Feb 15, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2023-02-15 5:30 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, February 15, 2023. This is our work session and with the quorum present I will call us to order at 5.33 p.m. I'll let the record show that Commissioner Smith is absent from this meeting. There's one item on our work session and it is clarification of agenda items and we'll go through those now. Anything on the minutes for January 25th? Okay. Items for individual consideration, 3A is PE 230001. Let's see, who is that, Sean? Do you want to just give us a quick synopsis of that, please? Good evening. This is PE 23-0001. This is a request for an extension of a preliminary plat that has been approved at the intersection of Loop 288 and McKinney. They are coming up on their expiration date in April. They have been making progress throughout this time. They have a CEP that is approved, another in review, a tech stop permit in review that requires a TIA as well as a zoning compliance plan. It's a complex project, involves coordination with a number of end users, shared drainage, multiple rights of way, tech stop approvals which tend to add an indeterminate amount of time to reviews. So overall, the applicant does anticipate that this extension would enable them to reach submittal and approval of at least that initial final plat. And so staff reviewing this against our criteria is recommending approval of the one-year extension. Happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Dade? Thank you, Chair. I'm just curious as to what's being built on that time. You say it was 2021, so I wasn't here and I'm just curious as to what's being built on that time. So they have, I believe, about four commercial lots along the front there as well as I believe one behind if I remember correctly. So right now, I know one of them is proposing to be an oil change place. The others, the other lots, it'll depend on what comes in. They're built as commercial lots. All right, thank you. That's helpful. Yes, sir. Anybody else? Sean, so there was a plat denied like in 2020. Is this the same? Are we dealing with the same plat here from December of 2020? So there, yes. There was, yeah. So this is the same entity? Same? Yep. Yep. They came back, they made the adjustments, and then they reached approval. And then it was approved. Yeah. Yes. So it got approved in, yeah. In April. Started in December, got denied. Yep. Eventually then came back in April of '21. Mm-hmm. Okay. And then I gave them some additional time to work through. Okay. And they want a one-year extension on what they have now? Yes. Do you think it'll take that long? There are a number of complex issues. I think it's best to provide that, particularly because with textile approvals, we just never know what's gonna be needed there. They have a TIA they still need to submit, so. Gotcha. Okay, understood. Any questions further? Okay. Thanks, Sean. Thank you. Appreciate it. Next item is number 23B, FR23-0001, and that is, Ashley, hello. Good evening. This is FR23-0001. This is a final replat on approximately 4.6 acres at the corner of Fort Worth Drive and East Mission Street. And at this time, we are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension to March 15th. Okay. Happy to answer any questions. Perfect. Any questions on that one, yeah? Okay. Thank you, Ashley. That'll take us to 3C, so stay right there. And this is FP23-0003, and this is an approximately 15.9 acre site, and they are final platting to establish 12 residential lots out in the ETJ. We do currently recommend denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension to March 15th, 2023. Happy to answer any questions. I do not see any. Thank you so much. 3D is PP23-0001. Julie is not here, so Sean will be sitting in for Julie. So this is a request for a plat from Denton ISD. They have not at this time met all the standards for approval, and so staff is recommending denial but has no objection to the request for an extension to a date certain to March 15th, 2023. Okay. Great. Any questions on this one? Okay. Thank you, Sean. Let's move to 3E, FP23-0002. Oh, well, you know what? That one's been withdrawn. I just saw my note here, so we will not be taking action on that. All right, 3F, CP22-0039. Hi, Mia. Hello. Okay. Good evening, members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner. So this is a zoning compliance plan within the Razor Ranch South Campus mixed use district. The site plan is for a hotel on approximately 2.8, almost three acres, located at the northwest corner of Panhandle Street and Heritage Trail. Staff is recommending conditional approval of the request. It does meet all of the requirements of the Razor Ranch overlaid district, but there is a requirement for cross access that they are unable to meet on this site given some agreements between the seller and the owner of the property. With that, Razor Ranch does have some internal private drive aisles, so we are okay with the removal of the cross access, but that conditional approval we are expecting an increase in the pedestrian circulation on the site, and so that's a pedestrian path from the east side of the building to the sidewalk along Heritage Trail. And then also we are expecting that crossing and all sidewalks to be at least five feet wide and that crossing to be clearly distinguishable for the safety of pedestrian circulation on this site. Of course, I have more detailed presentation that I can go into in the regular session, but I'll stand for any questions that you have at this time. For sure. The applicant know about the conditions, I assume, right? Yes. Okay. That's one of my questions. The other one is, did you see the e-comment that we received on this item? Yes. That was -- Yeah, it had to do with the -- Oh, yes, the building material. The brick stone that's in the overlay. So the -- if you recall, via state law, staff can't enforce building materials as long as it's approved under the current building code. There is an architectural review board that Razor Ranch is under, but again, that's all sort of a private thing. So from staff's enforceability, that's why the mainstream. So even with it being in the overlay, there's still -- Correct. It is, yeah, not enforceable. Okay. Any other questions from you? Thank you. I think you're here for the next one, too, aren't you? I am, yes, ma'am. Yep. 3G. Okay. Good evening again. This is a request for zoning compliance plan again in the Razor Ranch South Campus. This particular site -- the development on this site is a multifamily residential development on just over 3 acres located near the northwest corner of Panhandle Street and Bonnie Bray. Staff is recommending approval of the request as it does meet all of the established Razor Ranch overlay district requirements. There is a gas well setback or reverse gas well setback that encumbers the majority of this site, and so staff has reviewed this application in relation to that requirement, and we've asked for some additional site design considerations to ultimately grant relief for that. And again, I'll go into more detail over that in the regular session. But if you notice, there's this bound here, and then, of course, in the staff report, we talked a little bit about that setback. So they are seeking relief from the minimum reverse gas well setback, and we are recommending approval of the site plan as presented with that relief being granted. So with that, I will stand for any questions or comments you have. Questions? How did the staff come to wanting to make that adjustment with the gas well setback? So we feel that -- and Tina can answer this -- but we feel that multifamily is a good use for the site, especially this being a density zone within the Razor Ranch overlay district. So if there is anywhere to grant or to allow for the development of multifamily residential, this would be a good site for it. The gas well being encumbering more than 50%, that's why the relief measure, the administrative relief measure is built in. We have that flexibility for them. And then with this site, we wanted to make sure that the building was brought up to the building as close as possible as it could be given that setback, and then also that the street frontage, that panhandle street frontage was still activated per the intent of the Razor Ranch overlay district. And so that's why we -- if you notice, there's an increased landscape area. There's a bit of an active green space going on there with the gazebos and the pedestrian path and all that stuff. So there is enhanced street frontage for this site, whereas normally what we would be getting would be a building closer to the front. So there is -- there was some give and take on the relief measures, and like I said, Tina, as the director could add to it. And what is the setback going to be? 375. So from 500 to 375 feet. Okay. I was going to say, I thought Mia did a great job at finding the justification. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely answered my question, yeah. Yeah, and furthermore, I mean, we evaluated it based upon the code provisions and took that series with the fact that being able to reduce it down to the 375 measurement. It's okay. Yeah. But great job. Thank you. For sure. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Jared. Just so I can put it together in my mind, it looks like those arcs drawn that the gaswell location is basically just southeast of the site, across the street from Panhandle. Is that correct? Yeah. If you could see in the aerial here, it's small, but it's located here at the south. And that's the setback from the pad corner location, which would be the top left corner of that? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Cole. That's from the wellhead, correct? Not the... I believe that's measured from the site. From the site. Okay. Great. Looking at our gaswell expert over there. Sorry. Okay. Great. And you're going to go over all of those details. Absolutely. Awesome. Okay. Thank you, Mia. Absolutely. Let's see. That will move us into our public hearings for this evening. So Mia, that is still yours. Yep. 4A PD 220010. Okay. Last of mine, I promise. So this is a request for a new overlay PD. The existing zoning is a PDMN transition from a PDNRMU from the old code. And so if you recall, we recently allowed for PDs to be split with standard and overlay. This is the overlay PD, so you aren't going to see the typical development regulations and phasing plan and development plan for this. It's just those regulations, and in this case, it's a list of restricted uses and some additional site consideration items. So the site itself is located near the northwest corner of TZ Lane and Ryan Road. Under the current PDMN permitted uses are those commercial uses categorized in the NRMU zoning district under the former development code. This request for the new overlay PD would permit certain commercial uses, and those are included in Exhibit 6 of your backup. For this item, it would also require compliance with the current DDC, so bringing them up to code with our current site design and development regulations. And then it would also require additional context-sensitive site design consideration. So if you've looked at that PD regulation, you might have noticed some additional buffering requirements adjacent to the existing single-family and multi-family residential lots to the west there and then also some additional site consideration items along Hunters Creek Road and Teasley Lane to get us a better site context-sensitive development for this site. With that, staff is recommending approval, as it does meet all of our criteria. I will go into more detail in the regular session, but at this time I'll stand for any questions you have. So with the base zoning change, do the overlay conditions remain that were put on that in 2014? So we've actually carried some of those overlay conditions over. One was no multi-family permitted on this site, and then the other was just the general broad statement that commercial as permitted in the NRMU district is permitted here. So those were the only overlay conditions with this site, and then it was subject to our former code. With this, there's those, so no multi-family permitted on the site, generally commercial uses are permitted, and then there's a list of additional restricted uses that would usually be permitted under the regular SC zoning district that are not going to be permitted under this overlay district. And again, that's to minimize adverse impacts, protect the, or prevent a larger commercial type of, or more intense commercial type of use from being on this site. And do we know what the applicants like endgame? This one confused me a little bit, because, I mean, it is commercial, I mean, commercial uses are in place now, and the conditions were put there on purpose, and, yeah, with good reason. So I'm trying to understand what they want. So when they initially applied, and it's in their project narrative for their application, they have an idea to put some drive-through restaurants in this location, some other retail establishments that are not permitted under the current, either not permitted under the current zoning, or would require a specific use permit. So since they already have an idea of what they want for those uses for each site, to avoid having to go through that process several times, they're just, they're adding a PD, and then adding those additional site considerations. And I think Tina had something to add. And I was just going to add, it also furthermore provides for consistency in certain treatments, particularly the buffers, with the adjoining residential uses that are to the west, if I remember the source correctly, but Mia adequately explained, you know, the principal reason for this is to go through the planned development district rezoning one point in time, establish the standards that we want to ensure for continuity, and then, which then eventually would save the applicant some time, instead of having to pursue a specific use permit request every single time, if there was a use that triggered it. Yep. And I understand that, and I understand it's Teasley Lane and SC. I'm just, I'm struggling with the request because it's so densely populated there with single family homes, and MN certainly made more sense in this corner. So certainly drive through restaurants, you know, by right, would be a huge concern for the surrounding neighborhood. And the fact that traffic right here is horrific, even with the, even with the road being done, it's really bad, especially for the Summit Oaks neighborhood that has like two entry points, that's it, for the entire neighborhood, one, yeah, and no signal there, and so, yeah, lots of concerns, and we have no jurisdiction over signals because it's a textile road, so. I'll add, they will have to go through our traffic impact analysis approach and all those things on this corridor once they, once they get those uses, every site would have to go through the zoning compliance plan process, civil engineering plans and all that stuff, so that'll be flushed out for the specific uses, just additional information. And then one last question, on the initial overlay, it talked about track to be, what is track to be? Oh, that, so that is this site plus the multifamily site, so if you pull, if you pull that original ordinance, it subdivides the existing single family as track to be, and then the track to be was this site and the multifamily site, right, okay, alright, and the, that was later amended. As it was written in that ordinance, so, yeah, okay. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair, just quickly so that I can absorb more of what, what staff is thinking with the different considerations and the request, I mean, obviously TJ Teasley has changed character remarkably since the 2019 code was passed, certainly since this original PD was done. Help me understand what that road in its character now, how that impacts what we think the correct type of zoning and character and feel should be from a built environment perspective, does that make sense? 'Cause some of the differences, right, between the SC and the MN are the, you know, setback from the roadway and that sort of thing as well. So, and I'm looking for my transportation notes here. I was trying to find the mobility plan classifications for Teasley. Yeah, I'd be shocked if it wasn't primary arterial. I think it is primary arterial, I just didn't want to, I didn't want to speak out of term, I'm sorry. It is. I found your report, yes. Teasley is an existing primary arterial roadway which is 135 feet of right of way and then ultimately would be constructed with six travel lanes. Yeah, so ideally I think amongst or adjacent to those, those right of way, we are looking for the more suburban corridor type of development, that level of commercial intensity. And then also the density in this area is a lot of single family homes around you as opposed to you have that one multifamily development to the west immediately of this site. But the suburban corridor, and it's in our future lane use map as well, just kind of, it fits better with the upgrade of Teasley as well as the secondary arterial designation of Ryan. Yeah, and again, like from what I said earlier, I get it, it's Teasley, but it's just because of what was already here, it's like these things were here and then Teasley became the Teasley that it is now. I mean we've got elementary school on that corner, right, from what I, yeah, Nelson's right there across from where we're talking about. So probably one last question and then we can move on. So you mentioned like restaurant with a drive-through which is an MN, it's allowed an MN, it just needs a specific use permit. So is that something that they just didn't want to entertain? Because again, I'm trying to get to the end game here because to me I think it's a, it's just a really interesting request for what's already in place and I feel like we're trying to do something that, you know, that we need to be careful of because of what's, again, what's already there and in place. So well, and to me, I mean, that's something to ask the applicant, allow the applicant to address it. Oh, I definitely will. We have listed the narrative and have done our assessment on it, you know, in this case with rezoning it to a plan development district, they are obviously allowing for that particular use by right but they're eliminating some of the other uses that would otherwise be allowed under the existing zoning or even under the SC zoning, excuse me, but then, you know, in this case presumably it's requiring a public hearing one time instead of bringing everybody out multiple times if there were multiple, you know, let's say if they did come forward with multiple drive-through tenants and then it also allows for continuity within the development regulations instead of the neighborhood trying to have to address certain requirements each time a specific use permit request comes through. So it, you know, there's some trade-offs associated with it but, you know, ultimately if the commission feels that this is not the, you know, appropriate, the appropriate zoning for the property then you have the ability to, you know, be able to decide that accordingly but I would say give the applicant an opportunity to be able to address the questions that you're asking because they may be able to expand on it more than us. Yeah, okay. Yeah, and yeah, I think that's fair because to me the base zoning in there seems appropriate. There's lots that can be developed commercially within, you know, the way the PD is now. I mean, the only restriction on it is no multifamily and then it said commercial uses in the MN district so we're obviously wanting commercial uses out of the MN district and so this is what I'm churning in my mind is like is that really appropriate and again notwithstanding that it's Teasley Lane, I get it but it's again everything that is already in place is absolutely has to be considered and can't just be forgotten about because oh it's Teasley Lane and it's now this wonderfully, you know, wide high-speed road, you know, so anyway. Any other questions? Thank you for answering all of mine and Commissioner Pritz. Okay, we will go to 4B, Z220019. Hello Ron. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Commission. We have a request for an initial zoning of a property. Just for a quick background, this subject property that's outlined in yellow was recently annexed earlier this year, January 10th. It's approximately 18.6 acres. You can see that the area there is primarily agriculture or used as undeveloped. It generally fronts 380. Also to the west is Thomas Egan Road. The proposed use is just again a quick presentation is the property just south of the area that's outlined in yellow is also owned by the same property owner. That property was zoned L.I. recently as well. So what they're trying to do is zone all three tracts to L.I. again to develop a light industrial use. The future land use designation is a light industrial and again it is consistent to what is being proposed. Staff is recommending approval based on the criteria for approval in the development code and I'll stand for any questions. Any questions for Ron here? Ron, there seem to be a lot on the site encumbered with the ESA, so making it undevelopable on parts of it? I would say almost a third of the property is undevelopable just because of the ESA and the flip plane. However, they have shown a conceptual site plan that shows the development more along Thomas Egan. Three entrances will be off of Thomas Egan, but yes, you're absolutely correct. To the east portion of the property is inundated with ESA and flip plane, but they're able to design it to be able to still fit what they're proposing. Okay, so they're not looking for a feature infringement on that or some kind of alt? No not that. Again, based on their conceptual site plan, it does not appear that they'll be requesting any alternative ESA plan. Any questions for him? Commissioner Cole? Thank you Chair. Ron, looking at this and this is kind of reminds me of Ranch Estates 10 years ago. Okay. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you look at that? But we also have a mud district proposed to this right Jason to it yes it's gonna be residential. So here we are going again with these mixed uses. You know we already have a use there, it's residential, we got rural residential. All this creek bottom, this is what we see, all these trees we see, this is a large creek system right here. You know LI and R through R3 does not coexist, you see what I'm saying? I do, I do and what I can tell you is obviously Thomas Egan serves as a secondary arterial so it will be wide enough to the east you have like we discussed an ESA and a creek to help buffer a little bit but you're right there'll be some buffering screening and setback requirements as this development comes in and that will be to help alleviate that is some of the potential impacts that any proposed use would have. Thank you Ron. I mean it's just I guess it's a little late too little too late you know for that area the die is cast I suppose but hey thank you I appreciate it. I mean there's definitely concern for infringement upon this rural area which we've talked about multiple times about what this whole from 35 on down here is yeah what really has developed because we've let it become LI. Ron did you say that the the front track that is fronting University is owned by this? Correct, same owner. And it is LI, I saw that. Yes. Yeah. Commissioner Prudt did you have your hand up? Yeah thank you Chair. Just for my information Commissioner Cole you mentioned that there's a mud coming in to the west here. Is that immediately to the west of Thomas Egan Drive or is it further to the west? It's just immediate. Immediately? Yeah abutting Thomas Egan Drive, yes. Okay. I know that is a I don't know the status of that particular MUD but that is correct it's just immediately to the west of Thomas Egan. All right now thank you I mean just things to think through here I think my concern I mean one about the compatibility but I'm just thinking through to what University Drive 10 miles east of Denton looked like 15 years ago and you know we when I look on the mobility plan I don't see any east west roads north of 380 there so I'd hate to set up a situation where everybody has to get on to 380 in order to get to the grocery store and you know that kind of thing so okay thank you anybody else okay thanks Ron we'll talk more there oh you've got the next one too so I will let you continue. So presenting to you today a proposed code amendment related to outdoor storage and outdoor display this item has been discussed and reviewed with the development code review committee we met several times you can see the dates here specifically the purpose for this code amendment was really to review it against some recent decisions as well as an interpretation with the zoning board of adjustment but also to address the inconsistent language that we have as it relates to outdoor storage and then also propose some additional languages use specific standards that we felt would help clarify but also meet the intent of what the outdoor storage was for the particular uses now those uses are listed to the right you see the sections where their reference we are dealing with primarily automotive but we also have equipment sales outdoor storage self storage and accessory outdoor storage as well in addition to those uses we also propose some code amendments related to other sections of the code as it relates to outdoor storage screening fencing and then also definition amendments to help pull all this together. So rather than go through all of the code amendments line by line I've prepared a couple slides to summarize the languages that we're proposing the language that you see in front of you or on the screen here are languages that are consistent throughout the same uses or the uses that are listed to the right one way or another I'll point out that the second bullet there and the third bullet are different in the sense that they are requiring the first the second one is requiring more requirements for screening where it says with a minimum eight foot tall wall fence or fence of masonry elevated or and sealed wood or combination of such materials that is for zoning districts that we felt that needed a little bit more protection such as the MN, MDN and R7 and the like where the third bullet where it is a little bit less required means for screening basically just requires that it complies with subchapter or subsection 778 which is the walls fences and screening are primarily really more dedicated or more applied to the LI and HI zone district so just want to make sure you understood the differences between the two requirements for outdoor storage because again the differences here is because of the zoning district. And then last bullet there is related to outdoor display this pretty much similar to all of the uses that house has outdoor display as it relates to retail supplies and again those are applied to the applicable uses where it applies and the full code amendment is in your backup if you have any further questions or require more detail we can certainly go into that as well. In addition we've added additional use specific standards to the code amendments related to the following that you see here and I tried to summarize it as best as I can essentially where auto repair and servicing is proposed on a property it is constituted as an automotive repair major or minor so they would have to fall under that set of criteria so if they're proposing that as part of another use they also have to be permitted in that zoning district for that particular automotive repair major or minor. Noise levels we added that there not just to add more regulations but really just to provide that reference so that they know that there's also noise compliance that has to happen with their proposed development. Similar to auto repair and servicing if there are any sale or leasing of motor vehicles they constitute an automotive sale and leasing use so again if that use is not permitted per that zoning district that use would not be permitted on that particular property. Third rental of moving trucks and moving related equipment those constitute as equipment sales and retail use and that is a specific use I'm sorry a use that's listed in our development code and again it must be permitted in that zoning district either by right or SUP. With regards to self-service storage we did add a little bit more clarity and more information related to what can be used under that particular use so rental of storage units, rental storage space for RVs and boats and the sale of moving related items are allowed under self-storage however no other uses would be permitted under self-storage. And last we have uses outdoor storage and accessory outdoor storage we provided some languages there to determine or to delineate how where and what types of items can be stored outdoors again for those two uses. Carrying forward we also have languages that you that are part of other sections of the code I'll just point to the first one a real simple edit there is just to change outside to outdoor to be consistent with the other sections of the code. The second one here list basically cleans up what was currently what is currently in the code with the similar language that you saw earlier in the first slide so again just making sure that we have consistent language and then the third one below here is really to add a director's ability to grant an alternative height currently the maximum height under the table 7.8 or dot H is 8 feet but the development code review committee felt that if there is an opportunity to even raise that past 8 feet there should be the ability for the director to make that decision as long as that there is no endangerment of the public safety or adversely impacting the surrounding property so that is added again to allow for that alternative. And then my last slide here is really just to list all of the definitions that we are amending as part of this code amendment I won't go through all of them but again I wanted to list them here and again per the backup you have in front of you or with you you can see where those changes or what those changes are for all these zone or for all these definitions. With that I'll stand for any questions. Thank you Ron. Any questions? Yeah great presentation right there and great backup and I know it was hard and intense work with the DCRC so yes I appreciate that yeah okay thanks Ron. I think that was our last item on the agenda so I will go ahead and close our work session at 6 10 p.m. and we will reconvene in council chambers at 6 30. Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday February 15th 2023 with a quorum present I will call us to order at 6 37 p.m. Thank you for your patience and us starting a little bit late today. 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. Thank you. Next item our agenda is the consideration of approval for our meeting minutes from January 25th. Commissioner Anderson we've got a first and a second for approval any discussion okay let's go ahead and vote please. That motion carries 6 0 that will take us to our items for individual consideration first up is 3 a P.E. 23 0001 invite Sean for presentation presentation here all right. Good evening chair and members of the planning and zoning commission my name is Sean Jacobson associate planner I'm here to present P.E. 23 - 001 which is a plat extension request for the 100 north loop 288 edition. This is a request for an extension of a preliminary plat that was approved on April 21st 2021 the property is at the intersection of loop 288 and McKinney it's approximately 19.49 acres since the time that the preliminary plat was approved the project has continued to move forward there is an approved set of civil engineering plans another set of civil engineering plans on review as well as a tech stop permit that has been approved by the city and is under review by tech stock and a zoning compliance plan. The project is a complex project it involves coordination with a number of multiple end users shared drainage multiple rights of way there's been a lot to work through and the applicant has been consistently working on getting through those issues but they are requesting the additional time in order to have an opportunity to do that and they do believe that will enable them to reach the point of final plat at least for the first lot. Staff has considered this request based on our approval for criteria and we do recommend approval of the requested one year extension. That is my presentation I'm happy to stand for any questions. Thank you Sean. Any questions for Sean? I do not see any thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval of the one year extension. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval of the one year plat preliminary plat extension. Any discussion? Okay let's go ahead and vote please. That motion carries 6-0 that will take us to 3B FR230001. I'll invite Ashley up for presentation. Good evening. Ashley Eckstead assistant planner City of Denton. This is a final replat for the Mission Street offices. This is an approximately 4.6 acre site on the corner of Fort Worth Drive in East Mission Street. At this time staff is recommending denial but we have no objection to the requested extension till March 15, 2023. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks Ashley. Any questions on this? Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Pruitt. I move to approve the applicant requested extension till March 15. Commissioner Villarreal. Second. We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of March 15, 2023. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none let's go ahead and vote please. That motion item carries 6-0. That will take us to 3C FP230003. Hello again Ashley. This is an extension request for a final plat of the Watson edition. This is an approximately 15.9 acre site to establish 12 residential lots in the ETJ. Staff does currently recommend denial as they have not met the criteria for approval but we have no objection to the requested extension till March 15, 2023. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks Ashley. Any questions? I do not see any. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval of the extension to a date certain of March 15, 2023. Commissioner Anderson. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval of the extension request to a date certain of March 15, 2023. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote please. That motion carries 6-0. That will take us to 3D PP230001. Sean will make a presentation on this item. Good evening. So this is a request for a preliminary plat of the Riney Road Elementary edition. At this time staff is recommending now because it does not yet meet our criteria for approval but staff has no objection to the request for an extension to a date certain of March 15. Thank you. I do not see any questions for you. Appreciate that Sean. Commissioner Anderson. Make a motion to approve the extension to a date certain of March 15. Commissioner Cole. Second. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of March 15, 2023. Any discussion? Seeing none let's vote on the board please. That motion carries 6-0. Moves us to item 3E which has been withdrawn by the applicant so we will not be taking any action on 3E. That will move us to 3F ZCP 220039. I will invite Mia up for presentation. Good evening Chair, members of the Commission. Mia Hines, Associate Planner. This item is a zoning compliance plan located within the Razor Ranch South campus overlay district. The request is approval of their site plan. Usually this body does not see zoning compliance plans but because it is in Razor Ranch South campus that is why it is appearing before you this evening. The site itself is approximately 2.8 acres located just at the northwest corner of Panhandle Street and Heritage Trail. As for zoning for this site it is located within the RCCD based zoning within Razor Ranch which is subject to the 2002 Denton development code as well as the Razor Ranch overlay development standards. The permitted or the requested use hotel is permitted in the sub area by right. So with this site plan we take a look at Z20-0012C specifically exhibit C2 and D2 for the architectural and landscape requirements for this site respectively and we took a look at the site plan, landscape plan and foresighted building elevations as a part of the zoning compliance plan package. With that we weighted against the criteria for approval found under the 2002 Denton development code specifically we wanted to make sure that the site substantially complied with the concept schematic plan approved by City Council which I'll get to these items in a second here. The site plan provided for compatible arrangements of building and land uses. The site plan provided for adequate and safe vehicular traffic and vehicular traffic and circulation and the plan fully complies with all other sections of the overlay district. So here and included in your packet is the site plan for this site. It's a four story hotel approximately almost seventy five thousand square feet total. They are proposing the proper number of parking spaces associated with that use and a driveway access point will be taken off of one off of I'm sorry off of the private drive that's there to the west that's a typo in my presentation my apologies and then one off of heritage trail there to the east. Cross access is required for this development they have not provided it for this site on to the next but that private drive being off of the public right of way does serve to improve the vehicular circulation and so we are willing to waive that or approve this sort of alternative development plan for this site. With that though we are and you'll notice in my recommendation a little later requesting some additional pedestrian circulation elements that would not normally be required for a site of this caliber. As for the landscaping they are meeting the minimums as you can see there in the chart with the overall site providing an overall site landscaping coverage area of 28 percent and an overall tree canopy coverage of 40 percent. Here and again and included in your packet are the elevations for the site again we just made sure that as far as building articulation placement they were meeting the standards of the Razor Ranch Overlay District. And so with that staff is recommending approval of the proposed zoning compliance plan subject to the condition that a pedestrian path be added to the east side of the building or from the east side of the building along through the parking lot on to the existing sidewalk on heritage trail as well all internal parking area pedestrian walkways shall be a minimum of five feet in width and be distinguishable from areas used by vehicles. And so that's different materials different color clearly identifying that this is a pedestrian path and cautioning vehicles in that area to slow down and let pedestrians cross. So at this time I will take any questions or comments that you have. Great. Thank you ma'am. Commissioner Cole. Thank you Chair. Mia I know it says O'Reilly Hotel Partners but what chain is this? It's Home 2 by Hilton is the applicant or the business name. Oh okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mia? Mia I asked this at work session but if I'm going to ask it again in this public meeting so that you can relay the answer again but we did receive a citizen comment on this regarding building materials that are mentioned in the razor range overlay. So would you please explain here the same as you did at work session. So absolutely. So under there are some minimum building percentage materials for brick masonry things like that under the razor range overlay district. However per recently adopted within the past four or five years state law the cities can no longer enforce certain percentages of building materials as long as it's a permissible material under the code we have to allow that building material to be used. Okay and then you mentioned something that there is an architectural committee that's just a private committee within razor ranch that what reviews designs as well. Yeah they're supposed to have a review architectural review over certain developments within razor. Okay. Again that is that's a private thing. Right. That we don't have anything to do with. Okay awesome. Thank you I appreciate that. Commissioner Pruitt. Yeah I'll move approval with staff recommended conditions. Awesome. Commissioner Anderson. Second. Okay we've got a first and a second for approval with recommended staff conditions. Any discussion? Okay let's go ahead and vote please. That motion will carry 6-0. That will take us to 3G ZCP 220062 and I'll invite Mia up once again for presentation of this item. Okay good evening again members of the commission. Mia Hines associate planner. So this is a consideration of a zoning compliance plan similar to the last item but for a multifamily residential development located near the northwest corner of Panhandle Street and Bonnie Brace Street. The site is just over three acres at 3.13 acres and I did want to mention up top that it is near a gas well pad site there to the southeast of this property. With gas well drilling and production sites we do require a minimum reverse setback of 500 feet in our DDC but with that if a site is encumbered by more than 50 percent of the gas well setback there are some built-in relief measures that the director can grant per the DDC as long as certain site considerations are taken into account. One being the applicant is allowed to increase the overall height of buildings. This particular site the maximum height is 100 feet and so that would not help them in this case and then they're also allowed to reduce the minimum number of parking that is required for the specific use in this case the developer has taken that into account and still needed that that reduced setback and so with that the the site plan that you'll see is being proposed with the the administrative approval of that that reduced setback from 500 feet to 375. As far as the zoning for this site it is located within the NRMU base zoning of the Razor Ranch overlay district it is part of the Razor Ranch south mixed use sub area and the permitted proposed and permitted use for this site is multi-family residential. For this particular site we're looking at ordinance Z18-0026C specifically exhibit C to A for both the architectural and landscape requirements for this site and those are specific to multi-family developments located east of heritage trail so you may be fairly familiar there's an existing multi-family there to the northwest but that's this is specific to that area and this use. So with that we did weigh the zoning compliance plan package up against the DDC requirements under the former 2002 development code to make sure that the site substantially complied with those approval criteria. Here's and including your packet is the site plan as you can see sort of in the red dotted line that's the the existing 500 foot to minimum reverse gas well setback and it has been reduced to that green line there at 375 feet. The applicant is proposing a three-story building with approximately I'm sorry with 105 multi-family units appropriate parking there's a leasing office active green area as a courtyard and they're taking their driveway off of panhandle street. So with that again here and including your packet is the landscape plan they are exceeding the minimums with a overall landscape area of 22 percent as well as an overall tree canopy coverage of 30 percent. Here and including your packet are the elevations I also included a a cross section to show you give you a bit of an idea of what you would see on panhandle street as you can see the the street is significantly it's a bit lower than the grade on the site and then the applicant is proposing a landscape berm to sort of buffer that that parking area and also this is a part of that that additional consideration that they're giving given that the site is encumbered by 50 percent more than 50 percent minimum reverse gas will set back. So with that stuff is recommending approval as it meets all of the criteria for approval of the Art Razor Rancho Relay District and I will stand for any questions that you have at this time. Excellent Mia thank you any questions for Mia? I do not see any great presentation and great backup material thank you. Chair can entertain a motion or discussion at this time. Commissioner McDade? I recommend approval. Okay Commissioner Anderson? I second. Okay we've got a first and a second for approval any discussion? Okay seeing none let's go ahead and vote on the board please. That motion carries 6-0 that will move us to our public hearings for this evening first one being 4A PD 220010. I'll invite Mia back up to the podium for presentation and I will open the public hearing. Okay evening again Mia Hines associate planner this site is a request to rezone from a an existing plan development with a mixed use neighborhood based zoning district to a new overlay plan development with a suburban corridor based zoning district the existing PDMN transition from a PDNRMU to the of the former 2002 didn't development code and so currently the site is subject to that code as well as the uses and restrictions permitted within that PD. Under the I'm sorry the site itself is almost 13 acres at 12.77 located at the northwest or near the northwest corner of Teasley Lane and Ryan Road. Under the I'm sorry under the new the proposed PD permitted uses would be the certain commercial uses as sort of defined and outlined in the DDC and the PD regulations that are a part of your backup it would also require compliance with the current didn't development code as opposed to the former outdated code and it would also require additional context sensitive site design considerations for the areas abutting and adjacent to the existing residential uses to the to the west. So if you recall recently we adopted a code amendment that separated or allowed for applicants to apply for an overlay PD or a standard PD. The standard PD is the one with the PD regulations PD development standards I'm sorry PD development plan and PD phasing whereas the overlay PD is intended to address certain concerns of the neighboring property owners as well as allow for developments that are more compatible with surrounding neighborhoods or less intensive uses. So the applicant in this case is applying for that overlay PD to allow for those additional restrictions add some additional again site context sensitivity design elements and ultimately allow for certain commercial uses to be allowed are permitted on this site without or with taking into consideration the existing uses as well as the existing adjacent thoroughfares. So we did review this request up against the current criteria for approval in sub chapter two throughout my presentation I'll talk about how the new PD would be subject to the development of the current standards some of the benefits that that would come out of this plan development. I'll also discuss the the sort of growth and changes that have happened in this area to support the type of commercial that would be permitted on this site. I'll also discuss some of the the proposed PD buffers that help to minimize the adverse impacts and then also talk about how the the the proposed plan plays into the community mixed use future land use designation for this site. So starting with that the didn't 2040 plan has this site designated for community mixed use which is intended to promote a mix of uses where commercial is predominant. It also is intended to encourage a wide array of economically viable uses as well as present opportunities for higher density without impacting nearby single family neighborhoods and the proposed PD SC is consistent with that future land use designation. As far as impacts to surrounding properties this table shows you some of the permitted uses that would be identified or allowed under the current zoning. If this were to transition to a base SC zoning district without the overlay PD those uses it would be appropriate for given the current future land use map designation. However there would be there are certain uses that are permitted under the SC zoning district that might not necessarily be appropriate for this site hence the overlay PD for with the SC base. Additionally there are some there would be a minimum 30 foot wide setback with a minimum 30 points from the current DDC table 7 point G so there's some flexibility in the design of the buffer whereas there is not any built into the 2002 code and there's a minimum 15 foot wide buffer that would be required between the commercial site and the adjacent residential as well. So this increases that overall buffer with sort of incentivizing a natural drainage channel that's in that area or the preservation of that natural drainage channel and ultimately allowing for that buffer area to be designed per our current standards. So I just wanted to show you this map the one on your left is from 2017 the current what's out there today or the current most up-to-date aerial is on your right. As you can see there's been several single-family residential developments that have taken place over the past six years including a multi-family residential development just to the west of the subject property the build out of the single-family division or subdivision to the west of the subject property as well as an update to Teasley Lane which at one point back in 2017 was a two lane divided when it has been updated to a six lane and is classified as a primary arterial today and so with those changes the changes to the density the rooftops in the area as well as the update to the the road suburban corridor is a is an appropriate zoning district within the site and then of course those added overlay and since uses or added overlay restrictions are meant to be more appropriate for these contexts as well as the adjacent single-family. So we did perform a public outreach as per our code and per state law I did receive I received two responses in opposition of the request one of them has since been rescinded and they had talked to the applicant about about this project that has made a support of that project that came in after this report was made and stuff like that so one of them has been rescinded and then one response has been received in favor since the sending out of the notice and and staff reports to you all. So with that staff is recommending approval of the of the request as it complies with the appropriate criteria of the development code and I will stand for any questions you have at this time. Thank you ma'am. I've got a question there was a neighborhood meeting correct do you know any details on that? Yes so in that they gave the general presentation basically what I just discussed with you all as far as citizen feedback there wasn't much there was general support for the people who attended I think there was two neighborhood meetings there was one during the day and I believe one person virtually attended that meeting and then there was another meeting where two I believe two residents attended that meeting and again there was just general overall support no major concerns were were noted. Okay great questions at this time for Mia. Mia is the applicant here do they have a presentation at all? Yes hello Greg. Well I will go ahead and invite the applicant up here. Good evening. Thank you for your service as always my name is Greg Johnson address is 3190 Teasley Denton Texas 76205 just up the road from this parcel. I am representing the owner the seller he is in Florida so I'm going to be here speaking on his behalf. I have a brief presentation and then I'll certainly stand for questions so the current use as you may know is a concrete batch plant that's been there way longer than it should have been for the widening of Teasley. So why a PD overlay? Well we are PD overlay number one the first ever and that's something that the council passed late last year with the idea being when you have a PD and you want to make some modifications to it an overlay versus a whole new PD and so we're we're learning along with the staff on this new process and I'm going to say they've been really really good to work with on this. So a couple things about this this is a legacy PD meaning it was not a PD originally it was straight zoned and as changes got made when the when the citywide rezoning happened some of these properties that were zoned with conditions became PDs. It's old it falls under the 2002 DDC it's an opportunity to clean up the PD and also dress up the secondary entrance to the neighborhood. The single-family neighborhood to the west the main entrance is on Ryan Hunters Creek Road was put in by Mr. Button the guy that owns this land he owned the big mobile home park that used to be there many years ago and has just slowly sold off the parcels as it made sense the single-family in the back the multi-family that buffers it and now it's time to start selling the commercial lots on the front. We've worked very closely with staff on the I want to be clear staff's recommendation was the modification to the SC zoning and I think in a minute you'll see why that made sense but I think that what this overlay will do is eliminate the potential for any future eyesores or uses that probably don't make sense there and provide similar services to the neighborhoods as what you see in other corners up and down Teasley. We worked closely together with staff and they were wonderful and we went through the SC zoning and basically carved out everything that didn't make sense here and so these are small one-acre lots one to two acre lots and uses that make sense to serve neighborhoods just like you see up and down Teasley today being being a suburban corridor that it is. I'm not going to read all those to you but staff actually had some suggestions we had some suggestions and we worked together to come up with this list and that's all part of the PD overlay. So this corner this corner was zoned in our MU forever ago when it was still a mobile home park and as the corridor has grown as many of you know the the uses that make sense on corners like this have shown up so if you look at similar corners up and down Teasley you'll see directly across the street from at Walmart the retail across the street from Walmart to be clear that on the zoning map it was showing up incorrectly so I created that square to show at the southeast corner of Teasley Robinson that's a that's a PD but very similar uses to this Sprout Center, Walgreens, McDonald's, etc. So just trying to illustrate that this corner is really exactly like the rest of these in terms of the corridor with with the single family behind it. This one's pretty unique though and I'll show you why that's just an aerial of the of those same similar corners to see what the area looks like. So this this area is really unique in that there's a creek that runs all the way through the property here and so you'll see a minute in the minute on the on the approved permanent plat there's a big drainage easement here that runs all the way through the property north to south so you can see sort of that natural separation that happens between the residential and the commercial. So you don't often have something like this when you're developing a commercial site up this close to a major road it just really worked out great that way and frankly years ago when the single family was approved the city said hey we'd really like to see a grocery store here which is what we set out to do probably 10 years ago and we recruited every grocery store we could find they all had their spot with the exception of walmart and sprouts they looked at this site the problem is you've got a creek running down the middle of it so you'd have to capture all that under your parking lot it just doesn't make sense which is why we then pivoted to multifamily is a great buffer between commercial and single family but we still have this big green space here so it provides roughly 55 feet of separate of natural separation that can't ever be touched because it's a drainage easement so this is the preliminary plat that's already approved and as you'll see the apartments are already back here but you can see this big drainage easement that rolls down the middle of it here and so the perspective use types we have a coffee shop with a drive-through here we have a frozen custard i said frozen custard that we all might be able to figure out who it is the the concrete batch plant is still here and so we've not entertained any contracts on these lots yet because we can't really predict exactly when they'll be gone we don't want to encumber those these north lots up here are not encumbered by that at this time and so you know what you'll see is the depth of these lots is kind of your typical small retail neighborhood service depth we're showing them all pretty much as one acre so small buildings again with quite a bit of separation between them we did have two neighborhood meetings i felt they were very productive and positive the comments from the neighbors were actually a lot more positive than the typical neighborhood meeting so i was pleased that last one i don't know like how that got in there none of them said that but on serious note the like it was a very collaborative meeting one of the guys both of the people that attended neighborhood meetings back up to the north lots so they just have the green space separating them from the commercial they don't have the multifamily so they were this house and this house and so one of the things they said was hey i know that's a big green space but during the winter those leaves all fall we can hear the traffic from teesley do you think these users when they come in would be willing to build a solid fence on their side of the drainage easement to block that noise we thought it was a great idea it doesn't hurt the commercial developer it helps the neighbors and so we just agreed with me hey just put that in obviously when they come in they're going to have to go through the whole process site plan approval etc but that's a condition that we we agreed we just never thought of that but we agreed and put it in so very collaborative neighborhood meetings the teesley widening is finally finished amen they're pouring sidewalks now so they should all be gone from out of there but six lanes abided my office is right up the street from this and i can tell you it's completely different now i mean the traffic's flowing great so now it's time to put this corner corner to proper use the use types are consistent with the future land use plan there's still demand for additional services up and down here that's who wants to be here similar to what you see at the same kind of corners up and down teesley and so that's that's really all i have to share other than i just clarification so three respondents on in favor or not two were in favor one was not in favor the one that's not in favor lives across the street on the other side of teesley and he's not in favor as he wrote on his thing because he just doesn't like greg johnson so that happens um but you know it made me feel good that the two people who back up to it the closest listened really were appreciative of the fact that we've eliminated all these other uses gave some input and they're both and they're both in favor so we appreciate that so i'll stand for any questions thank you mr johnson uh questions at this time okay i have a couple um so i asked him at work session so just a couple things with like what you said with your beginning of your presentation so i mean we already have a pd in place here right so the background is it was approved nr6 with overlay conditions back in the day 2014 because that's what that's what we did then with restrictions right on a zoning case so that's what was in place so with the new code it just transitioned since there were no more zoning with overlay it's now pd whatever base zoning and the pd means that that's where all those overlay conditions are so we have in place right now pdmn correct so that's what's currently that's what we're looking at so what i want to know is and there's plenty of commercial uses in mn so i'm trying to understand exactly the request what are you trying to get there that is not allowed as it's done right now what you're trying to do yeah so you know when you have like one acre commercial lots along a frontage road like teasley you don't really know who your users are ultimately going to be sure right you're going to figure out about based on who wants to be there and so mn for an example restaurant with drive-through can go there they have to get an sup for the drive-through right well based on who we know wants to be there because that's the ones who are calling and frankly what you see on similar corners all up and down teasley sc is what makes sense that's why all those are zoned sc well we could allow really how this all started was the frozen custard people had a pre-app and they called me and they said hey we're going to need more time on our contract because we have to go get an sup frankly i didn't remember it's been so long ago since the apartments went in and in the in the some of the language as per staff it could use some cleaning up there's some gray so as i looked at it i said well so for we know for sure there's two people that want to drive through so that's a neighborhood meeting or two public notices staff time public hearing city council etc and the staff would really like to see this updated because it's 2002 code and there's some gray in the writing of the pd and so staff's recommendation was hey we have this new pd overlay thing that council just voted in for just this type of purpose so in my mind rather than have two or three public hearings on sup's for drive-throughs in mn because then mn has its own set of issues right building has to be on the front you can't have a building on the front if you have if you have to circulate the building so if you're going to circulate a building on an individual lot the building can't be on the front because you can't circulate it so it brings up all these other issues right so my idea was why don't we just fix this one time instead of having multiple sup's and then have to deal with you'd have a variance on every one because you can't circulate a building if it has to be on the frontage so let's just fix it and staff liked it because it allowed them to fix some of the old issues and bring it up to the new code versus building under the 2002 lastly it gave us the opportunity the city to do some special things on that hunters creek road which is really a secondary entrance for the neighborhood but like they have to do pattern concrete they can't just do regular concrete on the sidewalks and upgraded landscaping and the signs can only be eight feet so it gave the staff the opportunity because it's a pd overlay to get some things that really make that entrance look better okay and i understand that so you know but one thing that you know i take into consideration especially here is all the density of housing that is there at that is there and already in place and that we have already again there is a pd in place right now and the reason we have specific use permits are to look through the site plan and make sure that it fits and we've got protections in place per that use and that's going to go away and i believe that's the end game is for that to go away by making this pdsc instead of pdmn because you can still get a drive-through in there it's just going to it's just going to be a little more difficult yeah sure i mean the the or the question is do you want to look at every one of these lots as an individual project or do you want to look at the whole thing as a project and have the opportunity to get some of the things that you want right and i would say if if what you saw up and down teesley on all the corners was mn then i would say this is really an unfair request but the fact is all the similar corners to it are straight sc without limitations and so it seems to me like that those uses are the logical uses for the corner you know for the site because that's what's already up and down the road and yes you certainly could leave mn in place and and have them build under the 2002 ddc and have each one who wanted to drive through come in but ultimately what you would end up doing is every one of those sites would be a pd because you'd have to modify i mean mn zoning has a lot of issues right and so it makes sense if you're in a green field and you know it's all going to be office and you know there's going to be cross-excess across them all and nobody has to circulate all those things but i think what you'd end up with on every one of these sites is like its own little mini pd that would be an sup within the pd that's what it would be well yeah the sdp but then you have to do all kinds of design changes i would think if you want to circulate the building perhaps i mean that's yeah that's not what i do but i mean as far as yeah engineers who could so yes but to answer your question the purpose is it's it's a legacy pd it wasn't really a pd per the way they they get done no i mean it wasn't a pd to begin with it was a it was a zoning with overlay conditions right so it was never it was a pd as we knew pd back then um okay so that answered most of my questions um thank you and i i guess just to address what you had said about up and down teasley being sc i understand what you're saying and i understand what teasley is now i live right over there and i'm on that road often um this particular intersection however with all of its housing with its elementary school it it's a little it just it works a little bit differently than some of the other places up and down teasley um so i'll just say that for now we've got another question for you commissioner pruett thank you chair um have you had any discussions in the meetings or external to them with uh school officials or the the school district about the school across the street and what the impact this would be to that um no i mean because obviously the all of the alcohol provisions would be in place you know the the setbacks for that and so we haven't we haven't really had a need to do that um the hunters creek road just so you know when the apartments went in they did the traffic study to see if a signal would warrant it was close to warranting for a signal and what what text dot said was probably once these commercial lots develop maybe even one of them the signal will warrant so what i would expect would happen is as soon as one or two of these things develop the signal is going to warrant you know they'll have to make a contribution and then you'll have a signal hunters creek but in terms of the impact of the school um you know the the benefit to the kids there obviously is if they live in this neighborhood there's no sidewalk on ryan and there's a sidewalk now on hunters creek but there's no sidewalk across the front so the idea here would be as these lots develop you'd have a sidewalk that would run and so the kids could technically cross teesley take the sidewalk down teesley to the sidewalk on hunters creek and be able to walk safely back into the neighborhood if that's what you meant by a school district safety of the kids it's it's all encompassing so thank you that that helps um i guess um since you mentioned you know the possibility of hunters creek and that sort of thing um would this development i mean i think the the de facto standard would be everybody individually applies to tex dot for right of way access permit onto teesley and and that sort of thing right would this development still work if the access instead were taken off of hunters creek through a light that's actually how it's designed so all of the access will flow um you'll you'll have you see how you might be able to see how the engineers drawn it in so there's cross access across all the lots and then access to teesley so all these lots would have to flow internally out to teesley here or out to ryan here which would be a ride out only so these would all have connectivity internally but then out onto hunters creek and then out of the line so there wouldn't be any curb cuts between those lots and teesley directly i don't think any are shown i mean i think there might there's certainly not room up here on the north side you know the distance requirement between hunters creek and teesley i don't know there's probably a distance but it would be a right in right out only here for sure okay but you'd have to have it like you know split a lot in between two users right so if there was going to be one there probably would only be one like down here somewhere in the middle right in right out only because the median break is up here okay thank you any other questions at this time for mr johnson tina if i could add clarification so i've asked hayley to come down because she understands the zoning history a little bit better than i do and i went back and look at the report so i know we've had a fair amount of discussion about pdmn and the use is allowed for within the mn district but it actually the way this plan development district is structured it reverts back from uses standpoint to the nrmu and from what i understand nrmu did require a specific use permit for drive-through uses at that given time the other thing is um just wanted to um put a finer point on what mr johnson had mentioned so you know if if they were to come in with a specific use permit on each of these sites and were seeking to modify the the development standards to try and make the site work that would put them in a plan development district situation because they would not be able to vary any of the standards to the specific use permit process so hence why we went and we took some of those factors into consideration is trying to determine what might be the better path forward for this site to try and be able to address some continuity in the design standards and looking at more from a holistic approach compared to a piecemeal site-by-site approach so hence why our recommendation was for the plan development district with the sc base zoning and then working with the standards as provided for in in the overlay pd okay thanks tina i was just looking up um in some of the backup yeah so i'm not sure where nrmu came from um i guess it's just not here in the history oh maybe it is it's correct and and that's why i hate feeling understands it much better than i do well i think it's i think it's just we're missing something in this chart here that doesn't make sense in our backup because yeah there's a step that's that's missed um in that so thank you for that explanation um any other questions right now for mr johnson we may invite you back up though you're sticking around right okay um i do have a couple of cards wishing to speak on this item i'm going to invite uh roger anderson good evening if you'll give us your name and address your time will begin i'm roger anderson 2801 san philippe drive um i live in the summit oaks um a subdivision which has an entrance um it's called heights boulevard which is directly um in line with hutters creek um i'm in favor of the um proposal here that greg johnson has put forward um i'm especially pleased that they have excluded things like uh smoke shops and tattoo parlors um i hope the smoke shop is also excluding a vape shop we have plenty of those elsewhere um the reason i came today is that i in paragraph 11 of the staff analysis they refer to the traffic controls and greg also mentioned that it was close to being required for the area based on the traffic studies and i very much encourage that we do get traffic control lights at that intersection it's fairly dangerous to make a left turn out of heights because of the site visibility people sitting in cars trying to pull out you have to pull out all the way onto the walk path that's the marking for the sidewalk across heights to be able to see both left and right and people are not driving the speed limit which i don't think has too many postings up yet and anybody coming south on teasley if they have their lights on we get about five seconds before they hit the cross street and then that's the amount of time we have to pull out so anyway that's all i came for was to address that and i hope that staff the planning commissioners and the city council will help push the state to approve traffic controls there thank you thank you mr anderson for coming out to speak um i've got another card here um michael doranski good evening if you'll state your name and address your time will begin you bet thanks michael doranski i had the property at 39 24 teesley lane my experiences as mr johnson says we don't tend to get along or see eye to eye with some things and it's not just because i don't care for the man as to why i'm in opposition to this but i have had experiences with him and my most recent not most recent but one of my first dealings with him was how we got the buckies and denton in my property butted up right next to the back of buckies neighborhood meetings were held mr hawkins came by talked to all of his neighbors said hey don't come to the meetings tonight because i'm just going to get this postponed and it did not get postponed and that was approved and as i said was my first experience i had a more recent experience with him and his company and the sale of one of my properties off of there and i was really not happy with the experience off of there i mean i paid this company over six figures even to represent me in that process i he didn't even no one even showed up to closing didn't get a thank you card none of those type of pieces and is that personal yeah it probably is personal but it is my dealings of actual having a relationship of dealing with him and his company and part of this piece of this property is that as you said part of it dumps out on the ryan road which is a two-lane road that is going to increase the traffic dramatically off of there it already is kind of a confusing piece already with the wal-mart in the neighborhood piece where all of a sudden it branches out into like five different lanes from a two-lane road off of there there is an elementary school as everyone has kind of mentioned off of there i do not know how the school feels about it but i do know that that is not initially the most safest intersection if i had a kid walking home from that school the speed limit is quite high i do not know if there's been i haven't seen the proposals for any type of deceleration lanes to try to make sure that a child isn't hit or anything along those lines even though it's one got the one interest i haven't seen or didn't see the proposal off of there part of these protections that are put in place by having this zoning yes i understand this market type pieces to it but i think the citizens they are having the ability to review each proposal off of there to see if it meets what they actually expect to go in there is a benefit to those people who have those houses that are budding up right next to it not to have to deal with the light pollution or the smog from ireland cars or just the fact of just noise and whatnot from having to hear either outdoor patios or whatever that could get possibly go in there so having that is only gives them the protection to kind of review each individual piece of property that would go in there you know mr johnson has my phone he didn't call me so it's not like i don't know we could have worked this pieces out but it's not like he doesn't really i'm not a stranger to him maybe it's the best way to put that and whatever concerns i had that was not reached out to me off of these pieces i have no idea if he understood even my frustration to begin with on these other pieces but that's why i'm here tonight to express my frustration off of here and taking an elementary school like that that does have kids coming and going neighborhoods backing up to it that buckies it was back then mr hawkins came by and basically said hey a car dealership can go here a six-story apartment complex in here we can store nuclear radiation which i know is funny but my point is is that hey you you guys should accept this because these are your other possibilities out there and i understand this is not in the same realm this is not the same type of piece but i do think that having the protections put in place for these citizens to review each individual piece of proposal that comes out there it is important to them it's important to me too knowing that i have a piece of property on ryan that basically this is also an exit way for these people to exit off of that property and it's already extremely confusing when you come out and it branches out from two to five lanes real quick thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns and and um yeah i mean i do concur with the you know the the traffic mess around there um that's definitely not mr johnson's responsibility um but um certainly i know us as a city has that on the radar to continue to see what we can do with text dot um because yeah a light is desperately needed um somewhere i mean probably at that intersection of heights and and um hunters creek um i don't have any other cards here in front of me is there anyone else here wishing to speak on this item okay seeing none i will go ahead and close the public hearing and um open the floor for discussion commissioner pruett thank you chair i have two short questions for staff me i think you may be able to handle this um number one um in the applicant's uh presentation he mentioned that the uh existing concrete batch plant uh one thing that the zoning for the purpose of of this type of development would do would be to uh to make sure that another concrete batch plant couldn't go there am i correct in understanding that if development were made to increase the size of that batch plant or something then that wouldn't be allowed under the current zoning under the current use um in other words can you give me a picture of what the risk is of that batch plant getting worse with our current zoning restrictions so i know i know that batch plants currently are permitted with you specific standards i know that with the proposed pd they would be um prohibited so i can't imagine that the the expansion of the existing use would take place under the the current or under the proposed pd right i guess i'm more interested to hear but with the current zoning right um with the the pd and then from the overlay um i'm just trying to understand what our exposure is from a risk perspective i'm not sure of the entire history on the current batch plant but my understanding is it is there because it is text dot and as a state facility they were able to put their batch plant where they needed to in proximity to their projects i don't believe it's a matter of either current or proposed zoning actually permitting that used to be there it's state preemption essentially okay thank you very much and then uh number two um would staff um would it would it be within the bounds of these overlay pds that we're trying to understand here since this is the first one um to put a condition such that uh direct access to Teasley lane on the eastern side of these parcels uh is either not allowed or required to be closed at such point when a signal would be added to uh help me out on the road sorry uh hickory hickory lane or whatever uh that's the wrong name i'm sorry the east west road that divides the two parcels i'm going to bring up our transportation planner to speak to that a little bit well and while Karina is walking up so in terms of you know could a condition be added so because this is an overlay pd if the commission were interested in restricting access to Teasley lane for example no access drive approaches shall be provided to Teasley lane for you know the southern parcel the northern parcel or both however you want to address it you know you could recommend that that condition be included within the planned development district you may want to ask the the applicant whether or not they'd be supportive of that condition or not but that is something that could be be added the other thing and Karina may be speaking to this as well is that you know when the commercial development comes in we evaluate the the trip generation associated with it and based upon and i went back and double checked in our staff report that we did report that we would anticipate a traffic impact analysis will be required for the development of the property but Karina i didn't know if you had anything else on that yes so Karina Maldonado transportation planner um so to address the first question about access off of Teasley so our development code currently restricts direct access to an arterial which would be Teasley lane if they can take access from a lower classified roadway which is hunters creek so we would already be restricting driveways off of Teasley and request that they take their primary access off of hunters creek and then have a secondary point of access with cross access to allow possibly on ryan which would be a lower classification arterial of a secondary in relation to that or in addition to that there's also requirements for spacing from an intersection and based on where their current intersection is approaching the intersection they would have to be 150 feet on the north side and on the south side they have to be 200 feet and then again within our on arterials was already spacing requirements so they're already restricted in a sense from having anything on this particular parcel and it would have been evaluated at the time that it was preliminary plotted and since that's already approved it seems that they at that time had met the requirements so there's already existing code requirements and criteria minor requirements that would restrict that i think it would be up to the to the commission to decide if you want to solidify that further and just absolutely restrict it but staff would already be evaluating that and as a part of the normal development review process and then the second point which tina brought up was the trip generation so when this request came in we did look at the trip generation that would be coming from a commercial portion only so i know the applicant did mention that there was a tia done in the past that was specific to the residential portion so yes that that development did not trigger signalization at the intersection or turn lanes but it did indicate that a turn lane would be required for the commercial portion so based on the trip generation provided it's likely that they're going to need a turn lane at the intersection into hunters creek so that traffic flow would kind of be taken outside of the main through lanes and then they would have a one to serve their specific development but we would be evaluating with the tia in a tia scoping meeting after this phase of the development okay yeah thank you i i understand i'm opening up a can of worms so sorry if i if i'm being not specific enough i guess what concerns me is um in many ways it it is what it is right now but looking back in history we can see a typical archetype of this development pattern and that is that subdivisions come in there's not a lot of land left the school district says well i need that parcel because otherwise i'm going to have to bust these kids three miles they buy that parcel it's facing backyards so nobody can walk there from the neighborhoods it abuts it's across the street from a two or three lane road no big deal tech stock comes in and makes it a six lane highway now what are you going to do right um and the prospect of having two to six high trip generation drive-through restaurants i kind of understand that in that area that may be what's in demand but i'm also thinking about the mom who's 15 minutes late to her appointment because her kid was crying and she's trying to make the u-turn really quick to get her coffee and there's not as much care in that type of a driving environment as i see it right um and so i'm trying to figure out if there's a way um to to to to save what little left there is of safety to be able to cross that road in the future if if kids do want to try it um while allowing a development type that may be demanded in the area so that's kind of what i'm thinking so um yeah thank you i guess if i could ask the applicant just directly um i know i kind of hinted at it but um if if the commission agreed i can't speak for anybody else um that a restriction i just looked it up and it's about a thousand feet from hunters creek down to ryan road um and so i think our criteria manual may allow an access normally um if if the commission agreed that the the specifics of this area with the elementary school across the street were concerning um and that we wanted to to prohibit direct access from those middle lots out onto uh teasley drive is that something that you think you could still support and and make work yeah we would do that okay i mean again so like we live here we work here i'm on that street the the safety of courses i mean we have a great staff and they're going to make sure that it's safe but things like this i mean having all of the i don't expect this to be like as high traffic as what you'd see like you know a kroger you know a kroger anchored or a sprouts anchored shopping center of these right these are going to be individual small i would expect there's going to be a strip center of some sort kind of like you know neighborhood services like you see up by my office on teasley by the library so i'm not sure you know what drive throughs will be there i know we have two that want to be there today i don't see it being four or five or six um and so that we would absolutely do that and make all the traffic flow on the hunters creek in fact that's how it's designed um so they all have to and i totally get where you're coming from which you see people do crazy things on the road every day right so if there's things we can do to help mitigate that great i think the signal will happen we hope it would have happened with the apartments but text out has the rules so i would expect as soon as some of this develops it'll happen i do want to address the concrete batch plant question so so that's a temporary use that's allowed in a variety of zoning classes and so what we did is basically saying we could ensure it would never happen again because we put it in a eliminated use meaning let's just say that the south lots don't sell and there's some other product because we get calls at our firm monthly from somebody that's doing a road project and they need a temporary site right a staging yard batch plant etc and so my point is do do i think it's likely that one's going to come back here no but i didn't i didn't predict covid would happen and shut the world down either right so sometimes lots just don't sell and then as a property owner you're trying to figure out what do i do now and so by saying we can ensure that won't happen again we even though it's a temporary use that's allowed we put it in the eliminated uses was my point okay thank you and then and then zachary so the contractor that's doing teasley is a private contractor at zachary and so they they leased the the ground from from mr button who made the decision i don't want to go try to sell these lots while teasley's under construction let's wait for it to be done so it's not a bigger traffic issue and all that so uh just want to clarify that for you thank you thank you thank you um you know just just thinking through some of the questions and and i know eric you are commissioner pro you made a comment about trying to preserve any remaining safety potential um particular for pedestrians at that intersection with the development so you know we'd just like to reiterate some of what kareena had mentioned is you know we put development standards in place to be able to address not only automotive needs for ingress egress decides but are also looking at pedestrian connectivity even bicycle connectivity you know within development areas so we we work to rely upon those standards because a lot of thought and effort has gone into that as we've worked through those to determine what's what's best and most appropriate for for dentin and as we develop we also work very closely with tex dot in in trying to ensure that all modes of transportation are addressed so the i would ask that you you know trust the process trust the professionals that we have on staff to be able to address the ingress egress needs based upon our existing standards that we have within the area you know i i realize the context of teasley has changed over the years now um compared to you know as mea showed in her presentation but again also note that our standards are put in place also to help address the changes that have happened you know in this case with this roadway now being a primary arterial the driveway spacing requirements that come into play access having having to come from a lesser um i forget exactly the word used but i don't want to say lesser quality roadway but a less classified thank you less classified roadway so we try to be able to put appropriate standards in place to be able to address that okay thank you tina um any other questions at this time um i do have one for staff so we keep talking about these um not allowed uses that are are in our backup and that was in mr johnson's presentation um how many of those uses that we're eliminating in sc are allowed in what we currently have at zoned so like tattoo parlors and smoke shops are not allowed in mn to begin with that's they're already not allowed and probably a great deal of that list i don't have the count but i do have this uh a table to just sort of cover just give some of some of those some of the uses that are different um under the the current zoning versus the proposed uh zoning versus the um what would be what would be permitted under the existing sc and so give you an idea um again multifamily under the existing nrmu and and and existing pd wouldn't be permitted um isn't permitted but would be permitted with the with the sup enter the current sc that's another restricted use um to specifically answer your question let me go through so like a hotel for example um the the hotel is one of those uses that would be permitted under nrmu that is not uh is a listed as a restricted use under the proposed um sc same with the temporary concrete nassau batch plant uh so there are there are some some of those other uses that are that would be permitted right okay and i mean i guess the reason i'm asking because i'm trying not to get lost in that list because that list is not most of it's not permitted as it stands now anyway i guess that's what i'm getting to you know so i don't want to get lost and like oh we're eliminating all these which is great i mean if if the zoning does get approved that's great to eliminate all those but all of those are are most of those are not allowed now with the current zoning so um thanks i'm gonna flip my screen to see if anybody um it's taking a moment to come back on okay um anybody else questions for staff applicant okay thank you um i guess just a couple of things i'm struggling with i don't really have a question is again we've got a mixed use neighborhood uh zoning in place which allows for commercial development just maybe not some specific commercial development um it does allow drive throughs with an sup probably could happen maybe multiple ones don't happen i don't know um but i'm really having a hard time um eliminating these protections that are in place for this particular corner and again i understand teasley lane and what it is now but i also understand what's already in place right now on the ground with people living there on that corner um we talk about all the time about how we just keep building rooftops and we don't have enough neighborhood type things for people to go to and enjoy or walk to and what have you and then we kind of have that here in place zone for that and somehow we can't hone that kind of course development which is frustrating and so now we're presented with this request to just make it more convenient to maybe more quickly sell a commercial lot because today everybody wants a drive-through which is okay but is this the right place for the drive-through to go and and and again that's why we have sup's because we're not saying you can't do it we're just saying you can do it if we look at it and maybe it makes sense and maybe it doesn't so that's what i'm struggling with um and that's where a lot of my questions um have come from today so thank you everyone for answering them um i do see a mover on the board commissioner billy royale yeah i'm gonna move uh to deny this project i want to thank staff and the applicant for their thorough presentation however just like chairman alice was saying there are very much legitimate concerns regarding traffic in this area regarding safety and of course regarding quality of life to the surrounding neighborhoods so with that in mind i'm moving to nile i think we've got a first on the floor for denial commissioner mcdade a second okay we've got a first and a second for denial of this request is there any discussion okay uh commissioner perot thank you chair yeah just briefly um i want to thank staff for bringing this the way you did i think it's going to take some time before we have an oiled machine on the the pd overlays honestly i think that if having drive-through businesses and and sort of the sc style of development here was what's right for the area then i much prefer to do this overlay zoning now instead of doing it piecemeal because what that affords the owner and the developer is to be able to plan the whole thing out so that it works as opposed to saying well this you know this person this party is interested in the corner lot this one wants the one in the middle so i guess we'll build a temporary drive a foot between them and you know i just so so you know i'll just say i i think the the goal and the idea behind bringing it as a package works so i'm not i'm not opposing this on the grounds that i'd rather see an individual drawing for every lot i think that's worse honestly um the question to me is really more of a how do we manage um and and i do appreciate staff comments about how there would be a clear concern for safety and there's a lot of things to to put in there for analysis i understand then again by the by the uh transportation criteria manual it's you know 150 or 200 feet from the intersection spacing and it's a thousand feet so you know barring conscientious staff which i believe we have being able to kind of say hey in this area that doesn't make sense because of xyz it's it's a concern to me um you know when when we have text dot come through and build these highways through our town um it it changes the development pattern and and we have to understand where it's appropriate to acquiesce and say that's what makes sense because nothing else is ever going to go here um and and this would serve the local residents and where to say uh that that's nice text dot but our residents would prefer to not be snarled in traffic and so we want to take care to to not create additional turning movements and additional issues uh by encouraging development right along the highway basically so thank you thank you commissioner villarreal so just on the flip side of uh commissioner pruitt's point i think it's important that especially for this area for this corner that we keep the sups in place uh process in place for drive-thrus so that the neighborhoods who are going to be affected whose houses will adjust to this property have a say in how their neighborhood and how their uh community is going to look going forward so uh that's just my perspective i know there are other folks in agreement there so i appreciate that i mean sups are in place for a reason um commissioner pruitt to your point i mean this request is not really planning anything out on this it's it's just changing the base zoning so i mean it's going to develop as it's going to develop as they can sell pieces as they have interested um you know entities so it's it's not that this is like one tidy little plan in place um it might yeah might be like that if there's a bunch of sups perhaps that are being requested um which but this doesn't spell anything out it just changes the base zoning of what it currently is the request anyway um is there any other discussion okay our motion on the floor is to deny this request okay so let's vote on the board please uh that motion carries four two okay that will move us to four b z two two zero zero one nine i'll invite ron up for presentation and open the public hearing thank you madam chair members of commission ramageddon principal planning with development services this item before you is a request for an initial zoning of this property that's shown here outlined in yellow uh the initial zoning is as a result of an annexation that occurred earlier this year uh january 10th to be specific it's approximately 18.6 acres currently used as agriculture to the south is us 380 to the west is thomas egan which is a secondary arterial the applicant has indicated that they are proposing an industrial use with this if this zoning is successful and as i mentioned during the work session the property directly along 380 is also owned by the property owner requesting this rezoning or zoning oops for the for the future land use map it is designated as light industrial um obviously it qualifies for light industrial activity access is important and also ensuring that there's adequate transitions to adjacent sensitive land uses and again as mentioned during the work session including setbacks buffering and screening all of which will be applied per the development code staff did review it against the criteria of for approval under the development code sections staff has provided a summary that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan consistent with the land use statement in the development code and again all the zoning that is it's not expected to generate any potential impact utilities and infrastructure is part of the development process and will be served will be provided through extension to serve the subject property notifications were sent out signs were posted as of this evening staff has not received any opposition or in favor responses no neighborhood meeting was held but again notices were sent per the texas local government code staff recommends approval of the initial zoning as it meets the criteria for approval again under the dental development code and with that i'll stand for any questions the applicant is here and is able to answer any questions as well thank you ron very much uh commissioner cole thank you chair uh ron i brought this up in work session about the single-family mud district that is to the southwest or i'm sorry yeah southwest but aren't there two others there is one to the further west at 156 it's a sing going to be a single-family mud district also at golden hoof is it not a mud district as well that is being planned for single-family homes so it looks like we're dropping this lot industrial use right smack because it's residential to the east right smack in the middle of all these new single-family homes because you know i forgot about the other two is that the best uh i mean i don't know i i'm i'm kind of conflicted with that because it doesn't go i mean this is a classic that i brought ranch estates up i mean it just i know the front of it's li already i get that but i mean these are all going to be single-family homes surrounding this thing in the future i don't know if they want to live across the street from lot industrial and commissioner cole part of our staff analysis is obviously looking at the future land use and the existing zoning of the area and i brought this slide up anticipating you're trying to respond to your comment we do have line industrial we also have industrial commerce to the south and generally west of thomas egan as you can see is low residential and rural areas or rural yeah rural areas so yes you know the future lens helps us guide where you know what zoning could be placed we when we did the future land use map one of the things that we looked at was what can be a dividing factor and of course there's got to be a line drawn so this happens to be just the furthest one to the west again when we looked at our staff analysis we looked the future land use map but we also understand that the development code has requirements related to providing those transitions and buffers and screening that we discussed well ron if i could add to what you mentioned so i know this was an issue that we had to work through with the adoption of the comprehensive plan last year and as you all are well aware of we we have no land use control in the etj and so where the mud developments are happening immediately to the west and even on the other side of the railroad tracks and 156 those are all within the etj and so when we worked on the future land use map and in reviewing what uses may be appropriate within the area you know hence why in this particular area we landed on industrial being an appropriate land use designation for the area the area to the south shaded in purple more we call it heavy industrial right or no i forget the designation industrial commerce which also allows for a variety of other industrial uses but you know we're with the existing uses and development patterns and pressures we have in the area couple that with gas wells that also sprinkled on our west side you know through our update of the comprehensive plan we determined that industrial uses were most appropriate in this area do we have pockets of residential from time to time yes and and so we we rely upon the standards that are within the development code to be able to address where we have those adjacency issues so you know in this case there's there's still a parcel of land that actually separates these tracks on the single-family residential neighborhood that's immediately to the east so you know that that's the parcel there that has the responsibility for for if it develops to something else then comes into compliance and addressing those compatibility issues from from a land use adjacency standpoint but you know the request that's before us this evening it is consistent with the future land use designation that's in our comprehensive plan that you know state law says that if we're going to enforce zoning then we need to look to see if our zoning is consistent with our comprehensive plan so hence the recommendations we put forth but i i understand your concerns regarding the mud developments that are happening um because you're right there is a fair amount of single-family residential that's happening but unfortunately they're not annexing within the city where i can where i can control or we the city can control from a land use standpoint so it's i think we're going to continue to have a little bit of this struggle in areas that we've tried to plan appropriately for allowing for commercial development within the community but then yet we have this other force that is in some cases trying to work against us and what we're trying to achieve for the community with the single-family residential developments that are taking place that are that are not within the city limits we're also you know we're working to try to get them to negotiate development agreements with us so we can ensure better standards that are put in place and in trying to be able to work through that but but at the end of the day right now we don't have any land use authority with respect to the development that's happening on the etj from from a land use standpoint residential subdivisions if it's an etj1 yes we have we can influence our standards there but from a land use standpoint you know we unfortunately just don't have that luxury so again you know we go back to we updated the comprehensive plan in 2022 we looked to see what were the recommended land uses and development patterns that were put in place and and at that time we determined that industrial was appropriate for this area so so so hence why we we have the recommendation that we do commissioner perot thank you chair i appreciate that very much tina because my memory is not great i do remember that process that we went through and i'm not sure whether this question got asked during that process but as i look at the future land use map as the there's a border between rural residential and light industrial kind of future land use that goes north south down the vertical north south portion of mosh branch right and then it kind of cuts over west just to enclose this property plus a few others and then down to 380 can you help me understand was it was it gas wells was it uh the facts other things what what made us think hey we should have this little jut over right here and my my concern that may be unfounded or may be pointless because there's not going to be that many muds out here um is that if there is a lot of mud say there's 10 000 units west of mosh branch right um having no retail outlets west of 35 w uh would mean that we would need to get x numbers of thousands of cars through 35 and 380 interchange which gosh it's bad already right um so so just help me understand what's what's the purpose of that little jut out what should i step on that says we feel confident that that that portion should be light industrial so as we looked at the future land using our update during the 2022 you can see that 380 is a mean factor gas wells is another one but also the industrial commerce just to the south and future expansion of loop 28 in the airport so there's a lot of trends that nathina referenced as part of what's what's happening in the area so we use that as sort of our reasoning but also wanted to find you know what where that where that line could be and should be so um so that's how we ended with this uh again because what's we're seeing south of 380 but also along 380 and then hopefully or looking at what could be done north of 380 thanks run any other questions from run thank you um i don't have any cards on this item is there anyone wishing to speak on this item hello there you can fill out a card later go ahead and give us your name and address and we'll begin two additional points i wanted to make will you give us your name first please can you give us your name and address just in tune yes um a little bit 3714 lenox drive in fort worth thanks i represent the owner so thank you there are two additional points i want to make uh that that ron touched on but as it relates to the eastern neighbor there's you know this is a 28 acre site and the eastern 14 acres it's almost an exact line in half is a flood area to the east and so there's 14 acres on the eastern side of this that's a natural boundary so that was one point and then the other was the future 288 loop that will be coming just to the east of this property as well i think is another reason to his point of why it was the future land use map was is the way that it is so great thank you very much for your explanation appreciate that uh is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item seeing none i'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion commissioner cole i'll make a motion to deny commissioner billy rail second we've got a first and a second for denial of this request any discussion i think what i'll just add is um a lot of fair points that have been brought up here with the way this whole area has developed and if you saw a quote of me probably almost six years ago i talked about how um we should be mindful as a city on how this side of i-35 is developing down 380 um because we didn't have a plan in place and so things just happened and unfortunately there's probably a whole lot too much of light industrial happening in that area um however um we look at each request and and um individually um this particular lot um i think with with the way it's encumbered with the esa and whatnot um which is a natural buffer to the single family um to the uh directly to the east on that um thomas egan will be a buffer on that side from whatever might develop in the etj um you know i think the request is is reasonable honestly um because um again not that i want to see continued light industrial down this area but again i mean we're looking at this one particular parcel here so um i don't think personally we were mindful enough as a city to make a plan in this area um and so we're having to do this um at a request at a time as things get annexed and into our city and we do have jurisdiction so um that's all i need to say on it uh commissioner villarreal yeah i just wanted to echo some of the concerns uh commissioner cole brought up uh i understand the city can't control what's happening out in the etj or outside the city limits but uh we should be mindful of the subdivisions coming in of single family neighborhoods coming in and with that in mind i just don't view this as something that makes sense in this area so i am supporting the motion to deny it okay thank you commissioner perot thank you chair yeah i guess i um i i'm very much in agreement with uh chair ellis's comments about how you know if if you look about at the the residential development to the east of here um of all the sides that they could be encroached upon with light industrial uh this is probably the the least imposing from a buffer and traffic impact etc sort of situation um my my heartburn is really longer term what are we going to see in this corridor and and how do we pivot if necessary when does staff think that that might be right toward ensuring that there is enough distribution of services and retail in spaces that make sense to to service people from coming out you know coming into denton um you know there's a there's a sales tax revenue argument there especially in texas i understand that um i think because of the specific location of this site um with the buffer and the fact that if i look just to the east of here um in that future 288 380 area um there's still a decent chunk of undeveloped land i think we have an opportunity to um to to see some things that are not light industrial distribution centers if necessary uh obviously we can't push that um but uh i i think since this is in conformance with our plan i'm gonna go ahead and support it uh with the statement that let's let's keep our eye on the ball from a economic development perspective and um you know those discussions just to make sure that we're we're not sending the message to the development community that we're not going to support anything other than light industrial over here because i think in in certain places that may be a very good thing thank you commissioner um okay the motion on the floor is to uh deny if there's no further discussion then we'll go ahead and vote on the board okay so we have a three three tie so the motion fails um hillary in our recently updated chapter two uh we promulgated a procedure for tie votes and so the tie vote actually um i can pull it back up um i believe that it goes to our next meeting as an individual consideration item okay because we have a missing um person we've got an absence okay so um it will just automatically go to as an individual consideration item and we would revote on this motion is that am i understand that correctly uh yes ma'am okay and there's no further action that we have to take at this time now that will just be automatically um it's up to your discretion if you want to entertain another motion at this time but that's what would happen if we are unable to resolve the tie okay which um yeah i would say it would go to our next meeting because i don't know how we would resolve a three three tie because we could try to vote for an approval but we're going to get a three three tie so uh in that case uh we'll see this item at our next meeting um that will bring us up to our final public hearing item of the evening that's 4c dca 22 0008 and ron will present and i will open the public hearing thank you chair members of commission again um development services um let me put full screen here this is a code amendment uh related to outdoor storage and outdoor display um the purpose of this is to really us to address um a review of administrative decision as well as an interpretation by the zba also to address any uh the inconsistency in language related to again outdoor storage and outdoor display and lastly to propose additional language standards um as it fits within the context of the code amendment in relationship to outdoor storage the dcrc didn't meet on this item several times and the dates are shown here to the right is the sections of the code that we are proposing to amend most of them are use specific standards related but there's also other sections of the code as well as the definition section where we also are proposing some code amendments i wanted to share with you that i've summarized the code amendment most of the or all the code amendments are in your backup for more details but generally this slide here illustrates the consistent language that we are proposing to apply to the uses that are listed here to the right one way or another there are they're proposed as part of these uses the top two bullets here the top two statements here are very similar except for the last part of the requirement and the reason is the zoning that are more sensitive will apply to the top version which states that the screening would be an eight foot wall or fence of masonry elevator sealwood or a combination of and those zoning districts that it would apply to would be the following that you see there in orange the second bullet is a little bit less restrictive and again similar to the the top version the only difference is that it only needs to comply with such section 778 which is walls fences and screening and that requirement would only apply in the lihi in the pf we also address outdoor display allowing it where it is allowed that they have to follow the following requirements and then as well as outdoor i'm sorry auto repair and maintenance services those are all proposed to be entirely within an enclosed structure so again these statements or these requirements are pretty much consistent throughout with all the different uses that you see here listed in the right on the right we also added some use specific standards clarifying if they're proposed they they are followed they must follow a different use or follow the use that is shown here so for example auto repair and servicing must is cons constituted as an automotive repair major minor so that use has to be allowed under that zoning district either by right or sup similarly the sales and leasing of motor vehicles as well as rental of moving trucks and moving related equipment again different use must be allowed in that zoning district we also added a noise level standard or reference so that the user is of understanding that that particular use must comply with a with the noise standards of the code of ordinance the last two bullets refers to self-service storage we wanted to make it clear that self-service storage is only for rental of storage units rental of storage space for rvs and boats and the sale of moving related items no other activity is permitted within the storage units lastly outdoor storage and accessory outdoor storage we provide additional use specific standards as it relates to how where and what types are allowed to be stored outdoors the next slide illustrates some of the languages that we amended or added to provide some consistency in other sections of the code the first one really just a change outdoors sorry outside to outdoor the second one the middle one again you can see that similar language is provided here again to provide that consistency in terms of how outdoor storage is screened and then last item below is related to fence height currently the fence height under table 7h is eight feet however per the discussion with the dcrc there are opportunities where the height can be increased to help provide even more screening therefore the director is given that ability to prove an alternative height provided that that maximum height does not cause any adverse impact to surrounding properties we also did some code amendment related to the definitions again related to outdoor storage and display i won't go through all of them but i wanted to provide the list of definitions that we did propose code amendments related to outdoor display and outdoor storage with that i'll stand for any question and thank you thank you ron any questions for ron at this time you're not seeing anyone thank you so much i do have uh one card in front of me wishing to speak on this item uh justin heigl good evening sir if you'll state your name and address your time i'll begin yes uh justin heigl 18333 preston road dallas texas um here just to show support for this uh that's the change that's being proposed um we're obviously a real estate developer out of dallas that we represent several uh major chains of automotive sales and service clients that have been wanting to build new facilities in denton but with the way it's currently uh the language currently that's there there's just no opportunities for it so just wanted to show my support for it and uh that our company as well thank you for thank you for your time thank you for sharing your thoughts yeah yeah i think uh this is another great reason why we have the um development code review committee in place um it's for things like this that you know you just you rewrite a code it's just not all going to be right and um it's going to have to be tweaked from time to time and i know that committee um you know works very hard i sat on that committee for quite a long time um and going forward i know that they're working diligently to um get these needed changes and ron you are just such a champion on that and um thank you very much for all your hard work in that and um for the great presentation um in helping us understand what was discussed at that committee meeting uh commissioner perot thank you chair yeah i'm going to you know excuse me i did not close the public hearing so i'm going to do that and then i will call on you again i apologize um i do not see anyone else here in city hall um wishing to speak on this item and i don't have any more cards so i will close the public hearing and now i will open for a motion or discussion commissioner perot thank you chair um i would echo many of chair ellis's uh comments i think we we spent way more time than i thought we could or should on this but always happens i think uh as as evidenced by the fact that we had a member of the development community take time out of his busy day to to come up and um and share his opinion um we must have done a few things right you know just for the benefit of the rest of the commission i would say that the uh the language that was in the the code at adoption for for 2019 and it may have been there from 2002 i think it was some of that carryover language um was sufficiently stern but vague that it uh it put both staff and applicants in a position of not really knowing exactly what would be allowed and what wouldn't and it took a while to get through that process of what makes sense i think there was a lot of a lot of opinions of do we really want to prevent that sort of thing so there was definitely sort of how do we remain friendly to the the local dent in spirit while making sure that the you know the businesses that show people other people's cars which nobody likes we only like our own car are are not going to actually impose on on uh unduly especially from a new development perspective so i think we did a good job and i'm glad we're moving on to other things excellent and your motion is to to recommend adoption as stated excellent commissioner villarreal as the other committee member present i do want to echo the length of time we spent on this topic uh discussed ad nauseam but every potential use case every possibility was discussed at length so i do think this code amendment uh captures every necessity uh for this specifically so i am seconding the motion thank you and thank you both for serving on the committee um we've got a first and a second for approval any discussion okay let's vote on the board please okay that motion carries six zero thank you that will move us to our matrix so i will turn it over to tina thank you so um as we usually report on a recap from the most recent city council meeting regarding um variety of development projects that were on council's agenda so this would have been from their february 7th meeting date so we had a rezoning request for use classification of light industrial on approximately 83 acres that's on the north side of barthold road approximately 1300 feet west of i-35 if you recall this property actually went through an annexation procedure actually started with city council this so this was to establish initial zoning on this property and so um city council did rezone the property to the light industrial zoning district so that was approved six zero we also had a request for a specific use permit for multi-family dwelling use on approximately 16 acres of land located between north loop 288 and mayhill road approximately a thousand feet east of mckinney we dubbed this this was the project the forest crossing phase two project i know that the planning and zoning commission had received here recently and so city council did approve that specific use permit by a vote of six to zero then we also had the planned development district amendment that was for the preserve at pecan creek to allow for an increase in lot coverage for the single-family homes that were for that planned development district if you recall there was sections j and k part of that development the infrastructure had already been constructed but they were running into an issue with the lot coverage in the planned development district i believe it was at 30 so they were proposing to increase it to 55 percent if memory serves me correctly and the city council received that request and ended up approving that by a vote of six zero then we also had another zoning case if you recall that ashley had presented to you all the the afcm rezoning this was from a rural residential to an r1 district it was about four acres of land located roughly 2800 feet north of swisher road and edwards road at that intersection so the applicant was requesting to be able to drop down to the r1 zoning in order to be able to meet the minimum standards so that they could build be able to build a single-family residence on the property had kind of some unique access associated with it so that was approved by city council also by a vote of six to zero and lastly then we had the planned development district amendment that julie had presented for the automotive expansion used this was for the automotive dealership that straddled the city limit line with the city of carent and so the council approved that request also by a vote of a vote of six to zero so that summarizes the the zoning and development activity on council's agenda as it relates to the matrix let me get back to my other sheet here so you'll see i made a couple of tweaks we did not have anything new added but i tried to add a little bit finer point to some of these items so the report on the notification process regarding properties within the etj originally we thought we were going to do that this evening but since commissioner smith had requested that presentation and gave us a heads up that he would not be here tonight we've since rescheduled that and intertargeting to get that accomplished on on march 15th during your work session we also i also added some additional clarification language related to removing the minimum parking requirements i know this is something that the commission is interested in discussing so i did add to make it a little bit finer that it's pending further discussion with the development code review committee so the development code review committee just recently prioritized my items i believe parking minimums was number three on the list and i'm trying to work through some other items so so we've got that slated for their consideration and then lastly the other item i added a finer point was for the the annual updates item so believe it or not it's almost been a year since we update or since we adopted the update to the dentin 2040 conference plan as well as the mobility plan also right it'll be a year come march 22nd so so i've already talked to ron and i've tasked him with scheduling a discussion for the spring and to be able to give the commission an update as to what progress we've made as it relates to that so as as you're well aware of and we've talked in the past some major initiatives that the commission and council directed us to work on were the development of the area plans so i know i've talked in the past about how we've kicked off northeast and so already started stakeholder engagement hopefully our contract will be approved on council's agenda next week for southeast dentin and then we're still working through consultant selection on on downtown so that's been consuming a fair amount of our time but i have asked ron to reach out to the other departments also as part of that overview on the update of what progress we've made on the conference of plan to see what what additional progress our colleagues have made since the the implementation of the conference the plan does not solely rely upon the shoulders of the of the planning team so so know that we will be bringing that to you sometime this spring probably be april-ish time frame is what we're targeting just because of all the public engagement activities that we've also got slated balancing that with the existing development so we'll we'll get that all brought back before you so other than that i do not have anything else to report as it relates to the matrix so thank you is there anything that you want to add to the matrix okay any concluding items okay i'll just say thank you everybody a good discussion all the way around hard work by staff in putting our agenda together so thank you very much with that i will adjourn us at 8 31 p.m.