Mar 01, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2023-03-01 5:00 PM

>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday March 1, 2023. This is our work session and with the quorum present I will call us to order at 5.01 p.m. I'll let the record show Commissioner Anderson is absent at this time. First item on the agenda for our work session is the clarification of our agenda for tonight's meeting. So let's move right into that. We've got the minutes from February 15th. Any questions or concerns on that? Okay. Then we'll go to individual consideration items. I will invite Ron up to give us a quick little summary of 3A. >> Yes, ma'am. So this is a rezoning or initial rezoning to LI request from an applicant. This was heard at your February 15th, 2023 meeting as you all recall, P and Z open and close the public hearing and as a result of that there was a motion to deny. The deny turned out to be a tie vote per our section of the code that speaks to a tie vote at P and Z. It is placed on the next planning zoning commission meeting where the P and Z would consider it again as an individual consideration which is what's on the agenda. If there happens to be a second tie vote just for if that happens, it would be a recommendation of a denial to city council but the majority vote would not be required by city council to approve it. Just sort of lay out what would be next if that was the case. For kind of reminder, this is again an initial zoning to LI for this property that's outlined here in yellow on the corner of Thomas Egan and US 380. It was annexed on January 10th of this year following the rezoning of the southern track which is just directly to the south to LI. The subject property that's being considered is 18.6 acres. Currently agriculture, again, Thomas Egan and university is the major arterials. The proposed use is light industrial. So that's a quick summary. We can go into more information at the public hearing but just if there are any questions so far. >> Any questions for Ron? And Ron, you're going to give a full presentation obviously from what we had last meeting, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Sounds good. If there's no questions, we'll go ahead and move on. Okay. Thanks, Ron. >> Okay. >> Let's go ahead to 3B. And Cameron will give us a quick summary of that. Hi, Cameron. >> Hi. It's been a while. >> Yeah. It has. >> Okay. So this is for preliminary plot for Denton Logistics Center. It is located on FM 1173 just west of the railroad tracks. Staff is recommending denial of the plot as it does not meet criteria for approval but staff has no objection to the extension to March 29th. Any questions? >> Great. Questions? Okay. Thanks, Cameron. That will move us to 3C. And Sean will present that. >> Good. >> Hi, Sean. >> Howdy. This is a plot FR23-0002. It's a proposed final replat of the mid-state's realty addition. So this is a five point, essentially a five acre site off loop 288. That's where the tractor supply is, if you're familiar. Currently they have not met our criteria for approval, recommended denial, but no objection to the request for an extension. Can I answer any questions? >> Awesome. Any questions for Sean on this one? Okay. Thank you very much. That will take us to 3D. And Mia, if you just want to say a couple of words, that would be great. Thank you. >> So this item is the, consider the reconsideration of the PD that was on the agenda for February 15th. Just to give you an idea of whether or not, or however you decide to vote this evening, if you decide to reconsider, or vote to reconsider this item, we would re-notice it for another public hearing on March 29th before this body. And then that would subsequently go to city council in April, most likely the first meeting in April. And then if you choose to, if you choose not to reconsider this item, then the original recommendation of denial will be forwarded to the city council, excuse me, for the March 7th, which is next Tuesday's city council meeting. Any questions? >> Okay, great. And I assume you're going to be presenting that exact thing at the meeting tonight? >> Yes, ma'am. And then ultimately, it's up to you all to discuss. >> That's perfect. And before, I'm going to read a statement just for clarity on what is happening prior to calling you up for that, in case we have people who come tonight, because we're not really hearing the item tonight, so there might be some confusion. So I just want to set that straight. So if there is somebody, while listening or here, I'm sure you've all seen, we've gotten a lot of comments on that. So it's leading to thinking that maybe they're thinking we're going to actually hear the item tonight, which we're not. We are just considering the reconsideration tonight. Okay? Any questions? All right. Okay. Thanks, Mia. But you are up for our public hearing tonight. So we can be right there, and we'll get a summary of 4A. >> Okay, 4A is an item, Z23-0001 is an item to rezone just under 30 acres from a Plan Development 120 to the mixed-use neighborhood district. I'll go into a little detail about the background of that PD more in the work session. So for the site, it's located just south of Loop 288, a little west of West Locust. The property's future land use designation is of moderate residential, and the request would establish enforceable development standards for the subject property, and of course bring them up to the current development code as opposed to the outdated PD, which was originally established back in 1986. So staff is recommending approval, and I will take any other questions or any questions that you have at this time. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions for me on this item? I mean, I was reading -- great backup, by the way, and you kept saying, like, illegible. So are -- is there just parts of it that are just -- you cannot read? >> Yeah, because the older -- you remember print and copy back in the '80s. So those documents -- >> It's just kind of faded away, didn't it? Okay. You're not really sure what it says at this point. >> I don't know it. Okay. Okay. Good deal. Okay. I do not see any questions. Thank you. Look forward to the presentation. Okay. So that is our agenda discussion then for the work session. So we'll go ahead and move into our work session report 2A, which is Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion Regarding Protection and Preservation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Christy is going to present for us. Hello. >> Hi. It's been a while for me too. >> It has. >> No? It's the wrong one. Oh. I found it. Okay. Okay. So tonight I'm going to be providing you a summary of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Program anticipation of a couple of projects that we will be bringing to you in the next couple of months. So I just wanted to go over the outline of the program and how that works within the City of Denton overall development framework. So the purpose of the program is to protect our natural resources that -- and the reason that we're looking to protect our natural resources is that we identify that there are ecological benefits that both provide for the community's health as well as our overall enjoyment. And in some of those health benefits includes clean water, clean air, and cleaner soil. And it's -- the adoption and the enforcement and the implementation of these programs is also consistent with Denton's 2040 comprehensive plan. I wanted to highlight here a couple of community benefits and the protection of these environmentally sensitive areas. There is -- there are some -- I want to say federal -- national and local studies that have been performed looking at the economic benefits and the protection of these environmentally sensitive areas and highlighting some of those economic values both for the protection of the waterways and air with the protection of trees. And then in addition to that, doing the opposite and highlighting where a riparian buffer was not protected and was removed and the degradation of the stream system over time, as you can see here in this series of pictures. So that's the why and what are we protecting. These are the four different types. So in the development code, we identified four distinct types of environmentally sensitive areas, going from our floodplains to riparian buffers and water-related habitats or floodplains being the wider or the greater extent around those waterways and then getting closer to the waterways with the riparian buffers and the water-related habitats. And as we get closer to the waterways, the protection requirements are much more stringent recognizing that there's a lot more vulnerability within -- as you get closer to the waterways. And then retaining some of our historical context of this community and retaining the protection of some of the important tree oak species, the post oaks. We have the Crest Timbers upland habitats and the protection of those stands and that specific type of -- a unique habitat type. And so how do we go about identifying those areas that are environmentally sensitive areas? So back in the early 2000s, maybe a little bit before then, there were researchers who compiled a set of data, aerial photography and other data, and they came up with a map. And this map was just a generally -- here's where we believe these environmentally sensitive areas may be located. And the city council at the time, recognizing that there was still quite a lot of information that still needed to be gathered, put together or asked for what is called an ESA field assessment. And through this procedure that's outlined in the development code, when applicants come in and say we want to develop our private land, we then ask for them to identify and confirm either the presence or identify the presence of any areas that are on their property. And through that field assessment, we also update the location and the extent of those areas. And then every time that those projects come in and I update the map, we reflect it on our interactive map. So once we have established the location of those areas, then the development community has general applicability standards in order to protect and preserve those environmentally sensitive areas. And then once they have designed their site, then staff is reviewing against the code protection requirements for that criteria for approval. For projects that cannot design their site to meet that criteria for approval, can seek a relief through a flexible and discretionary process that is called the alternative ESA plan, also established within the DIT and development code. And we work with the developer to come up with a mitigation plan to offset for the ecological benefits that are being lost through the encroachments that they are proposing. And then with that plan, we are looking for them to meet those criteria for approval, including restoring or replacing the ESAs, preserving what's remaining, maximizing community access, things like that. And then we present it to this body for a recommendation to the city council for seeking their approval of that plan. And lastly, I wanted to plug that we have a webpage that we have put together in order to help explain some of the complexities of this program. And on that site, we also have put together a guidance document that we affectionately call the ESA primer, and within that ESA primer, we outline everything that we think that a developer, a landowner, would want to know about what they have on their property, hoping that we can kind of facilitate moving their project along. And with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you, Christy. Questions for Christy? Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. I'll start off with what I think is the easier one, and then I have a second one that I just am curious about. My understanding is that when a developer comes in, if the ESA area is, as you described, not up to date, hasn't been updated in a long time, they can hire a consultant to go redefine where that is. And that's at their cost. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Do we have an opportunity in cases where it makes sense to work with the development community to expand the scope of a particular reassessment of a riparian area, if it would add value to plans that the city has for adjacent lands, does that make sense? Or is that something that's out of scope of the process? Yeah. It's out of scope. Okay. For the short answer, the development code clearly states it's either 50 feet or 100 feet from the center line of the channel. That is for the riparian buffers. Sometimes we find wetlands or bottomland high-wood forests. Sometimes we find these areas that were not on the map originally, and once the wetland specialist is out there performing the work, they will identify these areas and they will add it to the map. Sure. Yeah. I guess I was more curious, and it's out of scope, that's fine. But not necessarily of other regions on the land being surveyed, but potentially if the existing knowledge of Anissa was very, very old and it's changed a lot, does it also change a lot on the areas adjacent to the property of interest? That sort of question. But that's fine. I was just curious. Typically, consultants will limit their study to the property that's owned by the person who is hiring them. We also have in the code that east of field assessments expire after two years. So, if the assessment is kind of older, then I also expire it on the map and indicating to a future landowner that they'll have to redo that work. Got it. Okay. No, that helps a lot to know that. And then the second question is I saw on one of the slides toward the end, there was a mention that the ESA requirements apply to properties in the ETJ. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I glossed over that because I kind of forgot to mention it. Yes. No, that's fine. My familiarity with our ability to provide restrictions within the ETJ is it's basically the subdivision requirements. And so, can you help explain what our role is for that? Sure. Yes. So, within the ETJ, there is a provision in the state code that says that cities have regulatory authority over floodplains for the protection of the community's flood protection purposes. And we apply that to the environmentally sensitive areas as well. So, just in the undeveloped floodplain portion of the code, we do apply that and require the protection of the undeveloped floodplain. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Christy, are we doing any proactive study or no? Yes. We have -- Can you talk about that? Yeah. Can you explain a little bit about the UNT? Okay. So, in the last few years, that map is old, and I know it's old. And using data that's over 20 years old, it does lead for a lot of changes. Sure. And so, I'm hoping that we can work with UNT. We have a contract in works with them to have some of their grad students use, hopefully, some AI and newer technology to help us identify more concisely the environmentally sensitive areas that are on the remaining properties. Okay. Yeah, that's great. Is that something that's just been started, or -- Yes. Yes. It's just in the very beginning stages. That sounds positive, though, because you're relying on old data, I know, and then we're relying on -- Consultants. Consultants that we don't know. When a consultant -- I mean, the report comes to you, obviously, after it's done. What is the procedure? I mean, do you end up on the ground out there ever? Sometimes, yes. Okay. And it's -- Depending? The best moments for me. Right. I could imagine it is, yes. Yes. Sometimes we do go out there when we have questions. There was a property off of I-35, west of 35, recently. They had some beautiful wetlands, and they just -- there were so many questions, because there was some really great areas, and so we walked the site with them to kind of help make some decisions on what was and what wasn't. Yeah. Yeah, that's awesome. That's awesome. Well, good. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Sure. It would be great to get an update once that project starts. Yes. Okay. You know, down the road. Yes. I think that would be a great future work session, down the road, to just hear how that's going and all that. Yeah. It'll take a little bit of time. Sure. Of course. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Sure. Okay. With that, that concludes our work session, so I'll go ahead and close us at 522 p.m. and we will reconvene in council chambers at 630. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, March 1st, 2023. With a quorum present, I will call us to order at 630 p.m. The first item on our agenda this evening is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Blacks. I pledge allegiance to the Black 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. With Texas Black, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is the consideration of approval of our minutes for February 15th. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Anderson? Second. We've got a first and a second for approval of the minutes. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. That motion will carry 7-0. That will bring us to our items for individual consideration. 3A is Z220019A. I'll invite Ron up for presentation of this item. Good evening, Ron. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Brown, with Wellman Services, Principal Planner. Should we get the right presentation here? Just for background information, this item has been considered, was considered at our February 15th, 2023 Planning Zoning Commission. At that time, the item, the public hearing for that item, that is, was open and closed. There was then a motion for denial, which resulted in a tally vote 3-3. Per our development code, the process or procedure in which a tally vote happens at P&Z, it is scheduled for the next meeting, and at the next meeting, it's reconsidered or considered again for an IC item. If there is a result of a tally vote, which I don't think will happen since we have seven members here, so we won't go into those details. So the request before you today is a zoning to an LI, Light Industrial Zoning District. The subject property that you see outlined in yellow was annexed in January of this year, on January. This was following a rezoning of the southern track to LI, which was in September of 2022. The site is approximately 18.6 acres. You can see it's undeveloped. Primary arterials are Thomas Egan to the west, University generally to the south, and again, the application or the purpose for the zoning is to facilitate the proposed use of an industrial use on the property. Just wanted to show before and after of what the current zoning is. You can see that the current zoning as of today has an RR designation just because it was recently annexed. That's that designation that we assigned for those properties. The application or applicant is requesting an LI, which would make it the blue that you see here, again, similar to what was rezoned back in September. City Line Use shows the property as Light Industrial, and Light Industrial for this area was updated back when the comprehensive plan was updated back in March of 2022. I know at the last meeting there was a lot of discussion related to municipal utility district. I just wanted to show this slide where the municipal utility districts are shown. You can see in the yellow circle here is where the site is generally located, and then to the west of that property you can see in pink, all of those are identified as either existing or proposed, or potential municipal utility district. Again, the majority of them are located west of the subject property. The one real close and adjacent to the subject property is the Legends Ranch MUD, M-U-D, Municipal Utility District. The subject site is shown here, generally this area to the southeast corner. Directly across the street, across over to Thomas Egan, that is, is what is being proposed as future commercial along University, and then you can see the rest of the development has residential, single family, and then further to the west of that is, right in this general location, is a future multi-family development. So, again, this is the proposed land use for the Legends Ranch MUD. We talked a little bit about how the future land use designation was assigned as slide industrial. I think one of my reasons, or one of the reasons I provided during that time was the extension of Loop 288. So, I wanted to just give some context of where that is, so the Loop 288 is just along this alignment here, just going to be west of the airport, and the subject site is just to the west of that future extension. Also, the other reason that was provided is because, for slide industrial, is the area that we see dotted here are all the gas wells that we have documented within the city. Most of it, of course, is on the west side of I-35W and I-35 North. The subject property is shown here in the yellow circle, and also the gas wells, again, are west of the subject property, or in and around the subject property. Staff did look at the criteria of approval for a zoning case, a zoning request that is, and per the development code, staff reviewed those criteria. It is consistent with the future land use map, which is in the DEN Development Code, I'm sorry, the DEN 2040 comprehensive plan, consistent with the future land, the allied purpose statement in the development code. Zoning is not expected to generate significant adverse as far as environmental, infrastructure, or fiscal impacts, and the utilities will be extended as the property is developed. Notifications were sent out for this item. As of this afternoon, this evening, staff has not received any in opposition or in favor. Lastly, staff's recommending approval of this initial zoning district to ally as it meets the criteria of the outline in the development code. With that, I'll stand for any questions. The applicant also has a presentation and is available for any questions that the commission may have. Great. Thank you, Ron. Are there any questions right now for Ron? Okay. I do not see any. Oh, Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. The lower part of the subject property, Ron, that was zoned ally back in September 2022, that was the same applicant, correct, and the requestant? Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Ron. This is not a public hearing, but we do allow comments from the public on our individual consideration items. So Clint, I believe, are you the applicant on it? Yes. I'll go ahead and invite you up, and then I've got a couple other cards wishing to speak. If you'll state your name and address your time, we'll begin. Thank you. Great. Yeah, I'm Clint Riley on behalf of the property owner and developer. We've been dealing with this for quite some time, and I really just wanted to show up today and just kind of explain to be sure you all are clear on kind of what the process looked like. We've been having dialogue with you guys since September of '21, well in advance when we bought this tract. We were really clear with your staff, hey, we think this is an industrial site. Do you think it's an industrial site? And we got positive feedback, and so we went through a process at that time to try to get this, because it was already split zone, actually part was in the county and part was zone, what was the first part, sir? Rural residential. Rural residential, so it was kind of like a mixed bag. So the way we understood y'all's process is that it would make more sense for us for this to all happen at one, because buying something that's part residential and part commercial doesn't make a lot of sense. Buying something that's part city of Denver and part county doesn't make a lot of sense. So we embarked on this really long consuming process to try to get what we thought we were going to get at the beginning, which was 28 acre tract for one high quality institutional industrial development. But instead, we had to get a partial zoning, which we got, understand we got unanimous support from this group, and our next step was, okay, we need to annex this, and part was annexation. We asked for a conditional annex to get the industrial, so the whole tract has the industrial nature. I've been an industrial broker for 20 years. I think this has attributes that you would look for for industrial. I mean, it's not great to put your house, some kind of residential component, right on 380, with as much frontage and noise and things that are going on right there. So we've got a big drainage basin to the back, we've got a lot of frontage on 380, and I think this property lends itself to a low impact, you know, high tax generating component for the city. So that's kind of what we've been through. So anyway, I love answering questions you guys may have if y'all don't understand what we're trying to do or why we did what we did, but I think we've been really great stewards of this process. We've been really clear in telegraphing what we've been trying to do since well before we made a multi-million dollar commitment to buy this. And I love to answer any questions that you guys may have because it feels like a couple weeks ago we went from having, you know, unlimited support to a mixed bag and nothing's changed in 18 months on our end. So a far way. Thank you, Mr. Riley. Any questions at this point? Commissioner Cole. Thank you, Chair. I think what popped up between now and then is the realization of all the single family homes that are going in next to it to the west and to the southwest. That's all going to be single family, yeah, there's going to be some commercial, sure. But LI is, I still, I'm not going to support this, but it's too, in my opinion, too invasive next and too intensive next to single family homes. LI, you won't, I mean, you generally don't see that right next to these developments. So there's a giant river basin on one side of the property, 380 on the other side of the property, and the back end of a development that's not even in y'all's jurisdiction as it's currently constituted, the way I understand it. We've actually been working with that developer, we granted them an easement, they've been in our office several times, like we're trying to help them get what they need. LI, I mean, that's, I live in Coppell, they love LI, it's generally favorable, there's really no fumes, dust, I mean, it's an institutional warehouse. You've got them up and down 380 that are done really well, they're really high quality and I understand your concern, but put yourself in my shoes, I've been trying to get this done for 18 months, I've voluntarily annexed, based on the support of recommendations and support of this city, and I made a multi-million dollar commitment based on that. So I understand, put yourself in my shoes if you don't mind. And I am, but I mean, something less intensive, I would be happy with. There's nothing less intensive, there's no school, you don't have to provide school to industrial users, we bring in a ton of infrastructure, again, there's no noise, there's a big tax base, it looks like you're going to get a big institutional name, and you're going to get your residential neighborhood right next door to it. So I live out there, all my life, and this was a rural area, rural homes, now we're all surrounded by LI, and I can tell you from experience, it's rocky, it hadn't been smooth, and it's, you know, dropped the quality of life of people that live around there, and on the 380, I mean, I appreciate what you're doing, you know, but still, I mean, one thing we're not still, I mean, we're kind of under the thing, what else is an ETJ, so who cares, you know, but there's something about being a good neighbor. I've known this before I annexed, that y'all weren't going to support it, you know, we've been all ears on this process for well over a year now, and the industrial in the back of Mosh Branch is not the same industrial that we're talking about for LI, I mean, you see, you've got brand new development up and down 380 that is high quality industrial, and that's what you build. So in your mind, what are you thinking? 200,000 square foot, tilt wall warehouse, front park rear load, 32 clear, ESFR, I mean, we do this, do this for a living, I'm building about a million square feet roundup industrial, some of it's built to suit, I do it around the country for publicly traded national credit tenants, so you're not going to have metal warehouse like you have on the back of Mosh Branch, you're just not going to. But you could. You could. Right? Yeah. But you could. You could. Okay. Thanks. Appreciate it. Yeah. I don't see any other questions at this time, Mr. Olley, thank you so much. I do have another card here, Sylvia Phillips. Hi, Ms. Phillips, if you could give your name and address, your time will begin. My name is Sylvia Phillips, and I'm not that tall. I live at 2801 South Highway 377 and Crossroads, and my home is located two-tenths of a mile north of Highway 380. So I feel that I'm qualified to speak to you about the quality of life in a single family community adjacent to 380. When I moved here in 2004, we had about 30,000 cars per day moving on 380. Some 19 years later, we now have 70,000 cars per day on 380. Scott has already announced, yet, the next expansion plans for 380. It's to be doubled in width, and it is still under construction from this round of 380. So what I want to say to you is living adjacent to or in the vicinity of sound traffic from 380 is very intrusive. There's a constant roar. It can be heard easily a half-mile north of 380. And when the ambulance runs through, all the neighborhood dogs set off howling. So I wonder if any of you all have ever noticed driving from Dallas, North Dallas tollway, out this direction, that there's some areas of depressed roadway. The purpose of depressing that roadway, well, first of all, the only places I've seen that's in Highland Park, but the purpose of depressing the roadway is that the sidewalls provide sound attenuation. They're baffling to deflect that road noise away from existing residents. When an industrial or a business park is built, the walls that are constructed are typically taller than a single-story residence, and they, in and of themselves, will provide sound attenuation, baffling to deflect that sound away from there. So I am stating to you that without a doubt, houses that are already in that community that will be in the sound shed of this road will ultimately be protected from sound noise because there is a project and a development built that serves to quiet and attenuate the noise from their quality of lifestyle. So this I'm saying to you from my personal experience and my observations. I also think that in this particular application, there's a creek bed that buffers the natural vegetation, the natural creek bed buffers the site and the sound from this project and also further from the roadway. So they are, in fact, in a much better situation on this site for it to have the light industrial use and to have a business park granted. So in addition to the business park being an asset, is that my time? That is your time, but I'll let you wrap up. Well, let me just sum up really quickly. Sure. This is very important for the School District of Crum to balance their tax revenue. It will not generate one child who needs an education, but it will provide much, much tax need and revenue to the School District of Crum. And that will save and help the little man, the individual homeowner will appreciate this more so than anybody will ever appreciate. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Appreciate it. I do have another card here, Sidney Evans. You'll state your name and address. Your time will begin. Hello. Yes, I'm Sidney Evans. I live at 2209 High Meadow Drive. I won't probably be quite as long-winded as my predecessors. As a resident of Denton County now for about 20 years, and a homeowner in the city of Denton for 10 years of that, I've lived in the city of limits and I've commuted past this property for five years over at Airport Road. I work for one of the larger manufacturers over there and have been privy to a lot of the construction and things that have taken place. That being said, I'm here to express my interest in favor of approving the request of light industrial zoning. The light industrial zoning not only complies with the precedented Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, but it also coincides with surrounding property's approved usage. But first and foremost, it serves a need in the community. Many large manufacturing and distribution centers are located in the near vicinity. My organization, as well as others along Airport Road and surrounding areas, continue to demand overflow storage and staging zones for both raw materials and finished goods. If you're aware of what's there, it's mostly food and beverage. It's mostly very light industrial usage items that most of you probably have in your home today. We must be cognizant of our local manufacturers' needs, as well as the supply chain challenges that we're all continuing to face that we really don't have a resolution to today. By approving the subject property for light industrial use, you are supporting the immediate need of local businesses and I ask that you vote yes in favor of supporting the zoning request. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I don't have any other cards in front of me. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? In the audience? Okay. I can open up the floor here for further discussion or a motion. Commissioner Smith? I'm going to make a motion to approve this project as presented. I hear Commissioner Cole's concerns and I would agree with you that if it wasn't, if there weren't muds already out there, that you could possibly see overarching encroachment of industrial further and further down, 380, but this does feel like it is going to be a self-contained project and then to add to this even more, this commission voted to approve the LI zoning there in September of 2022. It's not that we should automatically say if we did something in the past, we should approve and keep going forward in the future, but it meets the flume. It makes sense for the area. The single family residential that exists out there now is across the street from a record service and other light industrial type of uses and so for us to walk away and say that this project cannot move forward, it just doesn't make sense to me. For that, I'll make the motion to approve as presented. Thank you. Commissioner Pruitt? Yeah, I'll second. For many of the same reasons, I'll just add that we're going to have to work through what this area means in the future and for reasons of consistency and just what makes sense, I think any other use here in the future would be very likely more intrusive. We recently worked through some outdoor storage and other provisions in our code that I think are well suited to mitigate issues that might arise and so for those reasons, I'm comfortable with it. Thank you. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Commissioner Villarreal? I'm going to once again vote in denial of this motion. I respect the fact that you all were able to come and speak tonight, fully understand the reasoning for supporting this project, however, just because we have a good project lined up at this current moment doesn't mean that that's going to be the project that goes onto this property in the future. I am hesitant to rezone this area light industrial with that fact in mind. We don't control what is built there. All we can control is the zoning of the land and with the single family development right across the street, with more folks moving into this area, I am just not willing to say, you know what, let's make their quality of life worse by putting in more light industrial right across the way from them. So I'm once again voting against this project and yeah. Thank you. Any other discussion before we vote? Okay, I'll just add kind of what I said last time we heard this, you know, this area many years ago, I stated this, needed some kind of a small area plan and to really decide what we wanted this to become and grow and we didn't do that as a city, unfortunately. So development kind of took place and it kind of made its way in light industrial. So well, I don't love that fact if we just take what's in front of us today with this particular site. As Commissioner Smith mentioned, we rezone the front of this property, L.I., the back of this property that we are looking at tonight is encumbered greatly by the environmentally sensitive area on the east side of it. The request as it is tonight makes sense for this particular piece of property. So I will say that if there's any other discussion and if not, let's go ahead and vote on the board. That motion will carry four, three. That will move us to item 3B tonight, that's PP23-0004 and I believe Cameron is coming up for presentation of that item. Good evening. Good evening Chair and Commissioners, Cameron Robertson, principal planner. So this is PP23-0004. This is a preliminary plot for Denton Logistics Center located along FM 1173, just east of the railroad line right there. Staff is recommending denial of the plot as it does not meet the criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the request and extension to March 29th. Any questions? Thank you, Cameron. Any questions for Cameron? I do not see any. Thank you so much. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval of the extension to the date certain of March 29th, 2023. Commissioner Smith? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of March 29th, 2023. Any discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will take us to 3C. That's FR23-0002. Hello, Sean. Good evening Chair. Members of the commission, Sean Jacobson, associate planner. I'm just pulling up my item here. All right. Presenting FR23-0002, a replat of the mid-state's realty addition. This is an approximately five-acre property just off Loop 288 north of the intersection of Loop 288 and Spencer. And right now, it does not meet our criteria for approval, so staff is recommending denial. But staff does not object to the request at extension, which could be granted to a date certain of March 29th. With that, happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Sean. Any questions? I do not see any, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson? I make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of March 29th. Commissioner Villarreal? Second. Commissioner Villarreal has got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of March 29th, 2023. Seeing no discussion, let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will take us to 3-D, PD 22-0010B. Before I invite Mia up for this item, I'm just going to read a statement. We've had a lot of comments through our online system on this, so I just want to make sure people understand what it is we are reviewing tonight. So the agenda posting for tonight is a motion to reconsider the vote that we made February 15th, 2023, on a requested rezoning of a PD overlay for property at the intersection of Hunters Creek and Teasley Lane. As the public hearing was closed and the item was voted on at that February 15th meeting, the commission is not able to discuss and deliberate the actual rezoning request at this meeting because the commission does not have legal authority to do so. The commission is only able to discuss whether or not the requested rezoning should be reconsidered at a future date. So in other words, the commission is only able to discuss tonight whether or not they want to have a second attempt at this item. If the commission votes to reconsider the zoning case, the public hearing will be scheduled for March 29th, 2023, of which then public comment related to it can be discussed at that time. If the commission votes to not reconsider the zoning case, then the zoning case will move forward as a denial to city council. They will hear it on March 7th and they would need a super majority in that case. So with that statement read, I will go ahead and invite Mia up for a little brief overview of what we're discussing. Hi, good evening, commission, Mia Hines, associate planner. I don't have much to add. I was just going to talk through the what ifs, what would happen if you do decide to reconsider. So if you decide to reconsider this item this evening, we would re-notice it for a public hearing on March 29th. If not, then it will move forward to the March 7th, 2023 city council meeting with a recommendation of denial and require a super majority vote and I'll answer any questions that you have. Any questions for Mia? Thanks, Mia, I don't see any. So I'm going to go ahead and motion for the reconsideration and I will state that I believe some things when we heard it originally were just not super clear, at least to me, when we were discussing the item, namely that we've got NRMEU uses with MN development standards. After further researching what that actually means, it means we have a really messy and complicated development happening and so after studying further the backup, after visiting the site multiple times, I just felt that it was necessary for us to have further discussion on this item and that is why I would like this board to hear it again at another public hearing. So with that, I will move to reconsider this item. Commissioner Anderson? Second your motion. Okay. We've got a first and a second for the reconsideration. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Villarreal? Yes. I fully appreciate your explanation as to why you're requesting the reconsideration. At this time, I don't believe there is a need for a reconsideration. I believe everything was discussed as needed, the backup had enough material for us to do our own research and with that in mind, I'm going to vote no against this motion. Okay. Well, and I feel like some of our discussion was perhaps just that we didn't have all the facts, that we were not discussing all the facts correctly, so that's the biggest reason why I want to have all of us have that discussion again, but I appreciate your thoughts. Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. I guess if you could provide more details about the facts that you feel like you've learned, is it just the uses and the development standards? Was it a specific use? Yeah. That is correct. That is the most glaring thing to me that I don't think we were discussing correctly, or at least I was not, with some of the thoughts that I had, because I don't, I thought that we were truly dealing with PDMN, and we're really not. We're dealing with PDMN, but only in MN development standards, and that changed, that for whatever reason was not very clear in my head, and it became clear after the fact. So that's why I would like to have further discussion of what the applicant is proposing, and I just would like to reopen that so we can have thoughtful discussion again. Okay. Thank you. I think in light of the fact that we didn't have full attendance at that meeting, and the fact that I think we can come to unpack some of the concerns that we voiced, and staff, I think, is great at understanding those and finding resolutions to those things. I'm willing to have the conversation again. I'll couch that with, in general, I don't like our reconsideration process in the sense that if overused, it can be muddy. So this is not something I take lightly. And I would agree with you, and in my six-plus years sitting here, this is the first reconsideration item that I have ever requested. And also to your point, Commissioner Smith was absent at that meeting, and I think his thoughts as the season commissioner that he is would certainly be welcome in that discussion. Any other discussion? Okay. With that, let's go ahead and vote on the board. That motion will carry 6-1, so that will be on a future agenda public hearing item. Thank you. That will move us to our public hearing item for this evening, and that is 4A-Z23-0001. I will open the public hearing and invite Mia up for presentation. Excuse me. Good evening again, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, Associate Planner. This item, Z23-0001, is a request to rezone approximately 30 acres from Plan Development 120 to the mixed-use neighborhood district under our current debt and development code. The site itself is generally located just south of Loop 288, approximately 1,600 feet west of North Locust Street, and directly adjacent to Beale Street, surrounding the property to the south and to the west are single-family residential developments currently under construction. They were also originally a part of the PD-120, but have since been rezoned to R6 to the south and R4 to the southwest. To the east of the subject property is an existing multifamily development currently zoned within the existing PD-120, and then to the north on the opposite side of Loop 288 is the Hills of Denton Master Plan community, currently undeveloped, but the planned land use for that area is some type of commercial land use within that Master Plan community. The future land use map designation for this site is moderate residential per the Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and the site itself is currently undeveloped. Just to provide you with a little background information, the existing zoning PD-120 was established in 1986, and the land use that was conceptually planned for this site was multifamily and multifamily restricted, which at that time is similar to what we have as townhomes, or what we call townhome these days. The base zoning for that district was the MF1, and that is per the 1969 zoning ordinance, and so that was the original establishment of this PD. That PD was later amended in 1998, and the conceptual land use was still multifamily for this site. They removed the fact that some of it had to be that multifamily restricted townhome element, and so it was just multifamily permitted on this site. Additionally, they added a cap of density at 18 units per acre and a total of 800 total units for both this site and the existing multifamily site that is there to the east that was developed in 2010. That ordinance in 2010 came just before the development of that multifamily project, and it basically cleaned some stuff up, but even if you look at the detailed plan that was established for that development, it's still sort of unclear because we were pulling from 1969 standards and 2002 didn't development code standards. There's a lot going on with this history of this site, and ultimately this particular zoning case would remove the subject site from this PD and allow it to adhere to our existing mixed-use neighborhood development standards. Just a quick comparison, the PD 120 MF1 and the 1969 development code were silent to a lot of the things that we currently regulate. Just wanted to show you a side-by-side comparison of some of those things. For example, we have currently in our MN district, we require a minimum of 20% landscape area coverage, 40% tree canopy coverage, and one street tree per 45 feet of street frontage, and none of that was mentioned in the existing or under the existing PD. Additionally, there are some arbitrary maximum building height requirements, and the permitted use for the site is multifamily only, whereas, of course, if this were rezoned to MN, it would open it up to multifamily as well, but also some of those commercial uses that are appropriate for the mixed-use neighborhood setting. We did review this request up against the criteria for approval in subchapter two. Specifically, the MN zoning is consistent with the Denton 2040 comprehensive plans future land use map designation of moderate residential, as it would allow for the development of residential dwellings of various density and scale. Additionally, that MN zoning is intended to support compatibility between higher-intensity mixed uses and adjacent residential, which we would have here, the higher-intensity mixed uses being the multifamily to the east commercial across loop 288 and then loop 288 itself, and then the lower intense would be the single-family to the south and to the west that's currently being developed. Under the current zoning, applicable development standards are a bit unclear. We have that sort of history that I just went through, and by this going from a PD to the MN standards, this would allow staff to enforce those standards of our current Denton development code. So, we did perform public outreach per our requirements and state requirement. As of the time of this report and the preparation of this presentation, I had not yet received a response. Late this afternoon, I did receive one response in support of the request from a property owner along Bill Street, and so we will make sure that that map is updated, of course, as we move forward. But other than that, no other contacts, no other inquiries about this project that I've received. The applicant did schedule two virtual neighborhood meetings that they ended up canceling because they had not received an RSVP from anyone in the community, and the applicant is here if you have any questions for them about those efforts as well. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning as it meets the criteria as I've described, and the next steps for this case would be a public hearing at City Council with this body's recommendation. With that, I will take any questions you have at this time. Awesome. Thank you, Mia, very much. Any questions for me at this time? I do not... Oh, yes, I do. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I had a slow draw on this monitor. Just one question, make sure I understand the connectivity development requirements for the MN zone and compatibility to the neighborhood. On the southeast portion of this property, it appears to border City of Denton right away in the vicinity of the intersection between Beale and Abrams. Are there any developments, and if so, what types of uses or that sort of thing where connectivity to that intersection would not be provided? Sorry, maybe I'm phrasing it. I'm trying to understand what types of uses, and if the answer is none, that's fine too. Would connectivity to that current three-way intersection not be required of the developer? Not be required? Yeah. Well, I think the development would have to have two points of access, so it will pull from that street either extending Abram up into the development or just making a direct access and a private drive or something along those lines, and then the other connection would be the service road to loop 288 on the north side of the property. Off the top of my head, I think just to answer your question, off the top of my head, I can't think of any uses that wouldn't be required to... Within the MN district that wouldn't be required to... To have that access to the southeast corner, okay, thank you. Thanks, Mia. I do not see any other questions at this time, thank you. I do have a card in front of me, and it is the applicant, I believe, so I will invite Amy Bissett up for the podium. Hello. Thank you, Amy Bissett, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201. I brought a brief presentation, but I'm not going to make it unless you ask me to. I'm just going to provide a couple of points of clarification. I will say that I have done a PD amendment in the 1969 code before, you all might remember it. It was in the Stonehill shopping center up off of loop 288 and 35. It was a nightmare to try to, one, understand the requirements, and two, comply with them, because even the definitions didn't exist for some of the requirements that were there. Certainly bringing this into the current code is the more logical choice. On an aside, I listened to the work session and you all's discussion on environmentally sensitive areas, and we did do an ESA field assessment on this site. No ESAs were shown on the map, on the existing map, but we did one just to confirm, and there are none. However, there is a drainage easement. There is quite a bit of quality protected trees, and coming into the new code will require us to meet those preservation requirements. On the neighborhood engagement side of things, the single family homes that are along Beale today, they're under construction or have just finished construction, and the notification lists that we were provided by the city didn't have any utility addresses associated with any of those, but I went out and drove it and confirmed that people actually occupied those homes, so we went and pulled all of the addresses on both sides of Beale that came close to the development, just to cover our bases and make sure that anybody that had actually moved into their home was notified ahead of time, and we just didn't have any response whatsoever from anyone, even asking questions about the proposed development. We try to be sensitive to that, especially when it's multi-family, abutting single family and people's backyards, and we'll continue to be sensitive to that as we move through the development process, assuming the zoning gets approved. Commissioner Pruitt, to your question about the concept plan and connectivity, I'm happy to show you the concept plan, if you would like, but we do plan to connect through to Locust as well as will be required to construct service lanes along Loop 288 to provide connectivity there. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. And this might be more of a Mia question as well. Is that area where Beale and all that neighborhood south of you, is that an HOA, or is that HOA controlled by any way? I don't want to misstate here, but we typically look for HOA evidence when we start neighborhood engagement and could not find any on that site. The builder is still constructing. Who is the builder? I believe that it's Jim Strange. Have you talked to Jim? I have not spoken with him directly, but I'd be happy to give him a call. I think it'd just be good because I could just, and this is more of just a look into the future and having seen this problem before, site gets rezoned. The zoning sits maybe for longer than expected, you know, change of hands or whatever it is, but somebody comes in and submits a preliminary plot and somehow one way or another, a bunch of neighborhood citizens, even though they get notified of a preliminary plot, they find out that that's coming. And then there's an uproar afterwards because a lot of times they get told, yes, you should buy a house here. That vacant lot behind you is going to stay vacant for many, many years. So I don't know, I mean, if this gets approved and moves forward, I don't know what you as the developer or if this, after this gets zoned, if your client or whoever it is is going to take it and move that on to somebody else who's going to develop it, but probably this should be something that is a conversation with the builder, make sure the builder knows that as people are buying it, that yes, this has been rezoned and there is a development coming and that if there is a concept for what that development will be, that it's aware, just so that basically to save the future version of the commission a little bit of heartache because we start talking to people there in a preliminary plot saying that we can't do anything about it because we're ministerial at this point in time. We're just sad that somebody told you something wrong back then. Well, and I hope to be on that project still when it comes back with preliminary plat and it would save me the heartache as well. Cool. Awesome. Thank you, Amy. Absolutely. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Smith. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. I don't have any other cards in front of me, but is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for a moment. Make a motion or discussion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve as presented. Commissioner McDade? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of the request. Any discussion? Okay. I'll just say that I think it'll be great to bring this into 2023 and deal with today's code. So I think that's a definite win. I don't see any other discussion. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will take us to our Planning and Zoning Commission project matrix, and I will turn the floor over to Tina. Thank you, Chair Ellis. With respect to, I know I typically give you a report on recent City Council action on development projects, so since the last time the commission has met, the City Council meeting on February 21st, we really only had one item on that agenda, and that was actually contract for approval for the Southeast Denton area plan consultant. So happy to report that the contract has been approved. So the city has retained HDR. If that sounds familiar, HDR is also working with us on Northeast Denton. However, the entire team is not the same, so the project manager built a team to make sure that it was appropriate for Southeast Denton to bring people with strengths for some of the challenges and opportunities that we'll be working on for Southeast Denton, and so that contract was approved. We will be working on kicking off that project formally in March. There will be robust public engagement associated with that project, and so we anticipate some public engagement activities happening early in April, but we'll definitely keep the commission informed as we work on that project. You all will have a role in that project as well, and so know that we will be starting on those efforts as well. So that's the only item to report from Council's February 21st agenda. We do not have any development cases on that agenda. And then with respect to the matrix, we have not made any changes to the matrix since it was last presented two weeks ago, so happy to receive any additional requests if you want anything added. Great. Thank you. Anything to be added to the matrix? Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. I was hoping somebody else would say this, but I'll go for it. As a much longer term thing, because I think it will be contingent on one of the items that's already on our matrix from ... I think it was Chair, about some of the legislative issues going on, we've had a lot of discussions about MUDs that that was almost, will be a year and a half ago soon with the 2040 plan update. And I just think once the current legislative session is over and we get a little bit more clarity about what's happening in the ETJ on the western side of our city, it might help us to give staff some clarity on the direction of P&Z, at least, to have a discussion about what that side of the town looks like. I'm not envisioning something that looks like another area plan yet. It's just let's have a heart to heart, if that makes sense, once the legislative issues get settled down. Great. Thank you. Anything else for the matrix? Okay, any concluding items? Okay. Thank you all. And with that, I will adjourn us at 720 PM. Thank you all.