. Just a couple things. One, you mentioned in your presentation that, and I'm gonna get the words wrong, but I'm gonna try, the preliminary plat was required, and therefore it enacted the potential vested rights statute. Is my understanding correct that if that preliminary plat had been filed under the 2019 DDC, it would not have been required, and therefore it would not trigger that, or am I misinterpreting that? - No, it's still required under the 2019 DDC for properties within the city of Denton. So it would still be potentially a vesting act if it's a requirement. - Thank you. I just gotta keep up. I thought there were certain projects where preliminary plat was no longer required, I guess not in larger subdivisions. - You're exactly right. In the ETJ, we no longer require or permit preliminary plat. - Thank you. And then number two, I guess it gets back to Tina's comments about how you drew up those three things. I'd like to understand better how staff arrived at the proposal of the six-month and one-year timelines, because I don't have a real good feel for what is the distribution of the time that it should take for a subdivision of this size, so I have a hard time knowing what is appropriate, right? I mean, just to be honest, when my five-year-old does something wrong and I tell him, "Don't do that," and then he comes back five minutes later and he does it again, the expectation and punishment is harder that second time, right? And so I tried to scale back my permissiveness, right, so that I catch him early as opposed to giving him typical or longer than that expectations, if that makes sense. - So again, as I mentioned earlier, we believe that as it relates to the civil engineering plans because there are two sets of plans that they're having to get finalized, that we believe that that can be accomplished within six months. And you're more than welcome to ask the applicant this evening when they're here if this is a path that you're interested in going down with respect to these conditions as to whether or not they believe that they can get that achieved. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that we have quality engineering design that meets all of our development standards. They are, I was looking at the summary sheet that the applicant provided, I believe they're on their seventh submittal on their civil engineering plans. I would hope we'd be able to get them completed. I do understand that we had an engineering change midway through. So presumably with the new engineer, we're maybe on the third or fourth review with them. That's not uncommon at times associated with civil engineering plans, especially on a single family residential subdivision. And so, but again, we believe that the timeframe within six months is appropriate. If the commission wants to shorten that timeframe, then I would strongly encourage you to ask the applicant if the shortened timeframe that you have in mind is reasonably achievable. But we believe six months would be, and then that gives them also then basically a following six months to get that final plat submitted into us for review and approval because that final plat for the first phase of development would have to be approved. So we're factoring in them getting their plat submitted into us, being able to get that under review, getting all the corrections that are made associated with it. Obviously, we're having to perform in accordance with the shot clock provisions, but they would need to then get that approved by the commission. Then we would take that and get that filed of record at the county. So we feel like it's six months is reasonable to finish civil engineering plans on both of those two projects again, because we're doing civil engineering plans for the subdivision plus civil engineering plans on the lift station. And then once they get that accomplished, then they should be able to get a final plat submitted into us and have that reviewed and approved within a six month timeframe. Anything else? Commissioner Cole? Just real quick, Tina, in your opinion, all this engineering, if we had in-house engineers versus consult, you know, shipping it out, would that make any difference in time because these firms, these engineering firms, were, you know, shipping these out to, they got other clients? So if we had in-house engineering, would that make a difference in time and efficiency? In my opinion, no. No. And I want to be careful that we're not deviating too far from the posting related to this. But the short answer is, in my opinion, no. Okay, thanks, Julie. Sorry, just one very small thing so that I read your table correctly, that table of comparisons. You mentioned that, again, if they had to resubmit a preliminary plat, my understanding is they would still be bound to the overlay conditions which were then translated to the PD. Correct. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, thank you. Good on this one, okay. Thank you, Julie. All right. Given time and what we still have, what I'm going to do with the rest of these, which all seem to be plats, I'm going to ask the commission if they need any clarification, okay? Because we're going to run out of time when we discuss our public hearing. So we'll go to 4C. That was a very late email. I don't know if you all saw it, but that has changed from an extension request to approval. Correct, Julie? Correct. Yeah. Are we good questions? That was emailed like right before our meeting started. Yeah. Okay, then 4D is an extension request. Any questions needing clarified there? Okay, 4E is also an extension request. The date certain on those is 8/24. Okay, that is the same with 4F. And anybody on staff, if I have this wrong, please run up to the podium for me. For G, Commissioner Cole, you'll be recused on that. That is recommended for approval. 4H is an extension request to 8/24. 4I, I have denial, is recommended for denial, it's already had an extension, I believe. No, for that one we did receive a request. Sorry. Sorry, Mia. Yes, for that one we did receive a request. 4I. An extension request, yes. An extension request to 8/24. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. All right, 4J is an extension request to 8/24. Commissioner Cole, you are recused on 4K, correct? Do we have questions on that from anybody else? Okay. Okay, before then we move to discussing through our public hearings tonight, do you all want a break for food and come back? Being that it's 549, I'm going to take a vote, it's a yes, it's a yes. Okay, so I need you to do it quickly because we do have several items to discuss. So I will adjourn us at 550, grab your food when we're back here, I will call us back to order. Okay, thanks. Commissioner Cole. Thank you for your patience. I will call our work session back to order at 559 p.m., and we will begin discussion on our clarification of agenda items, calling up public hearings, 5A is AESA22-000. I'll invite Christy up for this discussion. Commissioner Cole is recusing on this item, and for the commissioners who will be voting on those items, Cole is recused. In order for the item to pass, it would have to pass with four affirmative votes. So if we do have a 3-1, even though that's a majority, that would still be a denial just because we need four. So just putting that there, and Christy, I'll give it to you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And then make it like the short presentation, only because we've got four others. Absolutely. Thank you. Two slides for you. Perfect. Thank you very much. Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and I will be presenting Alternative ESA Plan 22-2, Ditten Exeter, West Park Edition Number 3. And the purpose of this request is for the deviation from Section 7.4 of the Ditten Development Code, which requires the protection of certain environmentally sensitive areas. And I'll get into more detail about those particular protection requirements during the public hearing, but for right now, I wanted to let you know that the request is for the construction of these two stormwater outfalls, and I wanted to point out that the placement of the utility in the undeveloped floodplain ESA is permitted, is the riparian buffer that's within that undeveloped floodplain that is not permitted any land disturbances. So this request is strictly for those land disturbances. The applicant is proposing to revegetate the impacted areas and extending that impacts beyond that to all those areas shown in green, and that the staff is recommending approval with conditions that were in your backup material, and we'll go over that at the public hearing. And with that, I'll take any questions right now. Great, Christy, do we have questions on this? It was a nice detailed backup for us, so appreciate that. Okay. Thank you very much. So then we would go to 5B is Z220008, Julie, sorry to interrupt your dinner. That is all right. Okay. I will be much shorter on this one for the work session. Hi, Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. This is Z22-0008, Asbury UMC rezoning. I just want to summarize the project. The request is to rezone the subject property from R2 district to SC district. It's about 13 acres. The property is located at the intersection of Locust and Hercules outlined in yellow on the screen. The purpose of the rezoning is to, the applicant has indicated they would like to install a telecommunications facility, which is necessitating that rezoning. The subject property is, or the Denton 2040 plan indicates the area is community mixed use, and the proposed SC zoning is consistent with the future land use map, and it complies with the criteria for approval, so staff is recommending approval of the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions. The applicant is here, and we'll be making a presentation, and we'll be able to answer your questions tonight. Julie, I do have one question for you. Did staff consider a lesser zoning, or, my concern is this is, I know it looks pretty on the map, like when we do that, and we make that whole like rectangular, you know, SC, but to me this little corner doesn't speak SC to me. You know, SC is supposed to be this high traffic corridor. It's not. I mean, it is surrounded on three sides by pretty dense residential, so I'm confused as to maybe why maybe an MN, which they could still do the poll. Yes. So, did we have that discussion, or not? We looked at it internally. SC was consistent with the future land use map, and when we analyzed the project, we really looked at the permitted uses in SC and kind of the need for commercial development in the area, and we felt like it was consistent with it. MN is kind of a different district, you know, and we looked at them, and I have a comparison slide of those two districts that if you want to, actually if you want to talk about it, we could do that now. Let me get there. Unhide, okay. So we looked at it, we looked at the development standards, the permitted uses, and how that would impact the existing development on the site, and given the SC and the MN, so SC does have a larger front setback, so it would pull any development, any buildings away from Hercules, as opposed to MN, which has a closer front setback of 10 feet. MN also has design standards where front parking is not permitted, so buildings would be built right up into, would be required to be built right up against the street of Hercules for that property adjacent to Hercules, so we felt like those development standards associated with MN may not be necessarily appropriate in terms of impacts to the adjacent property. We also looked at the permitted uses. Multifamily is permitted by right in MN, it requires a specific use permit in SC. SC does have some additional automotive uses that do require additional approvals in MN, so it's kind of trading one for the other, but both of them allow for a lot of commercial uses intended for that neighborhood serving, so we felt like while MN could have potentially been appropriate in the area, we also felt like SC was appropriate. Additionally, one other thing to think about, there is an existing religious facility on the property, and it is designed in a more suburban development pattern with the parking up front, the building setback. MN, if it were approved on the property, would potentially make that one non-conforming in terms of site design and site features, and so just to keep it consistent with what the existing property was developed as, and that existing zoning to the north of the property, we felt like SC was a better fit. We don't know how it would develop in the future, you're correct. My problem is the way we describe SC, which I wrote down here, which is intended to provide moderate to high intensity commercial office and retail uses along high traffic corridors. That's the definition of SC. To me, when you've got it there, plugged into basically in front of three residential neighborhoods, it's a little bit, I guess it's two, because that's one right there, but I'm not sure if it's the description, so that's why I have had my question. Okay. Commissioner, approve it. Yeah, I don't want to drag this on, I know we're limited on time, but just real quickly, did staff inquire as to whether a replatting into two separate parcels and only rezoning one of those parcels was a possibility, and if so, what was the reasoning for not doing that? And it's funny you say that, because their original request was just for the undeveloped area surrounding the religious facility use on site. We do have a determination that a driveway is part of the use, and therefore you cannot take access through a property where the zoning on that property does not permit the use. So given the R2 that is existing for that religious facility, the intent is for the telecommunications tower to take access through the existing driveway, so as not to add any additional driveways on Hercules to minimize the impacts. I lost my train of thought. They actually ended up adding in that religious facility tract to the request to allow for that driveway to go through that church property to get to that future telecommunications use. Sorry, I know that was convoluted, but hopefully I answered your question. Okay. Everybody good? Thank you, Julie. Thank you. Okay, so that will bring us to 5CZ220004, which has been postponed, so we will not be taking action on that tonight. 5DZ210019, Mia, this is your item. How are you? I am good. Good. How are you all? Good. Eating? Okay. Okay, Mia Hines, Associate Planner, just a brief summary, this is a rezoning request for about 3.8 acres in the Razor Ranch overlay district, from the Razor Ranch overlay district to the straight mixed use neighborhood MN zoning district. The request would also ultimately or effectively amend the Razor Ranch overlay zoning exhibit and concept exhibit as those two parcels would be removed from the overlay district. It does comply with the future land use designation of regional mixed use. We do have a mixed use regional district, but given the proximity to existing residential on the other side of Bonnie Bray, the MN district would serve as sort of a more natural and a cohesive land use transition from the higher density and commercial uses permitted within the RRO district to the low density residential across the street from Bonnie Bray. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this request, and of course your options are to recommend approval, denial, or postpone the request to a specific date. And this is basically because what they want to develop there is not within the overlay, right? Correct, yeah. They need to pull it out to be able to develop what they would like. Yes, ma'am. The applicant intended to, once these discussions started, they intended to do a medical facility with a drive-through or a pharmacy use with a drive-through facility, and the Razor Ranch overlay does not permit drive-through facilities on this particular sub-area. I see. Okay. Okay. Any questions on this? Thank you very much. Excuse me. Also, the applicant will be here if you guys have any questions for them. Great. Okay. Then that will take us to, let's see, 5EZ-22-0009. Whose item is this? Angie's. That's right. Hi, Angie. Hi, everyone. Good evening. Just a second. Okay. Angie Mingler, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. This is Project Z-22-009. It is a rezoning case for Project Cowboy. Brief summary of this case, the purpose of this request is to rezone approximately 10 acres of land situated roughly 400 feet east of Northwestern Boulevard and 1,400 feet north of Jim Crystal Road from Residential 2 to Heavy Industrial. The purpose of the zoning request is to align this 10-acre tract of land with existing Heavy Industrial to the southeast and west of the site that's owned by the same owner for future development at the northeast intersection of Western Boulevard and Jim Crystal Road. The Denton Comprehensive Plan does call for this area and the future land use plan to be industrial commerce. Staff is recommending approval of this request as it is consistent with the future land use plan and complies with criteria for approval in DDC Section 2. The applicant will be here this evening to answer any questions. Any questions on this one? That's pretty straightforward. Okay. Thanks, Angie. I don't see any questions. Okay. Then we've got, where are we? We are on 5F, DCA-22-0003. Hello, Ron. >> Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. Good evening again. I'm Ron Degida, principal planner with Development Services. This particular code amendment item, some of you are familiar with it. Some of you are more familiar with it. Those members of the DCRC that have recently reviewed this code amendment as part of our discussions. So, data centers. Data centers, back in 2019 when we updated our development code, we didn't really contemplate this use. However, August, roughly the summer of 2021, there was a lot of interest of this type of use. And so, we brought this to the Planning Zoning Commission around October of 2021. And at that meeting, there was a request by the Commission to bring this to the DCRC, which we did. So, there was a lot of discussion with the DCRC. As you can see, there was meetings held in April, excuse me, as well as in May. A lot of the discussion was related to the two types of uses, both the modular data center as well as the warehouse module center, I'm sorry, data center. Also the use-specific standards that were discussed, and that I will be presenting to you here in a little bit. That was a lot of discussion through the DCRC, a lot of going back and forth, and we believe we have a draft here or proposal that is something that is going to be a good one and it will address the issues that were brought up. Just quickly on the right is a summary of those code amendments that we are going to specifically talk about. We're amending Table 5.2-A, which is the Table of Allowed Uses. And again, we are proposing to add two of the uses, which again is the data center modular and the data center warehouse. We are also proposing use-specific standards for each of those uses, and again, I'll go through that with my presentation. We're also adding minimum parking requirements for these uses, and then lastly, we're amending the definitions of the three that you see here, again, the two uses as well as electric substation. So the first use is the data center modular. This modular use is, as you can see here on the right, are these containers that serve the purpose primarily to have remote storing. It's gathering and processing and analyzing large amount of data and information. That's what they do. The setup is, as you see here, and that's why it's referred to as a modular data center. They can be constructed or could be structures that are pods, shipping containers, cargo containers, as well as any similar storage containers. Again, the photos there illustrate those containers and how they can be situated on a property. Below the definition is a table that illustrates where these uses are proposed to be located. You're looking at the LI, the HI, and the PF zoning districts. The requirement there would be a specific use permit, so if someone wanted to propose a modular data center, they would have to apply for a specific use permit. As far as parking requirements, it's one space per employee at the largest shift. I won't spend too much time on this, but I just want to highlight a couple of the use-specific standards. Firstly, the modular data center shall be opaquely screened from the public right-of-way. Adjacent residential use and zoning districts shall be set back from an adjacent zoning district about no less than 100 feet measured from the property line. The landscape area point system, we're requiring two elements where it is currently one. An environmental noise and vibration assessment be provided as part of their submittal. This is to identify any noise impact or vibration impacts and how that could be mitigated as part of their project. Also the noise maximum for this type of use measured from the property line is going to be no more than 60 dBA. And lastly, if there is an onsite electric substation proposed as part of this use, they must comply with a section that's in our development code that specifically addresses the design of an electric substation. The second type of use is data center warehouse. This is a little bit more what you see around the Metroplex. I've got two examples that shows what they look like. This specifically is for buildings or building that houses the same use or purpose that we already discussed as part of the data center. Where staff is proposing the use is in the GOLI, HI, and PF by right for the MR, SC, and HC with a specific use permit. As far as the parking requirement, it's one space per 3,500 square feet of gross floor area. Or they can submit a parking study and have it determined by the director if that parking amount is appropriate. So the two examples I have here is the Facebook Hub located at Fort Worth, Texas. You can see that particular data center is made up of multiple buildings. They're fairly large in size. The Equinox data center in Plano is made up of one building, a very large building, and again a very large as far as their square footage. With that, because they could be large, we are proposing use specific standards in the MR and the SC zoning districts with a maximum of 55,000 square feet. The buildings themselves will be designed in compliance with Section 710-5, which is in our development code on development standards. Similarly, any outdoor storage or electric equipment shall be all vaguely screened from the public right of way, adjacent land, residential, and zoning district. Again, similar as the modular, we are also requiring an environmental noise and vibration assessment as part of any development of these uses. The noise maximum is 60 dBA, measured at the property line, set back again 100 feet if it's adjacent to a residential zoning district or existing residential use. And again, if there is an on-site electric substation proposed, they must comply with that section of the code. Last is the definition of electric substation. As mentioned earlier, it is being proposed to be amended. The existing definition you see here struck through was just not enough clear clarity as far as what an electric substation is. So working with our DME staff members, they were able to submit or provide with us to us a proposed definition that you see here presented. The main thing that you want to get out of this one is that there is actually a level of which the transition from a higher to a lower is provided, and that's 60 kilovolts that's provided there you see here. So that's really the defining difference between what would be considered just a regular equipment and versus an electric substation. With that, that concludes my presentation, and I'll stand for any questions. We also have Terry Nolte here with DME if you have any questions for him. >> Excellent. Thank you, Ron. Any questions here? This is great. I mean, we had such great discussion at DCRC on this, so it's nice to see it come forward. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll see you in the public meeting and city hall. With that, I will close our work session at 621, and we will be in council chambers as close to 630 as possible for our regular meeting. >> Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, August 10th, 2022. With a quorum present, I will call us to order at 634 p.m. Let the record show commissioners Anderson and Smith are absent from our meeting this evening. First item on our agenda is the Pledge of 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. In the honor of the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one indivisible. >> Thank you. Our next first item for vote on today's agenda is the consideration of the approval of the minutes from our meeting on July 13th. The Chair can entertain discussion or a motion on this item. It is possible that -- >> Point of order, there's no button to click on the screen. >> There is -- okay. Apparently there was a software update, and so this may not be working. So why don't we go by hand, Commissioner Villarreal. >> I move to approve the minutes. >> Okay. Commissioner Cole? >> Second. >> A second for approval. Any discussion? Commissioner Villarreal, how say you? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole? >> Aye. >> Commissioner McDade? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pruitt? >> Aye. >> Chair is also an aye. That motion will carry 5-0. That will take us to our consent agenda this evening. All right. Chair will move approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner Villarreal? >> I move to approve the consent agenda as presented. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All right. We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Commissioner Villarreal? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole? >> Aye. >> Commissioner McDade? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pruitt? >> Aye. >> Chair is an aye. That consent agenda carries 5-0. Moving us to items for individual consideration. Item 4A, PP 220016 has been withdrawn for the applicant. We will not be taking action on that item. For B, PE 220001, call up Julie Wyatt for presentation. Hi, Julie. >> Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I am presenting PE 22-0001, Agave Ranch. The request before you tonight is for an extension of a preliminary plat that was approved in August of 2020. Preliminary plots expire after two years if a final plat is not approved for that property. So at this point, it would expire as of August 19th of this year. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission does have the option to approve extensions for preliminary plots for up to one year. And they can also impose conditions to assure the land will be developed in a timely fashion and the public interest would be served, including compliance with one or more of the new adopted standards. The subject property is the Agave Ranch development. It is located and kind of situated in the northeast side of town, just east of FM 428. Some background before we get into the specific request. The zoning for the property was approved in July of 2019. City Council approved a rezoning from or to NR2 and NR3 with overlay conditions, and those overlay conditions were related to use in open space and landscaping. This project was originally reviewed and developed under our previous code, the 2002 Denton Development Code. And that code was a little different in terms of residential development in that for subdivisions over two acres, there wasn't a minimum lot size for residential lots. They just had to comply with the maximum density. So in this instance, NR2 allowed two dwelling units per gross acre and NR3 allowed three and a half dwelling units per gross acre. And you could see that zoning pattern on your screen that was approved in 2019. That resulted in 252 single family residential lots. They ranged in size from 5,800 square feet to about 15,000 square feet. And that preliminary plot was consistent with the overlay conditions that were placed upon the property during the zoning and also complied with the maximum density in the provisions within the 2002 Denton Development Code. So it was consistent with that zoning. With the implementation of our current regulations, the 2019 code, that zoning with the overlay conditions converted to PDs. So that's PDR2 and PDR3. It didn't change the development standards for the property. It really was just a name change in terms of that implementation of the 2019 Denton Development Code. So now they're referred to as that PDR2 and PDR3. We don't do plot extensions very often, so we're going to go over the criteria for approval, but I'll try to be as brief as possible. The first criterion is the reasons for the requested extension. The applicant submitted a narrative, which was provided in your backup. And within that, the developer indicated that they had remained active in the project. They have submitted applications and had meetings with staff as well as coordination for the civil engineering plans. And the project was interrupted by a change in engineering firms midway. So that did create some delays for the project. The applicant is here and we'll be able to speak further to that tonight. The second criterion is the ability of the applicant to comply with any conditions attached to the original approval. The preliminary plat didn't have any conditions, so that one doesn't apply. The third criterion is whether the extension is likely to result in a timely completion of the project. As I mentioned before, they have continued to make progress. In fact, they've got three projects that have either been approved or ongoing, one being Alternative Development Plan. That was approved in November of 2020, and that was related to site design considerations for the eventual homes on the property, so related to the structures. Civil Engineering Plan CEP 2076, that's related to 92 lots on the development, so that first phase. And that's currently under review and has continued to be under review since it was submitted in December of 2020. And it's CEP 2240, and that is related to a force main and lift station. It was submitted in June of this year, and it is under review now. According to the applicant, as soon as those Civil Engineering Plans are approved, they intend to submit their final plat, hopefully within the month. The fourth criterion for approval is the extent which any newly adopted regulations should be applied to the proposed development. And to illustrate this, we thought maybe a graph would be, or I'm sorry, a table would be the best way to talk through this. So we have columns related to elements in our development standards, and then I'm sorry, the rows dedicated to our development standards, and then the columns are related to whether the plat is extended or whether the plat expires. So when it comes to lot size, if that plat is extended, then they could remain under the current development that they currently have proposed, so that 252 lots with those lot sizes that were approved with that preliminary plat and consistent with the overlay conditions and the 2002 Denton Development Code. If the plat expired, they may have to redesign to accommodate current lot sizes in the 2019 Denton Development Code, but there is an asterisk on that column, and we're going to talk about that a little more in the next slide. Engineering standards, the Civil Engineering Plans that are submitted at any given time would be reviewed under those standards that are in place when they're submitted. So that's how they've been reviewed thus far and how they would continue to be reviewed. And then finally, planning development standards, the 2002 Denton Development Regulations for tree preservation, street trees, and that alternative development plan plus the overlay conditions, those are in place for that existing preliminary plat and would remain under the 2002 regulations if the plat is extended. If the plat expires, then they may have to comply with current regulations for tree preservation, landscaping, that ADP would still stay in place, but they would still have to comply with the PD conditions that were established in 2019. So it would depend on whether that plat was extended or expired. And now let's talk about that asterisk briefly. So if the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight chose to not extend the plat and it did expire, the applicant could also seek relief through something called our vested rights regulations. Within the Denton Development Code as well as the Texas Local Government Code, there are rules upon which a property owner and developer can rely once they have submitted the first required permit for a project. So what those do, those vested rights laws, is they sort of freeze certain regulations for developments when they submit that first permit that would be required to develop a project. In this instance, because a preliminary plat is a requirement for development, that would be considered that permit under Texas Local Government Code 245. So that could be a vesting act, which would potentially freeze those regulations that could be vested under that regulation. So there are certain rules that can vest or can be frozen. That would be landscaping or tree preservation, open space or park deck dedication, lot size or dimensions. So those lot sizes that were a lot different in the 2002 code versus the 2019 code, those could vest. And the 2019 Denton Development Code has procedures related to vested rights, so if the plat was not extended and the applicant wanted to seek a vested rights petition, they would submit under that process and procedure in the Denton Development Code. And if tonight it was not approved, that would likely be their next step is to submit a vested rights petition, and then based upon those findings, they would submit a preliminary plat. So just wanted to discuss that to let you know that even if the plat is not extended, the property could potentially still develop with the lot sizes and those lot counts that were approved with that preliminary plat. So just to make, I want to make that clear. So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the requested extension. Since the applicant has continued to make that progress, we talked about potential conditions in the work session. I didn't know if that's something that you wanted me to bring up, because it is something that the PNZ could impose. But I'll be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is also here with a presentation. Great. Thank you, Julie. Any questions for Julie at this time? Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. Just one. I'm trying to work my way through this. So I understand that if a vested rights application was filed, the developer would have the right to develop lot sizes as shown on the preliminary plat. If you fast forward two years later, now the homes are built, sold, occupied by residents. Would those homes be considered a non-conforming home per our code? Thank you, Chair. Sure. Commissioner Pruitt, I'd first like to pipe in and state that if a vested rights petition is filed, there's still a decision that needs to be made by the city, so it's not an automatic thing. Sure. Sorry. I should phrase my question differently. No worries. I just wanted to be clear. This is independent of how we get there. Just assuming the area develops as shown on the preliminary plat, whether that's extended or petitioned, would those homes then be viewed as non-conforming for changes or alterations and future applications from those homeowners? Well, the use would be permitted regardless. In my opinion, no, they would not be non-conforming because they were approved in accordance with the preliminary plat and the zoning in effect at that time. Later on, if the zoning is changed, then that could potentially bring them into non-conformity, but with the regulations as they are today, and all the PD conditions that were in place, then in the preliminary plat, if it were continued to be approved as is, then they would still be conforming. Okay. So essentially, the PD regulations that came from the transferred overlay conditions would give them all legal rights of that zoning district with those conditions, independent of the fact that their lot size is smaller than the DDC lot sizes. Because the conditions that were in place basically froze the regulations, and Julie Haley, correct me if I'm wrong, but the PD regulations essentially froze the standards that would apply, and so as long as those standards don't change, then those lots should be remaining in a conforming status. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to check because I know with some of our PDs, the way we refer to a base zoning district, I just didn't know if that was all thought through essentially, so thank you. Well, and presumably, it was. I mean, when it was changed from, I'll probably get these wrong, and tell me the two zoning districts again. I'm sorry, Julie. I went from NR2 and NR3 to R2 and R3. Right, to R2 and R3. Because of the conditions that were in place of the plan development district, the conditions in my opinion, I believe, are more restrictive in this nature because it's capping it at the 252 lots. It has provisions in there regarding the amount of open space that was provided. There's the buffering requirements. I believe that Julie had listed out there, so those are the rules that the developer is playing by as it relates to platting the subdivision, so those lots should be in conformity. Later on, if the city came through and there was a zoning change that affected those, then it's possible it could affect the zoning at that time, but they should still remain in conformance as long as the zoning remains as is. Anything else? Yeah, I do. I believe we have in our development code where a residential property cannot be nonconforming. We did, with the implementation of the 2019 code, add a provision. I believe it's in subchapter one. Haley's nodding at me. Because we had this previous provision in the 2002 code that we didn't necessarily have these minimum lot sizes, that no residential, I think it's single family and duplex lot could be considered nonconforming, so I don't know if that helps as well. Any other questions for Julie? You'll have to raise your hand if you do. Is that really real? Could you go over the potential restrictions you mentioned in the work session? Absolutely. The conditions? Sorry. Something with my throat. All right, so the DIN development code does give the P&Z the ability to impose conditions, particularly to keep these projects moving forward as quickly as possible. And so staff looked at that and has some suggestions regarding those, particularly to make sure those civil engineering plans get approved as quickly as possible within following up with that final plat within a year. I did ask this in the work session, but just to clarify for the folks here in the room, what we're voting on is very narrow today. We're not taking a look at the entire project. We're just voting on the application extension, and it's a very ministerial act, correct? You are correct. The zoning was approved in 2019, so we're really not discussing the merits of the zoning at this time. It really is just related to this preliminary plat and the extension thereof. Any other questions for Julie? This is an individual consideration item, and anyone can speak on that. I do have a card to speak on this item, and it is Amy Bissett, to the applicant. Good evening. Good evening, commissioners. Hello. It's been a long time that we've been having this conversation. I hope we're getting to the end, maybe just one more after this, which would be the final plat, so for the benefit of the commissioners who were not here when the zoning was changed and to the neighbors who may be watching or present tonight, I do want to have a brief just kind of like recap of where we've been, where we came from, the assumptions that we've been operating under as the developer and the engineer, and just kind of get through the history. I promised to do that briefly, so there are three of you, one of whom is absent tonight, who were here when the zoning change took place, and for those of you who were not, we were here three times at PNZ, and the first two times we were denied. We started out with an NR4 zoning request, reduced that to a split zoning of NR4 and NR3, and ultimately, between four neighborhood meetings and three meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, reached an agreement that we believe will one day be a very beautiful development if it does not get killed tonight. That agreement that we reached was the 252 lots, a blend of NR2 and NR3, and we feel like we have held true to what we presented in 2019 that was approved in 2019. We came back in 2020 with a general development plan and a preliminary plat that were approved. What you're seeing tonight has not changed one bit from either of those cases. So I hope that will help a little bit, and I think I have identified a couple of places that maybe there was some misunderstandings that took place that I hope maybe we can clear up tonight. I'm going to come back to that slide. What I did is I went back to my slides from 2019 when the zoning was approved. This is my slide tonight. This shows the approved general development plan, which was approved at the same time as the preliminary plat that you're considering an extension on tonight. It was 252 lots as shown here with a mix of NR2 and NR3 with the amazing overlay conditions that I really hope we get to see come to fruition one day because they will make a really superior development. I'm going to scroll back a slide. This is the slide in the 2019 zoning case that we presented. We said 92 acres, a maximum of 252 lots, three ponds, nine pocket parks, all the overlay conditions with the net number of units per acre as well as the gross number of units per acre here. All the lots are not defined in this exhibit because we hadn't done that level of engineering yet, but we had defined the street locations and we knew based on the overall acreage of each zoning district what our maximum cap would be in terms of the number of lots that we would eventually be able to yield. So this slide is directly out of the recording of the public hearing with city council. It looks identical other than the lots being very clearly drawn out here to the GDP that we presented in 2020 as well as the preliminary plat. So here's a couple of things that I think happened. First of all, in the 2002 code, I'm going to scroll down here for a minute. This is an actual screenshot from the 2002 code. There are a number of lot minimums, lot minimums associated, dimensional standards associated with NR2 and NR3, and then in a very small print right under all of those is a statement that says the only ones that apply to subdivisions of more than two acres are the number of dwelling units per gross acre and the side yards. So we knew from the beginning that in order to accommodate the 15 percent open space, the 30 foot landscape buffer, the nine pocket parks, four ponds, that we would have smaller lot sizes. That was never intended to be something that was not communicated or clear. It was just that the constraints of the site itself and the overlay conditions meant that under the 2002 code, we could still develop, but we would be maxed out at 252 lots. So if you look at the 2002 code and the 2019 code side by side, they are almost identical, with the exception of the 2002 code, that one sentence that says that you can also calculate it by gross number of units per acre, which is what we had done from the very beginning. So I think that was maybe the first miscommunication, was how is that actually calculated? So it's not a half an acre per residential lot. It's two units per acre or three and a half units per acre. That includes the ponds. It includes the parks. It includes the streets, all of those additional elements. And so there may have been some misunderstanding that occurred during that time associated with that, but that was never our intent by any stretch. And then when we came forward with the general development plan and the preliminary plat, that was in the summer of 2020. You all may recall that it was an entirely virtual meeting. I was sitting at my kitchen counter and was flying blind. I didn't get to make a presentation and could not see or interact with you all. I was just on the phone. And what I can tell you that I heard on the phone that night was that the primary concern from the neighborhood was whether or not Hartley Field would be connected through our subdivision to 428. That was the entire focus and whether or not we were required to make that connection or how we could prevent that connection. And so maybe just the actual lot dimensions associated with that discussion where they just weren't as relevant at that point in time, but the preliminary plat that was approved then has not changed one bit from what we're being asked to consider an extension of tonight. So I hope that helps a little bit just clear up some of, you know, three years have passed. The code has changed. I had to go back and refresh my own memory and watch the presentations and go back and look through the minutes. But we spent a lot of time with the neighbors and a lot of time with you all trying to present and create a development that everybody could be proud of. We are still proud of it. We still intend to hold to every bit of the criteria that was a condition of our zoning approval at that time. So on to the extension of the preliminary plat, the criteria for approval, Julie did go through all of those. I'm going to give you my answers to those four criteria as well. Consideration number one, what is the reason for our request? We have been actively pursuing permits throughout the entire two years. If you look at the right side of your screen, that gives you the review timeframe from our first submittal to our approval of everything since June of 2018 when we first submitted our zoning application. We have been in constant communication with the city on these reviews since that time. There was a brief period during that time that the city stopped accepting development applications and stopped reviewing those. And while that's not necessarily a reason that we need an extension tonight, it is I think it's valid in terms of how long it has taken us to get this done. The engineering plans have gone through multiple reviews at the same time that criteria manuals were being updated and standard details for the city were being updated. And so as staff members reviewed the plans, they would give us feedback that was related to new criteria manuals versus old ones. And so there was a lot of just conflicting and updating information that took place over that timeframe that also just has taken some time for us to work through. We just submitted our CEPs yesterday, in fact, for our eighth review, and I personally QC'd them before they went in and I have high confidence that they will be approved with this review. Maybe conditionally while we work out just a tiny couple little details, but we are at the very, very end of this process. I'll tell you that maybe two months ago, the city asked us to split out the lift station plans into a separate review. They've been as a part of the process the entire time, but they are a little more complicated and the city asked us to split them out because they felt like we could get the rest of the civil plans reviewed, approved, and our final plat submitted and reviewed and approved while we're working through the lift station details. Last I heard, we would be able to file our final plat and start construction while the lift station was still being finalized and that the burden would be on us to make sure that lift station was operational before we were ready to occupy homes. We do intend to submit the final plat next Tuesday, August 16th, and we expect to see you here on October 12th asking for an approval at that time. So we are at the very end. Consideration number two is can we comply to conditions? The plat had no conditions, but it has certainly demonstrated our zoning conditions. Is that my timer? Okay. We've demonstrated that we've adhered to the zoning conditions and that we can get this done in a timely completion of the project. Last I just want to very, very quickly say that the implications of this for us are huge. We have been in review for two years now, three years, four if you count zoning, and the developer has spent over $1.2 million on design and review fees. And while that is not your problem, I understand that, it is a loss, a time loss, and a money loss that you're sending us back to the beginning when we are literally right at the very end, and we would be redesigning everything if we started over. And with that, I will wrap up since I'm over time. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. A question for you, with the conditions that we discussed briefly, do you think you could be in agreement with those? We do. I guess maybe the one thing I would ask is, I think the condition of a preliminary plat is that the final plat has to be filed within two years. If you give us six months to get that final plat filed, I think that is more than enough time. The lift station plans, not being an engineer, although I think ours might be sitting behind me, may take a little bit longer than that, depending on the complexity of those reviews. But I am certain that we can get a final plat for Phase 1 filed and be under construction in six months. I guess just clarification. Yeah. What was included in the proposed condition was that the final plat be approved. So it was not specific to filing, but it was just that it's approved. Absolutely. We're comfortable with that. And that was, I think, within a year. So that is being approved within six months is the one that I would look to our engineer for a little more direction on, but I would imagine that's reasonable as well. Okay. So just to make sure I understand what you said. So on the civil engineering package that's more specific to the design of the residential subdivision, I know you commented you're on your eighths, but I'm hoping to have that approval here, hopefully next week, if not sooner. So that obviously could be achieved within the six-month timeframe. With respect to the lift station, you were wanting to confer with your engineer on that? Yes. Okay. And then the condition with respect to final plat approval number two, that is consistent with what is already in our Denton development code. And so we felt like it was reasonable that a final plat could be submitted following your CEP approvals and be approved, not recorded, but approved within that six-month timeframe. So like I said, it's just condition number two is more informative and belt and suspenders of what's already in the Denton development code. So the lift station plans specifically, from what I understand, they're going to be their own lot. I don't know if they'll be plotted with the final plat for phase one or not. I would look to our engineer for a little more detail on that, but we can have the final plat for phase one approved within six months and the CEPs for phase one approved within six months easily. Okay. Very good. Very good, thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate you. This is an individual consideration item. Is there anyone wishing to speak on the item? Okay, I'm going to turn it back to the dais. Do we have questions, discussion? Questions for staff, Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry to belabor this point. I just, I read from time to time and I really want to make sure I'm understanding. So to the question of non-conforming lot and use, when I look in the, sorry, in the DDC section 155A says, "A structure situated in a non-conforming lot shall be considered a non-conforming structure subject to provisions of the section 1.5." And then I think the exception that you pointed out, Chair, was B, which says, "A non-conforming lot that was made non-conforming by virtue of enactment of this DDC may be used for construction of a building allowed," et cetera. So you can go ahead and build the building there. And so my question, I guess, is approving this plot, does that make the enactment of the DDC a retroactive thing that 155B then applies to these lots? Or are we setting up a potential issue when somebody wants to build another accessory structure on their land, essentially? I've looked to Hillary for that, but, I mean, again, we're dealing, this project is being considered under the 2002 development code. Understood, yeah. So yes, any provisions that then come from a new development code, are you saying because they're not built yet? Is that what you're saying? Is that where your question is coming from? Yeah. I mean, if they were already built before the passing of the code, they would obviously be considered conforming due to that 155B. In this case, they're not. And so I just want to clarify whether, I just want to make sure we're not setting ourselves up for a situation where neighbors in this new community want to build a chicken coop or whatever it is, right? And all of a sudden they can't because their lot is less than 10,000 square feet, which is the minimum for an R3, right? So I mean, obviously we would need a more legal interpretation of that, but. Right. Thank you, Chair. Sure, sure. So it looks like Tina and Haley are conferring, and they're very much the experts on the nitty-gritty of code comparison, but my initial thought is that this project is being approved under the 2002 code, and so I think subsequent projects probably also would be, but I look forward to being corrected, Haley. Nothing to correct there. I'm Haley Zygurski, Assistant Planning Director. There is a provision that Chair Ellis was referring to in the code. It's 1.5.2(i), and that provision allows that any lot that was legally created prior to the adoption of the code cannot be made nonconforming by this code. So because they were preliminary plotted and vested, they're covered under that provision. Thank you very much. Perfection. Thank you. Any other questions, discussion, emotion? I know we've had a considerable amount of online e-comments that we all got that will be recorded for this item. I so appreciate the community staying involved. This truly was one of the best collaborative efforts that I have been a part of in the six years that I've been sitting on planning and zoning, because it did go back and forth so many times, and it did get tweaked along the way between our input and the community involvement and the community input. So one thing I did want to clarify, we talked about it at work session, but I'm going to say it here, and I know it was in Julie's presentation too, but when we refer to it now as PD, that is just by name, because when the new code was adopted, there was no overlay anymore. That wasn't a part of it. So any zoning that had overlay conditions on it just were named PD- whatever their base zoning was. So it's not that it suddenly changed in any form into some planned development. It just changed name on our map, because that's what the new development code offered. The other clarification is, you know, this request before us tonight is not a review of the project again. I mean, we've done that. Staff's done their due diligence in making sure that the overlay conditions are being met and upheld. I'm sorry for all the stalls, I mean, I certainly- I'm sure everybody involved in the project would have thought they would be further ahead by now. That all being said, if we can impose these conditions that are here, I would move approval of the extension request with said conditions. That is my motion on the floor. I will- Commissioner Villarreal? Second. Okay. So there is a first and a second on the floor right now. Do we have any discussion on that? Commissioner Villarreal. It sounds like the applicant is okay with us shortening the time in point two. She says she could get- that the application could be finished within six months. So I'd be fine if we amended and offering this as a friendly amendment from one year to six months for point number two. Well, I think point number two is taken right out of our development code now. I don't think I want to do anything with that. I mean, I don't want to accept that amendment. I'm good with the six month on the CEP. I think that's been the holdup. I really- I mean, we need to get that done. We need to light some fires and get that taken care of so we can get everything else moving, because it will move after that. So I would not want to take that. Sure thing. I retract the amendment. Okay. All right. So we have a first and a second, as stated earlier. If I could ask a question. I know the applicant had mentioned would like to confer with their engineer on the civil engineering plans with respect to the lift station. I didn't know if she had a chance to ask them or not. Do I need to fill out a form for anything? We can do that after the fact. If you want to come up here and state who you are and your address, then you can answer our question. Sure. Will Gladbach, represent- DEC engineering representing a Goffey Ranch. Address 2501 Parkview, Fort Worth. Thank you. All right. So the six months, we're at a point where- so we've gone through eight reviews and you guys probably know the city has a third party review that actually that company sends it up to Wisconsin, the kind of review. And so we're going through a lot of our comments are, I don't know, they're not succinct and they're not very linear with the previous reviews. So the six months we should, we should, as Amy mentioned, we have confidence we should be getting performance approval with this last review. The Lyft station is kind of unique because what they wanted was not what the city standards require. They wanted us to mirror what they've done across the street in Starks Farms. So we took those plans and made it to our, made it right sides for our development. But now as we're going through and the re-reviewing those plans, they're making changes. So now this is going to be a hybrid of the city standards with Starks Farms plus other things that they've learned or you have new engineers and new staff going for their preferences. So we're kind of collecting all this stuff, what the city is looking for, for this Lyft station. But other than that, as soon as we get kind of that feedback from the city of what they're asking for or what they're going to require for this Lyft station, we're ready to go. So everything is 95% complete. So it's just this last part of the city's tweaks they're looking for. The overall civil engineering plans have been pretty much conformance for the, since the sixth review and it's just kind of chasing comments for like a better way of saying that. I want to go back to the question with the six month. I mean, are you comfortable? So my thing, six months as far as we're concerned, we can do that. Okay. I don't know how do we address if the city is continually going, well, I want this now or I want that now. So what helps us from that standpoint is because your civil engineering plans are subject to the shot clock provisions, we will be performing on our end. So we'll make sure we get our reviews completed and comments to you. I would like to think if we're at 95% on the design of the Lyft station, that to achieve the remaining 5% that we could get that accomplished within six months from today, if the commission were to approve the extension. I believe so. Like I said, the last thing, instead of a concrete, they wanted a fiber class wet well and now they want a concrete one, or a different pump manufacturers. So all of this stuff is not necessarily driven by our design, it's by the city's request. And so my thing on six months, it should be, it should be the next submittal and everything, that if a new reviewer at the city goes, well, I want this and we're going back three submittals to do stuff. And that's in the do loop right now that's making it a little bit frustrating. But overall, six months should be doable, but I haven't been able to predict the city yet. I guess is where my comments come from. Okay. So, I mean, I would like to think six months is reasonable, I'll be honest with you. I don't have PEF in my name, I've never designed a lift station. But what I can help in the reviewing is making sure that the city's commitment is that we keep our reviews moving forward and to try to minimize some of the back and forth. But it's, I would like to think those six months would be acceptable. The other option, I guess, is that if the commission wanted to consider an alternate time period for the lift station, then I mean, that's up to you. But I would like to think that this could all be achieved within six months. If we're being told what is truthful, where we are, there would be zero reason in my mind. And again, I'm not an engineer either, but we can't keep this moving and get this approved within six months. So, okay. Thank you very much. Any other discussion? We do have a motion on the floor. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. I'll try to be brief here. I have to say a couple things because I am new to this commission since the zoning change and the original change with the overlays were, was approved. You know, I think it's kind of been summed up well tonight is that this is an unfortunate situation because the applicant hasn't completed all their engineering and platting within the two year time period. But here we are today, right? In my opinion, this project and the zoning is a big problem, but we're not here for that, right? Also, in my opinion, the fact that we even need a lift station suggests that maybe we shouldn't be building homes here so that we have to build a huge pump to lift people's poo so that it can go down to the treatment place. I mean, it's, it's physically irresponsible in my view. At the same time, yeah, there's a lot of problems. But I have to separate myself from those previous decisions and hope that future decisions will be more responsible to our taxpayers and our rate payers and you know, that's, that's where I am. So thank you. Any other discussion? Okay, we will go ahead and vote by roll call. Commissioner Villarreal. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Did I get everybody? One, two, three, four. Chair is an aye. That motion will carry five, zero. Okay, that will move us to 4C, FP22-0023. Julie, I believe you are on again. Good evening, let me pull up the plat presentations and get to the right spot. All right. Sorry about that. Good evening, Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. I am presenting FP22-0023. This property is within the ropes and ranch plan development. It is a single family development with some open space lots or single family unit with the open space lots. Your original agenda and backup material indicated a recommendation of denial with an extension to August 24th. In the interim period, they have addressed all staff's comments and so we can recommend approval. So that revised plat was sent over to you. So staff does recommend approval of this final plat as it does meet all of our standards. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Julie. Questions for Julie? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Chair can entertain discussion or motion. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval of the plat. Okay. Commissioner McDade? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Okay. Commissioner Cole? Yeah. I'm looking at this site location map and I just want to be sure that this isn't touching any of Cole Ranch because it looks like where this is located, I don't know if I can vote on this. I just want to be sure. So just- Are we adjacent owners right there? I believe Cole Ranch is that along this property line here. Is that we're line else? Am I right on that? Yes. It's kind of- It is within the interior of Robeson. I don't know if that- Okay. Is that adjoining? I mean, that's a big deal. It's Hunter Ranch that's adjacent to this property. Which is adjacent to us? To Julie's point, it would be located over- Okay. Okay. So- This would be the closest point. In your view, I'm good. I believe so. Okay. Okay. Okay. Got a first and a second for approval. Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Chair has an aye. That motion carries five at zero. Taking us to 4D FP220024. Julie it's your show. Good evening, Julie Wyatt. This is a final plat, FP22-0024 for rail yard phase one. You might remember the preliminary plat. It's come before you recently. This is for a multi-family development near downtown. They still have some comments they need to address, so staff recommends a denial of the request. However, we have no objection to the requested extension to August 24th. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Julie. Questions for Julie? Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal? I move approval of the extension to a date certain of August 24th, 2022. Okay. We've got a first. Second. Commissioner Pruitt is a second, first and a second for approval of the extension request to a date certain of August 24th. Any discussion? Okay. Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. The motion carries 5-0, taking us to 4EPP22-0020. I invite Angie up for presentation of this item. Good evening. Hi. Good evening, all. Angie Mangler, Senior Planner at the City of Denton. This is a proposed preliminary plat for Elon Denton, Phase 2B. It is located west of Mayhill Road, south of Spencer Road. It's approximately 14.4 acres. The purpose of this preliminary plat is to establish the boundaries and easements for a one-lot multifamily development. At this time, the plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval, and staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objections to approval of the one-time extension, which could be granted to a date certain of August 24th. That I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Angie. Any questions on this one? Okay. Thank you. Chair can entertain discussion or motion. Commissioner Pruitt? Move approval of the applicant requested extension to the date certain of August 24th. Okay. We've got a first for approval. Commissioner Cole? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of the extension request to a date certain of August 24th. Any discussion? Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Chair has an aye. That motion carries 5-0, taking us to 4-F, PP22-0018. Angie, you're back up. Hi. Angie Manglars, Senior Planner. This is a preliminary plat for cowboy distribution. It is located at the intersection of Northwestern Boulevard and Jim Crystal Road. It is a preliminary plat to establish the boundaries, right-of-way, and easements for proposed future industrial development to be located at this intersection. At this time, staff is recommending denial as the preliminary plat fails to meet our established criteria for approval. However, we have no objection to the one-time extension that could be granted to a date certain of August 24th. Thank you very much. Questions for Angie on this one? Okay. Thank you. Chair can entertain discussion or a motion. Okay. I will move approval of the extension request to a date certain of August 24th. Commissioner Villarreal? Second. We've got a first and a second on the floor for approval of the extension request. Any discussion? Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Chair has an aye. Page 50, taking us to 4G, PP210034. Commissioner Cole, I believe you are recusing from this item, so I will give you a moment to leave the dais. Okay. And Angie, you are back up for presentation. Hey. Angie Mangleris. This is a preliminary plat for phase one of the Cole Ranch development. It's in the Cole Ranch master plan community. This proposed phase is approximately 720 acres and includes single family residential, town home development, mixed use lots, as well as multi-family lot and two industrial lots on 720 acres. Since the time the packet went out and this afternoon, the plat has met all of our criteria for approval and we are affording this to you this evening with a recommendation of approval. We may answer any questions you may have. Excellent. Thank you. Questions? I do not see any. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval of the plat. We've got a first. Second. Commissioner McDade, we've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Okay. Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Chair has also an aye. The motion carries 4-0, one recused. Let's let Commissioner Cole head back in and I will call item 4HPP22-0017 and Mia is here for presentation. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, Associate Planner. This is a preliminary plat for Legends Ranch, which is actually located within the city's ETJ, just north of West University Drive. Under the current development code, we do not review preliminary plats within our ETJ. However, this particular community is within a municipal utility district, excuse me, and so as a part of the development agreement established with that district, we do require the review and approval process of a preliminary plat. At this time, though, that preliminary plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval, and so staff is recommending the denial. However, the applicant has submitted a request for a 30-day extension and we do not have an objection to that request. I'll take any questions or answer any questions that you have at this time. Thank you, Mia. Any questions for me on this? Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal? I move approval of the extension to a date certain of August 24, 2022. Thank you. We've got a first for approval. Commissioner Cole? Second. Got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of August 24 discussion. Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Chair is an aye. That motion carries 5-0, taking us to 4-I, FR22-0007. Hello again, Mia. Hello again, Mia Hines, Associate Planner. This is a final replat for Razor Ranch East, lot 4R1, Block A. The property is located within the Razor Ranch Overlay District, just north of Crescent. Staff is recommending denial at this time as the application does not meet all of our criteria for approval, however, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension and we do not have an objection to that request. Great. I'll take any questions you have. Thank you, Mia. I do not see any questions. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal? Move approval of the extension to a date certain of August 24, 2022. Commissioner Cole? Second. I second to approve the extension request to a date certain of August 24. Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Chair is an aye. That motion carries 5-0. We are now on 4-J, FP22-0022. Ashley's item. Hi, Ashley. Good evening. Ashley Hickok, assistant planner, City of Denton. This item is for a final plat. It is on Airport Road, east of Precision Drive. At this time, staff is recommending denial. They have not met all the criteria for approval, but we have no objection to the requested extension to August 24. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Questions for Ashley? I'm not seeing any. Thank you very much. Discussion or motion? Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval of the extension to a date certain of August 24, 2022. Commissioner Cole? Second. You've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of August 24. No discussion. Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Commissioner Prudt? Aye. Chair is an aye. Motion carries 5-0. I will call item 4K. Commissioner Cole, I believe you are recusing yourself on this item. Give you a moment. Calling 4K FP22-0020A. Hello, Ron. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Ron Minguida, principal planner of development services. This item is a final plat for a property located just south of Jim Crystal. It is a one-lot plat. As of today, staff is recommending approval of this request as it meets the established criteria for final plots. However, there is a condition that staff is placing on this item that is because of two stormwater drainage channels that are being proposed within an ESA, environmental sensitive area. That alternative ESA is scheduled for actually discussion for you all this evening, later during the public hearing, and then if forwarded to City Council, it would be on their August 16th City Council date. But again, staff recommends approval with the following conditions, that the ALT ESA is approved at the council meeting on August 16th. Great. Thank you, Ron. Any discussion? Questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villareal. I move approval with the conditions set forth by staff. Commissioner McDade. Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of the plat with conditions noted. Discussion? Commissioner Villareal. Aye. Commissioner McDade. Aye. Commissioner Pruitt. Aye. Chair has an aye. That motion carries 4-0. That will move us to our public hearing items for this evening. But Commissioner Cole, you're not back for that item because you need to recruit. Thank you for your return, but we'll see you in the next one. Okay. I will call item 5A, AESA 22-000, bring up Christy Upton for presentation, and I will open the public hearing. There you go. There you are. Sorry. Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and I will be presenting the Alternative ESA Plan that was just mentioned in the last presentation. This is an Alternative ESA Plan for DIT and EXTER Edition Number 3. The purpose of these Alternative ESA Plans is a request to deviate from the DIT and Development Code's requirement to protect and preserve our environmentally sensitive areas. And I'll go into more detail about some of those areas that this property is proposing to deviate from that requirement. First of all, just to reiterate what Ron was just discussing, which is that this is a property at the intersection of Western Boulevard and Jim Crystal Road. The proposal is for this warehouse, and in order for the warehouse to drain properly and meet the drainage criteria of the DIT and Development Code, the applicant is proposing to take two stormwater drainage channels to the creek. This will cause for a temporary disturbance of .47 acres of a riparian buffer ESA. And let's go into a little bit more detail about what these riparian buffers are. They are, in this particular case, this one is part of the tributary of Dry Fork of Hickory Creek. It's an intermittent stream with a habitat in fair condition. We determine that when we perform these ESA field assessments. In other words, we go out to the field and a scientist evaluates whether this area has a riparian buffer or a vegetative buffer that supports and protects the waterway. The undeveloped floodplain is when it reflects the FEMA floodplain and is areas, those FEMA floodplains that are remaining in its natural state. In other words, it hasn't been filled in the past. So the purpose of this is to, again, to construct those two stormwater outfall structures. And by placing those outfall structures, the developer will have to clear the land in order for it to direct the flow to the channel. Once they are completed, the grading is completed, the applicant is proposing to revegetate those areas with native seed mixes. And these native seed mixes are grasses and herbaceous plants that have the ability to survive in these moist or wet conditions. And in order to improve the overall condition of the land, the applicant is proposing to expand that seeding area to 3.81 acres, we'll get back to that. And then I would like to let you know that we, the applicant did meet all the notification requirements and that the staff received no responses. The recommendation is for approval of this plan with the following conditions, that the land disturbances be limited to the 0.47 acres as described in the plan, and that the area be vegetated across that 3.81 acres as described in the plan, and that that be done within the 14 days of the construction of that infrastructure. And then following that seeding of that area to perform three years of inspections and provide staff a report as a follow-up, and after the three-year period, staff will accept the project. And with that, I will stand for any questions. Thank you, Christy. Questions for Christy on this? Thanks and thanks for the great backup, yeah, was perfectly laid out in detail, appreciate that very much. Thanks. Tina? Just for the commission's benefit, given the length of the conditions that are included in their specificity, if the commission is inclined to approve this request, my recommendation to you would be that you make a motion for approval with the conditions as presented in the AIS. Okay. Please and thank you. Instead of like, yeah, we're trying to restate them for sure. Right. Yeah. Or even summarizing, so. Right, right. Very well. Thank you for that. Any discussion from the dais? Okay. Is there a motion from the dais? Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. I'll move approval with the staff recommended conditions within the agenda information sheet. Thank you. Got a first for approval. Commissioner Villarreal? Second. Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval. Let me hold on that for one moment, because I did not close the public hearing. So I will. I don't have cards to speak. Is there anyone wishing to speak who's here on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Let's get back to that. Okay, first and a second on the floor to approve the AESA with the conditions laid out in the AIS. Okay. Let's vote. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Chair, as an aye, that motion carries 4-0. That will take us to Public Hearing 5B, Z220008B. I will call Commissioner Cole back in. Welcome back. I will open the public hearing and invite Julie up for her presentation. Good evening. Let me pull up my presentation. Good evening, Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner. I am presenting Z220008, that's the Asbury UMC rezoning to you this evening. So the request before you is to rezone approximately 13 acres from R2 District to SC District, SC being Suburban Corridor District. The subject property, as I mentioned, is a total of 13 acres. That breaks down to about 4 acres that's currently developed with a religious facility use, and then 9 acres that is currently undeveloped. The purpose of the rezoning is the applicant would like to construct a telecommunications tower or alternative mounting structure on the subject site. However, if approved, any use within the SC District could be developed on the site. So just want to let you know, this is a rezoning to a base zoning district, so any use could be developed to the development standards within the Denton Development Code. The subject property is located at the intersection of Locust and Hercules, situated in the north side of town, outlined here in yellow on your screen. And we also have on your screen two zoning maps, one being the existing zoning showing the existing R2, and then the proposed rezoning, extending that existing SC to the north to the subject property shown here. The approval criteria are in subchapter 2. I'm not going to read all of them. We're just going to hit some highlights today, but I just want to let you know staff has analyzed the project and has concluded that it does conform to the criteria for approval and the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan. So first we're going to talk about the comprehensive plan. The subject property is predominantly designated community mixed use, so the subject property is outlined here in black. I did give kind of a fuller picture of the north side of town and that comprehensive plan just to show you how that community mixed use sort of works within the broader area. Community mixed use is a mixed use future land use designation. The intent is to encourage commercial uses, retail, office, restaurant, some residential moderate to higher densities could be appropriate to support those commercial uses. Community mixed use, if you look at our future land use map, is typically found on arterial roadways, often at intersections. So think of Loop 288, think of University, think of Teasley. That's where we often find that community mixed use, kind of where we've got that suburban commercial development pattern. And the permitted uses in SC district are consistent with community mixed use. But we don't just look at the future land use map, we want to look at the entire comprehensive plan when we're analyzing projects. And in this instance, since we know that they would like to develop communications infrastructure, we looked at that piece of the comprehensive plan. And that is something we want to encourage. It is definitely a part of our infrastructure nowadays with kids being online and all of us on Zoom meetings. So it is something that we need to make sure that we have adequate access to and capacity within our city. So this request is consistent with our communications infrastructure goals. So just to talk a little bit more about the map, you see the subject property nested within that community mixed use, which includes the subject site extending all the way to Loop 288. We've got adjacent properties, we've got low residential neighborhoods to the south and to the east of the site, moderate residential to the west. And then as you can see along Loop 288, we have a variety of future land use designations. The next we want to look at is minimizes adverse impacts to surrounding property. It's something we always want to look at when we're looking at rezoning cases. How will it impact the surrounding area? So this subject property, and I think we talked about it at work session, is kind of an undeveloped piece of property, but it is surrounded by residential areas. And so what we want to do is look at how a rezoning would impact those residential areas. SC has a lot of different commercial type uses at a development intensity that is greater than what we typically find in our residential areas. So if and when this property develops, how will it develop and what will that look like? So the Denton Development Code addresses that, and it has elements within it to make sure that our commercial areas are compatible and are complementary to our residential areas. We require things like street trees. So along all public rights of way, so Locust and Hercules, they would be required to plant a street tree every 30 feet. And that's required of all development within the city of Denton. We also require parking lot landscaping. Our landscaping code has a menu of items that applicants can choose from, but what we want to make sure is our parking lots are adequately landscaped and that there's adequate tree canopy so that they look nice. We have setbacks. SC District has a 20-foot front setback from the right of way. So if you're looking how that impacts Hercules, for example, if and when this property develops, they will have to plant the property. Right of way dedication will be required. Hercules is a collector roadway, so it's a 65 feet of right of way, 32 and a half feet from the center line. So there will be right of way dedication that they'll have to provide with planting. And then beyond that will be that 20-foot setback. So we're looking at approximately about 95 feet from the residential property lines to the south that any building could be built on this property. So if that SC were approved, any building on the property would have to be set back at least 95 feet or would likely be set back at least 95 feet from the property line of those residential lots to the south. Lighting we do have standards for our lighting. We want to make sure we have adequate lighting in our parking lots, but we want to make sure that they're downcast and so that they shine where they need to shine and they don't spill over to residential properties. We have overall minimum tree canopy SC district, 30% of the lot would have to be covered in mature tree canopy, so that would be something we would look at at the time of development. And then driveway spacing and limitations. We want to make sure access is appropriate and is safe on the property and so that would be reviewed as part of the development. When we look at the site, it is kind of a different shaped site and there is existing development on the property. So we just did a measurement. There is an unconfirmed ESA potentially. When the property develops, they will have to go through the analysis of that ESA like Christy just went through. But there is about three acres that could be developed potentially in this area and then about three and a half acres that could be developed adjacent to Locust. Just know that does not include any right of way dedication, so it would likely be squeezed a little more, but that is potentially what their development area would be. We also want to talk about significant changes to the area. That is one of our criterion for approval and I think that really applies to this project in particular. So the aerial view on your screen, the top one is from 2017. It is from our GIS maps online. And you could see the north side of town had not quite developed yet. There were still a lot of open spaces remaining and the subject property has a star on it. And then look at the most recent aerials that we have on our GIS maps and just how much development we have seen in the north side of town. So everything outlined in yellow, that is a single family residential neighborhood. So Beaver Creek, that has already been developed. People live there. Stark Farms is currently under development now. Some houses are on the ground, some are still being constructed. We have got a development here at Hercules near FM 428, a multi-family project just north of that. We got multi-family projects, you may remember, some of you may remember the specific use permits that came forward with that, those along the loop and FM 428, as well as single family residential just to the southeast of that. West of the subject property, those neighborhoods have filled out since 2017 and new residents are moving in. And then further west, we have a horizontal multi-family that just came forward to you that is currently under development, single family residential and then some town home developments as well as other multi-families. So we have added about 1,500 homes, dwellings to this area in the last five years, which is a tremendous amount of growth in this area. In the nearest retail centers like where we have got a collection of retail, we are looking at somebody would have to travel to university or down the loop. So we don't have a lot of retail in this area, but we are adding a lot of rooftops. And so commercial development would be appropriate and so when we analyze this, the types of uses in SC District would provide that necessary shopping and services that these residents would need close to their homes. So in that respect, it is consistent with that significant change. It's serving those new residents. Public outreach was sent out. We had to do it a couple of times in order to make sure that we captured all of the residents within that 200-foot boundary, but we have got all of the residents that were notified. We have received four in opposition. I believe your staff report said five. I think I double counted someone who had sent an email and a letter. And those are shown on your screen. They are kind of difficult to see. Sorry. It is not a very good map. The applicant also held a neighborhood meeting with about 12 attendees. So based upon the criteria for approval and the future land use designated, the comprehensive plan, staff recommends approval of the request. And I will be happy to answer any questions. The applicant is here and he has a presentation as well as he provided binders to you and you should have had that on your desk when you got there. Thank you. Julie, I have a quick question for you. Is there any development happening to the north in the SC that's just north of that? What's happening there? I don't recall. Yes. We do have an application that will probably be coming forward to you soon. I believe it does have, and Tina may correct me because it's not mine, but some multifamily with some commercial out parcels, the property to the north. That is correct. Okay. I don't know much about it, but it will be forward soon. Right. Because the multifamily requires approval of a specific use permit. Thank you. Any questions for Julie? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, chair. Just two quick things. Is it accurate to say that our code requirement to have accessibility through adjacent properties requires that the use be allowed within the adjacent property is forcing this change of the entire parcel? You summarized that very well. Okay. Yes. We do have a determination that, and the applicant, as I mentioned, will make a presentation. I believe their intended area for that telecommunications facility is to the north of the existing building. They have not made application for that, so there's no approvals for that at this time. It is their intent to potentially take access through that existing parking lot. In order to take access through that existing parking lot, that does require that rezoning to suburban corridor because the telecommunications tower is not permitted in the R2 district. Okay. Secondly, can you give me an idea of scale here? I think, I don't want to get too much into discussion, but the presence of the potential ESA on the north side, there's a boundary there between the proposed zoning map of the really large pink blob. What I want to understand is the potential future development in the long term of this parcel, assuming that is an ESA. What kind of areas in our town have a commercial development that would be on the order of, I'm just going to spitball it here and say 10 acres, does that make sense? They're limited within either adjacent parcels or something that's limiting them to not having more than 10 acres. What's the largest impact type of commercial development that we would expect in that size of a plot? We do see SC or suburban corridor district along university where you've got that residential backing up to it, and those lots are typically maybe not, some of them are smaller scale development. Some of them are larger scale development, but there are some parcels along university that might be consistent with that development scale. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Julie? Okay. Thanks, Julie. Sure. I don't have a card from the applicant, but I will invite them up now, and you can give your name and address and we'll worry about the card later. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. Good evening. Good evening, Chair. Members of the commission, I'm Bev Francis, 112 East Beacon, San Antonio. I'm the attorney for Diamond Communications, which is a national developer telecommunication facilities. Diamond has been working very closely with Asbury United Methodist Church for over two years on this site, and I want to thank Julie for, I think our first call we filled at each other was back in April, 2020. So your staff has done an incredible job working with us, thinking through why and what can be done to accomplish the goals that we're trying to accomplish today. With us this evening, we have representative members of the congregation, along with Pastor Rick Warts, who will address you briefly, if that's okay, after my presentation. The reason that we are excited about this opportunity is because, oops, let's see here. What am I doing wrong, Julie? It's not moving on me. There we go. It's because there's a critical need for infrastructure, and we'll talk about that momentarily. But to kind of highlight a couple of points that Julie made in her discussion presentation. This is another view of Google Earth, very similar to your GIS that she presented. But it highlighted, we want to kind of show you the features that are around surrounding the property. You have the church facility at the bottom. The star represents the site of the proposed alternative site, alternative feature, I should say structure, tower. You have the, if you would, the from right to left at an angle, that growth area of trees and vegetation. Just north of that, you have high tension electric transmission towers that move on to feed the Texas Municipal Power Agency, which is directly across the street locus to the west. The current zoning, as Julie indicated, and we don't need to rehash it, but to the north is SC, to the south, the property we're talking about is R2. After many discussions with your team, it was decided that because the suburban courier district specifically provides that alternative mounting structures, those are structures in which the antennas are concealed within the tower. You don't have the triangular array. You don't have the multi Christmas tree effect, as it's often called. They're permitted up to a height of 100 feet. Now the reason this tower is so critical, and Julie just made this story, there's a significant demand for wireless right now. And in fact, the Pew Institute, a company and institute we're all familiar with, of the last decade has done exhaustive research. And they've concluded that by next year, there will be over 283 million smartphones. Not cell phones, but just smartphones. The cell phones, for the first time ever, there are more cell phones in the United States than there are men, women, and children. 25 cell phones for every man, woman, and child. And on top of that, in light of the residential development, that this will greatly improve, 62% of the houses and residences have cut the cord. They're almost entirely wireless dependent. And just to point this out, I thought this was always kind of refreshing, because it's so honest. About three in ten of us admitted that we're virtually online all the time. Now as a result of this, your residents are demanding what is called seamless wireless connectivity. And what that means is the average residence, like in the area that will be served by this capacity, has a minimum of five wireless devices. And if you think about your own households, you probably exceed that number, because you have iPhones, iPads, you have Samsung, you have other smart devices, ring doorbell systems, and all of those are solely dependent on the ability to have that connectivity. Again, 60% of those households have cut the cord and are wirelessly dependent. And you have such new things that the new residents moving in are requiring, smart utilities, ring doorbell systems, security systems, and medical devices. All of us have seen the ubiquitous ad for the cardio where you put two fingers on the device and it wirelessly sends your EKG to your handheld smartphone. If there's one good thing that came from the pandemic, and it's hard to find one, is that for the first time as a result of the stay at home, work at home, insurance companies are now recognizing telemedicine visits with your doctors are now insured visits. Before 2019, it was almost impossible to get that. You had to prove you're bedridden and so forth. And I have had certainly many of them, and I would hazard guess the majority of the people viewing this and you all tonight have had at least one telemedicine. It's incredible convenience to be able to have your phone or your iPad connected and talk to the doctor. But we can't forget E911 safety. Eighty-five percent of all E911 calls are now made by wireless devices. And having grown up in North Texas decades ago, I know how weather changes here. And we all nowadays live by the reverse E911 calls, waking you up in the middle of the night saying, telling you take cover, manmade event, a weather event, a child abduction. The residents we're talking about tonight won't have that ability and are not having that ability that T-Mobile can provide them through their system to receive those critical public safety alerts. Your city is way ahead of the ballgame. You all have your alert Denton program where you're encouraging your residents to do exactly what this tower will assist your residents to do, and that is sign up with you. Sign up and so to receive notifications and alerts. Now before Hurricane Harvey, social media for municipalities were really used as what's going on in the city. What is, who's been promoted, what's the upcoming events. But after Hurricane Harvey, the program has changed across the country. Now in the event of a natural disaster, manmade event, what happens is residents are encouraged and do use the direct messaging platform of Twitter that you're on, Instagram you're on, Facebook you're on. And the reason is the E911 systems are overloaded. They're working, they do not fail, but they're overloaded. So again, in situations, particularly let's say a weather event, where they cannot get through E911 to alert you where they are, encourage your citizens to do like many cities across the nation and use the social media platforms very quickly and I appreciate the opportunity to address this. I just wanted to walk through with you the steps that were taken to determine why the needs exist, create a search ring, and then show you the propagation maps. The first step, T-Mobile identifies that there is an issue. The residents are not receiving service in certain areas. There's what's called a gap in the service. They issue a search ring. This case is so tight because of the residential and the demands of the residential. As Julie indicated, it was only a quarter mile search ring, a quarter mile that a facility had to be located within. Diamond then, communication then takes that search ring, looks for obviously the ideal situation is to find a structure tall enough in which to co-locate. There were no structures available as T-Mobile also confirmed as I'll show you, and then they started looking for available leaseable, developable space as the courts have said. It's got to be able for a location where a tower has to be under the ables. It's got to be buildable, developable, and utilities available. Step two, Diamond selects a tower and designs a site. As Julie already went through the design, but I wanted to focus on the actual layout if I may under the concept plan. This is the, as Julie indicated, there are basically two lots that the church owns that combine to make the 13 acres. The location of the compound and the tower are at the most northern end away from Hercules, but yet connected in sight to the church facility being an alternative concealment structure. It's going to made to be looking at part of and to be placed behind the church as part of the compound structure. The wall itself will be an eight foot CMU wall painted to match the church, and it's being designed at the compound to accommodate multiple carriers. This is just a depiction of a 100 foot alternative tower. Again, we'll go through your development process with Julie and your team on the design and going through the permitting process, but to accomplish the goals that I'll show you momentarily, T-Mobile needs to have what's called a rad center. The center of their antennas need to be slightly under 100 feet, so the antennas inside the concealment feature, so the top of the tower will not exceed 100 feet, which is the height permitted in an SC district. Step three, after the site selected, the site design, then the T-Mobile engineers go to work. They prepare what are called a justification letter, and important is I'll show you why this site is so important, the propagation maps. In your booklet is the T-Mobile justification letter. It confirms what I told you about the 0.25 mile search ring. It confirms the areas that match the search ring shown on Tom Mineski's alternative site, alternative site document I've previously displayed for you, and they confirm also what I said. There are no structures tall enough in which to meet. Yes, ma'am? That was your timer. Just you can keep talking, but if you will. Oh, thank you. Yeah. I'm almost there. Start concluding. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. And there are no structures in which they can co-locate. Now this is the important part. These are the propagation maps. What I'm showing you right now is the existing coverage. The gray is outdoor coverage, basically only, cars, yards, if you're in a park. The green is indoor, where you have the ability to reap the benefits that I've been talking about. If you would, look generally in a moment, you'll pop out and see what I'm talking about. The tower will be located about the center north of the gray area. The three red triangular circles are sites where T-Mobile had their existing antennas. That's why you see the good infill green coverage. So this is exciting and why we're here tonight. You'll look at this and then see the improvement. The areas that Julie is talking about, the growth of residential. This is why we're asking you to take this into consideration and make your recommendation. Also, as you all have probably heard on other presentations, E9 carriers have to produce and transmit collected E9-1-1 calls. As noted by T-Mobile, the particular site that you see in one month handled 371 E9-1-1 calls. As the RF engineers indicate, their particular existing site, that is, would be relieved of a lot of those pressures with the completion and the lighting up, if you would, of this new tower. Chair, members of the commission, just one final point. As you all know and has been shared with you, the Telecommunications Act says in making decisions such as we're asking you to consider tonight, municipalities, governmental entities are not allowed to take into consideration the basis, if any, of environmental effects of radio frequency. For people in the audience and your benefit and people watching this online, I always like to give about three, let's say, backup, worldly recognized organizations takes on this. There are the World Health Organization has studied it, there are no convincing scientific effects that weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. Excuse me, the American Cancer Society has written volumes on this and researched it and have come to the conclusion that most scientists worry that their cell phone antennas are unlikely to cause cancer, as did the USDA. One conclusion before I introduce the pastor, just would like to recap. We believe the presentation, the application, the presentation tonight, the written materials show there's a significant gap that exists in T-Mobile's wireless system. We believe we have shown there are no alternative site that would remedy that gap and therefore a denial will essentially result in a material inhibition of T-Mobile's ability to resolve this significant gap and improve its service capability. So we're respectfully requesting your recommendation to the council to approve this, resigning to facilitate all the incredible benefits to an extremely growing community. And with that, I'd like to introduce the pastor. Thank you very much. Thank you for allowing me extra time. So we're going to start as a new speaker, if you'll state your name and address. Sure. We will have four minutes to speak on the item. My name is Chris Rickwards. My address is 2106 Fair Oaks Circle in Corinth, Texas. Thank you. I've been at this church for a little over a year. Asbury Nine Methods Church is a vibrant congregation that started in the '50s. It was located at University in Elm, more in the center of Denton in early 2000. They moved out north, anticipating the growth that was forecasted to happen out there. A couple housing crises later and unforeseen circumstances and that growth is now really accelerating as staff pointed out. We're excited to be there, to be a part of that community. We believe we have the mandate to be good neighbors and we will continue to do so. We respectfully ask you to approve this zoning change so that we can continue our ministry, build this tower, which will bring revenue to the church and help us to expand our ministry out on the north side of Denton. Thank you for your time and thank you for your consideration. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to come up and speak? I don't have any other cards for this item, but anyone who has not yet spoken may do so at this time. I do not see any, so I will close the public hearing. I will open the dais for discussion or motion. Do we have discussion questions ahead of us? Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. I have a question for the representative of T-Mobile with the applicant, actually. Thank you. Sorry to make you walk back and forth so quickly. I just wanted to inquire. I understand no need to get into specifics because of contractual obligations, but it strikes me that both the property just to the north of this as well as the property just to the west of this on the other side of Locust Street, if it is still Locust Street at that point, welcome to Denton, both have zoning that would allow this by right. Did you explore those other possibilities that are very near when we're looking at transmission distances and were they just not an option either technically or business relationship wise? No, great question. Thank you, Commissioner. As pointed out in the alternative site analysis that Diamond prepared and presented to you, they scrub the sites. That means they first look for towers that they can co-locate on. Second then, they go and do exactly what you're talking about. They have people with site acquisitions on the team. They meet, they contact, but again, the issue is access to property and to be able to place the tower away from arterial and conductive street, if I'm pronouncing it correctly, which means it's got to go through various developments for the access road. Again, as the court said, it's got to be accessible, able, developable, and not interfere with property owners' future plans for development, utilities available. That's during the two year process. This and we're fortunate to be able to work this closely with such an incredible team at the church. Okay, so it's a combination of available infrastructure on site as well as minimum required distance from an arterial roadway, essentially? Absolutely. Okay. So many projects, like the one to the north, are in their own development stage. Right. Okay. They've already laid out plans in certain cases, starting construction or submitted plans. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions? Discussion? Okay. Well, Chair, can entertain a motion or further discussion or questions? Commissioner Cole? I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. We've got a motion on the floor for approval. Commissioner Villarreal? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second discussion. Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. So I don't think anybody is against a tower here. Maybe I shouldn't speak for too many people. Actually, before I launch into this, let me ask staff. There were a few properties just to the south that signified opposition to this request. Was there any common theme of what their concern was, since we didn't see any of them here tonight? I think it's related to the intensity of SC District. Not necessarily this particular use, but potential uses within the SC District and just that commercial development. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Sorry. One more, Julie. I've got a record today going for people walking back and forth. So I think we heard in the work session earlier a question from Chair about the potential for an MN instead of an SC. Can you explain what staff's thought process was there? Just because I'm looking for something to grasp onto to follow and I'm having a hard time, specifically for both the allowed uses concept of what would be more intense by MN instead of SC, as well as the, I'm not going to remember the right term, the site design requirements that go along with uses and that particular zoning designation, if you will. Absolutely. Sure. So I guess top line, the future land use is community mixed use, and SC fits right in that slot and it's kind of designed for that SC. So from that standpoint, it met that future land use designation top line. But you do like to drill down in what the permitted uses and how that development would impact. So we have a lot of mixed use districts within the City of Denton and Tina and I were talking about that before this meeting. So we have a lot of mixed use districts and it's not necessarily that maybe SC or MN is more intensive than the other, it's just they're different. And so you look at those development standards. So SC, as it would develop, would potentially push any buildings that would be constructed on, especially along Hercules, because that is probably the less intensive road. It would be pushed back a little further from those residential areas. It would, it has the similar building coverage and building height, this MN, so those are pretty consistent across the board from that. Minimum tree canopy is also pretty consistent. The landscaping standards would remain consistent. I think where it does change is some of those design standards and the uses. So we'll talk about uses first. MN is more of a, probably closer to the residential type zoning district and that has a variety of residential uses. Multifamily is a use permitted by right. So it could be if MN were zone there, multifamily could go there without any SUP. Multifamily does require a specific use permit in SC. And so what a specific use permit does is that it just allows that additional scrutiny for that project for us to look at it a little closely and make sure it is compatible with the surrounding area. So it does add that layer within SC district. Both of them do allow for a lot of commercial uses, a lot of retail uses. SC does allow some larger retail uses. However, given the site constraints, it's probably unlikely that a big box target would go on this site. It just doesn't have the room for it. But MN district also allows retail uses. SC district does allow more automotive uses, at least by right. MN does allow some automotive uses, but there are some additional, the SUP additional protections related to that. And then SC district does allow some industrial, some employment uses, light industrial. Once again, given the constraints of the site, it may be challenging to develop that, but it is permitted. MN district does allow a limited manufacturing, that artisan manufacturing that we included within the 2019 debt and development code. So they are comparable, but there are some differences to them. We also looked at the existing property and how those design standards affected the existing development on the site. So MN district is intended to be designed in a manner to activate the street more. So we require those buildings to be pulled up to the front property line. So in MN district, a commercial development, 60% of the frontage of a lot has to have a building within 10 feet of the front property line, really to pull those buildings to the front. So MN doesn't allow front parking. In some contexts, we don't want front parking, but in other contexts, front parking might make sense because it pushes the building back a little bit, gives a little more space between any commercial uses and nearby residential uses. And then when we're looking at the existing development, MN district would create a nonconforming site feature on that site, and Haley and I were looking this up earlier to see how that would potentially impact that church facility in their potential expansion plans. And while the use would be permitted, because that use is permitted in all zoning districts, we do have site considerations, and one of those is that no front parking and pulling those buildings up. So if that church did want to expand, they could not increase that nonconformity. So it would require, potentially when they lay out any site, to build a building in front of their existing building to put parking in some other places, which could limit their ability to expand or to make any changes to their site. So we looked at those, and we felt like SC was consistent with the future land use. It was consistent with the adjacent zoning, and it would potentially allow this area to develop in a more cohesive way. So that's kind of what our thought process was. - Thank you. I really appreciate that. Thank you for that. - Sure. - Commissioner Pruitt and Chairwoman Ellis, if I could. I see you struggling down there, and I might have some information that may benefit the commission. And I was looking at, Julie, I'm going to ask you to pull up this slide that shows this up. Yes, this one. So the graphic on the far right side that shows the parcels that are surrounding the worship facility. So you see, we've got three acres to the east, about three and a half acres to the west. And so a couple of things that I've been working through and looking at this, and we've had, I think, some discussion internally amongst staff. If this property were to be rezoned to SC, while it allows for a variety of different commercial uses that could provide services within the neighborhood, you know, I think about the reality of the kind of uses that might locate on the property. We know we have ESA to the north, so really, that's a boundary, right, that we're not going to potentially cross. So then if I've got a three-acre tract to the east, in all likelihood, a retailer is not going to locate there, because it does not afford them the type of visibility that retailers are looking for today. So then it's kind of like, what else might go on that property if it were to develop? A good, to me, a potentially good use of that location might be smaller scale office business locating on that. When I think about the property that's labeled the three and a half acres that has the front of John Locus and on the west side of the church, knowing that there is also an electrical substation that is across the street, you know, I think about, okay, what uses might be able to locate there? From a commercial standpoint, we're probably looking at two buildings, maybe. Might be able to squeeze in a third one if they were smaller drive-through sites in that area, especially given some of them, how they've scaled back on their building sizes, but realistically, I think probably about two buildings would be in there. A McDonald's is generally sited on one acre. A Starbucks-sized building will squeeze in on definitely less than an acre. And so that's kind of the mindset I'm applying of, okay, how would buildings locate here? If that were to be some sort of maybe a retail pharmacy-type use, then you're probably looking at them locating on about an acre and a half. So that's kind of the madness of how I came up with roughly two buildings there. To me, I think one of the challenges with our zoning district or with our DDC is we do not have a true neighborhood office-type zoning district that where I think a neighborhood office zoning district might be actually a great type of transitioning district between where you've got residential uses to the south, knowing that you've got the worship facility there. We have a general office zoning district, but I would not encourage you to go down the general office zoning district path because I call that the light industrial and disguised district. Our general office district is truly not an office district, my name, when you think about all of the uses that are allowed in there. It allows much larger scale development. So absent a neighborhood office zoning district, then it's kind of what other zoning districts are available. And I know a lot of times we do look to MN to see if it can kind of help fill that gap. But given the way the development standards are in the MN district, I'm not convinced that that would be the right zoning for this area. So I share that with you. I don't know if that helps you in your decision-making process with the request that's before you this evening. But I felt like it was important that you have some of that insight. Thank you. I do appreciate that. Chair, if I just have a few words, and then we can continue our discussion. Thank you very much. And I really do appreciate that. I mean, as I'm looking, you know, I share your concern for how do we deal with neighborhood compatibility in areas where some uses that are not homes might be appropriate, and how do we ensure that as those things hopefully go into more neighborhoods in our town, they are done tastefully so that the reaction is thankfulness instead of, oh, my gosh, I don't like hearing big trucks in a three-acre parking lot across from my house, right? You know, if I'm thinking purely about sort of the general zoning district long-term future, you know, in some ways, the R7 kind of is my understanding of that neighborhood office thing. It allows certain office uses by right, it rounds retail with an SUP, et cetera. But it's just on the other side of the cut line from allowing a transmission tower, right? So I can't help but feel like this application is like one of those, you know, you take one step that seems reasonable and then another one and then you see there's a wall there and then you turn right and you just take one more step. And after six months or a year, you turn around and you say, wait, where did I start? Because the impression I get is the first hurdle is the use of the transmission tower. Okay, where do we have to fit that in order to make that work, right? And then the next hurdle is oh, well, we can't just carve out one parcel because we have part of the code that says access needs to be taken through a site where that same use is permitted. Well, to me, what that's expressing or the true concern that that piece of code is trying to guard against is a crazy difference in intensity of use or type of traffic or noise or something, right, where you've got, you know, 100 cars at 7 a.m. lining up to get into your Starbucks, right, where you didn't really count on that, right, and then they're taking access off of a smaller collector street instead of an arterial, et cetera, et cetera. And I don't think anybody is going to drive or walk to a transmission tower except when they set them up, right? So I understand that piece of code is there and I understand we need to abide by it, but it seems like its intention is something completely separate from what's forcing us into this box, right? You know, I mean, MN, I could get behind, I understand there might be some concerns of use compatibility there, you know, respectfully I would say the design of these sites that are site-specific design requirements are in place for is more important to people's everyday lives than whether what's going on inside the building is somebody making leather goods for, you know, small-scale production thing or somebody having a doctor's office or something, right? Yeah, I feel like this is a much longer project and timeline than I would have expected to put up a transmission tower, I want to find a solution and I'll tell you what my biggest concern is, is that if this goes in as C, functionally at the level that we are considering this, right, it's somewhat obvious that we're not going to get a Kroger there, okay? But we might get a Starbucks, right? No, it's great to have coffee, but I'd much rather that Starbucks be 10 feet from the street so that people can walk to it and get their coffee or ride their bike over there. And if it's a drive-through, you're not going to want to do that anyway because there's going to be 100 cars lined up on the road. So let me get back to my concern. My concern for the future is this portion of Locust, as we've mentioned before, is not a city street, it's not even on the list for potential take-back. It's a TxDOT roadway. I really don't want, and I don't think people in the church want, the development of this area to turn around and then four years from now, TxDOT says, "Okay, we've got to pave six lanes, Locust, all the way down from Elm up to 288," right? And so I'm very cautious in land use decisions that would sort of encourage more investment in intensive automobile traffic uses that could turn into that. So that's where I am, so thank you. Well, and I guess in response to that, I mean, we kind of already have done that in that area, right? I mean, right to the north of that is SC, and we're dealing with, what are we dealing with, 13 acres total? Yeah, 13 acres total. Yeah, I mean, I share similar concerns as to why it had to go SC. My best guess for how staff worked through this was to protect what's already existing there with the church, because we're going to make them non-conforming if we go MN, which makes a little bit more sense with how we describe what an MN district is versus what an SC district is, but at the same time, having the good neighbor that they are and trying to mitigate that from happening. So for me, what alleviates my concern a little bit is, I mean, this is a need in our community for sure, and I've got to trust staff on how they did their due diligence on trying to direct this application. Well, I share your concerns, and I would like to see something there that the neighborhood as a whole could use, but as Tina pointed out, when you look at the weird configuration of that lot to the west, which is looking at the substation, I mean, that's not where people are walking to. They'd walk the other way maybe. Maybe potentially there could be some kind of neighborhood service in those three acres. I mean, I guess time will tell on that, but yeah, for this, I'm going to go with the way staff looked at this, looked at who's already there on the lot versus the need in the community and the due diligence by I think everyone collectively is why I can get behind and support that. So if that helps at all with your decision-making process. Is there any other discussion? I know we do have a first and a second at this point. I think it was you, Commissioner Villarreal with the first, Commissioner Cole with the first, Commissioner Villarreal with the second. Thank you very much. Okay. If there were no discussion, I'm going to go ahead and call for a vote. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Villarreal? Aye. Commissioner McDade? Aye. Commissioner Pruitt? Aye. Okay. And the chair is an aye. So that will carry 4-1. Thank you. Appreciate the questions and the time that you gave to us. Thank you as well. And for these binders, which we should collect probably and share with city council. Right? I was going to say, Chairman Ellis was asking, do you want your- We should probably share these with city council because you've got to move- Oh absolutely. We'll have. It's for the council to go through where you want to take. Okay. Absolutely. Very good. Thank you. Thank you again. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. 5CZ220004 has been postponed. So we will not take action there. I'm going to ask the commission, do you all need a break? Can we keep going or do we need to take five? I'm looking to all of you. Yeah. Thank you. You need to take five? Okay. You got it. Let's recess at 834 and let's try our best to get back here at 845. Oh yeah. Thank you everyone for your patience. I will call us back to order at 843 PM and call item 5DZ210019. Mia will come up for presentation. I will open the public hearing. Good evening again chair, members of the commission. I am Mia Hines, Associate Planner for the City of Denton and this item is zoning case 21-0019 for rezoning request for 2500 Panhandle Street. The property is approximately 3.8 acre property located within the Razor Ranch overlay district. The request is to change the zoning for this particular tract from the RRO district to the straight mixed use neighborhood district. The request would also effectively amend the Razor Ranch overlay district zoning exhibit and the concept exhibit as it would pull this tract, which has been subdivided into two parcels since this application was submitted, it would pull this tract away from or out of the Razor Ranch overlay district and this property would be subject to the standards of the current development code MN district if he chooses to recommend approval and council ultimately approves this rezoning. The property is generally located west of Bonnie Bray Street, which is a secondary arterial between Panhandle Street there to the south, which is a collector and Linden Drive residential street there to the north. Obviously the property is undeveloped, but the applicant has expressed the intent to develop multiple medical office facilities as well as a pharmacy with a drive thru. It is also surrounded to the north, south and west with the RRO district and to the east across Bonnie Bray Street is an existing single family residential subdivision zoned R3. I also wanted to note that right there on the northeast corner of Bonnie Bray Street and Panhandle Drive is a property zoned PDMN and is currently developed with multiple professional office buildings, similar to what the applicant is proposing for this site. So pursuant to subchapter 2 of the DDC, the staff did review this rezoning request pursuant to that approval criteria of notes, I wanted to mention that the proposed MN zoning district is consistent with the Denton 2040 comprehensive future land use designation of regional mixed use, which if you look in our comprehensive plan is a designation intended for promoting a mix of low impact development while complementing and embracing existing viable uses and raising the standard of design. We do within our Denton development code have a mixed use regional zoning district, however given the proximity to the existing low density single family subdivision to the east as well as the higher density and commercial uses permitted within the Razor Ranch overlay district, the MN provides for a more cohesive transition between those two across Bonnie Bray Street into the Razor Ranch overlay district and I have a table to sort of show how the development standards differ from what's existing within the RRO as well as what would be proposed within the MN and a little bit of points of how the MN is a bit more of a cohesive transition from as opposed to the MR which is that mixed use regional. Additionally I wanted to note that the development would be subject to the development standards and processes of the current Denton development code as they exist right now and as may be amended. So if you all recall or familiar with the Razor Ranch overlay district that was established under the 2002 Denton development code and so whatever is not mentioned within the overlay standards for the Razor Ranch district is subject to those now outdated development standards of the 2002 code so by changing the zoning from our Razor Ranch overlay district to MN they would be subject to the existing processes and the existing development standards within our existing Denton development code. Specifically again here's that table for comparison. The minimum landscape area within this particular sub area of the Razor Ranch overlay district is 10% of the total lot area with 7% of the total parking lot area requiring or being required to be landscaped under the mixed use district we bumped that up to 20% of the total lot area so they would be subject to that. Additionally tree canopy coverage within RRO is 20% mixed use district is 40% so again a higher standard higher landscape standards compared to what is currently permitted. minimum buffer adjacent to residential for single family districts within the sub area Razor Ranch overlay district requires a 10 foot wide landscape buffer and specifies six trees plus 25 shrubs per 100 linear feet adjacent to a single family zone district and it does not have a buffer requirement standards for multi-family district which this property does currently abut to the west our MN standards however requires a 15 foot wide landscape buffer and we have a table 7 point G within our DDC which sort of allows for options and allows for the applicant and developers to be creative with their design within that landscape buffer to assure the compatibility of land uses there. Similarly street trees under the Razor Ranch overlay district requirement were one street tree per 45 feet of street frontage within our mixed use district we would get more street trees that would be one per 30 feet of street frontage maximum building height for this particular sub area is 200 feet for hotels and offices and 100 feet for other uses permitted within this sub area under the MN it would be 65 feet but actually anything between 41 and 65 foot will require an SUP so they are again sort of helping to mitigate the impacts on surrounding properties you're looking at a lower maximum building height as well. Maximum coverage for existing RRO standards is 90 percent with a maximum floor area ratio of 4.0 under the current standards you're looking at a maximum coverage of 80 percent so that decreases the amount of impermeable surfaces and building coverage permitted within this district. Permitted uses in total transparency it isn't less intensive or anything like that but we do have those additional design and development standards within the MN district namely I wanted to point out that as stated in the Razor Ranch overlay district only single family detached attached community home professional services and offices and parking open space are permitted on this particular lot with the transition to mixed use district they would be open to permit or develop any of the permitted uses within the MN district however it would be again subject to the increased development standards within our current development code specific I also wanted to point out that for multifamily and single family developments on this particular lot because there is a gas well to the south of this property they they are limited to approximately I believe I calculated at about 1.8 acres so if they were to the applicant were to change their development plan from what they've expressed to the city thus far and want to do some type of multifamily or higher density residential or something like that they're limited to a small portion where that can go on this lot because of the gas well setbacks that we have under our current DDC. Additionally higher intensity uses industrial uses vehicle services will require an SUP and so that would of course have to come back before this body before that those uses those types of uses would be permitted. So pursuant to state requirement and our DDC we did do public outreach we posted in the newspaper on July 24th there was a website posting on July 20th and property signs were posted by July 19th additionally we mailed out notices and have not received as of today have not received any in response a neighborhood meeting was not held but the applicant contacted the neighbors directly and they are here with a brief presentation and can go over those efforts if you have any questions about that. So with that staff is recommending approval of the request as it complies with the applicable sections of the DDC should this body move forward with a recommendation of approval or denial it's going to go scheduled to go before city council on September 20th of 2022. At this time I will answer any questions you may have for me and the applicant is here with a brief presentation and available to answer questions. Great ma'am thank you very much questions at this time for staff okay nice presentation thank you very much. I do have a card wishing to speak I will invite Amy Bissett back up to the podium welcome back Amy Bissett 109 North Elm Denton 76201 I'm not going to make a presentation I think you heard enough from me tonight I just want to say a couple of very brief things the pharmacy use is intended to be a small scale community pharmacy we're not talking about a national retail pharmacy and we originally applied to amend the razor ranch overlay district rather than accepting ourselves out of it and after conversations with staff thought it would just be cleaner to come into the 2019 code currently my client Mr. Strange is sitting behind me and he plans to de-restrict the property to medical and professional offices and related medical retail so some of those uses that you may be concerned about will not likely occur in the future the property will be still be subject to the razor ranch architectural control committee so it will still look have the same look and feel similar materials and will still have to be applied in this particular case for consistency and we did met do a mailer to the neighborhood to just invite them to come to reach out with any questions and provide more detail and we did not hear from anybody thank you thank you for clarification any questions for okay thank you this is a public hearing I don't have any other cards in front of me is there anyone else who would wish to speak on this item okay seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion commissioner Villarreal move approval second okay we've got a first and a second for approval of the request any discussion okay commissioner Villarreal I commissioner Cole I commissioner McDade I commissioner Pruitt I chairs also an I that motion carries five zero that will move us to our next public hearing item that is five easy to two zero zero zero zero nine I will invite Angie up for presentation and open the public hearing hello just a moment thank you Angie mingler senior planner at the city of Denton this is project Z 22009 it is a rezoning case for cowboy distribution the rezoning case is for a 10 acre tract of land currently zoned residential to the request is to rezone this particular tract of land to heavy industrial the subject tract is located approximately 400 feet east of Northwestern Boulevard and 1400 feet north of Jim Crystal Road the future land use plan for this area calls for this part of Denton to be in dust industrial commerce the subject property is currently vacant and has not been previously developed it is surrounded to the southwest and east by additionally zoned heavy industrial property that is also currently vacant and undeveloped and then to the north there is general office zoning this property is currently vacant however there are two industrial warehouse buildings that are currently under building permit in civil engineering review by Denton City staff the future land use plan and the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan call for this area to be industrial commerce the industrial commerce land use designation is predominantly located to the west of I-35W near the Denton municipal airport it does contemplate uses such as manufacturing assembly fabrication and wholesaling uses the uses that are permitted in the heavy industrial zoning district are consistent with what the future land use plan calls for further the Denton comprehensive plan realizes that a diverse economy is fundamental to achieving the goals of the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan specifically ensuring that there is adequate land use for future economic growth particularly in non-residential land use categories this proposed use is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and providing a robust and diverse economy the proposed application does meet all criteria for approval as outlined in the Denton development codes of chapter 2 specifically this heavy industrial zoning request is consistent with the future land use plan as the property is designated as industrial commerce the rezoning is also consistent with adjacent developments and land uses within this area the intent of the rezoning of this 10 acre tract of land is to align the zoning of the site with adjacently zoned heavy industrial property that's situated to the southeast and west which is owned by the same entity for the eventual future development of an industrial site to be located at the northeast corner of Western Boulevard and Jim Crystal Road this proposed development is approximately 860,000 square feet in size as this area continues to develop west of 35 and near the airport the proposed future industrial use would be consistent area and compatible with the desire that this remain an industrial manufacturing region in the city of Denton should this request be approved the development shall comply with all DDC requirements which would include screening and landscaping requirements site and building design requirements and exterior lighting requirements by code public outreach was done in accordance with Texas state laws was the DDC notices were mailed to residents with the in 200 feet of the property and then courtesy notices were sent out to properties within 500 feet of the subject tract at this time we've received one response in favor of the application there was not a neighborhood meeting held for this particular request staff is forwarding this to you this evening with a recommendation of approval as it does comply with the criteria as specified in the Denton development code the next step in this process would be a public hearing and consideration by City Council at their meeting to be held on September 20th 2022 I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant is also here available to answer any questions you may have any questions right now for staff I don't have any cards filled I don't know if the applicant wants to say anything if not do we have any questions for the applicant okay then I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion Commissioner Cole I'll make a motion to approve got a first Commissioner McDade a second got a first and a second for approval of the request any discussion okay Commissioner Cole I Commissioner McDade I Commissioner Pruitt I Commissioner Villarreal I shares also an I that motion carries five zero that will take us to five F DCA two two dash zero zero zero three invite run up for his presentation and open the public hearing thank you madam chair members of Commission Romney get a principal planner with development services this item is a development code amendment regarding data centers in which we've spoken about during our work sessions so much of what I'll be presenting will be as quick summary the purpose of the code amendment is really to introduce two uses data center modular and data center warehouse two uses that were not contemplated back in 2019 and as of interest of recent months or recent years that is this uses something that the city is intending to have the proposed code amendment is in concert with working with the DME folks staff that staff members that is and also this item was presented and discussed thoroughly with the DC RC development code review committee on April or in April as well as in May of this year the code amendments will specifically amend table five to a of development code amend sub chapter five three six regarding you specific standards as well as parking requirements and also adding definitions for the two uses and amending the definition of electric substation I won't read the definition for modular data center you can see it is primarily modular structures as you can see some examples to the right shown here on the slide what staff is proposing is the data center modulars be proposed in the ally HI and PF zoning district with specific use permit requirements parking would be one space per employee at its largest shift these specific standards I'll highlight quickly any associate equipment and outdoor storage shall be opaquely screen of a public right away adjacent residential use and zoning district the outside storage and social electric equipment shall not be less than 100 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district measured from the property line and the number of elements with regards to table 7e landscape area points area point system is to rather than one environmental noise assessment as well as a vibration assessment will be required as part of the application for a data center both modular and for warehouse the noise maximum for these types of uses will be at 60 DBA maximum and again if there are any on site electric substation they will be required to comply with the development code the data center warehouse that you see here again is defined as a building or buildings and standard intended that is for the same type of use in terms of storage of specialized computer systems hardware and so forth the data center warehouse is proposed to be located in the G.O.L.I.H.I.P.F. by right with these specific standards in the M.R.S.C.N.H.C. they would require a specific use permit the data center warehouse parking requirement will be one space per 3,500 square feet gross floor area that is excuse me or a director determination based on a parking study some examples of a data center warehouse you can see examples from Fort Worth as well as in Plano the warehouse maximum square footage for the M.R.N.S.C. is a maximum of 55,000 square feet building design standards will comply with the section of the development code again similar with the warehouse sorry the modular data center a pigly screen for any outdoor and associated equipment similar with the environmental noise I'm sorry yes environmental noise and vibration assessments will be required noise maximum be 60 DBA there will be a setback requirement for any associate outdoor and equipment as well as any on-site electric substation will be required to supply will be subject to comply with sub chapter 7 of the D.D.C. and the last slide here is really to illustrate the amendment to the electric substation definition the definition was added here to provide more clarity as to where that transition would occur and the added 60 kilovolts has been added to the definition for that purpose with that staff is ready for any questions that you may have thank you ron questions for ron here Mr. Villarreal do you believe the passage of this development code amendment would increase decrease or keep the same the amount of data data centers coming into debt I think it would it would increase I know based on some of the discussions with the DME staff members there are a few already asking about coming into the city and this would allow that to happen gotcha thank you and I felt to mention that Terry Nolte is also here with DME if you have any questions for him yeah any other questions for ron at this time okay thanks ron well this is a public hearing I don't see anyone here in city or council chambers to speak so I will go ahead and close the public hearing and I will open the floor for discussion or a motion commissioner Pruitt thank you chair I'll move approval as presented by staff I think I'd just like to say a couple words of thanks to Terry Nolte and DME through this whole process the the DCRC really was is becoming known as a body who tries to dig into the details and I may be one of the people to blame to that that end but I think that in this case we came up with something that is really really good to be consistent and straightforward so that we can be responsible to our residents as well as you know clear to potential future development efforts okay all right we've got a first on the floor commissioner Cole second all right we've got a first and a second for approval discussion I'll just say a couple words like I said in work session yeah it was a great discussion I think we had at DCRC with development staff DME being there answering all of our questions which we had lots of this is a needed thing that we needed just in where we are in the world today so I think yeah I think it was a good collaborative effort yes Ron as well as we're talking about thank you folks I just I felt mentioned Karina Maldonado who did a lot of the work you know before I got involved so I didn't want to miss that opportunity to thank her as well agreed yes okay that being said let's go ahead and vote Commissioner Pruitt I Commissioner Cole I Commissioner McDade I Commissioner Villarreal I chair is also an I that motion carries a 5-0 that will take us to our planning and zoning Commission matrix and Tina I will give the floor to you if you are ready I was just realizing you know I'm trying to go electronic tonight given the packet right the we've really had no additions to the matrix coming out of the last planning and zoning Commission meeting so if anything what we will do is we will remove the drainage discussion item off of it since we check the box on that this evening and then also with respect to activity that has happened or projects being approved at City Council since the planning and zoning Commission last met in July thanks to Ron's effort I know just over there you are thanks to Ron's effort he shepherded through the subchapter two amendments under the DCRC worked on that as well but that those code amendments were approved by Council as recommended by the planning and zoning Commission and in DCRC so those amendments have now gone into effect and so we'll be making sure that those are incorporated and applied but other than that I have nothing else unless the Commission has anything else that they'd like to add to the matrix or any other item anything for the matrix no any concluding items okay thank you everybody it was a good long meeting thank you for your patience and your efforts and your thoughtful discussion I will adjourn us at 9.09 p.m. thanks