Apr 24, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2024-04-24 5:00 PM

Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April 24, 2024. It is our work session. I'll commence our meeting to order at 5 p.m. Please let the record show that Commissioner Cole, Commissioner Thagard, and Chair Ellis are all absent at this time. With the court present, we will begin with our first point of item on the work session, clarification of agenda items. We will kick off with a review of our meeting minutes. Any questions on meeting minutes at this time? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to items for individual consideration, FP24-0010, and that's Julie. Come on up and take us away here. This is a final plat for Mayhill Multifamily. For most of y'all, this is a project that you've seen several times. It's for a multifamily development on Mayhill. They do have some items that they do need to address before we can recommend approval of this final plat, so we are recommending denial. However, we have no objection to the requested first extension to May 15, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Great. Any questions for Julie? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Julie. Next, we have a PP24-002A, that's being presented by Cameron. Good evening, Commission. Cameron Robertson, Principal Planner. This is a preliminary plot for the Hunter Ranch Amenity Center, phase one. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plot as it does apply with our established criteria. I'll stand for any questions. Don't see any questions. Thanks, Cameron. Next is item C, FP24-0011, presented by Angie Manglaris. Good evening. Angie Manglaris, Development Review Manager. This is a final plat for Stella Hills, phase one. It is located on East McKinney Street at the intersection of Laney Circle and East McKinney. This is 177 single-family lots on approximately 48 acres. At this time, the final plot does not comply with our criteria for approval. However, staff has no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to a date certain of May 15th. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Is this the first extension? Yes, this is the first extension. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Moving on to item 3D, FP24-0006D. Angie, that is also yours. Yes. Angie Manglaris, Development Review Manager. This is a final plat for JPI Multifamily. It is a 31-acre site located just west of Bonnie Bray and south of Bronco Way. At this time, the final plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval, and staff is recommending denial. However, staff has no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to a date certain of May 15th. This would be their fourth extension request. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions? How close are we getting? They have a few lingering comments on their CEPs, and that is the remaining item to be addressed. There are a few engineering comments that just need to be resolved, and they're going back and forth with our third-party engineering reviewers to get that resolved. We are close. It's just taking a little bit of time. You think this would be the last extension? This would be the... It's hard to say, because I'm not an engineer, and I'm not fully versed in everything that needs to be done to address those comments. They are extremely close. I would expect that it could be done by May 15th. The comments that are there, it's not so material that it's making an issue. They're on the verge of possibly not even being able to move forward with the requirements. Yeah, it's not anything necessarily related to making the site work or having serious concerns with how it's laid out. It's more of just there are some standard details I believe that they need to address to meet all of our requirements. They're actively communicating with a third-party engineering firm? Yes, they've been working back and forth regularly, yes. Got you. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Thank you, Angie. Next is item 3E, FP24-0009A, and that's Mia. Good evening, Chair, Acting Chair, members of the commission. Mia Hines, Senior Planner. This item is a final plan for Hickory Grove phase two, which is just under 60 acres located north of West University Drive and east of Thomas J. Egan in the city's ETJ. As of the publication of our backup for this meeting, that final plan was not ready for approval. Since then, staff has worked with the applicants to get that to a point of approval. We are now recommending approval of the updated final plan version that was sent out to you all yesterday. With that, I'll take any questions or comments you have. Okay. That's good. Thank you, Mia. And then last Friday, I'm going to have an individual consideration, 3F, V24-0001, Bryce. How's it going, Commission? Take it away. Bryce VanArsdale, Assistant Planner. This is V24-0001, so in summary, this is a request to increase the allowable length of a flag drive from 300 to 600 feet. This property is located on the west side of Hilltop Road, just north of East Hickory Hill Road. And I also included the portion of the DDC below that this is referencing. Staff is recommending approval of this. I do want to note they don't have a plat application yet. They wanted to go ahead and work through the variance process before working through that process. I'm here for any questions. Okay. Got any questions? All right. Thank you, Bryce. You want to hang out up there? Yes, move on to item four, public hearings, start with 4A, Z24-0003, and Bryce will take us through this. Good evening, Commission. Bryce VanArsdale, Assistant Planner. This is Z24-0003. This is a request to rezone a 1.52 acre property from residential, or from, excuse me, suburban corridor to residential six. The intent is to match the adjacent properties to the north and the east, which are owned by the same property owner. Currently is undeveloped pastureland. In addition, the future land use map shows this area to be a low residential and community mixed use area. Staff is recommending approval. I'm here for any questions. Any questions? I have a couple here, Bryce. Absolutely. To the west, that SC property. Yes, sir. That is, there's already an end user that's on that site, correct, or has it already got that? I do believe there is some storage application, or an application for storage development going in. I believe Angie, yeah. So we do have some process working through with that. And just a minor note as well, that as this lot is split zoned, Commissioner Pruitt pointed that out the other day, with the plotting process, that will be divided, so it's no longer going to be a split zone property. Gotcha. It'll be entirely as we expect it within the same limits. We won't run any enforcing any type of setbacks or screening or that kind of stuff with SC and high density residential next to it. There's nothing that we're going to run into there. It's one on single plot now. It's split zoned. It would be split zoned if this was approved. There's already an end user. I know they've got the application in for it. We're not past the stage in which we can enforce the correct screening or anything like that from a city standpoint. No, sir. So the zoning compliance between the CEPs, we can address that. And like I say, it will no longer be a split zone lot once the platting is done as well. Sure. Yeah. Just more like it's split zoned and then we're going to do the replatting and it's like there's two different projects that are happening at the same time. Absolutely. It's just making sure you don't want to have like screening. I'd hate if this got rezoned and this becomes a residential neighborhood that there's not good screening in between. Absolutely. So that makes sense. When either one of those projects or both of those projects get there, we would enforce that screening for the DDC. Okay. Tina? And I would just add, so the zoning compliance plan has already been approved for this site. So knowing the residential zoning, that is it, well, actually at the time that zoning compliance plan was done, it was evaluated with the SC zoning being in place. So it was not evaluated with residential zoning being adjacent to it. So keep in mind that the developer of the storage unit facility has vested rights associated with their approved zoning compliance plan. So what does that ultimately mean for screening and as well, what's buffering a residential area when you've got a, you know, having SC next to residential, there's traditionally screening and setback rules within there, but if you're saying the ZCP is already in there, there's vested rights within there, could there be, if there's a rezone, could there be a possibility of that, what would typically be in the code for SC against R6, that the screening and setbacks wouldn't be enforceable or how's that? So we would not retroactively apply if that's what you're asking. So because they already have a zoning compliance plan approved for the storage facility site, and now if this zoning goes through for a single family residential on this property, we are not going to go back and retroactively apply additional standards. Because at the time when the zoning compliance plan was evaluated and was approved, we took into consideration the known conditions at that time. And so that was SC zoning on this property. But the traditional screening and setback rules that apply to SC versus next to R6 would still be enforced. There's not, what I heard you say right then, there's not additional standards that we're going to enforce. We're not going to retroactively enforce additional standards, but the ZCP that's already in there is including the already required screening, it's already in the development code. That's correct. It would have any required screening improvements that were necessary for the property to the east of it being zoned SC. Gotcha. Okay. Understood. Okay. Commissioner Brut. Just for clarification, I mean, once a residential application comes through for the three parcels that were mentioned in the backup, at subdivision plat, they would have the requirement to justify or to provide the screening that our code does within that subdivision plat, right? So keep in mind you're dealing with, the screening requirements are a product of zoning, right? So any, if this property had already been successfully zoned residential and the storage unit development came in after the zoning that's in place, we would apply the appropriate standards per the DDC associated with zoning. The subdivision of the land is not triggering certain screening improvements and Bryce and Haley keep me honest on this if I'm speaking out of turn. But because those screening requirements are a function of zoning, typically they're applied. When we look at a site that is being reviewed for development, we look at the surrounding properties, we look at the zoning that's on those surrounding properties to see if any of those additional standards kick in. So they're tied to the zoning of the property, not whether or not someone's proposing to subdivide the property. Got it. Thank you. So, but still it would be evaluated at zoning compliance plan for a residential development on the R6 parcel. Right. So, yes, so with the R6 development occurring, if R6 was required to install any additional screening requirements because it's adjacent to a commercial property, we would apply those. But typically it's the commercial zoned properties that have the higher performance standard than the single family residential neighborhoods. Okay. Thank you. I think that was my multiple of my concern is that the commercial properties traditionally have the higher requirements when they're going against residential rather than residential being against commercial. It's about who's the onus of having to do the screening is where my concern was. And so it sounds like the onus is going to be on the R6, is what I've heard, is that the ZCP, if this was to be rezoned, subdivided plats and everything is all the same, there's no longer a split zone property that's there, so it's all in the same there. Then when that ZCP gets done for that R6, that screening requirement applies, which could be less than what it could be compared to the SC having to go through a new screening. That is correct. I understand. Thank you very much. And then Bryce, the only question I had was, I'm sure you'll get into it, but I think from my understanding, a TIA was not required for this because it's only one and a half acres. My only question I think was just in regards to when we talked to engineering as we're, this is being rezoned to be lumped in with the seven and a half to the east for a total development, right? And I know that we're focusing on the one and a half acres. That's the only piece of property we're talking about for tonight's item, right? But from an engineering standpoint, mobility, I should really say, from that standpoint, all nine acres together at some point in time later on the road, a TIA would be required, correct? Yes, sir. And just for clarity, it is 18 acres total. 18 acres, sorry. Yes, sir. Whatever that number is. It looks like a big lot, and I just guess, so I'll just take a big old stab at it. So we'll hand it to the TIA, we'll come with the, I believe it's the CEPs and the ZCP stage. Gotcha. That's what I understood. Okay. Good. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Bryce. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Next is item 4B, S24-0001, and that is Ashley. Good evening. Ashley Eckstead, Associate Planner. This is S24-1, RDO Equipment. This is a request to allow for a John Deere commercial use, which is considered an equipment sales and rental use, and this use will also include accessory uses such as retail, sales office, product displays, warehousing, and equipment servicing. This may look familiar to you. This was before you as a rezoning in February. The existing zoning is shown on the map on the left. The blue is light industrial, and the future land use map is on the right. The blue is light industrial, and the purple is industrial commerce. This is an approximately 10-acre site located on the south side of US 380, west of Mosh Branch Road, and I do have a longer presentation for the public hearing, but happy to answer any questions now also. See any questions? Okay. Thank you, Ashley. Appreciate it. Thanks. With that, I'll take us to the end of clarification of our agenda items, so I will move on to work session agenda item number two, and that is 2A PZ24-074, receive a report and hold discussion regarding the Razor Ranch Overlay District, and Haley's got this. All right. Good evening, Commission. Haley Zagurski, Assistant Planning Director. So today's discussion is really intended to tee up a future item that will be before you all, so this is informational only today just to give some background since we do have some new members of the Commission, but later this summer you will see some ordinance amendments coming forward related to Razor Ranch. So just to give some background, the Razor Ranch Overlay District was a product of our 2002 development code that did authorize us to do zoning overlays to give an additional layer of regulations on top of the base zoning. You'd see something of this nature more frequently as a plan development under our current code, but we did have overlays in lieu of plan developments in the 02 code. The Razor Ranch Overlay includes all of the area outlined in black on the map, so it's approximately 400 acres of land today. It started out as about 410, but a few parcels have been zoned out of the overlay in recent years. You can see it does cover land on both sides of University Drive, both north and south, roughly between 35 and Bonnie Bray. It is a mix of residential and commercial. I'm sure you're familiar with the area as it's one of our regional shopping hubs. And if you've been out there recently, you may have noticed it's primarily built out. Here between 85 and 90% of the land area is actually accounted for today. But there are a few remaining vacant parcels as well as opportunities for redevelopment or additional things to be added in the future on the property. So to give some background as to why we're going to be bringing forward ordinance amendments, I wanted to start at the very beginning. So Razor Ranch, before it came to the city as a proposal, was actually created as a set of deed restrictions by the property owners of this collective land area. About 2006, those deed restrictions, if you look at the county, include concept plan, land designations as to what uses would go where, as well as development standards for the property. Those deed restrictions are not enforceable by the city of Denton, and they don't match line for line with what the city's ordinances have. One of the key things that that did create, though, was an architectural review board. So people who are interested in developing in Razor Ranch, similar to you would if you have an HOA for your neighborhood would go before that board with their proposal. We hope they do that before they come to us so that we know they have that blessing when they show up here. But sometimes we do share that news with them, and then they go back and do that concurrent with when they're going through our review process. In 2007 is when the city officially adopted the first ordinance related to Razor Ranch. At that time we did comprehensive plan amendments for our future land use map as well as our mobility plan related to this area. In that first phase of zoning standards, again based off the 2002 code, was adopted in 07, and those ordinances are what is enforceable by the city of Denton. The regulatory text of the Razor Ranch overlay, so the land uses, the dimensional standards, the processes for how it goes through amendments and adopt site plans, were originally housed in section 35.7.15 of our 2002 code. If you read through that part of the DDC at the time, you would find reference to a lot of exhibits, lettered A through H. And you would go looking through the code and not be able to find them because they were never housed in the DDC. Those were all separate ordinances that had to be referenced. And those were all the design standards for it, the architecture, the streetscaping, landscaping, and those things. Cumulatively since 2007, we've adopted over 20 ordinances related to Razor Ranch that just build upon each other, replace parts of one another. It's a bit of controlled chaos to be honest. Most of the standards in the Razor's ordinance, you'll see, refer back to the 2002 DDC, so they'll say this property was zoned RCCD with these exceptions, everything else defers to the code. So it's a really piece-mealed process to read through that ordinance and figure out what applies. We did a couple of attempts at kind of major overhauls in 2008 after it was first done, and then again in '16, but they were not comprehensive by any means. And many of those ordinances, if you look at them, only apply to certain lots or certain sub-areas within Razor Ranch. When we adopted the 2019 code, some of you may recall we created a placeholder for Razor Ranch with the intent to eventually fold it into the DDC and control the chaos and get it all housed in one place. So if you look in our overlay chapter of the code today in 4.8, you'll see Razor Ranch listed as an overlay district. And then it will refer you to Appendix A, which does not exist yet. So that's what we hope to bring before you all this summer to finally get it formally adopted as one ordinance in lieu of 20. So this is just a screenshot, because I put together a table to show you all those 23 ordinances that relate to Razor. If you read through them, you'll see a lot of them are piece-mealed for certain areas. One of them is literally just for one lot. And then over time, it's just built upon this chaos. Like I said, in 2016 was that last major amendment, but if you read it, it still refers you back to 2008 and 2010 versions of the ordinance for specific parcels. So very cumbersome for people who are interested in developing a Razor as well as for staff to get a handle on. So just walking you through the areas of Razor, we do have the marketplace, which is the north side of 380 and the south campus, which is the whole area south of 380. So the regulations depend on which half of the campus that you're in. And then within those, we have multiple sub areas that each have their own sets of architectural and design standards as well. So just a quick overview of those. The RR2 area, which I just learned this week after years of working with Razor, Razor Ranch stood for regional retail. We've always wondered what the RR stood for. I finally found it. So the RR2 area is what's shown in yellow on the north side. That's more of the smaller box stores, what they call the junior anchor stores, as well as a lot of the smaller out parcels. The RR3 area is those big boxes, so Home Depot, Sam's, Walmart, and things of that nature. And then there is the residential portion that a lot of people don't necessarily realize is within Razor Ranch, but that's recently been developing with some single family for rent, as well as town home units. And then on the south side, we have the town center area that you're all probably familiar with that has the convention center and the movie theater and uses of that nature, more of the entertainment area. We've recently seen some site plans for residential in this area as well. And then we have the south RR2, which is kind of that perimeter that's a lot of the smaller pad site, retail, restaurants type uses. And then we have what they call the South Mixed Use District, which is primarily residential. Also contains the Razor Ranch Park that was recently dedicated to the city just a few years ago, as well as some hotel and office lots as well. This area also contains a DME substation, which you may have noticed driving on Bonnie Bray. It has the Cooke Children's Property, which still has quite a bit of vacant land area that they can develop in the future with medical uses. And then the Gaswell site that's also adjacent to Bonnie Bray. So the purpose of the overlay and why we're carrying it forward is because it does provide for that consistency in design throughout Razor Ranch. So like I mentioned, it has standards for consistency in signage, architecture, landscaping, things just to give you that feel that you know you're in a designated place that was kind of master planned while you're there. So if you look at some of the buildings, you'll see compatible building materials to use throughout consistency and color palette. They have a very neutral theme for all of their buildings, as well as similarities in roof style, lighting, and things of those natures. So it helps create the feeling of being in Razor Ranch. It also provides for that compatible mix of land uses. So they do, throughout the overlay, pull out some of the uses that we might typically see allowed in these areas. There's no industrial uses, for example, within Razor. It's all commercial and residential type uses. And then the other thing that occurs within the Razor Ranch overlay is they did ask for certain trade offs when it was adopted. So one of the most significant examples is you'll see tons of parking at Razor Ranch because they were exempted from the parking maximums of the code at the time. That is carried forward for them. They do some additional storm water treatments to account for that parking. But some of the key things the city got as trade offs for that were those architectural details that we don't see elsewhere in the city. We don't enforce a color palette anywhere else within the city of Denton, for example. They also require plaza and open space with all of the developments throughout Razor. So there's a minimum standard that each lot has to account for, whereas we don't normally see that sort of public gathering space required with our commercial uses elsewhere in the city. And then, as you all are familiar with, their site plans do come to PNZ for that extra level of scrutiny beyond just staff's level of approval. So as I've mentioned throughout the challenge with Razor and why we'll be coming back before you all is because we have this franken ordinance of all these pieces. The 20 individual ordinances or over 20, as well as the 2002 code that we have to comb through to enforce this district. I mentioned in 2016, we tried to do as a city a comprehensive update, but certain landowners within Razor were very concerned about losing privileges that they had gotten approved back in 2008 and 2010. So we carried it forward and said, we're going to do all of these great things, but you still, for these lots, have to go back to these ordinances and find these old rules and old processes that apply. So we're bringing all of that into the modern era and into the 2019 code as Appendix A of the DDC so that everyone, city staff as well as our customers, will have one place to go look for the Razor Ranch ordinances. Another reason for this is because in 2019, you may recall the legislative changes that occurred relating to building materials. We can no longer enforce a significant portion of the architectural standards at Razor. Their architectural board can still enforce those on the private side, but we'll be changing those two recommendations within our code so that it no longer creates that conflict for staff of not being able to enforce our ordinance. So we've been working with a consultant for the, I would say a little over a year now, to get all of those consolidated into one document. She's done a great job of combing through all of them, pulling together everything that each lot needs and kind of reformatting it all into one usable document, as well as coming through the entire 2002 code and going section by section and pulling forward everything that they relied upon that's changed in the 2019 code. So for parking, for example, if they have a use that has a ratio from the old code, we've brought that forward into the Razor Ranch district, otherwise they'll just go to the 2019 standards like everyone else. So we're not changing anything on them, but we are reformatting it all and making it more usable. Right now, we're soliciting feedback from the owners of Razor Ranch to make sure that they're all on board with everything that we're bringing forward. And then once we have that, we'll be coming to you all in the next few months for your consideration and hopefully formal adoption by council of this new consolidated Razor Ranch document. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions for Haley? Commissioner Pruitt. >> Thank you, Chair. Can you go back to the last slide? I just didn't quite make it through the second half here. So just to make sure I understand, it sounds like portions of the regulations that are in effect now, which are identical to the base 2019 adopted DDC will be brought forward and within that appendix, it will refer to the rest of the DDC. >> Correct. >> However, anything that is different either in an overlay that's applicable to a particular zoning district or referring to a portion of the 2002 code, which was different than our current code, would be instantiated within the appendix. >> Correct. >> Okay, how are the zoning districts going to be handled? Because we've gone to a little bit of a different nomenclature of districts as well as overlays don't exactly existed before. >> Correct. >> Can you help me understand just what the vision is there? >> Sure, so what it will look like is, similar to this map, we are calling out the sub areas within Razor as their own areas and all of those zoning standards that were from the RCCD or NRMU district under the 02 code have just been brought forward as the standards for that new sub district within Razor Ranch. >> Okay. >> So it's in effect no longer an overlay because we're not having to overlay on top of any base district. But we've brought forward all of those standards. The density, the dimensional standards, the setbacks, all of that will now be housed just within the Razor Ranch area written for that sub district. >> All right, and are we going to maintain the naming of the sub districts? >> We've modified them slightly. >> Okay. >> Like I mentioned, since we didn't know what RR stood for, rather than continuing to call it by an acronym we did not know the meaning of. We were like, now the south RR2 district is going to be the south commercial district and the town center will just be the town center. >> Okay, that's great. Thank you. >> Okay, any other questions for Hailey? Okay, thank you Hailey, I appreciate it. With that, that takes the end of our agenda for our work session. So I will call our work session to an end here at 528, we'll reconvene in chambers at 630. >> Good evening and welcome to the regularly scheduled session for the Denton City Planning and Zoning Commission, April 24th of 2024, being at 630, I'll go ahead and call our meeting to order. Before us to first begin, I'd like to recognize that Commissioner Thaggard and Chair Ellis are absent. And we will move on to our first item on our agenda, which will be the Pledge of Allegiance. So if you're able, please stand and give the US and Texas flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, and I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. >> Moving on to our agenda item number two, consider the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes, PZ 24-063. Commissioner Villarreal? >> Move approval. >> Commissioner Pruitt? >> Second. >> With a first and a second, we have any discussion? Okay, seeing none, I'll move us to have a vote on the board. [BLANK_AUDIO] That item passes 6-0. Okay, moving on to item three, starting with 3A, FP 24-0010. I'll be presented by Julie Wyatt. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, principal planner at the city. This is FP 24-0010, it is Mayhill Multifamily Addition. This property is located on the west side of Mayhill, just north of Russell Newman. This site was the subject of a specific use permit that was approved last year for a multifamily development. They're now coming in with the platting for this property in the development process. They do have a couple of items that they do need to address in order for staff to be able to recommend approval. However, they have requested an extension, that 30 day extension. It is the first one, and we have no objection to that. I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Julie. >> Thank you. >> I don't see any questions. Commissioner Villarreal. >> Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of May 15th, 2024. >> Okay, Commissioner Desiree, Mayor Pedrone, sorry. >> I second. >> All right, with a first and a second to continue to date certain, any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll move for a vote on the board. Motion passes 5-0. Moving on to item 3B, that'll be PP24-0002A presented here by Ms. Cameron Robertson. >> Good evening, Cameron Robertson, Principal Planner. This is PP24-002A, this is for the Hunter Ranch Phase 1 Amenity Center. This is approximately eight acres, located just north of Robeson Ranch Road, west of Interstate 35W. Staff is recommending approval this evening for the preliminary plot, as it meets all our criteria, and I can stand for any questions. >> Hey, Cameron, before I take a motion, I just want to make the record known that Commissioner Cole has recused himself. I don't see any questions for Cameron, but I will take a motion in a second. >> Commissioner Pruitt? >> I'll move approval. >> Commissioner Patrone? >> It's not working, but I second. It's working. >> Okay, first and a second, have any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll move for a vote on the board. Okay, that motion passes 4-0 with one recusal. Moving on to item 3C, FP24-0011, presented by Angie Manglaris. >> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission. Angie Manglaris, Development Review Manager. This is FP24-0011. This is a final plot for Phase 1 of Stella Hills Residential Subdivision. This is on approximately 48 acres, consisting of 177 lots on East McKinney Street at the intersection of East McKinney and Laney Circle. At this time, there still are some outstanding comments to address, and staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objection to the request of extension, which could be granted to a date certain of May 15th. This would be their first extension request. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Angie. I don't see any questions. Commissioner Villarreal? >> Move approval of the extension request to a date certain of May 15th, 2024. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cole? >> Second. >> With a first and a second, we have any discussion? Okay, let's go ahead and call for a vote on the board. That motion passes five, zero. Moving on to item 3D, FP24-0006D. Once again, Angie, back up to the podium. >> Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. This is FP24-0006D. This is a final plot for JPI at Bonnie Bray. It is a multifamily development on approximately 31 acres. It's located just west of Bonnie Bray and south of Bronco Way. At this time, staff is recommending denial of the final plot, as it does not yet meet all of our criteria for approval. However, we have no objection to the request of extension, which could be granted to a date certain of May 15th. This would be their fourth extension request. Happy to answer any questions you may have. >> I don't see any questions, Angie. Thank you. >> Do I have a motion or a second in regards to this? Commissioner Pruitt? >> I'll move to approve the applicant requested extension to May 15th, 2024. >> Okay, Commissioner Cole? >> Second. >> First and second, any discussion? Okay, seeing none, call for a vote on the board. That motion passes 5-0. Next up, 3EFP24-0009A, Mia Hines to present. >> Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner. This item is a final plot for Hickory Grove Phase 2. The site is just under 60 acres located north of West University Drive and east-- I'm sorry, west of Thomas J. Egan Road. At the time of the publication of your backup, the final plot was not ready for approval or recommendation of approval, but staff has since worked with the applicant and so we are recommending approval of the revised copy that was sent out to this body yesterday. With that, I'll take any questions or comments. >> I don't see any, Mia. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Pruitt? >> Move approval of the revised plot. >> Okay, a second, Commissioner Cole? >> A first and a second. No discussion. Go ahead and call for a vote on the board. That motion passes 5-0. Last item of items for individual consideration, that would be 3EFFV24-0001, presented by Bryce Van Arsdale. >> Good evening, Commission, Bryce Van Arsdale, Assistant Planner. This is V24-0001. So this site is located on the west side of Hilltop Road, just north of East Hickory Hill. The zoning is in the ETJ Division 1 of the city of Denton. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property in order to split an existing church building from the remainder of the lot, which is existing as a recreational vehicle storage at the moment. The lot to be created on the western portion of the property will be taken access via a flag drive from Hilltop Road. The requested variance is to increase the allowable length of a flag drive from 300 to 600 feet. And it will connect to Hilltop Road, which is a variable width secondary arterial. And the proposed flagpole portion of the lot is approximately 75 feet wide. There are some considerations for the Commission to have whenever they are reviewing these. First off, if approved, the variance is not anticipated to be detrimental to public safety. The city of Denton Fire Department has reviewed and approved this application. Additionally, if the variance is approved, the lot that is created would be of a regular shape and layout. And due to the significant depth in relation to the width of the property, the flag drive is necessary in order to justify the access. If approved, the increase in the allowable length of the flagpole portion of the lot will not introduce design centers that are incompatible with the DDC. And additionally, the conditions associated with the subject property were not created by the property owner himself. Staff does recommend approval of this request as it meets all of the criteria set out within the DDC. And I'm here for any questions. I don't see any, Bryce. Thank you. Thank you. OK, I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Cole? I'll make a motion to approve. Commissioner Pruitt? Second. First and a second, we have any discussion? OK, does anyone have a call for a vote on the board? Motion passes five, zero. That concludes our agenda items for individual consideration. Move on down to agenda item number four, our public hearings. Starting off with 4A will be Z24-0003, presented by Bryce van Ardeel. And I'll go ahead and open the public hearing for us to begin. Good evening, Commission. Long time no see. Bryce van Ardeel, assistant planner. This is Z24-0003. So this is a 1.52 acre property on the east side of Fort Worth Drive and on the north side of Hobson Lane. We are proposing-- the rezone request is for the properties moved from suburban corridor to residential six. The intent is to match the adjacent property to the north and the east, which is also residential six, under the same ownership. The Denton Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map designates this area as low residential and community mixed use. The low residential, typically, we accommodate for single family detached dwellings, as well as related uses that may support a residential neighborhood. The community mixed use designation does apply to existing as well as future commercial developments within the city, in which we want to encourage a diverse and attractive array of uses. The criteria for approval-- this proposal is consistent with the Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Denton Development Code, as well as the R6 Zoning District Purpose Statement. In addition, this zoning change is not expected to bring any adverse impacts to the city or the area. A notification was posted in the Denton Record Chronicle on April 7th of this year. The city website posted a notice on April 4th, and there was a sign posted on the property on April 5th. We mailed a total of 27 notices out to the surrounding property owners and received seven responses in favor. I do want to make a note that your backup had the in favor listed as two, that we've obviously received a couple since then. The applicant did not conduct a neighborhood meeting, but did reach out to property owners individually. Staff recommends approval of this as this meets all of the set out criteria within the DDC. And I'm here for any questions. I do believe that the applicant is here as well, and he has a small presentation he'd like to give. - Thank you, Bryce. I want to throw it to Tina first, real quick, to give clarification from an item that was brought up during work session. - Great job, Bryce. So one of the things I wanted to correct with our discussion from work session is Haley brought to my attention. So for the single-family residential development, they do have a responsibility for meeting the 10-point screening buffering requirement that would be adjacent to the commercial development. As we talked about in work session, being that we already have a zoning compliance plan for the self-storage use that is immediately to the west, because of when that plan was approved, they are not having to meet certain screening and buffering requirements. I believe it would be 50 points for their use right now because of the resident or because of this property being rezoned or residential. Now, of course, if that development does not come to fruition and a new plan is submitted for a new development application for that site, then we would apply the appropriate screening and buffering point requirements that are necessary at that time. - Got it. Thank you, Tina, I appreciate it. Any questions for city staff? Okay, I don't see any. This is a public hearing. We do have the applicant who wants to present and speak, and that would be Thomas Fletcher. Come on down and give your name, address, and then your time will begin. - Good evening, commissioners. Thomas Fletcher with Kimley-Horn. I'm the consultant for the applicant. 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas. Appreciate the opportunity to present to you tonight. Appreciate the staff presentation as well, kind of going through the project. I will keep this brief. The project is located along Hobson Lane in the northeast corner of US 377, Country Club Road and Hobson Lane. We're showing there the request for 1.5 acres for the zoning boundary goes to the center line of the road. The actual property is just over 1.3 acres. So when looking at the development and kind of what the uses might be and how they could affect the traffic and surrounding uses, we really were kind of looking at what could be developed in the 1.3 area of the property. The surrounding zoning is R6 to the north and to the east, R2 to the south and SC around to the west and somewhat to the north. We've already kind of gone through and Bryce covered the future land use plan. But really what I wanted to kind of hit on is under SC suburban corridor, what could be developed under this property with its current zoning. Food and beverage service, which includes restaurant drive-through, bar, tavern or lounge, office, business, professional services, retail sales, lodging facilities. So with lodging facilities, because it's only a 1.3 acre tract, we really didn't even look at that use because it would not be feasible to develop there. But when we looked at the 1.3 acres and what we could develop, what we did is we went through and looked at the ITE transportation uses for each of those uses to determine approximately what would be the average daily trips for each use. So a sit-down restaurant, you're looking at close to 1,300 trips per day. A drive-through fast food restaurant, just under 2,000 trips per day. The small office building would be about 260 trips per day. The strip retail plaza would be just under 1,000 uses per day. But with the residential zoning, the R6, it would be down zoning. So you're looking at just about 50 trips per day. So you can see even the lowest use for the SC has about five times the traffic generation as what the residential development would produce. And depending on how that developed out, if it developed as SC, it could be significantly greater than that. So I did wanna point out that it is, the request would be down zoning and reduce the traffic on the transportation system. And really, that's really the main thing I wanted to highlight in the presentation. And the owner is here with me as well, and I'm happy to stand for any questions. And he is here for questions as well. Thank you. - Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. I think the one question I had for you as the engineer, applicant and consultant, is just concerns that are brought up by the neighborhood down the way, down there at Forest Ridge. I know they were concerned quite a bit just about tracked housing and that kind of stuff being possibly coming in there. I know we're talking about the 1.3 acres for the zoning within here as a greater part of the total of, I think, 18 acres that would be eventually platted altogether within that. So any insight you think for moving down, moving down zoning down to an R6 type of product that you guys would be, the owner would be pursuing? - Yeah, absolutely, thanks, Dave. - Kind of product that they're trying to approach to come on there with the zoning changes. So if you can just state your name and address and then we'll come to taste it. - Yes, I'm Dick Smith. I live at 721 West Hobson, which is directly across the street from this project. We've lived there for 24 years and I've been a partner in owning this property for nearly all that time, at least 20 years. We've had numerous opportunity to develop that property over those years. And because I live across the street from it, I'm very particular as what would go in there. And we've had numerous builders for a subdivision. We will not let track housing go in there. I can assure you of that. - Okay, thank you, Mr. Smith, appreciate it. - Yeah, thank you. - I don't see any other questions for the applicant. This is a public hearing. I do not have any other cards wishing to speak, but anybody who would like to may do so and you can fill out a card later. Okay, seeing none, I'll close our public hearing and move to the dais for discussion, motion. Commissioner Villarreal. - Move approval of the requested zoning change. - Okay, Commissioner Cole. - Second. - The first and a second discussion. Commissioner Pruitt. - Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I mean, I think we all know we're talking about just the 1.34, something. - Something like that. - Something less than two acres. You know, I think this gives the applicant greater flexibility to place the two drives, hopefully, along Hobson where it makes sense. I will say that I think this particular area of our town, if we don't do something quickly, it's going to end up as seven different subdivisions with 18 cul-de-sacs within the next five years, maybe 15 years, I don't know what the timeline is. I'm bad at guessing that. And I don't think that's what our comp plan calls for. But at the same time, this is a zoning request. So I'm just pointing out that we have other issues that we need to fix independent of this. So thank you. - That's great. Any other comments? I'll throw in some myself. So being a resident just down the road on Hobson there, this is the kind of development that we want to see. I believe in my opinion, just of, you know, having more of the residential zoning in that area, it's phenomenal infill and already heavily residential area, super close to green space, that residential makes sense here in the first place. The fact that it's even SC doesn't really make sense. It wouldn't be what I think most of the folks in the area would kind of describe as the character of that area. So with that, I think it's a great project. So if there's no other comments, then we'll go ahead and move to the board for a vote. That motion passes five, zero. Okay, good luck with your project on that as well. All right, moving on to 4B, S24-0001 with Ashley Exit to present. - Good evening, Ashley Exit, assistant planner. - And I will open up the public hearing. - This is S241, RDO equipment. This is a request for a specific use permit to allow an equipment sales and rental use. Equipment sales and rental does require a specific use permit in light industrial zoning. This may look familiar to you. This was before you as a zoning change request in February. This use will also include accessory uses such as retail, sales office, product displays, and equipment servicing. This subject site is approximately 10 acres of land, generally located south of US 380, west of Mosh Branch Road. This is the proposed site plan. They are proposing a 28,000 square foot building. It is outlined on this plan in blue. 13,000 square feet will include the retail showroom, product displays, parts counter, and sales offices. And 15,000 square foot will include the accessory, warehousing, and service at the rear of the building. There's also a vehicle parking area, which is to the front and side of the building. There'll be an equipment display area along the right of way that is circled on this plan in red, and an equipment storage area, which is circled on the plan in green to the side and the rear. That will be screened by a six foot wood fence. And there will also be 35 vehicular parking spaces. The proposed landscape plan, they're proposing 22% landscape area and 20% tree canopy cover. They did request an alternative landscape plan due to the easements that you see outlined here on the plan in red. They do encumber a large portion of the western property of their site. They are also along a text dot roadway, which does not allow street trees in the right of way. So they did request to relocate the street trees, and those are outlined on this plan in blue. And then they also required a landscape buffer between this commercial use and the adjacent industrial use, which is a gas well. Due to the easements, they could not place the buffer on that portion of their site. So that has been relocated to the eastern portion of their site, and they've also provided additional landscaping in the parking area and the entrance. This request does meet the criteria for approval of the Denton Development Code. It's consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan and the future land use map, as well as the LI zoning district purpose statement. And we do not expect significant adverse financial infrastructure impacts from this project. We did do public outreach. An ad was posted in the newspaper, a sign was posted on the property. We've mailed notices to everyone within 500 feet, and we did not receive any responses in opposition or in favor. Staff does recommend approval of the SUP with the following conditions. Many of these conditions are typical SUP conditions, and these are the same conditions that were in your backup, so I won't read all of these to you. I will go through some of the conditions that are specific to this site. They will need to obtain an encroachment agreement for the encroachments into those easements along the west property line before approval of their civil engineering plans. The improvements in the TxDOT roadway will also require approval by TxDOT. So any minor alterations required by TxDOT to the proposed driveway along 380 or to relocate the parking spaces impacted by any driveway relocation or modifying the median opening and turn lanes can be approved by city staff. Any other changes to the site access would require a SUP amendment. Lastly, construction of the pavement within the cross-access easement is required when the adjacent property to the east develops. Happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is also here with the presentation. - Thank you, Ashley. I don't see anything at this time, so appreciate it. Applicant did put in a card to speak, so I'll go ahead and invite Amy Bissett up to give us a presentation. Just name and address and then your time will start. - Good evening, commissioners. Amy Bissett, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201. I have a few slides, but I don't necessarily think that we need to present them. It would be kind of a repeat of what Ashley outlined, unless you have specific questions. I do want to point out that I have Chris Schmitz here with RDO, and I have Mac Mackey here with Kim Lee Horne, our engineer, in case you have any questions for either of them. And Chris, do you want to come up and say anything, or? Okay, he says hi. - Hi. Do we have any questions for the applicant or engineer? Okay, I'll see you, Amy. Thank you, appreciate it. This is a public hearing. I don't have any other cards wishing to speak, but you do have the right to do so. Okay, seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public hearing. Move to the dais for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Pruitt. - I'll move approval and just want to thank the applicant and the engineering efforts to try to keep the street trees within 50 feet of the street, even though TechStop prefers wayward cars to smash through sidewalks before it gets to the trees. Thank you. - Commissioner Cole. - Second. - The first and a second, and some good jokes in between. Any other discussion? Okay, let's go ahead and take a vote to the board. That motion passes five, zero. Okay, moving on to item number five, planning a zoning commission project matrix. So Ms. Tina Fergens, take it away. - Thank you, Chair. So several items to bring to your attention. So first of all, in case you missed it, Keisha Seriano is in our audience this evening. So Keisha is our new assistant planning director of our comprehensive planning team. So she's gonna be really busy once we especially get these area plans done and we can start working on implementation in addition to helping us with implementation of our comprehensive plan. So excited to have her join us. In terms of updates since the last city council meeting, so a couple of items to make note. If you recall, Julie had worked on a Denton Development Code amendment to establish a land occupancy permit requirement. So that was approved by council. And then also Angie here recently had a rezoning of approximately a 1.3 acre track that's located over near Bonnie Bray and Riney Road. If you recall that property was zoned from the public facilities district to our R7 zoning district, so that was approved. In terms of the matrix itself, if you looked at it closely, you will see that I programmed some dates in here with Haley's assistance. So we added a couple of things. One is on the discussion related to impacts of subdividing the commercial lots and the potential for tree preservation loss. We are hoping to bring that to you in June. So you'll receive that presentation. But before that, in May, we have planned to bring you a presentation related to the requirements for neighborhood amenities and particularly the mountain triggers for required parking. If you recall, this was a request that kind of came about associated with the St. Mark's zoning case that we had off of Crawford Road. Also, we are proposing to bring forth in a work session to you this summer, a PNZ reconsideration process. Commissioner Villarreal probably recalls this, but in particular, we ran into some timing issues associated with a request for PNZ reconsideration. An item had already been scheduled for council's consideration and published on their agenda. And our ordinance is silent with respect to how the PNZ reconsideration process needs to play out. We typically follow council's rules and procedure. So we're gonna propose to make some ordinance amendments to make it a little bit more specific and germane to the Planning and Zoning Commission. And so we'll bring that to you this summer with that. And then the last edit I made to the matrix is with respect to our annual comprehensive plan update. I think Commissioner Smith, this was something that you had requested a couple of years ago when we adopted the comp plan. And so Julie's anticipating bringing forth a presentation to the commission in June to provide an update. And also with that, we are working with our Chief Strategic Officer with a software tool that we have that allows to basically publish a dashboard and for folks to be able to see where we are on certain items. So that'll be part of that. And have to wait on a certain annual update, but we'll continue to have that information made available. But we'll bring that to you this summer. Couple of events to make note of. So our design downtown debt and plan, we have our feedback finale event that is planned for May 9th at 5.30. This will be at the Greater Denton Arts Council at the Patterson Appleton Center. Which I got, GDAC at the pack is how I was told. So anyway, so we have that event coming up that will really focus on interested in receiving the community's feedback. You all are welcome to attend as well. But in particular, as it relates to investments that the city can make in downtown, requesting the community's assistance with helping us prioritize where they think that the city should focus its efforts on as it relates to that particular area plan project. Last week on Wednesday, we had the Quaker Town design blitz event. And so the feedback that we received at that event, we will use that on further developing the concept plans for Quaker Town Park, which are also part of this design downtown debt and plan. So we appreciate the folks that participated in that particular engagement event we had. As it relates to Southeast, I know it's been a little quiet on that front since we had our last update meeting. We are working on the implementation action items right now, especially with our consultant team. And so we anticipate probably mid-June, we will come into you with a work session discussion on that. And I know that was something that the commission had requested when we did our joint meeting with council on that. And then let's see, short-term rentals. So we continue to be kind of in a holding pattern on that since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance. That is actually slated for June 7th, city council consideration. So during this time, we have a town hall meeting that we will be doing to help educate the community about the requirements that are included within our proposed ordinance amendment that we'll be taking to council. I think there's a little bit of confusion by some that with a thousand permit cap that we're actually inviting a thousand short-term rentals to come into our community and that is not the case. We have no limitations on them right now in terms of the number that can operate as you're well aware of. So wanting to do a town hall, we'll do that on May 23rd. But really our plan is to try and help address any questions that the community may have on that front. And lastly, Cameron asked that I bring to your attention. So we have our Denton revealed series of events during the month of May to highlight historic preservation month. So you can find out more information on our website. I know if you follow Preserve Denton on Instagram, Cameron, it makes regular posts, especially regarding the various events that are planned throughout the month of May. And we do this in tandem with Denton County as well. So if your time schedule permits, I know we'd welcome having your attendance at some of those events. And with that, that concludes my remarks. Thank you. - Thank you, Tina. Any items to add to the matrix at this time? Okay. Seeing no, move on to item number six, concluding items, any concluding items, anything they want to add in there? Commissioner Villarreal. - Just wanna let folks know early voting is happening now. You can vote tomorrow through next Tuesday, the 30th, anywhere in Denton County. And then election day is May 4th, which is a week from Saturday. - Great. Thank you very much for the PSA. Any other concluding items? All right, seeing none, I will adjourn our meeting at 7.03. Everyone have a great night.